User login
First mammography guidelines for older breast cancer survivors
For women who have a life expectancy of 5-10 years, the guidelines recommend that consideration be given to discontinuing mammography.
Overall, the guidelines encourage shared decision-making that is individualized for each woman after weighing the benefits and harms associated with surveillance mammography and patient preferences.
The panel also recommended that patients with clinical findings and symptoms receive ongoing clinical breast examinations and diagnostic mammography and that patients be reassured that these practices will continue.
Guidelines on breast cancer screening for healthy women already “acknowledge the limitations of mammograms and the need to consider one’s health status and preferences when making decisions on how and when to stop routine mammograms,” said the article’s first author, Rachel A. Freedman, MD, MPH, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.
However, “we don’t have this kind of consensus for women with a history of breast cancer,” she continued. “Current follow-up care guidelines simply state that women with a history of breast cancer with intact breasts should have annual mammography without any guidance.
“In practice, the use of mammograms is highly variable, with less than 50% of breast cancer survivors who have limited life expectancy having annual mammograms, according to survey data we have from prior work,” Dr. Freedman said in an interview.
The guidelines were published online Jan. 28 in JAMA Oncology.
Clinicians discuss how to have these discussions
As part of the process of developing these expert consensus guidelines, the researchers held several clinical focus groups that involved primary care physicians from Brigham and Women’s Hospital and oncology clinicians (including breast surgeons and medical oncologists) from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute.
All clinicians felt that having expert guidelines and talking points to guide discussions would be helpful, the researchers report.
“However, some oncology clinicians felt that 75 years is often ‘too young’ to stop surveillance mammography and that 80 years may be a more comfortable age to stop routine testing,” they write. “Most clinicians felt that estimations of life expectancy, more than age, should inform the timing of this discussion.”
In contrast to primary and geriatric care clinicians, oncology clinicians reported discomfort with such discussions. They appreciated having the information but “felt it was easier to communicate findings indirectly, without specifically revealing life expectancy to patients. One oncology clinician, however, felt it would be ‘sneaky’ to calculate life expectancy without communicating this to patients, supporting more open discussions,” the authors report.
“All clinicians acknowledged that framing the conversation around patients’ low risk for in-breast cancer events and how mammography will not benefit them was more appealing than discussing life expectancy,” the researchers continue. Their literature review found that the risk of these individuals developing second breast cancers was similar to that of a healthy woman developing a first breast cancer, leading one clinician to comment: “If their risk is really equivalent to the general population – that is very powerful.”
“Some clinicians reported that they ‘focus on the risks’ or frame such discussions by asking: ‘If you were to find something on [a] mammogram, would you do anything about it?’ If a patient answered no, clinicians felt this was a signal to stop mammography,” they noted.
Literature review finds very low risk
Dr. Freedman and colleagues conducted a literature review of the risk for ipsilateral and contralateral breast cancer events among survivors and of the harms and benefits associated with mammography. Following the literature review, a multidisciplinary expert panel, which included patients and patient advocates, was convened to develop consensus guidelines.
The literature review confirmed that there was a low risk for in-breast cancer events in this population and that the risk was particularly low among patients who undergo treatment with endocrine therapy. Among those who did not receive systemic therapy for ERBB2-positive or triple-negative cancers, the rates of ipsilateral recurrence were estimated to be higher.
On the basis of the literature review, the estimated 10-year risk for in-breast cancer events ranged from 1% to 15% for ipsilateral breast cancers and from 1% to 5% for contralateral cancers. Among women in the same age group who did not have a history of breast cancer, the 5-year risk of developing the disease (average risk) was 2.2%.
The authors note that these findings mirror their estimates for new breast cancers among survivors who had low-risk disease. The findings are also similar to those cited in a large-scale mammography study, in which breast cancer survivors aged 70-80 years had a 1.1% annual risk for in-breast cancers. The risk was 0.7%-0.9% for similarly aged patients who did not have a history of breast cancer.
The benefits associated with mammography for older women are not well defined, but the literature suggests that mammography offers little to modest clinical benefit for patients in this age group. The limited benefits are likely because of the more than 10-year time lag that is needed to detect the small improvements in breast cancer mortality; slow-growing tumors generally do not affect the life expectancy of older women, they point out.
“Through our expert consensus process and after iterative feedback from clinicians, we created guidelines to support patients and clinicians in making individualized decisions on how and when to stop mammography,” said Dr. Freedman. “These guidelines are based on the risk of a breast cancer returning in the breast, one’s underlying health, and one’s preferences.”
The guidelines are also intended to provide information to patients on the benefits and harms of mammography in this setting, in addition to “how much we anticipate a mammogram may or may not continue to help a woman over time,” she said.
A companion guide for patients on these guidelines will be published in the coming months.
Dr. Freedman has received institutional clinical trial funding from Eisai and Puma Biotechnology outside the submitted work.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
For women who have a life expectancy of 5-10 years, the guidelines recommend that consideration be given to discontinuing mammography.
Overall, the guidelines encourage shared decision-making that is individualized for each woman after weighing the benefits and harms associated with surveillance mammography and patient preferences.
The panel also recommended that patients with clinical findings and symptoms receive ongoing clinical breast examinations and diagnostic mammography and that patients be reassured that these practices will continue.
Guidelines on breast cancer screening for healthy women already “acknowledge the limitations of mammograms and the need to consider one’s health status and preferences when making decisions on how and when to stop routine mammograms,” said the article’s first author, Rachel A. Freedman, MD, MPH, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.
However, “we don’t have this kind of consensus for women with a history of breast cancer,” she continued. “Current follow-up care guidelines simply state that women with a history of breast cancer with intact breasts should have annual mammography without any guidance.
“In practice, the use of mammograms is highly variable, with less than 50% of breast cancer survivors who have limited life expectancy having annual mammograms, according to survey data we have from prior work,” Dr. Freedman said in an interview.
The guidelines were published online Jan. 28 in JAMA Oncology.
Clinicians discuss how to have these discussions
As part of the process of developing these expert consensus guidelines, the researchers held several clinical focus groups that involved primary care physicians from Brigham and Women’s Hospital and oncology clinicians (including breast surgeons and medical oncologists) from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute.
All clinicians felt that having expert guidelines and talking points to guide discussions would be helpful, the researchers report.
“However, some oncology clinicians felt that 75 years is often ‘too young’ to stop surveillance mammography and that 80 years may be a more comfortable age to stop routine testing,” they write. “Most clinicians felt that estimations of life expectancy, more than age, should inform the timing of this discussion.”
In contrast to primary and geriatric care clinicians, oncology clinicians reported discomfort with such discussions. They appreciated having the information but “felt it was easier to communicate findings indirectly, without specifically revealing life expectancy to patients. One oncology clinician, however, felt it would be ‘sneaky’ to calculate life expectancy without communicating this to patients, supporting more open discussions,” the authors report.
“All clinicians acknowledged that framing the conversation around patients’ low risk for in-breast cancer events and how mammography will not benefit them was more appealing than discussing life expectancy,” the researchers continue. Their literature review found that the risk of these individuals developing second breast cancers was similar to that of a healthy woman developing a first breast cancer, leading one clinician to comment: “If their risk is really equivalent to the general population – that is very powerful.”
“Some clinicians reported that they ‘focus on the risks’ or frame such discussions by asking: ‘If you were to find something on [a] mammogram, would you do anything about it?’ If a patient answered no, clinicians felt this was a signal to stop mammography,” they noted.
Literature review finds very low risk
Dr. Freedman and colleagues conducted a literature review of the risk for ipsilateral and contralateral breast cancer events among survivors and of the harms and benefits associated with mammography. Following the literature review, a multidisciplinary expert panel, which included patients and patient advocates, was convened to develop consensus guidelines.
The literature review confirmed that there was a low risk for in-breast cancer events in this population and that the risk was particularly low among patients who undergo treatment with endocrine therapy. Among those who did not receive systemic therapy for ERBB2-positive or triple-negative cancers, the rates of ipsilateral recurrence were estimated to be higher.
On the basis of the literature review, the estimated 10-year risk for in-breast cancer events ranged from 1% to 15% for ipsilateral breast cancers and from 1% to 5% for contralateral cancers. Among women in the same age group who did not have a history of breast cancer, the 5-year risk of developing the disease (average risk) was 2.2%.
The authors note that these findings mirror their estimates for new breast cancers among survivors who had low-risk disease. The findings are also similar to those cited in a large-scale mammography study, in which breast cancer survivors aged 70-80 years had a 1.1% annual risk for in-breast cancers. The risk was 0.7%-0.9% for similarly aged patients who did not have a history of breast cancer.
The benefits associated with mammography for older women are not well defined, but the literature suggests that mammography offers little to modest clinical benefit for patients in this age group. The limited benefits are likely because of the more than 10-year time lag that is needed to detect the small improvements in breast cancer mortality; slow-growing tumors generally do not affect the life expectancy of older women, they point out.
“Through our expert consensus process and after iterative feedback from clinicians, we created guidelines to support patients and clinicians in making individualized decisions on how and when to stop mammography,” said Dr. Freedman. “These guidelines are based on the risk of a breast cancer returning in the breast, one’s underlying health, and one’s preferences.”
The guidelines are also intended to provide information to patients on the benefits and harms of mammography in this setting, in addition to “how much we anticipate a mammogram may or may not continue to help a woman over time,” she said.
A companion guide for patients on these guidelines will be published in the coming months.
Dr. Freedman has received institutional clinical trial funding from Eisai and Puma Biotechnology outside the submitted work.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
For women who have a life expectancy of 5-10 years, the guidelines recommend that consideration be given to discontinuing mammography.
Overall, the guidelines encourage shared decision-making that is individualized for each woman after weighing the benefits and harms associated with surveillance mammography and patient preferences.
The panel also recommended that patients with clinical findings and symptoms receive ongoing clinical breast examinations and diagnostic mammography and that patients be reassured that these practices will continue.
Guidelines on breast cancer screening for healthy women already “acknowledge the limitations of mammograms and the need to consider one’s health status and preferences when making decisions on how and when to stop routine mammograms,” said the article’s first author, Rachel A. Freedman, MD, MPH, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.
However, “we don’t have this kind of consensus for women with a history of breast cancer,” she continued. “Current follow-up care guidelines simply state that women with a history of breast cancer with intact breasts should have annual mammography without any guidance.
“In practice, the use of mammograms is highly variable, with less than 50% of breast cancer survivors who have limited life expectancy having annual mammograms, according to survey data we have from prior work,” Dr. Freedman said in an interview.
The guidelines were published online Jan. 28 in JAMA Oncology.
Clinicians discuss how to have these discussions
As part of the process of developing these expert consensus guidelines, the researchers held several clinical focus groups that involved primary care physicians from Brigham and Women’s Hospital and oncology clinicians (including breast surgeons and medical oncologists) from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute.
All clinicians felt that having expert guidelines and talking points to guide discussions would be helpful, the researchers report.
“However, some oncology clinicians felt that 75 years is often ‘too young’ to stop surveillance mammography and that 80 years may be a more comfortable age to stop routine testing,” they write. “Most clinicians felt that estimations of life expectancy, more than age, should inform the timing of this discussion.”
In contrast to primary and geriatric care clinicians, oncology clinicians reported discomfort with such discussions. They appreciated having the information but “felt it was easier to communicate findings indirectly, without specifically revealing life expectancy to patients. One oncology clinician, however, felt it would be ‘sneaky’ to calculate life expectancy without communicating this to patients, supporting more open discussions,” the authors report.
“All clinicians acknowledged that framing the conversation around patients’ low risk for in-breast cancer events and how mammography will not benefit them was more appealing than discussing life expectancy,” the researchers continue. Their literature review found that the risk of these individuals developing second breast cancers was similar to that of a healthy woman developing a first breast cancer, leading one clinician to comment: “If their risk is really equivalent to the general population – that is very powerful.”
“Some clinicians reported that they ‘focus on the risks’ or frame such discussions by asking: ‘If you were to find something on [a] mammogram, would you do anything about it?’ If a patient answered no, clinicians felt this was a signal to stop mammography,” they noted.
Literature review finds very low risk
Dr. Freedman and colleagues conducted a literature review of the risk for ipsilateral and contralateral breast cancer events among survivors and of the harms and benefits associated with mammography. Following the literature review, a multidisciplinary expert panel, which included patients and patient advocates, was convened to develop consensus guidelines.
The literature review confirmed that there was a low risk for in-breast cancer events in this population and that the risk was particularly low among patients who undergo treatment with endocrine therapy. Among those who did not receive systemic therapy for ERBB2-positive or triple-negative cancers, the rates of ipsilateral recurrence were estimated to be higher.
On the basis of the literature review, the estimated 10-year risk for in-breast cancer events ranged from 1% to 15% for ipsilateral breast cancers and from 1% to 5% for contralateral cancers. Among women in the same age group who did not have a history of breast cancer, the 5-year risk of developing the disease (average risk) was 2.2%.
The authors note that these findings mirror their estimates for new breast cancers among survivors who had low-risk disease. The findings are also similar to those cited in a large-scale mammography study, in which breast cancer survivors aged 70-80 years had a 1.1% annual risk for in-breast cancers. The risk was 0.7%-0.9% for similarly aged patients who did not have a history of breast cancer.
The benefits associated with mammography for older women are not well defined, but the literature suggests that mammography offers little to modest clinical benefit for patients in this age group. The limited benefits are likely because of the more than 10-year time lag that is needed to detect the small improvements in breast cancer mortality; slow-growing tumors generally do not affect the life expectancy of older women, they point out.
“Through our expert consensus process and after iterative feedback from clinicians, we created guidelines to support patients and clinicians in making individualized decisions on how and when to stop mammography,” said Dr. Freedman. “These guidelines are based on the risk of a breast cancer returning in the breast, one’s underlying health, and one’s preferences.”
The guidelines are also intended to provide information to patients on the benefits and harms of mammography in this setting, in addition to “how much we anticipate a mammogram may or may not continue to help a woman over time,” she said.
A companion guide for patients on these guidelines will be published in the coming months.
Dr. Freedman has received institutional clinical trial funding from Eisai and Puma Biotechnology outside the submitted work.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Von Willebrand disease guidelines address women’s bleeding concerns
New guidelines issued jointly by four major international hematology groups focus on the management of patients with von Willebrand disease (VWD), the most common bleeding disorder in the world.
The evidence-based guidelines, published in Blood Advances, were developed in collaboration by the American Society of Hematology (ASH), the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis, the National Hemophilia Foundation, and the World Federation of Hemophilia. They outline key recommendations spanning the care of patients with a broad range of therapeutic needs.
“We addressed some of the questions that were most important to the community, but certainly there are a lot of areas that we couldn’t cover” said coauthor Veronica H. Flood, MD, of the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee.
The guidelines process began with a survey sent to the von Willebrand disease community, including patients, caregivers, nurses, physicians, and scientists. The respondents were asked to prioritize issues that they felt should be addressed in the guidelines.
“Interestingly, some of the issues were the same between patients and caregivers and physicians, and some were different, but there were obviously some areas that we just couldn’t cover,” she said in an interview.
One of the areas of greatest concern for respondents was bleeding in women, and many of the recommendations include specific considerations for management of gynecologic and obstetric patients, Dr. Flood said.
“We also tried to make the questions applicable to as many patients with von Willebrand disease as possible,” she added.
Some of the questions, such as recommendation 1, regarding prophylaxis, are geared toward management of patients with severe disease, while others, such as recommendations for treatment of menstrual bleeding, are more suited for patients with milder VWD.
All of the recommendations in the guidelines are “conditional” (suggested), due to very low certainty in the evidence of effects, the authors noted.
Prophylaxis
The guidelines suggest long-term prophylaxis for patients with a history of severe and frequent bleeds, with periodic assessment of the need for prophylaxis.
Desmopressin
For those patients who may benefit from the use of desmopressin, primarily those with type 1 VWD, and who have a baseline von Willebrand factor (VWF) level below 0.30 IU/mL, the panel issued a conditional recommendation for a desmopressin trial with treatment based on the patient’s results compared with not performing a trial and treating with tranexamic acid or factor concentrate. The guidelines also advise against treating with desmopressin in the absence of a trial. In a section of “good practice statements,” the guidelines indicate that using desmopressin in patients with type 2B VWD is generally contraindicated, because of the risk of thrombocytopenia as a result of increased platelet binding. In addition, desmopressin is generally contraindicated in patients with active cardiovascular disease, patients with seizure disorders, patients less than 2 years old, and patients with type 1C VWD in the setting of surgery.
Antithrombotic therapy
The guideline panelists conditionally recommend antithrombotic therapy with either antiplatelet agents or anticoagulants, with an emphasis on reassessing bleeding risk throughout the course of treatment.
An accompanying good practice statement calls for individualized assessments of risks and benefits of specific antithrombotic therapies by a multidisciplinary team including hematologists, cardiovascular specialists, and the patient.
Major surgery
This section includes a recommendation for targeting both factor VIII and VWF activity levels to a minimum of 50 IU/mL for at least 3 days after surgery, and a suggestion against using factor VIII target levels alone.
Minor surgery/invasive procedures
The panelists suggest increasing VWF activity levels to a minimum of 0.50 IU/mL with desmopressin or factor concentrate with the addition of tranexamic acid over raising VWF levels to at least 0.50 IU/mL with desmopressin or factor concentrate alone.
In addition, the panelists suggest “giving tranexamic acid alone over increasing VWF activity levels to a minimum threshold of 0.50 IU/mL with any intervention in patients with type 1 VWD with baseline VWF activity levels of 0.30 IU/mL and a mild bleeding phenotype undergoing minor mucosal procedures.”
Heavy menstrual bleeding
In women with heavy menstrual bleeding who do not plan to conceive, the panel suggests either combined hormonal therapy or levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system, or tranexamic acid over desmopressin.
In women who wish to conceive, the panel suggests using tranexamic acid over desmopressin.
Neuraxial anesthesia during labor
For women in labor for whom neuraxial anesthesia is considered, the guidelines suggest targeting a VWF activity level from 0.50 to 1.50 IU/mL over targeting a level above 1.50 IU/mL.
Postpartum management
“The guideline panel suggests the use of tranexamic acid over not using it in women with type 1 VWD or low VWF levels (and this may also apply to types 2 and 3 VWD) during the postpartum period,” the guidelines say.
An accompanying good practice statement says that tranexamic acid can be provided orally or intravenously. The oral dose is 25 mg/kg three times daily for 10-14 days, or longer if blood loss remains heavy.
Dr. Flood said that the guidelines were developed under the assumption that they would apply to care of patients in regions with a high or moderately high degree of clinical resources.
“We recognize that this eliminates a great deal of the globe, and our hope is that ASH and the other sponsoring organizations are going to let us revise this and do a version for lower-resourced settings,” she said.
New guidelines issued jointly by four major international hematology groups focus on the management of patients with von Willebrand disease (VWD), the most common bleeding disorder in the world.
