Women's Health

LJUBLJANA, SLOVENIA – The first dose of rotavirus vaccine emerged as the strongest independent risk factor for intussusception in infancy, but breastfeeding had a protective effect in a German case-control study.

©Maxim Tupikov/iStockphoto.com

Two other potent risk factors for intussusception in children less than 1 year old were identified: a family history of intussusception, and an episode of gastroenteritis, Doris F. Oberle, MD, PhD, reported at the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases.

Dr. Oberle, of the Paul Ehrlich Institute in Langen, Germany, presented a retrospective study of 116 meticulously validated cases of intussusception in infancy treated at 19 German pediatric centers during 2010-2014 and 272 controls matched by birth month, sex, and location. A standardized interview was conducted with the parents of all study participants.

Rotavirus vaccine was added to the German national vaccination schedule in 2013. In a multivariate logistic regression analysis, the risk of intussusception was increased by 5.4-fold following the first dose of the vaccine, compared with nonrecipients. However, subsequent doses of rotavirus vaccine were not associated with any excess risk.

In addition, a family history of intussusception was linked to a 4.2-fold increased risk, while an episode of gastroenteritis during the first year of life was associated with a 4.7-fold elevated risk.

In a novel finding, breastfeeding was independently associated with a 44% reduction in the risk of intussusception, compared with that of bottle-fed babies.

The most common presenting signs and symptoms of intussusception were vomiting, abdominal pain, hematochezia, pallor, and reduced appetite, each present in at least half of affected infants.

Dr. Oberle reported having no financial conflicts regarding her study, supported by the Paul Ehrlich Institute.

[email protected]

LJUBLJANA, SLOVENIA – The first dose of rotavirus vaccine emerged as the strongest independent risk factor for intussusception in infancy, but breastfeeding had a protective effect in a German case-control study.

©Maxim Tupikov/iStockphoto.com

Two other potent risk factors for intussusception in children less than 1 year old were identified: a family history of intussusception, and an episode of gastroenteritis, Doris F. Oberle, MD, PhD, reported at the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases.

Dr. Oberle, of the Paul Ehrlich Institute in Langen, Germany, presented a retrospective study of 116 meticulously validated cases of intussusception in infancy treated at 19 German pediatric centers during 2010-2014 and 272 controls matched by birth month, sex, and location. A standardized interview was conducted with the parents of all study participants.

Rotavirus vaccine was added to the German national vaccination schedule in 2013. In a multivariate logistic regression analysis, the risk of intussusception was increased by 5.4-fold following the first dose of the vaccine, compared with nonrecipients. However, subsequent doses of rotavirus vaccine were not associated with any excess risk.

In addition, a family history of intussusception was linked to a 4.2-fold increased risk, while an episode of gastroenteritis during the first year of life was associated with a 4.7-fold elevated risk.

In a novel finding, breastfeeding was independently associated with a 44% reduction in the risk of intussusception, compared with that of bottle-fed babies.

The most common presenting signs and symptoms of intussusception were vomiting, abdominal pain, hematochezia, pallor, and reduced appetite, each present in at least half of affected infants.

Dr. Oberle reported having no financial conflicts regarding her study, supported by the Paul Ehrlich Institute.

[email protected]

LJUBLJANA, SLOVENIA – The first dose of rotavirus vaccine emerged as the strongest independent risk factor for intussusception in infancy, but breastfeeding had a protective effect in a German case-control study.

©Maxim Tupikov/iStockphoto.com

Two other potent risk factors for intussusception in children less than 1 year old were identified: a family history of intussusception, and an episode of gastroenteritis, Doris F. Oberle, MD, PhD, reported at the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases.

Dr. Oberle, of the Paul Ehrlich Institute in Langen, Germany, presented a retrospective study of 116 meticulously validated cases of intussusception in infancy treated at 19 German pediatric centers during 2010-2014 and 272 controls matched by birth month, sex, and location. A standardized interview was conducted with the parents of all study participants.

Rotavirus vaccine was added to the German national vaccination schedule in 2013. In a multivariate logistic regression analysis, the risk of intussusception was increased by 5.4-fold following the first dose of the vaccine, compared with nonrecipients. However, subsequent doses of rotavirus vaccine were not associated with any excess risk.

In addition, a family history of intussusception was linked to a 4.2-fold increased risk, while an episode of gastroenteritis during the first year of life was associated with a 4.7-fold elevated risk.

In a novel finding, breastfeeding was independently associated with a 44% reduction in the risk of intussusception, compared with that of bottle-fed babies.

The most common presenting signs and symptoms of intussusception were vomiting, abdominal pain, hematochezia, pallor, and reduced appetite, each present in at least half of affected infants.

Dr. Oberle reported having no financial conflicts regarding her study, supported by the Paul Ehrlich Institute.

[email protected]

Low-level evidence supports the safety of cutaneous laser treatment during pregnancy, according to the results of a systematic review of 22 studies.

Among 380 women in all trimesters of pregnancy who were treated with various laser wavelengths, the only clinically significant event was a case of premature rupture of membranes (PROM) “without further morbidity,” wrote Eric C. Wilkerson, MD, of Skin Laser & Surgery Specialists of NY and NJ in New York, and associates. In that case, the cause was not clear, there was no further morbidity, “and it was uncertain whether this was related to the laser procedure.”

However, only 22 studies were identified between 1960 and 2017, all of which were case reports or series, published from 1994 to 2015. “[Thus far,] the best evidence exists for the safety of the carbon dioxide laser, particularly in the treatment of condyloma,” they wrote in Dermatologic Surgery.

Elective laser treatments are usually not recommended during pregnancy, but no evidence supports this, Dr. Wilkerson and coauthors wrote. Therefore, they searched for studies indexed in PubMed, Google Scholar, the Cochrane Library, or the EBSCO CINAHL Plus Database from 1960 to 2017. They also searched LexisNexis for relevant legal cases, but found none.

The women in the 22 case reports and series were aged 14-41 years and received laser therapy for cervical adenocarcinoma, urolithiasis, condyloma acuminata, cervical carcinoma in situ, cutaneous scarring, Buschke-Löwenstein tumor, verrucous carcinoma, and acne vulgaris. Modalities included 504-nm pulsed-dye laser, 532-nm potassium titanyl phosphate, 1,064-nm neodymium:YAG, 2,100-nm holmium:YAG, and 10,600-nm CO₂.

Apart from the case of PROM, there were no instances of fetal morbidity or mortality, premature labor or preterm birth, or detectable fetal stress, the authors wrote. The case of PROM occurred at 35 weeks, 4 days after the mother had received CO₂ laser therapy for condyloma acuminata. She delivered normally approximately 1 week later. There also were several cases of premature contractions without true labor, all of which responded to tocolytic therapy. (In the same study, there also were two cases of PROM in women 7 and 10 weeks after the same procedure, but were thought to be unrelated.)

The thickness of the pregnant abdomen, uterus, and amniotic fluid makes it “very unlikely” that clinically significant amounts of laser energy would reach the fetus during cutaneous laser therapy, the authors noted. Certain topical anesthetics, such as lidocaine and prilocaine, also appear safe during pregnancy “and may potentially decrease concern for fetal stress secondary to maternal stress or pain during the procedure,” they added. “Appropriate safety measures including eye protection and laser plume management should continue to be used during laser treatment.”

The authors reported no funding sources or conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Wilkerson EJ et al. Dermatol Surg. 2019 Jun;45(6):818-28.

Low-level evidence supports the safety of cutaneous laser treatment during pregnancy, according to the results of a systematic review of 22 studies.

Among 380 women in all trimesters of pregnancy who were treated with various laser wavelengths, the only clinically significant event was a case of premature rupture of membranes (PROM) “without further morbidity,” wrote Eric C. Wilkerson, MD, of Skin Laser & Surgery Specialists of NY and NJ in New York, and associates. In that case, the cause was not clear, there was no further morbidity, “and it was uncertain whether this was related to the laser procedure.”

However, only 22 studies were identified between 1960 and 2017, all of which were case reports or series, published from 1994 to 2015. “[Thus far,] the best evidence exists for the safety of the carbon dioxide laser, particularly in the treatment of condyloma,” they wrote in Dermatologic Surgery.

Elective laser treatments are usually not recommended during pregnancy, but no evidence supports this, Dr. Wilkerson and coauthors wrote. Therefore, they searched for studies indexed in PubMed, Google Scholar, the Cochrane Library, or the EBSCO CINAHL Plus Database from 1960 to 2017. They also searched LexisNexis for relevant legal cases, but found none.

The women in the 22 case reports and series were aged 14-41 years and received laser therapy for cervical adenocarcinoma, urolithiasis, condyloma acuminata, cervical carcinoma in situ, cutaneous scarring, Buschke-Löwenstein tumor, verrucous carcinoma, and acne vulgaris. Modalities included 504-nm pulsed-dye laser, 532-nm potassium titanyl phosphate, 1,064-nm neodymium:YAG, 2,100-nm holmium:YAG, and 10,600-nm CO₂.

Apart from the case of PROM, there were no instances of fetal morbidity or mortality, premature labor or preterm birth, or detectable fetal stress, the authors wrote. The case of PROM occurred at 35 weeks, 4 days after the mother had received CO₂ laser therapy for condyloma acuminata. She delivered normally approximately 1 week later. There also were several cases of premature contractions without true labor, all of which responded to tocolytic therapy. (In the same study, there also were two cases of PROM in women 7 and 10 weeks after the same procedure, but were thought to be unrelated.)

The thickness of the pregnant abdomen, uterus, and amniotic fluid makes it “very unlikely” that clinically significant amounts of laser energy would reach the fetus during cutaneous laser therapy, the authors noted. Certain topical anesthetics, such as lidocaine and prilocaine, also appear safe during pregnancy “and may potentially decrease concern for fetal stress secondary to maternal stress or pain during the procedure,” they added. “Appropriate safety measures including eye protection and laser plume management should continue to be used during laser treatment.”

The authors reported no funding sources or conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Wilkerson EJ et al. Dermatol Surg. 2019 Jun;45(6):818-28.

Low-level evidence supports the safety of cutaneous laser treatment during pregnancy, according to the results of a systematic review of 22 studies.

Among 380 women in all trimesters of pregnancy who were treated with various laser wavelengths, the only clinically significant event was a case of premature rupture of membranes (PROM) “without further morbidity,” wrote Eric C. Wilkerson, MD, of Skin Laser & Surgery Specialists of NY and NJ in New York, and associates. In that case, the cause was not clear, there was no further morbidity, “and it was uncertain whether this was related to the laser procedure.”

However, only 22 studies were identified between 1960 and 2017, all of which were case reports or series, published from 1994 to 2015. “[Thus far,] the best evidence exists for the safety of the carbon dioxide laser, particularly in the treatment of condyloma,” they wrote in Dermatologic Surgery.

Elective laser treatments are usually not recommended during pregnancy, but no evidence supports this, Dr. Wilkerson and coauthors wrote. Therefore, they searched for studies indexed in PubMed, Google Scholar, the Cochrane Library, or the EBSCO CINAHL Plus Database from 1960 to 2017. They also searched LexisNexis for relevant legal cases, but found none.

The women in the 22 case reports and series were aged 14-41 years and received laser therapy for cervical adenocarcinoma, urolithiasis, condyloma acuminata, cervical carcinoma in situ, cutaneous scarring, Buschke-Löwenstein tumor, verrucous carcinoma, and acne vulgaris. Modalities included 504-nm pulsed-dye laser, 532-nm potassium titanyl phosphate, 1,064-nm neodymium:YAG, 2,100-nm holmium:YAG, and 10,600-nm CO₂.

Apart from the case of PROM, there were no instances of fetal morbidity or mortality, premature labor or preterm birth, or detectable fetal stress, the authors wrote. The case of PROM occurred at 35 weeks, 4 days after the mother had received CO₂ laser therapy for condyloma acuminata. She delivered normally approximately 1 week later. There also were several cases of premature contractions without true labor, all of which responded to tocolytic therapy. (In the same study, there also were two cases of PROM in women 7 and 10 weeks after the same procedure, but were thought to be unrelated.)

The thickness of the pregnant abdomen, uterus, and amniotic fluid makes it “very unlikely” that clinically significant amounts of laser energy would reach the fetus during cutaneous laser therapy, the authors noted. Certain topical anesthetics, such as lidocaine and prilocaine, also appear safe during pregnancy “and may potentially decrease concern for fetal stress secondary to maternal stress or pain during the procedure,” they added. “Appropriate safety measures including eye protection and laser plume management should continue to be used during laser treatment.”

The authors reported no funding sources or conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Wilkerson EJ et al. Dermatol Surg. 2019 Jun;45(6):818-28.

Screening can help prevent colorectal cancer. The United States has seen a steady decline in colorectal cancer incidence and mortality, thanks in large part to screening. Screening rates can be increased with good patient-physician dialogue and by choosing a method the patient prefers and is most likely to complete.

In this article, we review a general approach to screening, focusing on the most commonly used methods in the United States, ie, the guaiac-based fecal occult blood test (FOBT), the fecal immunochemical test (FIT), and colonoscopy. We discuss current colorectal cancer incidence rates, screening recommendations, and how to choose the appropriate screening test.

This article does not discuss patients at high risk of polyps or cancer due to hereditary colon cancer syndromes, a personal history of colorectal neoplasia, inflammatory bowel disease, or primary sclerosing cholangitis.

TRENDS IN INCIDENCE

Colorectal cancer is the second most common type of cancer and cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States, responsible for an estimated 50,000 deaths in 2017. The lifetime risk of its occurrence is estimated to be 1 in 21 men and 1 in 23 women.¹ Encouragingly, the incidence has declined by 24% over the last 30 years,² and by 3% per year from 2004 to 2013.¹ Also, as a result of screening and advances in treatment, 5-year survival rates for patients with colorectal cancer have increased, from 48.6% in 1975 to 66.4% in 2009.²

When detected at a localized stage, the 5-year survival rate in colorectal cancer is greater than 90%. Unfortunately, it is diagnosed early in only 39% of patients. And despite advances in treatment and a doubling of the 5-year survival rate in patients with advanced cancers since 1990,³ the latter is only 14%. In most patients, cancer is diagnosed when it has spread to the lymph nodes (36%) or to distant organs (22%), and the survival rate declines to 71% after lymph-node spread, and 14% after metastasis to distant organs.

It is essential to screen people who have no symptoms, as symptoms such as gastrointestinal bleeding, unexplained abdominal pain or weight loss, a persistent change in bowel movements, and bowel obstruction typically do not arise until the disease is advanced and less amenable to cure.

Increasing prevalence in younger adults

Curiously, the incidence of colorectal cancer is increasing in white US adults under age 50. Over the last 30 years, incidence rates have increased from 1.0% to 2.4% annually in adults ages 20 to 39.⁴ Based on current trends, colon cancer rates are expected to increase by 90% for patients ages 20 to 34 and by 28% for patients 35 to 49 by 2030.⁵

Although recommendations vary for colorectal cancer screening in patients under age 50, clinicians should investigate symptoms such as rectal bleeding, unexplained iron deficiency anemia, progressive abdominal pain, and persistent changes in bowel movements.

Other challenges

Despite the benefits of screening, it is underutilized. Although rates of compliance with screening recommendations have increased 10% over the last 10 years, only 65% of eligible adults currently comply.^1,6

Additionally, certain areas of the country such as Appalachia and the Mississippi Delta have not benefited from the decline in the national rate of colorectal cancer.⁷

SCREENING GUIDELINES

Most guidelines say that colorectal cancer screening should begin at age 50 in people at average risk with no symptoms. However, the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) recommends beginning screening at age 45 in African Americans, as this group has higher incidence and mortality rates of colorectal cancer.⁸ Also, the American Cancer Society recently recommended beginning screening at age 45 for all individuals.⁹

Screening can stop at age 75 for most patients, according to the ACG,⁸ the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer,¹⁰ and the US Preventive Services Task Force  (USPSTF).¹¹ However, the decision should be individualized for patients ages 76 to 85. Patients within that age group who are in good health and have not previously been screened are more likely to benefit than those who have previously been screened and had a negative screening test. Patients over age 85 should not begin or continue screening, because of diminished benefit of screening in this age group, shorter life expectancy, advanced comorbid conditions, and the risks of colonoscopy and cancer treatment.

Patients and clinicians are encouraged to collaborate in deciding which screening method is appropriate. Patients adhere better when they are given a choice in the matter.^12–14 And adherence is the key to effective colorectal cancer screening.

Familiarity with the key characteristics of currently available colorectal cancer screening tests will facilitate discussion with patients.

Opportunistic vs programmatic screening

Screening can be classified according to the approach to the patient or population and the intent of the test. Most screening in the United States is opportunistic rather than programmatic—that is, the physician offers the patient screening at the point of service without systematic follow-up or patient re-engagement.

In a programmatic approach, the patient is offered screening through an organized program that streamlines services, reduces overscreening, and provides systematic follow-up of testing.

 

 

DISCUSSING THE OPTIONS

Stool studies such as FOBT and FIT do not reliably detect cancer precursors such as adenomas and serrated neoplasms. If an FOBT is positive, follow-up diagnostic colonoscopy is required. Unlike screening colonoscopy, diagnostic colonoscopy requires a copayment for Medicare patients, and this should be explained to the patient.

FIT and FOBT detect hemolyzed blood within a stool sample, FOBT by a chemical reaction, and FIT by detecting a globin-specific antibody. Colorectal cancer and some large adenomatous polyps may intermittently bleed and result in occult blood in the stool, iron deficiency anemia, or hematochezia.¹⁵

Fecal occult blood testing

Historically, FOBT was the stool test of choice for screening. It uses an indirect enzymatic reaction to detect hemolyzed blood in the stool. When a specimen containing hemoglobin is added to guaiac paper and a drop of hydrogen peroxide is added to “develop” it, the peroxidase activity of hemoglobin turns the guaiac blue.

Screening with FOBT involves annual testing of 3 consecutively passed stools from different days; FOBT should not be performed at the time of digital rectal examination or if the patient is having overt rectal, urinary, or menstrual bleeding.

Dietary and medication restrictions before and during the testing period are critical, as red meat contains hemoglobin, and certain vegetables (eg, radishes, turnips, cauliflower, cucumbers) contain peroxidase, all of which can cause a false-positive result. Waiting 3 days after the stool sample is collected to develop it can mitigate the peroxidase activity of vegetables.¹⁶ Vitamin C inhibits heme peroxidase activity and leads to false-negative results. Aspirin and high-dose nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs can promote bleeding throughout the intestinal tract.¹⁷

In randomized controlled trials,^18–21 screening with FOBT reduced colorectal cancer mortality rates by 15% to 33%. The 30-year follow-up of a large US trial²² found a 32% relative reduction in mortality rates in patients randomized to annual screening, and a 22% relative reduction in those randomized to screening every 2 years. Despite the many possibilities for false-positive results, the specificity for detecting cancer has ranged from 86.7% to 97.3%, and the sensitivity from 37.1% to 79.4%, highlighting the benefit of colorectal cancer screening programs in unscreened populations.^23–26

FIT vs FOBT in current practice

FIT should replace FOBT as the preferred stool screening method. Instead of an enzymatic reaction that can be altered by food or medication, FIT utilizes an antibody specific to human globin to directly detect hemolyzed blood, thus eliminating the need to modify the diet or medications.²⁷ Additionally, only 1 stool specimen is needed, which may explain why the adherence rate was about 20% higher with FIT than with FOBT in most studies.^28–30

FIT has a sensitivity of 69% to 86% for colorectal cancer and a specificity of 92% to 95%.³¹ The sensitivity can be improved by lowering the threshold value for a positive test, but this is associated with a decrease in specificity. A single FIT has the same sensitivity and specificity as several samples.³²

In a large retrospective US cohort study of programmatic screening with FIT, Jensen et al³³ reported that 48% of 670,841 people who were offered testing actually did the test. Of the 48% who participated in the first round and remained eligible, 75% to 86% participated in subsequent rounds over 4 years. Those who had a positive result on FIT were supposed to undergo colonoscopy, but 22% did not.

The US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer³⁴ suggests that FIT-based screening programs aim for a target FIT completion rate of more than 60% and a target colonoscopy completion rate of more than 80% of patients with positive FITs. These benchmarks were derived from adherence rates in international FIT screening studies in average-risk populations.^35–39 (Note that the large US cohort described above³³ did not meet these goals.) Ideally, every patient with a positive FIT should undergo diagnostic colonoscopy, but in reality only 50% to 83% actually do. Methods shown to improve adherence include structured screening programs with routine performance reports, provider feedback, and involvement of patient navigators.^40–42

Accordingly, several aspects of stool-based testing need to be stressed with patients. Understanding that FOBT is recommended yearly is integral for optimal impact on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality rates.

