Cardiology

The American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association Task Force on Performance Measures have made two changes to performance measures for adults with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter.

The 2020 Update to the 2016 ACC/AHA Clinical Performance and Quality Measures for Adults With Atrial Fibrillation or Atrial Flutter was published online Dec. 7 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology and Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes. It was developed in collaboration with the Heart Rhythm Society.

Both performance measure changes were prompted by, and are in accordance with, the 2019 ACC/AHA/Heart Rhythm Society atrial fibrillation guideline focused update issued in January 2019, and reported by this news organization at that time.

The first change is the clarification that valvular atrial fibrillation is atrial fibrillation with either moderate or severe mitral stenosis or a mechanical heart valve. This change is incorporated into all the performance measures.

The second change, which only applies to the performance measure of anticoagulation prescribed, is the separation of a male and female threshold for the CHA₂DS₂-VASc score.

This threshold is now a score higher than 1 for men and higher than 2 for women, further demonstrating that the risk for stroke differs for men and women with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter, the ACC/AHA noted in a press release.

“Successful implementation of these updated performance measures by clinicians and healthcare organizations will lead to quality improvement for adult patients with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter,” they said.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

The American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association Task Force on Performance Measures have made two changes to performance measures for adults with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter.

The 2020 Update to the 2016 ACC/AHA Clinical Performance and Quality Measures for Adults With Atrial Fibrillation or Atrial Flutter was published online Dec. 7 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology and Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes. It was developed in collaboration with the Heart Rhythm Society.

Both performance measure changes were prompted by, and are in accordance with, the 2019 ACC/AHA/Heart Rhythm Society atrial fibrillation guideline focused update issued in January 2019, and reported by this news organization at that time.

The first change is the clarification that valvular atrial fibrillation is atrial fibrillation with either moderate or severe mitral stenosis or a mechanical heart valve. This change is incorporated into all the performance measures.

The second change, which only applies to the performance measure of anticoagulation prescribed, is the separation of a male and female threshold for the CHA₂DS₂-VASc score.

This threshold is now a score higher than 1 for men and higher than 2 for women, further demonstrating that the risk for stroke differs for men and women with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter, the ACC/AHA noted in a press release.

“Successful implementation of these updated performance measures by clinicians and healthcare organizations will lead to quality improvement for adult patients with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter,” they said.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

The American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association Task Force on Performance Measures have made two changes to performance measures for adults with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter.

The 2020 Update to the 2016 ACC/AHA Clinical Performance and Quality Measures for Adults With Atrial Fibrillation or Atrial Flutter was published online Dec. 7 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology and Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes. It was developed in collaboration with the Heart Rhythm Society.

Both performance measure changes were prompted by, and are in accordance with, the 2019 ACC/AHA/Heart Rhythm Society atrial fibrillation guideline focused update issued in January 2019, and reported by this news organization at that time.

The first change is the clarification that valvular atrial fibrillation is atrial fibrillation with either moderate or severe mitral stenosis or a mechanical heart valve. This change is incorporated into all the performance measures.

The second change, which only applies to the performance measure of anticoagulation prescribed, is the separation of a male and female threshold for the CHA₂DS₂-VASc score.

This threshold is now a score higher than 1 for men and higher than 2 for women, further demonstrating that the risk for stroke differs for men and women with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter, the ACC/AHA noted in a press release.

“Successful implementation of these updated performance measures by clinicians and healthcare organizations will lead to quality improvement for adult patients with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter,” they said.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Peripheral arterial disease (PAD), the progressive disorder that results in ischemia to distal vascular territories as a result of atherosclerosis, spans a wide range of presentations, from minimally symptomatic disease to limb ischemia secondary to acute or chronic occlusion.

The prevalence of PAD is variable, due to differing diagnostic criteria used in studies, but PAD appears to affect 1 in every 22 people older than age 40.¹ However, since PAD incidence increases with age, it is increasing in prevalence as the US population ages.^1-3

PAD is associated with increased hospitalizations and decreased quality of life.⁴ Patients with PAD have an estimated 30% 5-year risk for myocardial infarction, stroke, or death from a vascular cause.³

Screening. Although PAD is underdiagnosed and appears to be undertreated,³ population-based screening for PAD in asymptomatic patients is not recommended. A Cochrane review found no studies evaluating the benefit of ­asymptomatic population-based screening.⁵ Similarly, in 2018, the USPSTF performed a comprehensive review and found no studies to support routine screening and determined there was insufficient evidence to recommend it.^6,7

Risk factors and associated comorbidities

PAD risk factors, like the ones detailed below, have a potentiating effect. The presence of 2 risk factors doubles PAD risk, while 3 or more risk factors increase PAD risk by a factor of 10.¹

Increasing age is the greatest single risk factor for PAD.^1,2,8,9 Researchers using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) found that the prevalence of PAD increased from 1.4% in individuals ages 40 to 49 years to almost 17% in those age 70 or older.¹

© kostudios

Patients with PAD have an estimated 30% 5-year risk for myocardial infarction, stroke, or death from a vascular cause.

Demographic characteristics. Most studies demonstrate a higher risk for PAD in men.^1-3,10 African-American patients have more than twice the risk for PAD, compared with Whites, even after adjustment for the increased prevalence of associated diseases such as hypertension and diabetes in this population.^1-3,10

Continue to: Genetics...

Genetics. A study performed by the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute suggested that genetic correlations between twins were more important than environmental factors in the development of PAD.¹¹

Smoking. Most population studies show smoking to be the greatest modifiable risk factor for PAD. An analysis of the NHANES data yielded an odds ratio (OR) of 4.1 for current smokers and of 1.8 for former smokers.¹ Risk increases linearly with cumulative years of smoking.^1,2,9,10

Diabetes is another significant modifiable risk factor, increasing PAD risk by 2.5 times.² Diabetes is also associated with increases in functional limitation from claudication, risk for acute coronary syndrome, and progression to amputation.¹

Hypertension nearly doubles the risk for PAD, and poor control further increases this risk.^2,9,10

Chronic kidney disease (CKD). Patients with CKD have a progressively higher prevalence of PAD with worsening renal function.¹ There is also an association between CKD and increased morbidity, revascularization failure, and increased mortality.¹

Two additional risk factors that are less well understood are dyslipidemia and chronic inflammation. There is conflicting data regarding the role of individual components of cholesterol and their effect on PAD, although lipoprotein (a) has been shown to be an independent risk factor for both the development and progression of PAD.¹² Similarly, chronic inflammation has been shown to play a role in the initiation and progression of the disease, although the role of inflammatory markers in evaluation and treatment is unclear and assessment for these purposes is not currently recommended.^12,13

Continue to: Diagnosis...

Diagnosis

Clinical presentation

Lower extremity pain is the hallmark symptom of PAD, but presentation varies. The classic presentation is claudication, pain within a defined muscle group that occurs with exertion and is relieved by rest. Claudication is most common in the calf but also occurs in the buttock/thigh and the foot.

African- American patients have more than twice the risk for PAD, compared with Whites, even after adjustment for the increased prevalence of associated diseases in this population.

However, most patients with PAD present with pain that does not fit the definition of claudication. Patients with comorbidities, physical inactivity, and neuropathy are more likely to present with atypical pain.¹⁴ These patients may demonstrate critical or acute limb ischemia, characterized by pain at rest and most often localized to the forefoot and toes. Patients with critical limb ischemia may also present with nonhealing wounds/ulcers or gangrene.¹⁵

Physical exam findings can support the diagnosis of PAD, but none are reliable enough to rule the diagnosis in or out. Findings suggestive of PAD include cool skin, presence of a bruit (iliac, femoral, or popliteal), and palpable pulse abnormality. Multiple abnormal physical exam findings increase the likelihood of PAD, while the absence of a bruit or palpable pulse abnormality makes PAD less likely.¹⁶ In patients with PAD, an associated wound/ulcer is most often distal in the foot and usually appears dry.¹⁷

The differential diagnosis for intermittent leg pain is broad and includes neurologic, musculoskeletal, and venous etiologies. Table 1¹⁸ lists some common alternate diagnoses for patients presenting with leg pain or claudication.

Continue to: Diagnostic testing...

Diagnostic testing

An ankle-brachial index (ABI) test should be performed in patients with history or physical exam findings suggestive of PAD. A resting ABI is performed with the patient in the supine position, with measurement of systolic blood pressure in both arms and ankles using a Doppler ultrasound device. Table 2¹³ outlines ABI scoring and interpretation.

An ABI > 1.4 is an invalid measurement, indicating that the arteries are too calcified to be compressed. These highly elevated ABI measurements are common in patients with diabetes and/or advanced CKD. In these patients, a toe-brachial index (TBI) test should be performed, because the digital arteries are almost always compressible.¹³

Patients with symptomatic PAD who are under consideration for revascularization may benefit from radiologic imaging of the lower extremities with duplex ultrasound, computed tomography angiography, or magnetic resonance angiography to determine the anatomic location and severity of stenosis.¹³

Management of PAD

Lifestyle interventions

For patients with PAD, lifestyle modifications are an essential—but challenging—component of disease management.

Continue to: Smoking cessation...

Smoking cessation. As with other atherosclerotic diseases, PAD progression is strongly correlated with smoking. A trial involving 204 active smokers with PAD showed that 5-year mortality and amputation rates dropped by more than half in those who quit smoking within a year, with numbers needed to treat (NNT) of 6 for mortality and 5 for amputation.¹⁹ Because of this dramatic effect, American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guidelines encourage providers to address smoking at every visit and use cessation programs and medication to increase quit rates.¹³

Exercise may be the most important intervention for PAD. A 2017 Cochrane review found that supervised, structured exercise programs increase pain-free and maximal walking distances by at least 20% and also improve physical and mental quality of life.²⁰ In a trial involving 111 patients with aortoiliac PAD, supervised exercise plus medical care led to greater functional improvement than either revascularization plus medical care or medical care alone.²¹ In a 2018 Cochrane review, neither revascularization or revascularization added to supervised exercise were better than supervised exercise alone.²² ACC/AHA guidelines recommend supervised exercise programs for claudication prior to considering revascularization.¹³TABLE 3¹³ outlines the components of a structured exercise program.

Unfortunately, the benefit of these programs has been difficult to reproduce without supervision. Another 2018 Cochrane review demonstrated significant improvement with supervised exercise and no clear improvement in patients given home exercise or advice to walk.²³ A recent study examined the effect of having patients use a wearable fitness tracker for home exercise and demonstrated no benefit over usual care.²⁴

Diet. There is some evidence that dietary interventions can prevent and possibly improve PAD. A large randomized controlled trial showed that a Mediterranean diet lowered rates of PAD over 1 year compared to a low-fat diet, with an NNT of 336 if supplemented with extra-virgin olive oil and 448 if supplemented with nuts.²⁵ A small trial of 25 patients who consumed non-soy legumes daily for 8 weeks showed average ABI improvement of 6%, although there was no control group.²⁶

Medical therapy to address peripheral and cardiovascular events

Standard medical therapy for coronary artery disease (CAD) is recommended for patients with PAD to reduce cardiovascular and limb events. For example, treatment of hypertension reduces cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events, and studies verify that lowering blood pressure does not worsen claudication or limb perfusion.

A trial involving 204 active smokers with PAD showed that 5-year mortality and amputation rates dropped by more than half in those who quit smoking within a year.

¹³TABLE 4^13,27-30 outlines the options for medical therapy.

Continue to: Statins...

Statins reduce cardiovascular events in PAD patients. A large study demonstrated that 40 mg of simvastatin has an NNT of 21 to prevent a coronary or cerebrovascular event in PAD, similar to the NNT of 23 seen in treatment of CAD.²⁷ Statins also reduce adverse limb outcomes. A registry of atherosclerosis patients showed that statins have an NNT of 56 to prevent amputation in PAD and an NNT of 28 to prevent worsening claudication, critical limb ischemia, revascularization, or amputation.²⁸

Antiplatelet therapy with low-dose aspirin or clopidogrel is recommended for symptomatic patients and for asymptomatic patients with an ABI ≤ 0.9.¹³ A Cochrane review demonstrated significantly reduced mortality with nonaspirin antiplatelet agents vs aspirin (NNT = 94) without increase in major bleeding.²⁹ Only British guidelines specifically recommend clopidogrel over aspirin.³¹

Dual antiplatelet therapy has not shown consistent benefits over aspirin alone. ACC/AHA guidelines state that dual antiplatelet therapy is not well established for PAD but may be reasonable after revascularization.¹³

Voraxapar is a novel antiplatelet agent that targets the thrombin-binding receptor on platelets. However, trials show no significant coronary benefit, and slight reductions in acute limb ischemia are offset by increases in major bleeding.¹³

For patients receiving medical therapy, ongoing evaluation and treatment should be based on claudication symptoms and clinical assessment.

Medical therapy for claudication

Several medications have been proposed for symptomatic treatment of intermittent claudication. Cilostazol is a phosphodiesterase inhibitor with the best risk-benefit ratio. A Cochrane review showed improvements in maximal and pain-free walking distances compared to placebo and improvements in quality of life with cilostazol 100 mg taken twice daily.³² Adverse effects included headache, dizziness, palpitations, and diarrhea.²⁹

Continue to: Pentoxifylline...

Pentoxifylline is another phosphodiesterase inhibitor with less evidence of improvement, higher adverse effect rates, and more frequent dosing. It is not recommended for treatment of intermittent claudication.^13,33

Supplements. Padma 28, a Tibetan herbal formulation, appears to improve maximal walking distance with adverse effect rates similar to placebo.³⁴ Other supplements, including vitamin E, ginkgo biloba, and omega-3 fatty acids, have no evidence of benefit.^35-37

When revascularizationis needed

Patients who develop limb ischemia or lifestyle-limiting claudication despite conservative therapy are candidates for revascularization. Endovascular techniques include angioplasty, stenting, atherectomy, and precise medication delivery. Surgical approaches mainly consist of thrombectomy and bypass grafting. For intermittent claudication despite conservative care, ACC/AHA guidelines state endovascular procedures are appropriate for aortoiliac disease and reasonable for femoropopliteal disease, but unproven for infrapopliteal disease.¹³

Acute limb ischemia is an emergency requiring immediate intervention. Two trials revealed identical overall and amputation-free survival rates for percutaneous thrombolysis and surgical thrombectomy.^38,39 ACC/AHA guidelines recommend anticoagulation with heparin followed by the revascularization technique that will most rapidly restore arterial flow.¹³

For chronic limb ischemia, a large trial showed angioplasty had lower initial morbidity, length of hospitalization, and cost than surgical repair. However, surgical mortality was lower after 2 years.⁴⁰ ACC/AHA guidelines recommend either surgery or endovascular procedures and propose initial endovascular treatment followed by surgery if needed.¹³ After revascularization, the patient should be followed periodically with a clinical evaluation and ABI measurement with further consideration for routine duplex ultrasound surveillance.¹³

For chronic limb ischemia, a large trial showed angioplasty had lower initial morbidity, length of hospitalization, and cost than surgical repair. Surgical mortality was lower after 2 years.

Outcomes

Patients with PAD have variable outcomes. About 70% to 80% of patients with this diagnosis will have a stable disease process with no worsening of symptoms, 10% to 20% will experience worsening symptoms over time, 5% to 10% will require revascularization within 5 years of diagnosis, and 1% to 5% will progress to critical limb ischemia, which has a 5-year amputation rate of 1% to 4%.² Patients who require amputation have poor outcomes: Within 2 years, 30% are dead and 15% have had further amputations.¹⁸

In addition to the morbidity and mortality from its own progression, PAD is an important predictor of CAD and is associated with a significant elevation in morbidity and mortality from CAD. One small but well-designed prospective cohort study found that patients with PAD had a more than 6-fold increased risk of death from CAD than did patients without PAD.⁴¹

Acknowledgement
The authors thank Francesca Cimino, MD, FAAFP, for her help in reviewing this manuscript.

CORRESPONDENCE
Dustin K. Smith, DO, 2080 Child Street, Jacksonville, FL 32214; [email protected]

Peripheral arterial disease (PAD), the progressive disorder that results in ischemia to distal vascular territories as a result of atherosclerosis, spans a wide range of presentations, from minimally symptomatic disease to limb ischemia secondary to acute or chronic occlusion.

The prevalence of PAD is variable, due to differing diagnostic criteria used in studies, but PAD appears to affect 1 in every 22 people older than age 40.¹ However, since PAD incidence increases with age, it is increasing in prevalence as the US population ages.^1-3

PAD is associated with increased hospitalizations and decreased quality of life.⁴ Patients with PAD have an estimated 30% 5-year risk for myocardial infarction, stroke, or death from a vascular cause.³

Screening. Although PAD is underdiagnosed and appears to be undertreated,³ population-based screening for PAD in asymptomatic patients is not recommended. A Cochrane review found no studies evaluating the benefit of ­asymptomatic population-based screening.⁵ Similarly, in 2018, the USPSTF performed a comprehensive review and found no studies to support routine screening and determined there was insufficient evidence to recommend it.^6,7

Risk factors and associated comorbidities

PAD risk factors, like the ones detailed below, have a potentiating effect. The presence of 2 risk factors doubles PAD risk, while 3 or more risk factors increase PAD risk by a factor of 10.¹

Increasing age is the greatest single risk factor for PAD.^1,2,8,9 Researchers using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) found that the prevalence of PAD increased from 1.4% in individuals ages 40 to 49 years to almost 17% in those age 70 or older.¹

© kostudios

Patients with PAD have an estimated 30% 5-year risk for myocardial infarction, stroke, or death from a vascular cause.

Demographic characteristics. Most studies demonstrate a higher risk for PAD in men.^1-3,10 African-American patients have more than twice the risk for PAD, compared with Whites, even after adjustment for the increased prevalence of associated diseases such as hypertension and diabetes in this population.^1-3,10

Continue to: Genetics...

Genetics. A study performed by the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute suggested that genetic correlations between twins were more important than environmental factors in the development of PAD.¹¹

Smoking. Most population studies show smoking to be the greatest modifiable risk factor for PAD. An analysis of the NHANES data yielded an odds ratio (OR) of 4.1 for current smokers and of 1.8 for former smokers.¹ Risk increases linearly with cumulative years of smoking.^1,2,9,10

Diabetes is another significant modifiable risk factor, increasing PAD risk by 2.5 times.² Diabetes is also associated with increases in functional limitation from claudication, risk for acute coronary syndrome, and progression to amputation.¹

Hypertension nearly doubles the risk for PAD, and poor control further increases this risk.^2,9,10

Chronic kidney disease (CKD). Patients with CKD have a progressively higher prevalence of PAD with worsening renal function.¹ There is also an association between CKD and increased morbidity, revascularization failure, and increased mortality.¹

Two additional risk factors that are less well understood are dyslipidemia and chronic inflammation. There is conflicting data regarding the role of individual components of cholesterol and their effect on PAD, although lipoprotein (a) has been shown to be an independent risk factor for both the development and progression of PAD.¹² Similarly, chronic inflammation has been shown to play a role in the initiation and progression of the disease, although the role of inflammatory markers in evaluation and treatment is unclear and assessment for these purposes is not currently recommended.^12,13

Continue to: Diagnosis...

Diagnosis

Clinical presentation

Lower extremity pain is the hallmark symptom of PAD, but presentation varies. The classic presentation is claudication, pain within a defined muscle group that occurs with exertion and is relieved by rest. Claudication is most common in the calf but also occurs in the buttock/thigh and the foot.

African- American patients have more than twice the risk for PAD, compared with Whites, even after adjustment for the increased prevalence of associated diseases in this population.

However, most patients with PAD present with pain that does not fit the definition of claudication. Patients with comorbidities, physical inactivity, and neuropathy are more likely to present with atypical pain.¹⁴ These patients may demonstrate critical or acute limb ischemia, characterized by pain at rest and most often localized to the forefoot and toes. Patients with critical limb ischemia may also present with nonhealing wounds/ulcers or gangrene.¹⁵

Physical exam findings can support the diagnosis of PAD, but none are reliable enough to rule the diagnosis in or out. Findings suggestive of PAD include cool skin, presence of a bruit (iliac, femoral, or popliteal), and palpable pulse abnormality. Multiple abnormal physical exam findings increase the likelihood of PAD, while the absence of a bruit or palpable pulse abnormality makes PAD less likely.¹⁶ In patients with PAD, an associated wound/ulcer is most often distal in the foot and usually appears dry.¹⁷

The differential diagnosis for intermittent leg pain is broad and includes neurologic, musculoskeletal, and venous etiologies. Table 1¹⁸ lists some common alternate diagnoses for patients presenting with leg pain or claudication.

Continue to: Diagnostic testing...

Diagnostic testing

An ankle-brachial index (ABI) test should be performed in patients with history or physical exam findings suggestive of PAD. A resting ABI is performed with the patient in the supine position, with measurement of systolic blood pressure in both arms and ankles using a Doppler ultrasound device. Table 2¹³ outlines ABI scoring and interpretation.

An ABI > 1.4 is an invalid measurement, indicating that the arteries are too calcified to be compressed. These highly elevated ABI measurements are common in patients with diabetes and/or advanced CKD. In these patients, a toe-brachial index (TBI) test should be performed, because the digital arteries are almost always compressible.¹³

Patients with symptomatic PAD who are under consideration for revascularization may benefit from radiologic imaging of the lower extremities with duplex ultrasound, computed tomography angiography, or magnetic resonance angiography to determine the anatomic location and severity of stenosis.¹³

Management of PAD

Lifestyle interventions

For patients with PAD, lifestyle modifications are an essential—but challenging—component of disease management.

Continue to: Smoking cessation...

Smoking cessation. As with other atherosclerotic diseases, PAD progression is strongly correlated with smoking. A trial involving 204 active smokers with PAD showed that 5-year mortality and amputation rates dropped by more than half in those who quit smoking within a year, with numbers needed to treat (NNT) of 6 for mortality and 5 for amputation.¹⁹ Because of this dramatic effect, American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guidelines encourage providers to address smoking at every visit and use cessation programs and medication to increase quit rates.¹³

Exercise may be the most important intervention for PAD. A 2017 Cochrane review found that supervised, structured exercise programs increase pain-free and maximal walking distances by at least 20% and also improve physical and mental quality of life.²⁰ In a trial involving 111 patients with aortoiliac PAD, supervised exercise plus medical care led to greater functional improvement than either revascularization plus medical care or medical care alone.²¹ In a 2018 Cochrane review, neither revascularization or revascularization added to supervised exercise were better than supervised exercise alone.²² ACC/AHA guidelines recommend supervised exercise programs for claudication prior to considering revascularization.¹³TABLE 3¹³ outlines the components of a structured exercise program.

Unfortunately, the benefit of these programs has been difficult to reproduce without supervision. Another 2018 Cochrane review demonstrated significant improvement with supervised exercise and no clear improvement in patients given home exercise or advice to walk.²³ A recent study examined the effect of having patients use a wearable fitness tracker for home exercise and demonstrated no benefit over usual care.²⁴

Diet. There is some evidence that dietary interventions can prevent and possibly improve PAD. A large randomized controlled trial showed that a Mediterranean diet lowered rates of PAD over 1 year compared to a low-fat diet, with an NNT of 336 if supplemented with extra-virgin olive oil and 448 if supplemented with nuts.²⁵ A small trial of 25 patients who consumed non-soy legumes daily for 8 weeks showed average ABI improvement of 6%, although there was no control group.²⁶

Medical therapy to address peripheral and cardiovascular events

Standard medical therapy for coronary artery disease (CAD) is recommended for patients with PAD to reduce cardiovascular and limb events. For example, treatment of hypertension reduces cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events, and studies verify that lowering blood pressure does not worsen claudication or limb perfusion.

A trial involving 204 active smokers with PAD showed that 5-year mortality and amputation rates dropped by more than half in those who quit smoking within a year.

¹³TABLE 4^13,27-30 outlines the options for medical therapy.

Continue to: Statins...

Statins reduce cardiovascular events in PAD patients. A large study demonstrated that 40 mg of simvastatin has an NNT of 21 to prevent a coronary or cerebrovascular event in PAD, similar to the NNT of 23 seen in treatment of CAD.²⁷ Statins also reduce adverse limb outcomes. A registry of atherosclerosis patients showed that statins have an NNT of 56 to prevent amputation in PAD and an NNT of 28 to prevent worsening claudication, critical limb ischemia, revascularization, or amputation.²⁸

Antiplatelet therapy with low-dose aspirin or clopidogrel is recommended for symptomatic patients and for asymptomatic patients with an ABI ≤ 0.9.¹³ A Cochrane review demonstrated significantly reduced mortality with nonaspirin antiplatelet agents vs aspirin (NNT = 94) without increase in major bleeding.²⁹ Only British guidelines specifically recommend clopidogrel over aspirin.³¹

Dual antiplatelet therapy has not shown consistent benefits over aspirin alone. ACC/AHA guidelines state that dual antiplatelet therapy is not well established for PAD but may be reasonable after revascularization.¹³

Voraxapar is a novel antiplatelet agent that targets the thrombin-binding receptor on platelets. However, trials show no significant coronary benefit, and slight reductions in acute limb ischemia are offset by increases in major bleeding.¹³

For patients receiving medical therapy, ongoing evaluation and treatment should be based on claudication symptoms and clinical assessment.

Medical therapy for claudication

Several medications have been proposed for symptomatic treatment of intermittent claudication. Cilostazol is a phosphodiesterase inhibitor with the best risk-benefit ratio. A Cochrane review showed improvements in maximal and pain-free walking distances compared to placebo and improvements in quality of life with cilostazol 100 mg taken twice daily.³² Adverse effects included headache, dizziness, palpitations, and diarrhea.²⁹

Continue to: Pentoxifylline...