The evidence-based guidelines, published in Blood Advances, were developed in collaboration by the American Society of Hematology (ASH), the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis, the National Hemophilia Foundation, and the World Federation of Hemophilia. They outline key recommendations spanning the care of patients with a broad range of therapeutic needs.
“We addressed some of the questions that were most important to the community, but certainly there are a lot of areas that we couldn’t cover” said coauthor Veronica H. Flood, MD, of the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee.
The guidelines process began with a survey sent to the von Willebrand disease community, including patients, caregivers, nurses, physicians, and scientists. The respondents were asked to prioritize issues that they felt should be addressed in the guidelines.
“Interestingly, some of the issues were the same between patients and caregivers and physicians, and some were different, but there were obviously some areas that we just couldn’t cover,” she said in an interview.
One of the areas of greatest concern for respondents was bleeding in women, and many of the recommendations include specific considerations for management of gynecologic and obstetric patients, Dr. Flood said.
“We also tried to make the questions applicable to as many patients with von Willebrand disease as possible,” she added.
Some of the questions, such as recommendation 1, regarding prophylaxis, are geared toward management of patients with severe disease, while others, such as recommendations for treatment of menstrual bleeding, are more suited for patients with milder VWD.
All of the recommendations in the guidelines are “conditional” (suggested), due to very low certainty in the evidence of effects, the authors noted.
Prophylaxis
The guidelines suggest long-term prophylaxis for patients with a history of severe and frequent bleeds, with periodic assessment of the need for prophylaxis.
Desmopressin
For those patients who may benefit from the use of desmopressin, primarily those with type 1 VWD, and who have a baseline von Willebrand factor (VWF) level below 0.30 IU/mL, the panel issued a conditional recommendation for a desmopressin trial with treatment based on the patient’s results compared with not performing a trial and treating with tranexamic acid or factor concentrate. The guidelines also advise against treating with desmopressin in the absence of a trial. In a section of “good practice statements,” the guidelines indicate that using desmopressin in patients with type 2B VWD is generally contraindicated, because of the risk of thrombocytopenia as a result of increased platelet binding. In addition, desmopressin is generally contraindicated in patients with active cardiovascular disease, patients with seizure disorders, patients less than 2 years old, and patients with type 1C VWD in the setting of surgery.
Antithrombotic therapy
The guideline panelists conditionally recommend antithrombotic therapy with either antiplatelet agents or anticoagulants, with an emphasis on reassessing bleeding risk throughout the course of treatment.
An accompanying good practice statement calls for individualized assessments of risks and benefits of specific antithrombotic therapies by a multidisciplinary team including hematologists, cardiovascular specialists, and the patient.
Major surgery
This section includes a recommendation for targeting both factor VIII and VWF activity levels to a minimum of 50 IU/mL for at least 3 days after surgery, and a suggestion against using factor VIII target levels alone.
Minor surgery/invasive procedures
The panelists suggest increasing VWF activity levels to a minimum of 0.50 IU/mL with desmopressin or factor concentrate with the addition of tranexamic acid over raising VWF levels to at least 0.50 IU/mL with desmopressin or factor concentrate alone.
In addition, the panelists suggest “giving tranexamic acid alone over increasing VWF activity levels to a minimum threshold of 0.50 IU/mL with any intervention in patients with type 1 VWD with baseline VWF activity levels of 0.30 IU/mL and a mild bleeding phenotype undergoing minor mucosal procedures.”
Heavy menstrual bleeding
In women with heavy menstrual bleeding who do not plan to conceive, the panel suggests either combined hormonal therapy or levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system, or tranexamic acid over desmopressin.
In women who wish to conceive, the panel suggests using tranexamic acid over desmopressin.
Neuraxial anesthesia during labor
For women in labor for whom neuraxial anesthesia is considered, the guidelines suggest targeting a VWF activity level from 0.50 to 1.50 IU/mL over targeting a level above 1.50 IU/mL.
Postpartum management
“The guideline panel suggests the use of tranexamic acid over not using it in women with type 1 VWD or low VWF levels (and this may also apply to types 2 and 3 VWD) during the postpartum period,” the guidelines say.
An accompanying good practice statement says that tranexamic acid can be provided orally or intravenously. The oral dose is 25 mg/kg three times daily for 10-14 days, or longer if blood loss remains heavy.
Dr. Flood said that the guidelines were developed under the assumption that they would apply to care of patients in regions with a high or moderately high degree of clinical resources.
“We recognize that this eliminates a great deal of the globe, and our hope is that ASH and the other sponsoring organizations are going to let us revise this and do a version for lower-resourced settings,” she said.
New guidelines issued jointly by four major international hematology groups focus on the management of patients with von Willebrand disease (VWD), the most common bleeding disorder in the world.
The evidence-based guidelines, published in Blood Advances, were developed in collaboration by the American Society of Hematology (ASH), the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis, the National Hemophilia Foundation, and the World Federation of Hemophilia. They outline key recommendations spanning the care of patients with a broad range of therapeutic needs.
“We addressed some of the questions that were most important to the community, but certainly there are a lot of areas that we couldn’t cover” said coauthor Veronica H. Flood, MD, of the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee.
The guidelines process began with a survey sent to the von Willebrand disease community, including patients, caregivers, nurses, physicians, and scientists. The respondents were asked to prioritize issues that they felt should be addressed in the guidelines.
“Interestingly, some of the issues were the same between patients and caregivers and physicians, and some were different, but there were obviously some areas that we just couldn’t cover,” she said in an interview.
One of the areas of greatest concern for respondents was bleeding in women, and many of the recommendations include specific considerations for management of gynecologic and obstetric patients, Dr. Flood said.
“We also tried to make the questions applicable to as many patients with von Willebrand disease as possible,” she added.
Some of the questions, such as recommendation 1, regarding prophylaxis, are geared toward management of patients with severe disease, while others, such as recommendations for treatment of menstrual bleeding, are more suited for patients with milder VWD.
All of the recommendations in the guidelines are “conditional” (suggested), due to very low certainty in the evidence of effects, the authors noted.
Prophylaxis
The guidelines suggest long-term prophylaxis for patients with a history of severe and frequent bleeds, with periodic assessment of the need for prophylaxis.
Desmopressin
For those patients who may benefit from the use of desmopressin, primarily those with type 1 VWD, and who have a baseline von Willebrand factor (VWF) level below 0.30 IU/mL, the panel issued a conditional recommendation for a desmopressin trial with treatment based on the patient’s results compared with not performing a trial and treating with tranexamic acid or factor concentrate. The guidelines also advise against treating with desmopressin in the absence of a trial. In a section of “good practice statements,” the guidelines indicate that using desmopressin in patients with type 2B VWD is generally contraindicated, because of the risk of thrombocytopenia as a result of increased platelet binding. In addition, desmopressin is generally contraindicated in patients with active cardiovascular disease, patients with seizure disorders, patients less than 2 years old, and patients with type 1C VWD in the setting of surgery.
Antithrombotic therapy
The guideline panelists conditionally recommend antithrombotic therapy with either antiplatelet agents or anticoagulants, with an emphasis on reassessing bleeding risk throughout the course of treatment.
An accompanying good practice statement calls for individualized assessments of risks and benefits of specific antithrombotic therapies by a multidisciplinary team including hematologists, cardiovascular specialists, and the patient.
Major surgery
This section includes a recommendation for targeting both factor VIII and VWF activity levels to a minimum of 50 IU/mL for at least 3 days after surgery, and a suggestion against using factor VIII target levels alone.
Minor surgery/invasive procedures
The panelists suggest increasing VWF activity levels to a minimum of 0.50 IU/mL with desmopressin or factor concentrate with the addition of tranexamic acid over raising VWF levels to at least 0.50 IU/mL with desmopressin or factor concentrate alone.
In addition, the panelists suggest “giving tranexamic acid alone over increasing VWF activity levels to a minimum threshold of 0.50 IU/mL with any intervention in patients with type 1 VWD with baseline VWF activity levels of 0.30 IU/mL and a mild bleeding phenotype undergoing minor mucosal procedures.”
Heavy menstrual bleeding
In women with heavy menstrual bleeding who do not plan to conceive, the panel suggests either combined hormonal therapy or levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system, or tranexamic acid over desmopressin.
In women who wish to conceive, the panel suggests using tranexamic acid over desmopressin.
Neuraxial anesthesia during labor
For women in labor for whom neuraxial anesthesia is considered, the guidelines suggest targeting a VWF activity level from 0.50 to 1.50 IU/mL over targeting a level above 1.50 IU/mL.
Postpartum management
“The guideline panel suggests the use of tranexamic acid over not using it in women with type 1 VWD or low VWF levels (and this may also apply to types 2 and 3 VWD) during the postpartum period,” the guidelines say.
An accompanying good practice statement says that tranexamic acid can be provided orally or intravenously. The oral dose is 25 mg/kg three times daily for 10-14 days, or longer if blood loss remains heavy.
Dr. Flood said that the guidelines were developed under the assumption that they would apply to care of patients in regions with a high or moderately high degree of clinical resources.
“We recognize that this eliminates a great deal of the globe, and our hope is that ASH and the other sponsoring organizations are going to let us revise this and do a version for lower-resourced settings,” she said.
FROM BLOOD ADVANCES
Consensus bundle has potential to affect postpartum morbidity, mortality
Health care professionals miss an important opportunity if they do not use a holistic patient-centered approach in providing support to their postpartum patients, advised Alison M. Stuebe, MD, MSc, of the division of maternal-fetal medicine at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and colleagues.
Too often, the emphasis for health care professionals is on less common, highly morbid complications, while their patients’ needs are focused more on daily functioning.
More than half of maternal deaths occur not during delivery, but in the days, weeks, and months following birth. Many serious complications and management of less-emergent conditions such as flu-like symptoms go unnoticed or result in treatment delays. Routinely asking women who present for care whether they have been pregnant during the past year could go a long way in helping clinicians connect the dots for conditions they might not otherwise consider, suggested Dr. Stuebe and colleagues.
In response to what is becoming a growing burden of postpartum maternal morbidity and mortality in the United States, Dr. Stuebe and associates, in coordination with the Alliance of Innovation in Maternal Health, prepared a comprehensive consensus statement on postpartum care basics. The work came out of a day-long planning meeting of an interdisciplinary work group funded by AIMH to develop the maternal safety bundle, which established 28 goals across four phases – readiness, recognition and prevention, response, and reporting. Each phase is intended to occur as part of a coordinated effort between women experiencing pregnancy and their health care providers, with involvement from multiple clinical settings and health systems.
America needs to change the way it treats its new mothers
In a separate interview, Dr. Stuebe shared additional insights into the development of the consensus statement: “This article is part of a broader movement to change the way America treats new mothers. For too long, we’ve lavished attention on women in the weeks before birth and then left them alone to manage recovery, plunging hormones, sleepless nights, and new baby care. The goal of this article is to set out the ways that we can better support women in this critical transition period.
“We need to start during pregnancy, by working with women to plan for the fourth trimester and identify a care team that will support her and her baby. After birth, we need to adapt those plans and make sure she has the emotional and material support she needs to navigate the coming months. Many of these decisions are deeply personal, and we need to center the values and preferences of the woman and her family.”
Dr. Stuebe also spotlighted a new University of North Carolina–based program designed to support shared decision-making. Their Trimester Project team partnered with mothers to design NewMomHealth.com, the first national postpartum resource designed by and for new mothers, which is in the process of launching a culturally adapted Spanish-language site, saludmadre.com, in partnership with Urban Strategies.
Readiness prepares mothers, HCPs, and clinical settings for the fourth trimester
In the first phase, Readiness, there are three key parties involved: the woman experiencing pregnancy, the health care providers (HCPs) supporting her, and the clinical settings involved in her care. Each player has specific goals to achieve in this phase, women are responsible for four goals, health care providers have two goals, and clinical settings have five.
Prenatally, every woman should work with health care providers to develop a comprehensive, individualized postpartum care plan that designates a postpartum clinical “home” for addressing any care needed between birth and the “comprehensive postpartum visit.” The plan encourages the patient and her health care team give attention to social support, birth recovery, infant care and feeding plans, thoughts concerning future pregnancies, and specifically use of contraception, as well as any chronic health concerns and overall emotional well-being.
The plan should consist of a postpartum care team that includes friends and family and ensures that medical, material, and social support are available in the weeks following birth for both mother and baby.
The authors emphasized the importance for clinicians to develop a keen awareness of “reproductive justice,” which respects a woman’s right “to maintain personal bodily autonomy, have children, not have children, and parent the children we have in safe and sustainable communities.” They encouraged adopting a sensitivity to concerns deeply rooted in the history of family planning, which is perceived to have been “fraught by coercive tactics to incentivize sterilization and contraceptive implants among marginalized groups.” With this in mind, they urged clinicians to respectfully ask about the patient’s intentions before making any suggestions concerning future births and family planning preferences.
HCP readiness ensures that each woman “has a documented postpartum care plan and care team identified in the prenatal period.” HCPs are also responsible for developing and maintaining “a working knowledge of evidence-based evaluation and management of common issues facing the mother-infant dyad.”
Clinical setting readiness ensures that woman-centered postpartum care and education have been developed and optimized using adult learning principles whenever possible. Diversity of family structures, cultural traditions, and parenting practices are fully embraced. Dr. Stuebe and colleagues emphasized that traditional top-down teaching methods are ineffective and should be avoided.
Clinical setting readiness also ensures that systems are developed to pair families with community-based resources that provide medical follow-up as well as social and material support. Clinical protocols and reimbursement options should be available that give women easy access to preferred contraception. Systems should be in place that facilitate prompt, pertinent communication between in- and outpatient providers. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, clinical setting readiness demands the development of protocols to screen and treat key postpartum concerns, such as depression, substance use disorders, family violence, and even incontinence in coordination with locally identified specialists.
Recognition and prevention promotes accountability and establishes key guidelines
Recognition and prevention require coordinated participation between women experiencing pregnancy and the clinical environments supporting their care. In this phase, women are responsible for three goals; clinical environments have four goals.
Women are to be identified and respected as the expert most knowledgeable of their own needs, cautioned the authors. They should also be empowered to trust their instincts, seeking care as early and as often as needed in the weeks after they give birth. Postpartum care needs to be viewed as an ongoing process, not just a singular encounter.
Women also need to take ownership for their postpartum care plan, reviewing and revising it as needed in coordination with their health care providers before maternity discharge is complete. Every plan should include a comprehensive list of warning signs and recommended action plans when faced with life-threatening complications, a list of resources for lactation support, and a “first-call” phone number that identifies the postpartum medical providers available to address breastfeeding issues and for postpartum care visits, including prescheduled dates and times.
Lastly, women are to take responsibility for attending their postpartum visit. Although new guidance suggests that the comprehensive visit take place no later than 12 weeks post partum, it also recognizes multiple visits may be required to address individual needs. All women should have contact with a maternal care provider within 3 weeks post partum, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends.
Responsibility for recognition and prevention in the clinical setting begins with determining guidelines for early postpartum visits, considering chronic conditions such as hypertension, diabetes, or substance abuse disorder and risk for postpartum conditions such as wound complications or postpartum depression, the authors wrote. Ongoing care between inpatient and outpatient settings as well as between maternal and infant care providers is coordinated to ensure health and well-being of both patients. Screening and treatment of common comorbidities such as mental health issues, smoking, and substance use as well as issues related to unstable housing and food insecurities are also addressed in the clinical environment. Lastly, clinicians are tasked with ensuring that every patient has selected a primary care provider for ongoing care.
Response ensures key parties and resources are connected at every step
In the response phase, clinical settings and health care providers are the key participants and they have two goals each.
Every clinical setting is tasked with implementing treatment protocols and providing needed care or facilitating referral in a timely fashion. The importance of a “warm hand-off” and “face-to-face introduction to the specialist to whom the patient is being referred” is encouraged. They are also responsible for keeping an updated inventory of community resources on hand for such unmet needs as 24-hour hotlines, food banks, diaper banks, lactation support groups, and home-visiting programs.
Every health care provider is tasked with developing strategies designed to reach women who do not attend their comprehensive postpartum visit. They are also responsible for assessing the severity of identified needs, and arranging immediate transportation to appropriate facilities in life-threatening circumstances. In nonacute cases, the woman and her care providers work with her to make appropriate decisions.
Reporting gives health systems the opportunity to assess and improve
Sole responsibility in the reporting phase falls to every health system. In this phase, they have a total of six goals.
Health systems are ideally organized to convene strategy-sharing sessions with inpatient as well as outpatient professionals to evaluate successes and opportunities for improvement. They are equally qualified to identify and monitor such quality measures as postpartum emergency department utilization and readmission rates. They are tasked with working toward quality metrics that compare postpartum outcomes and prenatal intentions, including patient receipt of preferred contraception or completion of planned breastfeeding duration.
Health systems are expected to conduct quality improvement measures designed to reduce postpartum morbidity when preventable. They are also the logical choice for maintaining a clearinghouse for resources, in collaboration with the community, that is designed to meet the postpartum needs of women.
Lastly, they play an important role in ensuring that reimbursement policies are structured such that they do not disincentivize postpartum visits.
The consensus bundle encourages change in the way America treats its new mothers
Angela Bianco, MD, maternal and fetal medicine specialist at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, also interviewed separately, noted: “I think the fact that ACOG has created a postpartum bundle for providers to use for guidance is long overdue. The current prenatal care paradigm focuses on numerous/intensive prenatal visits but only a single postpartum visit. Many women report feeling ill-equipped to navigate the challenges that arise post delivery, including self-care, newborn care, and breastfeeding. In addition, most women experience the impact of dramatic hormonal fluctuations resulting in mood alterations. Add profound sleep deprivation to this and the result is often some degree of postpartum blues and/or depression. The importance of anticipatory guidance for our patients cannot be underestimated. Helping to facilitate potential social support structures be in place prior to the birth is optimal. Providers should reinforce the importance of access to a variety of tools, including digital apps, community support groups, and 24/7 web access services. Moving forward, it should be considered unconscionable to send a new mother home without ensuring the appropriate resources are in place. Postpartum care should be tailored to a woman’s needs and may require multiple visits and/or referrals.”
Dr. Stuebe and colleagues, as well as Dr. Bianco, disclosed receiving honoraria for various projects. Funding for the study was supported by the Alliance for Innovation on Maternal and Child Health, which is funded by a grant from the Health Resources and Services Administration.
Health care professionals miss an important opportunity if they do not use a holistic patient-centered approach in providing support to their postpartum patients, advised Alison M. Stuebe, MD, MSc, of the division of maternal-fetal medicine at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and colleagues.
Too often, the emphasis for health care professionals is on less common, highly morbid complications, while their patients’ needs are focused more on daily functioning.
More than half of maternal deaths occur not during delivery, but in the days, weeks, and months following birth. Many serious complications and management of less-emergent conditions such as flu-like symptoms go unnoticed or result in treatment delays. Routinely asking women who present for care whether they have been pregnant during the past year could go a long way in helping clinicians connect the dots for conditions they might not otherwise consider, suggested Dr. Stuebe and colleagues.