Additionally, patients should be advised to undergo colonoscopy soon after a positive FIT, because delaying colonoscopy could give precancerous lesions time to progress in stage. The acceptable time between a positive FIT and colonoscopy has yet to be determined. However, a retrospective cohort study of 1.26 million screened patients with 107,000 positive FIT results demonstrated that the rates of cancer discovered on colonoscopy were similar when performed within 30 days or up to 10 months after a positive test. Detection rates increased from 3% to 4.8% at 10 months and to 7.9% at 12 months.⁴³

In modeling studies, Meester et al⁴⁴ showed the estimated lifetime risk and mortality rates from colorectal cancer and life-years gained from screening are significantly better when colonoscopy is completed within 2 weeks rather than 1 year after a positive FIT. Each additional month after 2 weeks incrementally affected these outcomes, with a 1.4% increase in cancer mortality. These data suggest that colonoscopy should be done soon after a positive FIT result and at a maximum of 10 months.^43,44

Screening with FOBT is a multistep process for patients that includes receiving the test kit, collecting the sample, preparing it, returning it, undergoing colonoscopy after a positive test, and repeating in 1 year if negative. The screening program should identify patients at average risk in whom screening is appropriate, ensure delivery of the test, verify the quality of collected samples for laboratory testing against the manufacturer’s recommendations, and report results. Report of a positive FOBT result should provide recommendations for follow-up.

Though evidence clearly supports screening annually or biennially (every 2 years) with FOBT, the ideal interval for FIT is undetermined. Modeling studies utilized by the USPSTF and Multi-Society Task Force demonstrate that colonoscopy and annual FIT result in similar life-years gained, while 2 population-based screening programs have demonstrated that a 2- or 3-year interval may be equally efficacious by lowering the threshold for a positive test.^38,45

Randomized controlled trials of screening colonoscopy vs annual and biennial FIT are currently under way. Cost-effectiveness analysis has shown that offering single-sample FITs at more frequent (annual) intervals performs better than multisample testing at less frequent intervals.^45–47

 

 

Colonoscopy

Compared with stool-based screening, colonoscopy has advantages, including a 10-year screening interval if bowel preparation is adequate and the examination shows no neoplasia, the ability to inspect the entire colon, and the ability to diagnose and treat lesions in the same session.

Screening colonoscopy visualizes the entire colon in more than 98% of cases, although it requires adequate bowel preparation for maximal polyp detection. It can be done safely with or without sedation.⁴⁸

While there are no available randomized controlled trial data on the impact of screening colonoscopy on cancer incidence or mortality, extensive case-control and cohort studies consistently show that screening colonoscopy reduces cancer incidence and mortality rates.^49–54 A US Veterans Administration study of more than 32,000 patients reported a 50% reduction in overall colorectal cancer mortality.⁵⁵ In a microsimulation modeling study that assumed 100% adherence, colonoscopy every 10 years and annual FIT in individuals ages 50 to 75 provided similar life-years gained per 1,000 people screened (270 for colonoscopy, 244 for FIT).⁵⁶

Well-established metrics for maximizing the effectiveness and quality of colonoscopy have been established (Table 2). The most important include the mucosa inspection time (withdrawal time) and adenoma detection rate.⁵⁷ Withdrawal time is directly correlated with adenoma detection, and a 6-minute minimum withdrawal time is recommended in screening colonoscopy examinations of patients at average risk when no polyps are found.⁵⁸ The adenoma detection rate is the strongest evidence-based metric, as each 1% increase in the adenoma detection rate over 19% is associated with a 3% decrease in the risk of colorectal cancer and a 5% decrease in death rate.⁵⁹ The average-risk screening adenoma detection rate differs based on sex: the rate is greater than 20% for women and greater than 30% for men.

Complications from screening, diagnostic, or therapeutic colonoscopy are infrequent but include perforation (4/10,000) and significant intestinal bleeding (8/10,000).^56–62

Patients with a first-degree relative under age 60 with advanced adenomas or colorectal cancer are considered at high risk and should begin screening colonoscopy at age 40, with repeat colonoscopy at 5-year intervals, given a trend toward advanced neoplasia detection compared with FIT.⁶³

Guidelines recently published by the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology and endorsed by the American Gastroenterological Association also support starting screening in high-risk individuals at age 40, with a surveillance interval of 5 to 10 years based on the number of first-degree relatives with colorectal cancer or adenomas.⁶⁴ Consensus statements were based on retrospective cohort, prospective case-controlled, and cross-sectional studies comparing the risk of colorectal cancer in individuals with a family history against those without a family history.

Randomized clinical trials comparing colonoscopy and FIT are under way. Interim analysis of a European trial in which asymptomatic adults ages 50 to 69 were randomized to 1-time colonoscopy (26,703 patients) vs FIT every 2 years (26,599 patients) found significantly higher participation rates in the FIT arm (34.2% vs 24.6%) but higher rates of nonadvanced adenomas (4.2% vs 0.4%) and advanced neoplasia (1.9% vs 0.9%) in the colonoscopy arm.⁶⁵ Cancer was detected in 0.1% in each arm. These findings correlate with those of another study showing higher participation with FIT but higher advanced neoplasia detection rates with colonoscopy.⁶⁶

Detection of precursor lesions is vital, as removing neoplasms is the main strategy to reduce colorectal cancer incidence. Accordingly, the advantage of colonoscopy was illustrated by a study that determined that 53 patients would need to undergo screening colonoscopy to detect 1 advanced adenoma or cancerous lesion, compared with 264 for FIT.⁶⁷

STARTING SCREEING AT AGE 45

The American Cancer Society recently provided a qualified recommendation to start colorectal cancer screening in all individuals at age 45 rather than 50.⁹ This recommendation was based on modeling studies demonstrating that starting screening at age 45 with colonoscopy every 10 years resulted in 25 life-years gained at the cost of 610 colonoscopies per 1,000 individuals. Alternative strategies included FIT, which resulted in an additional 26 life-years gained per 1,000 individuals screened, flexible sigmoidoscopy (23 life-years gained), and computed tomographic colonoscopy (22 life-years gained).

Rates of colorectal cancer are rising in adults under age 50, and 10,000 new cases are anticipated this year.^2,3 Currently, 22 million US adults are between the ages of 45 and 50. The system and support needed to perform screening in all adults over age 45 and a lack of direct evidence to support its benefits in the young population need to be considered before widespread acceptance of the American Cancer Society recommendations. However, if screening is considered, FIT with or without sigmoidoscopy may be appropriate, given that most cancers diagnosed in individuals under age 50 are left-sided.^4,5

Screening has not been proven to reduce all-cause mortality. Randomized controlled trials of FOBT and observational studies of colonoscopy show that screening reduces cancer incidence and mortality. Until the currently ongoing randomized controlled trials comparing colonoscopy with FIT are completed, their comparative impact on colorectal cancer end points is unknown.

PATIENT ADHERENCE IS KEY

FIT and colonoscopy are the most prevalent screening methods in the United States. Careful attention should be given to offer the screening option the patient is most likely to complete, as adherence is key to the benefit from colorectal cancer screening.

The National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable (nccrt.org), established in 1997 by the American Cancer Society and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, is a national coalition of public and private organizations dedicated to reducing colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. The Roundtable waged a national campaign to achieve a colorectal cancer screening rate of 80% in eligible adults by 2018, a goal that was not met. Still, the potential for a substantial impact is a compelling reason to endorse adherence to colorectal cancer screening. The Roundtable provides many resources for physicians to enhance screening in their practice.

The United States has seen a steady decline in colorectal cancer incidence and mortality, mainly as a result of screening. Colorectal cancer is preventable with ensuring patients’ adherence to screening. Screening rates have been shown to increase with patient-provider dialogue and with selection of a screening program the patient prefers and is most likely to complete.

Screening can help prevent colorectal cancer. The United States has seen a steady decline in colorectal cancer incidence and mortality, thanks in large part to screening. Screening rates can be increased with good patient-physician dialogue and by choosing a method the patient prefers and is most likely to complete.

In this article, we review a general approach to screening, focusing on the most commonly used methods in the United States, ie, the guaiac-based fecal occult blood test (FOBT), the fecal immunochemical test (FIT), and colonoscopy. We discuss current colorectal cancer incidence rates, screening recommendations, and how to choose the appropriate screening test.

This article does not discuss patients at high risk of polyps or cancer due to hereditary colon cancer syndromes, a personal history of colorectal neoplasia, inflammatory bowel disease, or primary sclerosing cholangitis.

TRENDS IN INCIDENCE

Colorectal cancer is the second most common type of cancer and cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States, responsible for an estimated 50,000 deaths in 2017. The lifetime risk of its occurrence is estimated to be 1 in 21 men and 1 in 23 women.¹ Encouragingly, the incidence has declined by 24% over the last 30 years,² and by 3% per year from 2004 to 2013.¹ Also, as a result of screening and advances in treatment, 5-year survival rates for patients with colorectal cancer have increased, from 48.6% in 1975 to 66.4% in 2009.²

When detected at a localized stage, the 5-year survival rate in colorectal cancer is greater than 90%. Unfortunately, it is diagnosed early in only 39% of patients. And despite advances in treatment and a doubling of the 5-year survival rate in patients with advanced cancers since 1990,³ the latter is only 14%. In most patients, cancer is diagnosed when it has spread to the lymph nodes (36%) or to distant organs (22%), and the survival rate declines to 71% after lymph-node spread, and 14% after metastasis to distant organs.

It is essential to screen people who have no symptoms, as symptoms such as gastrointestinal bleeding, unexplained abdominal pain or weight loss, a persistent change in bowel movements, and bowel obstruction typically do not arise until the disease is advanced and less amenable to cure.

Increasing prevalence in younger adults

Curiously, the incidence of colorectal cancer is increasing in white US adults under age 50. Over the last 30 years, incidence rates have increased from 1.0% to 2.4% annually in adults ages 20 to 39.⁴ Based on current trends, colon cancer rates are expected to increase by 90% for patients ages 20 to 34 and by 28% for patients 35 to 49 by 2030.⁵

Although recommendations vary for colorectal cancer screening in patients under age 50, clinicians should investigate symptoms such as rectal bleeding, unexplained iron deficiency anemia, progressive abdominal pain, and persistent changes in bowel movements.

Other challenges

Despite the benefits of screening, it is underutilized. Although rates of compliance with screening recommendations have increased 10% over the last 10 years, only 65% of eligible adults currently comply.^1,6

Additionally, certain areas of the country such as Appalachia and the Mississippi Delta have not benefited from the decline in the national rate of colorectal cancer.⁷

SCREENING GUIDELINES

Most guidelines say that colorectal cancer screening should begin at age 50 in people at average risk with no symptoms. However, the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) recommends beginning screening at age 45 in African Americans, as this group has higher incidence and mortality rates of colorectal cancer.⁸ Also, the American Cancer Society recently recommended beginning screening at age 45 for all individuals.⁹

Screening can stop at age 75 for most patients, according to the ACG,⁸ the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer,¹⁰ and the US Preventive Services Task Force  (USPSTF).¹¹ However, the decision should be individualized for patients ages 76 to 85. Patients within that age group who are in good health and have not previously been screened are more likely to benefit than those who have previously been screened and had a negative screening test. Patients over age 85 should not begin or continue screening, because of diminished benefit of screening in this age group, shorter life expectancy, advanced comorbid conditions, and the risks of colonoscopy and cancer treatment.

Patients and clinicians are encouraged to collaborate in deciding which screening method is appropriate. Patients adhere better when they are given a choice in the matter.^12–14 And adherence is the key to effective colorectal cancer screening.

Familiarity with the key characteristics of currently available colorectal cancer screening tests will facilitate discussion with patients.

Opportunistic vs programmatic screening

Screening can be classified according to the approach to the patient or population and the intent of the test. Most screening in the United States is opportunistic rather than programmatic—that is, the physician offers the patient screening at the point of service without systematic follow-up or patient re-engagement.

In a programmatic approach, the patient is offered screening through an organized program that streamlines services, reduces overscreening, and provides systematic follow-up of testing.

 

 

DISCUSSING THE OPTIONS

Stool studies such as FOBT and FIT do not reliably detect cancer precursors such as adenomas and serrated neoplasms. If an FOBT is positive, follow-up diagnostic colonoscopy is required. Unlike screening colonoscopy, diagnostic colonoscopy requires a copayment for Medicare patients, and this should be explained to the patient.

FIT and FOBT detect hemolyzed blood within a stool sample, FOBT by a chemical reaction, and FIT by detecting a globin-specific antibody. Colorectal cancer and some large adenomatous polyps may intermittently bleed and result in occult blood in the stool, iron deficiency anemia, or hematochezia.¹⁵

Fecal occult blood testing

Historically, FOBT was the stool test of choice for screening. It uses an indirect enzymatic reaction to detect hemolyzed blood in the stool. When a specimen containing hemoglobin is added to guaiac paper and a drop of hydrogen peroxide is added to “develop” it, the peroxidase activity of hemoglobin turns the guaiac blue.

Screening with FOBT involves annual testing of 3 consecutively passed stools from different days; FOBT should not be performed at the time of digital rectal examination or if the patient is having overt rectal, urinary, or menstrual bleeding.

Dietary and medication restrictions before and during the testing period are critical, as red meat contains hemoglobin, and certain vegetables (eg, radishes, turnips, cauliflower, cucumbers) contain peroxidase, all of which can cause a false-positive result. Waiting 3 days after the stool sample is collected to develop it can mitigate the peroxidase activity of vegetables.¹⁶ Vitamin C inhibits heme peroxidase activity and leads to false-negative results. Aspirin and high-dose nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs can promote bleeding throughout the intestinal tract.¹⁷

In randomized controlled trials,^18–21 screening with FOBT reduced colorectal cancer mortality rates by 15% to 33%. The 30-year follow-up of a large US trial²² found a 32% relative reduction in mortality rates in patients randomized to annual screening, and a 22% relative reduction in those randomized to screening every 2 years. Despite the many possibilities for false-positive results, the specificity for detecting cancer has ranged from 86.7% to 97.3%, and the sensitivity from 37.1% to 79.4%, highlighting the benefit of colorectal cancer screening programs in unscreened populations.^23–26

FIT vs FOBT in current practice

FIT should replace FOBT as the preferred stool screening method. Instead of an enzymatic reaction that can be altered by food or medication, FIT utilizes an antibody specific to human globin to directly detect hemolyzed blood, thus eliminating the need to modify the diet or medications.²⁷ Additionally, only 1 stool specimen is needed, which may explain why the adherence rate was about 20% higher with FIT than with FOBT in most studies.^28–30

FIT has a sensitivity of 69% to 86% for colorectal cancer and a specificity of 92% to 95%.³¹ The sensitivity can be improved by lowering the threshold value for a positive test, but this is associated with a decrease in specificity. A single FIT has the same sensitivity and specificity as several samples.³²

In a large retrospective US cohort study of programmatic screening with FIT, Jensen et al³³ reported that 48% of 670,841 people who were offered testing actually did the test. Of the 48% who participated in the first round and remained eligible, 75% to 86% participated in subsequent rounds over 4 years. Those who had a positive result on FIT were supposed to undergo colonoscopy, but 22% did not.

The US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer³⁴ suggests that FIT-based screening programs aim for a target FIT completion rate of more than 60% and a target colonoscopy completion rate of more than 80% of patients with positive FITs. These benchmarks were derived from adherence rates in international FIT screening studies in average-risk populations.^35–39 (Note that the large US cohort described above³³ did not meet these goals.) Ideally, every patient with a positive FIT should undergo diagnostic colonoscopy, but in reality only 50% to 83% actually do. Methods shown to improve adherence include structured screening programs with routine performance reports, provider feedback, and involvement of patient navigators.^40–42

Accordingly, several aspects of stool-based testing need to be stressed with patients. Understanding that FOBT is recommended yearly is integral for optimal impact on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality rates.

Additionally, patients should be advised to undergo colonoscopy soon after a positive FIT, because delaying colonoscopy could give precancerous lesions time to progress in stage. The acceptable time between a positive FIT and colonoscopy has yet to be determined. However, a retrospective cohort study of 1.26 million screened patients with 107,000 positive FIT results demonstrated that the rates of cancer discovered on colonoscopy were similar when performed within 30 days or up to 10 months after a positive test. Detection rates increased from 3% to 4.8% at 10 months and to 7.9% at 12 months.⁴³

In modeling studies, Meester et al⁴⁴ showed the estimated lifetime risk and mortality rates from colorectal cancer and life-years gained from screening are significantly better when colonoscopy is completed within 2 weeks rather than 1 year after a positive FIT. Each additional month after 2 weeks incrementally affected these outcomes, with a 1.4% increase in cancer mortality. These data suggest that colonoscopy should be done soon after a positive FIT result and at a maximum of 10 months.^43,44

Screening with FOBT is a multistep process for patients that includes receiving the test kit, collecting the sample, preparing it, returning it, undergoing colonoscopy after a positive test, and repeating in 1 year if negative. The screening program should identify patients at average risk in whom screening is appropriate, ensure delivery of the test, verify the quality of collected samples for laboratory testing against the manufacturer’s recommendations, and report results. Report of a positive FOBT result should provide recommendations for follow-up.

Though evidence clearly supports screening annually or biennially (every 2 years) with FOBT, the ideal interval for FIT is undetermined. Modeling studies utilized by the USPSTF and Multi-Society Task Force demonstrate that colonoscopy and annual FIT result in similar life-years gained, while 2 population-based screening programs have demonstrated that a 2- or 3-year interval may be equally efficacious by lowering the threshold for a positive test.^38,45

Randomized controlled trials of screening colonoscopy vs annual and biennial FIT are currently under way. Cost-effectiveness analysis has shown that offering single-sample FITs at more frequent (annual) intervals performs better than multisample testing at less frequent intervals.^45–47

 

 

Colonoscopy

Compared with stool-based screening, colonoscopy has advantages, including a 10-year screening interval if bowel preparation is adequate and the examination shows no neoplasia, the ability to inspect the entire colon, and the ability to diagnose and treat lesions in the same session.

Screening colonoscopy visualizes the entire colon in more than 98% of cases, although it requires adequate bowel preparation for maximal polyp detection. It can be done safely with or without sedation.⁴⁸

While there are no available randomized controlled trial data on the impact of screening colonoscopy on cancer incidence or mortality, extensive case-control and cohort studies consistently show that screening colonoscopy reduces cancer incidence and mortality rates.^49–54 A US Veterans Administration study of more than 32,000 patients reported a 50% reduction in overall colorectal cancer mortality.⁵⁵ In a microsimulation modeling study that assumed 100% adherence, colonoscopy every 10 years and annual FIT in individuals ages 50 to 75 provided similar life-years gained per 1,000 people screened (270 for colonoscopy, 244 for FIT).⁵⁶

Well-established metrics for maximizing the effectiveness and quality of colonoscopy have been established (Table 2). The most important include the mucosa inspection time (withdrawal time) and adenoma detection rate.⁵⁷ Withdrawal time is directly correlated with adenoma detection, and a 6-minute minimum withdrawal time is recommended in screening colonoscopy examinations of patients at average risk when no polyps are found.⁵⁸ The adenoma detection rate is the strongest evidence-based metric, as each 1% increase in the adenoma detection rate over 19% is associated with a 3% decrease in the risk of colorectal cancer and a 5% decrease in death rate.⁵⁹ The average-risk screening adenoma detection rate differs based on sex: the rate is greater than 20% for women and greater than 30% for men.

Complications from screening, diagnostic, or therapeutic colonoscopy are infrequent but include perforation (4/10,000) and significant intestinal bleeding (8/10,000).^56–62

Patients with a first-degree relative under age 60 with advanced adenomas or colorectal cancer are considered at high risk and should begin screening colonoscopy at age 40, with repeat colonoscopy at 5-year intervals, given a trend toward advanced neoplasia detection compared with FIT.⁶³

Guidelines recently published by the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology and endorsed by the American Gastroenterological Association also support starting screening in high-risk individuals at age 40, with a surveillance interval of 5 to 10 years based on the number of first-degree relatives with colorectal cancer or adenomas.⁶⁴ Consensus statements were based on retrospective cohort, prospective case-controlled, and cross-sectional studies comparing the risk of colorectal cancer in individuals with a family history against those without a family history.