Pentoxifylline is another phosphodiesterase inhibitor with less evidence of improvement, higher adverse effect rates, and more frequent dosing. It is not recommended for treatment of intermittent claudication.^13,33

Supplements. Padma 28, a Tibetan herbal formulation, appears to improve maximal walking distance with adverse effect rates similar to placebo.³⁴ Other supplements, including vitamin E, ginkgo biloba, and omega-3 fatty acids, have no evidence of benefit.^35-37

When revascularizationis needed

Patients who develop limb ischemia or lifestyle-limiting claudication despite conservative therapy are candidates for revascularization. Endovascular techniques include angioplasty, stenting, atherectomy, and precise medication delivery. Surgical approaches mainly consist of thrombectomy and bypass grafting. For intermittent claudication despite conservative care, ACC/AHA guidelines state endovascular procedures are appropriate for aortoiliac disease and reasonable for femoropopliteal disease, but unproven for infrapopliteal disease.¹³

Acute limb ischemia is an emergency requiring immediate intervention. Two trials revealed identical overall and amputation-free survival rates for percutaneous thrombolysis and surgical thrombectomy.^38,39 ACC/AHA guidelines recommend anticoagulation with heparin followed by the revascularization technique that will most rapidly restore arterial flow.¹³

For chronic limb ischemia, a large trial showed angioplasty had lower initial morbidity, length of hospitalization, and cost than surgical repair. However, surgical mortality was lower after 2 years.⁴⁰ ACC/AHA guidelines recommend either surgery or endovascular procedures and propose initial endovascular treatment followed by surgery if needed.¹³ After revascularization, the patient should be followed periodically with a clinical evaluation and ABI measurement with further consideration for routine duplex ultrasound surveillance.¹³

For chronic limb ischemia, a large trial showed angioplasty had lower initial morbidity, length of hospitalization, and cost than surgical repair. Surgical mortality was lower after 2 years.

Outcomes

Patients with PAD have variable outcomes. About 70% to 80% of patients with this diagnosis will have a stable disease process with no worsening of symptoms, 10% to 20% will experience worsening symptoms over time, 5% to 10% will require revascularization within 5 years of diagnosis, and 1% to 5% will progress to critical limb ischemia, which has a 5-year amputation rate of 1% to 4%.² Patients who require amputation have poor outcomes: Within 2 years, 30% are dead and 15% have had further amputations.¹⁸

In addition to the morbidity and mortality from its own progression, PAD is an important predictor of CAD and is associated with a significant elevation in morbidity and mortality from CAD. One small but well-designed prospective cohort study found that patients with PAD had a more than 6-fold increased risk of death from CAD than did patients without PAD.⁴¹

Acknowledgement
The authors thank Francesca Cimino, MD, FAAFP, for her help in reviewing this manuscript.

CORRESPONDENCE
Dustin K. Smith, DO, 2080 Child Street, Jacksonville, FL 32214; [email protected]

Peripheral arterial disease (PAD), the progressive disorder that results in ischemia to distal vascular territories as a result of atherosclerosis, spans a wide range of presentations, from minimally symptomatic disease to limb ischemia secondary to acute or chronic occlusion.

The prevalence of PAD is variable, due to differing diagnostic criteria used in studies, but PAD appears to affect 1 in every 22 people older than age 40.¹ However, since PAD incidence increases with age, it is increasing in prevalence as the US population ages.^1-3

PAD is associated with increased hospitalizations and decreased quality of life.⁴ Patients with PAD have an estimated 30% 5-year risk for myocardial infarction, stroke, or death from a vascular cause.³

Screening. Although PAD is underdiagnosed and appears to be undertreated,³ population-based screening for PAD in asymptomatic patients is not recommended. A Cochrane review found no studies evaluating the benefit of ­asymptomatic population-based screening.⁵ Similarly, in 2018, the USPSTF performed a comprehensive review and found no studies to support routine screening and determined there was insufficient evidence to recommend it.^6,7

Risk factors and associated comorbidities

PAD risk factors, like the ones detailed below, have a potentiating effect. The presence of 2 risk factors doubles PAD risk, while 3 or more risk factors increase PAD risk by a factor of 10.¹

Increasing age is the greatest single risk factor for PAD.^1,2,8,9 Researchers using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) found that the prevalence of PAD increased from 1.4% in individuals ages 40 to 49 years to almost 17% in those age 70 or older.¹

© kostudios

Patients with PAD have an estimated 30% 5-year risk for myocardial infarction, stroke, or death from a vascular cause.

Demographic characteristics. Most studies demonstrate a higher risk for PAD in men.^1-3,10 African-American patients have more than twice the risk for PAD, compared with Whites, even after adjustment for the increased prevalence of associated diseases such as hypertension and diabetes in this population.^1-3,10

Continue to: Genetics...

Genetics. A study performed by the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute suggested that genetic correlations between twins were more important than environmental factors in the development of PAD.¹¹

Smoking. Most population studies show smoking to be the greatest modifiable risk factor for PAD. An analysis of the NHANES data yielded an odds ratio (OR) of 4.1 for current smokers and of 1.8 for former smokers.¹ Risk increases linearly with cumulative years of smoking.^1,2,9,10

Diabetes is another significant modifiable risk factor, increasing PAD risk by 2.5 times.² Diabetes is also associated with increases in functional limitation from claudication, risk for acute coronary syndrome, and progression to amputation.¹

Hypertension nearly doubles the risk for PAD, and poor control further increases this risk.^2,9,10

Chronic kidney disease (CKD). Patients with CKD have a progressively higher prevalence of PAD with worsening renal function.¹ There is also an association between CKD and increased morbidity, revascularization failure, and increased mortality.¹

Two additional risk factors that are less well understood are dyslipidemia and chronic inflammation. There is conflicting data regarding the role of individual components of cholesterol and their effect on PAD, although lipoprotein (a) has been shown to be an independent risk factor for both the development and progression of PAD.¹² Similarly, chronic inflammation has been shown to play a role in the initiation and progression of the disease, although the role of inflammatory markers in evaluation and treatment is unclear and assessment for these purposes is not currently recommended.^12,13

Continue to: Diagnosis...

Diagnosis

Clinical presentation

Lower extremity pain is the hallmark symptom of PAD, but presentation varies. The classic presentation is claudication, pain within a defined muscle group that occurs with exertion and is relieved by rest. Claudication is most common in the calf but also occurs in the buttock/thigh and the foot.

African- American patients have more than twice the risk for PAD, compared with Whites, even after adjustment for the increased prevalence of associated diseases in this population.

However, most patients with PAD present with pain that does not fit the definition of claudication. Patients with comorbidities, physical inactivity, and neuropathy are more likely to present with atypical pain.¹⁴ These patients may demonstrate critical or acute limb ischemia, characterized by pain at rest and most often localized to the forefoot and toes. Patients with critical limb ischemia may also present with nonhealing wounds/ulcers or gangrene.¹⁵

Physical exam findings can support the diagnosis of PAD, but none are reliable enough to rule the diagnosis in or out. Findings suggestive of PAD include cool skin, presence of a bruit (iliac, femoral, or popliteal), and palpable pulse abnormality. Multiple abnormal physical exam findings increase the likelihood of PAD, while the absence of a bruit or palpable pulse abnormality makes PAD less likely.¹⁶ In patients with PAD, an associated wound/ulcer is most often distal in the foot and usually appears dry.¹⁷

The differential diagnosis for intermittent leg pain is broad and includes neurologic, musculoskeletal, and venous etiologies. Table 1¹⁸ lists some common alternate diagnoses for patients presenting with leg pain or claudication.

Continue to: Diagnostic testing...

Diagnostic testing

An ankle-brachial index (ABI) test should be performed in patients with history or physical exam findings suggestive of PAD. A resting ABI is performed with the patient in the supine position, with measurement of systolic blood pressure in both arms and ankles using a Doppler ultrasound device. Table 2¹³ outlines ABI scoring and interpretation.

An ABI > 1.4 is an invalid measurement, indicating that the arteries are too calcified to be compressed. These highly elevated ABI measurements are common in patients with diabetes and/or advanced CKD. In these patients, a toe-brachial index (TBI) test should be performed, because the digital arteries are almost always compressible.¹³

Patients with symptomatic PAD who are under consideration for revascularization may benefit from radiologic imaging of the lower extremities with duplex ultrasound, computed tomography angiography, or magnetic resonance angiography to determine the anatomic location and severity of stenosis.¹³

Management of PAD

Lifestyle interventions

For patients with PAD, lifestyle modifications are an essential—but challenging—component of disease management.

Continue to: Smoking cessation...

Smoking cessation. As with other atherosclerotic diseases, PAD progression is strongly correlated with smoking. A trial involving 204 active smokers with PAD showed that 5-year mortality and amputation rates dropped by more than half in those who quit smoking within a year, with numbers needed to treat (NNT) of 6 for mortality and 5 for amputation.¹⁹ Because of this dramatic effect, American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guidelines encourage providers to address smoking at every visit and use cessation programs and medication to increase quit rates.¹³

Exercise may be the most important intervention for PAD. A 2017 Cochrane review found that supervised, structured exercise programs increase pain-free and maximal walking distances by at least 20% and also improve physical and mental quality of life.²⁰ In a trial involving 111 patients with aortoiliac PAD, supervised exercise plus medical care led to greater functional improvement than either revascularization plus medical care or medical care alone.²¹ In a 2018 Cochrane review, neither revascularization or revascularization added to supervised exercise were better than supervised exercise alone.²² ACC/AHA guidelines recommend supervised exercise programs for claudication prior to considering revascularization.¹³TABLE 3¹³ outlines the components of a structured exercise program.

Unfortunately, the benefit of these programs has been difficult to reproduce without supervision. Another 2018 Cochrane review demonstrated significant improvement with supervised exercise and no clear improvement in patients given home exercise or advice to walk.²³ A recent study examined the effect of having patients use a wearable fitness tracker for home exercise and demonstrated no benefit over usual care.²⁴

Diet. There is some evidence that dietary interventions can prevent and possibly improve PAD. A large randomized controlled trial showed that a Mediterranean diet lowered rates of PAD over 1 year compared to a low-fat diet, with an NNT of 336 if supplemented with extra-virgin olive oil and 448 if supplemented with nuts.²⁵ A small trial of 25 patients who consumed non-soy legumes daily for 8 weeks showed average ABI improvement of 6%, although there was no control group.²⁶

Medical therapy to address peripheral and cardiovascular events

Standard medical therapy for coronary artery disease (CAD) is recommended for patients with PAD to reduce cardiovascular and limb events. For example, treatment of hypertension reduces cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events, and studies verify that lowering blood pressure does not worsen claudication or limb perfusion.

A trial involving 204 active smokers with PAD showed that 5-year mortality and amputation rates dropped by more than half in those who quit smoking within a year.

¹³TABLE 4^13,27-30 outlines the options for medical therapy.

Continue to: Statins...

Statins reduce cardiovascular events in PAD patients. A large study demonstrated that 40 mg of simvastatin has an NNT of 21 to prevent a coronary or cerebrovascular event in PAD, similar to the NNT of 23 seen in treatment of CAD.²⁷ Statins also reduce adverse limb outcomes. A registry of atherosclerosis patients showed that statins have an NNT of 56 to prevent amputation in PAD and an NNT of 28 to prevent worsening claudication, critical limb ischemia, revascularization, or amputation.²⁸

Antiplatelet therapy with low-dose aspirin or clopidogrel is recommended for symptomatic patients and for asymptomatic patients with an ABI ≤ 0.9.¹³ A Cochrane review demonstrated significantly reduced mortality with nonaspirin antiplatelet agents vs aspirin (NNT = 94) without increase in major bleeding.²⁹ Only British guidelines specifically recommend clopidogrel over aspirin.³¹

Dual antiplatelet therapy has not shown consistent benefits over aspirin alone. ACC/AHA guidelines state that dual antiplatelet therapy is not well established for PAD but may be reasonable after revascularization.¹³

Voraxapar is a novel antiplatelet agent that targets the thrombin-binding receptor on platelets. However, trials show no significant coronary benefit, and slight reductions in acute limb ischemia are offset by increases in major bleeding.¹³

For patients receiving medical therapy, ongoing evaluation and treatment should be based on claudication symptoms and clinical assessment.

Medical therapy for claudication

Several medications have been proposed for symptomatic treatment of intermittent claudication. Cilostazol is a phosphodiesterase inhibitor with the best risk-benefit ratio. A Cochrane review showed improvements in maximal and pain-free walking distances compared to placebo and improvements in quality of life with cilostazol 100 mg taken twice daily.³² Adverse effects included headache, dizziness, palpitations, and diarrhea.²⁹

Continue to: Pentoxifylline...

Pentoxifylline is another phosphodiesterase inhibitor with less evidence of improvement, higher adverse effect rates, and more frequent dosing. It is not recommended for treatment of intermittent claudication.^13,33

Supplements. Padma 28, a Tibetan herbal formulation, appears to improve maximal walking distance with adverse effect rates similar to placebo.³⁴ Other supplements, including vitamin E, ginkgo biloba, and omega-3 fatty acids, have no evidence of benefit.^35-37

When revascularizationis needed

Patients who develop limb ischemia or lifestyle-limiting claudication despite conservative therapy are candidates for revascularization. Endovascular techniques include angioplasty, stenting, atherectomy, and precise medication delivery. Surgical approaches mainly consist of thrombectomy and bypass grafting. For intermittent claudication despite conservative care, ACC/AHA guidelines state endovascular procedures are appropriate for aortoiliac disease and reasonable for femoropopliteal disease, but unproven for infrapopliteal disease.¹³

Acute limb ischemia is an emergency requiring immediate intervention. Two trials revealed identical overall and amputation-free survival rates for percutaneous thrombolysis and surgical thrombectomy.^38,39 ACC/AHA guidelines recommend anticoagulation with heparin followed by the revascularization technique that will most rapidly restore arterial flow.¹³

For chronic limb ischemia, a large trial showed angioplasty had lower initial morbidity, length of hospitalization, and cost than surgical repair. However, surgical mortality was lower after 2 years.⁴⁰ ACC/AHA guidelines recommend either surgery or endovascular procedures and propose initial endovascular treatment followed by surgery if needed.¹³ After revascularization, the patient should be followed periodically with a clinical evaluation and ABI measurement with further consideration for routine duplex ultrasound surveillance.¹³

For chronic limb ischemia, a large trial showed angioplasty had lower initial morbidity, length of hospitalization, and cost than surgical repair. Surgical mortality was lower after 2 years.

Outcomes

Patients with PAD have variable outcomes. About 70% to 80% of patients with this diagnosis will have a stable disease process with no worsening of symptoms, 10% to 20% will experience worsening symptoms over time, 5% to 10% will require revascularization within 5 years of diagnosis, and 1% to 5% will progress to critical limb ischemia, which has a 5-year amputation rate of 1% to 4%.² Patients who require amputation have poor outcomes: Within 2 years, 30% are dead and 15% have had further amputations.¹⁸

In addition to the morbidity and mortality from its own progression, PAD is an important predictor of CAD and is associated with a significant elevation in morbidity and mortality from CAD. One small but well-designed prospective cohort study found that patients with PAD had a more than 6-fold increased risk of death from CAD than did patients without PAD.⁴¹

Acknowledgement
The authors thank Francesca Cimino, MD, FAAFP, for her help in reviewing this manuscript.

CORRESPONDENCE
Dustin K. Smith, DO, 2080 Child Street, Jacksonville, FL 32214; [email protected]

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 63-year-old man with a medical history significant for myocardial infarction (MI) 5 years ago presents to you for an annual exam. His medications include a daily aspirin, ­angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, beta-blocker, and a high-intensity statin for coronary artery disease (CAD). On his fasting lipid panel, his low-density lipoprotein (LDL) level is 70 mg/dL, but his triglycerides remain elevated at 200 mg/dL despite dietary changes.

In addition to lifestyle modifications, what can be done to reduce his risk of another MI?

Patients with known cardiovascular disease (CVD) or multiple risk factors for CVD are at high risk of cardiovascular events, even when taking primary or secondary preventive medications such as statins.^2,3 In these patients, elevated triglycerides are an independent risk factor for increased rates of cardiovascular events.^4,5

The 2018 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guidelines for the treatment of blood cholesterol recommend statin therapy for moderate (175-499 mg/dL) to severe (≥ 500 mg/dL) hypertriglyceridemia in appropriate patients with atherosclerotic CVD risk ≥ 7.5%, after appropriately addressing secondary causes of hypertriglycidemia.⁶

Previous studies have shown no benefit from combination therapy with triglyceride-lowering medications (eg, extended-release niacin and fibrates) and statins, compared with statin monotherapy.⁷ A recent meta-analysis concluded that omega-3 fatty acid supplements offer no reduction in cardiovascular morbidity or mortality, whether taken with or without statins.⁸

Interestingly, the randomized controlled Japan EPA Lipid Intervention Study (JELIS) demonstrated fewer major coronary events in patients with elevated cholesterol, with or without CAD, who took eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA)—a subtype of omega-3 fatty acids—plus a statin, compared with statin monotherapy.⁹

The REDUCE-IT trial evaluated icosapent ethyl, a highly purified EPA that has been shown to reduce triglycerides and, at the time this study was conducted, was approved for use solely for the reduction of triglyceride levels in adults with severe hypertriglyceridemia.^10,11

Continue to: Study Summary

STUDY SUMMARY

Patients with known CVD had fewercardiovascular events on icosapent ethyl

The multicenter, randomized controlled REDUCE-IT trial evaluated the effectiveness of icosapent ethyl, 2 g orally twice daily, on cardiovascular outcomes.¹ A total of 8179 patients, ≥ 45 years of age with hypertriglyceridemia and known CVD or ≥ 50 years with diabetes and at least 1 additional risk factor and no known CVD, were enrolled at 473 participating sites in 11 countries, including the United States.

Patients had a triglyceride level of 150 to 499 mg/dL and an LDL cholesterol level of 41 to 100 mg/dL, and were taking a stable dose of a statin for at least 4 weeks. The enrollment protocol was amended to increase the lower limit of triglycerides from 150 to 200 mg/dL about one-third of the way through the study. Among the study population, 70.7% of patients were enrolled for secondary prevention (ie, had established CVD) and 29.3% of patients were enrolled for primary prevention (ie, had diabetes and at least 1 additional risk factor but no known CVD). Exclusion criteria included severe heart failure, active severe liver disease, glycated hemoglobin > 10%, a planned surgical cardiac intervention, history of pancreatitis, or allergies to fish or shellfish products.

Outcomes. The primary end point was a composite outcome of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, coronary revascularization, or unstable angina.

Results. The median duration of follow-up was 4.9 years. From baseline to 1 year, the median change in triglycerides was an 18% reduction in the icosapent ethyl group but a 2% increase in the placebo group. Fewer patients in the icosapent ethyl group than the placebo group had a composite outcome event (17% vs 22%, respectively; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68-0.83; number needed to treat [NNT] to avoid 1 primary end point event = 21). Patients with known CVD had fewer composite outcome events in the icosapent ethyl group than the placebo group (19% vs 26%; HR = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.65-0.81; NNT = 14) but not in the primary prevention group vs the placebo group (12% vs 14%; HR = 0.88; 95% CI, 0.70-1.1).

In the entire population, all individual outcomes in the composite were significantly fewer in the icosapent ethyl group (cardiovascular death: HR = 0.8; 95% CI, 0.66-0.98; fatal or nonfatal MI: HR = 0.69; 95% CI, 0.58-0.81; revascularization: HR = 0.65; 95% CI, 0.55-0.78; unstable angina: HR = 0.68; 95% CI, 0.53-0.87; and fatal or nonfatal stroke: HR = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.55-0.93). All-cause mortality did not differ between groups (HR = 0.87; 95% CI, 0.74-1.02).

No significant differences in adverse events leading to discontinuation of the drug were reported between groups. Atrial fibrillation occurred more frequently in the icosapent ethyl group (5.3% vs 3.9%), but anemia (4.7% vs 5.8%) and gastrointestinal adverse events (33% vs 35%) were less common.

Continue to: What's New

WHAT’S NEW

First RCT to demonstrate valueof pairing icosapent ethyl with a statin

Many prior studies on use of omega-3 fatty acid supplements to treat hypertriglyceridemia did not show any benefit, possibly due to a low dose or low ratio of EPA in the study drug.⁸ One trial (JELIS) with favorable results was an open-label study, limited to patients in Japan. The REDUCE-IT study was the first randomized, placebo-controlled trial to show that icosapent ethyl treatment for hypertriglyceridemia in patients with known CVD who are taking a statin results in fewer cardiovascular events than statin use alone.

In this multinational trial of patients with hypertriglyceridemia and CVD or cardiovascular risk factors, icosapent ethyl significantly reduced the risk of cardiovascular events.

Also worth noting: Since publication of the REDUCE-IT study, the FDA has approved an expanded indication for icosapent ethyl for reduction of risk of cardiovascular events in statin-treated patients with hypertriglyceridemia and established CVD or diabetes and ≥ 2 additional cardiovascular risk factors.¹¹

CAVEATS

Drug’s benefit was not linkedto triglyceride level reductions

The cardiovascular benefits of icosapent ethyl were obtained irrespective of triglyceride levels achieved. This raises the question of other potential mechanisms of action of icosapent ethyl in achieving cardiovascular benefit. However, this should not preclude the use of icosapent ethyl for secondary prevention in appropriate patients.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Medication is pricey

Icosapent ethyl is an expensive medication, currently priced at an estimated $351/month using a nationally available discount pharmacy plan, although additional manufacturer’s discounts may apply.^12,13 The cost of the medication could be a consideration for widespread implementation of this recommendation.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center For Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center For Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

Copyright © 2020. The Family Physicians Inquiries Network. All rights reserved.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 63-year-old man with a medical history significant for myocardial infarction (MI) 5 years ago presents to you for an annual exam. His medications include a daily aspirin, ­angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, beta-blocker, and a high-intensity statin for coronary artery disease (CAD). On his fasting lipid panel, his low-density lipoprotein (LDL) level is 70 mg/dL, but his triglycerides remain elevated at 200 mg/dL despite dietary changes.

In addition to lifestyle modifications, what can be done to reduce his risk of another MI?

Patients with known cardiovascular disease (CVD) or multiple risk factors for CVD are at high risk of cardiovascular events, even when taking primary or secondary preventive medications such as statins.^2,3 In these patients, elevated triglycerides are an independent risk factor for increased rates of cardiovascular events.^4,5

The 2018 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guidelines for the treatment of blood cholesterol recommend statin therapy for moderate (175-499 mg/dL) to severe (≥ 500 mg/dL) hypertriglyceridemia in appropriate patients with atherosclerotic CVD risk ≥ 7.5%, after appropriately addressing secondary causes of hypertriglycidemia.⁶

Previous studies have shown no benefit from combination therapy with triglyceride-lowering medications (eg, extended-release niacin and fibrates) and statins, compared with statin monotherapy.⁷ A recent meta-analysis concluded that omega-3 fatty acid supplements offer no reduction in cardiovascular morbidity or mortality, whether taken with or without statins.⁸

Interestingly, the randomized controlled Japan EPA Lipid Intervention Study (JELIS) demonstrated fewer major coronary events in patients with elevated cholesterol, with or without CAD, who took eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA)—a subtype of omega-3 fatty acids—plus a statin, compared with statin monotherapy.⁹

The REDUCE-IT trial evaluated icosapent ethyl, a highly purified EPA that has been shown to reduce triglycerides and, at the time this study was conducted, was approved for use solely for the reduction of triglyceride levels in adults with severe hypertriglyceridemia.^10,11

Continue to: Study Summary

STUDY SUMMARY

Patients with known CVD had fewercardiovascular events on icosapent ethyl

The multicenter, randomized controlled REDUCE-IT trial evaluated the effectiveness of icosapent ethyl, 2 g orally twice daily, on cardiovascular outcomes.¹ A total of 8179 patients, ≥ 45 years of age with hypertriglyceridemia and known CVD or ≥ 50 years with diabetes and at least 1 additional risk factor and no known CVD, were enrolled at 473 participating sites in 11 countries, including the United States.

Patients had a triglyceride level of 150 to 499 mg/dL and an LDL cholesterol level of 41 to 100 mg/dL, and were taking a stable dose of a statin for at least 4 weeks. The enrollment protocol was amended to increase the lower limit of triglycerides from 150 to 200 mg/dL about one-third of the way through the study. Among the study population, 70.7% of patients were enrolled for secondary prevention (ie, had established CVD) and 29.3% of patients were enrolled for primary prevention (ie, had diabetes and at least 1 additional risk factor but no known CVD). Exclusion criteria included severe heart failure, active severe liver disease, glycated hemoglobin > 10%, a planned surgical cardiac intervention, history of pancreatitis, or allergies to fish or shellfish products.

Outcomes. The primary end point was a composite outcome of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, coronary revascularization, or unstable angina.

Results. The median duration of follow-up was 4.9 years. From baseline to 1 year, the median change in triglycerides was an 18% reduction in the icosapent ethyl group but a 2% increase in the placebo group. Fewer patients in the icosapent ethyl group than the placebo group had a composite outcome event (17% vs 22%, respectively; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68-0.83; number needed to treat [NNT] to avoid 1 primary end point event = 21). Patients with known CVD had fewer composite outcome events in the icosapent ethyl group than the placebo group (19% vs 26%; HR = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.65-0.81; NNT = 14) but not in the primary prevention group vs the placebo group (12% vs 14%; HR = 0.88; 95% CI, 0.70-1.1).

In the entire population, all individual outcomes in the composite were significantly fewer in the icosapent ethyl group (cardiovascular death: HR = 0.8; 95% CI, 0.66-0.98; fatal or nonfatal MI: HR = 0.69; 95% CI, 0.58-0.81; revascularization: HR = 0.65; 95% CI, 0.55-0.78; unstable angina: HR = 0.68; 95% CI, 0.53-0.87; and fatal or nonfatal stroke: HR = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.55-0.93). All-cause mortality did not differ between groups (HR = 0.87; 95% CI, 0.74-1.02).

No significant differences in adverse events leading to discontinuation of the drug were reported between groups. Atrial fibrillation occurred more frequently in the icosapent ethyl group (5.3% vs 3.9%), but anemia (4.7% vs 5.8%) and gastrointestinal adverse events (33% vs 35%) were less common.