In response to what is becoming a growing burden of postpartum maternal morbidity and mortality in the United States, Dr. Stuebe and associates, in coordination with the Alliance of Innovation in Maternal Health, prepared a comprehensive consensus statement on postpartum care basics. The work came out of a day-long planning meeting of an interdisciplinary work group funded by AIMH to develop the maternal safety bundle, which established 28 goals across four phases – readiness, recognition and prevention, response, and reporting. Each phase is intended to occur as part of a coordinated effort between women experiencing pregnancy and their health care providers, with involvement from multiple clinical settings and health systems.
America needs to change the way it treats its new mothers
In a separate interview, Dr. Stuebe shared additional insights into the development of the consensus statement: “This article is part of a broader movement to change the way America treats new mothers. For too long, we’ve lavished attention on women in the weeks before birth and then left them alone to manage recovery, plunging hormones, sleepless nights, and new baby care. The goal of this article is to set out the ways that we can better support women in this critical transition period.
“We need to start during pregnancy, by working with women to plan for the fourth trimester and identify a care team that will support her and her baby. After birth, we need to adapt those plans and make sure she has the emotional and material support she needs to navigate the coming months. Many of these decisions are deeply personal, and we need to center the values and preferences of the woman and her family.”
Dr. Stuebe also spotlighted a new University of North Carolina–based program designed to support shared decision-making. Their Trimester Project team partnered with mothers to design NewMomHealth.com, the first national postpartum resource designed by and for new mothers, which is in the process of launching a culturally adapted Spanish-language site, saludmadre.com, in partnership with Urban Strategies.
Readiness prepares mothers, HCPs, and clinical settings for the fourth trimester
In the first phase, Readiness, there are three key parties involved: the woman experiencing pregnancy, the health care providers (HCPs) supporting her, and the clinical settings involved in her care. Each player has specific goals to achieve in this phase, women are responsible for four goals, health care providers have two goals, and clinical settings have five.
Prenatally, every woman should work with health care providers to develop a comprehensive, individualized postpartum care plan that designates a postpartum clinical “home” for addressing any care needed between birth and the “comprehensive postpartum visit.” The plan encourages the patient and her health care team give attention to social support, birth recovery, infant care and feeding plans, thoughts concerning future pregnancies, and specifically use of contraception, as well as any chronic health concerns and overall emotional well-being.
The plan should consist of a postpartum care team that includes friends and family and ensures that medical, material, and social support are available in the weeks following birth for both mother and baby.
The authors emphasized the importance for clinicians to develop a keen awareness of “reproductive justice,” which respects a woman’s right “to maintain personal bodily autonomy, have children, not have children, and parent the children we have in safe and sustainable communities.” They encouraged adopting a sensitivity to concerns deeply rooted in the history of family planning, which is perceived to have been “fraught by coercive tactics to incentivize sterilization and contraceptive implants among marginalized groups.” With this in mind, they urged clinicians to respectfully ask about the patient’s intentions before making any suggestions concerning future births and family planning preferences.
HCP readiness ensures that each woman “has a documented postpartum care plan and care team identified in the prenatal period.” HCPs are also responsible for developing and maintaining “a working knowledge of evidence-based evaluation and management of common issues facing the mother-infant dyad.”
Clinical setting readiness ensures that woman-centered postpartum care and education have been developed and optimized using adult learning principles whenever possible. Diversity of family structures, cultural traditions, and parenting practices are fully embraced. Dr. Stuebe and colleagues emphasized that traditional top-down teaching methods are ineffective and should be avoided.
Clinical setting readiness also ensures that systems are developed to pair families with community-based resources that provide medical follow-up as well as social and material support. Clinical protocols and reimbursement options should be available that give women easy access to preferred contraception. Systems should be in place that facilitate prompt, pertinent communication between in- and outpatient providers. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, clinical setting readiness demands the development of protocols to screen and treat key postpartum concerns, such as depression, substance use disorders, family violence, and even incontinence in coordination with locally identified specialists.
Recognition and prevention promotes accountability and establishes key guidelines
Recognition and prevention require coordinated participation between women experiencing pregnancy and the clinical environments supporting their care. In this phase, women are responsible for three goals; clinical environments have four goals.
Women are to be identified and respected as the expert most knowledgeable of their own needs, cautioned the authors. They should also be empowered to trust their instincts, seeking care as early and as often as needed in the weeks after they give birth. Postpartum care needs to be viewed as an ongoing process, not just a singular encounter.
Women also need to take ownership for their postpartum care plan, reviewing and revising it as needed in coordination with their health care providers before maternity discharge is complete. Every plan should include a comprehensive list of warning signs and recommended action plans when faced with life-threatening complications, a list of resources for lactation support, and a “first-call” phone number that identifies the postpartum medical providers available to address breastfeeding issues and for postpartum care visits, including prescheduled dates and times.
Lastly, women are to take responsibility for attending their postpartum visit. Although new guidance suggests that the comprehensive visit take place no later than 12 weeks post partum, it also recognizes multiple visits may be required to address individual needs. All women should have contact with a maternal care provider within 3 weeks post partum, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends.
Responsibility for recognition and prevention in the clinical setting begins with determining guidelines for early postpartum visits, considering chronic conditions such as hypertension, diabetes, or substance abuse disorder and risk for postpartum conditions such as wound complications or postpartum depression, the authors wrote. Ongoing care between inpatient and outpatient settings as well as between maternal and infant care providers is coordinated to ensure health and well-being of both patients. Screening and treatment of common comorbidities such as mental health issues, smoking, and substance use as well as issues related to unstable housing and food insecurities are also addressed in the clinical environment. Lastly, clinicians are tasked with ensuring that every patient has selected a primary care provider for ongoing care.
Response ensures key parties and resources are connected at every step
In the response phase, clinical settings and health care providers are the key participants and they have two goals each.
Every clinical setting is tasked with implementing treatment protocols and providing needed care or facilitating referral in a timely fashion. The importance of a “warm hand-off” and “face-to-face introduction to the specialist to whom the patient is being referred” is encouraged. They are also responsible for keeping an updated inventory of community resources on hand for such unmet needs as 24-hour hotlines, food banks, diaper banks, lactation support groups, and home-visiting programs.
Every health care provider is tasked with developing strategies designed to reach women who do not attend their comprehensive postpartum visit. They are also responsible for assessing the severity of identified needs, and arranging immediate transportation to appropriate facilities in life-threatening circumstances. In nonacute cases, the woman and her care providers work with her to make appropriate decisions.
Reporting gives health systems the opportunity to assess and improve
Sole responsibility in the reporting phase falls to every health system. In this phase, they have a total of six goals.
Health systems are ideally organized to convene strategy-sharing sessions with inpatient as well as outpatient professionals to evaluate successes and opportunities for improvement. They are equally qualified to identify and monitor such quality measures as postpartum emergency department utilization and readmission rates. They are tasked with working toward quality metrics that compare postpartum outcomes and prenatal intentions, including patient receipt of preferred contraception or completion of planned breastfeeding duration.
Health systems are expected to conduct quality improvement measures designed to reduce postpartum morbidity when preventable. They are also the logical choice for maintaining a clearinghouse for resources, in collaboration with the community, that is designed to meet the postpartum needs of women.
Lastly, they play an important role in ensuring that reimbursement policies are structured such that they do not disincentivize postpartum visits.
The consensus bundle encourages change in the way America treats its new mothers
Angela Bianco, MD, maternal and fetal medicine specialist at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, also interviewed separately, noted: “I think the fact that ACOG has created a postpartum bundle for providers to use for guidance is long overdue. The current prenatal care paradigm focuses on numerous/intensive prenatal visits but only a single postpartum visit. Many women report feeling ill-equipped to navigate the challenges that arise post delivery, including self-care, newborn care, and breastfeeding. In addition, most women experience the impact of dramatic hormonal fluctuations resulting in mood alterations. Add profound sleep deprivation to this and the result is often some degree of postpartum blues and/or depression. The importance of anticipatory guidance for our patients cannot be underestimated. Helping to facilitate potential social support structures be in place prior to the birth is optimal. Providers should reinforce the importance of access to a variety of tools, including digital apps, community support groups, and 24/7 web access services. Moving forward, it should be considered unconscionable to send a new mother home without ensuring the appropriate resources are in place. Postpartum care should be tailored to a woman’s needs and may require multiple visits and/or referrals.”
Dr. Stuebe and colleagues, as well as Dr. Bianco, disclosed receiving honoraria for various projects. Funding for the study was supported by the Alliance for Innovation on Maternal and Child Health, which is funded by a grant from the Health Resources and Services Administration.
Health care professionals miss an important opportunity if they do not use a holistic patient-centered approach in providing support to their postpartum patients, advised Alison M. Stuebe, MD, MSc, of the division of maternal-fetal medicine at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and colleagues.
Too often, the emphasis for health care professionals is on less common, highly morbid complications, while their patients’ needs are focused more on daily functioning.
More than half of maternal deaths occur not during delivery, but in the days, weeks, and months following birth. Many serious complications and management of less-emergent conditions such as flu-like symptoms go unnoticed or result in treatment delays. Routinely asking women who present for care whether they have been pregnant during the past year could go a long way in helping clinicians connect the dots for conditions they might not otherwise consider, suggested Dr. Stuebe and colleagues.
In response to what is becoming a growing burden of postpartum maternal morbidity and mortality in the United States, Dr. Stuebe and associates, in coordination with the Alliance of Innovation in Maternal Health, prepared a comprehensive consensus statement on postpartum care basics. The work came out of a day-long planning meeting of an interdisciplinary work group funded by AIMH to develop the maternal safety bundle, which established 28 goals across four phases – readiness, recognition and prevention, response, and reporting. Each phase is intended to occur as part of a coordinated effort between women experiencing pregnancy and their health care providers, with involvement from multiple clinical settings and health systems.
America needs to change the way it treats its new mothers
In a separate interview, Dr. Stuebe shared additional insights into the development of the consensus statement: “This article is part of a broader movement to change the way America treats new mothers. For too long, we’ve lavished attention on women in the weeks before birth and then left them alone to manage recovery, plunging hormones, sleepless nights, and new baby care. The goal of this article is to set out the ways that we can better support women in this critical transition period.
“We need to start during pregnancy, by working with women to plan for the fourth trimester and identify a care team that will support her and her baby. After birth, we need to adapt those plans and make sure she has the emotional and material support she needs to navigate the coming months. Many of these decisions are deeply personal, and we need to center the values and preferences of the woman and her family.”
Dr. Stuebe also spotlighted a new University of North Carolina–based program designed to support shared decision-making. Their Trimester Project team partnered with mothers to design NewMomHealth.com, the first national postpartum resource designed by and for new mothers, which is in the process of launching a culturally adapted Spanish-language site, saludmadre.com, in partnership with Urban Strategies.
Readiness prepares mothers, HCPs, and clinical settings for the fourth trimester
In the first phase, Readiness, there are three key parties involved: the woman experiencing pregnancy, the health care providers (HCPs) supporting her, and the clinical settings involved in her care. Each player has specific goals to achieve in this phase, women are responsible for four goals, health care providers have two goals, and clinical settings have five.
Prenatally, every woman should work with health care providers to develop a comprehensive, individualized postpartum care plan that designates a postpartum clinical “home” for addressing any care needed between birth and the “comprehensive postpartum visit.” The plan encourages the patient and her health care team give attention to social support, birth recovery, infant care and feeding plans, thoughts concerning future pregnancies, and specifically use of contraception, as well as any chronic health concerns and overall emotional well-being.
The plan should consist of a postpartum care team that includes friends and family and ensures that medical, material, and social support are available in the weeks following birth for both mother and baby.
The authors emphasized the importance for clinicians to develop a keen awareness of “reproductive justice,” which respects a woman’s right “to maintain personal bodily autonomy, have children, not have children, and parent the children we have in safe and sustainable communities.” They encouraged adopting a sensitivity to concerns deeply rooted in the history of family planning, which is perceived to have been “fraught by coercive tactics to incentivize sterilization and contraceptive implants among marginalized groups.” With this in mind, they urged clinicians to respectfully ask about the patient’s intentions before making any suggestions concerning future births and family planning preferences.
HCP readiness ensures that each woman “has a documented postpartum care plan and care team identified in the prenatal period.” HCPs are also responsible for developing and maintaining “a working knowledge of evidence-based evaluation and management of common issues facing the mother-infant dyad.”
Clinical setting readiness ensures that woman-centered postpartum care and education have been developed and optimized using adult learning principles whenever possible. Diversity of family structures, cultural traditions, and parenting practices are fully embraced. Dr. Stuebe and colleagues emphasized that traditional top-down teaching methods are ineffective and should be avoided.
Clinical setting readiness also ensures that systems are developed to pair families with community-based resources that provide medical follow-up as well as social and material support. Clinical protocols and reimbursement options should be available that give women easy access to preferred contraception. Systems should be in place that facilitate prompt, pertinent communication between in- and outpatient providers. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, clinical setting readiness demands the development of protocols to screen and treat key postpartum concerns, such as depression, substance use disorders, family violence, and even incontinence in coordination with locally identified specialists.
Recognition and prevention promotes accountability and establishes key guidelines
Recognition and prevention require coordinated participation between women experiencing pregnancy and the clinical environments supporting their care. In this phase, women are responsible for three goals; clinical environments have four goals.
Women are to be identified and respected as the expert most knowledgeable of their own needs, cautioned the authors. They should also be empowered to trust their instincts, seeking care as early and as often as needed in the weeks after they give birth. Postpartum care needs to be viewed as an ongoing process, not just a singular encounter.
Women also need to take ownership for their postpartum care plan, reviewing and revising it as needed in coordination with their health care providers before maternity discharge is complete. Every plan should include a comprehensive list of warning signs and recommended action plans when faced with life-threatening complications, a list of resources for lactation support, and a “first-call” phone number that identifies the postpartum medical providers available to address breastfeeding issues and for postpartum care visits, including prescheduled dates and times.
Lastly, women are to take responsibility for attending their postpartum visit. Although new guidance suggests that the comprehensive visit take place no later than 12 weeks post partum, it also recognizes multiple visits may be required to address individual needs. All women should have contact with a maternal care provider within 3 weeks post partum, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends.
Responsibility for recognition and prevention in the clinical setting begins with determining guidelines for early postpartum visits, considering chronic conditions such as hypertension, diabetes, or substance abuse disorder and risk for postpartum conditions such as wound complications or postpartum depression, the authors wrote. Ongoing care between inpatient and outpatient settings as well as between maternal and infant care providers is coordinated to ensure health and well-being of both patients. Screening and treatment of common comorbidities such as mental health issues, smoking, and substance use as well as issues related to unstable housing and food insecurities are also addressed in the clinical environment. Lastly, clinicians are tasked with ensuring that every patient has selected a primary care provider for ongoing care.
Response ensures key parties and resources are connected at every step
In the response phase, clinical settings and health care providers are the key participants and they have two goals each.
Every clinical setting is tasked with implementing treatment protocols and providing needed care or facilitating referral in a timely fashion. The importance of a “warm hand-off” and “face-to-face introduction to the specialist to whom the patient is being referred” is encouraged. They are also responsible for keeping an updated inventory of community resources on hand for such unmet needs as 24-hour hotlines, food banks, diaper banks, lactation support groups, and home-visiting programs.
Every health care provider is tasked with developing strategies designed to reach women who do not attend their comprehensive postpartum visit. They are also responsible for assessing the severity of identified needs, and arranging immediate transportation to appropriate facilities in life-threatening circumstances. In nonacute cases, the woman and her care providers work with her to make appropriate decisions.
Reporting gives health systems the opportunity to assess and improve
Sole responsibility in the reporting phase falls to every health system. In this phase, they have a total of six goals.
Health systems are ideally organized to convene strategy-sharing sessions with inpatient as well as outpatient professionals to evaluate successes and opportunities for improvement. They are equally qualified to identify and monitor such quality measures as postpartum emergency department utilization and readmission rates. They are tasked with working toward quality metrics that compare postpartum outcomes and prenatal intentions, including patient receipt of preferred contraception or completion of planned breastfeeding duration.
Health systems are expected to conduct quality improvement measures designed to reduce postpartum morbidity when preventable. They are also the logical choice for maintaining a clearinghouse for resources, in collaboration with the community, that is designed to meet the postpartum needs of women.
Lastly, they play an important role in ensuring that reimbursement policies are structured such that they do not disincentivize postpartum visits.
The consensus bundle encourages change in the way America treats its new mothers
Angela Bianco, MD, maternal and fetal medicine specialist at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, also interviewed separately, noted: “I think the fact that ACOG has created a postpartum bundle for providers to use for guidance is long overdue. The current prenatal care paradigm focuses on numerous/intensive prenatal visits but only a single postpartum visit. Many women report feeling ill-equipped to navigate the challenges that arise post delivery, including self-care, newborn care, and breastfeeding. In addition, most women experience the impact of dramatic hormonal fluctuations resulting in mood alterations. Add profound sleep deprivation to this and the result is often some degree of postpartum blues and/or depression. The importance of anticipatory guidance for our patients cannot be underestimated. Helping to facilitate potential social support structures be in place prior to the birth is optimal. Providers should reinforce the importance of access to a variety of tools, including digital apps, community support groups, and 24/7 web access services. Moving forward, it should be considered unconscionable to send a new mother home without ensuring the appropriate resources are in place. Postpartum care should be tailored to a woman’s needs and may require multiple visits and/or referrals.”
Dr. Stuebe and colleagues, as well as Dr. Bianco, disclosed receiving honoraria for various projects. Funding for the study was supported by the Alliance for Innovation on Maternal and Child Health, which is funded by a grant from the Health Resources and Services Administration.
FROM OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY
Family physicians can help achieve national goals on STIs
Among these are the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ first “Sexually Transmitted Infections (STIs) National Strategic Plan for the United States,” which has a strong encompassing vision.
“The United States will be a place where sexually transmitted infections are prevented and where every person has high-quality STI prevention care, and treatment while living free from stigma and discrimination. The vision includes all people, regardless of age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, religion, disability, geographic location, or socioeconomic circumstance,” the new HHS plan states.1
Family physicians can and should play important roles in helping our country meet this plan’s goals particularly by following two important updated clinical guidelines, one from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) and another from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
This strategic plan includes the following five overarching goals with associated objectives:
- Prevent New STIs.
- Improve the health of people by reducing adverse outcomes of STIs.
- Accelerate progress in STI research, technology, and innovation.
- Reduce STI-related health disparities and health inequities.
- Achieve integrated, coordinated efforts that address the STI epidemic.1
In my opinion, family physicians have important roles to play in order for each of these goals to be achieved.Unfortunately, there are approximately 20 million new cases of STIs each year, and the U.S. has seen increases in the rates of STIs in the past decade.