Randomized clinical trials comparing colonoscopy and FIT are under way. Interim analysis of a European trial in which asymptomatic adults ages 50 to 69 were randomized to 1-time colonoscopy (26,703 patients) vs FIT every 2 years (26,599 patients) found significantly higher participation rates in the FIT arm (34.2% vs 24.6%) but higher rates of nonadvanced adenomas (4.2% vs 0.4%) and advanced neoplasia (1.9% vs 0.9%) in the colonoscopy arm.⁶⁵ Cancer was detected in 0.1% in each arm. These findings correlate with those of another study showing higher participation with FIT but higher advanced neoplasia detection rates with colonoscopy.⁶⁶

Detection of precursor lesions is vital, as removing neoplasms is the main strategy to reduce colorectal cancer incidence. Accordingly, the advantage of colonoscopy was illustrated by a study that determined that 53 patients would need to undergo screening colonoscopy to detect 1 advanced adenoma or cancerous lesion, compared with 264 for FIT.⁶⁷

STARTING SCREEING AT AGE 45

The American Cancer Society recently provided a qualified recommendation to start colorectal cancer screening in all individuals at age 45 rather than 50.⁹ This recommendation was based on modeling studies demonstrating that starting screening at age 45 with colonoscopy every 10 years resulted in 25 life-years gained at the cost of 610 colonoscopies per 1,000 individuals. Alternative strategies included FIT, which resulted in an additional 26 life-years gained per 1,000 individuals screened, flexible sigmoidoscopy (23 life-years gained), and computed tomographic colonoscopy (22 life-years gained).

Rates of colorectal cancer are rising in adults under age 50, and 10,000 new cases are anticipated this year.^2,3 Currently, 22 million US adults are between the ages of 45 and 50. The system and support needed to perform screening in all adults over age 45 and a lack of direct evidence to support its benefits in the young population need to be considered before widespread acceptance of the American Cancer Society recommendations. However, if screening is considered, FIT with or without sigmoidoscopy may be appropriate, given that most cancers diagnosed in individuals under age 50 are left-sided.^4,5

Screening has not been proven to reduce all-cause mortality. Randomized controlled trials of FOBT and observational studies of colonoscopy show that screening reduces cancer incidence and mortality. Until the currently ongoing randomized controlled trials comparing colonoscopy with FIT are completed, their comparative impact on colorectal cancer end points is unknown.

PATIENT ADHERENCE IS KEY

FIT and colonoscopy are the most prevalent screening methods in the United States. Careful attention should be given to offer the screening option the patient is most likely to complete, as adherence is key to the benefit from colorectal cancer screening.

The National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable (nccrt.org), established in 1997 by the American Cancer Society and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, is a national coalition of public and private organizations dedicated to reducing colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. The Roundtable waged a national campaign to achieve a colorectal cancer screening rate of 80% in eligible adults by 2018, a goal that was not met. Still, the potential for a substantial impact is a compelling reason to endorse adherence to colorectal cancer screening. The Roundtable provides many resources for physicians to enhance screening in their practice.

The United States has seen a steady decline in colorectal cancer incidence and mortality, mainly as a result of screening. Colorectal cancer is preventable with ensuring patients’ adherence to screening. Screening rates have been shown to increase with patient-provider dialogue and with selection of a screening program the patient prefers and is most likely to complete.

Screening can help prevent colorectal cancer. The United States has seen a steady decline in colorectal cancer incidence and mortality, thanks in large part to screening. Screening rates can be increased with good patient-physician dialogue and by choosing a method the patient prefers and is most likely to complete.

In this article, we review a general approach to screening, focusing on the most commonly used methods in the United States, ie, the guaiac-based fecal occult blood test (FOBT), the fecal immunochemical test (FIT), and colonoscopy. We discuss current colorectal cancer incidence rates, screening recommendations, and how to choose the appropriate screening test.

This article does not discuss patients at high risk of polyps or cancer due to hereditary colon cancer syndromes, a personal history of colorectal neoplasia, inflammatory bowel disease, or primary sclerosing cholangitis.

TRENDS IN INCIDENCE

Colorectal cancer is the second most common type of cancer and cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States, responsible for an estimated 50,000 deaths in 2017. The lifetime risk of its occurrence is estimated to be 1 in 21 men and 1 in 23 women.¹ Encouragingly, the incidence has declined by 24% over the last 30 years,² and by 3% per year from 2004 to 2013.¹ Also, as a result of screening and advances in treatment, 5-year survival rates for patients with colorectal cancer have increased, from 48.6% in 1975 to 66.4% in 2009.²

When detected at a localized stage, the 5-year survival rate in colorectal cancer is greater than 90%. Unfortunately, it is diagnosed early in only 39% of patients. And despite advances in treatment and a doubling of the 5-year survival rate in patients with advanced cancers since 1990,³ the latter is only 14%. In most patients, cancer is diagnosed when it has spread to the lymph nodes (36%) or to distant organs (22%), and the survival rate declines to 71% after lymph-node spread, and 14% after metastasis to distant organs.

It is essential to screen people who have no symptoms, as symptoms such as gastrointestinal bleeding, unexplained abdominal pain or weight loss, a persistent change in bowel movements, and bowel obstruction typically do not arise until the disease is advanced and less amenable to cure.

Increasing prevalence in younger adults

Curiously, the incidence of colorectal cancer is increasing in white US adults under age 50. Over the last 30 years, incidence rates have increased from 1.0% to 2.4% annually in adults ages 20 to 39.⁴ Based on current trends, colon cancer rates are expected to increase by 90% for patients ages 20 to 34 and by 28% for patients 35 to 49 by 2030.⁵

Although recommendations vary for colorectal cancer screening in patients under age 50, clinicians should investigate symptoms such as rectal bleeding, unexplained iron deficiency anemia, progressive abdominal pain, and persistent changes in bowel movements.

Other challenges

Despite the benefits of screening, it is underutilized. Although rates of compliance with screening recommendations have increased 10% over the last 10 years, only 65% of eligible adults currently comply.^1,6

Additionally, certain areas of the country such as Appalachia and the Mississippi Delta have not benefited from the decline in the national rate of colorectal cancer.⁷

SCREENING GUIDELINES

Most guidelines say that colorectal cancer screening should begin at age 50 in people at average risk with no symptoms. However, the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) recommends beginning screening at age 45 in African Americans, as this group has higher incidence and mortality rates of colorectal cancer.⁸ Also, the American Cancer Society recently recommended beginning screening at age 45 for all individuals.⁹

Screening can stop at age 75 for most patients, according to the ACG,⁸ the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer,¹⁰ and the US Preventive Services Task Force  (USPSTF).¹¹ However, the decision should be individualized for patients ages 76 to 85. Patients within that age group who are in good health and have not previously been screened are more likely to benefit than those who have previously been screened and had a negative screening test. Patients over age 85 should not begin or continue screening, because of diminished benefit of screening in this age group, shorter life expectancy, advanced comorbid conditions, and the risks of colonoscopy and cancer treatment.

Patients and clinicians are encouraged to collaborate in deciding which screening method is appropriate. Patients adhere better when they are given a choice in the matter.^12–14 And adherence is the key to effective colorectal cancer screening.

Familiarity with the key characteristics of currently available colorectal cancer screening tests will facilitate discussion with patients.

Opportunistic vs programmatic screening

Screening can be classified according to the approach to the patient or population and the intent of the test. Most screening in the United States is opportunistic rather than programmatic—that is, the physician offers the patient screening at the point of service without systematic follow-up or patient re-engagement.

In a programmatic approach, the patient is offered screening through an organized program that streamlines services, reduces overscreening, and provides systematic follow-up of testing.

 

 

DISCUSSING THE OPTIONS

Stool studies such as FOBT and FIT do not reliably detect cancer precursors such as adenomas and serrated neoplasms. If an FOBT is positive, follow-up diagnostic colonoscopy is required. Unlike screening colonoscopy, diagnostic colonoscopy requires a copayment for Medicare patients, and this should be explained to the patient.

FIT and FOBT detect hemolyzed blood within a stool sample, FOBT by a chemical reaction, and FIT by detecting a globin-specific antibody. Colorectal cancer and some large adenomatous polyps may intermittently bleed and result in occult blood in the stool, iron deficiency anemia, or hematochezia.¹⁵

Fecal occult blood testing

Historically, FOBT was the stool test of choice for screening. It uses an indirect enzymatic reaction to detect hemolyzed blood in the stool. When a specimen containing hemoglobin is added to guaiac paper and a drop of hydrogen peroxide is added to “develop” it, the peroxidase activity of hemoglobin turns the guaiac blue.

Screening with FOBT involves annual testing of 3 consecutively passed stools from different days; FOBT should not be performed at the time of digital rectal examination or if the patient is having overt rectal, urinary, or menstrual bleeding.

Dietary and medication restrictions before and during the testing period are critical, as red meat contains hemoglobin, and certain vegetables (eg, radishes, turnips, cauliflower, cucumbers) contain peroxidase, all of which can cause a false-positive result. Waiting 3 days after the stool sample is collected to develop it can mitigate the peroxidase activity of vegetables.¹⁶ Vitamin C inhibits heme peroxidase activity and leads to false-negative results. Aspirin and high-dose nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs can promote bleeding throughout the intestinal tract.¹⁷

In randomized controlled trials,^18–21 screening with FOBT reduced colorectal cancer mortality rates by 15% to 33%. The 30-year follow-up of a large US trial²² found a 32% relative reduction in mortality rates in patients randomized to annual screening, and a 22% relative reduction in those randomized to screening every 2 years. Despite the many possibilities for false-positive results, the specificity for detecting cancer has ranged from 86.7% to 97.3%, and the sensitivity from 37.1% to 79.4%, highlighting the benefit of colorectal cancer screening programs in unscreened populations.^23–26

FIT vs FOBT in current practice

FIT should replace FOBT as the preferred stool screening method. Instead of an enzymatic reaction that can be altered by food or medication, FIT utilizes an antibody specific to human globin to directly detect hemolyzed blood, thus eliminating the need to modify the diet or medications.²⁷ Additionally, only 1 stool specimen is needed, which may explain why the adherence rate was about 20% higher with FIT than with FOBT in most studies.^28–30

FIT has a sensitivity of 69% to 86% for colorectal cancer and a specificity of 92% to 95%.³¹ The sensitivity can be improved by lowering the threshold value for a positive test, but this is associated with a decrease in specificity. A single FIT has the same sensitivity and specificity as several samples.³²

In a large retrospective US cohort study of programmatic screening with FIT, Jensen et al³³ reported that 48% of 670,841 people who were offered testing actually did the test. Of the 48% who participated in the first round and remained eligible, 75% to 86% participated in subsequent rounds over 4 years. Those who had a positive result on FIT were supposed to undergo colonoscopy, but 22% did not.

The US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer³⁴ suggests that FIT-based screening programs aim for a target FIT completion rate of more than 60% and a target colonoscopy completion rate of more than 80% of patients with positive FITs. These benchmarks were derived from adherence rates in international FIT screening studies in average-risk populations.^35–39 (Note that the large US cohort described above³³ did not meet these goals.) Ideally, every patient with a positive FIT should undergo diagnostic colonoscopy, but in reality only 50% to 83% actually do. Methods shown to improve adherence include structured screening programs with routine performance reports, provider feedback, and involvement of patient navigators.^40–42

Accordingly, several aspects of stool-based testing need to be stressed with patients. Understanding that FOBT is recommended yearly is integral for optimal impact on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality rates.

Additionally, patients should be advised to undergo colonoscopy soon after a positive FIT, because delaying colonoscopy could give precancerous lesions time to progress in stage. The acceptable time between a positive FIT and colonoscopy has yet to be determined. However, a retrospective cohort study of 1.26 million screened patients with 107,000 positive FIT results demonstrated that the rates of cancer discovered on colonoscopy were similar when performed within 30 days or up to 10 months after a positive test. Detection rates increased from 3% to 4.8% at 10 months and to 7.9% at 12 months.⁴³

In modeling studies, Meester et al⁴⁴ showed the estimated lifetime risk and mortality rates from colorectal cancer and life-years gained from screening are significantly better when colonoscopy is completed within 2 weeks rather than 1 year after a positive FIT. Each additional month after 2 weeks incrementally affected these outcomes, with a 1.4% increase in cancer mortality. These data suggest that colonoscopy should be done soon after a positive FIT result and at a maximum of 10 months.^43,44

Screening with FOBT is a multistep process for patients that includes receiving the test kit, collecting the sample, preparing it, returning it, undergoing colonoscopy after a positive test, and repeating in 1 year if negative. The screening program should identify patients at average risk in whom screening is appropriate, ensure delivery of the test, verify the quality of collected samples for laboratory testing against the manufacturer’s recommendations, and report results. Report of a positive FOBT result should provide recommendations for follow-up.

Though evidence clearly supports screening annually or biennially (every 2 years) with FOBT, the ideal interval for FIT is undetermined. Modeling studies utilized by the USPSTF and Multi-Society Task Force demonstrate that colonoscopy and annual FIT result in similar life-years gained, while 2 population-based screening programs have demonstrated that a 2- or 3-year interval may be equally efficacious by lowering the threshold for a positive test.^38,45

Randomized controlled trials of screening colonoscopy vs annual and biennial FIT are currently under way. Cost-effectiveness analysis has shown that offering single-sample FITs at more frequent (annual) intervals performs better than multisample testing at less frequent intervals.^45–47

 

 

Colonoscopy

Compared with stool-based screening, colonoscopy has advantages, including a 10-year screening interval if bowel preparation is adequate and the examination shows no neoplasia, the ability to inspect the entire colon, and the ability to diagnose and treat lesions in the same session.

Screening colonoscopy visualizes the entire colon in more than 98% of cases, although it requires adequate bowel preparation for maximal polyp detection. It can be done safely with or without sedation.⁴⁸

While there are no available randomized controlled trial data on the impact of screening colonoscopy on cancer incidence or mortality, extensive case-control and cohort studies consistently show that screening colonoscopy reduces cancer incidence and mortality rates.^49–54 A US Veterans Administration study of more than 32,000 patients reported a 50% reduction in overall colorectal cancer mortality.⁵⁵ In a microsimulation modeling study that assumed 100% adherence, colonoscopy every 10 years and annual FIT in individuals ages 50 to 75 provided similar life-years gained per 1,000 people screened (270 for colonoscopy, 244 for FIT).⁵⁶

Well-established metrics for maximizing the effectiveness and quality of colonoscopy have been established (Table 2). The most important include the mucosa inspection time (withdrawal time) and adenoma detection rate.⁵⁷ Withdrawal time is directly correlated with adenoma detection, and a 6-minute minimum withdrawal time is recommended in screening colonoscopy examinations of patients at average risk when no polyps are found.⁵⁸ The adenoma detection rate is the strongest evidence-based metric, as each 1% increase in the adenoma detection rate over 19% is associated with a 3% decrease in the risk of colorectal cancer and a 5% decrease in death rate.⁵⁹ The average-risk screening adenoma detection rate differs based on sex: the rate is greater than 20% for women and greater than 30% for men.

Complications from screening, diagnostic, or therapeutic colonoscopy are infrequent but include perforation (4/10,000) and significant intestinal bleeding (8/10,000).^56–62

Patients with a first-degree relative under age 60 with advanced adenomas or colorectal cancer are considered at high risk and should begin screening colonoscopy at age 40, with repeat colonoscopy at 5-year intervals, given a trend toward advanced neoplasia detection compared with FIT.⁶³

Guidelines recently published by the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology and endorsed by the American Gastroenterological Association also support starting screening in high-risk individuals at age 40, with a surveillance interval of 5 to 10 years based on the number of first-degree relatives with colorectal cancer or adenomas.⁶⁴ Consensus statements were based on retrospective cohort, prospective case-controlled, and cross-sectional studies comparing the risk of colorectal cancer in individuals with a family history against those without a family history.

Randomized clinical trials comparing colonoscopy and FIT are under way. Interim analysis of a European trial in which asymptomatic adults ages 50 to 69 were randomized to 1-time colonoscopy (26,703 patients) vs FIT every 2 years (26,599 patients) found significantly higher participation rates in the FIT arm (34.2% vs 24.6%) but higher rates of nonadvanced adenomas (4.2% vs 0.4%) and advanced neoplasia (1.9% vs 0.9%) in the colonoscopy arm.⁶⁵ Cancer was detected in 0.1% in each arm. These findings correlate with those of another study showing higher participation with FIT but higher advanced neoplasia detection rates with colonoscopy.⁶⁶

Detection of precursor lesions is vital, as removing neoplasms is the main strategy to reduce colorectal cancer incidence. Accordingly, the advantage of colonoscopy was illustrated by a study that determined that 53 patients would need to undergo screening colonoscopy to detect 1 advanced adenoma or cancerous lesion, compared with 264 for FIT.⁶⁷

STARTING SCREEING AT AGE 45

The American Cancer Society recently provided a qualified recommendation to start colorectal cancer screening in all individuals at age 45 rather than 50.⁹ This recommendation was based on modeling studies demonstrating that starting screening at age 45 with colonoscopy every 10 years resulted in 25 life-years gained at the cost of 610 colonoscopies per 1,000 individuals. Alternative strategies included FIT, which resulted in an additional 26 life-years gained per 1,000 individuals screened, flexible sigmoidoscopy (23 life-years gained), and computed tomographic colonoscopy (22 life-years gained).

Rates of colorectal cancer are rising in adults under age 50, and 10,000 new cases are anticipated this year.^2,3 Currently, 22 million US adults are between the ages of 45 and 50. The system and support needed to perform screening in all adults over age 45 and a lack of direct evidence to support its benefits in the young population need to be considered before widespread acceptance of the American Cancer Society recommendations. However, if screening is considered, FIT with or without sigmoidoscopy may be appropriate, given that most cancers diagnosed in individuals under age 50 are left-sided.^4,5

Screening has not been proven to reduce all-cause mortality. Randomized controlled trials of FOBT and observational studies of colonoscopy show that screening reduces cancer incidence and mortality. Until the currently ongoing randomized controlled trials comparing colonoscopy with FIT are completed, their comparative impact on colorectal cancer end points is unknown.

PATIENT ADHERENCE IS KEY

FIT and colonoscopy are the most prevalent screening methods in the United States. Careful attention should be given to offer the screening option the patient is most likely to complete, as adherence is key to the benefit from colorectal cancer screening.

The National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable (nccrt.org), established in 1997 by the American Cancer Society and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, is a national coalition of public and private organizations dedicated to reducing colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. The Roundtable waged a national campaign to achieve a colorectal cancer screening rate of 80% in eligible adults by 2018, a goal that was not met. Still, the potential for a substantial impact is a compelling reason to endorse adherence to colorectal cancer screening. The Roundtable provides many resources for physicians to enhance screening in their practice.

The United States has seen a steady decline in colorectal cancer incidence and mortality, mainly as a result of screening. Colorectal cancer is preventable with ensuring patients’ adherence to screening. Screening rates have been shown to increase with patient-provider dialogue and with selection of a screening program the patient prefers and is most likely to complete.

Keeping up with current evidence-based healthcare practices is key to providing good clinical care to patients. This review presents 5 vignettes that highlight key issues in women’s health: osteoporosis screening, hormonal contraceptive interactions with antibiotics, hormone replacement therapy in carriers of the BRCA1 gene mutation, risks associated with hormonal contraception, and breast cancer diagnosis using digital tomosynthesis in addition to digital mammography. Supporting articles, all published in 2017 and 2018, were selected from high-impact medical and women’s health journals.

OSTEOPOROSIS SCREENING FOR FRACTURE PREVENTION

A 60-year-old woman reports that her last menstrual period was 7 years ago. She has no history of falls or fractures, and she takes no medications. She smokes 10 cigarettes per day and drinks 3 to 4 alcoholic beverages on most days of the week. She is 5 feet 6 inches (170 cm) tall and weighs 107 lb. Should she be screened for osteoporosis?

Osteoporosis is underdiagnosed

It is estimated that, in the United States, 12.3 million individuals older than 50 will develop osteoporosis by 2020. Missed opportunities to screen high-risk individuals can lead to fractures, including fractures of the hip.¹

Updated screening recommendations

In 2018, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) developed and published evidence-based recommendations for osteoporosis screening to help providers identify and treat osteoporosis early to prevent fractures.² Available evidence on screening and treatment in women and men were reviewed with the intention of updating the 2011 USPSTF recommendations. The review also evaluated risk assessment tools, screening intervals, and efficacy of screening and treatment in various subpopulations.