Continue to: What's New

WHAT’S NEW

First RCT to demonstrate valueof pairing icosapent ethyl with a statin

Many prior studies on use of omega-3 fatty acid supplements to treat hypertriglyceridemia did not show any benefit, possibly due to a low dose or low ratio of EPA in the study drug.⁸ One trial (JELIS) with favorable results was an open-label study, limited to patients in Japan. The REDUCE-IT study was the first randomized, placebo-controlled trial to show that icosapent ethyl treatment for hypertriglyceridemia in patients with known CVD who are taking a statin results in fewer cardiovascular events than statin use alone.

In this multinational trial of patients with hypertriglyceridemia and CVD or cardiovascular risk factors, icosapent ethyl significantly reduced the risk of cardiovascular events.

Also worth noting: Since publication of the REDUCE-IT study, the FDA has approved an expanded indication for icosapent ethyl for reduction of risk of cardiovascular events in statin-treated patients with hypertriglyceridemia and established CVD or diabetes and ≥ 2 additional cardiovascular risk factors.¹¹

CAVEATS

Drug’s benefit was not linkedto triglyceride level reductions

The cardiovascular benefits of icosapent ethyl were obtained irrespective of triglyceride levels achieved. This raises the question of other potential mechanisms of action of icosapent ethyl in achieving cardiovascular benefit. However, this should not preclude the use of icosapent ethyl for secondary prevention in appropriate patients.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Medication is pricey

Icosapent ethyl is an expensive medication, currently priced at an estimated $351/month using a nationally available discount pharmacy plan, although additional manufacturer’s discounts may apply.^12,13 The cost of the medication could be a consideration for widespread implementation of this recommendation.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center For Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center For Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

Copyright © 2020. The Family Physicians Inquiries Network. All rights reserved.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 63-year-old man with a medical history significant for myocardial infarction (MI) 5 years ago presents to you for an annual exam. His medications include a daily aspirin, ­angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, beta-blocker, and a high-intensity statin for coronary artery disease (CAD). On his fasting lipid panel, his low-density lipoprotein (LDL) level is 70 mg/dL, but his triglycerides remain elevated at 200 mg/dL despite dietary changes.

In addition to lifestyle modifications, what can be done to reduce his risk of another MI?

Patients with known cardiovascular disease (CVD) or multiple risk factors for CVD are at high risk of cardiovascular events, even when taking primary or secondary preventive medications such as statins.^2,3 In these patients, elevated triglycerides are an independent risk factor for increased rates of cardiovascular events.^4,5

The 2018 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guidelines for the treatment of blood cholesterol recommend statin therapy for moderate (175-499 mg/dL) to severe (≥ 500 mg/dL) hypertriglyceridemia in appropriate patients with atherosclerotic CVD risk ≥ 7.5%, after appropriately addressing secondary causes of hypertriglycidemia.⁶

Previous studies have shown no benefit from combination therapy with triglyceride-lowering medications (eg, extended-release niacin and fibrates) and statins, compared with statin monotherapy.⁷ A recent meta-analysis concluded that omega-3 fatty acid supplements offer no reduction in cardiovascular morbidity or mortality, whether taken with or without statins.⁸

Interestingly, the randomized controlled Japan EPA Lipid Intervention Study (JELIS) demonstrated fewer major coronary events in patients with elevated cholesterol, with or without CAD, who took eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA)—a subtype of omega-3 fatty acids—plus a statin, compared with statin monotherapy.⁹

The REDUCE-IT trial evaluated icosapent ethyl, a highly purified EPA that has been shown to reduce triglycerides and, at the time this study was conducted, was approved for use solely for the reduction of triglyceride levels in adults with severe hypertriglyceridemia.^10,11

Continue to: Study Summary

STUDY SUMMARY

Patients with known CVD had fewercardiovascular events on icosapent ethyl

The multicenter, randomized controlled REDUCE-IT trial evaluated the effectiveness of icosapent ethyl, 2 g orally twice daily, on cardiovascular outcomes.¹ A total of 8179 patients, ≥ 45 years of age with hypertriglyceridemia and known CVD or ≥ 50 years with diabetes and at least 1 additional risk factor and no known CVD, were enrolled at 473 participating sites in 11 countries, including the United States.

Patients had a triglyceride level of 150 to 499 mg/dL and an LDL cholesterol level of 41 to 100 mg/dL, and were taking a stable dose of a statin for at least 4 weeks. The enrollment protocol was amended to increase the lower limit of triglycerides from 150 to 200 mg/dL about one-third of the way through the study. Among the study population, 70.7% of patients were enrolled for secondary prevention (ie, had established CVD) and 29.3% of patients were enrolled for primary prevention (ie, had diabetes and at least 1 additional risk factor but no known CVD). Exclusion criteria included severe heart failure, active severe liver disease, glycated hemoglobin > 10%, a planned surgical cardiac intervention, history of pancreatitis, or allergies to fish or shellfish products.

Outcomes. The primary end point was a composite outcome of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, coronary revascularization, or unstable angina.

Results. The median duration of follow-up was 4.9 years. From baseline to 1 year, the median change in triglycerides was an 18% reduction in the icosapent ethyl group but a 2% increase in the placebo group. Fewer patients in the icosapent ethyl group than the placebo group had a composite outcome event (17% vs 22%, respectively; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68-0.83; number needed to treat [NNT] to avoid 1 primary end point event = 21). Patients with known CVD had fewer composite outcome events in the icosapent ethyl group than the placebo group (19% vs 26%; HR = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.65-0.81; NNT = 14) but not in the primary prevention group vs the placebo group (12% vs 14%; HR = 0.88; 95% CI, 0.70-1.1).

In the entire population, all individual outcomes in the composite were significantly fewer in the icosapent ethyl group (cardiovascular death: HR = 0.8; 95% CI, 0.66-0.98; fatal or nonfatal MI: HR = 0.69; 95% CI, 0.58-0.81; revascularization: HR = 0.65; 95% CI, 0.55-0.78; unstable angina: HR = 0.68; 95% CI, 0.53-0.87; and fatal or nonfatal stroke: HR = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.55-0.93). All-cause mortality did not differ between groups (HR = 0.87; 95% CI, 0.74-1.02).

No significant differences in adverse events leading to discontinuation of the drug were reported between groups. Atrial fibrillation occurred more frequently in the icosapent ethyl group (5.3% vs 3.9%), but anemia (4.7% vs 5.8%) and gastrointestinal adverse events (33% vs 35%) were less common.

Continue to: What's New

WHAT’S NEW

First RCT to demonstrate valueof pairing icosapent ethyl with a statin

Many prior studies on use of omega-3 fatty acid supplements to treat hypertriglyceridemia did not show any benefit, possibly due to a low dose or low ratio of EPA in the study drug.⁸ One trial (JELIS) with favorable results was an open-label study, limited to patients in Japan. The REDUCE-IT study was the first randomized, placebo-controlled trial to show that icosapent ethyl treatment for hypertriglyceridemia in patients with known CVD who are taking a statin results in fewer cardiovascular events than statin use alone.

In this multinational trial of patients with hypertriglyceridemia and CVD or cardiovascular risk factors, icosapent ethyl significantly reduced the risk of cardiovascular events.

Also worth noting: Since publication of the REDUCE-IT study, the FDA has approved an expanded indication for icosapent ethyl for reduction of risk of cardiovascular events in statin-treated patients with hypertriglyceridemia and established CVD or diabetes and ≥ 2 additional cardiovascular risk factors.¹¹

CAVEATS

Drug’s benefit was not linkedto triglyceride level reductions

The cardiovascular benefits of icosapent ethyl were obtained irrespective of triglyceride levels achieved. This raises the question of other potential mechanisms of action of icosapent ethyl in achieving cardiovascular benefit. However, this should not preclude the use of icosapent ethyl for secondary prevention in appropriate patients.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Medication is pricey

Icosapent ethyl is an expensive medication, currently priced at an estimated $351/month using a nationally available discount pharmacy plan, although additional manufacturer’s discounts may apply.^12,13 The cost of the medication could be a consideration for widespread implementation of this recommendation.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center For Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center For Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

Copyright © 2020. The Family Physicians Inquiries Network. All rights reserved.

Insect, arachnid, and other arthropod bites and stings are common patient complaints in a primary care office. A thorough history and physical exam can often isolate the specific offender and guide management. In this article, we outline how to identify, diagnose, and treat common bites and stings from bees and wasps; centipedes and spiders; fleas; flies and biting midges; mosquitoes; and ticks, and discuss how high-risk patients should be triaged and referred for additional testing and treatment, such as venom immunotherapy (VIT).

Insects and arachnids:Background and epidemiology

Insects are arthropods with 3-part exoskeletons: head, thorax, and abdomen. They have 6 jointed legs, compound eyes, and antennae. There are approximately 91,000 insect species in the United States, the most abundant orders being Coleoptera (beetles), Diptera (flies), and Hymenoptera (includes ants, bees, wasps, and sawflies).¹

The reported incidence of insect bites and stings varies widely because most people experience mild symptoms and therefore do not seek medical care. Best statistics are for Hymenoptera stings, which are more likely to cause a severe reaction. In Europe, 56% to 94% of the general population has reported being bitten or stung by one of the Hymenoptera species.² In many areas of Australia, the incidence of jack jumper ant stings is only 2% to 3%³; in the United States, 55% of people report being stung by nonnative fire ants within 3 weeks of moving into an endemic area.⁴

Arachnids are some of the earliest terrestrial organisms, of the class Arachnida, which includes scorpions, ticks, spiders, mites, and daddy longlegs (harvestmen).⁵ Arachnids are wingless and characterized by segmented bodies, jointed appendages, and exoskeletons.^6,7 In most, the body is separated into 2 segments (the cephalothorax and abdomen), except for mites, ticks, and daddy longlegs, in which the entire body comprises a single segment.⁵

Arthropod bites are common in the United States; almost one-half are caused by spiders.⁷ Brown recluse (Loxosceles spp) and black widow (Latrodectus spp) spider bites are the most concerning: Although usually mild, these bites can be life-threatening but are rarely fatal. In 2013, almost 3500 bites by black widow and brown recluse spiders were reported.⁸

Among beekeepers, the risk of a systemic reaction is higher in those stung < 15 times a year than in those stung > 200 times.

Risk factors

Risk factors for insect, arachnid, and other arthropod bites and stings are primarily environmental. People who live or work in proximity of biting or stinging insects (eg, gardeners and beekeepers) are more likely to be affected; so are those who work with animals or live next to standing water or grassy or wooded locales.

Continue to: There are also risk factors...

There are also risk factors for a systemic sting reaction:

• A sting reaction < 2 months earlier increases the risk of a subsequent systemic sting reaction by ≥ 50%.⁹
• Among beekeepers, paradoxically, the risk of a systemic reaction is higher in those stung < 15 times a year than in those stung > 200 times.¹⁰
• Patients with an elevated baseline serum level of tryptase (reference range, < 11.4 ng/mL), which is part of the allergenic response, or with biopsy-proven systemic mastocytosis are at increased risk of a systemic sting reaction.¹¹

Presentation: Signs and symptomsvary with severity

Insect bites and stings usually cause transient local inflammation and, occasionally, a toxic reaction. Allergic hypersensitivity can result in a large local reaction or a generalized systemic reaction¹²:

• A small local reaction is transient and mild, develops directly at the site of the sting, and can last several days.¹³
• A large (or significant) local reaction, defined as swelling > 10 cm in diameter (FIGURE 1) and lasting > 24 hours, occurs in 2% to 26% of people who have been bitten or stung.¹⁴ This is an immunoglobulin (Ig) E–mediated late-phase reaction that can be accompanied by fatigue and nausea.^12,13,15 For a patient with a large local reaction, the risk of a concomitant systemic reaction is 4% to 10%, typically beginning within 30 minutes after envenomation or, possibly, delayed for several hours or marked by a biphasic interval.¹⁶
• Characteristics of a systemic reaction are urticaria, angioedema, bronchospasm, large-airway edema, hypotension, and other clinical manifestations of anaphylaxis.¹⁷ In the United States, a systemic sting reaction is reported to occur in approximately 3% of bite and sting victims. Mortality among the general population from a systemic bite or sting reaction is 0.16 for every 100,000 people,² and at least 40 to 100 die every year in the United States from anaphylaxis resulting from an insect bite or sting.¹⁸
• The most severe anaphylactic reactions involve the cardiovascular and respiratory systems, commonly including hypotension and symptoms of upper- or lower-airway obstruction. Laryngeal edema and circulatory failure are the most common mechanisms of anaphylactic death.¹⁹

Bees and wasps

Hymenoptera stinging insects include the family Apidae (honey bee, bumblebee, and sweat bee) and Vespidae (yellow jacket, yellow- and white-faced hornets, and paper wasp). A worker honey bee can sting only once, leaving its barbed stinger in the skin; a wasp, hornet, and yellow jacket can sting multiple times (FIGURE 2).²

Continue to: Bee and wasp sting...

Bee and wasp sting allergies are the most common insect venom allergic reactions. A bee sting is more likely to lead to a severe allergic reaction than a wasp sting. Allergic reactions to hornet and bumblebee stings are less common but can occur in patients already sensitized to wasp and honey bee stings.^20,21

Management. Remove honey bee stingers by scraping the skin with a fingernail or credit card. Ideally, the stinger should be removed in the first 30 seconds, before the venom sac empties. Otherwise, intense local inflammation, with possible lymphangitic streaking, can result.²²

For guidance on localized symptomatic care of bee and wasp stings and bites and stings from other sources discussed in this article, see “Providing relief and advanced care” on page E6.

Centipedes and spiders

Centipedes are arthropods of the class Chilopoda, subphylum Myriapoda, that are characterized by repeating linear (metameric) segments, each containing 1 pair of legs.²³ Centipedes have a pair of poison claws behind the head that are used to paralyze prey—usually, small insects.^23,24 The bite of a larger centipede can cause a painful reaction that generally subsides after a few hours but can last several days. Centipede bites are usually nonfatal to humans.²³

Spiders belong to the class Arachnida, order Araneae. They have 8 legs with chelicerae (mouthpiece, or “jaws”) that inject venom into prey.²⁵ Most spiders found in the United States cannot bite through human skin.^26,27 Common exceptions are black widow and brown recluse spiders, which each produce a distinct toxic venom that can cause significant morbidity in humans through a bite, although bites are rarely fatal.^26,27

The brown recluse spider is described as having a violin-shaped marking on the abdomen; the body is yellowish, tan, or dark brown. A bite can produce tiny fang marks and cause dull pain at the site of the bite that spreads quickly; myalgia; and pain in the stomach, back, chest, and legs.^28,29 The bite takes approximately 7 days to resolve. In a minority of cases, a tender erythematous halo develops, followed by a severe necrotic ulcer, or loxoscelism (FIGURE 3; 40% of cases) or scarring (13%), or both.^29,30

Continue to: In contrast...

A bee sting is more likely to lead to a severe allergic reaction than a wasp sting.

Management. Again, see “Providing relief and advanced care” on page E6. Consider providing antivenin treatment for moderate or severe bites of brown recluse and black widow spiders.

Fleas

Fleas are members of the order Siphonaptera. They are small (1.5-3.2 mm long), reddish brown, wingless, blood-sucking insects with long legs that allow them to jump far (12 or 13 inches) and high (6 or 7 inches).³³ Domesticated cats and dogs are the source of most flea infestations, resulting in an increased risk of exposure for humans.^34,35 Flea bites, which generally occur on lower extremities, develop into a small, erythematous papule with a halo (FIGURE 4) and associated mild edema, and cause intense pruritus 30 minutes after the bite.^35-37

Fleas are a vector for severe microbial infections, including bartonellosis, bubonic plague, cat-flea typhus, murine typhus, cat-scratch disease, rickettsial disease, and tularemia. Tungiasis is an inflammatory burrowing flea infestation—not a secondary infection for which the flea is a vector.^34,35

Preventive management. Repellents, including products that contain DEET (N,N-diethyl-meta-toluamide), picaridin (2-[2-hydroxyethyl]-1-piperidinecarboxylic acid 1-methylpropyl ester), and PMD (p-menthane-3,8-diol, a chemical constituent of Eucalyptus citriodora oil) can be used to prevent flea bites in humans.^33,38 Studies show that the scent of other botanic oils, including lavender, cedarwood, and peppermint, can also help prevent infestation by fleas; however, these compounds are not as effective as traditional insect repellents.^33,38

Flea control is difficult, requiring a multimodal approach to treating the infested animal and its environment.³⁹ Treatment of the infested domestic animal is the primary method of preventing human bites. Nonpesticidal control involves frequent cleaning of carpeting, furniture, animal bedding, and kennels. Insecticides can be applied throughout the house to combat severe infestation.^33,38

Continue to: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention...

Flies and biting midges

Flies are 2-winged insects belonging to the order Diptera. Several fly species can bite, causing a local inflammatory reaction; these include black flies, deer flies, horse flies, and sand flies. Signs and symptoms of a fly bite include pain, pruritus, erythema, and mild swelling (FIGURE 5).^41,42 Flies can transmit several infections, including bartonellosis, enteric bacterial disease (eg, caused by Campylobacter spp), leishmaniasis, loiasis, onchocerciasis, and trypanosomiasis.⁴³

Biting midges, also called “no-see-ums,” biting gnats, moose flies, and “punkies,”⁴⁴ are tiny (1-3 mm long) blood-sucking flies.⁴⁵ Bitten patients often report not having seen the midge because it is so small. The bite typically starts as a small, erythematous papule that develops into a dome-shaped blister and can be extraordinarily pruritic and painful.⁴⁴ The majority of people who have been bitten develop a hypersensitivity reaction, which usually resolves in a few weeks.

Management. Suppressing adult biting midges with an environmental insecticide is typically insufficient because the insecticide must be sprayed daily to eradicate active midges and generally does not affect larval habitat. Insect repellents and biopesticides, such as oil of lemon eucalyptus, can be effective in reducing the risk of bites.^44,45

Mosquitoes

Mosquitoes are flying, blood-sucking insects of the order Diptera and family Culicidae. Anopheles, Culex, and Aedes genera are responsible for most bites of humans.

Most spiders found in the United States can’t bite through human skin. Common exceptions are black widow and brown recluse spiders.

The bite of a mosquito produces an indurated, limited local reaction characterized by a pruritic wheal (3-29 mm in diameter) with surrounding erythema (FIGURE 6) that peaks in approximately 30 minutes, although patients might have a delayed reaction hours later.⁴⁶ Immunocompromised patients might experience a more significant local inflammatory reaction that is accompanied by low-grade fever, hives, or swollen lymph nodes.^46,47

Mosquitoes are a vector for serious infections, including dengue, Japanese encephalitis, malaria, and yellow fever, and disease caused by Chikungunya, West Nile, and Zika viruses.

Continue to: Management

Ticks

Ticks belong to the order Parasitiformes and families Ixodidae and Argasidae. Hard ticks are found in brushy fields and tall grasses and can bite and feed on humans for days. Soft ticks are generally found around animal nests.²⁹ Tick bites can cause a local reaction that includes painful, erythematous, inflammatory papular lesions (FIGURE 7).⁴⁹

Ticks can transmit several infectious diseases. Depending on the microbial pathogen and the genus and species of tick, it takes 2 to 96 hours for the tick to attach to skin and transmit the pathogen to the human host. The TABLE^29,49,50 provides an overview of tick species in the United States, diseases that they can transmit, and the geographic distribution of those diseases.

Management. Ticks should be removed with fine-tipped tweezers. Grasp the body of the tick close to the skin and pull upward while applying steady, even pressure. After removing the tick, clean the bite and the surrounding area with alcohol or with soap and water. Dispose of a live tick by flushing it down the toilet; or, kill it in alcohol and either seal it in a bag with tape or place it in a container.⁵⁰

Diagnosis and the utilityof special testing

The diagnosis of insect, arachnid, and other arthropod bites and stings depends on the history, including obtaining a record of possible exposure and a travel history; the timing of the bite or sting; and associated signs and symptoms.^18,51

Venom skin testing. For Hymenoptera stings, intradermal tests using a venom concentration of 0.001 to 1 μg/mL are positive in 65% to 80% of patients with a history of a systemic insect-sting allergic reaction. A negative venom skin test can occur during the 3-to-6-week refractory period after a sting reaction or many years later, which represents a loss of sensitivity. Positive venom skin tests are used to confirm allergy and identify specific insects to which the patient is allergic.^11,12

Continue to: Allergen-specific IgE antibody testing.

Providing reliefand advanced care

Symptomatic treatment of mild bites and stings includes washing the affected area with soap and water and applying a cold compress to reduce swelling.⁵⁴ For painful lesions, an oral analgesic can be prescribed.

For mild or moderate pruritus, a low- to midpotency topical corticosteroid (eg, hydrocortisone valerate cream 0.2% bid), topical calamine, or pramoxine can be applied,or a nonsedating oral antihistamine, such as loratadine (10 mg/d) or cetirizine (10 mg/d), can be used.^14,55 For severe itching, a sedating antihistamine, such as hydroxyzine (10-25 mg every 4 to 6 hours prn), might help relieve symptoms; H₁- and H₂-receptor antagonists can be used concomitantly.^54,55

Significant local symptoms. Large local reactions are treated with a midpotency topical corticosteroid (eg, triamcinolone acetonide cream 0.1% bid) plus an oral antihistamine to relieve pruritus and reduce allergic inflammation. For a more severe reaction, an oral corticosteroid (prednisone 1 mg/kg; maximum dosage, 50 mg/d) can be given for 5 to 7 days.^54-56

Management of a necrotic ulcer secondary to a brown recluse spider bite is symptomatic and supportive. The size of these wounds can increase for as long as 10 days after the bite; resolution can require months of wound care, possibly with debridement. Rarely, skin grafting is required.^27,28,31

VIT. Some studies show that VIT can improve quality of life in patients with prolonged, frequent, and worsening reactions to insect bites or stings and repeated, unavoidable exposures.^55,56 VIT is recommended for patients with systemic hypersensitivity and a positive venom skin test result. It is approximately 95% effective in preventing or reducing severe systemic reactions and reduces the risk of anaphylaxis (see next section) and death.⁵⁷ The maintenance dosage of VIT is usually 100 μg every 4 to 6 weeks; optimal duration of treatment is 3 to 5 years.⁵⁸

Continue to: After VIT is complete...

• a history of severe, life-threatening allergic reactions to bites and stings
• honey bee sting allergy
• mast-cell disease
• a history of anaphylaxis while receiving VIT.

Absolute contraindications to VIT include a history of serious immune disease, chronic infection, or cancer.^58,59

Managing anaphylaxis

This severe allergic reaction can lead to death if untreated. First-line therapy is intramuscular epinephrine, 0.01 mg/kg (maximum single dose, 0.5 mg) given every 5 to 15 minutes.^14,60 Epinephrine auto-injectors deliver a fixed dose and are labeled according to weight. Administration of O₂ and intravenous fluids is recommended for hemodynamically unstable patients.^60,61 Antihistamines and corticosteroids can be used as secondary treatment but should not replace epinephrine.⁵⁶

After preliminary improvement, patients might decompensate when the epinephrine dose wears off. Furthermore, a biphasic reaction, variously reported in < 5% to as many as 20% of patients,^61,62 occurs hours after the initial anaphylactic reaction. Patients should be monitored, therefore, for at least 6 to 8 hours after an anaphylactic reaction, preferably in a facility equipped to treat anaphylaxis.^17,56
 

The scent of botanic oils, including lavender and peppermint, can help prevent infestation by fleas.

Before discharge, patients who have had an anaphylactic reaction should be given a prescription for epinephrine and training in the use of an epinephrine auto-injector. Allergen avoidance, along with an emergency plan in the event of a bite or sting, is recommended. Follow-up evaluation with an allergist or immunologist is essential for proper diagnosis and to determine whether the patient is a candidate for VIT.^14,17

CORRESPONDENCE
Ecler Ercole Jaqua, MD, DipABLM, FAAFP, 1200 California Street, Suite 240, Redlands, CA 92374; [email protected].

Insect, arachnid, and other arthropod bites and stings are common patient complaints in a primary care office. A thorough history and physical exam can often isolate the specific offender and guide management. In this article, we outline how to identify, diagnose, and treat common bites and stings from bees and wasps; centipedes and spiders; fleas; flies and biting midges; mosquitoes; and ticks, and discuss how high-risk patients should be triaged and referred for additional testing and treatment, such as venom immunotherapy (VIT).

Insects and arachnids:Background and epidemiology

Insects are arthropods with 3-part exoskeletons: head, thorax, and abdomen. They have 6 jointed legs, compound eyes, and antennae. There are approximately 91,000 insect species in the United States, the most abundant orders being Coleoptera (beetles), Diptera (flies), and Hymenoptera (includes ants, bees, wasps, and sawflies).¹

The reported incidence of insect bites and stings varies widely because most people experience mild symptoms and therefore do not seek medical care. Best statistics are for Hymenoptera stings, which are more likely to cause a severe reaction. In Europe, 56% to 94% of the general population has reported being bitten or stung by one of the Hymenoptera species.² In many areas of Australia, the incidence of jack jumper ant stings is only 2% to 3%³; in the United States, 55% of people report being stung by nonnative fire ants within 3 weeks of moving into an endemic area.⁴

Arachnids are some of the earliest terrestrial organisms, of the class Arachnida, which includes scorpions, ticks, spiders, mites, and daddy longlegs (harvestmen).⁵ Arachnids are wingless and characterized by segmented bodies, jointed appendages, and exoskeletons.^6,7 In most, the body is separated into 2 segments (the cephalothorax and abdomen), except for mites, ticks, and daddy longlegs, in which the entire body comprises a single segment.⁵

Arthropod bites are common in the United States; almost one-half are caused by spiders.⁷ Brown recluse (Loxosceles spp) and black widow (Latrodectus spp) spider bites are the most concerning: Although usually mild, these bites can be life-threatening but are rarely fatal. In 2013, almost 3500 bites by black widow and brown recluse spiders were reported.⁸

Among beekeepers, the risk of a systemic reaction is higher in those stung < 15 times a year than in those stung > 200 times.

Risk factors

Risk factors for insect, arachnid, and other arthropod bites and stings are primarily environmental. People who live or work in proximity of biting or stinging insects (eg, gardeners and beekeepers) are more likely to be affected; so are those who work with animals or live next to standing water or grassy or wooded locales.