“Sexually transmitted infections are frequently asymptomatic, which may delay diagnosis and treatment and lead persons to unknowingly transmit STIs to others,” according to a new recommendation statement from the USPSTF.2 STIs may lead to serious health consequences for patients, cause harms to a mother and infant during pregnancy, and lead to cases of cancer among other concerning outcomes. As such, following the HHS new national strategic plan is critical for us to address the needs of our communities.
Preventing new STIs
Family physicians can be vital in achieving the first goal of the plan by helping to prevent new STIs. In August 2020, the USPSTF updated its guideline on behavioral counseling interventions to prevent STIs. In my opinion, the USPSTF offers some practical improvements from the earlier version of this guideline.
The task force provides a grade B recommendation that all sexually active adolescents and adults at increased risk for STIs be provided with behavioral counseling to prevent STIs. The guideline indicates that behavioral counseling interventions reduce the likelihood of those at increased risk for acquiring STIs.2
The 2014 guideline had recommended intensive interventions with a minimum of 30 minutes of counseling. Many family physicians may have found this previous recommendation impractical to implement. These updated recommendations now include a variety of interventions, such as those that take less than 30 minutes.
Although interventions with more than 120 minutes of contact time had the most effect, those with less than 30 minutes still demonstrated statistically significant fewer acquisitions of STIs during follow-up. These options include in-person counseling, and providing written materials, websites, videos, and telephone and text support to patients. These interventions can be delivered directly by the family physician, or patients may be referred to other settings or the media interventions.
The task force’s updated recommendation statement refers to a variety of resources that can be used to identify these interventions. Many of the studies reviewed for this guideline were conducted in STI clinics, and the guideline authors recommended further studies in primary care as opportunities for more generalizability.
In addition to behavioral counseling for STI prevention, family physicians can help prevent STIs in their patients through HPV vaccination and HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP provision) within their practices. As the first contact for health care for many patients, we have an opportunity to significantly impact this first goal of prevention.
Treating STIs
Within the second goal of the national strategic plan is treatment of STIs, which family physicians should include in their practices as well as the diagnosis of STIs.
In December 2020, an update to the CDC’s treatment guideline for gonococcal infection was released. Prior to the publishing of this updated recommendation, the CDC recommended combination therapy of 250 mg intramuscular (IM) dose of ceftriaxone and either doxycycline or azithromycin. This recommendation has been changed to a single 500-mg IM dose of ceftriaxone for uncomplicated urogenital, anorectal, and pharyngeal gonorrhea. If chlamydia cannot be excluded, then the addition of oral doxycycline 100 mg twice daily for 7 days is recommended for nonpregnant persons, and 1 g oral azithromycin for pregnant persons. The previous treatment was recommended based on a concern for gonococcal resistance.
This updated guideline reflects increasing concerns for antimicrobial stewardship and emerging azithromycin resistance. It does not recommend a test-of-cure for urogenital or rectal gonorrhea, though did recommend a test-of-cure 7-14 days after treatment of pharyngeal gonorrhea. The guideline also recommends testing for reinfection 3-12 months after treatment as the rate of reinfection ranges from 7% to 12% among those previously treated.3
For some offices, the provision of the IM injection may be challenging, though having this medication in stock with the possibility of provision can greatly improve access and ease of treatment for patients. Family physicians can incorporate these updated recommendations along with those for other STIs such as chlamydia and syphilis with standing orders for treatment and testing within their offices.
Accelerating progress in STI research
Family physicians can also support the national strategic plan by participating in studies looking at the impact of behavioral counseling in the primary care office as opposed to in STI clinics. In addition, by following the STI treatment and screening guidelines, family physicians will contribute to the body of knowledge of prevalence, treatment failure, and reinfection rates of STIs. We can also help advance the research by providing feedback on interventions that have success within our practices.
Reducing STI-related health disparities and inequities
Family physicians are also in important places to support the strategic plan’s fourth goal of reducing health disparities and health inequities.
If we continue to ask the questions to identify those at high risk and ensure that we are offering appropriate STI prevention, care, and treatment services within our clinics, we can expand access to all who need services and improve equity. By offering these services within the primary care office, we may be able to decrease the stigma some may feel going to an STI clinic for services.
By incorporating additional screening and counseling in our practices we may identify some patients who were not aware that they were at risk for an STI and offer them preventive services.
Achieving integrated and coordinated efforts
Finally, as many family physicians have integrated practices, we are uniquely poised to support the fifth goal of the strategic plan of achieving integrated and coordinated efforts addressing the STI epidemic. In our practices we can participate in, lead, and refer to programs for substance use disorders, viral hepatitis, STIs, and HIV as part of full scope primary care.
Family physicians and other primary care providers should work to support the entire strategic plan to ensure that we are fully caring for our patients and communities and stopping the past decade’s increase in STIs. We have an opportunity to use this strategy and make a large impact in our communities.
Dr. Wheat is a family physician at Erie Family Health Center in Chicago. She is program director of Northwestern’s McGaw Family Medicine residency program at Humboldt Park, Chicago. Dr. Wheat serves on the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News. You can contact her at [email protected].
References
1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2020. Sexually Transmitted Infections National Strategic Plan for the United States: 2021-2025. Washington.
2. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Behavioral counseling interventions to prevent sexually transmitted infections: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA. 2020;324(7):674-81. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.13095.
3. St. Cyr S et al. Update to CDC’s Treatment Guideline for Gonococcal Infection, 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2020;69:1911-6. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6950a6external_icon.
Among these are the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ first “Sexually Transmitted Infections (STIs) National Strategic Plan for the United States,” which has a strong encompassing vision.
“The United States will be a place where sexually transmitted infections are prevented and where every person has high-quality STI prevention care, and treatment while living free from stigma and discrimination. The vision includes all people, regardless of age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, religion, disability, geographic location, or socioeconomic circumstance,” the new HHS plan states.1
Family physicians can and should play important roles in helping our country meet this plan’s goals particularly by following two important updated clinical guidelines, one from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) and another from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
This strategic plan includes the following five overarching goals with associated objectives:
- Prevent New STIs.
- Improve the health of people by reducing adverse outcomes of STIs.
- Accelerate progress in STI research, technology, and innovation.
- Reduce STI-related health disparities and health inequities.
- Achieve integrated, coordinated efforts that address the STI epidemic.1
In my opinion, family physicians have important roles to play in order for each of these goals to be achieved.Unfortunately, there are approximately 20 million new cases of STIs each year, and the U.S. has seen increases in the rates of STIs in the past decade.
“Sexually transmitted infections are frequently asymptomatic, which may delay diagnosis and treatment and lead persons to unknowingly transmit STIs to others,” according to a new recommendation statement from the USPSTF.2 STIs may lead to serious health consequences for patients, cause harms to a mother and infant during pregnancy, and lead to cases of cancer among other concerning outcomes. As such, following the HHS new national strategic plan is critical for us to address the needs of our communities.
Preventing new STIs
Family physicians can be vital in achieving the first goal of the plan by helping to prevent new STIs. In August 2020, the USPSTF updated its guideline on behavioral counseling interventions to prevent STIs. In my opinion, the USPSTF offers some practical improvements from the earlier version of this guideline.
The task force provides a grade B recommendation that all sexually active adolescents and adults at increased risk for STIs be provided with behavioral counseling to prevent STIs. The guideline indicates that behavioral counseling interventions reduce the likelihood of those at increased risk for acquiring STIs.2
The 2014 guideline had recommended intensive interventions with a minimum of 30 minutes of counseling. Many family physicians may have found this previous recommendation impractical to implement. These updated recommendations now include a variety of interventions, such as those that take less than 30 minutes.
Although interventions with more than 120 minutes of contact time had the most effect, those with less than 30 minutes still demonstrated statistically significant fewer acquisitions of STIs during follow-up. These options include in-person counseling, and providing written materials, websites, videos, and telephone and text support to patients. These interventions can be delivered directly by the family physician, or patients may be referred to other settings or the media interventions.
The task force’s updated recommendation statement refers to a variety of resources that can be used to identify these interventions. Many of the studies reviewed for this guideline were conducted in STI clinics, and the guideline authors recommended further studies in primary care as opportunities for more generalizability.
In addition to behavioral counseling for STI prevention, family physicians can help prevent STIs in their patients through HPV vaccination and HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP provision) within their practices. As the first contact for health care for many patients, we have an opportunity to significantly impact this first goal of prevention.
Treating STIs
Within the second goal of the national strategic plan is treatment of STIs, which family physicians should include in their practices as well as the diagnosis of STIs.
In December 2020, an update to the CDC’s treatment guideline for gonococcal infection was released. Prior to the publishing of this updated recommendation, the CDC recommended combination therapy of 250 mg intramuscular (IM) dose of ceftriaxone and either doxycycline or azithromycin. This recommendation has been changed to a single 500-mg IM dose of ceftriaxone for uncomplicated urogenital, anorectal, and pharyngeal gonorrhea. If chlamydia cannot be excluded, then the addition of oral doxycycline 100 mg twice daily for 7 days is recommended for nonpregnant persons, and 1 g oral azithromycin for pregnant persons. The previous treatment was recommended based on a concern for gonococcal resistance.
This updated guideline reflects increasing concerns for antimicrobial stewardship and emerging azithromycin resistance. It does not recommend a test-of-cure for urogenital or rectal gonorrhea, though did recommend a test-of-cure 7-14 days after treatment of pharyngeal gonorrhea. The guideline also recommends testing for reinfection 3-12 months after treatment as the rate of reinfection ranges from 7% to 12% among those previously treated.3
For some offices, the provision of the IM injection may be challenging, though having this medication in stock with the possibility of provision can greatly improve access and ease of treatment for patients. Family physicians can incorporate these updated recommendations along with those for other STIs such as chlamydia and syphilis with standing orders for treatment and testing within their offices.
Accelerating progress in STI research
Family physicians can also support the national strategic plan by participating in studies looking at the impact of behavioral counseling in the primary care office as opposed to in STI clinics. In addition, by following the STI treatment and screening guidelines, family physicians will contribute to the body of knowledge of prevalence, treatment failure, and reinfection rates of STIs. We can also help advance the research by providing feedback on interventions that have success within our practices.
Reducing STI-related health disparities and inequities
Family physicians are also in important places to support the strategic plan’s fourth goal of reducing health disparities and health inequities.
If we continue to ask the questions to identify those at high risk and ensure that we are offering appropriate STI prevention, care, and treatment services within our clinics, we can expand access to all who need services and improve equity. By offering these services within the primary care office, we may be able to decrease the stigma some may feel going to an STI clinic for services.
By incorporating additional screening and counseling in our practices we may identify some patients who were not aware that they were at risk for an STI and offer them preventive services.
Achieving integrated and coordinated efforts
Finally, as many family physicians have integrated practices, we are uniquely poised to support the fifth goal of the strategic plan of achieving integrated and coordinated efforts addressing the STI epidemic. In our practices we can participate in, lead, and refer to programs for substance use disorders, viral hepatitis, STIs, and HIV as part of full scope primary care.
Family physicians and other primary care providers should work to support the entire strategic plan to ensure that we are fully caring for our patients and communities and stopping the past decade’s increase in STIs. We have an opportunity to use this strategy and make a large impact in our communities.
Dr. Wheat is a family physician at Erie Family Health Center in Chicago. She is program director of Northwestern’s McGaw Family Medicine residency program at Humboldt Park, Chicago. Dr. Wheat serves on the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News. You can contact her at [email protected].
References
1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2020. Sexually Transmitted Infections National Strategic Plan for the United States: 2021-2025. Washington.
2. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Behavioral counseling interventions to prevent sexually transmitted infections: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA. 2020;324(7):674-81. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.13095.
3. St. Cyr S et al. Update to CDC’s Treatment Guideline for Gonococcal Infection, 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2020;69:1911-6. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6950a6external_icon.
Among these are the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ first “Sexually Transmitted Infections (STIs) National Strategic Plan for the United States,” which has a strong encompassing vision.
“The United States will be a place where sexually transmitted infections are prevented and where every person has high-quality STI prevention care, and treatment while living free from stigma and discrimination. The vision includes all people, regardless of age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, religion, disability, geographic location, or socioeconomic circumstance,” the new HHS plan states.1
Family physicians can and should play important roles in helping our country meet this plan’s goals particularly by following two important updated clinical guidelines, one from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) and another from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
This strategic plan includes the following five overarching goals with associated objectives:
- Prevent New STIs.
- Improve the health of people by reducing adverse outcomes of STIs.
- Accelerate progress in STI research, technology, and innovation.
- Reduce STI-related health disparities and health inequities.
- Achieve integrated, coordinated efforts that address the STI epidemic.1
In my opinion, family physicians have important roles to play in order for each of these goals to be achieved.Unfortunately, there are approximately 20 million new cases of STIs each year, and the U.S. has seen increases in the rates of STIs in the past decade.
“Sexually transmitted infections are frequently asymptomatic, which may delay diagnosis and treatment and lead persons to unknowingly transmit STIs to others,” according to a new recommendation statement from the USPSTF.2 STIs may lead to serious health consequences for patients, cause harms to a mother and infant during pregnancy, and lead to cases of cancer among other concerning outcomes. As such, following the HHS new national strategic plan is critical for us to address the needs of our communities.
Preventing new STIs
Family physicians can be vital in achieving the first goal of the plan by helping to prevent new STIs. In August 2020, the USPSTF updated its guideline on behavioral counseling interventions to prevent STIs. In my opinion, the USPSTF offers some practical improvements from the earlier version of this guideline.
The task force provides a grade B recommendation that all sexually active adolescents and adults at increased risk for STIs be provided with behavioral counseling to prevent STIs. The guideline indicates that behavioral counseling interventions reduce the likelihood of those at increased risk for acquiring STIs.2
The 2014 guideline had recommended intensive interventions with a minimum of 30 minutes of counseling. Many family physicians may have found this previous recommendation impractical to implement. These updated recommendations now include a variety of interventions, such as those that take less than 30 minutes.
Although interventions with more than 120 minutes of contact time had the most effect, those with less than 30 minutes still demonstrated statistically significant fewer acquisitions of STIs during follow-up. These options include in-person counseling, and providing written materials, websites, videos, and telephone and text support to patients. These interventions can be delivered directly by the family physician, or patients may be referred to other settings or the media interventions.
The task force’s updated recommendation statement refers to a variety of resources that can be used to identify these interventions. Many of the studies reviewed for this guideline were conducted in STI clinics, and the guideline authors recommended further studies in primary care as opportunities for more generalizability.
In addition to behavioral counseling for STI prevention, family physicians can help prevent STIs in their patients through HPV vaccination and HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP provision) within their practices. As the first contact for health care for many patients, we have an opportunity to significantly impact this first goal of prevention.
Treating STIs
Within the second goal of the national strategic plan is treatment of STIs, which family physicians should include in their practices as well as the diagnosis of STIs.
In December 2020, an update to the CDC’s treatment guideline for gonococcal infection was released. Prior to the publishing of this updated recommendation, the CDC recommended combination therapy of 250 mg intramuscular (IM) dose of ceftriaxone and either doxycycline or azithromycin. This recommendation has been changed to a single 500-mg IM dose of ceftriaxone for uncomplicated urogenital, anorectal, and pharyngeal gonorrhea. If chlamydia cannot be excluded, then the addition of oral doxycycline 100 mg twice daily for 7 days is recommended for nonpregnant persons, and 1 g oral azithromycin for pregnant persons. The previous treatment was recommended based on a concern for gonococcal resistance.
This updated guideline reflects increasing concerns for antimicrobial stewardship and emerging azithromycin resistance. It does not recommend a test-of-cure for urogenital or rectal gonorrhea, though did recommend a test-of-cure 7-14 days after treatment of pharyngeal gonorrhea. The guideline also recommends testing for reinfection 3-12 months after treatment as the rate of reinfection ranges from 7% to 12% among those previously treated.3
For some offices, the provision of the IM injection may be challenging, though having this medication in stock with the possibility of provision can greatly improve access and ease of treatment for patients. Family physicians can incorporate these updated recommendations along with those for other STIs such as chlamydia and syphilis with standing orders for treatment and testing within their offices.
Accelerating progress in STI research
Family physicians can also support the national strategic plan by participating in studies looking at the impact of behavioral counseling in the primary care office as opposed to in STI clinics. In addition, by following the STI treatment and screening guidelines, family physicians will contribute to the body of knowledge of prevalence, treatment failure, and reinfection rates of STIs. We can also help advance the research by providing feedback on interventions that have success within our practices.
Reducing STI-related health disparities and inequities
Family physicians are also in important places to support the strategic plan’s fourth goal of reducing health disparities and health inequities.
If we continue to ask the questions to identify those at high risk and ensure that we are offering appropriate STI prevention, care, and treatment services within our clinics, we can expand access to all who need services and improve equity. By offering these services within the primary care office, we may be able to decrease the stigma some may feel going to an STI clinic for services.
By incorporating additional screening and counseling in our practices we may identify some patients who were not aware that they were at risk for an STI and offer them preventive services.
Achieving integrated and coordinated efforts
Finally, as many family physicians have integrated practices, we are uniquely poised to support the fifth goal of the strategic plan of achieving integrated and coordinated efforts addressing the STI epidemic. In our practices we can participate in, lead, and refer to programs for substance use disorders, viral hepatitis, STIs, and HIV as part of full scope primary care.
Family physicians and other primary care providers should work to support the entire strategic plan to ensure that we are fully caring for our patients and communities and stopping the past decade’s increase in STIs. We have an opportunity to use this strategy and make a large impact in our communities.
Dr. Wheat is a family physician at Erie Family Health Center in Chicago. She is program director of Northwestern’s McGaw Family Medicine residency program at Humboldt Park, Chicago. Dr. Wheat serves on the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News. You can contact her at [email protected].
References
1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2020. Sexually Transmitted Infections National Strategic Plan for the United States: 2021-2025. Washington.
2. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Behavioral counseling interventions to prevent sexually transmitted infections: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA. 2020;324(7):674-81. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.13095.
3. St. Cyr S et al. Update to CDC’s Treatment Guideline for Gonococcal Infection, 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2020;69:1911-6. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6950a6external_icon.
Updated USPSTF HBV screening recommendation may be a ‘lost opportunity’
An update of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation for hepatitis B screening shows little change from the 2014 version, but some wonder if it should have gone farther than a risk-based approach.
The recommendation, which was published in JAMA, reinforces that screening should be conducted among adolescents and adults who are at increased risk of hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection. The USPSTF named six categories of individuals at increased risk of infection: Persons born in countries with a 2% or higher prevalence of hepatitis B, such as Asia, Africa, the Pacific Islands, and some areas of South America; unvaccinated individuals born in the United States to parents from regions with a very high prevalence of HBV (≥8%); HIV-positive individuals; those who use injected drugs; men who have sex with men; and people who live with people who have HBV or who have HBV-infected sexual partners. It also recommended that pregnant women be screened for HBV infection during their first prenatal visit.