Since the 2011 recommendations, more data have become available on fracture risk assessment with or without bone mineral density measurements. In its 2018 report, the USPSTF recommends that postmenopausal women younger than 65 should undergo screening with a bone density test if their 10-year risk of major osteoporotic fracture is more than 8.4%. This is equivalent to the fracture risk of a 65-year-old white woman with no major risk factors for fracture (grade B recommendation—high certainty that the benefit is moderate, or moderate certainty that the benefit is moderate to substantial).²

Assessment of fracture risk

For postmenopausal women who are under age 65 and who have at least 1 risk factor for fracture, it is reasonable to use a clinical risk assessment tool to determine who should undergo screening with bone mineral density measurement. Risk factors associated with an increased risk of osteoporotic fractures include a parental history of hip fracture, smoking, intake of 3 or more alcoholic drinks per day, low body weight, malabsorption, rheumatoid arthritis, diabetes, and postmenopausal status (not using estrogen replacement). Medications should be carefully reviewed for those that can increase the risk of fractures, including steroids and antiestrogen treatments.

The 10-year risk of a major osteoporotic or hip fracture can be assessed using the Fractional Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX), available at www.sheffield.ac.uk/FRAX/. Other acceptable tools that perform similarly to FRAX include the Osteoporosis Risk Assessment Instrument (ORAI) (10 studies; N = 16,780), Osteoporosis Index of Risk (OSIRIS) (5 studies; N = 5,649), Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool (OST) (13 studies; N = 44,323), and Simple Calculated Osteoporosis Risk Estimation (SCORE) (8 studies; N = 15,362).

Should this patient be screened for osteoporosis?

Based on the FRAX, this patient’s 10-year risk of major osteoporosis fracture is 9.2%. She would benefit from osteoporosis screening with a bone density test.

DO ANTIBIOTICS REDUCE EFFECTIVENESS OF HORMONAL CONTRACEPTION?

A 27-year-old woman presents with a dog bite on her right hand and is started on oral antibiotics. She takes an oral contraceptive that contains 35 µg of ethinyl estradiol and 0.25 mg of norgestimate. She asks if she should use condoms while taking antibiotics.

The antibiotics rifampin and rifabutin are known inducers of the hepatic enzymes required for contraceptive steroid metabolism, whereas other antibiotics are not. Despite the lack of compelling evidence that broad-spectrum antibiotics interfere with the efficacy of hormonal contraception, most pharmacists recommend backup contraception for women who use concomitant antibiotics.³ This practice could lead to poor compliance with the contraceptive regimen, the antibiotic regimen, or both.³

Simmons et al³ conducted a systematic review of randomized and nonrandomized studies that assessed pregnancy rates, breakthrough bleeding, ovulation suppression, and hormone pharmacokinetics in women taking oral or vaginal hormonal contraceptives in combination with nonrifamycin antibiotics, including oral, intramuscular, and intravenous forms. Oral contraceptives used in the studies included a range of doses and progestins, but lowest-dose pills, such as those containing less than 30 µg ethinyl estradiol or less than 150 µg levonorgestrel, were not included.

The contraceptive formulations in this systematic review³ included oral contraceptive pills, emergency contraception pills, and the contraceptive vaginal ring. The effect of antibiotics on other nonoral contraceptives, such as the transdermal patch, injectables, and progestin implants was not studied.

Four observational studies³ evaluated pregnancy rates or hormonal contraception failure with any antibiotic use. In 2 of these 4 studies, there was no difference in pregnancy rates in women who used oral contraceptives with and without nonrifamycin antibiotics. However, ethinyl estradiol was shown to have increased clearance when administered with dirithromycin (a macrolide).³ Twenty-five of the studies reported measures of contraceptive effectiveness (ovulation) and pharmacokinetic outcomes.

There were no observed differences in ovulation suppression or breakthrough bleeding in any study that combined hormonal contraceptives with an antibiotic. Furthermore, there was no significant decrease in progestin pharmacokinetic parameters during coadministration with an antibiotic.³ Study limitations included small sample sizes and the observational nature of the data.

How would you counsel this patient?

Available evidence suggests that nonrifamycin antibiotics do not diminish the effectiveness of the vaginal contraceptive ring or an oral hormonal contraceptive that contains at least 30 µg of ethinyl estradiol or 150 µg of levonorgestrel. Current guidelines do not recommend the use of additional backup contraception, regardless of hormonal contraception dose or formulation.⁴ Likewise, the most recent guidance for dental practitioners (ie, from 2012) no longer advises women to use additional contraceptive protection when taking nonrifamycin antibiotics.⁵

In our practice, we discuss the option of additional protection when prescribing formulations with lower estrogen doses (< 30 µg), not only because of the limitations of the available data, but also because of the high rates of unintended pregnancy with typical use of combined hormonal contraceptives (9% per year, unrelated to use of antibiotics).⁴ However, if our patient would rather not use additional barrier methods, she can be reassured that concomitant nonrifamycin antibiotic use is unlikely to affect contraceptive effectiveness.

 

 

HORMONE REPLACEMENT THERAPY IN CARRIERS OF THE BRCA1 MUTATION

A 41-year-old healthy mother of 3 was recently found to be a carrier of the BRCA1 mutation. She is planning to undergo prophylactic bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy for ovarian cancer prevention. However, she is apprehensive about undergoing surgical menopause. Should she be started on hormone replacement therapy after oophorectomy? How would hormone replacement therapy affect her risk of breast cancer?

In females who carry the BRCA1 mutation, the cumulative risk of both ovarian and breast cancer approaches 44% (95% confidence interval [CI] 36%–53%) and 72% (95% CI 65%–79%) by age 80.⁶ Prophylactic salpingo-oophorectomy reduces the risk of breast cancer by 50% and the risk of ovarian cancer by 90%. Unfortunately, premature withdrawal of ovarian hormones has been associated with long-term adverse effects including significant vasomotor symptoms, decreased quality of life, sexual dysfunction, early mortality, bone loss, decline in mood and cognition, and poor cardiovascular outcomes.⁷ Many of these effects can be avoided or lessened with hormone replacement therapy.

Kotsopoulos et al⁸ conducted a longitudinal, prospective analysis of BRCA1 mutation carriers in a multicenter study between 1995 and 2017. The mean follow-up period was 7.6 years (range 0.4–22.1). The study assessed associations between the use of hormone replacement therapy and breast cancer risk in carriers of the BRCA1 mutation who underwent prophylactic salpingo-oophorectomy. Study participants did not have a personal history of cancer. Those with a history of prophylactic mastectomy were excluded.

Participants completed a series of questionnaires every 2 years, disclosing updates in personal medical, cancer, and reproductive history. The questionnaires also inquired about the use of hormone replacement therapy, including the type used (estrogen only, progestin only, estrogen plus progestin, other), brand name, duration of use, and dose and route of administration (pill, patch, suppository).

Of the 13,087 BRCA1 mutation carriers identified, 872 met the study criteria. Of those, 377 (43%) reported using some form of hormone replacement therapy after salpingo-oophorectomy, and 495 (57%) did not. The average duration of use was 3.9 years (range 0.5–19), with most (69%) using estrogen alone; 18% used other regimens, including estrogen plus progestin and progestin only. A small percentage of participants did not indicate which formulation they used. On average, women using hormone replacement therapy underwent prophylactic oophorectomy earlier than nonusers (age 43.0 vs 48.4; absolute difference 5.5 years, P < .001).

During follow-up, there was no significant difference noted in the proportion of women diagnosed with breast cancer between hormone replacement therapy users and nonusers (10.3 vs 10.7%; absolute difference 0.4%; P = .86). In fact, for each year of estrogen-containing hormone replacement therapy, there was an 18% reduction in breast cancer risk when oophorectomy was performed before age 45 (95% CI 0.69–0.97). The authors also noted a nonsignificant 14% trend toward an increase in breast cancer risk for each year of progestin use after oophorectomy when surgery was performed before age 45 (95% CI 0.9–1.46).

Although prophylactic hysterectomy was not recommended, the authors noted that hysterectomy would eliminate the need for progestin-containing hormone replacement therapy. For those who underwent oophorectomy after age 45, hormone replacement therapy did not increase or decrease the risk of breast cancer.⁷

A meta-analysis by Marchetti et al⁹ also supports the safety of hormone replacement therapy after risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy. Three studies that included 1,100 patients were analyzed (including the Kotsopoulos study⁸ noted above). There was a nonsignificant decrease in breast cancer risk in women on estrogen-only hormone replacement therapy compared with women on estrogen-plus-progestin therapy (odds ratio 0.53, 95% CI 0.25–1.15). Overall, the authors regarded hormone replacement therapy as a safe therapeutic option after prophylactic salpingo-oophorectomy in carriers of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations.⁹

In a case-control study published in 2016,¹⁰ hormone replacement therapy was assessed in 432 postmenopausal BRCA1 mutation carriers with invasive breast cancer (cases) and in 432 BRCA1 mutation carriers without a history of breast cancer (controls). Results showed no difference in breast cancer risk between hormone replacement therapy users and nonusers.¹⁰

Rebbeck et al¹¹ evaluated short-term hormone replacement therapy in BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene-mutation carriers after they underwent prophylactic salpingo-oophorectomy. The results showed that hormone replacement did not affect the breast cancer risk-reduction conferred with prophylactic bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy.

Johansen et al¹² evaluated hormone replacement therapy in premenopausal women after prophylactic salpingo-oophorectomy. They studied 324 carriers of BRCA gene mutations after they underwent prophylactic salpingo-oophorectomy and a subset of 950 controls who had bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy for reasons unrelated to cancer. In both groups, hormone replacement therapy was underutilized. The authors recommended using it when clinically indicated.

Should your patient start hormone replacement therapy?

This patient is healthy, and in the absence of contraindications, systemic hormone replacement therapy after prophylactic oophorectomy could mitigate the potential adverse effects of surgically induced menopause. The patient can be reassured that estrogen-containing short-term hormone replacement therapy is unlikely to increase her breast cancer risk.

 

 

HORMONAL CONTRACEPTION AND THE RISK OF BREAST CANCER

A 44-year-old woman presents to your office for an annual visit. She is sexually active but does not wish to become pregnant. She has a family history of breast cancer: her mother was diagnosed at age 53. She is interested in an oral contraceptive to prevent pregnancy and acne. However, she is nervous about being on any contraceptive that may increase her risk of breast cancer.

To date, studies assessing the effect of hormonal contraception on the risk of breast cancer have produced inconsistent results. Although most studies have shown no associated risk, a few have shown a temporary 20% to 30% increased risk of breast cancer during use.^13,14 Case-controlled studies that reported an association between hormonal contraception and breast cancer included populations taking higher-dose combination pills, which are no longer prescribed. Most studies do not evaluate specific formulations of hormonal contraception, and little is known about effects associated with intrauterine devices or progestin-only contraception.

A prospective study performed by Mørch et al¹³ followed more than 1 million reproductive-aged women for a mean of 10.9 years. The Danish Cancer Registry was used to identify cases of invasive breast cancer. Women who used hormonal contraceptives had a relative risk of breast cancer of 1.20 compared with women not on hormonal contraception (95% CI 1.14–1.26). The study suggested that those who had been on contraceptive agents for more than 5 years had an increased risk and that this risk remained for 5 years after the agents were discontinued. Conversely, no increased risk of cancer was noted in those who used hormonal contraception for less than 5 years. No notable differences were seen among various formulations.

For women using the levonorgestrel-containing intrauterine device, the relative risk of breast cancer was 1.21 (95% CI 1.11–1.33). A few cancers were noted in those who used the progestin-only implant or those using depot medroxyprogesterone acetate. While the study showed an increased relative risk of breast cancer, the absolute risk was low—13 cases per 100,000, or approximately 1 additional case of breast cancer per 7,690 per year.¹³

This study had several important limitations. The authors did not adjust for common breast cancer risk factors including age at menarche, alcohol use, or breastfeeding. Additionally, the study did not account for the use of hormonal contraception before the study period and conversely, did not account for women who may have stopped taking their contraceptive despite their prescribed duration. The frequency of mammography was not explicitly noted, which could have shifted results for women who had more aggressive screening.

It is also noteworthy that the use of high-dose systemic progestins was not associated with an increased risk, whereas the levonorgestrel intrauterine device, which contains only 1/20th the dose of a low-dose oral contraceptive pill, was associated with an increased risk. This discrepancy in risk warrants further investigation, and clinicians should be aware that this inconsistency needs validation before changing clinical practice.

In an observational cohort study,¹⁵ more than 100,000 women ages 50 to 71 were followed prospectively for 15 years to evaluate the association between hormonal contraceptive use and the risk of gynecologic and breast cancers. In this study, the duration of hormonal contraceptive use, smoking status, alcohol use, body mass index, physical activity, and family history of cancer were recorded. Long-term hormonal contraceptive use reduced ovarian and endometrial cancer risks by 40% and 34%, respectively, with no increase in breast cancer risk regardless of family history.

How would you counsel the patient?

The patient should be educated on the benefits of hormonal contraception that extend beyond pregnancy prevention, including regulation of menses, improved acne, decreased risk of endometrial and ovarian cancer, and likely reductions in colorectal cancer and overall mortality risk.^13–16 Further, after their own systematic review of the data assessing risk of breast cancer with hormonal contraception, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention state in their guidelines that all contraceptives may be used without limitation in those who have a family history of breast cancer.⁴ Any potential increased risk of breast cancer in women using hormonal contraception is small and would not outweigh the benefits associated with use.

One must consider the impact of an unintended pregnancy in such women, including effects on the health of the fetus and mother. Recent reports on the increasing rates of maternal death in the US (23.8 of 100,000 live births) serve as a reminder of the complications that can arise with pregnancy, especially if a mother’s health is not optimized before conception.¹⁷

 

 

MAMMOGRAPHY PLUS TOMOSYNTHESIS VS MAMMOGRAPHY ALONE

The same 44-year-old patient now inquires about screening for breast cancer. She is curious about 3-dimensional mammography and whether it would be a better screening test for her.

Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is a newer imaging modality that provides a 3-dimensional reconstruction of the breast using low-dose x-ray imaging. Some studies have shown that combining DBT with digital mammography may be superior to digital mammography alone in detecting cancers.¹⁸ However, digital mammography is currently the gold standard for breast cancer screening and is the only test proven to reduce mortality.^18,19

In a retrospective US study of 13 medical centers,²⁰ breast cancer detection rates increased by 41% the year after DBT was introduced, from 2.9 to 4.1 per 1,000 cases. DBT was associated with 16 fewer patients recalled for repeat imaging out of 1,000 women screened (as opposed to mammography alone). Two European studies similarly suggested an increase in cancer detection with lower recall rates.^21,22

Is 3-D mammography a better option?

In a 2-arm study by Pattacini et al,¹⁸ nearly 20,000 women ages 45 to 70 were randomized to undergo either digital mammography or digital mammography plus DBT for primary breast cancer screening. Women were enrolled over a 2-year period and were followed for 4.5 years, and the development of a primary invasive cancer was the primary end point. Recall rates, reading times, and radiation doses were also compared between the 2 groups.

Overall, the cancer detection rate was higher in the digital mammography plus DBT arm compared with digital mammography alone (8.6 vs 4.5 per 1,000). The detection rates were higher in the combined screening group among all age subgroups, with relative risks ranging from 1.83 to 2.04 (P = .93). The recall rate was 3.5% in the 2 arms, with relative risks ranging from 0.93 to 1.11 (P = .52). There was a reduction in the number of false positives seen in women undergoing digital mammography plus DBT when compared with digital mammography alone, from 30 per 1,000 to 27 per 1,000.

Detection of ductal carcinoma in situ increased in the experimental arm (relative detection 2.80, 95% CI 1.01–7.65) compared with invasive cancers. Comparing radiation, the dose was 2.3 times higher in those who underwent digital mammography plus DBT. The average reading times for digital mammography alone were 20 to 85 seconds; adding DBT added 35 to 81 seconds.¹⁹

Should you advise 3-D mammography?

The patient should be educated on the benefits of both digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus DBT. The use of digital mammography plus DBT has been supported in various studies and has been shown to increase cancer detection rates, although data are still conflicting regarding recall rates.^19,20 More studies are needed to determine its effect on breast cancer morality.

Routine use of DBT in women with or without dense breast tissue has not been recommended by organizations such as the USPSTF and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.^23,24 While there is an increased dose of radiation, it still falls below the US Food and Drug Administration limits and should not be the sole barrier to use.

Keeping up with current evidence-based healthcare practices is key to providing good clinical care to patients. This review presents 5 vignettes that highlight key issues in women’s health: osteoporosis screening, hormonal contraceptive interactions with antibiotics, hormone replacement therapy in carriers of the BRCA1 gene mutation, risks associated with hormonal contraception, and breast cancer diagnosis using digital tomosynthesis in addition to digital mammography. Supporting articles, all published in 2017 and 2018, were selected from high-impact medical and women’s health journals.

OSTEOPOROSIS SCREENING FOR FRACTURE PREVENTION

A 60-year-old woman reports that her last menstrual period was 7 years ago. She has no history of falls or fractures, and she takes no medications. She smokes 10 cigarettes per day and drinks 3 to 4 alcoholic beverages on most days of the week. She is 5 feet 6 inches (170 cm) tall and weighs 107 lb. Should she be screened for osteoporosis?

Osteoporosis is underdiagnosed

It is estimated that, in the United States, 12.3 million individuals older than 50 will develop osteoporosis by 2020. Missed opportunities to screen high-risk individuals can lead to fractures, including fractures of the hip.¹

Updated screening recommendations

In 2018, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) developed and published evidence-based recommendations for osteoporosis screening to help providers identify and treat osteoporosis early to prevent fractures.² Available evidence on screening and treatment in women and men were reviewed with the intention of updating the 2011 USPSTF recommendations. The review also evaluated risk assessment tools, screening intervals, and efficacy of screening and treatment in various subpopulations.

Since the 2011 recommendations, more data have become available on fracture risk assessment with or without bone mineral density measurements. In its 2018 report, the USPSTF recommends that postmenopausal women younger than 65 should undergo screening with a bone density test if their 10-year risk of major osteoporotic fracture is more than 8.4%. This is equivalent to the fracture risk of a 65-year-old white woman with no major risk factors for fracture (grade B recommendation—high certainty that the benefit is moderate, or moderate certainty that the benefit is moderate to substantial).²

Assessment of fracture risk

For postmenopausal women who are under age 65 and who have at least 1 risk factor for fracture, it is reasonable to use a clinical risk assessment tool to determine who should undergo screening with bone mineral density measurement. Risk factors associated with an increased risk of osteoporotic fractures include a parental history of hip fracture, smoking, intake of 3 or more alcoholic drinks per day, low body weight, malabsorption, rheumatoid arthritis, diabetes, and postmenopausal status (not using estrogen replacement). Medications should be carefully reviewed for those that can increase the risk of fractures, including steroids and antiestrogen treatments.

The 10-year risk of a major osteoporotic or hip fracture can be assessed using the Fractional Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX), available at www.sheffield.ac.uk/FRAX/. Other acceptable tools that perform similarly to FRAX include the Osteoporosis Risk Assessment Instrument (ORAI) (10 studies; N = 16,780), Osteoporosis Index of Risk (OSIRIS) (5 studies; N = 5,649), Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool (OST) (13 studies; N = 44,323), and Simple Calculated Osteoporosis Risk Estimation (SCORE) (8 studies; N = 15,362).

Should this patient be screened for osteoporosis?

Based on the FRAX, this patient’s 10-year risk of major osteoporosis fracture is 9.2%. She would benefit from osteoporosis screening with a bone density test.

DO ANTIBIOTICS REDUCE EFFECTIVENESS OF HORMONAL CONTRACEPTION?

A 27-year-old woman presents with a dog bite on her right hand and is started on oral antibiotics. She takes an oral contraceptive that contains 35 µg of ethinyl estradiol and 0.25 mg of norgestimate. She asks if she should use condoms while taking antibiotics.