Continue to: There are also risk factors...

There are also risk factors for a systemic sting reaction:

• A sting reaction < 2 months earlier increases the risk of a subsequent systemic sting reaction by ≥ 50%.⁹
• Among beekeepers, paradoxically, the risk of a systemic reaction is higher in those stung < 15 times a year than in those stung > 200 times.¹⁰
• Patients with an elevated baseline serum level of tryptase (reference range, < 11.4 ng/mL), which is part of the allergenic response, or with biopsy-proven systemic mastocytosis are at increased risk of a systemic sting reaction.¹¹

Presentation: Signs and symptomsvary with severity

Insect bites and stings usually cause transient local inflammation and, occasionally, a toxic reaction. Allergic hypersensitivity can result in a large local reaction or a generalized systemic reaction¹²:

• A small local reaction is transient and mild, develops directly at the site of the sting, and can last several days.¹³
• A large (or significant) local reaction, defined as swelling > 10 cm in diameter (FIGURE 1) and lasting > 24 hours, occurs in 2% to 26% of people who have been bitten or stung.¹⁴ This is an immunoglobulin (Ig) E–mediated late-phase reaction that can be accompanied by fatigue and nausea.^12,13,15 For a patient with a large local reaction, the risk of a concomitant systemic reaction is 4% to 10%, typically beginning within 30 minutes after envenomation or, possibly, delayed for several hours or marked by a biphasic interval.¹⁶
• Characteristics of a systemic reaction are urticaria, angioedema, bronchospasm, large-airway edema, hypotension, and other clinical manifestations of anaphylaxis.¹⁷ In the United States, a systemic sting reaction is reported to occur in approximately 3% of bite and sting victims. Mortality among the general population from a systemic bite or sting reaction is 0.16 for every 100,000 people,² and at least 40 to 100 die every year in the United States from anaphylaxis resulting from an insect bite or sting.¹⁸
• The most severe anaphylactic reactions involve the cardiovascular and respiratory systems, commonly including hypotension and symptoms of upper- or lower-airway obstruction. Laryngeal edema and circulatory failure are the most common mechanisms of anaphylactic death.¹⁹

Bees and wasps

Hymenoptera stinging insects include the family Apidae (honey bee, bumblebee, and sweat bee) and Vespidae (yellow jacket, yellow- and white-faced hornets, and paper wasp). A worker honey bee can sting only once, leaving its barbed stinger in the skin; a wasp, hornet, and yellow jacket can sting multiple times (FIGURE 2).²

Continue to: Bee and wasp sting...

Bee and wasp sting allergies are the most common insect venom allergic reactions. A bee sting is more likely to lead to a severe allergic reaction than a wasp sting. Allergic reactions to hornet and bumblebee stings are less common but can occur in patients already sensitized to wasp and honey bee stings.^20,21

Management. Remove honey bee stingers by scraping the skin with a fingernail or credit card. Ideally, the stinger should be removed in the first 30 seconds, before the venom sac empties. Otherwise, intense local inflammation, with possible lymphangitic streaking, can result.²²

For guidance on localized symptomatic care of bee and wasp stings and bites and stings from other sources discussed in this article, see “Providing relief and advanced care” on page E6.

Centipedes and spiders

Centipedes are arthropods of the class Chilopoda, subphylum Myriapoda, that are characterized by repeating linear (metameric) segments, each containing 1 pair of legs.²³ Centipedes have a pair of poison claws behind the head that are used to paralyze prey—usually, small insects.^23,24 The bite of a larger centipede can cause a painful reaction that generally subsides after a few hours but can last several days. Centipede bites are usually nonfatal to humans.²³

Spiders belong to the class Arachnida, order Araneae. They have 8 legs with chelicerae (mouthpiece, or “jaws”) that inject venom into prey.²⁵ Most spiders found in the United States cannot bite through human skin.^26,27 Common exceptions are black widow and brown recluse spiders, which each produce a distinct toxic venom that can cause significant morbidity in humans through a bite, although bites are rarely fatal.^26,27

The brown recluse spider is described as having a violin-shaped marking on the abdomen; the body is yellowish, tan, or dark brown. A bite can produce tiny fang marks and cause dull pain at the site of the bite that spreads quickly; myalgia; and pain in the stomach, back, chest, and legs.^28,29 The bite takes approximately 7 days to resolve. In a minority of cases, a tender erythematous halo develops, followed by a severe necrotic ulcer, or loxoscelism (FIGURE 3; 40% of cases) or scarring (13%), or both.^29,30

Continue to: In contrast...

A bee sting is more likely to lead to a severe allergic reaction than a wasp sting.

Management. Again, see “Providing relief and advanced care” on page E6. Consider providing antivenin treatment for moderate or severe bites of brown recluse and black widow spiders.

Fleas

Fleas are members of the order Siphonaptera. They are small (1.5-3.2 mm long), reddish brown, wingless, blood-sucking insects with long legs that allow them to jump far (12 or 13 inches) and high (6 or 7 inches).³³ Domesticated cats and dogs are the source of most flea infestations, resulting in an increased risk of exposure for humans.^34,35 Flea bites, which generally occur on lower extremities, develop into a small, erythematous papule with a halo (FIGURE 4) and associated mild edema, and cause intense pruritus 30 minutes after the bite.^35-37

Fleas are a vector for severe microbial infections, including bartonellosis, bubonic plague, cat-flea typhus, murine typhus, cat-scratch disease, rickettsial disease, and tularemia. Tungiasis is an inflammatory burrowing flea infestation—not a secondary infection for which the flea is a vector.^34,35

Preventive management. Repellents, including products that contain DEET (N,N-diethyl-meta-toluamide), picaridin (2-[2-hydroxyethyl]-1-piperidinecarboxylic acid 1-methylpropyl ester), and PMD (p-menthane-3,8-diol, a chemical constituent of Eucalyptus citriodora oil) can be used to prevent flea bites in humans.^33,38 Studies show that the scent of other botanic oils, including lavender, cedarwood, and peppermint, can also help prevent infestation by fleas; however, these compounds are not as effective as traditional insect repellents.^33,38

Flea control is difficult, requiring a multimodal approach to treating the infested animal and its environment.³⁹ Treatment of the infested domestic animal is the primary method of preventing human bites. Nonpesticidal control involves frequent cleaning of carpeting, furniture, animal bedding, and kennels. Insecticides can be applied throughout the house to combat severe infestation.^33,38

Continue to: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention...

Flies and biting midges

Flies are 2-winged insects belonging to the order Diptera. Several fly species can bite, causing a local inflammatory reaction; these include black flies, deer flies, horse flies, and sand flies. Signs and symptoms of a fly bite include pain, pruritus, erythema, and mild swelling (FIGURE 5).^41,42 Flies can transmit several infections, including bartonellosis, enteric bacterial disease (eg, caused by Campylobacter spp), leishmaniasis, loiasis, onchocerciasis, and trypanosomiasis.⁴³

Biting midges, also called “no-see-ums,” biting gnats, moose flies, and “punkies,”⁴⁴ are tiny (1-3 mm long) blood-sucking flies.⁴⁵ Bitten patients often report not having seen the midge because it is so small. The bite typically starts as a small, erythematous papule that develops into a dome-shaped blister and can be extraordinarily pruritic and painful.⁴⁴ The majority of people who have been bitten develop a hypersensitivity reaction, which usually resolves in a few weeks.

Management. Suppressing adult biting midges with an environmental insecticide is typically insufficient because the insecticide must be sprayed daily to eradicate active midges and generally does not affect larval habitat. Insect repellents and biopesticides, such as oil of lemon eucalyptus, can be effective in reducing the risk of bites.^44,45

Mosquitoes

Mosquitoes are flying, blood-sucking insects of the order Diptera and family Culicidae. Anopheles, Culex, and Aedes genera are responsible for most bites of humans.

Most spiders found in the United States can’t bite through human skin. Common exceptions are black widow and brown recluse spiders.

The bite of a mosquito produces an indurated, limited local reaction characterized by a pruritic wheal (3-29 mm in diameter) with surrounding erythema (FIGURE 6) that peaks in approximately 30 minutes, although patients might have a delayed reaction hours later.⁴⁶ Immunocompromised patients might experience a more significant local inflammatory reaction that is accompanied by low-grade fever, hives, or swollen lymph nodes.^46,47

Mosquitoes are a vector for serious infections, including dengue, Japanese encephalitis, malaria, and yellow fever, and disease caused by Chikungunya, West Nile, and Zika viruses.

Continue to: Management

Ticks

Ticks belong to the order Parasitiformes and families Ixodidae and Argasidae. Hard ticks are found in brushy fields and tall grasses and can bite and feed on humans for days. Soft ticks are generally found around animal nests.²⁹ Tick bites can cause a local reaction that includes painful, erythematous, inflammatory papular lesions (FIGURE 7).⁴⁹

Ticks can transmit several infectious diseases. Depending on the microbial pathogen and the genus and species of tick, it takes 2 to 96 hours for the tick to attach to skin and transmit the pathogen to the human host. The TABLE^29,49,50 provides an overview of tick species in the United States, diseases that they can transmit, and the geographic distribution of those diseases.

Management. Ticks should be removed with fine-tipped tweezers. Grasp the body of the tick close to the skin and pull upward while applying steady, even pressure. After removing the tick, clean the bite and the surrounding area with alcohol or with soap and water. Dispose of a live tick by flushing it down the toilet; or, kill it in alcohol and either seal it in a bag with tape or place it in a container.⁵⁰

Diagnosis and the utilityof special testing

The diagnosis of insect, arachnid, and other arthropod bites and stings depends on the history, including obtaining a record of possible exposure and a travel history; the timing of the bite or sting; and associated signs and symptoms.^18,51

Venom skin testing. For Hymenoptera stings, intradermal tests using a venom concentration of 0.001 to 1 μg/mL are positive in 65% to 80% of patients with a history of a systemic insect-sting allergic reaction. A negative venom skin test can occur during the 3-to-6-week refractory period after a sting reaction or many years later, which represents a loss of sensitivity. Positive venom skin tests are used to confirm allergy and identify specific insects to which the patient is allergic.^11,12

Continue to: Allergen-specific IgE antibody testing.

Providing reliefand advanced care

Symptomatic treatment of mild bites and stings includes washing the affected area with soap and water and applying a cold compress to reduce swelling.⁵⁴ For painful lesions, an oral analgesic can be prescribed.

For mild or moderate pruritus, a low- to midpotency topical corticosteroid (eg, hydrocortisone valerate cream 0.2% bid), topical calamine, or pramoxine can be applied,or a nonsedating oral antihistamine, such as loratadine (10 mg/d) or cetirizine (10 mg/d), can be used.^14,55 For severe itching, a sedating antihistamine, such as hydroxyzine (10-25 mg every 4 to 6 hours prn), might help relieve symptoms; H₁- and H₂-receptor antagonists can be used concomitantly.^54,55

Significant local symptoms. Large local reactions are treated with a midpotency topical corticosteroid (eg, triamcinolone acetonide cream 0.1% bid) plus an oral antihistamine to relieve pruritus and reduce allergic inflammation. For a more severe reaction, an oral corticosteroid (prednisone 1 mg/kg; maximum dosage, 50 mg/d) can be given for 5 to 7 days.^54-56

Management of a necrotic ulcer secondary to a brown recluse spider bite is symptomatic and supportive. The size of these wounds can increase for as long as 10 days after the bite; resolution can require months of wound care, possibly with debridement. Rarely, skin grafting is required.^27,28,31

VIT. Some studies show that VIT can improve quality of life in patients with prolonged, frequent, and worsening reactions to insect bites or stings and repeated, unavoidable exposures.^55,56 VIT is recommended for patients with systemic hypersensitivity and a positive venom skin test result. It is approximately 95% effective in preventing or reducing severe systemic reactions and reduces the risk of anaphylaxis (see next section) and death.⁵⁷ The maintenance dosage of VIT is usually 100 μg every 4 to 6 weeks; optimal duration of treatment is 3 to 5 years.⁵⁸

Continue to: After VIT is complete...

• a history of severe, life-threatening allergic reactions to bites and stings
• honey bee sting allergy
• mast-cell disease
• a history of anaphylaxis while receiving VIT.

Absolute contraindications to VIT include a history of serious immune disease, chronic infection, or cancer.^58,59

Managing anaphylaxis

This severe allergic reaction can lead to death if untreated. First-line therapy is intramuscular epinephrine, 0.01 mg/kg (maximum single dose, 0.5 mg) given every 5 to 15 minutes.^14,60 Epinephrine auto-injectors deliver a fixed dose and are labeled according to weight. Administration of O₂ and intravenous fluids is recommended for hemodynamically unstable patients.^60,61 Antihistamines and corticosteroids can be used as secondary treatment but should not replace epinephrine.⁵⁶

After preliminary improvement, patients might decompensate when the epinephrine dose wears off. Furthermore, a biphasic reaction, variously reported in < 5% to as many as 20% of patients,^61,62 occurs hours after the initial anaphylactic reaction. Patients should be monitored, therefore, for at least 6 to 8 hours after an anaphylactic reaction, preferably in a facility equipped to treat anaphylaxis.^17,56
 

The scent of botanic oils, including lavender and peppermint, can help prevent infestation by fleas.

Before discharge, patients who have had an anaphylactic reaction should be given a prescription for epinephrine and training in the use of an epinephrine auto-injector. Allergen avoidance, along with an emergency plan in the event of a bite or sting, is recommended. Follow-up evaluation with an allergist or immunologist is essential for proper diagnosis and to determine whether the patient is a candidate for VIT.^14,17

CORRESPONDENCE
Ecler Ercole Jaqua, MD, DipABLM, FAAFP, 1200 California Street, Suite 240, Redlands, CA 92374; [email protected].

Insect, arachnid, and other arthropod bites and stings are common patient complaints in a primary care office. A thorough history and physical exam can often isolate the specific offender and guide management. In this article, we outline how to identify, diagnose, and treat common bites and stings from bees and wasps; centipedes and spiders; fleas; flies and biting midges; mosquitoes; and ticks, and discuss how high-risk patients should be triaged and referred for additional testing and treatment, such as venom immunotherapy (VIT).

Insects and arachnids:Background and epidemiology

Insects are arthropods with 3-part exoskeletons: head, thorax, and abdomen. They have 6 jointed legs, compound eyes, and antennae. There are approximately 91,000 insect species in the United States, the most abundant orders being Coleoptera (beetles), Diptera (flies), and Hymenoptera (includes ants, bees, wasps, and sawflies).¹

The reported incidence of insect bites and stings varies widely because most people experience mild symptoms and therefore do not seek medical care. Best statistics are for Hymenoptera stings, which are more likely to cause a severe reaction. In Europe, 56% to 94% of the general population has reported being bitten or stung by one of the Hymenoptera species.² In many areas of Australia, the incidence of jack jumper ant stings is only 2% to 3%³; in the United States, 55% of people report being stung by nonnative fire ants within 3 weeks of moving into an endemic area.⁴

Arachnids are some of the earliest terrestrial organisms, of the class Arachnida, which includes scorpions, ticks, spiders, mites, and daddy longlegs (harvestmen).⁵ Arachnids are wingless and characterized by segmented bodies, jointed appendages, and exoskeletons.^6,7 In most, the body is separated into 2 segments (the cephalothorax and abdomen), except for mites, ticks, and daddy longlegs, in which the entire body comprises a single segment.⁵

Arthropod bites are common in the United States; almost one-half are caused by spiders.⁷ Brown recluse (Loxosceles spp) and black widow (Latrodectus spp) spider bites are the most concerning: Although usually mild, these bites can be life-threatening but are rarely fatal. In 2013, almost 3500 bites by black widow and brown recluse spiders were reported.⁸

Among beekeepers, the risk of a systemic reaction is higher in those stung < 15 times a year than in those stung > 200 times.

Risk factors

Risk factors for insect, arachnid, and other arthropod bites and stings are primarily environmental. People who live or work in proximity of biting or stinging insects (eg, gardeners and beekeepers) are more likely to be affected; so are those who work with animals or live next to standing water or grassy or wooded locales.

Continue to: There are also risk factors...

There are also risk factors for a systemic sting reaction:

• A sting reaction < 2 months earlier increases the risk of a subsequent systemic sting reaction by ≥ 50%.⁹
• Among beekeepers, paradoxically, the risk of a systemic reaction is higher in those stung < 15 times a year than in those stung > 200 times.¹⁰
• Patients with an elevated baseline serum level of tryptase (reference range, < 11.4 ng/mL), which is part of the allergenic response, or with biopsy-proven systemic mastocytosis are at increased risk of a systemic sting reaction.¹¹

Presentation: Signs and symptomsvary with severity

Insect bites and stings usually cause transient local inflammation and, occasionally, a toxic reaction. Allergic hypersensitivity can result in a large local reaction or a generalized systemic reaction¹²:

• A small local reaction is transient and mild, develops directly at the site of the sting, and can last several days.¹³
• A large (or significant) local reaction, defined as swelling > 10 cm in diameter (FIGURE 1) and lasting > 24 hours, occurs in 2% to 26% of people who have been bitten or stung.¹⁴ This is an immunoglobulin (Ig) E–mediated late-phase reaction that can be accompanied by fatigue and nausea.^12,13,15 For a patient with a large local reaction, the risk of a concomitant systemic reaction is 4% to 10%, typically beginning within 30 minutes after envenomation or, possibly, delayed for several hours or marked by a biphasic interval.¹⁶
• Characteristics of a systemic reaction are urticaria, angioedema, bronchospasm, large-airway edema, hypotension, and other clinical manifestations of anaphylaxis.¹⁷ In the United States, a systemic sting reaction is reported to occur in approximately 3% of bite and sting victims. Mortality among the general population from a systemic bite or sting reaction is 0.16 for every 100,000 people,² and at least 40 to 100 die every year in the United States from anaphylaxis resulting from an insect bite or sting.¹⁸
• The most severe anaphylactic reactions involve the cardiovascular and respiratory systems, commonly including hypotension and symptoms of upper- or lower-airway obstruction. Laryngeal edema and circulatory failure are the most common mechanisms of anaphylactic death.¹⁹

Bees and wasps

Hymenoptera stinging insects include the family Apidae (honey bee, bumblebee, and sweat bee) and Vespidae (yellow jacket, yellow- and white-faced hornets, and paper wasp). A worker honey bee can sting only once, leaving its barbed stinger in the skin; a wasp, hornet, and yellow jacket can sting multiple times (FIGURE 2).²

Continue to: Bee and wasp sting...

Bee and wasp sting allergies are the most common insect venom allergic reactions. A bee sting is more likely to lead to a severe allergic reaction than a wasp sting. Allergic reactions to hornet and bumblebee stings are less common but can occur in patients already sensitized to wasp and honey bee stings.^20,21

Management. Remove honey bee stingers by scraping the skin with a fingernail or credit card. Ideally, the stinger should be removed in the first 30 seconds, before the venom sac empties. Otherwise, intense local inflammation, with possible lymphangitic streaking, can result.²²

For guidance on localized symptomatic care of bee and wasp stings and bites and stings from other sources discussed in this article, see “Providing relief and advanced care” on page E6.

Centipedes and spiders

Centipedes are arthropods of the class Chilopoda, subphylum Myriapoda, that are characterized by repeating linear (metameric) segments, each containing 1 pair of legs.²³ Centipedes have a pair of poison claws behind the head that are used to paralyze prey—usually, small insects.^23,24 The bite of a larger centipede can cause a painful reaction that generally subsides after a few hours but can last several days. Centipede bites are usually nonfatal to humans.²³

Spiders belong to the class Arachnida, order Araneae. They have 8 legs with chelicerae (mouthpiece, or “jaws”) that inject venom into prey.²⁵ Most spiders found in the United States cannot bite through human skin.^26,27 Common exceptions are black widow and brown recluse spiders, which each produce a distinct toxic venom that can cause significant morbidity in humans through a bite, although bites are rarely fatal.^26,27

The brown recluse spider is described as having a violin-shaped marking on the abdomen; the body is yellowish, tan, or dark brown. A bite can produce tiny fang marks and cause dull pain at the site of the bite that spreads quickly; myalgia; and pain in the stomach, back, chest, and legs.^28,29 The bite takes approximately 7 days to resolve. In a minority of cases, a tender erythematous halo develops, followed by a severe necrotic ulcer, or loxoscelism (FIGURE 3; 40% of cases) or scarring (13%), or both.^29,30

Continue to: In contrast...

A bee sting is more likely to lead to a severe allergic reaction than a wasp sting.

Management. Again, see “Providing relief and advanced care” on page E6. Consider providing antivenin treatment for moderate or severe bites of brown recluse and black widow spiders.

Fleas

Fleas are members of the order Siphonaptera. They are small (1.5-3.2 mm long), reddish brown, wingless, blood-sucking insects with long legs that allow them to jump far (12 or 13 inches) and high (6 or 7 inches).³³ Domesticated cats and dogs are the source of most flea infestations, resulting in an increased risk of exposure for humans.^34,35 Flea bites, which generally occur on lower extremities, develop into a small, erythematous papule with a halo (FIGURE 4) and associated mild edema, and cause intense pruritus 30 minutes after the bite.^35-37

Fleas are a vector for severe microbial infections, including bartonellosis, bubonic plague, cat-flea typhus, murine typhus, cat-scratch disease, rickettsial disease, and tularemia. Tungiasis is an inflammatory burrowing flea infestation—not a secondary infection for which the flea is a vector.^34,35

Preventive management. Repellents, including products that contain DEET (N,N-diethyl-meta-toluamide), picaridin (2-[2-hydroxyethyl]-1-piperidinecarboxylic acid 1-methylpropyl ester), and PMD (p-menthane-3,8-diol, a chemical constituent of Eucalyptus citriodora oil) can be used to prevent flea bites in humans.^33,38 Studies show that the scent of other botanic oils, including lavender, cedarwood, and peppermint, can also help prevent infestation by fleas; however, these compounds are not as effective as traditional insect repellents.^33,38

Flea control is difficult, requiring a multimodal approach to treating the infested animal and its environment.³⁹ Treatment of the infested domestic animal is the primary method of preventing human bites. Nonpesticidal control involves frequent cleaning of carpeting, furniture, animal bedding, and kennels. Insecticides can be applied throughout the house to combat severe infestation.^33,38

Continue to: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention...

Flies and biting midges

Flies are 2-winged insects belonging to the order Diptera. Several fly species can bite, causing a local inflammatory reaction; these include black flies, deer flies, horse flies, and sand flies. Signs and symptoms of a fly bite include pain, pruritus, erythema, and mild swelling (FIGURE 5).^41,42 Flies can transmit several infections, including bartonellosis, enteric bacterial disease (eg, caused by Campylobacter spp), leishmaniasis, loiasis, onchocerciasis, and trypanosomiasis.⁴³

Biting midges, also called “no-see-ums,” biting gnats, moose flies, and “punkies,”⁴⁴ are tiny (1-3 mm long) blood-sucking flies.⁴⁵ Bitten patients often report not having seen the midge because it is so small. The bite typically starts as a small, erythematous papule that develops into a dome-shaped blister and can be extraordinarily pruritic and painful.⁴⁴ The majority of people who have been bitten develop a hypersensitivity reaction, which usually resolves in a few weeks.

Management. Suppressing adult biting midges with an environmental insecticide is typically insufficient because the insecticide must be sprayed daily to eradicate active midges and generally does not affect larval habitat. Insect repellents and biopesticides, such as oil of lemon eucalyptus, can be effective in reducing the risk of bites.^44,45

Mosquitoes

Mosquitoes are flying, blood-sucking insects of the order Diptera and family Culicidae. Anopheles, Culex, and Aedes genera are responsible for most bites of humans.

Most spiders found in the United States can’t bite through human skin. Common exceptions are black widow and brown recluse spiders.

The bite of a mosquito produces an indurated, limited local reaction characterized by a pruritic wheal (3-29 mm in diameter) with surrounding erythema (FIGURE 6) that peaks in approximately 30 minutes, although patients might have a delayed reaction hours later.⁴⁶ Immunocompromised patients might experience a more significant local inflammatory reaction that is accompanied by low-grade fever, hives, or swollen lymph nodes.^46,47

Mosquitoes are a vector for serious infections, including dengue, Japanese encephalitis, malaria, and yellow fever, and disease caused by Chikungunya, West Nile, and Zika viruses.

Continue to: Management

Ticks

Ticks belong to the order Parasitiformes and families Ixodidae and Argasidae. Hard ticks are found in brushy fields and tall grasses and can bite and feed on humans for days. Soft ticks are generally found around animal nests.²⁹ Tick bites can cause a local reaction that includes painful, erythematous, inflammatory papular lesions (FIGURE 7).⁴⁹

Ticks can transmit several infectious diseases. Depending on the microbial pathogen and the genus and species of tick, it takes 2 to 96 hours for the tick to attach to skin and transmit the pathogen to the human host. The TABLE^29,49,50 provides an overview of tick species in the United States, diseases that they can transmit, and the geographic distribution of those diseases.

Management. Ticks should be removed with fine-tipped tweezers. Grasp the body of the tick close to the skin and pull upward while applying steady, even pressure. After removing the tick, clean the bite and the surrounding area with alcohol or with soap and water. Dispose of a live tick by flushing it down the toilet; or, kill it in alcohol and either seal it in a bag with tape or place it in a container.⁵⁰

Diagnosis and the utilityof special testing

The diagnosis of insect, arachnid, and other arthropod bites and stings depends on the history, including obtaining a record of possible exposure and a travel history; the timing of the bite or sting; and associated signs and symptoms.^18,51

Venom skin testing. For Hymenoptera stings, intradermal tests using a venom concentration of 0.001 to 1 μg/mL are positive in 65% to 80% of patients with a history of a systemic insect-sting allergic reaction. A negative venom skin test can occur during the 3-to-6-week refractory period after a sting reaction or many years later, which represents a loss of sensitivity. Positive venom skin tests are used to confirm allergy and identify specific insects to which the patient is allergic.^11,12

Continue to: Allergen-specific IgE antibody testing.