“I view the updated recommendations as an important document because it validates the importance of HBV screening, and the Grade B recommendation supports mandated insurance coverage for the screening test,” said Joseph Lim, MD, who is a professor of medicine at Yale University and director of the Yale Viral Hepatitis Program, both in New Haven, Conn.
Still, the recommendation could have gone further. Notably absent from the USPSTF document, yet featured in recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American Association for the Study of Liver Disease, are patients who have diabetes, are on immunosuppressive therapy, or have elevated liver enzymes or liver disease. Furthermore, a single-center study found that, among physicians administering immunosuppressive therapy, a setting in which HBV reactivation is a concern, there were low rates of screening for HBV infection, and the physicians did not reliably identify high-risk patients.
“This may also be viewed as a lost opportunity. Evidence suggests that risk factor–based screening is ineffective for the identification of chronic conditions such as hepatitis B. Risk factor–based screening is difficult to implement across health systems and exacerbates the burden on community-based organizations that are motivated to address viral hepatitis. It may further exacerbate labeling, stigma, and discrimination within already marginalized communities that are deemed to be at high risk,” said Dr. Lim.
A similar view was expressed by Avegail Flores, MD, medical director of liver transplantation at the Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center and assistant professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, both in Houston. “This is a good launching point, and with further evidence provided, hopefully it will also bring in a broader conversation about other persons who are at risk but not included in these criteria.” Neither Dr. Lim nor Dr. Flores were involved in the study.
She noted that resistance to universal screening may be caused by the relatively low prevalence of hepatitis B infection in the United States. However, the CDC estimates that only about 61% of people infected with HBV are aware of it. “I don’t think we have done a good job screening those who are at risk,” said Dr. Flores.
Universal screening could help, but would have a low yield. Dr. Flores suggested expansion into other at-risk groups, such as Baby Boomers. With respect to other risk groups that could be stigmatized or discriminated against, Dr. Flores recalled her medical school days when some students went directly into underserved communities to provide information and screening services. “We have to think of creative ways of how to reach out to people, not just relying on the usual physician-patient relationship.”
The issue is especially timely because the World Health Organization has declared a target to reduce new hepatitis B infections by 90% by 2030, and that will require addressing gaps in diagnosis. “That’s why these recommendations are so consequential. We are at a critical juncture in terms of global hepatitis elimination efforts. There is a time sensitive need to have multistakeholder engagement in ensuring that all aspects of the care cascade are addressed. Because of the central role of screening and diagnosis, it’s of critical importance that organizations such as USPSTF are in alignment with other organizations that have already issued clear guidance on who should be screened. It is (my) hope that further examination of the evidence-base will further support broadening USPSTF guidance to include a larger group of at-risk individuals, or ideally a universal screening strategy,” said Dr. Lim.
The recommendation’s authors received travel reimbursement for their involvement, and one author reported receiving grants and personal fees from Healthwise. Dr. Flores has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Lim is a member of the American Association for the Study of Liver Disease’s Viral Hepatitis Elimination Task Force.
SOURCE: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2020 Dec 15. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.22980.
Updated Jan. 20, 2021
An update of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation for hepatitis B screening shows little change from the 2014 version, but some wonder if it should have gone farther than a risk-based approach.
The recommendation, which was published in JAMA, reinforces that screening should be conducted among adolescents and adults who are at increased risk of hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection. The USPSTF named six categories of individuals at increased risk of infection: Persons born in countries with a 2% or higher prevalence of hepatitis B, such as Asia, Africa, the Pacific Islands, and some areas of South America; unvaccinated individuals born in the United States to parents from regions with a very high prevalence of HBV (≥8%); HIV-positive individuals; those who use injected drugs; men who have sex with men; and people who live with people who have HBV or who have HBV-infected sexual partners. It also recommended that pregnant women be screened for HBV infection during their first prenatal visit.
“I view the updated recommendations as an important document because it validates the importance of HBV screening, and the Grade B recommendation supports mandated insurance coverage for the screening test,” said Joseph Lim, MD, who is a professor of medicine at Yale University and director of the Yale Viral Hepatitis Program, both in New Haven, Conn.
Still, the recommendation could have gone further. Notably absent from the USPSTF document, yet featured in recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American Association for the Study of Liver Disease, are patients who have diabetes, are on immunosuppressive therapy, or have elevated liver enzymes or liver disease. Furthermore, a single-center study found that, among physicians administering immunosuppressive therapy, a setting in which HBV reactivation is a concern, there were low rates of screening for HBV infection, and the physicians did not reliably identify high-risk patients.
“This may also be viewed as a lost opportunity. Evidence suggests that risk factor–based screening is ineffective for the identification of chronic conditions such as hepatitis B. Risk factor–based screening is difficult to implement across health systems and exacerbates the burden on community-based organizations that are motivated to address viral hepatitis. It may further exacerbate labeling, stigma, and discrimination within already marginalized communities that are deemed to be at high risk,” said Dr. Lim.
A similar view was expressed by Avegail Flores, MD, medical director of liver transplantation at the Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center and assistant professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, both in Houston. “This is a good launching point, and with further evidence provided, hopefully it will also bring in a broader conversation about other persons who are at risk but not included in these criteria.” Neither Dr. Lim nor Dr. Flores were involved in the study.
She noted that resistance to universal screening may be caused by the relatively low prevalence of hepatitis B infection in the United States. However, the CDC estimates that only about 61% of people infected with HBV are aware of it. “I don’t think we have done a good job screening those who are at risk,” said Dr. Flores.
Universal screening could help, but would have a low yield. Dr. Flores suggested expansion into other at-risk groups, such as Baby Boomers. With respect to other risk groups that could be stigmatized or discriminated against, Dr. Flores recalled her medical school days when some students went directly into underserved communities to provide information and screening services. “We have to think of creative ways of how to reach out to people, not just relying on the usual physician-patient relationship.”
The issue is especially timely because the World Health Organization has declared a target to reduce new hepatitis B infections by 90% by 2030, and that will require addressing gaps in diagnosis. “That’s why these recommendations are so consequential. We are at a critical juncture in terms of global hepatitis elimination efforts. There is a time sensitive need to have multistakeholder engagement in ensuring that all aspects of the care cascade are addressed. Because of the central role of screening and diagnosis, it’s of critical importance that organizations such as USPSTF are in alignment with other organizations that have already issued clear guidance on who should be screened. It is (my) hope that further examination of the evidence-base will further support broadening USPSTF guidance to include a larger group of at-risk individuals, or ideally a universal screening strategy,” said Dr. Lim.
The recommendation’s authors received travel reimbursement for their involvement, and one author reported receiving grants and personal fees from Healthwise. Dr. Flores has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Lim is a member of the American Association for the Study of Liver Disease’s Viral Hepatitis Elimination Task Force.
SOURCE: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2020 Dec 15. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.22980.
Updated Jan. 20, 2021
An update of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation for hepatitis B screening shows little change from the 2014 version, but some wonder if it should have gone farther than a risk-based approach.
The recommendation, which was published in JAMA, reinforces that screening should be conducted among adolescents and adults who are at increased risk of hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection. The USPSTF named six categories of individuals at increased risk of infection: Persons born in countries with a 2% or higher prevalence of hepatitis B, such as Asia, Africa, the Pacific Islands, and some areas of South America; unvaccinated individuals born in the United States to parents from regions with a very high prevalence of HBV (≥8%); HIV-positive individuals; those who use injected drugs; men who have sex with men; and people who live with people who have HBV or who have HBV-infected sexual partners. It also recommended that pregnant women be screened for HBV infection during their first prenatal visit.
“I view the updated recommendations as an important document because it validates the importance of HBV screening, and the Grade B recommendation supports mandated insurance coverage for the screening test,” said Joseph Lim, MD, who is a professor of medicine at Yale University and director of the Yale Viral Hepatitis Program, both in New Haven, Conn.
Still, the recommendation could have gone further. Notably absent from the USPSTF document, yet featured in recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American Association for the Study of Liver Disease, are patients who have diabetes, are on immunosuppressive therapy, or have elevated liver enzymes or liver disease. Furthermore, a single-center study found that, among physicians administering immunosuppressive therapy, a setting in which HBV reactivation is a concern, there were low rates of screening for HBV infection, and the physicians did not reliably identify high-risk patients.
“This may also be viewed as a lost opportunity. Evidence suggests that risk factor–based screening is ineffective for the identification of chronic conditions such as hepatitis B. Risk factor–based screening is difficult to implement across health systems and exacerbates the burden on community-based organizations that are motivated to address viral hepatitis. It may further exacerbate labeling, stigma, and discrimination within already marginalized communities that are deemed to be at high risk,” said Dr. Lim.
A similar view was expressed by Avegail Flores, MD, medical director of liver transplantation at the Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center and assistant professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, both in Houston. “This is a good launching point, and with further evidence provided, hopefully it will also bring in a broader conversation about other persons who are at risk but not included in these criteria.” Neither Dr. Lim nor Dr. Flores were involved in the study.
She noted that resistance to universal screening may be caused by the relatively low prevalence of hepatitis B infection in the United States. However, the CDC estimates that only about 61% of people infected with HBV are aware of it. “I don’t think we have done a good job screening those who are at risk,” said Dr. Flores.
Universal screening could help, but would have a low yield. Dr. Flores suggested expansion into other at-risk groups, such as Baby Boomers. With respect to other risk groups that could be stigmatized or discriminated against, Dr. Flores recalled her medical school days when some students went directly into underserved communities to provide information and screening services. “We have to think of creative ways of how to reach out to people, not just relying on the usual physician-patient relationship.”
The issue is especially timely because the World Health Organization has declared a target to reduce new hepatitis B infections by 90% by 2030, and that will require addressing gaps in diagnosis. “That’s why these recommendations are so consequential. We are at a critical juncture in terms of global hepatitis elimination efforts. There is a time sensitive need to have multistakeholder engagement in ensuring that all aspects of the care cascade are addressed. Because of the central role of screening and diagnosis, it’s of critical importance that organizations such as USPSTF are in alignment with other organizations that have already issued clear guidance on who should be screened. It is (my) hope that further examination of the evidence-base will further support broadening USPSTF guidance to include a larger group of at-risk individuals, or ideally a universal screening strategy,” said Dr. Lim.
The recommendation’s authors received travel reimbursement for their involvement, and one author reported receiving grants and personal fees from Healthwise. Dr. Flores has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Lim is a member of the American Association for the Study of Liver Disease’s Viral Hepatitis Elimination Task Force.
SOURCE: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2020 Dec 15. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.22980.
Updated Jan. 20, 2021
FROM JAMA
Updated ACC decision pathway embraces new heart failure treatment strategies
A newly updated expert consensus from the American College of Cardiology for management of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction includes several new guideline-directed medical therapies among other substantial changes relative to its 2017 predecessor.
The advances in treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) have resulted in a substantial increase in complexity in reaching treatment goals, according to the authors of the new guidance. Structured similarly to the 2017 ACC Expert Consensus Decision Pathway, the update accommodates a series of practical tips to bring all patients on board with the newer as well as the established therapies with lifesaving potential.
The potential return from implementing these recommendations is not trivial. Relative to an ACE inhibitor and a beta-blocker alone, optimal implementation of the current guideline-directed medical therapies (GDMT) “can extend medical survival by more than 6 years,” according to Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, chief of cardiology at the University of California, Los Angeles.
A member of the writing committee for the 2021 update, Dr. Fonarow explained that the consensus pathway is more than a list of therapies and recommended doses. The detailed advice on how to overcome the barriers to GDMT is meant to close the substantial gap between current practice and unmet opportunities for inhibiting HFrEF progression.
“Optimal GDMT among HFrEF patients is distressingly low, due in part to the number and complexity of medications that now constitute GDMT,” said the chair of the writing committee, Thomas M. Maddox, MD, executive director, Healthcare Innovation Lab, BJC HealthCare/Washington University, St. Louis. Like Dr. Fonarow, Dr. Maddox emphasized that the importance of the update for the practical strategies it offers to place patients on optimal care.
In the 2017 guidance, 10 pivotal issues were tackled, ranging from advice of how to put HFrEF patients on the multiple drugs that now constitute optimal therapy to when to transition patients to hospice care. The 2021 update covers the same ground but incorporates new information that has changed the definition of optimal care.
Perhaps most importantly, sacubitril/valsartan, an angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNi), and SGLT2 inhibitors represent major new additions in HFrEF GDMT. Dr. Maddox called the practical information about how these should be incorporated into HFrEF management represents one of the “major highlights” of the update.
Two algorithms outline the expert consensus recommendations of the order and the dose of the multiple drugs that now constitute the current GDMT. With the goal of explaining exactly how to place patients on all the HFrEF therapies associated with improved outcome, “I think these figures can really help us in guiding our patients to optimal medication regimens and dosages,” Dr. Maddox said. If successful, clinicians “can make a significant difference in these patients’ length and quality of life.”
Most cardiologists and others who treat HFrEF are likely aware of the major improvements in outcome documented in large trials when an ARNi and a SGLT2 inhibitor were added to previously established GDMT, but the update like the 2017 document is focused on the practical strategies of implementation, according to Larry A. Allen, MD, medical director of advanced heart failure at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.
“The 2017 Expert Consensus Decision Pathway got a lot of attention because it takes a very practical approach to questions that clinicians and their patients have to tackle everyday but for which there was not always clean answers from the data,” said Dr. Allen, a member of the writing committee for both the 2017 expert consensus and the 2021 update. He noted that the earlier document was one of the most downloaded articles from the ACC’s journal in the year it appeared.
“There is excellent data on the benefits of beta-blockers, ARNi, mineralocorticoid antagonists, and SGLT2 inhibitors, but how does one decide what order to use them in?” Dr. Allen asked in outlining goals of the expert consensus.
While the new update “focuses on the newer drug classes, particularly SGLT2 inhibitors,” it traces care from first-line therapies to end-of-life management, according to Dr. Allen. This includes information on when to consider advanced therapies, such as left ventricular assist devices or transplant in order to get patients to these treatments before the opportunity for benefit is missed.
Both the 2017 version and the update offer a table to summarize triggers for referral. The complexity of individualizing care in a group of patients likely to have variable manifestations of disease and multiple comorbidities was a theme of the 2017 document that has been reprised in the 2021 update,
“Good communication and team-based care” is one of common management gaps that the update addresses, Dr. Allen said. He indicated that the checklists and algorithms in the update would help with complex decision-making and encourage the multidisciplinary care that ensures optimal management.
SOURCE: Maddox TM et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2021 Jan 11. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.11.022.
A newly updated expert consensus from the American College of Cardiology for management of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction includes several new guideline-directed medical therapies among other substantial changes relative to its 2017 predecessor.
The advances in treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) have resulted in a substantial increase in complexity in reaching treatment goals, according to the authors of the new guidance. Structured similarly to the 2017 ACC Expert Consensus Decision Pathway, the update accommodates a series of practical tips to bring all patients on board with the newer as well as the established therapies with lifesaving potential.
The potential return from implementing these recommendations is not trivial. Relative to an ACE inhibitor and a beta-blocker alone, optimal implementation of the current guideline-directed medical therapies (GDMT) “can extend medical survival by more than 6 years,” according to Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, chief of cardiology at the University of California, Los Angeles.
A member of the writing committee for the 2021 update, Dr. Fonarow explained that the consensus pathway is more than a list of therapies and recommended doses. The detailed advice on how to overcome the barriers to GDMT is meant to close the substantial gap between current practice and unmet opportunities for inhibiting HFrEF progression.
“Optimal GDMT among HFrEF patients is distressingly low, due in part to the number and complexity of medications that now constitute GDMT,” said the chair of the writing committee, Thomas M. Maddox, MD, executive director, Healthcare Innovation Lab, BJC HealthCare/Washington University, St. Louis. Like Dr. Fonarow, Dr. Maddox emphasized that the importance of the update for the practical strategies it offers to place patients on optimal care.
In the 2017 guidance, 10 pivotal issues were tackled, ranging from advice of how to put HFrEF patients on the multiple drugs that now constitute optimal therapy to when to transition patients to hospice care. The 2021 update covers the same ground but incorporates new information that has changed the definition of optimal care.
Perhaps most importantly, sacubitril/valsartan, an angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNi), and SGLT2 inhibitors represent major new additions in HFrEF GDMT. Dr. Maddox called the practical information about how these should be incorporated into HFrEF management represents one of the “major highlights” of the update.
Two algorithms outline the expert consensus recommendations of the order and the dose of the multiple drugs that now constitute the current GDMT. With the goal of explaining exactly how to place patients on all the HFrEF therapies associated with improved outcome, “I think these figures can really help us in guiding our patients to optimal medication regimens and dosages,” Dr. Maddox said. If successful, clinicians “can make a significant difference in these patients’ length and quality of life.”
Most cardiologists and others who treat HFrEF are likely aware of the major improvements in outcome documented in large trials when an ARNi and a SGLT2 inhibitor were added to previously established GDMT, but the update like the 2017 document is focused on the practical strategies of implementation, according to Larry A. Allen, MD, medical director of advanced heart failure at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.
“The 2017 Expert Consensus Decision Pathway got a lot of attention because it takes a very practical approach to questions that clinicians and their patients have to tackle everyday but for which there was not always clean answers from the data,” said Dr. Allen, a member of the writing committee for both the 2017 expert consensus and the 2021 update. He noted that the earlier document was one of the most downloaded articles from the ACC’s journal in the year it appeared.
“There is excellent data on the benefits of beta-blockers, ARNi, mineralocorticoid antagonists, and SGLT2 inhibitors, but how does one decide what order to use them in?” Dr. Allen asked in outlining goals of the expert consensus.
While the new update “focuses on the newer drug classes, particularly SGLT2 inhibitors,” it traces care from first-line therapies to end-of-life management, according to Dr. Allen. This includes information on when to consider advanced therapies, such as left ventricular assist devices or transplant in order to get patients to these treatments before the opportunity for benefit is missed.
Both the 2017 version and the update offer a table to summarize triggers for referral. The complexity of individualizing care in a group of patients likely to have variable manifestations of disease and multiple comorbidities was a theme of the 2017 document that has been reprised in the 2021 update,
“Good communication and team-based care” is one of common management gaps that the update addresses, Dr. Allen said. He indicated that the checklists and algorithms in the update would help with complex decision-making and encourage the multidisciplinary care that ensures optimal management.
SOURCE: Maddox TM et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2021 Jan 11. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.11.022.
A newly updated expert consensus from the American College of Cardiology for management of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction includes several new guideline-directed medical therapies among other substantial changes relative to its 2017 predecessor.
The advances in treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) have resulted in a substantial increase in complexity in reaching treatment goals, according to the authors of the new guidance. Structured similarly to the 2017 ACC Expert Consensus Decision Pathway, the update accommodates a series of practical tips to bring all patients on board with the newer as well as the established therapies with lifesaving potential.