The antibiotics rifampin and rifabutin are known inducers of the hepatic enzymes required for contraceptive steroid metabolism, whereas other antibiotics are not. Despite the lack of compelling evidence that broad-spectrum antibiotics interfere with the efficacy of hormonal contraception, most pharmacists recommend backup contraception for women who use concomitant antibiotics.³ This practice could lead to poor compliance with the contraceptive regimen, the antibiotic regimen, or both.³

Simmons et al³ conducted a systematic review of randomized and nonrandomized studies that assessed pregnancy rates, breakthrough bleeding, ovulation suppression, and hormone pharmacokinetics in women taking oral or vaginal hormonal contraceptives in combination with nonrifamycin antibiotics, including oral, intramuscular, and intravenous forms. Oral contraceptives used in the studies included a range of doses and progestins, but lowest-dose pills, such as those containing less than 30 µg ethinyl estradiol or less than 150 µg levonorgestrel, were not included.

The contraceptive formulations in this systematic review³ included oral contraceptive pills, emergency contraception pills, and the contraceptive vaginal ring. The effect of antibiotics on other nonoral contraceptives, such as the transdermal patch, injectables, and progestin implants was not studied.

Four observational studies³ evaluated pregnancy rates or hormonal contraception failure with any antibiotic use. In 2 of these 4 studies, there was no difference in pregnancy rates in women who used oral contraceptives with and without nonrifamycin antibiotics. However, ethinyl estradiol was shown to have increased clearance when administered with dirithromycin (a macrolide).³ Twenty-five of the studies reported measures of contraceptive effectiveness (ovulation) and pharmacokinetic outcomes.

There were no observed differences in ovulation suppression or breakthrough bleeding in any study that combined hormonal contraceptives with an antibiotic. Furthermore, there was no significant decrease in progestin pharmacokinetic parameters during coadministration with an antibiotic.³ Study limitations included small sample sizes and the observational nature of the data.

How would you counsel this patient?

Available evidence suggests that nonrifamycin antibiotics do not diminish the effectiveness of the vaginal contraceptive ring or an oral hormonal contraceptive that contains at least 30 µg of ethinyl estradiol or 150 µg of levonorgestrel. Current guidelines do not recommend the use of additional backup contraception, regardless of hormonal contraception dose or formulation.⁴ Likewise, the most recent guidance for dental practitioners (ie, from 2012) no longer advises women to use additional contraceptive protection when taking nonrifamycin antibiotics.⁵

In our practice, we discuss the option of additional protection when prescribing formulations with lower estrogen doses (< 30 µg), not only because of the limitations of the available data, but also because of the high rates of unintended pregnancy with typical use of combined hormonal contraceptives (9% per year, unrelated to use of antibiotics).⁴ However, if our patient would rather not use additional barrier methods, she can be reassured that concomitant nonrifamycin antibiotic use is unlikely to affect contraceptive effectiveness.

 

 

HORMONE REPLACEMENT THERAPY IN CARRIERS OF THE BRCA1 MUTATION

A 41-year-old healthy mother of 3 was recently found to be a carrier of the BRCA1 mutation. She is planning to undergo prophylactic bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy for ovarian cancer prevention. However, she is apprehensive about undergoing surgical menopause. Should she be started on hormone replacement therapy after oophorectomy? How would hormone replacement therapy affect her risk of breast cancer?

In females who carry the BRCA1 mutation, the cumulative risk of both ovarian and breast cancer approaches 44% (95% confidence interval [CI] 36%–53%) and 72% (95% CI 65%–79%) by age 80.⁶ Prophylactic salpingo-oophorectomy reduces the risk of breast cancer by 50% and the risk of ovarian cancer by 90%. Unfortunately, premature withdrawal of ovarian hormones has been associated with long-term adverse effects including significant vasomotor symptoms, decreased quality of life, sexual dysfunction, early mortality, bone loss, decline in mood and cognition, and poor cardiovascular outcomes.⁷ Many of these effects can be avoided or lessened with hormone replacement therapy.

Kotsopoulos et al⁸ conducted a longitudinal, prospective analysis of BRCA1 mutation carriers in a multicenter study between 1995 and 2017. The mean follow-up period was 7.6 years (range 0.4–22.1). The study assessed associations between the use of hormone replacement therapy and breast cancer risk in carriers of the BRCA1 mutation who underwent prophylactic salpingo-oophorectomy. Study participants did not have a personal history of cancer. Those with a history of prophylactic mastectomy were excluded.

Participants completed a series of questionnaires every 2 years, disclosing updates in personal medical, cancer, and reproductive history. The questionnaires also inquired about the use of hormone replacement therapy, including the type used (estrogen only, progestin only, estrogen plus progestin, other), brand name, duration of use, and dose and route of administration (pill, patch, suppository).

Of the 13,087 BRCA1 mutation carriers identified, 872 met the study criteria. Of those, 377 (43%) reported using some form of hormone replacement therapy after salpingo-oophorectomy, and 495 (57%) did not. The average duration of use was 3.9 years (range 0.5–19), with most (69%) using estrogen alone; 18% used other regimens, including estrogen plus progestin and progestin only. A small percentage of participants did not indicate which formulation they used. On average, women using hormone replacement therapy underwent prophylactic oophorectomy earlier than nonusers (age 43.0 vs 48.4; absolute difference 5.5 years, P < .001).

During follow-up, there was no significant difference noted in the proportion of women diagnosed with breast cancer between hormone replacement therapy users and nonusers (10.3 vs 10.7%; absolute difference 0.4%; P = .86). In fact, for each year of estrogen-containing hormone replacement therapy, there was an 18% reduction in breast cancer risk when oophorectomy was performed before age 45 (95% CI 0.69–0.97). The authors also noted a nonsignificant 14% trend toward an increase in breast cancer risk for each year of progestin use after oophorectomy when surgery was performed before age 45 (95% CI 0.9–1.46).

Although prophylactic hysterectomy was not recommended, the authors noted that hysterectomy would eliminate the need for progestin-containing hormone replacement therapy. For those who underwent oophorectomy after age 45, hormone replacement therapy did not increase or decrease the risk of breast cancer.⁷

A meta-analysis by Marchetti et al⁹ also supports the safety of hormone replacement therapy after risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy. Three studies that included 1,100 patients were analyzed (including the Kotsopoulos study⁸ noted above). There was a nonsignificant decrease in breast cancer risk in women on estrogen-only hormone replacement therapy compared with women on estrogen-plus-progestin therapy (odds ratio 0.53, 95% CI 0.25–1.15). Overall, the authors regarded hormone replacement therapy as a safe therapeutic option after prophylactic salpingo-oophorectomy in carriers of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations.⁹

In a case-control study published in 2016,¹⁰ hormone replacement therapy was assessed in 432 postmenopausal BRCA1 mutation carriers with invasive breast cancer (cases) and in 432 BRCA1 mutation carriers without a history of breast cancer (controls). Results showed no difference in breast cancer risk between hormone replacement therapy users and nonusers.¹⁰

Rebbeck et al¹¹ evaluated short-term hormone replacement therapy in BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene-mutation carriers after they underwent prophylactic salpingo-oophorectomy. The results showed that hormone replacement did not affect the breast cancer risk-reduction conferred with prophylactic bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy.

Johansen et al¹² evaluated hormone replacement therapy in premenopausal women after prophylactic salpingo-oophorectomy. They studied 324 carriers of BRCA gene mutations after they underwent prophylactic salpingo-oophorectomy and a subset of 950 controls who had bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy for reasons unrelated to cancer. In both groups, hormone replacement therapy was underutilized. The authors recommended using it when clinically indicated.

Should your patient start hormone replacement therapy?

This patient is healthy, and in the absence of contraindications, systemic hormone replacement therapy after prophylactic oophorectomy could mitigate the potential adverse effects of surgically induced menopause. The patient can be reassured that estrogen-containing short-term hormone replacement therapy is unlikely to increase her breast cancer risk.

 

 

HORMONAL CONTRACEPTION AND THE RISK OF BREAST CANCER

A 44-year-old woman presents to your office for an annual visit. She is sexually active but does not wish to become pregnant. She has a family history of breast cancer: her mother was diagnosed at age 53. She is interested in an oral contraceptive to prevent pregnancy and acne. However, she is nervous about being on any contraceptive that may increase her risk of breast cancer.

To date, studies assessing the effect of hormonal contraception on the risk of breast cancer have produced inconsistent results. Although most studies have shown no associated risk, a few have shown a temporary 20% to 30% increased risk of breast cancer during use.^13,14 Case-controlled studies that reported an association between hormonal contraception and breast cancer included populations taking higher-dose combination pills, which are no longer prescribed. Most studies do not evaluate specific formulations of hormonal contraception, and little is known about effects associated with intrauterine devices or progestin-only contraception.

A prospective study performed by Mørch et al¹³ followed more than 1 million reproductive-aged women for a mean of 10.9 years. The Danish Cancer Registry was used to identify cases of invasive breast cancer. Women who used hormonal contraceptives had a relative risk of breast cancer of 1.20 compared with women not on hormonal contraception (95% CI 1.14–1.26). The study suggested that those who had been on contraceptive agents for more than 5 years had an increased risk and that this risk remained for 5 years after the agents were discontinued. Conversely, no increased risk of cancer was noted in those who used hormonal contraception for less than 5 years. No notable differences were seen among various formulations.

For women using the levonorgestrel-containing intrauterine device, the relative risk of breast cancer was 1.21 (95% CI 1.11–1.33). A few cancers were noted in those who used the progestin-only implant or those using depot medroxyprogesterone acetate. While the study showed an increased relative risk of breast cancer, the absolute risk was low—13 cases per 100,000, or approximately 1 additional case of breast cancer per 7,690 per year.¹³

This study had several important limitations. The authors did not adjust for common breast cancer risk factors including age at menarche, alcohol use, or breastfeeding. Additionally, the study did not account for the use of hormonal contraception before the study period and conversely, did not account for women who may have stopped taking their contraceptive despite their prescribed duration. The frequency of mammography was not explicitly noted, which could have shifted results for women who had more aggressive screening.

It is also noteworthy that the use of high-dose systemic progestins was not associated with an increased risk, whereas the levonorgestrel intrauterine device, which contains only 1/20th the dose of a low-dose oral contraceptive pill, was associated with an increased risk. This discrepancy in risk warrants further investigation, and clinicians should be aware that this inconsistency needs validation before changing clinical practice.

In an observational cohort study,¹⁵ more than 100,000 women ages 50 to 71 were followed prospectively for 15 years to evaluate the association between hormonal contraceptive use and the risk of gynecologic and breast cancers. In this study, the duration of hormonal contraceptive use, smoking status, alcohol use, body mass index, physical activity, and family history of cancer were recorded. Long-term hormonal contraceptive use reduced ovarian and endometrial cancer risks by 40% and 34%, respectively, with no increase in breast cancer risk regardless of family history.

How would you counsel the patient?

The patient should be educated on the benefits of hormonal contraception that extend beyond pregnancy prevention, including regulation of menses, improved acne, decreased risk of endometrial and ovarian cancer, and likely reductions in colorectal cancer and overall mortality risk.^13–16 Further, after their own systematic review of the data assessing risk of breast cancer with hormonal contraception, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention state in their guidelines that all contraceptives may be used without limitation in those who have a family history of breast cancer.⁴ Any potential increased risk of breast cancer in women using hormonal contraception is small and would not outweigh the benefits associated with use.

One must consider the impact of an unintended pregnancy in such women, including effects on the health of the fetus and mother. Recent reports on the increasing rates of maternal death in the US (23.8 of 100,000 live births) serve as a reminder of the complications that can arise with pregnancy, especially if a mother’s health is not optimized before conception.¹⁷

 

 

MAMMOGRAPHY PLUS TOMOSYNTHESIS VS MAMMOGRAPHY ALONE

The same 44-year-old patient now inquires about screening for breast cancer. She is curious about 3-dimensional mammography and whether it would be a better screening test for her.

Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is a newer imaging modality that provides a 3-dimensional reconstruction of the breast using low-dose x-ray imaging. Some studies have shown that combining DBT with digital mammography may be superior to digital mammography alone in detecting cancers.¹⁸ However, digital mammography is currently the gold standard for breast cancer screening and is the only test proven to reduce mortality.^18,19

In a retrospective US study of 13 medical centers,²⁰ breast cancer detection rates increased by 41% the year after DBT was introduced, from 2.9 to 4.1 per 1,000 cases. DBT was associated with 16 fewer patients recalled for repeat imaging out of 1,000 women screened (as opposed to mammography alone). Two European studies similarly suggested an increase in cancer detection with lower recall rates.^21,22

Is 3-D mammography a better option?

In a 2-arm study by Pattacini et al,¹⁸ nearly 20,000 women ages 45 to 70 were randomized to undergo either digital mammography or digital mammography plus DBT for primary breast cancer screening. Women were enrolled over a 2-year period and were followed for 4.5 years, and the development of a primary invasive cancer was the primary end point. Recall rates, reading times, and radiation doses were also compared between the 2 groups.

Overall, the cancer detection rate was higher in the digital mammography plus DBT arm compared with digital mammography alone (8.6 vs 4.5 per 1,000). The detection rates were higher in the combined screening group among all age subgroups, with relative risks ranging from 1.83 to 2.04 (P = .93). The recall rate was 3.5% in the 2 arms, with relative risks ranging from 0.93 to 1.11 (P = .52). There was a reduction in the number of false positives seen in women undergoing digital mammography plus DBT when compared with digital mammography alone, from 30 per 1,000 to 27 per 1,000.

Detection of ductal carcinoma in situ increased in the experimental arm (relative detection 2.80, 95% CI 1.01–7.65) compared with invasive cancers. Comparing radiation, the dose was 2.3 times higher in those who underwent digital mammography plus DBT. The average reading times for digital mammography alone were 20 to 85 seconds; adding DBT added 35 to 81 seconds.¹⁹

Should you advise 3-D mammography?

The patient should be educated on the benefits of both digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus DBT. The use of digital mammography plus DBT has been supported in various studies and has been shown to increase cancer detection rates, although data are still conflicting regarding recall rates.^19,20 More studies are needed to determine its effect on breast cancer morality.

Routine use of DBT in women with or without dense breast tissue has not been recommended by organizations such as the USPSTF and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.^23,24 While there is an increased dose of radiation, it still falls below the US Food and Drug Administration limits and should not be the sole barrier to use.

Keeping up with current evidence-based healthcare practices is key to providing good clinical care to patients. This review presents 5 vignettes that highlight key issues in women’s health: osteoporosis screening, hormonal contraceptive interactions with antibiotics, hormone replacement therapy in carriers of the BRCA1 gene mutation, risks associated with hormonal contraception, and breast cancer diagnosis using digital tomosynthesis in addition to digital mammography. Supporting articles, all published in 2017 and 2018, were selected from high-impact medical and women’s health journals.

OSTEOPOROSIS SCREENING FOR FRACTURE PREVENTION

A 60-year-old woman reports that her last menstrual period was 7 years ago. She has no history of falls or fractures, and she takes no medications. She smokes 10 cigarettes per day and drinks 3 to 4 alcoholic beverages on most days of the week. She is 5 feet 6 inches (170 cm) tall and weighs 107 lb. Should she be screened for osteoporosis?

Osteoporosis is underdiagnosed

It is estimated that, in the United States, 12.3 million individuals older than 50 will develop osteoporosis by 2020. Missed opportunities to screen high-risk individuals can lead to fractures, including fractures of the hip.¹

Updated screening recommendations

In 2018, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) developed and published evidence-based recommendations for osteoporosis screening to help providers identify and treat osteoporosis early to prevent fractures.² Available evidence on screening and treatment in women and men were reviewed with the intention of updating the 2011 USPSTF recommendations. The review also evaluated risk assessment tools, screening intervals, and efficacy of screening and treatment in various subpopulations.

Since the 2011 recommendations, more data have become available on fracture risk assessment with or without bone mineral density measurements. In its 2018 report, the USPSTF recommends that postmenopausal women younger than 65 should undergo screening with a bone density test if their 10-year risk of major osteoporotic fracture is more than 8.4%. This is equivalent to the fracture risk of a 65-year-old white woman with no major risk factors for fracture (grade B recommendation—high certainty that the benefit is moderate, or moderate certainty that the benefit is moderate to substantial).²

Assessment of fracture risk

For postmenopausal women who are under age 65 and who have at least 1 risk factor for fracture, it is reasonable to use a clinical risk assessment tool to determine who should undergo screening with bone mineral density measurement. Risk factors associated with an increased risk of osteoporotic fractures include a parental history of hip fracture, smoking, intake of 3 or more alcoholic drinks per day, low body weight, malabsorption, rheumatoid arthritis, diabetes, and postmenopausal status (not using estrogen replacement). Medications should be carefully reviewed for those that can increase the risk of fractures, including steroids and antiestrogen treatments.

The 10-year risk of a major osteoporotic or hip fracture can be assessed using the Fractional Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX), available at www.sheffield.ac.uk/FRAX/. Other acceptable tools that perform similarly to FRAX include the Osteoporosis Risk Assessment Instrument (ORAI) (10 studies; N = 16,780), Osteoporosis Index of Risk (OSIRIS) (5 studies; N = 5,649), Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool (OST) (13 studies; N = 44,323), and Simple Calculated Osteoporosis Risk Estimation (SCORE) (8 studies; N = 15,362).

Should this patient be screened for osteoporosis?

Based on the FRAX, this patient’s 10-year risk of major osteoporosis fracture is 9.2%. She would benefit from osteoporosis screening with a bone density test.

DO ANTIBIOTICS REDUCE EFFECTIVENESS OF HORMONAL CONTRACEPTION?

A 27-year-old woman presents with a dog bite on her right hand and is started on oral antibiotics. She takes an oral contraceptive that contains 35 µg of ethinyl estradiol and 0.25 mg of norgestimate. She asks if she should use condoms while taking antibiotics.

The antibiotics rifampin and rifabutin are known inducers of the hepatic enzymes required for contraceptive steroid metabolism, whereas other antibiotics are not. Despite the lack of compelling evidence that broad-spectrum antibiotics interfere with the efficacy of hormonal contraception, most pharmacists recommend backup contraception for women who use concomitant antibiotics.³ This practice could lead to poor compliance with the contraceptive regimen, the antibiotic regimen, or both.³

Simmons et al³ conducted a systematic review of randomized and nonrandomized studies that assessed pregnancy rates, breakthrough bleeding, ovulation suppression, and hormone pharmacokinetics in women taking oral or vaginal hormonal contraceptives in combination with nonrifamycin antibiotics, including oral, intramuscular, and intravenous forms. Oral contraceptives used in the studies included a range of doses and progestins, but lowest-dose pills, such as those containing less than 30 µg ethinyl estradiol or less than 150 µg levonorgestrel, were not included.

The contraceptive formulations in this systematic review³ included oral contraceptive pills, emergency contraception pills, and the contraceptive vaginal ring. The effect of antibiotics on other nonoral contraceptives, such as the transdermal patch, injectables, and progestin implants was not studied.

Four observational studies³ evaluated pregnancy rates or hormonal contraception failure with any antibiotic use. In 2 of these 4 studies, there was no difference in pregnancy rates in women who used oral contraceptives with and without nonrifamycin antibiotics. However, ethinyl estradiol was shown to have increased clearance when administered with dirithromycin (a macrolide).³ Twenty-five of the studies reported measures of contraceptive effectiveness (ovulation) and pharmacokinetic outcomes.

There were no observed differences in ovulation suppression or breakthrough bleeding in any study that combined hormonal contraceptives with an antibiotic. Furthermore, there was no significant decrease in progestin pharmacokinetic parameters during coadministration with an antibiotic.³ Study limitations included small sample sizes and the observational nature of the data.

How would you counsel this patient?

Available evidence suggests that nonrifamycin antibiotics do not diminish the effectiveness of the vaginal contraceptive ring or an oral hormonal contraceptive that contains at least 30 µg of ethinyl estradiol or 150 µg of levonorgestrel. Current guidelines do not recommend the use of additional backup contraception, regardless of hormonal contraception dose or formulation.⁴ Likewise, the most recent guidance for dental practitioners (ie, from 2012) no longer advises women to use additional contraceptive protection when taking nonrifamycin antibiotics.⁵

In our practice, we discuss the option of additional protection when prescribing formulations with lower estrogen doses (< 30 µg), not only because of the limitations of the available data, but also because of the high rates of unintended pregnancy with typical use of combined hormonal contraceptives (9% per year, unrelated to use of antibiotics).⁴ However, if our patient would rather not use additional barrier methods, she can be reassured that concomitant nonrifamycin antibiotic use is unlikely to affect contraceptive effectiveness.

 

 

HORMONE REPLACEMENT THERAPY IN CARRIERS OF THE BRCA1 MUTATION

A 41-year-old healthy mother of 3 was recently found to be a carrier of the BRCA1 mutation. She is planning to undergo prophylactic bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy for ovarian cancer prevention. However, she is apprehensive about undergoing surgical menopause. Should she be started on hormone replacement therapy after oophorectomy? How would hormone replacement therapy affect her risk of breast cancer?