Providing reliefand advanced care

Symptomatic treatment of mild bites and stings includes washing the affected area with soap and water and applying a cold compress to reduce swelling.⁵⁴ For painful lesions, an oral analgesic can be prescribed.

For mild or moderate pruritus, a low- to midpotency topical corticosteroid (eg, hydrocortisone valerate cream 0.2% bid), topical calamine, or pramoxine can be applied,or a nonsedating oral antihistamine, such as loratadine (10 mg/d) or cetirizine (10 mg/d), can be used.^14,55 For severe itching, a sedating antihistamine, such as hydroxyzine (10-25 mg every 4 to 6 hours prn), might help relieve symptoms; H₁- and H₂-receptor antagonists can be used concomitantly.^54,55

Significant local symptoms. Large local reactions are treated with a midpotency topical corticosteroid (eg, triamcinolone acetonide cream 0.1% bid) plus an oral antihistamine to relieve pruritus and reduce allergic inflammation. For a more severe reaction, an oral corticosteroid (prednisone 1 mg/kg; maximum dosage, 50 mg/d) can be given for 5 to 7 days.^54-56

Management of a necrotic ulcer secondary to a brown recluse spider bite is symptomatic and supportive. The size of these wounds can increase for as long as 10 days after the bite; resolution can require months of wound care, possibly with debridement. Rarely, skin grafting is required.^27,28,31

VIT. Some studies show that VIT can improve quality of life in patients with prolonged, frequent, and worsening reactions to insect bites or stings and repeated, unavoidable exposures.^55,56 VIT is recommended for patients with systemic hypersensitivity and a positive venom skin test result. It is approximately 95% effective in preventing or reducing severe systemic reactions and reduces the risk of anaphylaxis (see next section) and death.⁵⁷ The maintenance dosage of VIT is usually 100 μg every 4 to 6 weeks; optimal duration of treatment is 3 to 5 years.⁵⁸

Continue to: After VIT is complete...

• a history of severe, life-threatening allergic reactions to bites and stings
• honey bee sting allergy
• mast-cell disease
• a history of anaphylaxis while receiving VIT.

Absolute contraindications to VIT include a history of serious immune disease, chronic infection, or cancer.^58,59

Managing anaphylaxis

This severe allergic reaction can lead to death if untreated. First-line therapy is intramuscular epinephrine, 0.01 mg/kg (maximum single dose, 0.5 mg) given every 5 to 15 minutes.^14,60 Epinephrine auto-injectors deliver a fixed dose and are labeled according to weight. Administration of O₂ and intravenous fluids is recommended for hemodynamically unstable patients.^60,61 Antihistamines and corticosteroids can be used as secondary treatment but should not replace epinephrine.⁵⁶

After preliminary improvement, patients might decompensate when the epinephrine dose wears off. Furthermore, a biphasic reaction, variously reported in < 5% to as many as 20% of patients,^61,62 occurs hours after the initial anaphylactic reaction. Patients should be monitored, therefore, for at least 6 to 8 hours after an anaphylactic reaction, preferably in a facility equipped to treat anaphylaxis.^17,56
 

The scent of botanic oils, including lavender and peppermint, can help prevent infestation by fleas.

Before discharge, patients who have had an anaphylactic reaction should be given a prescription for epinephrine and training in the use of an epinephrine auto-injector. Allergen avoidance, along with an emergency plan in the event of a bite or sting, is recommended. Follow-up evaluation with an allergist or immunologist is essential for proper diagnosis and to determine whether the patient is a candidate for VIT.^14,17

CORRESPONDENCE
Ecler Ercole Jaqua, MD, DipABLM, FAAFP, 1200 California Street, Suite 240, Redlands, CA 92374; [email protected].

CASE 

Mr. A is a 30-year-old man with neurofibromatosis and myelopathy with associated quadriplegia, complicated by dysphasia and chronic hypercapnic respiratory failure requiring a tracheostomy. He is cared for at home by his very competent mother but requires regular visits with his medical providers for assistance with his complex care needs. Due to logistical challenges, he had been receiving regular home visits even before the ­COVID-19 pandemic.

After estimating the risk of exposure to the patient, Mr. A’s family and his physician’s office staff scheduled a home visit. Before the appointment, the doctor conducted a virtual visit with the patient and family members to screen for COVID-19 infection, which proved negative. The doctor arranged a visit to coincide with Mr. A’s regular appointment with the home health nurse. He invited the patient’s social worker to attend, as well.

The providers donned masks, face shields, and gloves before entering the home. Mr. A’s temperature was checked and was normal. The team completed a physical exam, assessed the patient’s current needs, and refilled prescriptions. The doctor, nurse, and social worker met afterward in the family’s driveway to coordinate plans for the patient’s future care.

This encounter allowed a vulnerable patient with special needs to have access to care while reducing his risk of undesirable exposure. Also, his health care team’s provision of care in the home setting reduced Mr. A’s anxiety and that of his family members.

Home visits have long been an integral part of what it means to be a family physician. In 1930, roughly 40% of all patient-physician encounters in the United States occurred in patients’ homes. By 1980, this number had dropped to < 1%.¹ Still, a 1994 survey of American doctors in 3 primary care specialties revealed that 63% of family physicians, more than the other 2 specialties, still made house calls.² A 2016 analysis of Medicare claims data showed that between 2006 and 2011, only 5% of American doctors overall made house calls on Medicare recipients, but interestingly, the total number of home visits was increasing.³

This resurgence of interest in home health care is due in part to the increasing number of homebound patients in America, which exceeds the number of those in nursing homes.⁴ Further, a growing body of evidence indicates that home visits improve patient outcomes. And finally, many family physicians whose work lives have been centered around a busy office or hospital practice have found satisfaction in once again seeing patients in their own homes.

The COVID-19 pandemic has of course presented unique challenges—and opportunities, too—for home visits, which we discuss at the end of the article.

In the elderly, home visits have reduced functional decline, nursing home admissions, and mortality by 25% to 33%.

Why aren’t more of us making home visits?

For most of us, the decision not to make home visits is simply a matter of time and money. Although Medicare reimbursement for a home visit is typically about 150% that of a comparable office visit,⁵ it’s difficult, if not impossible, to make 2 home visits in the time you could see 3 patients in the office. So, economically it’s a net loss. Furthermore, we tend to feel less comfortable in our patients’ homes than in our offices. We have less control outside our own environment, and what happens away from our office is often less predictable—sometimes to the point that we may be concerned for our safety.

Continue to: So why make home visits at all?

So why make home visits at all?

First and foremost, home visits improve patient outcomes. This is most evident in our more vulnerable patients: newborns and the elderly, those who have been recently hospitalized, and those at risk because of their particular home situation. Multiple studies have shown that, for elders, home visits reduce functional decline, nursing home admissions, and mortality by around 25% to 33%.^6-8 For those at risk of abuse, a recent systematic review showed that home visits reduce intimate partner violence and child abuse.⁹ Another systematic review demonstrated that patients with diabetes who received home visits vs usual care were more likely to show improvements in quality of life.¹⁰ These patients were also more likely to have lower HbA1c levels and lower systolic blood pressure readings.¹⁰ A few caveats apply to these studies:

• all of them targeted “vulnerable” patients
• most studies enlisted interdisciplinary teams and had regular team meetings
• most findings reached significance only after multiple home visits.

A further reason for choosing to become involved in home care is that it builds relationships, understanding, and empathy with our patients. “There is deep symbolism in the home visit.... It says, ‘I care enough about you to leave my power base … to come and see you on your own ground.’”¹¹ And this benefit is 2-way; we also grow to understand and appreciate our patients better, especially if they are different from us culturally or socioeconomically.

Home visits allow the medical team to see challenges the patient has grown accustomed to, and perhaps ones that the patient has deemed too insignificant to mention. For the patient, home visits foster a strong sense of trust with the individual doctor and our health delivery network, and they decrease the need to seek emergency services. Finally, it has been demonstrated that provider satisfaction improves when home visits are incorporated into the work week.¹²

What is the role of community health workers in home-based care?

Community health workers (CHWs), defined as “frontline public health workers who are trusted members of and/or have an unusually close understanding of the community they serve,”¹³ can be an integral part of the home-based care team. Although CHWs have variable amounts of formal training, they have a unique perspective on local health beliefs and practices, which can assist the home-care team in providing culturally competent health care services and reduce health care costs.

In a study of children with asthma in Seattle, Washington, patients were randomized to a group that had 4 home visits by CHWs and a group that received usual care. The group that received home visits demonstrated more asthma symptom–free days, improved quality-of-life scores, and fewer urgent care visits.¹⁴ Furthermore, the intervention was estimated to save approximately $1300 per patient, resulting in a return on investment of 190%. Similarly, in a study comparing inappropriate emergency department (ED) visits between children who received CHW visits and those who did not, patients in the intervention group were significantly less likely to visit the ED for ambulatory complaints (18.2% vs 35.1%; P = .004).¹⁵

Continue to: What is the role of social workersin home-based care?

What is the role of social workersin home-based care?

Social workers can help meet the complex medical and biopsychosocial needs of the homebound population.¹⁶ A study by Cohen et al based in Israel concluded that homebound participants had a significantly higher risk for mortality, higher rates of depression, and difficulty completing instrumental activities of daily living when compared with their non-homebound counterparts.¹⁷

The Mount Sinai (New York) Visiting Doctors Program (MSVD) is a home-based care team that uses social workers to meet the needs of their complex patients.¹⁸ The social workers in the MSVD program provide direct counseling, make referrals to government and community resources, and monitor caregiver burden. Using a combination of measurement tools to assess caregiver burden, Ornstein et al demonstrated that the MSVD program led to a decrease in unmet needs and in caregiver burden.^19,20 Caregiver burnout can be assessed using the Caregiver Burden Inventory, a validated 24-item questionnaire.²¹

What electronic tools are availableto monitor patients at home?

Although expensive in terms of both dollars and personnel time, telemonitoring allows home care providers to receive real-time, updated information regarding their patients.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). One systematic review showed that although telemonitoring of patients with COPD improved quality of life and decreased COPD exacerbations, it did not reduce the risk of hospitalization and, therefore, did not reduce health care costs.²² Telemonitoring in COPD can include transmission of data about spirometry parameters, weight, temperature, blood pressure, sputum color, and 6-minute walk distance.^23,24

Congestive heart failure (CHF). A 2010 Cochrane review found that telemonitoring of patients with CHF reduced all-cause mortality (risk ratio [RR] = 0.66; P < .0001).²⁵ The Telemedical Interventional Management in Heart Failure II (TIM-HF2) trial,conducted from 2013 to 2017, compared usual care for CHF patients with care incorporating daily transmission of body weight, blood pressure, heart rate, electrocardiogram tracings, pulse oximetry, and self-rated health status.²⁶ This study showed that the average number of days lost per year due to hospital admission was less in the telemonitoring group than in the usual care group (17.8 days vs. 24.2 days; P = .046). All-cause mortality was also reduced in the telemonitoring group (hazard ratio = 0.70; P = .028).

Home visits allow the medical team to see challenges the patient has grown accustomed to, and perhaps ones that the patient has deemed too insignificant to mention.

Continue to: What role do “home hospitals” play?

What role do “home hospitals” play?

Home hospitals provide acute or subacute treatment in a patient’s home for a condition that would normally require hospitalization.²⁷ In a meta-analysis of 61 studies evaluating the effectiveness of home hospitals, this option was more likely to reduce mortality (odds ratio [OR] = 0.81; P = .008) and to reduce readmission rates (OR = 0.75; P = .02).²⁸ In a study of 455 older adults, Leff et al found that hospital-at-home was associated with a shorter length of stay (3.2 vs. 4.9 days; P = .004) and that the mean cost was lower for hospital-at-home vs traditional hospital care.²⁹

However, a 2016 Cochrane review of 16 randomized controlled trials comparing hospital-at-home with traditional hospital care showed that while care in a hospital-­at-home may decrease formal costs, if costs for caregivers are taken into account, any difference in cost may disappear.³⁰

Although the evidence for cost saving is variable, hospital-at-home admission has been shown to reduce the likelihood of living in a residential care facility at 6 months (RR = 0.35; P < .0001).³⁰ Further, the same Cochrane review showed that admission avoidance may increase patient satisfaction with the care provided.³⁰

Finally, a recent randomized trial in a Boston-area hospital system showed that patients cared for in hospital-at-home were significantly less likely to be readmitted within 30 days and that adjusted cost was about two-thirds the cost of traditional hospital care.³¹

What is the physician’s rolein home health care?

While home health care is a team effort, the physician has several crucial roles. First, he or she must make the determination that home care is appropriate and feasible for a particular patient. Appropriate, meaning there is evidence that this patient is likely to benefit from home care. Feasible, meaning there are resources available in the community and family to safely care for the patient at home. “Often a house call will serve as the first step in developing a home-based-management plan.”³²

Patients with diabetes receiving home care are more likely to have improved quality of life, lower HbA1c levels, and lower systolic BP readings.

Continue to: Second, the physician serves...

Second, the physician serves an important role in directing and coordinating the team of professionals involved. This primarily means helping the team to communicate with one another. Before home visits begin, the physician’s office should reach out not only to the patient and family, but also to any other health care personnel involved in the patient’s home care. Otherwise, many of the health care providers involved will never have face-to-face interaction with the physician. Creation of the coordinated health team minimizes duplication and miscommunication; it also builds a valuable bond.

How does one go about making a home visit?

Scheduling. What often works best in a busy practice is to schedule home visits for the end of the workday or to devote an entire afternoon to making home visits to several patients in one locale. Also important is scheduling times, if possible, when important family members or other caregivers are at home or when other members of the home care team can accompany you.

What to bring along. Carry a “home visit bag” that includes equipment you’re likely to need and that is not available away from your office. A minimally equipped visit bag would include different-sized blood pressure cuffs, a glucometer, a pulse oximeter, thermometers, and patient education materials. Other suggested contents are listed in TABLE 1. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, providers should also carry adequate personal protective equipment (PPE), including an N-95 mask.

Dos and don’ts. Take a few minutes when you first arrive to simply visit with the patient. Sit down and introduce yourself and any members of the home care team that the patient has not met. Take an interim history. While you’re doing this, be observant: Is the home neat or cluttered? Is the indoor temperature comfortable? Are there fall hazards? Is there a smell of cigarette smoke? Are there any indoor combustion sources (eg, wood stove or kerosene heater)? Ask questions such as: Who lives here with you? Can you show me where you keep your medicines? (If the patient keeps insulin or any other medicines in the refrigerator, ask to see it. Note any apparent food scarcity.)

During your exam, pay particular attention to whether vital signs are appreciably different than those measured in the office or hospital. Pay special attention to the patient’s functional abilities. “A subtle, but critical distinction between medical management in the home and medical management in the hospital, clinic, or office is the emphasis on the patient’s functional abilities, family assistance, and environmental factors.”³³

Observe the patient’s use of any home technology, if possible; this can be as simple as home oxygenation or as complex as home hemodialysis. Assess for any apparent caregiver stress. Finally, don’t neglect to offer appropriate emotional and spiritual support to the patient and family and to schedule the next follow-up visit before you leave.

Continue to:  Documentation and reimbursement.

Not all assessments will be able to be done at each visit but seeing them listed in the template can be helpful. Billing follows the same principles as for office visits and has similar requirements for documentation. Codes for the most common types of home visits are listed in TABLE 3.

Where can I get help?

Graduates of family medicine residency programs are required to receive training in home visits by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME). Current ACGME program requirements stipulate that “residents must demonstrate competence to independently diagnose, manage, and integrate the care of patients of all ages in various outpatient settings, including the FMP [family medicine practice] site and home environment,” and “residents must be primarily responsible for a panel of continuity patients, integrating each patient’s care across all settings, including the home ...” [emphasis added].³⁴

For those already in practice, one of the hardest parts of doing home visits is feeling alone, especially if few other providers in your community engage in home care. As you run into questions and challenges with incorporating home care of patients into your practice, one excellent resource is the American Academy of Home Care Medicine (www.aahcm.org/). Founded in 1988 and headquartered in Chicago, it not only provides numerous helpful resources, but serves as a networking tool for physicians involved in home care.

Using a home visit template can help with documentation and reimbursement.

This unprecedented pandemichas allowed home visits to shine

As depicted in our opening patient case, patients who have high-risk conditions and those who are older than 65 years of age may be cared for more appropriately in a home visit rather than having them come to the office. Home visits may also be a way for providers to “lay eyes” on patients who do not have technology available to participate in virtual visits.

Before performing a home visit, inquire as to whether the patient has symptoms of COVID-19. Adequate PPE should be donned at all times and social distancing should be practiced when appropriate. With adequate PPE, home visits may also allow providers to care for low-risk patients known to have ­COVID-19 and thereby minimize risks to staff and other patients in the office. JFP

CORRESPONDENCE
Curt Elliott, MD, Prisma Health USC Family Medicine Center, 3209 Colonial Drive, Columbia, SC 29203; [email protected].

CASE 

Mr. A is a 30-year-old man with neurofibromatosis and myelopathy with associated quadriplegia, complicated by dysphasia and chronic hypercapnic respiratory failure requiring a tracheostomy. He is cared for at home by his very competent mother but requires regular visits with his medical providers for assistance with his complex care needs. Due to logistical challenges, he had been receiving regular home visits even before the ­COVID-19 pandemic.

After estimating the risk of exposure to the patient, Mr. A’s family and his physician’s office staff scheduled a home visit. Before the appointment, the doctor conducted a virtual visit with the patient and family members to screen for COVID-19 infection, which proved negative. The doctor arranged a visit to coincide with Mr. A’s regular appointment with the home health nurse. He invited the patient’s social worker to attend, as well.

The providers donned masks, face shields, and gloves before entering the home. Mr. A’s temperature was checked and was normal. The team completed a physical exam, assessed the patient’s current needs, and refilled prescriptions. The doctor, nurse, and social worker met afterward in the family’s driveway to coordinate plans for the patient’s future care.

This encounter allowed a vulnerable patient with special needs to have access to care while reducing his risk of undesirable exposure. Also, his health care team’s provision of care in the home setting reduced Mr. A’s anxiety and that of his family members.

Home visits have long been an integral part of what it means to be a family physician. In 1930, roughly 40% of all patient-physician encounters in the United States occurred in patients’ homes. By 1980, this number had dropped to < 1%.¹ Still, a 1994 survey of American doctors in 3 primary care specialties revealed that 63% of family physicians, more than the other 2 specialties, still made house calls.² A 2016 analysis of Medicare claims data showed that between 2006 and 2011, only 5% of American doctors overall made house calls on Medicare recipients, but interestingly, the total number of home visits was increasing.³

This resurgence of interest in home health care is due in part to the increasing number of homebound patients in America, which exceeds the number of those in nursing homes.⁴ Further, a growing body of evidence indicates that home visits improve patient outcomes. And finally, many family physicians whose work lives have been centered around a busy office or hospital practice have found satisfaction in once again seeing patients in their own homes.

The COVID-19 pandemic has of course presented unique challenges—and opportunities, too—for home visits, which we discuss at the end of the article.

In the elderly, home visits have reduced functional decline, nursing home admissions, and mortality by 25% to 33%.

Why aren’t more of us making home visits?

For most of us, the decision not to make home visits is simply a matter of time and money. Although Medicare reimbursement for a home visit is typically about 150% that of a comparable office visit,⁵ it’s difficult, if not impossible, to make 2 home visits in the time you could see 3 patients in the office. So, economically it’s a net loss. Furthermore, we tend to feel less comfortable in our patients’ homes than in our offices. We have less control outside our own environment, and what happens away from our office is often less predictable—sometimes to the point that we may be concerned for our safety.

Continue to: So why make home visits at all?

So why make home visits at all?

First and foremost, home visits improve patient outcomes. This is most evident in our more vulnerable patients: newborns and the elderly, those who have been recently hospitalized, and those at risk because of their particular home situation. Multiple studies have shown that, for elders, home visits reduce functional decline, nursing home admissions, and mortality by around 25% to 33%.^6-8 For those at risk of abuse, a recent systematic review showed that home visits reduce intimate partner violence and child abuse.⁹ Another systematic review demonstrated that patients with diabetes who received home visits vs usual care were more likely to show improvements in quality of life.¹⁰ These patients were also more likely to have lower HbA1c levels and lower systolic blood pressure readings.¹⁰ A few caveats apply to these studies:

• all of them targeted “vulnerable” patients
• most studies enlisted interdisciplinary teams and had regular team meetings
• most findings reached significance only after multiple home visits.

A further reason for choosing to become involved in home care is that it builds relationships, understanding, and empathy with our patients. “There is deep symbolism in the home visit.... It says, ‘I care enough about you to leave my power base … to come and see you on your own ground.’”¹¹ And this benefit is 2-way; we also grow to understand and appreciate our patients better, especially if they are different from us culturally or socioeconomically.

Home visits allow the medical team to see challenges the patient has grown accustomed to, and perhaps ones that the patient has deemed too insignificant to mention. For the patient, home visits foster a strong sense of trust with the individual doctor and our health delivery network, and they decrease the need to seek emergency services. Finally, it has been demonstrated that provider satisfaction improves when home visits are incorporated into the work week.¹²

What is the role of community health workers in home-based care?

Community health workers (CHWs), defined as “frontline public health workers who are trusted members of and/or have an unusually close understanding of the community they serve,”¹³ can be an integral part of the home-based care team. Although CHWs have variable amounts of formal training, they have a unique perspective on local health beliefs and practices, which can assist the home-care team in providing culturally competent health care services and reduce health care costs.

In a study of children with asthma in Seattle, Washington, patients were randomized to a group that had 4 home visits by CHWs and a group that received usual care. The group that received home visits demonstrated more asthma symptom–free days, improved quality-of-life scores, and fewer urgent care visits.¹⁴ Furthermore, the intervention was estimated to save approximately $1300 per patient, resulting in a return on investment of 190%. Similarly, in a study comparing inappropriate emergency department (ED) visits between children who received CHW visits and those who did not, patients in the intervention group were significantly less likely to visit the ED for ambulatory complaints (18.2% vs 35.1%; P = .004).¹⁵

Continue to: What is the role of social workersin home-based care?

What is the role of social workersin home-based care?

Social workers can help meet the complex medical and biopsychosocial needs of the homebound population.¹⁶ A study by Cohen et al based in Israel concluded that homebound participants had a significantly higher risk for mortality, higher rates of depression, and difficulty completing instrumental activities of daily living when compared with their non-homebound counterparts.¹⁷

The Mount Sinai (New York) Visiting Doctors Program (MSVD) is a home-based care team that uses social workers to meet the needs of their complex patients.¹⁸ The social workers in the MSVD program provide direct counseling, make referrals to government and community resources, and monitor caregiver burden. Using a combination of measurement tools to assess caregiver burden, Ornstein et al demonstrated that the MSVD program led to a decrease in unmet needs and in caregiver burden.^19,20 Caregiver burnout can be assessed using the Caregiver Burden Inventory, a validated 24-item questionnaire.²¹

What electronic tools are availableto monitor patients at home?

Although expensive in terms of both dollars and personnel time, telemonitoring allows home care providers to receive real-time, updated information regarding their patients.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). One systematic review showed that although telemonitoring of patients with COPD improved quality of life and decreased COPD exacerbations, it did not reduce the risk of hospitalization and, therefore, did not reduce health care costs.²² Telemonitoring in COPD can include transmission of data about spirometry parameters, weight, temperature, blood pressure, sputum color, and 6-minute walk distance.^23,24

Congestive heart failure (CHF). A 2010 Cochrane review found that telemonitoring of patients with CHF reduced all-cause mortality (risk ratio [RR] = 0.66; P < .0001).²⁵ The Telemedical Interventional Management in Heart Failure II (TIM-HF2) trial,conducted from 2013 to 2017, compared usual care for CHF patients with care incorporating daily transmission of body weight, blood pressure, heart rate, electrocardiogram tracings, pulse oximetry, and self-rated health status.²⁶ This study showed that the average number of days lost per year due to hospital admission was less in the telemonitoring group than in the usual care group (17.8 days vs. 24.2 days; P = .046). All-cause mortality was also reduced in the telemonitoring group (hazard ratio = 0.70; P = .028).

Home visits allow the medical team to see challenges the patient has grown accustomed to, and perhaps ones that the patient has deemed too insignificant to mention.

Continue to: What role do “home hospitals” play?

What role do “home hospitals” play?

Home hospitals provide acute or subacute treatment in a patient’s home for a condition that would normally require hospitalization.²⁷ In a meta-analysis of 61 studies evaluating the effectiveness of home hospitals, this option was more likely to reduce mortality (odds ratio [OR] = 0.81; P = .008) and to reduce readmission rates (OR = 0.75; P = .02).²⁸ In a study of 455 older adults, Leff et al found that hospital-at-home was associated with a shorter length of stay (3.2 vs. 4.9 days; P = .004) and that the mean cost was lower for hospital-at-home vs traditional hospital care.²⁹

However, a 2016 Cochrane review of 16 randomized controlled trials comparing hospital-at-home with traditional hospital care showed that while care in a hospital-­at-home may decrease formal costs, if costs for caregivers are taken into account, any difference in cost may disappear.³⁰

Although the evidence for cost saving is variable, hospital-at-home admission has been shown to reduce the likelihood of living in a residential care facility at 6 months (RR = 0.35; P < .0001).³⁰ Further, the same Cochrane review showed that admission avoidance may increase patient satisfaction with the care provided.³⁰

Finally, a recent randomized trial in a Boston-area hospital system showed that patients cared for in hospital-at-home were significantly less likely to be readmitted within 30 days and that adjusted cost was about two-thirds the cost of traditional hospital care.³¹

What is the physician’s rolein home health care?

While home health care is a team effort, the physician has several crucial roles. First, he or she must make the determination that home care is appropriate and feasible for a particular patient. Appropriate, meaning there is evidence that this patient is likely to benefit from home care. Feasible, meaning there are resources available in the community and family to safely care for the patient at home. “Often a house call will serve as the first step in developing a home-based-management plan.”³²

Patients with diabetes receiving home care are more likely to have improved quality of life, lower HbA1c levels, and lower systolic BP readings.