The potential return from implementing these recommendations is not trivial. Relative to an ACE inhibitor and a beta-blocker alone, optimal implementation of the current guideline-directed medical therapies (GDMT) “can extend medical survival by more than 6 years,” according to Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, chief of cardiology at the University of California, Los Angeles.
A member of the writing committee for the 2021 update, Dr. Fonarow explained that the consensus pathway is more than a list of therapies and recommended doses. The detailed advice on how to overcome the barriers to GDMT is meant to close the substantial gap between current practice and unmet opportunities for inhibiting HFrEF progression.
“Optimal GDMT among HFrEF patients is distressingly low, due in part to the number and complexity of medications that now constitute GDMT,” said the chair of the writing committee, Thomas M. Maddox, MD, executive director, Healthcare Innovation Lab, BJC HealthCare/Washington University, St. Louis. Like Dr. Fonarow, Dr. Maddox emphasized that the importance of the update for the practical strategies it offers to place patients on optimal care.
In the 2017 guidance, 10 pivotal issues were tackled, ranging from advice of how to put HFrEF patients on the multiple drugs that now constitute optimal therapy to when to transition patients to hospice care. The 2021 update covers the same ground but incorporates new information that has changed the definition of optimal care.
Perhaps most importantly, sacubitril/valsartan, an angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNi), and SGLT2 inhibitors represent major new additions in HFrEF GDMT. Dr. Maddox called the practical information about how these should be incorporated into HFrEF management represents one of the “major highlights” of the update.
Two algorithms outline the expert consensus recommendations of the order and the dose of the multiple drugs that now constitute the current GDMT. With the goal of explaining exactly how to place patients on all the HFrEF therapies associated with improved outcome, “I think these figures can really help us in guiding our patients to optimal medication regimens and dosages,” Dr. Maddox said. If successful, clinicians “can make a significant difference in these patients’ length and quality of life.”
Most cardiologists and others who treat HFrEF are likely aware of the major improvements in outcome documented in large trials when an ARNi and a SGLT2 inhibitor were added to previously established GDMT, but the update like the 2017 document is focused on the practical strategies of implementation, according to Larry A. Allen, MD, medical director of advanced heart failure at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.
“The 2017 Expert Consensus Decision Pathway got a lot of attention because it takes a very practical approach to questions that clinicians and their patients have to tackle everyday but for which there was not always clean answers from the data,” said Dr. Allen, a member of the writing committee for both the 2017 expert consensus and the 2021 update. He noted that the earlier document was one of the most downloaded articles from the ACC’s journal in the year it appeared.
“There is excellent data on the benefits of beta-blockers, ARNi, mineralocorticoid antagonists, and SGLT2 inhibitors, but how does one decide what order to use them in?” Dr. Allen asked in outlining goals of the expert consensus.
While the new update “focuses on the newer drug classes, particularly SGLT2 inhibitors,” it traces care from first-line therapies to end-of-life management, according to Dr. Allen. This includes information on when to consider advanced therapies, such as left ventricular assist devices or transplant in order to get patients to these treatments before the opportunity for benefit is missed.
Both the 2017 version and the update offer a table to summarize triggers for referral. The complexity of individualizing care in a group of patients likely to have variable manifestations of disease and multiple comorbidities was a theme of the 2017 document that has been reprised in the 2021 update,
“Good communication and team-based care” is one of common management gaps that the update addresses, Dr. Allen said. He indicated that the checklists and algorithms in the update would help with complex decision-making and encourage the multidisciplinary care that ensures optimal management.
SOURCE: Maddox TM et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2021 Jan 11. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.11.022.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY
Large study links brown fat with lower rates of cardiometabolic disease
People who have brown fat detected on imaging seem to be at reduced risk of cardiac and metabolic conditions, ranging from type 2 diabetes to hypertension and coronary artery disease, with a notably strong effect in people with obesity, according to a new study of more than 52,000 individuals who had PET/CT scans as part of cancer evaluation.
Although this has been studied for decades in newborns and animals, only in the past decade have scientists appreciated that some adults have brown fat, typically around the neck and shoulders.
The new study, by far the largest of its kind in humans, appears to confirm the health benefits of brown fat suggested by previous studies, Tobias Becher, MD, and colleagues from The Rockefeller University, New York, wrote in their article published online Jan. 4 in Nature Medicine.
“Our study indicates an important contribution of brown adipose tissue to cardiometabolic health and suggests ... [it] has therapeutic potential in humans,” they stated.
But Caroline M. Apovian, MD, Center for Weight Management and Wellness, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, is more cautious in her interpretation of the findings.
“It’s nice to see that what we believe about this is correct, and it’s great to see that with obesity and more brown fat there is reduced diabetes and hypertension, but it’s only an association,” she said in an interview.
“This is a good study, but I don’t think we have an understanding of exactly why some people have more brown fat than others, how white fat becomes brown fat, the role of therapeutics, or if it’s important to try to create more brown fat.
“We don’t know if it’s a matter of exercise or something like living in a colder environment, so we need to find out whether or not brown fat is, for instance, a genetic issue, and if it is, if there is a way to increase it in humans,” she added.
And the fact that the study included patients with or being screened for cancer is one of the most important limitations of the study, Dr. Apovian noted.
Brown fat detected in 10% of participants
Contrary to white fat, which stores energy, brown fat is thermogenic, activated by cold conditions, and instead burns energy. And although animal studies have shown a link between brown fat and improvements in glucose and lipid homeostasis, the effects of brown fat in humans are not well understood.
Dr. Becher and colleagues explained that large-scale studies of brown fat have been practically impossible because the tissue only shows up on medical imaging and it would be unethical to expose people to radiation just to study brown fat.
But they realized that, across the street from their lab, many thousands of people visit Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center each year to undergo PET/CT scans for cancer evaluation.
Because radiologists routinely take note when brown adipose tissue is detected to prevent its misinterpretation as a tumor, the information was readily available with the scan data.
“We realized this could be a valuable resource to get us started with looking at brown fat at a population scale,” Dr. Becher said in a press statement from The Rockefeller University.
So they reviewed 134,529 PET/CT scans from 52,487 individuals attending Memorial Sloan Kettering between June 2009 and March 2018 for indications ranging from cancer diagnosis to treatment or surveillance.
Participants were classified by the presence or absence of brown adipose tissue and researchers were able to use electronic health records to comprehensively examine associations between brown fat and rates of disease.
Overall, brown adipose tissue was identified in 5,070 (9.7%) of patients, with higher rates of brown fat among women than men (13.8% vs. 4.9%; P < .0001) and reduced rates with advancing age (P < .0001), as has been observed in previous studies.
The researchers noted, however, that this rate of around 10% of people having brown fat is likely an underestimate because the patients had been instructed to avoid cold exposure, exercise, and caffeine – all of which are thought to increase brown adipose tissue – prior to having their scans.
Does brown fat mitigate some harms of obesity?
Among those with brown fat, the rate of type 2 diabetes was 4.6% compared with 9.5% in those with no detected brown fat (P < .0001), and in a multivariate analysis, the odds ratio (OR) for type 2 diabetes in the presence of brown fat was 0.44.
The occurrence of coronary artery disease was significantly lower in those with brown fat (OR, 0.68; P = .0002), as was cerebrovascular disease (OR, 0.77; P = .0317), heart failure (OR, 0.62; P = .0043), and hypertension (OR, 0.85; P = .0014).
Brown fat also was associated with notable improvements in glucose, triglycerides, and HDL-C levels (all P < .0001), while no differences were seen in measures of LDL-Cs or total cholesterol.
Leukocyte and platelet counts were significantly decreased in individuals with brown fat (both P < .0001).
The findings “suggest potential roles for brown adipose beyond regulation of lipid and glucose metabolism,” the authors wrote.
Most notably, the effects were more pronounced in people with obesity. For example, the prevalence of type 2 diabetes in those with obesity and brown fat was less than half the rate in those with obesity without brown fat (7.5% vs. 20.3%; P < .0001).
This could indicate that brown adipose tissue “might play a role in mitigating the deleterious effects of obesity,” the researchers stated.
“Future research should aim to improve our understanding of brown adipose tissue regulation in humans and to develop mechanisms to safely modulate [its activity],” they concluded.
The study received funding from the American Diabetes Association, the Sinsheimer Foundation, and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. The authors and Dr. Apovian have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
People who have brown fat detected on imaging seem to be at reduced risk of cardiac and metabolic conditions, ranging from type 2 diabetes to hypertension and coronary artery disease, with a notably strong effect in people with obesity, according to a new study of more than 52,000 individuals who had PET/CT scans as part of cancer evaluation.
Although this has been studied for decades in newborns and animals, only in the past decade have scientists appreciated that some adults have brown fat, typically around the neck and shoulders.
The new study, by far the largest of its kind in humans, appears to confirm the health benefits of brown fat suggested by previous studies, Tobias Becher, MD, and colleagues from The Rockefeller University, New York, wrote in their article published online Jan. 4 in Nature Medicine.
“Our study indicates an important contribution of brown adipose tissue to cardiometabolic health and suggests ... [it] has therapeutic potential in humans,” they stated.
But Caroline M. Apovian, MD, Center for Weight Management and Wellness, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, is more cautious in her interpretation of the findings.
“It’s nice to see that what we believe about this is correct, and it’s great to see that with obesity and more brown fat there is reduced diabetes and hypertension, but it’s only an association,” she said in an interview.
“This is a good study, but I don’t think we have an understanding of exactly why some people have more brown fat than others, how white fat becomes brown fat, the role of therapeutics, or if it’s important to try to create more brown fat.
“We don’t know if it’s a matter of exercise or something like living in a colder environment, so we need to find out whether or not brown fat is, for instance, a genetic issue, and if it is, if there is a way to increase it in humans,” she added.
And the fact that the study included patients with or being screened for cancer is one of the most important limitations of the study, Dr. Apovian noted.
Brown fat detected in 10% of participants
Contrary to white fat, which stores energy, brown fat is thermogenic, activated by cold conditions, and instead burns energy. And although animal studies have shown a link between brown fat and improvements in glucose and lipid homeostasis, the effects of brown fat in humans are not well understood.
Dr. Becher and colleagues explained that large-scale studies of brown fat have been practically impossible because the tissue only shows up on medical imaging and it would be unethical to expose people to radiation just to study brown fat.
But they realized that, across the street from their lab, many thousands of people visit Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center each year to undergo PET/CT scans for cancer evaluation.
Because radiologists routinely take note when brown adipose tissue is detected to prevent its misinterpretation as a tumor, the information was readily available with the scan data.
“We realized this could be a valuable resource to get us started with looking at brown fat at a population scale,” Dr. Becher said in a press statement from The Rockefeller University.
So they reviewed 134,529 PET/CT scans from 52,487 individuals attending Memorial Sloan Kettering between June 2009 and March 2018 for indications ranging from cancer diagnosis to treatment or surveillance.
Participants were classified by the presence or absence of brown adipose tissue and researchers were able to use electronic health records to comprehensively examine associations between brown fat and rates of disease.
Overall, brown adipose tissue was identified in 5,070 (9.7%) of patients, with higher rates of brown fat among women than men (13.8% vs. 4.9%; P < .0001) and reduced rates with advancing age (P < .0001), as has been observed in previous studies.
The researchers noted, however, that this rate of around 10% of people having brown fat is likely an underestimate because the patients had been instructed to avoid cold exposure, exercise, and caffeine – all of which are thought to increase brown adipose tissue – prior to having their scans.
Does brown fat mitigate some harms of obesity?
Among those with brown fat, the rate of type 2 diabetes was 4.6% compared with 9.5% in those with no detected brown fat (P < .0001), and in a multivariate analysis, the odds ratio (OR) for type 2 diabetes in the presence of brown fat was 0.44.
The occurrence of coronary artery disease was significantly lower in those with brown fat (OR, 0.68; P = .0002), as was cerebrovascular disease (OR, 0.77; P = .0317), heart failure (OR, 0.62; P = .0043), and hypertension (OR, 0.85; P = .0014).
Brown fat also was associated with notable improvements in glucose, triglycerides, and HDL-C levels (all P < .0001), while no differences were seen in measures of LDL-Cs or total cholesterol.
Leukocyte and platelet counts were significantly decreased in individuals with brown fat (both P < .0001).
The findings “suggest potential roles for brown adipose beyond regulation of lipid and glucose metabolism,” the authors wrote.
Most notably, the effects were more pronounced in people with obesity. For example, the prevalence of type 2 diabetes in those with obesity and brown fat was less than half the rate in those with obesity without brown fat (7.5% vs. 20.3%; P < .0001).
This could indicate that brown adipose tissue “might play a role in mitigating the deleterious effects of obesity,” the researchers stated.
“Future research should aim to improve our understanding of brown adipose tissue regulation in humans and to develop mechanisms to safely modulate [its activity],” they concluded.
The study received funding from the American Diabetes Association, the Sinsheimer Foundation, and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. The authors and Dr. Apovian have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
People who have brown fat detected on imaging seem to be at reduced risk of cardiac and metabolic conditions, ranging from type 2 diabetes to hypertension and coronary artery disease, with a notably strong effect in people with obesity, according to a new study of more than 52,000 individuals who had PET/CT scans as part of cancer evaluation.
Although this has been studied for decades in newborns and animals, only in the past decade have scientists appreciated that some adults have brown fat, typically around the neck and shoulders.
The new study, by far the largest of its kind in humans, appears to confirm the health benefits of brown fat suggested by previous studies, Tobias Becher, MD, and colleagues from The Rockefeller University, New York, wrote in their article published online Jan. 4 in Nature Medicine.
“Our study indicates an important contribution of brown adipose tissue to cardiometabolic health and suggests ... [it] has therapeutic potential in humans,” they stated.
But Caroline M. Apovian, MD, Center for Weight Management and Wellness, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, is more cautious in her interpretation of the findings.
“It’s nice to see that what we believe about this is correct, and it’s great to see that with obesity and more brown fat there is reduced diabetes and hypertension, but it’s only an association,” she said in an interview.
“This is a good study, but I don’t think we have an understanding of exactly why some people have more brown fat than others, how white fat becomes brown fat, the role of therapeutics, or if it’s important to try to create more brown fat.
“We don’t know if it’s a matter of exercise or something like living in a colder environment, so we need to find out whether or not brown fat is, for instance, a genetic issue, and if it is, if there is a way to increase it in humans,” she added.
And the fact that the study included patients with or being screened for cancer is one of the most important limitations of the study, Dr. Apovian noted.
Brown fat detected in 10% of participants
Contrary to white fat, which stores energy, brown fat is thermogenic, activated by cold conditions, and instead burns energy. And although animal studies have shown a link between brown fat and improvements in glucose and lipid homeostasis, the effects of brown fat in humans are not well understood.
Dr. Becher and colleagues explained that large-scale studies of brown fat have been practically impossible because the tissue only shows up on medical imaging and it would be unethical to expose people to radiation just to study brown fat.
But they realized that, across the street from their lab, many thousands of people visit Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center each year to undergo PET/CT scans for cancer evaluation.
Because radiologists routinely take note when brown adipose tissue is detected to prevent its misinterpretation as a tumor, the information was readily available with the scan data.
“We realized this could be a valuable resource to get us started with looking at brown fat at a population scale,” Dr. Becher said in a press statement from The Rockefeller University.
So they reviewed 134,529 PET/CT scans from 52,487 individuals attending Memorial Sloan Kettering between June 2009 and March 2018 for indications ranging from cancer diagnosis to treatment or surveillance.
Participants were classified by the presence or absence of brown adipose tissue and researchers were able to use electronic health records to comprehensively examine associations between brown fat and rates of disease.
Overall, brown adipose tissue was identified in 5,070 (9.7%) of patients, with higher rates of brown fat among women than men (13.8% vs. 4.9%; P < .0001) and reduced rates with advancing age (P < .0001), as has been observed in previous studies.
The researchers noted, however, that this rate of around 10% of people having brown fat is likely an underestimate because the patients had been instructed to avoid cold exposure, exercise, and caffeine – all of which are thought to increase brown adipose tissue – prior to having their scans.
Does brown fat mitigate some harms of obesity?
Among those with brown fat, the rate of type 2 diabetes was 4.6% compared with 9.5% in those with no detected brown fat (P < .0001), and in a multivariate analysis, the odds ratio (OR) for type 2 diabetes in the presence of brown fat was 0.44.
The occurrence of coronary artery disease was significantly lower in those with brown fat (OR, 0.68; P = .0002), as was cerebrovascular disease (OR, 0.77; P = .0317), heart failure (OR, 0.62; P = .0043), and hypertension (OR, 0.85; P = .0014).
Brown fat also was associated with notable improvements in glucose, triglycerides, and HDL-C levels (all P < .0001), while no differences were seen in measures of LDL-Cs or total cholesterol.
Leukocyte and platelet counts were significantly decreased in individuals with brown fat (both P < .0001).
The findings “suggest potential roles for brown adipose beyond regulation of lipid and glucose metabolism,” the authors wrote.
Most notably, the effects were more pronounced in people with obesity. For example, the prevalence of type 2 diabetes in those with obesity and brown fat was less than half the rate in those with obesity without brown fat (7.5% vs. 20.3%; P < .0001).
This could indicate that brown adipose tissue “might play a role in mitigating the deleterious effects of obesity,” the researchers stated.
“Future research should aim to improve our understanding of brown adipose tissue regulation in humans and to develop mechanisms to safely modulate [its activity],” they concluded.
The study received funding from the American Diabetes Association, the Sinsheimer Foundation, and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. The authors and Dr. Apovian have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Ticking all the right boxes for same-day discharge PCI
The American College of Cardiology has released a new expert consensus decision pathway to provide practical guidance on same-day discharge after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).
“There’s been a lot of interest in people wanting to start these programs, so we thought this is an ideal topic for a consensus pathway that will help programs that want to implement these things – give them kind of a road map for how to do that,” writing committee chair Sunil Rao, MD, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., said.
Although the document reviews the evidence supporting same-day discharge much like a guideline, the focus is on implementation, he said in an interview. It features a checklist of patient- and systems-specific considerations along with key definitions and a series of clinical scenarios showing the rationale for same-day discharge or overnight monitoring.
The checklist can be used for anyone presenting for an elective PCI or for ad hoc cases that flow directly from the diagnostic cath lab and make up about 80% of procedures. It is not applicable for those presenting with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) or non-STEMI, but can be used for staged procedures performed after their index PCI, according to the report, published online Jan. 7 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
When establishing a new same-day discharge program, the basic approach can be distilled down to the “three Ps”– the patient, the procedure, and the program – Dr. Rao explained. The patient has to be the right patient, be willing to go home that night, and have some kind of support structure at home in case they run into trouble. The procedure itself should be without complications and the recovery unremarkable, with a stable access site and a return to baseline mental status and ambulation. Finally, “this all has to take place in the context of a program with buy-in from the different stakeholders,” he said.
The report points out that the need for administrative buy-in “should not be underestimated” and recommends physician-champions meet with staff administrators to present the data on PCI utility and safety and to communicate the need for staff to complete the checklist.