In females who carry the BRCA1 mutation, the cumulative risk of both ovarian and breast cancer approaches 44% (95% confidence interval [CI] 36%–53%) and 72% (95% CI 65%–79%) by age 80.⁶ Prophylactic salpingo-oophorectomy reduces the risk of breast cancer by 50% and the risk of ovarian cancer by 90%. Unfortunately, premature withdrawal of ovarian hormones has been associated with long-term adverse effects including significant vasomotor symptoms, decreased quality of life, sexual dysfunction, early mortality, bone loss, decline in mood and cognition, and poor cardiovascular outcomes.⁷ Many of these effects can be avoided or lessened with hormone replacement therapy.

Kotsopoulos et al⁸ conducted a longitudinal, prospective analysis of BRCA1 mutation carriers in a multicenter study between 1995 and 2017. The mean follow-up period was 7.6 years (range 0.4–22.1). The study assessed associations between the use of hormone replacement therapy and breast cancer risk in carriers of the BRCA1 mutation who underwent prophylactic salpingo-oophorectomy. Study participants did not have a personal history of cancer. Those with a history of prophylactic mastectomy were excluded.

Participants completed a series of questionnaires every 2 years, disclosing updates in personal medical, cancer, and reproductive history. The questionnaires also inquired about the use of hormone replacement therapy, including the type used (estrogen only, progestin only, estrogen plus progestin, other), brand name, duration of use, and dose and route of administration (pill, patch, suppository).

Of the 13,087 BRCA1 mutation carriers identified, 872 met the study criteria. Of those, 377 (43%) reported using some form of hormone replacement therapy after salpingo-oophorectomy, and 495 (57%) did not. The average duration of use was 3.9 years (range 0.5–19), with most (69%) using estrogen alone; 18% used other regimens, including estrogen plus progestin and progestin only. A small percentage of participants did not indicate which formulation they used. On average, women using hormone replacement therapy underwent prophylactic oophorectomy earlier than nonusers (age 43.0 vs 48.4; absolute difference 5.5 years, P < .001).

During follow-up, there was no significant difference noted in the proportion of women diagnosed with breast cancer between hormone replacement therapy users and nonusers (10.3 vs 10.7%; absolute difference 0.4%; P = .86). In fact, for each year of estrogen-containing hormone replacement therapy, there was an 18% reduction in breast cancer risk when oophorectomy was performed before age 45 (95% CI 0.69–0.97). The authors also noted a nonsignificant 14% trend toward an increase in breast cancer risk for each year of progestin use after oophorectomy when surgery was performed before age 45 (95% CI 0.9–1.46).

Although prophylactic hysterectomy was not recommended, the authors noted that hysterectomy would eliminate the need for progestin-containing hormone replacement therapy. For those who underwent oophorectomy after age 45, hormone replacement therapy did not increase or decrease the risk of breast cancer.⁷

A meta-analysis by Marchetti et al⁹ also supports the safety of hormone replacement therapy after risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy. Three studies that included 1,100 patients were analyzed (including the Kotsopoulos study⁸ noted above). There was a nonsignificant decrease in breast cancer risk in women on estrogen-only hormone replacement therapy compared with women on estrogen-plus-progestin therapy (odds ratio 0.53, 95% CI 0.25–1.15). Overall, the authors regarded hormone replacement therapy as a safe therapeutic option after prophylactic salpingo-oophorectomy in carriers of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations.⁹

In a case-control study published in 2016,¹⁰ hormone replacement therapy was assessed in 432 postmenopausal BRCA1 mutation carriers with invasive breast cancer (cases) and in 432 BRCA1 mutation carriers without a history of breast cancer (controls). Results showed no difference in breast cancer risk between hormone replacement therapy users and nonusers.¹⁰

Rebbeck et al¹¹ evaluated short-term hormone replacement therapy in BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene-mutation carriers after they underwent prophylactic salpingo-oophorectomy. The results showed that hormone replacement did not affect the breast cancer risk-reduction conferred with prophylactic bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy.

Johansen et al¹² evaluated hormone replacement therapy in premenopausal women after prophylactic salpingo-oophorectomy. They studied 324 carriers of BRCA gene mutations after they underwent prophylactic salpingo-oophorectomy and a subset of 950 controls who had bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy for reasons unrelated to cancer. In both groups, hormone replacement therapy was underutilized. The authors recommended using it when clinically indicated.

Should your patient start hormone replacement therapy?

This patient is healthy, and in the absence of contraindications, systemic hormone replacement therapy after prophylactic oophorectomy could mitigate the potential adverse effects of surgically induced menopause. The patient can be reassured that estrogen-containing short-term hormone replacement therapy is unlikely to increase her breast cancer risk.

 

 

HORMONAL CONTRACEPTION AND THE RISK OF BREAST CANCER

A 44-year-old woman presents to your office for an annual visit. She is sexually active but does not wish to become pregnant. She has a family history of breast cancer: her mother was diagnosed at age 53. She is interested in an oral contraceptive to prevent pregnancy and acne. However, she is nervous about being on any contraceptive that may increase her risk of breast cancer.

To date, studies assessing the effect of hormonal contraception on the risk of breast cancer have produced inconsistent results. Although most studies have shown no associated risk, a few have shown a temporary 20% to 30% increased risk of breast cancer during use.^13,14 Case-controlled studies that reported an association between hormonal contraception and breast cancer included populations taking higher-dose combination pills, which are no longer prescribed. Most studies do not evaluate specific formulations of hormonal contraception, and little is known about effects associated with intrauterine devices or progestin-only contraception.

A prospective study performed by Mørch et al¹³ followed more than 1 million reproductive-aged women for a mean of 10.9 years. The Danish Cancer Registry was used to identify cases of invasive breast cancer. Women who used hormonal contraceptives had a relative risk of breast cancer of 1.20 compared with women not on hormonal contraception (95% CI 1.14–1.26). The study suggested that those who had been on contraceptive agents for more than 5 years had an increased risk and that this risk remained for 5 years after the agents were discontinued. Conversely, no increased risk of cancer was noted in those who used hormonal contraception for less than 5 years. No notable differences were seen among various formulations.

For women using the levonorgestrel-containing intrauterine device, the relative risk of breast cancer was 1.21 (95% CI 1.11–1.33). A few cancers were noted in those who used the progestin-only implant or those using depot medroxyprogesterone acetate. While the study showed an increased relative risk of breast cancer, the absolute risk was low—13 cases per 100,000, or approximately 1 additional case of breast cancer per 7,690 per year.¹³

This study had several important limitations. The authors did not adjust for common breast cancer risk factors including age at menarche, alcohol use, or breastfeeding. Additionally, the study did not account for the use of hormonal contraception before the study period and conversely, did not account for women who may have stopped taking their contraceptive despite their prescribed duration. The frequency of mammography was not explicitly noted, which could have shifted results for women who had more aggressive screening.

It is also noteworthy that the use of high-dose systemic progestins was not associated with an increased risk, whereas the levonorgestrel intrauterine device, which contains only 1/20th the dose of a low-dose oral contraceptive pill, was associated with an increased risk. This discrepancy in risk warrants further investigation, and clinicians should be aware that this inconsistency needs validation before changing clinical practice.

In an observational cohort study,¹⁵ more than 100,000 women ages 50 to 71 were followed prospectively for 15 years to evaluate the association between hormonal contraceptive use and the risk of gynecologic and breast cancers. In this study, the duration of hormonal contraceptive use, smoking status, alcohol use, body mass index, physical activity, and family history of cancer were recorded. Long-term hormonal contraceptive use reduced ovarian and endometrial cancer risks by 40% and 34%, respectively, with no increase in breast cancer risk regardless of family history.

How would you counsel the patient?

The patient should be educated on the benefits of hormonal contraception that extend beyond pregnancy prevention, including regulation of menses, improved acne, decreased risk of endometrial and ovarian cancer, and likely reductions in colorectal cancer and overall mortality risk.^13–16 Further, after their own systematic review of the data assessing risk of breast cancer with hormonal contraception, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention state in their guidelines that all contraceptives may be used without limitation in those who have a family history of breast cancer.⁴ Any potential increased risk of breast cancer in women using hormonal contraception is small and would not outweigh the benefits associated with use.

One must consider the impact of an unintended pregnancy in such women, including effects on the health of the fetus and mother. Recent reports on the increasing rates of maternal death in the US (23.8 of 100,000 live births) serve as a reminder of the complications that can arise with pregnancy, especially if a mother’s health is not optimized before conception.¹⁷

 

 

MAMMOGRAPHY PLUS TOMOSYNTHESIS VS MAMMOGRAPHY ALONE

The same 44-year-old patient now inquires about screening for breast cancer. She is curious about 3-dimensional mammography and whether it would be a better screening test for her.

Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) is a newer imaging modality that provides a 3-dimensional reconstruction of the breast using low-dose x-ray imaging. Some studies have shown that combining DBT with digital mammography may be superior to digital mammography alone in detecting cancers.¹⁸ However, digital mammography is currently the gold standard for breast cancer screening and is the only test proven to reduce mortality.^18,19

In a retrospective US study of 13 medical centers,²⁰ breast cancer detection rates increased by 41% the year after DBT was introduced, from 2.9 to 4.1 per 1,000 cases. DBT was associated with 16 fewer patients recalled for repeat imaging out of 1,000 women screened (as opposed to mammography alone). Two European studies similarly suggested an increase in cancer detection with lower recall rates.^21,22

Is 3-D mammography a better option?

In a 2-arm study by Pattacini et al,¹⁸ nearly 20,000 women ages 45 to 70 were randomized to undergo either digital mammography or digital mammography plus DBT for primary breast cancer screening. Women were enrolled over a 2-year period and were followed for 4.5 years, and the development of a primary invasive cancer was the primary end point. Recall rates, reading times, and radiation doses were also compared between the 2 groups.

Overall, the cancer detection rate was higher in the digital mammography plus DBT arm compared with digital mammography alone (8.6 vs 4.5 per 1,000). The detection rates were higher in the combined screening group among all age subgroups, with relative risks ranging from 1.83 to 2.04 (P = .93). The recall rate was 3.5% in the 2 arms, with relative risks ranging from 0.93 to 1.11 (P = .52). There was a reduction in the number of false positives seen in women undergoing digital mammography plus DBT when compared with digital mammography alone, from 30 per 1,000 to 27 per 1,000.

Detection of ductal carcinoma in situ increased in the experimental arm (relative detection 2.80, 95% CI 1.01–7.65) compared with invasive cancers. Comparing radiation, the dose was 2.3 times higher in those who underwent digital mammography plus DBT. The average reading times for digital mammography alone were 20 to 85 seconds; adding DBT added 35 to 81 seconds.¹⁹

Should you advise 3-D mammography?

The patient should be educated on the benefits of both digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus DBT. The use of digital mammography plus DBT has been supported in various studies and has been shown to increase cancer detection rates, although data are still conflicting regarding recall rates.^19,20 More studies are needed to determine its effect on breast cancer morality.

Routine use of DBT in women with or without dense breast tissue has not been recommended by organizations such as the USPSTF and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.^23,24 While there is an increased dose of radiation, it still falls below the US Food and Drug Administration limits and should not be the sole barrier to use.

Here are 5 articles from the June issue of Clinician Reviews (individual articles are valid for one year from date of publication—expiration dates below):

1. Expert: There’s no single treatment for fibromyalgia

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2EAI5v1
Expires February 3, 2020

2. Mood and behavior are different targets for irritability in children

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2wpLS9X
Expires February 6, 2020

3. Biomarkers predict VTE risk with menopausal oral hormone therapy

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2JKEQFC
Expires February 6, 2020

4. Mild aerobic exercise speeds sports concussion recovery

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/30RuYiE
Expires February 4, 2020

5. For CABG, multiple and single arterial grafts show no survival difference

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2wtiCiF
Expires January 31, 2020

Here are 5 articles from the June issue of Clinician Reviews (individual articles are valid for one year from date of publication—expiration dates below):

1. Expert: There’s no single treatment for fibromyalgia

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2EAI5v1
Expires February 3, 2020

2. Mood and behavior are different targets for irritability in children

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2wpLS9X
Expires February 6, 2020

3. Biomarkers predict VTE risk with menopausal oral hormone therapy

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2JKEQFC
Expires February 6, 2020

4. Mild aerobic exercise speeds sports concussion recovery

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/30RuYiE
Expires February 4, 2020

5. For CABG, multiple and single arterial grafts show no survival difference

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2wtiCiF
Expires January 31, 2020

Here are 5 articles from the June issue of Clinician Reviews (individual articles are valid for one year from date of publication—expiration dates below):

1. Expert: There’s no single treatment for fibromyalgia

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2EAI5v1
Expires February 3, 2020

2. Mood and behavior are different targets for irritability in children

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2wpLS9X
Expires February 6, 2020

3. Biomarkers predict VTE risk with menopausal oral hormone therapy

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2JKEQFC
Expires February 6, 2020

4. Mild aerobic exercise speeds sports concussion recovery

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/30RuYiE
Expires February 4, 2020

5. For CABG, multiple and single arterial grafts show no survival difference

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2wtiCiF
Expires January 31, 2020

LJUBLJANA, SLOVENIA – A high body mass index in pregnant women who receive a seasonal influenza vaccine doesn’t impair their vaccine response; indeed, it might actually improve their seroconversion rate, Michelle Clarke reported at the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

She presented a prospective cohort study of 90 women vaccinated against influenza during pregnancy, 24 of whom had a BMI of 30 kg/m² or more. The impetus for the study was the investigators’ understanding that influenza in pregnancy carries an increased risk of severe complications, obesity is a known risk factor for more severe episodes of influenza, and vaccine responses could potentially be adversely affected by obesity, either because of the associated inflammatory state and altered cytokine profile or inadequate vaccine delivery via the intramuscular route. Yet the impact of obesity on vaccine responses in pregnancy has been unclear.

Blood samples obtained before and 1 month after vaccination showed similarly high-titer postvaccination seropositivity rates against influenza B, H3N2, and H1N1 regardless of the women’s weight status. Indeed, the seropositivity rate against all three influenza viruses was higher in the obese subgroup, by a margin of 92%-74%. Also, postvaccination geometric mean antibody titers were significantly higher in the obese group. Particularly impressive was the difference in H1N1 seroconversion, defined as a fourfold increase in titer 28 days after vaccination: 79% versus 55%, noted Ms. Clarke of the University of Adelaide.

Of note, influenza vaccination in the first trimester resulted in a significantly lower seropositive antibody rate than vaccination in the second or third trimesters. The implication is that gestational age at vaccination, regardless of BMI, may be an important determinant of optimal vaccine protection for mothers and their newborns. However, this tentative conclusion requires confirmation in an independent larger sample, because the patient numbers in the study were small: Seropositive antibodies to all three vaccine antigens were documented in just 7 of 12 women (58%) vaccinated in the first trimester, compared with 47 of 53 (89%) vaccinated in the second trimester and 18 of 25 (72%) in the third.

Ms. Clarke reported having no financial conflicts regarding the study, which was supported by the Women’s and Children’s Hospital Research Foundation.

[email protected]

LJUBLJANA, SLOVENIA – A high body mass index in pregnant women who receive a seasonal influenza vaccine doesn’t impair their vaccine response; indeed, it might actually improve their seroconversion rate, Michelle Clarke reported at the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

She presented a prospective cohort study of 90 women vaccinated against influenza during pregnancy, 24 of whom had a BMI of 30 kg/m² or more. The impetus for the study was the investigators’ understanding that influenza in pregnancy carries an increased risk of severe complications, obesity is a known risk factor for more severe episodes of influenza, and vaccine responses could potentially be adversely affected by obesity, either because of the associated inflammatory state and altered cytokine profile or inadequate vaccine delivery via the intramuscular route. Yet the impact of obesity on vaccine responses in pregnancy has been unclear.

Blood samples obtained before and 1 month after vaccination showed similarly high-titer postvaccination seropositivity rates against influenza B, H3N2, and H1N1 regardless of the women’s weight status. Indeed, the seropositivity rate against all three influenza viruses was higher in the obese subgroup, by a margin of 92%-74%. Also, postvaccination geometric mean antibody titers were significantly higher in the obese group. Particularly impressive was the difference in H1N1 seroconversion, defined as a fourfold increase in titer 28 days after vaccination: 79% versus 55%, noted Ms. Clarke of the University of Adelaide.

Of note, influenza vaccination in the first trimester resulted in a significantly lower seropositive antibody rate than vaccination in the second or third trimesters. The implication is that gestational age at vaccination, regardless of BMI, may be an important determinant of optimal vaccine protection for mothers and their newborns. However, this tentative conclusion requires confirmation in an independent larger sample, because the patient numbers in the study were small: Seropositive antibodies to all three vaccine antigens were documented in just 7 of 12 women (58%) vaccinated in the first trimester, compared with 47 of 53 (89%) vaccinated in the second trimester and 18 of 25 (72%) in the third.

Ms. Clarke reported having no financial conflicts regarding the study, which was supported by the Women’s and Children’s Hospital Research Foundation.

[email protected]

LJUBLJANA, SLOVENIA – A high body mass index in pregnant women who receive a seasonal influenza vaccine doesn’t impair their vaccine response; indeed, it might actually improve their seroconversion rate, Michelle Clarke reported at the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

She presented a prospective cohort study of 90 women vaccinated against influenza during pregnancy, 24 of whom had a BMI of 30 kg/m² or more. The impetus for the study was the investigators’ understanding that influenza in pregnancy carries an increased risk of severe complications, obesity is a known risk factor for more severe episodes of influenza, and vaccine responses could potentially be adversely affected by obesity, either because of the associated inflammatory state and altered cytokine profile or inadequate vaccine delivery via the intramuscular route. Yet the impact of obesity on vaccine responses in pregnancy has been unclear.

Blood samples obtained before and 1 month after vaccination showed similarly high-titer postvaccination seropositivity rates against influenza B, H3N2, and H1N1 regardless of the women’s weight status. Indeed, the seropositivity rate against all three influenza viruses was higher in the obese subgroup, by a margin of 92%-74%. Also, postvaccination geometric mean antibody titers were significantly higher in the obese group. Particularly impressive was the difference in H1N1 seroconversion, defined as a fourfold increase in titer 28 days after vaccination: 79% versus 55%, noted Ms. Clarke of the University of Adelaide.

Of note, influenza vaccination in the first trimester resulted in a significantly lower seropositive antibody rate than vaccination in the second or third trimesters. The implication is that gestational age at vaccination, regardless of BMI, may be an important determinant of optimal vaccine protection for mothers and their newborns. However, this tentative conclusion requires confirmation in an independent larger sample, because the patient numbers in the study were small: Seropositive antibodies to all three vaccine antigens were documented in just 7 of 12 women (58%) vaccinated in the first trimester, compared with 47 of 53 (89%) vaccinated in the second trimester and 18 of 25 (72%) in the third.

Ms. Clarke reported having no financial conflicts regarding the study, which was supported by the Women’s and Children’s Hospital Research Foundation.

[email protected]

SAN FRANCISCO – It’s important to check for complementopathies in pregnant women with lupus, according to Michelle Petri, MD, a professor of rheumatology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

A new diagnosis being developed at Hopkins and elsewhere, complementopathies involve an inappropriate activation of the alternative pathway of complement (APC), either from a mutation in a complement control protein, or, in the case of lupus, an autoantibody against one. They’ve been implicated as a major cause of hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes, low platelets (HELLP) syndrome, a condition to which women with lupus are particularly prone.

Hopkins has developed a serum test to diagnose inappropriate APC activation in a few hours, the modified Ham test. When HELLP develops in a woman with a complementopathy, the complement inhibitor eculizumab (Soliris) is proving to be a safe alternative to pregnancy termination.

“I urge you to think about using the modified Ham test, because if it is positive, you can treat HELLP without having to stop the pregnancy,” said Dr. Petri, also codirector of the Hopkins Lupus Pregnancy Center.

Lupus management has come a long way from the days when women were counseled to avoid or terminate pregnancy. Risks remain, “but many pregnancies are successful. I think that for every woman with lupus, we do want to offer the possibility of successful pregnancy,” she said.

Disease control is key. Preterm birth, the most common adverse outcome in lupus, correlates closely with disease activity, and disease activity can be controlled with hydroxychloroquine, and, when needed, azathioprine and tacrolimus for renal flairs.