Continue to: Second, the physician serves...

Second, the physician serves an important role in directing and coordinating the team of professionals involved. This primarily means helping the team to communicate with one another. Before home visits begin, the physician’s office should reach out not only to the patient and family, but also to any other health care personnel involved in the patient’s home care. Otherwise, many of the health care providers involved will never have face-to-face interaction with the physician. Creation of the coordinated health team minimizes duplication and miscommunication; it also builds a valuable bond.

How does one go about making a home visit?

Scheduling. What often works best in a busy practice is to schedule home visits for the end of the workday or to devote an entire afternoon to making home visits to several patients in one locale. Also important is scheduling times, if possible, when important family members or other caregivers are at home or when other members of the home care team can accompany you.

What to bring along. Carry a “home visit bag” that includes equipment you’re likely to need and that is not available away from your office. A minimally equipped visit bag would include different-sized blood pressure cuffs, a glucometer, a pulse oximeter, thermometers, and patient education materials. Other suggested contents are listed in TABLE 1. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, providers should also carry adequate personal protective equipment (PPE), including an N-95 mask.

Dos and don’ts. Take a few minutes when you first arrive to simply visit with the patient. Sit down and introduce yourself and any members of the home care team that the patient has not met. Take an interim history. While you’re doing this, be observant: Is the home neat or cluttered? Is the indoor temperature comfortable? Are there fall hazards? Is there a smell of cigarette smoke? Are there any indoor combustion sources (eg, wood stove or kerosene heater)? Ask questions such as: Who lives here with you? Can you show me where you keep your medicines? (If the patient keeps insulin or any other medicines in the refrigerator, ask to see it. Note any apparent food scarcity.)

During your exam, pay particular attention to whether vital signs are appreciably different than those measured in the office or hospital. Pay special attention to the patient’s functional abilities. “A subtle, but critical distinction between medical management in the home and medical management in the hospital, clinic, or office is the emphasis on the patient’s functional abilities, family assistance, and environmental factors.”³³

Observe the patient’s use of any home technology, if possible; this can be as simple as home oxygenation or as complex as home hemodialysis. Assess for any apparent caregiver stress. Finally, don’t neglect to offer appropriate emotional and spiritual support to the patient and family and to schedule the next follow-up visit before you leave.

Continue to:  Documentation and reimbursement.

Not all assessments will be able to be done at each visit but seeing them listed in the template can be helpful. Billing follows the same principles as for office visits and has similar requirements for documentation. Codes for the most common types of home visits are listed in TABLE 3.

Where can I get help?

Graduates of family medicine residency programs are required to receive training in home visits by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME). Current ACGME program requirements stipulate that “residents must demonstrate competence to independently diagnose, manage, and integrate the care of patients of all ages in various outpatient settings, including the FMP [family medicine practice] site and home environment,” and “residents must be primarily responsible for a panel of continuity patients, integrating each patient’s care across all settings, including the home ...” [emphasis added].³⁴

For those already in practice, one of the hardest parts of doing home visits is feeling alone, especially if few other providers in your community engage in home care. As you run into questions and challenges with incorporating home care of patients into your practice, one excellent resource is the American Academy of Home Care Medicine (www.aahcm.org/). Founded in 1988 and headquartered in Chicago, it not only provides numerous helpful resources, but serves as a networking tool for physicians involved in home care.

Using a home visit template can help with documentation and reimbursement.

This unprecedented pandemichas allowed home visits to shine

As depicted in our opening patient case, patients who have high-risk conditions and those who are older than 65 years of age may be cared for more appropriately in a home visit rather than having them come to the office. Home visits may also be a way for providers to “lay eyes” on patients who do not have technology available to participate in virtual visits.

Before performing a home visit, inquire as to whether the patient has symptoms of COVID-19. Adequate PPE should be donned at all times and social distancing should be practiced when appropriate. With adequate PPE, home visits may also allow providers to care for low-risk patients known to have ­COVID-19 and thereby minimize risks to staff and other patients in the office. JFP

CORRESPONDENCE
Curt Elliott, MD, Prisma Health USC Family Medicine Center, 3209 Colonial Drive, Columbia, SC 29203; [email protected].

CASE 

Mr. A is a 30-year-old man with neurofibromatosis and myelopathy with associated quadriplegia, complicated by dysphasia and chronic hypercapnic respiratory failure requiring a tracheostomy. He is cared for at home by his very competent mother but requires regular visits with his medical providers for assistance with his complex care needs. Due to logistical challenges, he had been receiving regular home visits even before the ­COVID-19 pandemic.

After estimating the risk of exposure to the patient, Mr. A’s family and his physician’s office staff scheduled a home visit. Before the appointment, the doctor conducted a virtual visit with the patient and family members to screen for COVID-19 infection, which proved negative. The doctor arranged a visit to coincide with Mr. A’s regular appointment with the home health nurse. He invited the patient’s social worker to attend, as well.

The providers donned masks, face shields, and gloves before entering the home. Mr. A’s temperature was checked and was normal. The team completed a physical exam, assessed the patient’s current needs, and refilled prescriptions. The doctor, nurse, and social worker met afterward in the family’s driveway to coordinate plans for the patient’s future care.

This encounter allowed a vulnerable patient with special needs to have access to care while reducing his risk of undesirable exposure. Also, his health care team’s provision of care in the home setting reduced Mr. A’s anxiety and that of his family members.

Home visits have long been an integral part of what it means to be a family physician. In 1930, roughly 40% of all patient-physician encounters in the United States occurred in patients’ homes. By 1980, this number had dropped to < 1%.¹ Still, a 1994 survey of American doctors in 3 primary care specialties revealed that 63% of family physicians, more than the other 2 specialties, still made house calls.² A 2016 analysis of Medicare claims data showed that between 2006 and 2011, only 5% of American doctors overall made house calls on Medicare recipients, but interestingly, the total number of home visits was increasing.³

This resurgence of interest in home health care is due in part to the increasing number of homebound patients in America, which exceeds the number of those in nursing homes.⁴ Further, a growing body of evidence indicates that home visits improve patient outcomes. And finally, many family physicians whose work lives have been centered around a busy office or hospital practice have found satisfaction in once again seeing patients in their own homes.

The COVID-19 pandemic has of course presented unique challenges—and opportunities, too—for home visits, which we discuss at the end of the article.

In the elderly, home visits have reduced functional decline, nursing home admissions, and mortality by 25% to 33%.

Why aren’t more of us making home visits?

For most of us, the decision not to make home visits is simply a matter of time and money. Although Medicare reimbursement for a home visit is typically about 150% that of a comparable office visit,⁵ it’s difficult, if not impossible, to make 2 home visits in the time you could see 3 patients in the office. So, economically it’s a net loss. Furthermore, we tend to feel less comfortable in our patients’ homes than in our offices. We have less control outside our own environment, and what happens away from our office is often less predictable—sometimes to the point that we may be concerned for our safety.

Continue to: So why make home visits at all?

So why make home visits at all?

First and foremost, home visits improve patient outcomes. This is most evident in our more vulnerable patients: newborns and the elderly, those who have been recently hospitalized, and those at risk because of their particular home situation. Multiple studies have shown that, for elders, home visits reduce functional decline, nursing home admissions, and mortality by around 25% to 33%.^6-8 For those at risk of abuse, a recent systematic review showed that home visits reduce intimate partner violence and child abuse.⁹ Another systematic review demonstrated that patients with diabetes who received home visits vs usual care were more likely to show improvements in quality of life.¹⁰ These patients were also more likely to have lower HbA1c levels and lower systolic blood pressure readings.¹⁰ A few caveats apply to these studies:

• all of them targeted “vulnerable” patients
• most studies enlisted interdisciplinary teams and had regular team meetings
• most findings reached significance only after multiple home visits.

A further reason for choosing to become involved in home care is that it builds relationships, understanding, and empathy with our patients. “There is deep symbolism in the home visit.... It says, ‘I care enough about you to leave my power base … to come and see you on your own ground.’”¹¹ And this benefit is 2-way; we also grow to understand and appreciate our patients better, especially if they are different from us culturally or socioeconomically.

Home visits allow the medical team to see challenges the patient has grown accustomed to, and perhaps ones that the patient has deemed too insignificant to mention. For the patient, home visits foster a strong sense of trust with the individual doctor and our health delivery network, and they decrease the need to seek emergency services. Finally, it has been demonstrated that provider satisfaction improves when home visits are incorporated into the work week.¹²

What is the role of community health workers in home-based care?

Community health workers (CHWs), defined as “frontline public health workers who are trusted members of and/or have an unusually close understanding of the community they serve,”¹³ can be an integral part of the home-based care team. Although CHWs have variable amounts of formal training, they have a unique perspective on local health beliefs and practices, which can assist the home-care team in providing culturally competent health care services and reduce health care costs.

In a study of children with asthma in Seattle, Washington, patients were randomized to a group that had 4 home visits by CHWs and a group that received usual care. The group that received home visits demonstrated more asthma symptom–free days, improved quality-of-life scores, and fewer urgent care visits.¹⁴ Furthermore, the intervention was estimated to save approximately $1300 per patient, resulting in a return on investment of 190%. Similarly, in a study comparing inappropriate emergency department (ED) visits between children who received CHW visits and those who did not, patients in the intervention group were significantly less likely to visit the ED for ambulatory complaints (18.2% vs 35.1%; P = .004).¹⁵

Continue to: What is the role of social workersin home-based care?

What is the role of social workersin home-based care?

Social workers can help meet the complex medical and biopsychosocial needs of the homebound population.¹⁶ A study by Cohen et al based in Israel concluded that homebound participants had a significantly higher risk for mortality, higher rates of depression, and difficulty completing instrumental activities of daily living when compared with their non-homebound counterparts.¹⁷

The Mount Sinai (New York) Visiting Doctors Program (MSVD) is a home-based care team that uses social workers to meet the needs of their complex patients.¹⁸ The social workers in the MSVD program provide direct counseling, make referrals to government and community resources, and monitor caregiver burden. Using a combination of measurement tools to assess caregiver burden, Ornstein et al demonstrated that the MSVD program led to a decrease in unmet needs and in caregiver burden.^19,20 Caregiver burnout can be assessed using the Caregiver Burden Inventory, a validated 24-item questionnaire.²¹

What electronic tools are availableto monitor patients at home?

Although expensive in terms of both dollars and personnel time, telemonitoring allows home care providers to receive real-time, updated information regarding their patients.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). One systematic review showed that although telemonitoring of patients with COPD improved quality of life and decreased COPD exacerbations, it did not reduce the risk of hospitalization and, therefore, did not reduce health care costs.²² Telemonitoring in COPD can include transmission of data about spirometry parameters, weight, temperature, blood pressure, sputum color, and 6-minute walk distance.^23,24

Congestive heart failure (CHF). A 2010 Cochrane review found that telemonitoring of patients with CHF reduced all-cause mortality (risk ratio [RR] = 0.66; P < .0001).²⁵ The Telemedical Interventional Management in Heart Failure II (TIM-HF2) trial,conducted from 2013 to 2017, compared usual care for CHF patients with care incorporating daily transmission of body weight, blood pressure, heart rate, electrocardiogram tracings, pulse oximetry, and self-rated health status.²⁶ This study showed that the average number of days lost per year due to hospital admission was less in the telemonitoring group than in the usual care group (17.8 days vs. 24.2 days; P = .046). All-cause mortality was also reduced in the telemonitoring group (hazard ratio = 0.70; P = .028).

Home visits allow the medical team to see challenges the patient has grown accustomed to, and perhaps ones that the patient has deemed too insignificant to mention.

Continue to: What role do “home hospitals” play?

What role do “home hospitals” play?

Home hospitals provide acute or subacute treatment in a patient’s home for a condition that would normally require hospitalization.²⁷ In a meta-analysis of 61 studies evaluating the effectiveness of home hospitals, this option was more likely to reduce mortality (odds ratio [OR] = 0.81; P = .008) and to reduce readmission rates (OR = 0.75; P = .02).²⁸ In a study of 455 older adults, Leff et al found that hospital-at-home was associated with a shorter length of stay (3.2 vs. 4.9 days; P = .004) and that the mean cost was lower for hospital-at-home vs traditional hospital care.²⁹

However, a 2016 Cochrane review of 16 randomized controlled trials comparing hospital-at-home with traditional hospital care showed that while care in a hospital-­at-home may decrease formal costs, if costs for caregivers are taken into account, any difference in cost may disappear.³⁰

Although the evidence for cost saving is variable, hospital-at-home admission has been shown to reduce the likelihood of living in a residential care facility at 6 months (RR = 0.35; P < .0001).³⁰ Further, the same Cochrane review showed that admission avoidance may increase patient satisfaction with the care provided.³⁰

Finally, a recent randomized trial in a Boston-area hospital system showed that patients cared for in hospital-at-home were significantly less likely to be readmitted within 30 days and that adjusted cost was about two-thirds the cost of traditional hospital care.³¹

What is the physician’s rolein home health care?

While home health care is a team effort, the physician has several crucial roles. First, he or she must make the determination that home care is appropriate and feasible for a particular patient. Appropriate, meaning there is evidence that this patient is likely to benefit from home care. Feasible, meaning there are resources available in the community and family to safely care for the patient at home. “Often a house call will serve as the first step in developing a home-based-management plan.”³²

Patients with diabetes receiving home care are more likely to have improved quality of life, lower HbA1c levels, and lower systolic BP readings.

Continue to: Second, the physician serves...

Second, the physician serves an important role in directing and coordinating the team of professionals involved. This primarily means helping the team to communicate with one another. Before home visits begin, the physician’s office should reach out not only to the patient and family, but also to any other health care personnel involved in the patient’s home care. Otherwise, many of the health care providers involved will never have face-to-face interaction with the physician. Creation of the coordinated health team minimizes duplication and miscommunication; it also builds a valuable bond.

How does one go about making a home visit?

Scheduling. What often works best in a busy practice is to schedule home visits for the end of the workday or to devote an entire afternoon to making home visits to several patients in one locale. Also important is scheduling times, if possible, when important family members or other caregivers are at home or when other members of the home care team can accompany you.

What to bring along. Carry a “home visit bag” that includes equipment you’re likely to need and that is not available away from your office. A minimally equipped visit bag would include different-sized blood pressure cuffs, a glucometer, a pulse oximeter, thermometers, and patient education materials. Other suggested contents are listed in TABLE 1. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, providers should also carry adequate personal protective equipment (PPE), including an N-95 mask.

Dos and don’ts. Take a few minutes when you first arrive to simply visit with the patient. Sit down and introduce yourself and any members of the home care team that the patient has not met. Take an interim history. While you’re doing this, be observant: Is the home neat or cluttered? Is the indoor temperature comfortable? Are there fall hazards? Is there a smell of cigarette smoke? Are there any indoor combustion sources (eg, wood stove or kerosene heater)? Ask questions such as: Who lives here with you? Can you show me where you keep your medicines? (If the patient keeps insulin or any other medicines in the refrigerator, ask to see it. Note any apparent food scarcity.)

During your exam, pay particular attention to whether vital signs are appreciably different than those measured in the office or hospital. Pay special attention to the patient’s functional abilities. “A subtle, but critical distinction between medical management in the home and medical management in the hospital, clinic, or office is the emphasis on the patient’s functional abilities, family assistance, and environmental factors.”³³

Observe the patient’s use of any home technology, if possible; this can be as simple as home oxygenation or as complex as home hemodialysis. Assess for any apparent caregiver stress. Finally, don’t neglect to offer appropriate emotional and spiritual support to the patient and family and to schedule the next follow-up visit before you leave.

Continue to:  Documentation and reimbursement.

Not all assessments will be able to be done at each visit but seeing them listed in the template can be helpful. Billing follows the same principles as for office visits and has similar requirements for documentation. Codes for the most common types of home visits are listed in TABLE 3.

Where can I get help?

Graduates of family medicine residency programs are required to receive training in home visits by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME). Current ACGME program requirements stipulate that “residents must demonstrate competence to independently diagnose, manage, and integrate the care of patients of all ages in various outpatient settings, including the FMP [family medicine practice] site and home environment,” and “residents must be primarily responsible for a panel of continuity patients, integrating each patient’s care across all settings, including the home ...” [emphasis added].³⁴

For those already in practice, one of the hardest parts of doing home visits is feeling alone, especially if few other providers in your community engage in home care. As you run into questions and challenges with incorporating home care of patients into your practice, one excellent resource is the American Academy of Home Care Medicine (www.aahcm.org/). Founded in 1988 and headquartered in Chicago, it not only provides numerous helpful resources, but serves as a networking tool for physicians involved in home care.

Using a home visit template can help with documentation and reimbursement.

This unprecedented pandemichas allowed home visits to shine

As depicted in our opening patient case, patients who have high-risk conditions and those who are older than 65 years of age may be cared for more appropriately in a home visit rather than having them come to the office. Home visits may also be a way for providers to “lay eyes” on patients who do not have technology available to participate in virtual visits.

Before performing a home visit, inquire as to whether the patient has symptoms of COVID-19. Adequate PPE should be donned at all times and social distancing should be practiced when appropriate. With adequate PPE, home visits may also allow providers to care for low-risk patients known to have ­COVID-19 and thereby minimize risks to staff and other patients in the office. JFP

CORRESPONDENCE
Curt Elliott, MD, Prisma Health USC Family Medicine Center, 3209 Colonial Drive, Columbia, SC 29203; [email protected].

Background: Studies have suggested that adrenal incidentalomas may increase risk of cardiometabolic disease in patients. Guidelines for repeat imaging and hormonal assessment of adrenal incidentalomas are inconsistent because of inadequate studies.

Bottom line: Patients with adrenal adenomas should be counseled on modifying cardiovascular risk factors whereas tumor growth, change in hormone production, and malignant transformation are less concerning based on the studies included.

Citation: Elhassan YS et al. Natural history of adrenal incidentalomas with and without mild autonomous cortisol excess: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2019 Jun 25;121:107-16.

Dr. Thompson is a hospitalist and assistant professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at Saint Louis University School of Medicine.

Background: Studies have suggested that adrenal incidentalomas may increase risk of cardiometabolic disease in patients. Guidelines for repeat imaging and hormonal assessment of adrenal incidentalomas are inconsistent because of inadequate studies.

Bottom line: Patients with adrenal adenomas should be counseled on modifying cardiovascular risk factors whereas tumor growth, change in hormone production, and malignant transformation are less concerning based on the studies included.

Citation: Elhassan YS et al. Natural history of adrenal incidentalomas with and without mild autonomous cortisol excess: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2019 Jun 25;121:107-16.

Dr. Thompson is a hospitalist and assistant professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at Saint Louis University School of Medicine.

Background: Studies have suggested that adrenal incidentalomas may increase risk of cardiometabolic disease in patients. Guidelines for repeat imaging and hormonal assessment of adrenal incidentalomas are inconsistent because of inadequate studies.

Bottom line: Patients with adrenal adenomas should be counseled on modifying cardiovascular risk factors whereas tumor growth, change in hormone production, and malignant transformation are less concerning based on the studies included.

Citation: Elhassan YS et al. Natural history of adrenal incidentalomas with and without mild autonomous cortisol excess: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2019 Jun 25;121:107-16.

Dr. Thompson is a hospitalist and assistant professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at Saint Louis University School of Medicine.

Living near hydraulic fracturing is associated with increased risk of hospitalization in people with heart failure (HF), a new study from Pennsylvania suggests.

The link was strongest among those with more severe heart failure but patients with either HF phenotype showed this association of increased risk with exposure to fracking activities, according to the investigators, led by Tara P. McAlexander, PhD, MPH, Drexel University Dornsife School of Public Health in Philadelphia.

“Our understanding has expanded well beyond the famous Harvard Six Cities study to know that it’s not just a short-term uptick in air pollution that›s going to send someone to the hospital a couple days later,” said Dr. McAlexander in an interview, referring to the study conducted from the mid-1970s through 1991. “We know that people who live in these environments and are exposed for long periods of time may have long-term detrimental effects.”

Although questions remain about specific mechanisms and how best to assess exposure, the evidence is mounting in a way that is consistent with the biologic hypotheses of how fracking would adversely affect health, Dr. McAlexander said. “We have many studies now on adverse pregnancy and birth outcomes, and that’s just the tip of the iceberg.”

Pennsylvania is a hot spot for fracking, also known as unconventional natural gas development (UNGD), with more than 12,000 wells drilled in the Marcellus shale since 2004. The shale extends from upstate New York in the north to northeastern Kentucky and Tennessee in the south and covers about 72,000 square miles. Last year, Pennsylvania pledged $3 million to study clusters of rare pediatric cancers and asthma near fracking operations. A recent grand jury report concluded government officials failed to protect residents from the health effects of fracking.

Fracking involves a cascade of activities that can trigger neural circuitry, sympathetic activation, and inflammation – all well-known pathways that potentiate heart failure, said Sanjay Rajagopalan, MD, who has researched the health effects of air pollution for two decades and was not involved with the study.

“If you think about it, it’s like environmental perturbation on steroids in some ways where they are pulling the trigger from a variety of different ways: noise, air pollution, social displacement, psychosocial impacts, economic disparities. So it’s not at all surprising that they saw an association,” said Dr. Rajagopalan, chief of cardiovascular medicine at University Hospitals Harrington Heart & Vascular Institute and director of the Case Western Cardiovascular Research Institute, both in Cleveland, Ohio.

As reported in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, Dr. McAlexander and colleagues at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, used electronic health data from the Geisinger Health System to identify 9,054 patients with heart failure seen between 2008 and 2015. Of these, 5,839 patients had an incident HF hospitalization and 3,215 served as controls. Geisinger operates 13 hospitals and two research centers in 45 of Pennsylvania’s 67 counties, serving more than 3 million of the state’s residents.

Patients’ residential addresses were used to identify latitude and longitude coordinates that were matched with 9,669 UNGD wells in Pennsylvania and the location of major and minor roadways. The researchers also calculated a measure of community socioeconomic deprivation.

The adjusted odds of hospitalization were higher for patients in the highest quartile of exposure for three of the four UNGD phases: pad preparation (odds ratio, 1.70; 95% confidence interval, 1.35-2.13), stimulation or the actual fracking (OR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.35-2.40), and production (OR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.07-2.45).

Dr. McAlexander said she initially thought the lack of association with drilling (OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.75-1.27) was a mistake but noted that the drilling metric reflects a shorter time period than, for example, 30 days needed to clear the well pad and bring in the necessary equipment.

Stronger associations between pad preparation, fracking, and production are also consistent with the known increases in air pollution, traffic, and noise associated with these phases.

Individuals with more severe HF had greater odds of hospitalization, but the effect sizes were generally comparable between HF with preserved versus reduced ejection fraction. For those with the highest exposure to fracking, the odds ratios for hospitalization reached 2.25 (95% CI, 1.56-3.25) and 2.09 (95% CI, 1.44-3.03), respectively.

Notably, patients who could be phenotyped versus those who could not were more likely to die, to be hospitalized for HF, and to have a higher Charlson Comorbidity Index and other relevant diagnoses like myocardial infarction.

“Clinicians need to be increasingly aware that the environments their patients are in are a huge factor in their disease progression and outlook,” McAlexander said. “We know that UNGD, specifically now, is something that could be impacting a heart failure patient’s survival.”

She also suggested that the findings may also spur more advocacy work and “across-silo” collaboration between clinicians and environmental researchers.

Dr. Rajagopalan said there is increasing recognition that physicians need to be aware of environmental health links as extreme events like the California and Oregon wildfires and coastal flooding become increasingly common. “Unfortunately, unconventional is becoming the new convention.”

The problem for many physicians, however, is just having enough bandwidth to get through the day and get enough learning to keep above water, he said. Artificial intelligence could be used to seed electronic medical records with other personalized information from a bevy of sources including smartphones and the internet of things, but fundamental changes are also needed in the educational process to emphasize the environment.

“It’s going to take a huge societal shift in the way we view commodities, what we consider healthy, etc, but it can happen very quickly because all it takes is a crisis like COVID-19 to bring people to their knees and make them understand how this is going to take over our lives over the next decade,” Dr. Rajagopalan said.

The scientific community has been calling for “good” epidemiologic studies on the health effects of fracking since the early 2010s, Barrak Alahmad, MBChB, MPH, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and Haitham Khraishah, MD, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, point out in an accompanying editorial.

The current study applied “extensive and rigorous methods” involving both the design and statistical approach, including use of a negative control analysis to assess for sources of spurious causal inference, several sensitivity analyses, and controlled for a wide range of covariates.

“Their results were consistent and robust across all these measures,” the editorialists wrote. “Most importantly, the effect size is probably too large to be explained away by an unmeasured confounder.”

Dr. Alahmad and Dr. Khraishah call for advancements in exposure assessment, citing a recent study reporting that ambient particle radioactivity near unconventional oil and gas sites could induce adverse health effects. Other unmet needs include a better understanding of racial disparities in the impacts of fracking and a fine-tuning of cause-specific cardiovascular morbidity and mortality.

The study was supported by training grants from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences to Dr. McAlexander and principal investigator Brian Schwartz, MD. The authors, Dr. Rajagopalan, Dr. Alahmad, and Dr. Khraishah have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Living near hydraulic fracturing is associated with increased risk of hospitalization in people with heart failure (HF), a new study from Pennsylvania suggests.

The link was strongest among those with more severe heart failure but patients with either HF phenotype showed this association of increased risk with exposure to fracking activities, according to the investigators, led by Tara P. McAlexander, PhD, MPH, Drexel University Dornsife School of Public Health in Philadelphia.

“Our understanding has expanded well beyond the famous Harvard Six Cities study to know that it’s not just a short-term uptick in air pollution that›s going to send someone to the hospital a couple days later,” said Dr. McAlexander in an interview, referring to the study conducted from the mid-1970s through 1991. “We know that people who live in these environments and are exposed for long periods of time may have long-term detrimental effects.”

Although questions remain about specific mechanisms and how best to assess exposure, the evidence is mounting in a way that is consistent with the biologic hypotheses of how fracking would adversely affect health, Dr. McAlexander said. “We have many studies now on adverse pregnancy and birth outcomes, and that’s just the tip of the iceberg.”