Implementing the checklist also requires buy-in from nurses and other team members who may be tasked with educating patients on issues like access site complications and ensuring they receive relevant discharge information, a loading dose of a P2Y12 inhibitor, and appropriate prescriptions.
“If you’re only going to observe the patient for 6 hours, you’ve got to make sure that they’re on all the secondary prevention medications and the referral to cardiac rehabilitation takes place,” Dr. Rao said. “So I think that, in a funny way, the implementation of same-day discharge allows us to actually focus a little bit more on these kinds of postprocedure aspects that I think we were taking for granted a little bit when patients were being observed overnight.”
The checklist is detailed but was designed so it can be tailored to the needs of individual institutions, writing committee member Connie N. Hess, MD, MHS, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, pointed out.
“At every level there is a lot of variance in institutional resources or even a patient’s resources,” she said. “So we didn’t want to seem too prescriptive.”
Some institutions, for example, may feel strongly that accessibility to a caregiver means someone staying in the house who can monitor the patient’s access site and call 911 if need be, whereas others may define it as having a neighbor who’s easy to reach by phone, Dr. Hess noted in an interview.
Exactly when the last patient can be eligible for same-day discharge may also vary between urban and rural settings where patients may drive hours for their care. The built-in flexibility also allows institutions to incorporate their own preexisting documents into the checklist.
“I don’t think the hospital buy-in is necessarily the hard part because there is a clear monetary benefit as long as you can show that it’s done safely and you’re not harming patients, which I think has been done,” Dr. Hess said. “I think then the next level down, you have the provider buy-in and that may be where there might be a little bit more work depending on the preexisting culture.”
Part of the hesitancy may reflect a generational gap, whereby younger interventionalists who trained in programs with same-day discharge may be more willing to support the checklist.
“This actually parallels radial artery access where data exists on its benefits but it’s not used,” Dr. Hess said. “And I think a lot of this has to do with provider comfort levels with sending patients home and just not necessarily knowing how to implement a program at their institution.”
Both Dr. Rao and Dr. Hess pointed out that uptake of same-day discharge PCI is low in the United States, compared with other part of the world, including the United Kingdom, with estimates at about 16%-20% of PCIs.
That said, the timing of the new expert consensus document is “fortuitous,” Dr. Rao noted. Since work on the document began 2 years ago, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ greenlit reimbursement for PCI performed in an ambulatory surgical center and the pandemic walloped U.S. hospitals. “I think those two things really do highlight the importance of a document like this.”
“A potential advantage of the same-day discharge program is that you won’t be exposing patients to the hospital setting where COVID is a problem, and you’ll keep your beds open for the COVID patients that really do need it,” he said.
The ability to go home without an overnight stay may also encourage some patients to seek care. “Patients with cardiovascular disease really need to understand that you may be stable at one point but then obviously can become unstable, and we don’t want people to stay away from the hospital because they are worried about being admitted,” Dr. Rao said.
Dr. Rao and Dr. Hess report no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The American College of Cardiology has released a new expert consensus decision pathway to provide practical guidance on same-day discharge after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).
“There’s been a lot of interest in people wanting to start these programs, so we thought this is an ideal topic for a consensus pathway that will help programs that want to implement these things – give them kind of a road map for how to do that,” writing committee chair Sunil Rao, MD, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., said.
Although the document reviews the evidence supporting same-day discharge much like a guideline, the focus is on implementation, he said in an interview. It features a checklist of patient- and systems-specific considerations along with key definitions and a series of clinical scenarios showing the rationale for same-day discharge or overnight monitoring.
The checklist can be used for anyone presenting for an elective PCI or for ad hoc cases that flow directly from the diagnostic cath lab and make up about 80% of procedures. It is not applicable for those presenting with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) or non-STEMI, but can be used for staged procedures performed after their index PCI, according to the report, published online Jan. 7 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
When establishing a new same-day discharge program, the basic approach can be distilled down to the “three Ps”– the patient, the procedure, and the program – Dr. Rao explained. The patient has to be the right patient, be willing to go home that night, and have some kind of support structure at home in case they run into trouble. The procedure itself should be without complications and the recovery unremarkable, with a stable access site and a return to baseline mental status and ambulation. Finally, “this all has to take place in the context of a program with buy-in from the different stakeholders,” he said.
The report points out that the need for administrative buy-in “should not be underestimated” and recommends physician-champions meet with staff administrators to present the data on PCI utility and safety and to communicate the need for staff to complete the checklist.
Implementing the checklist also requires buy-in from nurses and other team members who may be tasked with educating patients on issues like access site complications and ensuring they receive relevant discharge information, a loading dose of a P2Y12 inhibitor, and appropriate prescriptions.
“If you’re only going to observe the patient for 6 hours, you’ve got to make sure that they’re on all the secondary prevention medications and the referral to cardiac rehabilitation takes place,” Dr. Rao said. “So I think that, in a funny way, the implementation of same-day discharge allows us to actually focus a little bit more on these kinds of postprocedure aspects that I think we were taking for granted a little bit when patients were being observed overnight.”
The checklist is detailed but was designed so it can be tailored to the needs of individual institutions, writing committee member Connie N. Hess, MD, MHS, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, pointed out.
“At every level there is a lot of variance in institutional resources or even a patient’s resources,” she said. “So we didn’t want to seem too prescriptive.”
Some institutions, for example, may feel strongly that accessibility to a caregiver means someone staying in the house who can monitor the patient’s access site and call 911 if need be, whereas others may define it as having a neighbor who’s easy to reach by phone, Dr. Hess noted in an interview.
Exactly when the last patient can be eligible for same-day discharge may also vary between urban and rural settings where patients may drive hours for their care. The built-in flexibility also allows institutions to incorporate their own preexisting documents into the checklist.
“I don’t think the hospital buy-in is necessarily the hard part because there is a clear monetary benefit as long as you can show that it’s done safely and you’re not harming patients, which I think has been done,” Dr. Hess said. “I think then the next level down, you have the provider buy-in and that may be where there might be a little bit more work depending on the preexisting culture.”
Part of the hesitancy may reflect a generational gap, whereby younger interventionalists who trained in programs with same-day discharge may be more willing to support the checklist.
“This actually parallels radial artery access where data exists on its benefits but it’s not used,” Dr. Hess said. “And I think a lot of this has to do with provider comfort levels with sending patients home and just not necessarily knowing how to implement a program at their institution.”
Both Dr. Rao and Dr. Hess pointed out that uptake of same-day discharge PCI is low in the United States, compared with other part of the world, including the United Kingdom, with estimates at about 16%-20% of PCIs.
That said, the timing of the new expert consensus document is “fortuitous,” Dr. Rao noted. Since work on the document began 2 years ago, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ greenlit reimbursement for PCI performed in an ambulatory surgical center and the pandemic walloped U.S. hospitals. “I think those two things really do highlight the importance of a document like this.”
“A potential advantage of the same-day discharge program is that you won’t be exposing patients to the hospital setting where COVID is a problem, and you’ll keep your beds open for the COVID patients that really do need it,” he said.
The ability to go home without an overnight stay may also encourage some patients to seek care. “Patients with cardiovascular disease really need to understand that you may be stable at one point but then obviously can become unstable, and we don’t want people to stay away from the hospital because they are worried about being admitted,” Dr. Rao said.
Dr. Rao and Dr. Hess report no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The American College of Cardiology has released a new expert consensus decision pathway to provide practical guidance on same-day discharge after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).
“There’s been a lot of interest in people wanting to start these programs, so we thought this is an ideal topic for a consensus pathway that will help programs that want to implement these things – give them kind of a road map for how to do that,” writing committee chair Sunil Rao, MD, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., said.
Although the document reviews the evidence supporting same-day discharge much like a guideline, the focus is on implementation, he said in an interview. It features a checklist of patient- and systems-specific considerations along with key definitions and a series of clinical scenarios showing the rationale for same-day discharge or overnight monitoring.
The checklist can be used for anyone presenting for an elective PCI or for ad hoc cases that flow directly from the diagnostic cath lab and make up about 80% of procedures. It is not applicable for those presenting with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) or non-STEMI, but can be used for staged procedures performed after their index PCI, according to the report, published online Jan. 7 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
When establishing a new same-day discharge program, the basic approach can be distilled down to the “three Ps”– the patient, the procedure, and the program – Dr. Rao explained. The patient has to be the right patient, be willing to go home that night, and have some kind of support structure at home in case they run into trouble. The procedure itself should be without complications and the recovery unremarkable, with a stable access site and a return to baseline mental status and ambulation. Finally, “this all has to take place in the context of a program with buy-in from the different stakeholders,” he said.
The report points out that the need for administrative buy-in “should not be underestimated” and recommends physician-champions meet with staff administrators to present the data on PCI utility and safety and to communicate the need for staff to complete the checklist.
Implementing the checklist also requires buy-in from nurses and other team members who may be tasked with educating patients on issues like access site complications and ensuring they receive relevant discharge information, a loading dose of a P2Y12 inhibitor, and appropriate prescriptions.
“If you’re only going to observe the patient for 6 hours, you’ve got to make sure that they’re on all the secondary prevention medications and the referral to cardiac rehabilitation takes place,” Dr. Rao said. “So I think that, in a funny way, the implementation of same-day discharge allows us to actually focus a little bit more on these kinds of postprocedure aspects that I think we were taking for granted a little bit when patients were being observed overnight.”
The checklist is detailed but was designed so it can be tailored to the needs of individual institutions, writing committee member Connie N. Hess, MD, MHS, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, pointed out.
“At every level there is a lot of variance in institutional resources or even a patient’s resources,” she said. “So we didn’t want to seem too prescriptive.”
Some institutions, for example, may feel strongly that accessibility to a caregiver means someone staying in the house who can monitor the patient’s access site and call 911 if need be, whereas others may define it as having a neighbor who’s easy to reach by phone, Dr. Hess noted in an interview.
Exactly when the last patient can be eligible for same-day discharge may also vary between urban and rural settings where patients may drive hours for their care. The built-in flexibility also allows institutions to incorporate their own preexisting documents into the checklist.
“I don’t think the hospital buy-in is necessarily the hard part because there is a clear monetary benefit as long as you can show that it’s done safely and you’re not harming patients, which I think has been done,” Dr. Hess said. “I think then the next level down, you have the provider buy-in and that may be where there might be a little bit more work depending on the preexisting culture.”
Part of the hesitancy may reflect a generational gap, whereby younger interventionalists who trained in programs with same-day discharge may be more willing to support the checklist.
“This actually parallels radial artery access where data exists on its benefits but it’s not used,” Dr. Hess said. “And I think a lot of this has to do with provider comfort levels with sending patients home and just not necessarily knowing how to implement a program at their institution.”
Both Dr. Rao and Dr. Hess pointed out that uptake of same-day discharge PCI is low in the United States, compared with other part of the world, including the United Kingdom, with estimates at about 16%-20% of PCIs.
That said, the timing of the new expert consensus document is “fortuitous,” Dr. Rao noted. Since work on the document began 2 years ago, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ greenlit reimbursement for PCI performed in an ambulatory surgical center and the pandemic walloped U.S. hospitals. “I think those two things really do highlight the importance of a document like this.”
“A potential advantage of the same-day discharge program is that you won’t be exposing patients to the hospital setting where COVID is a problem, and you’ll keep your beds open for the COVID patients that really do need it,” he said.
The ability to go home without an overnight stay may also encourage some patients to seek care. “Patients with cardiovascular disease really need to understand that you may be stable at one point but then obviously can become unstable, and we don’t want people to stay away from the hospital because they are worried about being admitted,” Dr. Rao said.
Dr. Rao and Dr. Hess report no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AGA Clinical Practice Update: How diet and exercise can help manage NAFLD
Exercise and a hypocaloric, Mediterranean-style diet remain first-line interventions that can benefit all patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), according to a clinical practice update from the American Gastroenterological Association.
“[W]eight loss is associated with a reduction in liver fat, which provides a potential for reversal of disease progression,” wrote Zobair M. Younossi, MD, MPH, of Inova Fairfax Medical Campus in Falls Church, Va., with his associates. Lifestyle modifications remain “the cornerstone for management” because, even though NAFLD affects approximately 25% of individuals worldwide according to one meta-analytic assessment, interventions such as medications, bariatric endoscopy, and surgery are usually reserved for the subset of patients with severe obesity, comorbid diabetes, or nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) with at least stage 2 fibrosis, the experts wrote in Gastroenterology.
They note that clinically significant weight loss typically requires a hypocaloric diet of 1,200-1,500 kilocalories/day or a decrease of 500-1,000 kilocalories/day from baseline. A Mediterranean diet of fresh vegetables, fruits, legumes, minimally processed whole grains, fish, olive oil, nuts, and seeds is recommended because its antioxidant, anti-inflammatory effects may slow NAFLD progression. This diet minimizes or eliminates sweets, refined grains, and red and processed meats. Fructose from fruit is not associated with NAFLD, but patients should consume little or no commercially prepared fructose, which has been linked to visceral adiposity, insulin resistance, hepatic inflammation, and fibrosis progression. Other hypocaloric diets have not been studied enough to support their routine use in NAFLD treatment, according to the clinical practice update.
For patients with NASH, which is the more severe form of NAFLD and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality caused by complications from cirrhosis, hepatic decompensation, and hepatocellular carcinoma, weight loss also has a big impact: Losing at least 5% of total body weight can decrease hepatic steatosis, losing at least 7% can resolve NASH, and losing at least 10% can lessen or stabilize hepatic fibrosis, according to level 1 evidence cited by the update. Weight loss “can significantly impact all aspects of NAFLD histology including fibrosis, but a goal of 10% total body weight loss should be considered for patients with overweight or obese NAFLD,” the authors wrote. Fat loss also improves liver histology in patients with lean NAFLD (body mass index, 26 kg/m2 in non-Asian patients or 24 in Asians), for whom a hypocaloric diet targeting a more modest 3%-5% total body weight loss is recommended.
Because aerobic exercise reduces hepatic fat levels independently of hypocaloric diet, patients with NAFLD should consider a weekly regimen of 150-300 minutes of moderate-intensity exercise or 75-150 minutes of vigorous activity. Resistance training can complement aerobic exercise “but [is] not a replacement,” the authors noted. In addition, patients with NAFLD should restrict alcohol consumption to reduce the risk for liver-related events, and those with advanced hepatic fibrosis should “avoid alcohol entirely.” These recommendations reflect the findings of a large prospective study in which the consumption of even low amounts of alcohol led to worse liver-related outcomes among patients with NAFLD.
Clinicians should screen for and “aggressively” manage common NAFLD comorbidities, including diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and obstructive sleep apnea, according to the clinical practice update. Patients with coexisting metabolic conditions should be risk-stratified for cardiovascular disease and treated based on guidelines from the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association.
It is believed that sarcopenia affects patients with NASH cirrhosis because their livers cannot effectively store, metabolize, or mobilize carbohydrates, which leads to a catabolic state in which protein and fat are used as energy sources, according to the update. To avoid exacerbations, these patients may need to optimize their protein intake – a minimum of 1.2-1.5 g/kg of body weight is recommended – from sources of branched-chain amino acids, such as chicken, fish, eggs, nuts, lentils, or soy. Patients with sarcopenic NAFLD also should consume small, frequent meals spaced no more than 4-6 hours apart. When possible, they should consult with a specialized nutritionist. Moderate-intensity exercise may also benefit patients experiencing sarcopenia.
The researchers disclosed ties to Gilead Sciences, Intercept, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novo Nordisk, and several other companies. The review was commissioned and approved by the AGA Institute’s Clinical Practice Updates Committee and the AGA Governing Board.
SOURCE: Younossi ZM et al. Gastroenterology. 2020 Dec 8. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.11.051.
This article was updated Feb. 10, 2021.
Exercise and a hypocaloric, Mediterranean-style diet remain first-line interventions that can benefit all patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), according to a clinical practice update from the American Gastroenterological Association.
“[W]eight loss is associated with a reduction in liver fat, which provides a potential for reversal of disease progression,” wrote Zobair M. Younossi, MD, MPH, of Inova Fairfax Medical Campus in Falls Church, Va., with his associates. Lifestyle modifications remain “the cornerstone for management” because, even though NAFLD affects approximately 25% of individuals worldwide according to one meta-analytic assessment, interventions such as medications, bariatric endoscopy, and surgery are usually reserved for the subset of patients with severe obesity, comorbid diabetes, or nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) with at least stage 2 fibrosis, the experts wrote in Gastroenterology.
They note that clinically significant weight loss typically requires a hypocaloric diet of 1,200-1,500 kilocalories/day or a decrease of 500-1,000 kilocalories/day from baseline. A Mediterranean diet of fresh vegetables, fruits, legumes, minimally processed whole grains, fish, olive oil, nuts, and seeds is recommended because its antioxidant, anti-inflammatory effects may slow NAFLD progression. This diet minimizes or eliminates sweets, refined grains, and red and processed meats. Fructose from fruit is not associated with NAFLD, but patients should consume little or no commercially prepared fructose, which has been linked to visceral adiposity, insulin resistance, hepatic inflammation, and fibrosis progression. Other hypocaloric diets have not been studied enough to support their routine use in NAFLD treatment, according to the clinical practice update.
For patients with NASH, which is the more severe form of NAFLD and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality caused by complications from cirrhosis, hepatic decompensation, and hepatocellular carcinoma, weight loss also has a big impact: Losing at least 5% of total body weight can decrease hepatic steatosis, losing at least 7% can resolve NASH, and losing at least 10% can lessen or stabilize hepatic fibrosis, according to level 1 evidence cited by the update. Weight loss “can significantly impact all aspects of NAFLD histology including fibrosis, but a goal of 10% total body weight loss should be considered for patients with overweight or obese NAFLD,” the authors wrote. Fat loss also improves liver histology in patients with lean NAFLD (body mass index, 26 kg/m2 in non-Asian patients or 24 in Asians), for whom a hypocaloric diet targeting a more modest 3%-5% total body weight loss is recommended.
Because aerobic exercise reduces hepatic fat levels independently of hypocaloric diet, patients with NAFLD should consider a weekly regimen of 150-300 minutes of moderate-intensity exercise or 75-150 minutes of vigorous activity. Resistance training can complement aerobic exercise “but [is] not a replacement,” the authors noted. In addition, patients with NAFLD should restrict alcohol consumption to reduce the risk for liver-related events, and those with advanced hepatic fibrosis should “avoid alcohol entirely.” These recommendations reflect the findings of a large prospective study in which the consumption of even low amounts of alcohol led to worse liver-related outcomes among patients with NAFLD.
Clinicians should screen for and “aggressively” manage common NAFLD comorbidities, including diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and obstructive sleep apnea, according to the clinical practice update. Patients with coexisting metabolic conditions should be risk-stratified for cardiovascular disease and treated based on guidelines from the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association.