“But these kinds of basic lessons – we need hydroxychloroquine in pregnancy; we must control disease activity – are not heard out in the real world. Claims data have shown that pregnant women with lupus actually take fewer prescribed medications, and they have fewer rheumatology visits.” It’s a problem that needs to be addressed, Dr. Petri said.

Vitamin D is also important. Hopkins has shown that supplementation to hit a level of 40 ng/mL reduces both global and renal disease activity without toxicity; studies in the general population have shown reduced preeclampsia, preterm birth, and low birth weight, all concerns in lupus.

“I haven’t convinced the world of lupus how important vitamin D is,” but “I actually love it just as much as I love hydroxychloroquine,” Dr. Petri said.

Cosupplementation with calcium complicates matters. Together, they seem to reduce the risk of preeclampsia, but increase the risk of preterm birth. More needs to be known, so “for all of us with pregnancy cohorts, it’s time to start to record vitamin D and calcium levels so we can look at this,” she said.

Dr. Petri has worked with numerous companies.

[email protected]

SAN FRANCISCO – It’s important to check for complementopathies in pregnant women with lupus, according to Michelle Petri, MD, a professor of rheumatology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

A new diagnosis being developed at Hopkins and elsewhere, complementopathies involve an inappropriate activation of the alternative pathway of complement (APC), either from a mutation in a complement control protein, or, in the case of lupus, an autoantibody against one. They’ve been implicated as a major cause of hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes, low platelets (HELLP) syndrome, a condition to which women with lupus are particularly prone.

Hopkins has developed a serum test to diagnose inappropriate APC activation in a few hours, the modified Ham test. When HELLP develops in a woman with a complementopathy, the complement inhibitor eculizumab (Soliris) is proving to be a safe alternative to pregnancy termination.

“I urge you to think about using the modified Ham test, because if it is positive, you can treat HELLP without having to stop the pregnancy,” said Dr. Petri, also codirector of the Hopkins Lupus Pregnancy Center.

Lupus management has come a long way from the days when women were counseled to avoid or terminate pregnancy. Risks remain, “but many pregnancies are successful. I think that for every woman with lupus, we do want to offer the possibility of successful pregnancy,” she said.

Disease control is key. Preterm birth, the most common adverse outcome in lupus, correlates closely with disease activity, and disease activity can be controlled with hydroxychloroquine, and, when needed, azathioprine and tacrolimus for renal flairs.

“But these kinds of basic lessons – we need hydroxychloroquine in pregnancy; we must control disease activity – are not heard out in the real world. Claims data have shown that pregnant women with lupus actually take fewer prescribed medications, and they have fewer rheumatology visits.” It’s a problem that needs to be addressed, Dr. Petri said.

Vitamin D is also important. Hopkins has shown that supplementation to hit a level of 40 ng/mL reduces both global and renal disease activity without toxicity; studies in the general population have shown reduced preeclampsia, preterm birth, and low birth weight, all concerns in lupus.

“I haven’t convinced the world of lupus how important vitamin D is,” but “I actually love it just as much as I love hydroxychloroquine,” Dr. Petri said.

Cosupplementation with calcium complicates matters. Together, they seem to reduce the risk of preeclampsia, but increase the risk of preterm birth. More needs to be known, so “for all of us with pregnancy cohorts, it’s time to start to record vitamin D and calcium levels so we can look at this,” she said.

Dr. Petri has worked with numerous companies.

[email protected]

SAN FRANCISCO – It’s important to check for complementopathies in pregnant women with lupus, according to Michelle Petri, MD, a professor of rheumatology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

A new diagnosis being developed at Hopkins and elsewhere, complementopathies involve an inappropriate activation of the alternative pathway of complement (APC), either from a mutation in a complement control protein, or, in the case of lupus, an autoantibody against one. They’ve been implicated as a major cause of hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes, low platelets (HELLP) syndrome, a condition to which women with lupus are particularly prone.

Hopkins has developed a serum test to diagnose inappropriate APC activation in a few hours, the modified Ham test. When HELLP develops in a woman with a complementopathy, the complement inhibitor eculizumab (Soliris) is proving to be a safe alternative to pregnancy termination.

“I urge you to think about using the modified Ham test, because if it is positive, you can treat HELLP without having to stop the pregnancy,” said Dr. Petri, also codirector of the Hopkins Lupus Pregnancy Center.

Lupus management has come a long way from the days when women were counseled to avoid or terminate pregnancy. Risks remain, “but many pregnancies are successful. I think that for every woman with lupus, we do want to offer the possibility of successful pregnancy,” she said.

Disease control is key. Preterm birth, the most common adverse outcome in lupus, correlates closely with disease activity, and disease activity can be controlled with hydroxychloroquine, and, when needed, azathioprine and tacrolimus for renal flairs.

“But these kinds of basic lessons – we need hydroxychloroquine in pregnancy; we must control disease activity – are not heard out in the real world. Claims data have shown that pregnant women with lupus actually take fewer prescribed medications, and they have fewer rheumatology visits.” It’s a problem that needs to be addressed, Dr. Petri said.

Vitamin D is also important. Hopkins has shown that supplementation to hit a level of 40 ng/mL reduces both global and renal disease activity without toxicity; studies in the general population have shown reduced preeclampsia, preterm birth, and low birth weight, all concerns in lupus.

“I haven’t convinced the world of lupus how important vitamin D is,” but “I actually love it just as much as I love hydroxychloroquine,” Dr. Petri said.

Cosupplementation with calcium complicates matters. Together, they seem to reduce the risk of preeclampsia, but increase the risk of preterm birth. More needs to be known, so “for all of us with pregnancy cohorts, it’s time to start to record vitamin D and calcium levels so we can look at this,” she said.

Dr. Petri has worked with numerous companies.

[email protected]

Pharmacists in Oregon with the authority to prescribe hormonal contraceptive therapy have improved access to and continuation of contraceptive therapy, based on two retrospective studies of Medicaid patients published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

Additionally, the safety profile associated with pharmacist prescribing of hormonal contraceptive therapy was on par with that of other prescribing clinicians.

“In the first 2 years of program implementation, we found evidence that pharmacists were safely reaching new contraceptive users and [helping to meet national goals in reducing unwanted pregnancy],” Lorinda Anderson, PharmD, and colleagues, the authors of one of the studies, wrote.

In 2016, Oregon became the first state to grant pharmacists authority to prescribe hormonal contraception without requiring consultation. The findings suggest that expanding prescribing authority for contraceptive therapy to pharmacists in other states could limit barriers to access, as 90% of United States residents live within 5 miles of a pharmacy.

In one of the two studies, Maria I. Rodriguez, MD, MPH, and colleagues conducted a claims-based review of the primary outcomes of pharmacist-initiated and non-pharmacist-initiated prescriptions on unintended pregnancies in Oregon’s Medicaid program. They also evaluated secondary outcomes, such as costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs).

In the first 2 years after the Oregon law went into effect, 248 pharmacists wrote 1,313, or 10%, of all hormonal contraception prescriptions for women who were Medicaid recipients and were prescribed hormonal contraception by any legally allowed healthcare provider. Pharmacists prescribed hormonal contraception for 367 of the 3,614 women studied.

Based on an economic model, pharmacist-initiated hormonal contraceptive therapy prevented an estimated 51 unintended pregnancies and saved $1.6 million in the first two years following the program’s inception in Oregon. Quality of life improved with 158 QALYs per 198,100 women.

Additionally, pharmacist-provided services cost less per patient than non pharmacist health care provider-services, $28 vs. $81.

“We believe our findings to be conservative given that our model was based on use 24 months after implementation. We expect over time that knowledge of and use of contraceptive access from pharmacists will increase,” Dr. Rodriguez, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and colleagues wrote.

In the second study, Dr. Anderson, of the Oregon State University, Corvallis, and colleagues pooled Oregon Medicaid pharmacy claims, eligibility, medical, diagnostic, and demographic data over the 2-year period for the 3,614 patients who received new prescriptions for transdermal and oral contraception, and the 1,313 claims filed for 367 women prescribed contraception by 162 pharmacists.

Within the first 4 months following the program’s inception in Oregon, pharmacists averaged 40 contraceptive claims per month. Over the next 7 months, claims increased to 61 and peaked at 80 claims after 18 months. Chain community pharmacies accounted for 94% of the claims; 71% of claims were in metropolitan areas.

Based on demographics, 73.8% of the women who were prescribed contraception by a pharmacist were first-time recipients. Combined oral contraception was prescribed for 90.5% of the women, and 82% of the women were 18-35 years of age. In the 180-day period prior to receiving pharmacist-prescribed contraception, 61.5% of patients were not using contraception but were attempting to engage in pharmacy-provided hormonal contraceptive care.

The researchers also examined contraceptive safety by looking at whether patients with medical contraindications (Medical Eligibility Criteria Category 3 or 4) were receiving contraindicated methods. “We found that overall adherence to the clinical algorithm for prescribing pharmacists was high. Only 12 (5%) patients were identified as having Medical Eligibility Criteria Category 3 or 4 medical conditions, and two (less than 1%) patients with medications contraindicating OC use received a prescription,” Dr. Anderson and her colleagues wrote.

They noted that the initial legislation passed in Oregon only included oral and transdermal hormonal contraception as methods pharmacists could prescribe. In 2017, with implementation in 2018, this was amended to include the vaginal ring and injection. “As the program matures, and contracts with additional insurers are implemented at pharmacies, we expect the number of pharmacist prescriptions to increase,” the authors wrote.

Dr. Rodriguez reported financial compensation from Merck, the World Health Organization, CooperSurgical, and a previous relationship with Merck. Dr. Anderson reports no conflicts of interest.

SOURCES: Rodriguez M et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Jun;133(6):1238-46; Anderson A et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Jun;133(6):1231-7.


 

Pharmacists in Oregon with the authority to prescribe hormonal contraceptive therapy have improved access to and continuation of contraceptive therapy, based on two retrospective studies of Medicaid patients published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

Additionally, the safety profile associated with pharmacist prescribing of hormonal contraceptive therapy was on par with that of other prescribing clinicians.

“In the first 2 years of program implementation, we found evidence that pharmacists were safely reaching new contraceptive users and [helping to meet national goals in reducing unwanted pregnancy],” Lorinda Anderson, PharmD, and colleagues, the authors of one of the studies, wrote.

In 2016, Oregon became the first state to grant pharmacists authority to prescribe hormonal contraception without requiring consultation. The findings suggest that expanding prescribing authority for contraceptive therapy to pharmacists in other states could limit barriers to access, as 90% of United States residents live within 5 miles of a pharmacy.

In one of the two studies, Maria I. Rodriguez, MD, MPH, and colleagues conducted a claims-based review of the primary outcomes of pharmacist-initiated and non-pharmacist-initiated prescriptions on unintended pregnancies in Oregon’s Medicaid program. They also evaluated secondary outcomes, such as costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs).

In the first 2 years after the Oregon law went into effect, 248 pharmacists wrote 1,313, or 10%, of all hormonal contraception prescriptions for women who were Medicaid recipients and were prescribed hormonal contraception by any legally allowed healthcare provider. Pharmacists prescribed hormonal contraception for 367 of the 3,614 women studied.

Based on an economic model, pharmacist-initiated hormonal contraceptive therapy prevented an estimated 51 unintended pregnancies and saved $1.6 million in the first two years following the program’s inception in Oregon. Quality of life improved with 158 QALYs per 198,100 women.

Additionally, pharmacist-provided services cost less per patient than non pharmacist health care provider-services, $28 vs. $81.

“We believe our findings to be conservative given that our model was based on use 24 months after implementation. We expect over time that knowledge of and use of contraceptive access from pharmacists will increase,” Dr. Rodriguez, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and colleagues wrote.

In the second study, Dr. Anderson, of the Oregon State University, Corvallis, and colleagues pooled Oregon Medicaid pharmacy claims, eligibility, medical, diagnostic, and demographic data over the 2-year period for the 3,614 patients who received new prescriptions for transdermal and oral contraception, and the 1,313 claims filed for 367 women prescribed contraception by 162 pharmacists.

Within the first 4 months following the program’s inception in Oregon, pharmacists averaged 40 contraceptive claims per month. Over the next 7 months, claims increased to 61 and peaked at 80 claims after 18 months. Chain community pharmacies accounted for 94% of the claims; 71% of claims were in metropolitan areas.

Based on demographics, 73.8% of the women who were prescribed contraception by a pharmacist were first-time recipients. Combined oral contraception was prescribed for 90.5% of the women, and 82% of the women were 18-35 years of age. In the 180-day period prior to receiving pharmacist-prescribed contraception, 61.5% of patients were not using contraception but were attempting to engage in pharmacy-provided hormonal contraceptive care.

The researchers also examined contraceptive safety by looking at whether patients with medical contraindications (Medical Eligibility Criteria Category 3 or 4) were receiving contraindicated methods. “We found that overall adherence to the clinical algorithm for prescribing pharmacists was high. Only 12 (5%) patients were identified as having Medical Eligibility Criteria Category 3 or 4 medical conditions, and two (less than 1%) patients with medications contraindicating OC use received a prescription,” Dr. Anderson and her colleagues wrote.

They noted that the initial legislation passed in Oregon only included oral and transdermal hormonal contraception as methods pharmacists could prescribe. In 2017, with implementation in 2018, this was amended to include the vaginal ring and injection. “As the program matures, and contracts with additional insurers are implemented at pharmacies, we expect the number of pharmacist prescriptions to increase,” the authors wrote.

Dr. Rodriguez reported financial compensation from Merck, the World Health Organization, CooperSurgical, and a previous relationship with Merck. Dr. Anderson reports no conflicts of interest.

SOURCES: Rodriguez M et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Jun;133(6):1238-46; Anderson A et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Jun;133(6):1231-7.


 

Pharmacists in Oregon with the authority to prescribe hormonal contraceptive therapy have improved access to and continuation of contraceptive therapy, based on two retrospective studies of Medicaid patients published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

Additionally, the safety profile associated with pharmacist prescribing of hormonal contraceptive therapy was on par with that of other prescribing clinicians.

“In the first 2 years of program implementation, we found evidence that pharmacists were safely reaching new contraceptive users and [helping to meet national goals in reducing unwanted pregnancy],” Lorinda Anderson, PharmD, and colleagues, the authors of one of the studies, wrote.

In 2016, Oregon became the first state to grant pharmacists authority to prescribe hormonal contraception without requiring consultation. The findings suggest that expanding prescribing authority for contraceptive therapy to pharmacists in other states could limit barriers to access, as 90% of United States residents live within 5 miles of a pharmacy.

In one of the two studies, Maria I. Rodriguez, MD, MPH, and colleagues conducted a claims-based review of the primary outcomes of pharmacist-initiated and non-pharmacist-initiated prescriptions on unintended pregnancies in Oregon’s Medicaid program. They also evaluated secondary outcomes, such as costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs).

In the first 2 years after the Oregon law went into effect, 248 pharmacists wrote 1,313, or 10%, of all hormonal contraception prescriptions for women who were Medicaid recipients and were prescribed hormonal contraception by any legally allowed healthcare provider. Pharmacists prescribed hormonal contraception for 367 of the 3,614 women studied.

Based on an economic model, pharmacist-initiated hormonal contraceptive therapy prevented an estimated 51 unintended pregnancies and saved $1.6 million in the first two years following the program’s inception in Oregon. Quality of life improved with 158 QALYs per 198,100 women.

Additionally, pharmacist-provided services cost less per patient than non pharmacist health care provider-services, $28 vs. $81.

“We believe our findings to be conservative given that our model was based on use 24 months after implementation. We expect over time that knowledge of and use of contraceptive access from pharmacists will increase,” Dr. Rodriguez, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and colleagues wrote.

In the second study, Dr. Anderson, of the Oregon State University, Corvallis, and colleagues pooled Oregon Medicaid pharmacy claims, eligibility, medical, diagnostic, and demographic data over the 2-year period for the 3,614 patients who received new prescriptions for transdermal and oral contraception, and the 1,313 claims filed for 367 women prescribed contraception by 162 pharmacists.

Within the first 4 months following the program’s inception in Oregon, pharmacists averaged 40 contraceptive claims per month. Over the next 7 months, claims increased to 61 and peaked at 80 claims after 18 months. Chain community pharmacies accounted for 94% of the claims; 71% of claims were in metropolitan areas.

Based on demographics, 73.8% of the women who were prescribed contraception by a pharmacist were first-time recipients. Combined oral contraception was prescribed for 90.5% of the women, and 82% of the women were 18-35 years of age. In the 180-day period prior to receiving pharmacist-prescribed contraception, 61.5% of patients were not using contraception but were attempting to engage in pharmacy-provided hormonal contraceptive care.

The researchers also examined contraceptive safety by looking at whether patients with medical contraindications (Medical Eligibility Criteria Category 3 or 4) were receiving contraindicated methods. “We found that overall adherence to the clinical algorithm for prescribing pharmacists was high. Only 12 (5%) patients were identified as having Medical Eligibility Criteria Category 3 or 4 medical conditions, and two (less than 1%) patients with medications contraindicating OC use received a prescription,” Dr. Anderson and her colleagues wrote.

They noted that the initial legislation passed in Oregon only included oral and transdermal hormonal contraception as methods pharmacists could prescribe. In 2017, with implementation in 2018, this was amended to include the vaginal ring and injection. “As the program matures, and contracts with additional insurers are implemented at pharmacies, we expect the number of pharmacist prescriptions to increase,” the authors wrote.

Dr. Rodriguez reported financial compensation from Merck, the World Health Organization, CooperSurgical, and a previous relationship with Merck. Dr. Anderson reports no conflicts of interest.

SOURCES: Rodriguez M et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Jun;133(6):1238-46; Anderson A et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Jun;133(6):1231-7.


 

LJUBLJANA, SLOVENIA – Delivery by C-section – especially when elective – carries a significantly higher hospitalization risk for severe infection in the first 5 years of life than vaginal delivery in a study of nearly 7.3 million singleton deliveries in four asset-rich countries, David Burgner, MD, PhD, reported at the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“This is something that obstetricians might need to consider when discussing with the family the pros and cons for an elective C-section, particularly one that isn’t otherwise indicated for the baby or the mother,” said Dr. Burgner of the Murdoch Children’s Research Institute in Melbourne.

He presented an observational study of 7.29 million singleton births in Denmark, Great Britain, Scotland, and two Australian states during 1996-2015. C-section rates ranged from a low of 17.5% in Denmark to 29.4% in Western Australia, all of which are greater than the 10%-15% rate endorsed by the World Health Organization. Elective C-section rates varied by country from 39% to 57%. Of note, pediatric hospital care in all four countries is free, so economic considerations didn’t drive admission.

The impetus for this international collaboration was to gain new insight into the differential susceptibility to childhood infection, he explained.

“We know from our clinical practice that pretty much all of the children are exposed to pretty much all potentially serious pathogens during early life. And yet it’s only a minority that develop severe infection. It’s an extremely interesting scientific question and an extremely important clinical question as to what’s driving that differential susceptibility,” according to the pediatric infectious disease specialist.

There are a number of established risk factors for infection-related hospitalization in children, including parental smoking, maternal antibiotic exposure during pregnancy, and growth measurements at birth. Dr. Burgner and coinvestigators hypothesized that another important risk factor is the nature of the microbiome transmitted from mother to baby during delivery. This postnatal microbiome varies depending upon mode of delivery: Vaginal delivery transmits the maternal enteric microbiome, which they reasoned might be through direct immunomodulation that sets up protective immune responses early in life, especially against respiratory and gastrointestinal tract infections. In contrast, delivery by C-section causes the baby to pick up the maternal skin and hospital environment microbiomes, but not the maternal enteric microbiome.

Thus, the investigators hypothesized that C-section poses a greater risk of infection-related hospitalization during the first 5 years of life than does vaginal delivery, and that elective C-section poses a higher risk than does emergency C-section because it is more likely to involve rupture of membranes.

The center-specific rates of C-section and infection-related pediatric infection, when combined into a meta-analysis, bore out the study hypothesis. Emergency C-section was associated with a 9% greater risk of infection-related hospitalization through 5 years of age than was vaginal delivery, while elective C-section was associated with a 13% increased risk, both of which were statistically significant and clinically important.

“We were quite taken with these results. We think they provide evidence that C-section is consistently associated with infection-related hospitalization. It’s an association study that can’t prove causality, but the results implicate the postnatal microbiome as the most plausible explanation in terms of what’s driving this association,” according to Dr. Burgner.