Pennsylvania is a hot spot for fracking, also known as unconventional natural gas development (UNGD), with more than 12,000 wells drilled in the Marcellus shale since 2004. The shale extends from upstate New York in the north to northeastern Kentucky and Tennessee in the south and covers about 72,000 square miles. Last year, Pennsylvania pledged $3 million to study clusters of rare pediatric cancers and asthma near fracking operations. A recent grand jury report concluded government officials failed to protect residents from the health effects of fracking.

Fracking involves a cascade of activities that can trigger neural circuitry, sympathetic activation, and inflammation – all well-known pathways that potentiate heart failure, said Sanjay Rajagopalan, MD, who has researched the health effects of air pollution for two decades and was not involved with the study.

“If you think about it, it’s like environmental perturbation on steroids in some ways where they are pulling the trigger from a variety of different ways: noise, air pollution, social displacement, psychosocial impacts, economic disparities. So it’s not at all surprising that they saw an association,” said Dr. Rajagopalan, chief of cardiovascular medicine at University Hospitals Harrington Heart & Vascular Institute and director of the Case Western Cardiovascular Research Institute, both in Cleveland, Ohio.

As reported in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, Dr. McAlexander and colleagues at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, used electronic health data from the Geisinger Health System to identify 9,054 patients with heart failure seen between 2008 and 2015. Of these, 5,839 patients had an incident HF hospitalization and 3,215 served as controls. Geisinger operates 13 hospitals and two research centers in 45 of Pennsylvania’s 67 counties, serving more than 3 million of the state’s residents.

Patients’ residential addresses were used to identify latitude and longitude coordinates that were matched with 9,669 UNGD wells in Pennsylvania and the location of major and minor roadways. The researchers also calculated a measure of community socioeconomic deprivation.

The adjusted odds of hospitalization were higher for patients in the highest quartile of exposure for three of the four UNGD phases: pad preparation (odds ratio, 1.70; 95% confidence interval, 1.35-2.13), stimulation or the actual fracking (OR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.35-2.40), and production (OR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.07-2.45).

Dr. McAlexander said she initially thought the lack of association with drilling (OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.75-1.27) was a mistake but noted that the drilling metric reflects a shorter time period than, for example, 30 days needed to clear the well pad and bring in the necessary equipment.

Stronger associations between pad preparation, fracking, and production are also consistent with the known increases in air pollution, traffic, and noise associated with these phases.

Individuals with more severe HF had greater odds of hospitalization, but the effect sizes were generally comparable between HF with preserved versus reduced ejection fraction. For those with the highest exposure to fracking, the odds ratios for hospitalization reached 2.25 (95% CI, 1.56-3.25) and 2.09 (95% CI, 1.44-3.03), respectively.

Notably, patients who could be phenotyped versus those who could not were more likely to die, to be hospitalized for HF, and to have a higher Charlson Comorbidity Index and other relevant diagnoses like myocardial infarction.

“Clinicians need to be increasingly aware that the environments their patients are in are a huge factor in their disease progression and outlook,” McAlexander said. “We know that UNGD, specifically now, is something that could be impacting a heart failure patient’s survival.”

She also suggested that the findings may also spur more advocacy work and “across-silo” collaboration between clinicians and environmental researchers.

Dr. Rajagopalan said there is increasing recognition that physicians need to be aware of environmental health links as extreme events like the California and Oregon wildfires and coastal flooding become increasingly common. “Unfortunately, unconventional is becoming the new convention.”

The problem for many physicians, however, is just having enough bandwidth to get through the day and get enough learning to keep above water, he said. Artificial intelligence could be used to seed electronic medical records with other personalized information from a bevy of sources including smartphones and the internet of things, but fundamental changes are also needed in the educational process to emphasize the environment.

“It’s going to take a huge societal shift in the way we view commodities, what we consider healthy, etc, but it can happen very quickly because all it takes is a crisis like COVID-19 to bring people to their knees and make them understand how this is going to take over our lives over the next decade,” Dr. Rajagopalan said.

The scientific community has been calling for “good” epidemiologic studies on the health effects of fracking since the early 2010s, Barrak Alahmad, MBChB, MPH, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and Haitham Khraishah, MD, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, point out in an accompanying editorial.

The current study applied “extensive and rigorous methods” involving both the design and statistical approach, including use of a negative control analysis to assess for sources of spurious causal inference, several sensitivity analyses, and controlled for a wide range of covariates.

“Their results were consistent and robust across all these measures,” the editorialists wrote. “Most importantly, the effect size is probably too large to be explained away by an unmeasured confounder.”

Dr. Alahmad and Dr. Khraishah call for advancements in exposure assessment, citing a recent study reporting that ambient particle radioactivity near unconventional oil and gas sites could induce adverse health effects. Other unmet needs include a better understanding of racial disparities in the impacts of fracking and a fine-tuning of cause-specific cardiovascular morbidity and mortality.

The study was supported by training grants from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences to Dr. McAlexander and principal investigator Brian Schwartz, MD. The authors, Dr. Rajagopalan, Dr. Alahmad, and Dr. Khraishah have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Living near hydraulic fracturing is associated with increased risk of hospitalization in people with heart failure (HF), a new study from Pennsylvania suggests.

The link was strongest among those with more severe heart failure but patients with either HF phenotype showed this association of increased risk with exposure to fracking activities, according to the investigators, led by Tara P. McAlexander, PhD, MPH, Drexel University Dornsife School of Public Health in Philadelphia.

“Our understanding has expanded well beyond the famous Harvard Six Cities study to know that it’s not just a short-term uptick in air pollution that›s going to send someone to the hospital a couple days later,” said Dr. McAlexander in an interview, referring to the study conducted from the mid-1970s through 1991. “We know that people who live in these environments and are exposed for long periods of time may have long-term detrimental effects.”

Although questions remain about specific mechanisms and how best to assess exposure, the evidence is mounting in a way that is consistent with the biologic hypotheses of how fracking would adversely affect health, Dr. McAlexander said. “We have many studies now on adverse pregnancy and birth outcomes, and that’s just the tip of the iceberg.”

Pennsylvania is a hot spot for fracking, also known as unconventional natural gas development (UNGD), with more than 12,000 wells drilled in the Marcellus shale since 2004. The shale extends from upstate New York in the north to northeastern Kentucky and Tennessee in the south and covers about 72,000 square miles. Last year, Pennsylvania pledged $3 million to study clusters of rare pediatric cancers and asthma near fracking operations. A recent grand jury report concluded government officials failed to protect residents from the health effects of fracking.

Fracking involves a cascade of activities that can trigger neural circuitry, sympathetic activation, and inflammation – all well-known pathways that potentiate heart failure, said Sanjay Rajagopalan, MD, who has researched the health effects of air pollution for two decades and was not involved with the study.

“If you think about it, it’s like environmental perturbation on steroids in some ways where they are pulling the trigger from a variety of different ways: noise, air pollution, social displacement, psychosocial impacts, economic disparities. So it’s not at all surprising that they saw an association,” said Dr. Rajagopalan, chief of cardiovascular medicine at University Hospitals Harrington Heart & Vascular Institute and director of the Case Western Cardiovascular Research Institute, both in Cleveland, Ohio.

As reported in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, Dr. McAlexander and colleagues at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, used electronic health data from the Geisinger Health System to identify 9,054 patients with heart failure seen between 2008 and 2015. Of these, 5,839 patients had an incident HF hospitalization and 3,215 served as controls. Geisinger operates 13 hospitals and two research centers in 45 of Pennsylvania’s 67 counties, serving more than 3 million of the state’s residents.

Patients’ residential addresses were used to identify latitude and longitude coordinates that were matched with 9,669 UNGD wells in Pennsylvania and the location of major and minor roadways. The researchers also calculated a measure of community socioeconomic deprivation.

The adjusted odds of hospitalization were higher for patients in the highest quartile of exposure for three of the four UNGD phases: pad preparation (odds ratio, 1.70; 95% confidence interval, 1.35-2.13), stimulation or the actual fracking (OR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.35-2.40), and production (OR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.07-2.45).

Dr. McAlexander said she initially thought the lack of association with drilling (OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.75-1.27) was a mistake but noted that the drilling metric reflects a shorter time period than, for example, 30 days needed to clear the well pad and bring in the necessary equipment.

Stronger associations between pad preparation, fracking, and production are also consistent with the known increases in air pollution, traffic, and noise associated with these phases.

Individuals with more severe HF had greater odds of hospitalization, but the effect sizes were generally comparable between HF with preserved versus reduced ejection fraction. For those with the highest exposure to fracking, the odds ratios for hospitalization reached 2.25 (95% CI, 1.56-3.25) and 2.09 (95% CI, 1.44-3.03), respectively.

Notably, patients who could be phenotyped versus those who could not were more likely to die, to be hospitalized for HF, and to have a higher Charlson Comorbidity Index and other relevant diagnoses like myocardial infarction.

“Clinicians need to be increasingly aware that the environments their patients are in are a huge factor in their disease progression and outlook,” McAlexander said. “We know that UNGD, specifically now, is something that could be impacting a heart failure patient’s survival.”

She also suggested that the findings may also spur more advocacy work and “across-silo” collaboration between clinicians and environmental researchers.

Dr. Rajagopalan said there is increasing recognition that physicians need to be aware of environmental health links as extreme events like the California and Oregon wildfires and coastal flooding become increasingly common. “Unfortunately, unconventional is becoming the new convention.”

The problem for many physicians, however, is just having enough bandwidth to get through the day and get enough learning to keep above water, he said. Artificial intelligence could be used to seed electronic medical records with other personalized information from a bevy of sources including smartphones and the internet of things, but fundamental changes are also needed in the educational process to emphasize the environment.

“It’s going to take a huge societal shift in the way we view commodities, what we consider healthy, etc, but it can happen very quickly because all it takes is a crisis like COVID-19 to bring people to their knees and make them understand how this is going to take over our lives over the next decade,” Dr. Rajagopalan said.

The scientific community has been calling for “good” epidemiologic studies on the health effects of fracking since the early 2010s, Barrak Alahmad, MBChB, MPH, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and Haitham Khraishah, MD, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, point out in an accompanying editorial.

The current study applied “extensive and rigorous methods” involving both the design and statistical approach, including use of a negative control analysis to assess for sources of spurious causal inference, several sensitivity analyses, and controlled for a wide range of covariates.

“Their results were consistent and robust across all these measures,” the editorialists wrote. “Most importantly, the effect size is probably too large to be explained away by an unmeasured confounder.”

Dr. Alahmad and Dr. Khraishah call for advancements in exposure assessment, citing a recent study reporting that ambient particle radioactivity near unconventional oil and gas sites could induce adverse health effects. Other unmet needs include a better understanding of racial disparities in the impacts of fracking and a fine-tuning of cause-specific cardiovascular morbidity and mortality.

The study was supported by training grants from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences to Dr. McAlexander and principal investigator Brian Schwartz, MD. The authors, Dr. Rajagopalan, Dr. Alahmad, and Dr. Khraishah have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Coronary artery calcium (CAC) score as a measure of plaque burden more reliably predicts future cardiovascular (CV) risk in patients with suspected coronary disease (CAD) than whether or not the disease is obstructive, a large retrospective study suggests.

Indeed, CV risk went up in tandem with growing plaque burden regardless of whether there was obstructive disease in any coronary artery, defined as a 50% or greater stenosis by computed tomographic angiography (CTA).

The findings argue for plaque burden as measured by CAC score, rather than percent-stenosis severity, for guiding further treatment decisions in such patients, researchers say.

The research was based on more than 20,000 symptomatic patients referred to diagnostic CTA in the Western Denmark Heart Registry who were then followed for about 4 years for major CV events, including death, myocardial infarction, or stroke.

“What we show is that CAC is important for prognosis, and that patients with no stenosis have similar high risk as patients with stenosis when CAC burden is similar,” Martin Bødtker Mortensen, MD, PhD, Aarhus (Denmark) University Hospital, said in an interview.

The guidelines “distinguish between primary and secondary prevention patients” based on the presence or absence of obstructive CAD, he said, but “our results challenge this long-held approach. We show that patients with nonobstructive CAD carry similar risk as patients with obstructive CAD.”

In practice, risk tends to be greater in patients with obstructive compared with nonobstructive CAD. But the reason “is simply that they normally have higher atherosclerosis burden,” Dr. Mortensen said. “When you stratify based on atherosclerosis burden, then patients with obstructive and nonobstructive CAD have similar risk.”

The analysis was published online Dec. 7 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology with Mortensen as lead author.

Until recently, it had long been believed that CV-event risk was driven by ischemia – but “ischemia is just a surrogate for the extent of atherosclerotic disease,” Armin Arbab Zadeh, MD, PhD, MPH, who is not connected with the current study, said in an interview.

The finding that CV risk climbs with growing coronary plaque burden “essentially confirms” other recent studies, but with “added value in showing how well the calcium scores, compared to obstructive disease, track with risk. So it’s definitely a nice extension of the evidence,” said Dr. Zadeh, director of cardiac CT at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

“This study clearly shows that there is no ischemia ‘threshold,’ that the risk starts from mild and goes up with the burden of atherosclerotic disease. We were essentially taught wrong for decades.”

Dr. Mortensen said that the new results “are in line with previous studies showing that atherosclerosis burden is very important for risk.” They also help explain why revascularization of patients with stable angina failed to cut the risk of MI or death in trials like COURAGE, FAME-2, and ISCHEMIA. It’s because “stenosis per se explains little of the risk compared to atherosclerosis burden.”

In the current analysis, for example, about 65% of events were in patients who did not show obstructive CAD at CTA. Its 23,759 patients with symptoms suggestive of CAD were referred for CTA from 2008 through 2017; 5,043 (21.2%) were found to have obstructive disease and 18,716 (78.8%) either had no CAD or nonobstructive disease.

About 4.4% of patients experienced a first major CV event over a median follow-up of 4.3 years. Only events occurring later than 90 days after CTA were counted in an effort to exclude any directly related to revascularization, Dr. Mortensen noted.

The risk of events went up proportionally with both CAC score and the number of coronaries with obstructive disease.

The number of major CV events per 1,000 person-years was 6.2 for patients with a CAC score of 0, of whom 87% had no CAD by CTA, 7% had nonobstructive CAD, and 6% had obstructive CAD.

The corresponding rate was 17.5 among patients with a CAC score >100-399 for a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.7 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.4-2.1) vs. a CAC score of 0.

And it was 42.3 per 1,000 patient-years among patients with CAC score >1000, HR 3.4 (95% CI, 2.5-4.6) vs. a CAC score of 0. Among those with the highest-tier CAC score, none were without CAD by CTA, 17% had nonobstructive disease, and 83% had obstructive CAD.

The major CV event rate rose similarly by number of coronaries with obstructive disease. It was 6.1 per 1,000 person-years in patients with no CAD. But it was 12.3 in those with nonobstructive disease, HR 1.3 (95% CI 1.1-1.6), up to 34.7 in those with triple-vessel obstructive disease, HR 2.9 (95% CI 2.2-3.9), vs. no CAD.

However, in an analysis with stratification by CAC score tier (0, 1-99, 100-399, 400-1,000, and >1,000), obstructive CAD was not associated with increased major CV-event risk in any stratum. The findings were similar in each subgroup with 1-vessel, 2-vessel, or 3-vessel CAD when stratified by CAC score.

Nor did major CV event risk track with obstructive CAD in analyses by age or after excluding all patients who underwent coronary revascularization within 90 days of CTA, the group reported.

“I believe these results support the use of CTA as a first-line test in patients with symptoms suggestive of CAD, as it provides valuable information for both diagnosis and prognosis in symptomatic patients,” Dr. Mortensen said. Those found to have a higher burden of atherosclerosis, he added, should receive aggressive preventive therapy regardless of whether or not they have obstructive disease.

The evidence from this study and others “supports a CTA-based approach” in such patients, Dr. Zadeh said. “And I would go further to say that a stress test is really inadequate,” in that it “detects the disease at such a late stage, you’re missing the opportunity to identify these patients who have atherosclerotic disease while you can do something about it.”

Its continued use as a first-line test, Dr. Zadeh said, “is essentially, in my mind, dismissing the evidence.”

An accompanying editorial Todd C. Villines, MD, and Patricia Rodriguez Lozano, MD, of the University of Virginia, Charlottesville agreed that “it is time that the traditional definitions of primary and secondary prevention evolve to incorporate CAC and CTA measures of patient risk based on coronary artery plaque burden.”

But they pointed out some limitations of the current study.

“The authors compared CAC with ≥50% stenosis, not CAC to comprehensive, contemporary coronary CTA,” and so “did not assess numerous other well-validated measures of coronary plaque burden that are routinely obtained from coronary CTA that typically improve the prognostic accuracy of coronary CTA beyond stenosis alone.” Also not performed was “plaque quantification on coronary CTA, an emerging field of study.”

The editorialists noted that noncontrast CT as used in the study for CAC scoring “is generally not recommended as a standalone test in symptomatic patients. Most studies have shown that coronary CTA, a test that accurately detects stenosis and identifies all types of coronary atherosclerosis (calcified and noncalcified), has significantly higher diagnostic and prognostic accuracy than CAC when performed in symptomatic patients without known coronary artery disease.”

Dr. Mortensen has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Villines and Dr. Rodriguez Lozano have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Zadeh disclosed receiving grant support from Canon Medical Systems.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Coronary artery calcium (CAC) score as a measure of plaque burden more reliably predicts future cardiovascular (CV) risk in patients with suspected coronary disease (CAD) than whether or not the disease is obstructive, a large retrospective study suggests.

Indeed, CV risk went up in tandem with growing plaque burden regardless of whether there was obstructive disease in any coronary artery, defined as a 50% or greater stenosis by computed tomographic angiography (CTA).

The findings argue for plaque burden as measured by CAC score, rather than percent-stenosis severity, for guiding further treatment decisions in such patients, researchers say.

The research was based on more than 20,000 symptomatic patients referred to diagnostic CTA in the Western Denmark Heart Registry who were then followed for about 4 years for major CV events, including death, myocardial infarction, or stroke.

“What we show is that CAC is important for prognosis, and that patients with no stenosis have similar high risk as patients with stenosis when CAC burden is similar,” Martin Bødtker Mortensen, MD, PhD, Aarhus (Denmark) University Hospital, said in an interview.

The guidelines “distinguish between primary and secondary prevention patients” based on the presence or absence of obstructive CAD, he said, but “our results challenge this long-held approach. We show that patients with nonobstructive CAD carry similar risk as patients with obstructive CAD.”

In practice, risk tends to be greater in patients with obstructive compared with nonobstructive CAD. But the reason “is simply that they normally have higher atherosclerosis burden,” Dr. Mortensen said. “When you stratify based on atherosclerosis burden, then patients with obstructive and nonobstructive CAD have similar risk.”

The analysis was published online Dec. 7 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology with Mortensen as lead author.

Until recently, it had long been believed that CV-event risk was driven by ischemia – but “ischemia is just a surrogate for the extent of atherosclerotic disease,” Armin Arbab Zadeh, MD, PhD, MPH, who is not connected with the current study, said in an interview.

The finding that CV risk climbs with growing coronary plaque burden “essentially confirms” other recent studies, but with “added value in showing how well the calcium scores, compared to obstructive disease, track with risk. So it’s definitely a nice extension of the evidence,” said Dr. Zadeh, director of cardiac CT at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

“This study clearly shows that there is no ischemia ‘threshold,’ that the risk starts from mild and goes up with the burden of atherosclerotic disease. We were essentially taught wrong for decades.”

Dr. Mortensen said that the new results “are in line with previous studies showing that atherosclerosis burden is very important for risk.” They also help explain why revascularization of patients with stable angina failed to cut the risk of MI or death in trials like COURAGE, FAME-2, and ISCHEMIA. It’s because “stenosis per se explains little of the risk compared to atherosclerosis burden.”

In the current analysis, for example, about 65% of events were in patients who did not show obstructive CAD at CTA. Its 23,759 patients with symptoms suggestive of CAD were referred for CTA from 2008 through 2017; 5,043 (21.2%) were found to have obstructive disease and 18,716 (78.8%) either had no CAD or nonobstructive disease.

About 4.4% of patients experienced a first major CV event over a median follow-up of 4.3 years. Only events occurring later than 90 days after CTA were counted in an effort to exclude any directly related to revascularization, Dr. Mortensen noted.

The risk of events went up proportionally with both CAC score and the number of coronaries with obstructive disease.

The number of major CV events per 1,000 person-years was 6.2 for patients with a CAC score of 0, of whom 87% had no CAD by CTA, 7% had nonobstructive CAD, and 6% had obstructive CAD.

The corresponding rate was 17.5 among patients with a CAC score >100-399 for a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.7 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.4-2.1) vs. a CAC score of 0.

And it was 42.3 per 1,000 patient-years among patients with CAC score >1000, HR 3.4 (95% CI, 2.5-4.6) vs. a CAC score of 0. Among those with the highest-tier CAC score, none were without CAD by CTA, 17% had nonobstructive disease, and 83% had obstructive CAD.

The major CV event rate rose similarly by number of coronaries with obstructive disease. It was 6.1 per 1,000 person-years in patients with no CAD. But it was 12.3 in those with nonobstructive disease, HR 1.3 (95% CI 1.1-1.6), up to 34.7 in those with triple-vessel obstructive disease, HR 2.9 (95% CI 2.2-3.9), vs. no CAD.

However, in an analysis with stratification by CAC score tier (0, 1-99, 100-399, 400-1,000, and >1,000), obstructive CAD was not associated with increased major CV-event risk in any stratum. The findings were similar in each subgroup with 1-vessel, 2-vessel, or 3-vessel CAD when stratified by CAC score.

Nor did major CV event risk track with obstructive CAD in analyses by age or after excluding all patients who underwent coronary revascularization within 90 days of CTA, the group reported.

“I believe these results support the use of CTA as a first-line test in patients with symptoms suggestive of CAD, as it provides valuable information for both diagnosis and prognosis in symptomatic patients,” Dr. Mortensen said. Those found to have a higher burden of atherosclerosis, he added, should receive aggressive preventive therapy regardless of whether or not they have obstructive disease.

The evidence from this study and others “supports a CTA-based approach” in such patients, Dr. Zadeh said. “And I would go further to say that a stress test is really inadequate,” in that it “detects the disease at such a late stage, you’re missing the opportunity to identify these patients who have atherosclerotic disease while you can do something about it.”

Its continued use as a first-line test, Dr. Zadeh said, “is essentially, in my mind, dismissing the evidence.”

An accompanying editorial Todd C. Villines, MD, and Patricia Rodriguez Lozano, MD, of the University of Virginia, Charlottesville agreed that “it is time that the traditional definitions of primary and secondary prevention evolve to incorporate CAC and CTA measures of patient risk based on coronary artery plaque burden.”

But they pointed out some limitations of the current study.

“The authors compared CAC with ≥50% stenosis, not CAC to comprehensive, contemporary coronary CTA,” and so “did not assess numerous other well-validated measures of coronary plaque burden that are routinely obtained from coronary CTA that typically improve the prognostic accuracy of coronary CTA beyond stenosis alone.” Also not performed was “plaque quantification on coronary CTA, an emerging field of study.”

The editorialists noted that noncontrast CT as used in the study for CAC scoring “is generally not recommended as a standalone test in symptomatic patients. Most studies have shown that coronary CTA, a test that accurately detects stenosis and identifies all types of coronary atherosclerosis (calcified and noncalcified), has significantly higher diagnostic and prognostic accuracy than CAC when performed in symptomatic patients without known coronary artery disease.”

Dr. Mortensen has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Villines and Dr. Rodriguez Lozano have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Zadeh disclosed receiving grant support from Canon Medical Systems.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Coronary artery calcium (CAC) score as a measure of plaque burden more reliably predicts future cardiovascular (CV) risk in patients with suspected coronary disease (CAD) than whether or not the disease is obstructive, a large retrospective study suggests.

Indeed, CV risk went up in tandem with growing plaque burden regardless of whether there was obstructive disease in any coronary artery, defined as a 50% or greater stenosis by computed tomographic angiography (CTA).

The findings argue for plaque burden as measured by CAC score, rather than percent-stenosis severity, for guiding further treatment decisions in such patients, researchers say.

The research was based on more than 20,000 symptomatic patients referred to diagnostic CTA in the Western Denmark Heart Registry who were then followed for about 4 years for major CV events, including death, myocardial infarction, or stroke.

“What we show is that CAC is important for prognosis, and that patients with no stenosis have similar high risk as patients with stenosis when CAC burden is similar,” Martin Bødtker Mortensen, MD, PhD, Aarhus (Denmark) University Hospital, said in an interview.

The guidelines “distinguish between primary and secondary prevention patients” based on the presence or absence of obstructive CAD, he said, but “our results challenge this long-held approach. We show that patients with nonobstructive CAD carry similar risk as patients with obstructive CAD.”

In practice, risk tends to be greater in patients with obstructive compared with nonobstructive CAD. But the reason “is simply that they normally have higher atherosclerosis burden,” Dr. Mortensen said. “When you stratify based on atherosclerosis burden, then patients with obstructive and nonobstructive CAD have similar risk.”

The analysis was published online Dec. 7 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology with Mortensen as lead author.

Until recently, it had long been believed that CV-event risk was driven by ischemia – but “ischemia is just a surrogate for the extent of atherosclerotic disease,” Armin Arbab Zadeh, MD, PhD, MPH, who is not connected with the current study, said in an interview.

The finding that CV risk climbs with growing coronary plaque burden “essentially confirms” other recent studies, but with “added value in showing how well the calcium scores, compared to obstructive disease, track with risk. So it’s definitely a nice extension of the evidence,” said Dr. Zadeh, director of cardiac CT at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

“This study clearly shows that there is no ischemia ‘threshold,’ that the risk starts from mild and goes up with the burden of atherosclerotic disease. We were essentially taught wrong for decades.”