It is believed that sarcopenia affects patients with NASH cirrhosis because their livers cannot effectively store, metabolize, or mobilize carbohydrates, which leads to a catabolic state in which protein and fat are used as energy sources, according to the update. To avoid exacerbations, these patients may need to optimize their protein intake – a minimum of 1.2-1.5 g/kg of body weight is recommended – from sources of branched-chain amino acids, such as chicken, fish, eggs, nuts, lentils, or soy. Patients with sarcopenic NAFLD also should consume small, frequent meals spaced no more than 4-6 hours apart. When possible, they should consult with a specialized nutritionist. Moderate-intensity exercise may also benefit patients experiencing sarcopenia.
The researchers disclosed ties to Gilead Sciences, Intercept, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novo Nordisk, and several other companies. The review was commissioned and approved by the AGA Institute’s Clinical Practice Updates Committee and the AGA Governing Board.
SOURCE: Younossi ZM et al. Gastroenterology. 2020 Dec 8. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.11.051.
This article was updated Feb. 10, 2021.
Exercise and a hypocaloric, Mediterranean-style diet remain first-line interventions that can benefit all patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), according to a clinical practice update from the American Gastroenterological Association.
“[W]eight loss is associated with a reduction in liver fat, which provides a potential for reversal of disease progression,” wrote Zobair M. Younossi, MD, MPH, of Inova Fairfax Medical Campus in Falls Church, Va., with his associates. Lifestyle modifications remain “the cornerstone for management” because, even though NAFLD affects approximately 25% of individuals worldwide according to one meta-analytic assessment, interventions such as medications, bariatric endoscopy, and surgery are usually reserved for the subset of patients with severe obesity, comorbid diabetes, or nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) with at least stage 2 fibrosis, the experts wrote in Gastroenterology.
They note that clinically significant weight loss typically requires a hypocaloric diet of 1,200-1,500 kilocalories/day or a decrease of 500-1,000 kilocalories/day from baseline. A Mediterranean diet of fresh vegetables, fruits, legumes, minimally processed whole grains, fish, olive oil, nuts, and seeds is recommended because its antioxidant, anti-inflammatory effects may slow NAFLD progression. This diet minimizes or eliminates sweets, refined grains, and red and processed meats. Fructose from fruit is not associated with NAFLD, but patients should consume little or no commercially prepared fructose, which has been linked to visceral adiposity, insulin resistance, hepatic inflammation, and fibrosis progression. Other hypocaloric diets have not been studied enough to support their routine use in NAFLD treatment, according to the clinical practice update.
For patients with NASH, which is the more severe form of NAFLD and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality caused by complications from cirrhosis, hepatic decompensation, and hepatocellular carcinoma, weight loss also has a big impact: Losing at least 5% of total body weight can decrease hepatic steatosis, losing at least 7% can resolve NASH, and losing at least 10% can lessen or stabilize hepatic fibrosis, according to level 1 evidence cited by the update. Weight loss “can significantly impact all aspects of NAFLD histology including fibrosis, but a goal of 10% total body weight loss should be considered for patients with overweight or obese NAFLD,” the authors wrote. Fat loss also improves liver histology in patients with lean NAFLD (body mass index, 26 kg/m2 in non-Asian patients or 24 in Asians), for whom a hypocaloric diet targeting a more modest 3%-5% total body weight loss is recommended.
Because aerobic exercise reduces hepatic fat levels independently of hypocaloric diet, patients with NAFLD should consider a weekly regimen of 150-300 minutes of moderate-intensity exercise or 75-150 minutes of vigorous activity. Resistance training can complement aerobic exercise “but [is] not a replacement,” the authors noted. In addition, patients with NAFLD should restrict alcohol consumption to reduce the risk for liver-related events, and those with advanced hepatic fibrosis should “avoid alcohol entirely.” These recommendations reflect the findings of a large prospective study in which the consumption of even low amounts of alcohol led to worse liver-related outcomes among patients with NAFLD.
Clinicians should screen for and “aggressively” manage common NAFLD comorbidities, including diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and obstructive sleep apnea, according to the clinical practice update. Patients with coexisting metabolic conditions should be risk-stratified for cardiovascular disease and treated based on guidelines from the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association.
It is believed that sarcopenia affects patients with NASH cirrhosis because their livers cannot effectively store, metabolize, or mobilize carbohydrates, which leads to a catabolic state in which protein and fat are used as energy sources, according to the update. To avoid exacerbations, these patients may need to optimize their protein intake – a minimum of 1.2-1.5 g/kg of body weight is recommended – from sources of branched-chain amino acids, such as chicken, fish, eggs, nuts, lentils, or soy. Patients with sarcopenic NAFLD also should consume small, frequent meals spaced no more than 4-6 hours apart. When possible, they should consult with a specialized nutritionist. Moderate-intensity exercise may also benefit patients experiencing sarcopenia.
The researchers disclosed ties to Gilead Sciences, Intercept, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novo Nordisk, and several other companies. The review was commissioned and approved by the AGA Institute’s Clinical Practice Updates Committee and the AGA Governing Board.
SOURCE: Younossi ZM et al. Gastroenterology. 2020 Dec 8. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.11.051.
This article was updated Feb. 10, 2021.
FROM GASTROENTEROLOGY
ACC/AHA valvular heart disease update backs less-invasive approach
The latest iteration of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) Guideline for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease emphasizes a less invasive approach to the management of patients with valvular heart disease (VHD).
The 2020 ACC/AHA guideline now recommends transcatheter aortic valve implantation over surgical implantation for older individuals, a transcatheter edge-to-edge repair of the mitral valve for patients who are at high risk for surgery, and referral of patients with complicated conditions to designated centers.
The guideline was published online Dec. 17 in Circulation and was simultaneously published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology. It replaces the 2014 guideline and the 2017 focused update of the guideline, both published in Circulation.
“A huge amount has changed,” Catherine M. Otto, MD, J. Ward Kennedy-Hamilton Endowed Chair in Cardiology and professor of medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview.
Dr. Otto cochaired the 2020 Guideline Writing Committee with Rick A. Nishimura, MD, professor of medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
Expanded use of transcatheter procedures
“One major change is that the transcatheter valve, rather than the surgical valve, is now recommended for a large number of patients, primarily based upon the likelihood that the durability of the transcatheter valve is appropriate for the patient’s life expectancy. So, in most older adults, the transcatheter valve, rather than a surgical valve, would be the treatment for severe aortic stenosis,” she said.
“That’s a huge change,” she added. “Previously, patients had to have surgery to place a prosthetic valve, but now, many patients, particularly older adults, can have a nonsurgical approach when they are only in the hospital overnight, or sometimes even just for the day, to get their valve replaced.”
The 2020 guideline also recommends the transcatheter approach over the surgical approach for mitral valve repair or replacement for individuals who are not candidates for surgery.
“We continue to recommend surgical valve repair for the mitral valve, because we know that there are excellent long-term outcomes with surgical repair,” Dr. Otto said. “But, for people who are at high risk or prohibitive risk for surgery, we now have the option of again using a transcatheter approach or a transcatheter edge-to-edge repair of the valve. It’s a simpler procedure, doesn’t require a big incision, [and] doesn’t require a long hospital stay. Those two procedures are really changing patient management,” she said.
A tiered approach to VHD care
A third key change is a recommendation that the U.S. health care system move to a tiered approach, whereby patients with more complex conditions undergo their procedure at comprehensive, high-volume centers, and patients with simpler conditions undergo treatment at primary heart valve centers.
“More complex patients often require multidisciplinary care in order to be managed appropriately. It makes more sense to send them to a center that has the expertise and the teams in place already,” Dr. Otto said.
“Patients needing more straightforward, common procedures could be seen at a primary valve center. Those needing a more complicated procedure would go to the centers with higher volumes. So an important part of what this guideline is trying to do is to get doctors to refer their patients to the appropriate center,” she said.
Eagerly anticipated
The 2020 AHA/ACC guideline has been “eagerly anticipated,” Anthony A. Bavry, MD, MPH, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, and George J. Arnaoutakis, MD, University of Florida Health, Gainesville, wrote in a perspective article published with the guideline in Circulation.
Dr. Bavry and Dr. Arnaoutakis endorse the guideline recommendation that the U.S. health care system move to a tiered approach.
“To balance excellent outcomes and not compromise access to care, the 2020 Guideline recommends that our health care system move to a tiered approach in the treatment of valve disease, where we recognize level 1 and level 2 Centers,” they wrote.
“The level 1 Comprehensive Heart Valve Center is an important and new introduction to the Guideline,” they noted. “The level 1 Center is defined by the depth and breadth of the procedures offered. While excellent outcomes are possible at lower volume centers, literature supports that higher center and operator volumes of valve procedures are associated with excellent results and low mortality.”
The authors pointed out that level 2 primary valve centers offer many of the same valve procedures as the level 1 centers but are limited by the scope of procedures they can offer.
“For example, specialized procedures such as alternative access TAVR, valve-in-valve TAVR, transcatheter edge-to-edge mitral valve repair, paravalvular leak closure, and percutaneous mitral balloon commissurotomy are recommended to be performed at a level 1 Center,” they wrote.
Transcatheter valve therapies remain “an exciting and dynamic field which offers patients a less invasive treatment option,” Dr. Bavry and Dr. Arnaoutakis concluded. They also cautioned that the pros and cons of the newer, less invasive therapies need to be weighed against the benefits of surgical procedures that have been studied and refined for more than 50 years.
Patients with VHD have many choices and will require help making informed decisions about such things as a mechanical valve vs. a bioprosthetic valve or undergoing a traditional surgical procedure vs. a catheter-based approach. “Other patients, at the extremes of age or risk status, will lean more clearly to one direction or another,” Dr. Bavry and Dr. Arnaoutakis add.
“Overall, the 2020 Guideline is a comprehensive document that should provide a useful framework for the Heart Valve Team,” they concluded.
The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The latest iteration of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) Guideline for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease emphasizes a less invasive approach to the management of patients with valvular heart disease (VHD).
The 2020 ACC/AHA guideline now recommends transcatheter aortic valve implantation over surgical implantation for older individuals, a transcatheter edge-to-edge repair of the mitral valve for patients who are at high risk for surgery, and referral of patients with complicated conditions to designated centers.
The guideline was published online Dec. 17 in Circulation and was simultaneously published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology. It replaces the 2014 guideline and the 2017 focused update of the guideline, both published in Circulation.
“A huge amount has changed,” Catherine M. Otto, MD, J. Ward Kennedy-Hamilton Endowed Chair in Cardiology and professor of medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview.
Dr. Otto cochaired the 2020 Guideline Writing Committee with Rick A. Nishimura, MD, professor of medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
Expanded use of transcatheter procedures
“One major change is that the transcatheter valve, rather than the surgical valve, is now recommended for a large number of patients, primarily based upon the likelihood that the durability of the transcatheter valve is appropriate for the patient’s life expectancy. So, in most older adults, the transcatheter valve, rather than a surgical valve, would be the treatment for severe aortic stenosis,” she said.
“That’s a huge change,” she added. “Previously, patients had to have surgery to place a prosthetic valve, but now, many patients, particularly older adults, can have a nonsurgical approach when they are only in the hospital overnight, or sometimes even just for the day, to get their valve replaced.”
The 2020 guideline also recommends the transcatheter approach over the surgical approach for mitral valve repair or replacement for individuals who are not candidates for surgery.
“We continue to recommend surgical valve repair for the mitral valve, because we know that there are excellent long-term outcomes with surgical repair,” Dr. Otto said. “But, for people who are at high risk or prohibitive risk for surgery, we now have the option of again using a transcatheter approach or a transcatheter edge-to-edge repair of the valve. It’s a simpler procedure, doesn’t require a big incision, [and] doesn’t require a long hospital stay. Those two procedures are really changing patient management,” she said.
A tiered approach to VHD care
A third key change is a recommendation that the U.S. health care system move to a tiered approach, whereby patients with more complex conditions undergo their procedure at comprehensive, high-volume centers, and patients with simpler conditions undergo treatment at primary heart valve centers.
“More complex patients often require multidisciplinary care in order to be managed appropriately. It makes more sense to send them to a center that has the expertise and the teams in place already,” Dr. Otto said.
“Patients needing more straightforward, common procedures could be seen at a primary valve center. Those needing a more complicated procedure would go to the centers with higher volumes. So an important part of what this guideline is trying to do is to get doctors to refer their patients to the appropriate center,” she said.
Eagerly anticipated
The 2020 AHA/ACC guideline has been “eagerly anticipated,” Anthony A. Bavry, MD, MPH, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, and George J. Arnaoutakis, MD, University of Florida Health, Gainesville, wrote in a perspective article published with the guideline in Circulation.
Dr. Bavry and Dr. Arnaoutakis endorse the guideline recommendation that the U.S. health care system move to a tiered approach.
“To balance excellent outcomes and not compromise access to care, the 2020 Guideline recommends that our health care system move to a tiered approach in the treatment of valve disease, where we recognize level 1 and level 2 Centers,” they wrote.
“The level 1 Comprehensive Heart Valve Center is an important and new introduction to the Guideline,” they noted. “The level 1 Center is defined by the depth and breadth of the procedures offered. While excellent outcomes are possible at lower volume centers, literature supports that higher center and operator volumes of valve procedures are associated with excellent results and low mortality.”
The authors pointed out that level 2 primary valve centers offer many of the same valve procedures as the level 1 centers but are limited by the scope of procedures they can offer.
“For example, specialized procedures such as alternative access TAVR, valve-in-valve TAVR, transcatheter edge-to-edge mitral valve repair, paravalvular leak closure, and percutaneous mitral balloon commissurotomy are recommended to be performed at a level 1 Center,” they wrote.
Transcatheter valve therapies remain “an exciting and dynamic field which offers patients a less invasive treatment option,” Dr. Bavry and Dr. Arnaoutakis concluded. They also cautioned that the pros and cons of the newer, less invasive therapies need to be weighed against the benefits of surgical procedures that have been studied and refined for more than 50 years.
Patients with VHD have many choices and will require help making informed decisions about such things as a mechanical valve vs. a bioprosthetic valve or undergoing a traditional surgical procedure vs. a catheter-based approach. “Other patients, at the extremes of age or risk status, will lean more clearly to one direction or another,” Dr. Bavry and Dr. Arnaoutakis add.
“Overall, the 2020 Guideline is a comprehensive document that should provide a useful framework for the Heart Valve Team,” they concluded.
The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The latest iteration of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) Guideline for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease emphasizes a less invasive approach to the management of patients with valvular heart disease (VHD).
The 2020 ACC/AHA guideline now recommends transcatheter aortic valve implantation over surgical implantation for older individuals, a transcatheter edge-to-edge repair of the mitral valve for patients who are at high risk for surgery, and referral of patients with complicated conditions to designated centers.
The guideline was published online Dec. 17 in Circulation and was simultaneously published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology. It replaces the 2014 guideline and the 2017 focused update of the guideline, both published in Circulation.
“A huge amount has changed,” Catherine M. Otto, MD, J. Ward Kennedy-Hamilton Endowed Chair in Cardiology and professor of medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview.
Dr. Otto cochaired the 2020 Guideline Writing Committee with Rick A. Nishimura, MD, professor of medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
Expanded use of transcatheter procedures
“One major change is that the transcatheter valve, rather than the surgical valve, is now recommended for a large number of patients, primarily based upon the likelihood that the durability of the transcatheter valve is appropriate for the patient’s life expectancy. So, in most older adults, the transcatheter valve, rather than a surgical valve, would be the treatment for severe aortic stenosis,” she said.
“That’s a huge change,” she added. “Previously, patients had to have surgery to place a prosthetic valve, but now, many patients, particularly older adults, can have a nonsurgical approach when they are only in the hospital overnight, or sometimes even just for the day, to get their valve replaced.”
The 2020 guideline also recommends the transcatheter approach over the surgical approach for mitral valve repair or replacement for individuals who are not candidates for surgery.
“We continue to recommend surgical valve repair for the mitral valve, because we know that there are excellent long-term outcomes with surgical repair,” Dr. Otto said. “But, for people who are at high risk or prohibitive risk for surgery, we now have the option of again using a transcatheter approach or a transcatheter edge-to-edge repair of the valve. It’s a simpler procedure, doesn’t require a big incision, [and] doesn’t require a long hospital stay. Those two procedures are really changing patient management,” she said.
A tiered approach to VHD care
A third key change is a recommendation that the U.S. health care system move to a tiered approach, whereby patients with more complex conditions undergo their procedure at comprehensive, high-volume centers, and patients with simpler conditions undergo treatment at primary heart valve centers.
“More complex patients often require multidisciplinary care in order to be managed appropriately. It makes more sense to send them to a center that has the expertise and the teams in place already,” Dr. Otto said.
“Patients needing more straightforward, common procedures could be seen at a primary valve center. Those needing a more complicated procedure would go to the centers with higher volumes. So an important part of what this guideline is trying to do is to get doctors to refer their patients to the appropriate center,” she said.
Eagerly anticipated
The 2020 AHA/ACC guideline has been “eagerly anticipated,” Anthony A. Bavry, MD, MPH, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, and George J. Arnaoutakis, MD, University of Florida Health, Gainesville, wrote in a perspective article published with the guideline in Circulation.
Dr. Bavry and Dr. Arnaoutakis endorse the guideline recommendation that the U.S. health care system move to a tiered approach.
“To balance excellent outcomes and not compromise access to care, the 2020 Guideline recommends that our health care system move to a tiered approach in the treatment of valve disease, where we recognize level 1 and level 2 Centers,” they wrote.
“The level 1 Comprehensive Heart Valve Center is an important and new introduction to the Guideline,” they noted. “The level 1 Center is defined by the depth and breadth of the procedures offered. While excellent outcomes are possible at lower volume centers, literature supports that higher center and operator volumes of valve procedures are associated with excellent results and low mortality.”
The authors pointed out that level 2 primary valve centers offer many of the same valve procedures as the level 1 centers but are limited by the scope of procedures they can offer.
“For example, specialized procedures such as alternative access TAVR, valve-in-valve TAVR, transcatheter edge-to-edge mitral valve repair, paravalvular leak closure, and percutaneous mitral balloon commissurotomy are recommended to be performed at a level 1 Center,” they wrote.
Transcatheter valve therapies remain “an exciting and dynamic field which offers patients a less invasive treatment option,” Dr. Bavry and Dr. Arnaoutakis concluded. They also cautioned that the pros and cons of the newer, less invasive therapies need to be weighed against the benefits of surgical procedures that have been studied and refined for more than 50 years.
Patients with VHD have many choices and will require help making informed decisions about such things as a mechanical valve vs. a bioprosthetic valve or undergoing a traditional surgical procedure vs. a catheter-based approach. “Other patients, at the extremes of age or risk status, will lean more clearly to one direction or another,” Dr. Bavry and Dr. Arnaoutakis add.
“Overall, the 2020 Guideline is a comprehensive document that should provide a useful framework for the Heart Valve Team,” they concluded.
The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.