The association between C-section and infection-related hospitalization was persistent throughout the preschool years. For example, the increased risk associated with elective C-section was 16% during age 0-3 months, 20% during months 4-6, 14% in months 7-12, 13% during ages 1-2 years, and 11% among 2- to 5-year-olds, he continued.

The increased risk of severe preschool infection was highest for upper and lower respiratory tract and gastrointestinal infections, which involve the organ systems most likely to experience direct inoculation of the maternal microbiome, he noted.

Because the investigators recognized that the study results were potentially vulnerable to confounding by indication – that is, that the reason for doing a C-section might itself confer increased risk of subsequent preschool infection-related hospitalization – they repeated their analysis in a predefined low-risk subpopulation. The results closely mirrored those in the overall study population: an 8% increased risk in the emergency C-section group and a 14% increased risk with elective C-section.

Results of this large multinational study should provide further support for ongoing research aimed at supporting the infant microbiome after delivery by C-section via vaginal microbial transfer and other methods, he observed.

Dr. Burgner reported having no financial conflicts regarding the study, which was cosponsored by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, the Danish Council for Independent Research, and nonprofit foundations.

[email protected]
 

LJUBLJANA, SLOVENIA – Delivery by C-section – especially when elective – carries a significantly higher hospitalization risk for severe infection in the first 5 years of life than vaginal delivery in a study of nearly 7.3 million singleton deliveries in four asset-rich countries, David Burgner, MD, PhD, reported at the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“This is something that obstetricians might need to consider when discussing with the family the pros and cons for an elective C-section, particularly one that isn’t otherwise indicated for the baby or the mother,” said Dr. Burgner of the Murdoch Children’s Research Institute in Melbourne.

He presented an observational study of 7.29 million singleton births in Denmark, Great Britain, Scotland, and two Australian states during 1996-2015. C-section rates ranged from a low of 17.5% in Denmark to 29.4% in Western Australia, all of which are greater than the 10%-15% rate endorsed by the World Health Organization. Elective C-section rates varied by country from 39% to 57%. Of note, pediatric hospital care in all four countries is free, so economic considerations didn’t drive admission.

The impetus for this international collaboration was to gain new insight into the differential susceptibility to childhood infection, he explained.

“We know from our clinical practice that pretty much all of the children are exposed to pretty much all potentially serious pathogens during early life. And yet it’s only a minority that develop severe infection. It’s an extremely interesting scientific question and an extremely important clinical question as to what’s driving that differential susceptibility,” according to the pediatric infectious disease specialist.

There are a number of established risk factors for infection-related hospitalization in children, including parental smoking, maternal antibiotic exposure during pregnancy, and growth measurements at birth. Dr. Burgner and coinvestigators hypothesized that another important risk factor is the nature of the microbiome transmitted from mother to baby during delivery. This postnatal microbiome varies depending upon mode of delivery: Vaginal delivery transmits the maternal enteric microbiome, which they reasoned might be through direct immunomodulation that sets up protective immune responses early in life, especially against respiratory and gastrointestinal tract infections. In contrast, delivery by C-section causes the baby to pick up the maternal skin and hospital environment microbiomes, but not the maternal enteric microbiome.

Thus, the investigators hypothesized that C-section poses a greater risk of infection-related hospitalization during the first 5 years of life than does vaginal delivery, and that elective C-section poses a higher risk than does emergency C-section because it is more likely to involve rupture of membranes.

The center-specific rates of C-section and infection-related pediatric infection, when combined into a meta-analysis, bore out the study hypothesis. Emergency C-section was associated with a 9% greater risk of infection-related hospitalization through 5 years of age than was vaginal delivery, while elective C-section was associated with a 13% increased risk, both of which were statistically significant and clinically important.

“We were quite taken with these results. We think they provide evidence that C-section is consistently associated with infection-related hospitalization. It’s an association study that can’t prove causality, but the results implicate the postnatal microbiome as the most plausible explanation in terms of what’s driving this association,” according to Dr. Burgner.

The association between C-section and infection-related hospitalization was persistent throughout the preschool years. For example, the increased risk associated with elective C-section was 16% during age 0-3 months, 20% during months 4-6, 14% in months 7-12, 13% during ages 1-2 years, and 11% among 2- to 5-year-olds, he continued.

The increased risk of severe preschool infection was highest for upper and lower respiratory tract and gastrointestinal infections, which involve the organ systems most likely to experience direct inoculation of the maternal microbiome, he noted.

Because the investigators recognized that the study results were potentially vulnerable to confounding by indication – that is, that the reason for doing a C-section might itself confer increased risk of subsequent preschool infection-related hospitalization – they repeated their analysis in a predefined low-risk subpopulation. The results closely mirrored those in the overall study population: an 8% increased risk in the emergency C-section group and a 14% increased risk with elective C-section.

Results of this large multinational study should provide further support for ongoing research aimed at supporting the infant microbiome after delivery by C-section via vaginal microbial transfer and other methods, he observed.

Dr. Burgner reported having no financial conflicts regarding the study, which was cosponsored by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, the Danish Council for Independent Research, and nonprofit foundations.

[email protected]
 

LJUBLJANA, SLOVENIA – Delivery by C-section – especially when elective – carries a significantly higher hospitalization risk for severe infection in the first 5 years of life than vaginal delivery in a study of nearly 7.3 million singleton deliveries in four asset-rich countries, David Burgner, MD, PhD, reported at the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“This is something that obstetricians might need to consider when discussing with the family the pros and cons for an elective C-section, particularly one that isn’t otherwise indicated for the baby or the mother,” said Dr. Burgner of the Murdoch Children’s Research Institute in Melbourne.

He presented an observational study of 7.29 million singleton births in Denmark, Great Britain, Scotland, and two Australian states during 1996-2015. C-section rates ranged from a low of 17.5% in Denmark to 29.4% in Western Australia, all of which are greater than the 10%-15% rate endorsed by the World Health Organization. Elective C-section rates varied by country from 39% to 57%. Of note, pediatric hospital care in all four countries is free, so economic considerations didn’t drive admission.

The impetus for this international collaboration was to gain new insight into the differential susceptibility to childhood infection, he explained.

“We know from our clinical practice that pretty much all of the children are exposed to pretty much all potentially serious pathogens during early life. And yet it’s only a minority that develop severe infection. It’s an extremely interesting scientific question and an extremely important clinical question as to what’s driving that differential susceptibility,” according to the pediatric infectious disease specialist.

There are a number of established risk factors for infection-related hospitalization in children, including parental smoking, maternal antibiotic exposure during pregnancy, and growth measurements at birth. Dr. Burgner and coinvestigators hypothesized that another important risk factor is the nature of the microbiome transmitted from mother to baby during delivery. This postnatal microbiome varies depending upon mode of delivery: Vaginal delivery transmits the maternal enteric microbiome, which they reasoned might be through direct immunomodulation that sets up protective immune responses early in life, especially against respiratory and gastrointestinal tract infections. In contrast, delivery by C-section causes the baby to pick up the maternal skin and hospital environment microbiomes, but not the maternal enteric microbiome.

Thus, the investigators hypothesized that C-section poses a greater risk of infection-related hospitalization during the first 5 years of life than does vaginal delivery, and that elective C-section poses a higher risk than does emergency C-section because it is more likely to involve rupture of membranes.

The center-specific rates of C-section and infection-related pediatric infection, when combined into a meta-analysis, bore out the study hypothesis. Emergency C-section was associated with a 9% greater risk of infection-related hospitalization through 5 years of age than was vaginal delivery, while elective C-section was associated with a 13% increased risk, both of which were statistically significant and clinically important.

“We were quite taken with these results. We think they provide evidence that C-section is consistently associated with infection-related hospitalization. It’s an association study that can’t prove causality, but the results implicate the postnatal microbiome as the most plausible explanation in terms of what’s driving this association,” according to Dr. Burgner.

The association between C-section and infection-related hospitalization was persistent throughout the preschool years. For example, the increased risk associated with elective C-section was 16% during age 0-3 months, 20% during months 4-6, 14% in months 7-12, 13% during ages 1-2 years, and 11% among 2- to 5-year-olds, he continued.

The increased risk of severe preschool infection was highest for upper and lower respiratory tract and gastrointestinal infections, which involve the organ systems most likely to experience direct inoculation of the maternal microbiome, he noted.

Because the investigators recognized that the study results were potentially vulnerable to confounding by indication – that is, that the reason for doing a C-section might itself confer increased risk of subsequent preschool infection-related hospitalization – they repeated their analysis in a predefined low-risk subpopulation. The results closely mirrored those in the overall study population: an 8% increased risk in the emergency C-section group and a 14% increased risk with elective C-section.

Results of this large multinational study should provide further support for ongoing research aimed at supporting the infant microbiome after delivery by C-section via vaginal microbial transfer and other methods, he observed.

Dr. Burgner reported having no financial conflicts regarding the study, which was cosponsored by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, the Danish Council for Independent Research, and nonprofit foundations.

[email protected]
 

According to the World Health Organization, there were about 219 million cases of malaria and an estimated 660,000 deaths in 2010. Although huge, this was a 26% decrease from the rates in 2000. Six countries in Africa account for 47% of malaria cases: Cote d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Mozambique, Nigeria, Uganda, and the United Republic of Tanzania. The second-most affected region in the world is Southeast Asia, which includes Myanmar, India, and Indonesia. In comparison, about 1,500 malaria cases and 5 deaths are reported annually in the United States, mostly from returned travelers.

Courtesy NIAID

It is extremely important for any woman that is or might be pregnant or breastfeeding to take an antimalarial drug for protection if they will be traveling in any of the above regions. Malaria during pregnancy increases the risk for adverse pregnancy outcomes, including maternal anemia, prematurity, spontaneous abortion, and stillbirth.

As stated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, no antimalarial agent is 100% protective. Therefore, whatever agent is used must be combined with personal protective measures such as wearing insect repellent, long sleeves, and long pants; sleeping in a mosquito-free setting; or using an insecticide-treated bed net.

There are nine antimalarial drugs available in the United States.

Atovaquone/Proguanil Hcl (Malarone and as generic)

This agent is good for last-minute travelers because the drug is started 1-2 days before traveling to areas where malaria transmission occurs. The combination can be classified as compatible in pregnancy. No reports in breastfeeding with atovaquone or the combination have been found. Proguanil is not available in the United States as a single agent.

Chloroquine (generic)

This is the drug of choice to prevent and treat sensitive malaria species during pregnancy. The drug crosses the placenta producing fetal concentrations that are similar to those in the mother. The drug appears to be low risk for embryo-fetal harm.

It is compatible in breastfeeding.

Dapsone (generic)

This agent does not appear to represent a major risk of harm to the fetus. Although it has been used in combination with pyrimethamine (an antiparasitic) or trimethoprim (an antibiotic) to prevent malaria, the efficacy of the combination has not been confirmed.

In breastfeeding, there is one case of mild hemolytic anemia in the mother and her breastfeeding infant that may have been caused by the drug.

Hydroxychloroquine (generic)

This agent is used for the treatment of malaria, systemic erythematosus, and rheumatoid arthritis. For antimalarial prophylaxis, 400 mg/week appears to be low risk for embryo-fetal harm. Doses used to treat malaria have been 200-400 mg/day.

Because very low concentrations of the drug have been found in breast milk, breastfeeding is probably compatible.

Mefloquine (generic)

This agent is a quinoline-methanol agent that does not appear to cause embryo-fetal harm based on a large number of pregnancy exposures.

There are no reports of its use while breastfeeding.

Primaquine (generic)

This agent is best avoided in pregnancy. There is no human pregnancy data, but it may cause hemolytic anemia in patients with glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency (G6PD). Because the fetus is relatively G6PD deficient, it is best avoided in pregnancy regardless of the mother’s status.

There are no reports describing the use of the drug during lactation. Both the mother and baby should be tested for G6PD deficiency before the drug is used during breastfeeding.

Pyrimethamine (generic)

This agent has been used for the treatment or prophylaxis of malaria. Most studies have found this agent to be relatively safe and effective.

It is excreted into breast milk and has been effective in eliminating malaria parasites from breastfeeding infants.

Quinidine (generic)

Reports linking the use of this agent with congenital defects have not been found. Although the drug has data on its use as an antiarrhythmic, its published use to treat malaria is limited.

The drug is excreted into breast milk, but there are no reports of its during breastfeeding.

Quinine (generic)

This agent has a large amount of human pregnancy data (more than 1,000 exposures) that found no increased risk of birth defects. The drug has been replaced by newer agents but still may be used for chloroquine-resistant malaria.

The drug appears to be compatible during breastfeeding.

Mr. Briggs is clinical professor of pharmacy at the University of California, San Francisco, and adjunct professor of pharmacy at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, as well as at Washington State University, Spokane. Mr. Briggs said he had no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at [email protected].

According to the World Health Organization, there were about 219 million cases of malaria and an estimated 660,000 deaths in 2010. Although huge, this was a 26% decrease from the rates in 2000. Six countries in Africa account for 47% of malaria cases: Cote d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Mozambique, Nigeria, Uganda, and the United Republic of Tanzania. The second-most affected region in the world is Southeast Asia, which includes Myanmar, India, and Indonesia. In comparison, about 1,500 malaria cases and 5 deaths are reported annually in the United States, mostly from returned travelers.

Courtesy NIAID

It is extremely important for any woman that is or might be pregnant or breastfeeding to take an antimalarial drug for protection if they will be traveling in any of the above regions. Malaria during pregnancy increases the risk for adverse pregnancy outcomes, including maternal anemia, prematurity, spontaneous abortion, and stillbirth.

As stated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, no antimalarial agent is 100% protective. Therefore, whatever agent is used must be combined with personal protective measures such as wearing insect repellent, long sleeves, and long pants; sleeping in a mosquito-free setting; or using an insecticide-treated bed net.

There are nine antimalarial drugs available in the United States.

Atovaquone/Proguanil Hcl (Malarone and as generic)

This agent is good for last-minute travelers because the drug is started 1-2 days before traveling to areas where malaria transmission occurs. The combination can be classified as compatible in pregnancy. No reports in breastfeeding with atovaquone or the combination have been found. Proguanil is not available in the United States as a single agent.

Chloroquine (generic)

This is the drug of choice to prevent and treat sensitive malaria species during pregnancy. The drug crosses the placenta producing fetal concentrations that are similar to those in the mother. The drug appears to be low risk for embryo-fetal harm.

It is compatible in breastfeeding.

Dapsone (generic)

This agent does not appear to represent a major risk of harm to the fetus. Although it has been used in combination with pyrimethamine (an antiparasitic) or trimethoprim (an antibiotic) to prevent malaria, the efficacy of the combination has not been confirmed.

In breastfeeding, there is one case of mild hemolytic anemia in the mother and her breastfeeding infant that may have been caused by the drug.

Hydroxychloroquine (generic)

This agent is used for the treatment of malaria, systemic erythematosus, and rheumatoid arthritis. For antimalarial prophylaxis, 400 mg/week appears to be low risk for embryo-fetal harm. Doses used to treat malaria have been 200-400 mg/day.

Because very low concentrations of the drug have been found in breast milk, breastfeeding is probably compatible.

Mefloquine (generic)

This agent is a quinoline-methanol agent that does not appear to cause embryo-fetal harm based on a large number of pregnancy exposures.

There are no reports of its use while breastfeeding.

Primaquine (generic)

This agent is best avoided in pregnancy. There is no human pregnancy data, but it may cause hemolytic anemia in patients with glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency (G6PD). Because the fetus is relatively G6PD deficient, it is best avoided in pregnancy regardless of the mother’s status.

There are no reports describing the use of the drug during lactation. Both the mother and baby should be tested for G6PD deficiency before the drug is used during breastfeeding.

Pyrimethamine (generic)

This agent has been used for the treatment or prophylaxis of malaria. Most studies have found this agent to be relatively safe and effective.

It is excreted into breast milk and has been effective in eliminating malaria parasites from breastfeeding infants.

Quinidine (generic)

Reports linking the use of this agent with congenital defects have not been found. Although the drug has data on its use as an antiarrhythmic, its published use to treat malaria is limited.

The drug is excreted into breast milk, but there are no reports of its during breastfeeding.

Quinine (generic)

This agent has a large amount of human pregnancy data (more than 1,000 exposures) that found no increased risk of birth defects. The drug has been replaced by newer agents but still may be used for chloroquine-resistant malaria.

The drug appears to be compatible during breastfeeding.

Mr. Briggs is clinical professor of pharmacy at the University of California, San Francisco, and adjunct professor of pharmacy at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, as well as at Washington State University, Spokane. Mr. Briggs said he had no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at [email protected].

According to the World Health Organization, there were about 219 million cases of malaria and an estimated 660,000 deaths in 2010. Although huge, this was a 26% decrease from the rates in 2000. Six countries in Africa account for 47% of malaria cases: Cote d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Mozambique, Nigeria, Uganda, and the United Republic of Tanzania. The second-most affected region in the world is Southeast Asia, which includes Myanmar, India, and Indonesia. In comparison, about 1,500 malaria cases and 5 deaths are reported annually in the United States, mostly from returned travelers.

Courtesy NIAID

It is extremely important for any woman that is or might be pregnant or breastfeeding to take an antimalarial drug for protection if they will be traveling in any of the above regions. Malaria during pregnancy increases the risk for adverse pregnancy outcomes, including maternal anemia, prematurity, spontaneous abortion, and stillbirth.

As stated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, no antimalarial agent is 100% protective. Therefore, whatever agent is used must be combined with personal protective measures such as wearing insect repellent, long sleeves, and long pants; sleeping in a mosquito-free setting; or using an insecticide-treated bed net.

There are nine antimalarial drugs available in the United States.

Atovaquone/Proguanil Hcl (Malarone and as generic)

This agent is good for last-minute travelers because the drug is started 1-2 days before traveling to areas where malaria transmission occurs. The combination can be classified as compatible in pregnancy. No reports in breastfeeding with atovaquone or the combination have been found. Proguanil is not available in the United States as a single agent.

Chloroquine (generic)

This is the drug of choice to prevent and treat sensitive malaria species during pregnancy. The drug crosses the placenta producing fetal concentrations that are similar to those in the mother. The drug appears to be low risk for embryo-fetal harm.

It is compatible in breastfeeding.

Dapsone (generic)

This agent does not appear to represent a major risk of harm to the fetus. Although it has been used in combination with pyrimethamine (an antiparasitic) or trimethoprim (an antibiotic) to prevent malaria, the efficacy of the combination has not been confirmed.

In breastfeeding, there is one case of mild hemolytic anemia in the mother and her breastfeeding infant that may have been caused by the drug.

Hydroxychloroquine (generic)

This agent is used for the treatment of malaria, systemic erythematosus, and rheumatoid arthritis. For antimalarial prophylaxis, 400 mg/week appears to be low risk for embryo-fetal harm. Doses used to treat malaria have been 200-400 mg/day.

Because very low concentrations of the drug have been found in breast milk, breastfeeding is probably compatible.

Mefloquine (generic)

This agent is a quinoline-methanol agent that does not appear to cause embryo-fetal harm based on a large number of pregnancy exposures.

There are no reports of its use while breastfeeding.

Primaquine (generic)

This agent is best avoided in pregnancy. There is no human pregnancy data, but it may cause hemolytic anemia in patients with glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency (G6PD). Because the fetus is relatively G6PD deficient, it is best avoided in pregnancy regardless of the mother’s status.

There are no reports describing the use of the drug during lactation. Both the mother and baby should be tested for G6PD deficiency before the drug is used during breastfeeding.

Pyrimethamine (generic)

This agent has been used for the treatment or prophylaxis of malaria. Most studies have found this agent to be relatively safe and effective.

It is excreted into breast milk and has been effective in eliminating malaria parasites from breastfeeding infants.

Quinidine (generic)

Reports linking the use of this agent with congenital defects have not been found. Although the drug has data on its use as an antiarrhythmic, its published use to treat malaria is limited.

The drug is excreted into breast milk, but there are no reports of its during breastfeeding.

Quinine (generic)

This agent has a large amount of human pregnancy data (more than 1,000 exposures) that found no increased risk of birth defects. The drug has been replaced by newer agents but still may be used for chloroquine-resistant malaria.

The drug appears to be compatible during breastfeeding.

Mr. Briggs is clinical professor of pharmacy at the University of California, San Francisco, and adjunct professor of pharmacy at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, as well as at Washington State University, Spokane. Mr. Briggs said he had no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at [email protected].