Dr. Mortensen said that the new results “are in line with previous studies showing that atherosclerosis burden is very important for risk.” They also help explain why revascularization of patients with stable angina failed to cut the risk of MI or death in trials like COURAGE, FAME-2, and ISCHEMIA. It’s because “stenosis per se explains little of the risk compared to atherosclerosis burden.”

In the current analysis, for example, about 65% of events were in patients who did not show obstructive CAD at CTA. Its 23,759 patients with symptoms suggestive of CAD were referred for CTA from 2008 through 2017; 5,043 (21.2%) were found to have obstructive disease and 18,716 (78.8%) either had no CAD or nonobstructive disease.

About 4.4% of patients experienced a first major CV event over a median follow-up of 4.3 years. Only events occurring later than 90 days after CTA were counted in an effort to exclude any directly related to revascularization, Dr. Mortensen noted.

The risk of events went up proportionally with both CAC score and the number of coronaries with obstructive disease.

The number of major CV events per 1,000 person-years was 6.2 for patients with a CAC score of 0, of whom 87% had no CAD by CTA, 7% had nonobstructive CAD, and 6% had obstructive CAD.

The corresponding rate was 17.5 among patients with a CAC score >100-399 for a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.7 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.4-2.1) vs. a CAC score of 0.

And it was 42.3 per 1,000 patient-years among patients with CAC score >1000, HR 3.4 (95% CI, 2.5-4.6) vs. a CAC score of 0. Among those with the highest-tier CAC score, none were without CAD by CTA, 17% had nonobstructive disease, and 83% had obstructive CAD.

The major CV event rate rose similarly by number of coronaries with obstructive disease. It was 6.1 per 1,000 person-years in patients with no CAD. But it was 12.3 in those with nonobstructive disease, HR 1.3 (95% CI 1.1-1.6), up to 34.7 in those with triple-vessel obstructive disease, HR 2.9 (95% CI 2.2-3.9), vs. no CAD.

However, in an analysis with stratification by CAC score tier (0, 1-99, 100-399, 400-1,000, and >1,000), obstructive CAD was not associated with increased major CV-event risk in any stratum. The findings were similar in each subgroup with 1-vessel, 2-vessel, or 3-vessel CAD when stratified by CAC score.

Nor did major CV event risk track with obstructive CAD in analyses by age or after excluding all patients who underwent coronary revascularization within 90 days of CTA, the group reported.

“I believe these results support the use of CTA as a first-line test in patients with symptoms suggestive of CAD, as it provides valuable information for both diagnosis and prognosis in symptomatic patients,” Dr. Mortensen said. Those found to have a higher burden of atherosclerosis, he added, should receive aggressive preventive therapy regardless of whether or not they have obstructive disease.

The evidence from this study and others “supports a CTA-based approach” in such patients, Dr. Zadeh said. “And I would go further to say that a stress test is really inadequate,” in that it “detects the disease at such a late stage, you’re missing the opportunity to identify these patients who have atherosclerotic disease while you can do something about it.”

Its continued use as a first-line test, Dr. Zadeh said, “is essentially, in my mind, dismissing the evidence.”

An accompanying editorial Todd C. Villines, MD, and Patricia Rodriguez Lozano, MD, of the University of Virginia, Charlottesville agreed that “it is time that the traditional definitions of primary and secondary prevention evolve to incorporate CAC and CTA measures of patient risk based on coronary artery plaque burden.”

But they pointed out some limitations of the current study.

“The authors compared CAC with ≥50% stenosis, not CAC to comprehensive, contemporary coronary CTA,” and so “did not assess numerous other well-validated measures of coronary plaque burden that are routinely obtained from coronary CTA that typically improve the prognostic accuracy of coronary CTA beyond stenosis alone.” Also not performed was “plaque quantification on coronary CTA, an emerging field of study.”

The editorialists noted that noncontrast CT as used in the study for CAC scoring “is generally not recommended as a standalone test in symptomatic patients. Most studies have shown that coronary CTA, a test that accurately detects stenosis and identifies all types of coronary atherosclerosis (calcified and noncalcified), has significantly higher diagnostic and prognostic accuracy than CAC when performed in symptomatic patients without known coronary artery disease.”

Dr. Mortensen has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Villines and Dr. Rodriguez Lozano have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Zadeh disclosed receiving grant support from Canon Medical Systems.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

The risk of arterial and venous thrombosis in patients with COVID-19 has been a major issue throughout the pandemic, and how best to manage this risk is the subject of a new review article.

The article, by Gregory Dr. Piazza, MD, and David A. Morrow, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, was published online in JAMA on Nov. 23.

“Basically we’re saying: ‘Be proactive about prevention,’” Dr. Piazza told this news organization.

There is growing recognition among those on the frontline that there is an increased risk of thrombosis in COVID-19 patients, Dr. Piazza said. The risk is highest in patients in the intensive care unit, but the risk is also increased in patients hospitalized with COVID-19, even those not in ICU.

“We don’t really know what the risk is in nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients, but we think it’s much lower than in those who are hospitalized,” he said. “We are waiting for data on the optimal way of managing this increased risk of thrombosis in COVID patients, but for the time being, we believe a systematic way of addressing this risk is best, with every patient hospitalized with COVID-19 receiving some type of thromboprophylaxis. This would mainly be with anticoagulation, but in patients in whom anticoagulation is contraindicated, then mechanical methods could be used, such as pneumatic compression boots or compression stockings.”

The authors report thrombotic complication rates of 2.6% in noncritically ill hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and 35.3% in critically ill patients from a recent U.S. registry study.

Autopsy findings of microthrombi in multiple organ systems, including the lungs, heart, and kidneys, suggest that thrombosis may contribute to multisystem organ dysfunction in severe COVID-19, they note. Although the pathophysiology is not fully defined, prothrombotic abnormalities have been identified in patients with COVID-19, including elevated levels of D-dimer, fibrinogen, and factor VIII, they add.

“There are several major questions about which COVID-19 patients to treat with thromboprophylaxis, how to treat them in term of levels of anticoagulation, and there are many ongoing clinical trials to try and answer these questions,” Dr. Piazza commented. “We need results from these randomized trials to provide a better compass for COVID-19 patients at risk of clotting.”

At present, clinicians can follow two different sets of guidelines on the issue, one from the American College of Chest Physicians and the other from the International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis, the authors note.

“The ACCP guidelines are very conservative and basically follow the evidence base for medical patients, while the ISTH guidelines are more aggressive and recommend increased levels of anticoagulation in both ICU and hospitalized non-ICU patients and also extend prophylaxis after discharge,” Dr. Piazza said.

“There is quite a difference between the two sets of guidelines, which can be a point of confusion,” he added.

Dr. Piazza notes that at his center every hospitalized COVID patient who does not have a contraindication to anticoagulation receives a standard prophylactic dose of a once-daily low-molecular-weight heparin (for example, enoxaparin 40 mg). A once-daily product is used to minimize infection risk to staff.

While all COVID patients in the ICU should automatically receive some anticoagulation, the optimal dose is an area of active investigation, he explained. “There were several early reports of ICU patients developing blood clots despite receiving standard thromboprophylaxis so perhaps we need to use higher doses. There are trials underway looking at this, and we would advise enrolling patients into these trials.”

If patients can’t be enrolled into trials, and clinicians feel higher anticoagulation levels are needed, Dr. Piazza advises following the ISTH guidance, which allows an intermediate dose of low-molecular-weight heparin (up to 1 mg/kg enoxaparin).

“Some experts are suggesting even higher doses may be needed in some ICU patients, such as the full therapeutic dose, but I worry about the risk of bleeding with such a strategy,” he said.

Dr. Piazza says they do not routinely give anticoagulation after discharge, but if this is desired then patients could be switched to an oral agent, and some of the direct-acting oral anticoagulants are approved for prophylactic use in medically ill patients.

Dr. Piazza points out that whether thromboprophylaxis should be used for nonhospitalized COVID patients who have risk factors for clotting such as a prior history of thrombosis or obesity is a pressing question, and he encourages clinicians to enroll these patients in clinical trials evaluating this issue, such as the PREVENT-HD trial.

“If they can’t enroll patents in a trial, then they have to make a decision whether the patient is high-enough risk to justify off-label use of anticoagulant. There is a case to be made for this, but there is no evidence for or against such action at present,” he noted.

At this time, neither the ISTH nor ACCP recommend measuring D-dimer to screen for venous thromboembolism or to determine intensity of prophylaxis or treatment, the authors note.

“Ongoing investigation will determine optimal preventive regimens in COVID-19 in the intensive care unit, at hospital discharge, and in nonhospitalized patients at high risk for thrombosis,” they conclude.

Dr. Piazza reported grants from Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boston Scientific, Janssen, and Portola, and personal fees from Agile, Amgen, Pfizer, and the Prairie Education and Research Cooperative outside the submitted work. Dr. Morrow reported grants from Abbott Laboratories, Amgen, Anthos Therapeutics, Esai, GlaxoSmithKline, Takeda, and The Medicines Company; grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Merck, Novartis, and Roche Diagnostics; and personal fees from Bayer Pharma and InCarda outside the submitted work.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

The risk of arterial and venous thrombosis in patients with COVID-19 has been a major issue throughout the pandemic, and how best to manage this risk is the subject of a new review article.

The article, by Gregory Dr. Piazza, MD, and David A. Morrow, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, was published online in JAMA on Nov. 23.

“Basically we’re saying: ‘Be proactive about prevention,’” Dr. Piazza told this news organization.

There is growing recognition among those on the frontline that there is an increased risk of thrombosis in COVID-19 patients, Dr. Piazza said. The risk is highest in patients in the intensive care unit, but the risk is also increased in patients hospitalized with COVID-19, even those not in ICU.

“We don’t really know what the risk is in nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients, but we think it’s much lower than in those who are hospitalized,” he said. “We are waiting for data on the optimal way of managing this increased risk of thrombosis in COVID patients, but for the time being, we believe a systematic way of addressing this risk is best, with every patient hospitalized with COVID-19 receiving some type of thromboprophylaxis. This would mainly be with anticoagulation, but in patients in whom anticoagulation is contraindicated, then mechanical methods could be used, such as pneumatic compression boots or compression stockings.”

The authors report thrombotic complication rates of 2.6% in noncritically ill hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and 35.3% in critically ill patients from a recent U.S. registry study.

Autopsy findings of microthrombi in multiple organ systems, including the lungs, heart, and kidneys, suggest that thrombosis may contribute to multisystem organ dysfunction in severe COVID-19, they note. Although the pathophysiology is not fully defined, prothrombotic abnormalities have been identified in patients with COVID-19, including elevated levels of D-dimer, fibrinogen, and factor VIII, they add.

“There are several major questions about which COVID-19 patients to treat with thromboprophylaxis, how to treat them in term of levels of anticoagulation, and there are many ongoing clinical trials to try and answer these questions,” Dr. Piazza commented. “We need results from these randomized trials to provide a better compass for COVID-19 patients at risk of clotting.”

At present, clinicians can follow two different sets of guidelines on the issue, one from the American College of Chest Physicians and the other from the International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis, the authors note.

“The ACCP guidelines are very conservative and basically follow the evidence base for medical patients, while the ISTH guidelines are more aggressive and recommend increased levels of anticoagulation in both ICU and hospitalized non-ICU patients and also extend prophylaxis after discharge,” Dr. Piazza said.

“There is quite a difference between the two sets of guidelines, which can be a point of confusion,” he added.

Dr. Piazza notes that at his center every hospitalized COVID patient who does not have a contraindication to anticoagulation receives a standard prophylactic dose of a once-daily low-molecular-weight heparin (for example, enoxaparin 40 mg). A once-daily product is used to minimize infection risk to staff.

While all COVID patients in the ICU should automatically receive some anticoagulation, the optimal dose is an area of active investigation, he explained. “There were several early reports of ICU patients developing blood clots despite receiving standard thromboprophylaxis so perhaps we need to use higher doses. There are trials underway looking at this, and we would advise enrolling patients into these trials.”

If patients can’t be enrolled into trials, and clinicians feel higher anticoagulation levels are needed, Dr. Piazza advises following the ISTH guidance, which allows an intermediate dose of low-molecular-weight heparin (up to 1 mg/kg enoxaparin).

“Some experts are suggesting even higher doses may be needed in some ICU patients, such as the full therapeutic dose, but I worry about the risk of bleeding with such a strategy,” he said.

Dr. Piazza says they do not routinely give anticoagulation after discharge, but if this is desired then patients could be switched to an oral agent, and some of the direct-acting oral anticoagulants are approved for prophylactic use in medically ill patients.

Dr. Piazza points out that whether thromboprophylaxis should be used for nonhospitalized COVID patients who have risk factors for clotting such as a prior history of thrombosis or obesity is a pressing question, and he encourages clinicians to enroll these patients in clinical trials evaluating this issue, such as the PREVENT-HD trial.

“If they can’t enroll patents in a trial, then they have to make a decision whether the patient is high-enough risk to justify off-label use of anticoagulant. There is a case to be made for this, but there is no evidence for or against such action at present,” he noted.

At this time, neither the ISTH nor ACCP recommend measuring D-dimer to screen for venous thromboembolism or to determine intensity of prophylaxis or treatment, the authors note.

“Ongoing investigation will determine optimal preventive regimens in COVID-19 in the intensive care unit, at hospital discharge, and in nonhospitalized patients at high risk for thrombosis,” they conclude.

Dr. Piazza reported grants from Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boston Scientific, Janssen, and Portola, and personal fees from Agile, Amgen, Pfizer, and the Prairie Education and Research Cooperative outside the submitted work. Dr. Morrow reported grants from Abbott Laboratories, Amgen, Anthos Therapeutics, Esai, GlaxoSmithKline, Takeda, and The Medicines Company; grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Merck, Novartis, and Roche Diagnostics; and personal fees from Bayer Pharma and InCarda outside the submitted work.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

The risk of arterial and venous thrombosis in patients with COVID-19 has been a major issue throughout the pandemic, and how best to manage this risk is the subject of a new review article.

The article, by Gregory Dr. Piazza, MD, and David A. Morrow, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, was published online in JAMA on Nov. 23.

“Basically we’re saying: ‘Be proactive about prevention,’” Dr. Piazza told this news organization.

There is growing recognition among those on the frontline that there is an increased risk of thrombosis in COVID-19 patients, Dr. Piazza said. The risk is highest in patients in the intensive care unit, but the risk is also increased in patients hospitalized with COVID-19, even those not in ICU.

“We don’t really know what the risk is in nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients, but we think it’s much lower than in those who are hospitalized,” he said. “We are waiting for data on the optimal way of managing this increased risk of thrombosis in COVID patients, but for the time being, we believe a systematic way of addressing this risk is best, with every patient hospitalized with COVID-19 receiving some type of thromboprophylaxis. This would mainly be with anticoagulation, but in patients in whom anticoagulation is contraindicated, then mechanical methods could be used, such as pneumatic compression boots or compression stockings.”

The authors report thrombotic complication rates of 2.6% in noncritically ill hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and 35.3% in critically ill patients from a recent U.S. registry study.

Autopsy findings of microthrombi in multiple organ systems, including the lungs, heart, and kidneys, suggest that thrombosis may contribute to multisystem organ dysfunction in severe COVID-19, they note. Although the pathophysiology is not fully defined, prothrombotic abnormalities have been identified in patients with COVID-19, including elevated levels of D-dimer, fibrinogen, and factor VIII, they add.

“There are several major questions about which COVID-19 patients to treat with thromboprophylaxis, how to treat them in term of levels of anticoagulation, and there are many ongoing clinical trials to try and answer these questions,” Dr. Piazza commented. “We need results from these randomized trials to provide a better compass for COVID-19 patients at risk of clotting.”

At present, clinicians can follow two different sets of guidelines on the issue, one from the American College of Chest Physicians and the other from the International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis, the authors note.

“The ACCP guidelines are very conservative and basically follow the evidence base for medical patients, while the ISTH guidelines are more aggressive and recommend increased levels of anticoagulation in both ICU and hospitalized non-ICU patients and also extend prophylaxis after discharge,” Dr. Piazza said.

“There is quite a difference between the two sets of guidelines, which can be a point of confusion,” he added.

Dr. Piazza notes that at his center every hospitalized COVID patient who does not have a contraindication to anticoagulation receives a standard prophylactic dose of a once-daily low-molecular-weight heparin (for example, enoxaparin 40 mg). A once-daily product is used to minimize infection risk to staff.

While all COVID patients in the ICU should automatically receive some anticoagulation, the optimal dose is an area of active investigation, he explained. “There were several early reports of ICU patients developing blood clots despite receiving standard thromboprophylaxis so perhaps we need to use higher doses. There are trials underway looking at this, and we would advise enrolling patients into these trials.”

If patients can’t be enrolled into trials, and clinicians feel higher anticoagulation levels are needed, Dr. Piazza advises following the ISTH guidance, which allows an intermediate dose of low-molecular-weight heparin (up to 1 mg/kg enoxaparin).

“Some experts are suggesting even higher doses may be needed in some ICU patients, such as the full therapeutic dose, but I worry about the risk of bleeding with such a strategy,” he said.

Dr. Piazza says they do not routinely give anticoagulation after discharge, but if this is desired then patients could be switched to an oral agent, and some of the direct-acting oral anticoagulants are approved for prophylactic use in medically ill patients.

Dr. Piazza points out that whether thromboprophylaxis should be used for nonhospitalized COVID patients who have risk factors for clotting such as a prior history of thrombosis or obesity is a pressing question, and he encourages clinicians to enroll these patients in clinical trials evaluating this issue, such as the PREVENT-HD trial.

“If they can’t enroll patents in a trial, then they have to make a decision whether the patient is high-enough risk to justify off-label use of anticoagulant. There is a case to be made for this, but there is no evidence for or against such action at present,” he noted.

At this time, neither the ISTH nor ACCP recommend measuring D-dimer to screen for venous thromboembolism or to determine intensity of prophylaxis or treatment, the authors note.

“Ongoing investigation will determine optimal preventive regimens in COVID-19 in the intensive care unit, at hospital discharge, and in nonhospitalized patients at high risk for thrombosis,” they conclude.

Dr. Piazza reported grants from Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boston Scientific, Janssen, and Portola, and personal fees from Agile, Amgen, Pfizer, and the Prairie Education and Research Cooperative outside the submitted work. Dr. Morrow reported grants from Abbott Laboratories, Amgen, Anthos Therapeutics, Esai, GlaxoSmithKline, Takeda, and The Medicines Company; grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Merck, Novartis, and Roche Diagnostics; and personal fees from Bayer Pharma and InCarda outside the submitted work.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

There has been a sharp increase in overdose-related cardiac arrests in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic, a new analysis shows.

Overall rates in 2020 were elevated above the baseline from 2018 and 2019 by about 50%, the data show.

“Our results suggest that overdoses may be strongly on the rise in 2020, and efforts to combat the COVID-19 pandemic have not been effective at reducing overdoses,” Joseph Friedman, MPH, MD/PhD student, medical scientist training program, University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview.

“We need to invest heavily in substance use treatment, harm reduction, and the structural drivers of overdose as core elements of the COVID-19 response,” said Mr. Friedman, who coauthored the study with UCLA colleague David Schriger, MD, MPH, and Leo Beletsky, JD, MPH, Northeastern University, Boston.

The study was published as a research letter Dec. 3 in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Social isolation a key driver

Emergency medical services (EMS) data are available in near real time, providing a novel source of up-to-date information to monitor epidemiological shifts during the COVID-19 pandemic.

For the study, the researchers leveraged data from the National EMS Information System, a large registry of more than 10,000 EMS agencies in 47 states that represent over 80% of all EMS calls nationally in 2020. They used the data to track shifts in overdose-related cardiac arrests observed by EMS.

They found clear evidence of a large-scale uptick in overdose-related deaths during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The overall rate of overdose-related cardiac arrests in 2020 was about 50% higher than trends observed during 2018 and 2019, including a maximum peak of 123% above baseline reached in early May.

All overdose-related incidents (fatal and nonfatal) were elevated in 2020, by about 17% above baseline. However, there were larger increases in fatal overdose-related incidents, compared to all incidents, which may suggest a rising case fatality rate, the authors noted.

The observed trends line up in time with reductions in mobility (a metric of social interaction), as measured using cell phone data, they wrote.

“Many of the trends predicted by experts at the beginning of the pandemic could cause these shifts. Increases in social isolation likely play an important role, as people using [drugs] alone are less likely to receive help when they need it. Also shifts in the drug supply, and reduced access to healthcare and treatment,” said Mr. Friedman.

“We need to undertake short- and long-term strategies to combat the rising tide of overdose mortality in the United States,” he added.

In the short term, Mr. Friedman suggested reducing financial and logistical barriers for accessing a safe opioid supply. Such measures include allowing pharmacies to dispense methadone, allowing all physicians to prescribe buprenorphine without a special waiver, and releasing emergency funds to make these medications universally affordable.

“In the longer term, we should acknowledge that overdose is a symptom of structural problems in the U.S. We need to invest in making employment, housing, education, and health care accessible to all to address the upstream drivers of overdose,” he added.

The study had no commercial funding. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

There has been a sharp increase in overdose-related cardiac arrests in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic, a new analysis shows.

Overall rates in 2020 were elevated above the baseline from 2018 and 2019 by about 50%, the data show.

“Our results suggest that overdoses may be strongly on the rise in 2020, and efforts to combat the COVID-19 pandemic have not been effective at reducing overdoses,” Joseph Friedman, MPH, MD/PhD student, medical scientist training program, University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview.

“We need to invest heavily in substance use treatment, harm reduction, and the structural drivers of overdose as core elements of the COVID-19 response,” said Mr. Friedman, who coauthored the study with UCLA colleague David Schriger, MD, MPH, and Leo Beletsky, JD, MPH, Northeastern University, Boston.

The study was published as a research letter Dec. 3 in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Social isolation a key driver

Emergency medical services (EMS) data are available in near real time, providing a novel source of up-to-date information to monitor epidemiological shifts during the COVID-19 pandemic.

For the study, the researchers leveraged data from the National EMS Information System, a large registry of more than 10,000 EMS agencies in 47 states that represent over 80% of all EMS calls nationally in 2020. They used the data to track shifts in overdose-related cardiac arrests observed by EMS.

They found clear evidence of a large-scale uptick in overdose-related deaths during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The overall rate of overdose-related cardiac arrests in 2020 was about 50% higher than trends observed during 2018 and 2019, including a maximum peak of 123% above baseline reached in early May.

All overdose-related incidents (fatal and nonfatal) were elevated in 2020, by about 17% above baseline. However, there were larger increases in fatal overdose-related incidents, compared to all incidents, which may suggest a rising case fatality rate, the authors noted.

The observed trends line up in time with reductions in mobility (a metric of social interaction), as measured using cell phone data, they wrote.

“Many of the trends predicted by experts at the beginning of the pandemic could cause these shifts. Increases in social isolation likely play an important role, as people using [drugs] alone are less likely to receive help when they need it. Also shifts in the drug supply, and reduced access to healthcare and treatment,” said Mr. Friedman.

“We need to undertake short- and long-term strategies to combat the rising tide of overdose mortality in the United States,” he added.

In the short term, Mr. Friedman suggested reducing financial and logistical barriers for accessing a safe opioid supply. Such measures include allowing pharmacies to dispense methadone, allowing all physicians to prescribe buprenorphine without a special waiver, and releasing emergency funds to make these medications universally affordable.

“In the longer term, we should acknowledge that overdose is a symptom of structural problems in the U.S. We need to invest in making employment, housing, education, and health care accessible to all to address the upstream drivers of overdose,” he added.

The study had no commercial funding. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

There has been a sharp increase in overdose-related cardiac arrests in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic, a new analysis shows.

Overall rates in 2020 were elevated above the baseline from 2018 and 2019 by about 50%, the data show.

“Our results suggest that overdoses may be strongly on the rise in 2020, and efforts to combat the COVID-19 pandemic have not been effective at reducing overdoses,” Joseph Friedman, MPH, MD/PhD student, medical scientist training program, University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview.

“We need to invest heavily in substance use treatment, harm reduction, and the structural drivers of overdose as core elements of the COVID-19 response,” said Mr. Friedman, who coauthored the study with UCLA colleague David Schriger, MD, MPH, and Leo Beletsky, JD, MPH, Northeastern University, Boston.

The study was published as a research letter Dec. 3 in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Social isolation a key driver

Emergency medical services (EMS) data are available in near real time, providing a novel source of up-to-date information to monitor epidemiological shifts during the COVID-19 pandemic.

For the study, the researchers leveraged data from the National EMS Information System, a large registry of more than 10,000 EMS agencies in 47 states that represent over 80% of all EMS calls nationally in 2020. They used the data to track shifts in overdose-related cardiac arrests observed by EMS.

They found clear evidence of a large-scale uptick in overdose-related deaths during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The overall rate of overdose-related cardiac arrests in 2020 was about 50% higher than trends observed during 2018 and 2019, including a maximum peak of 123% above baseline reached in early May.

All overdose-related incidents (fatal and nonfatal) were elevated in 2020, by about 17% above baseline. However, there were larger increases in fatal overdose-related incidents, compared to all incidents, which may suggest a rising case fatality rate, the authors noted.

The observed trends line up in time with reductions in mobility (a metric of social interaction), as measured using cell phone data, they wrote.

“Many of the trends predicted by experts at the beginning of the pandemic could cause these shifts. Increases in social isolation likely play an important role, as people using [drugs] alone are less likely to receive help when they need it. Also shifts in the drug supply, and reduced access to healthcare and treatment,” said Mr. Friedman.

“We need to undertake short- and long-term strategies to combat the rising tide of overdose mortality in the United States,” he added.

In the short term, Mr. Friedman suggested reducing financial and logistical barriers for accessing a safe opioid supply. Such measures include allowing pharmacies to dispense methadone, allowing all physicians to prescribe buprenorphine without a special waiver, and releasing emergency funds to make these medications universally affordable.

“In the longer term, we should acknowledge that overdose is a symptom of structural problems in the U.S. We need to invest in making employment, housing, education, and health care accessible to all to address the upstream drivers of overdose,” he added.

The study had no commercial funding. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.