Women's Health

When treating high blood pressure, how low should we try to go? Debate continues about optimal blood pressure goals after publication of guidelines from the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) in 2017 that set or permitted a treatment goal of less than 130 mm Hg, depending on the population.¹

In this article, we summarize the evolution of hypertension guidelines and the evidence behind them.

HOW THE GOALS EVOLVED

JNC 7, 2003: 140/90 or 130/80

The seventh report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC 7),² published in 2003, specified treatment goals of:

• < 140/90 mm Hg for most patients
• < 130/80 mm Hg for those with diabetes or chronic kidney disease.

JNC 7 provided much-needed clarity and uniformity to managing hypertension. Since then, various scientific groups have published their own guidelines (Table 1).^1–9

ACC/AHA/CDC 2014: 140/90

In 2014, the ACC, AHA, and US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published an evidence-based algorithm for hypertension management.³ As in JNC 7, they suggested a blood pressure goal of less than 140/90 mm Hg, lifestyle modification, and polytherapy, eg, a thiazide diuretic for stage 1 hypertension (< 160/100 mm Hg) and combination therapy with a thiazide diuretic and an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor, angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB), or calcium channel blocker for stage 2 hypertension (≥ 160/100 mm Hg).

JNC 8 2014: 140/90 or 150/90

Soon after, the much-anticipated report of the panel members appointed to the eighth JNC (JNC 8) was published.⁴ Previous JNC reports were written and published under the auspices of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, but while the JNC 8 report was being prepared, this government body announced it would no longer publish guidelines.

In contrast to JNC 7, the JNC 8 panel based its recommendations on a systematic review of randomized clinical trials. However, the process and methodology were controversial, especially as the panel excluded some important clinical trials from the analysis.

JNC 8 relaxed the targets in several subgroups, such as patients over age 60 and those with diabetes and chronic kidney disease, due to a lack of definitive evidence on the impact of blood pressure targets lower than 140/90 mm Hg in these groups. Thus, their goals were:

• < 140/90 mm Hg for patients under age 60
• < 150/90 mm Hg for patients age 60 and older.

Of note, a minority of the JNC 8 panel disagreed with the new targets and provided evidence for keeping the systolic blood pressure target below 140 mm Hg for patients 60 and older.⁵ Further, the JNC 8 report was not endorsed by several important societies, ie, the AHA, ACC, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, and American Society of Hypertension (ASH). These issues compromised the acceptance and applicability of the guidelines.

ASH/ISH 2014: 140/90 or 150/90

Also in 2014, the ASH and the International Society of Hypertension released their own report.⁶ Their goals:

• < 140/90 mm Hg for most patients
• < 150/90 mm Hg for patients age 80 and older.

AHA/ACC/ASH 2015: Goals in subgroups

In 2015, the AHA, ACC, and ASH released a joint scientific statement outlining hypertension goals for specific patient populations⁷:

• < 150/90 mm Hg for those age 80 and older
• < 140/90 mm Hg for those with coronary artery disease
• < 130/80 mm Hg for those with comorbidities such as diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

ADA 2016: Goals for patients with diabetes

In 2016, the American Diabetes Association (ADA) set the following blood pressure goals for patients with diabetes⁸:

• < 140/90 mm Hg for adults with diabetes
• < 130/80 mm Hg for younger adults with diabetes and adults with a high risk of cardiovascular disease
• 120–160/80–105 mm Hg for pregnant patients with diabetes and preexisting hypertension who are treated with antihypertensive therapy.

In 2017, the American College of Physicians (ACP) and the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) recommended a relaxed systolic blood pressure target, ie, below 150 mm Hg, for adults over age 60, but a tighter goal of less than 140 mm Hg for the same age group if they have transient ischemic attack, stroke, or high cardiovascular risk.⁹

ACC/AHA 2017: 130/80

The 2017 ACC/AHA guidelines recommended a more aggressive goal of below 130/80 for all, including patients age 65 and older.¹

This is a class I (strong) recommendation for patients with known cardiovascular disease or a 10-year risk of a cardiovascular event of 10% or higher, with a B-R level of evidence for the systolic goal (ie, moderate-quality, based on systematic review of randomized controlled trials) and a C-EO level of evidence for the diastolic goal (ie, based on expert opinion).

For patients who do not have cardiovascular disease and who are at lower risk of it, this is a class IIb (weak) recommendation, ie, it “may be reasonable,” with a B-NR level of evidence (moderate-quality, based on nonrandomized studies) for the systolic goal and C-EO (expert opinion) for the diastolic goal.

For many patients, this involves drug treatment. For those with known cardiovascular disease or a 10-year risk of an atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease event of 10% or higher, the ACC/AHA guidelines say that drug treatment “is recommended” if their average blood pressure is 130/80 mm Hg or higher (class I recommendation, based on strong evidence for the systolic threshold and expert option for the diastolic). For those without cardiovascular disease and at lower risk, drug treatment is recommended if their average blood pressure is 140/90 mm Hg or higher (also class I, but based on limited data).

EVERYONE AGREES ON LIFESTYLE

Although the guidelines differ in their blood pressure targets, they consistently recommend lifestyle modifications.

Lifestyle modifications, first described in JNC 7, included weight loss, sodium restriction, and the DASH diet, which is rich in fruits, vegetables, low-fat dairy products, whole grains, poultry, and fish, and low in red meat, sweets, cholesterol, and total and saturated fat.²

These recommendations were based on results from 3 large randomized controlled trials in patients with and without hypertension.^10–12 In patients with no history of hypertension, interventions to promote weight loss and sodium restriction significantly reduced blood pressure and the incidence of hypertension (the latter by as much as 77%) compared with usual care.^10,11

In patients with and without hypertension, lowering sodium intake in conjunction with the DASH diet was associated with substantially larger reductions in systolic blood pressure.¹²

The recommendation to lower sodium intake has not changed in the guideline revisions. Meanwhile, other modifications have been added, such as incorporating both aerobic and resistance exercise and moderating alcohol intake. These recommendations have a class I level of evidence (ie, strongest level) in the 2017 ACC/AHA guidelines.¹

HYPERTENSION BEGINS AT 130/80

The definition of hypertension changed in the 2017 ACC/AHA guidelines¹: previously set at 140/90 mm Hg or higher, it is now 130/80 mm Hg or higher for all age groups. Adults with systolic blood pressure of 130 to 139 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure of 80 to 89 mm Hg are now classified as having stage 1 hypertension.

Under the new definition, the number of US adults who have hypertension expanded to 45.6% of the general population,¹³ up from 31.9% under the JNC 7 definition. Thus, overall, 103.3 million US adults now have hypertension, compared with 72.2 million under the JNC 7 criteria.

In addition, the new guidelines expanded the population of adults for whom antihypertensive drug treatment is recommended to 36.2% (81.9 million). However, this represents only a 1.9% absolute increase over the JNC 7 recommendations (34.3%) and a 5.1% absolute increase over the JNC 8 recommendations.¹⁴

SPRINT: INTENSIVE TREATMENT IS BENEFICIAL

The new ACC/AHA guidelines¹ were based on evidence from several trials, including the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT).¹⁵

This multicenter trial investigated the effect of intensive blood pressure treatment on cardiovascular disease risk.¹⁶ The primary outcome was a composite of myocardial infarction, acute coronary syndrome, stroke, and heart failure.

The trial enrolled 9,361 participants at least 50 years of age with systolic blood pressure 130 mm Hg or higher and at least 1 additional risk factor for cardiovascular disease. It excluded anyone with a history of diabetes mellitus, stroke, symptomatic heart failure, or end-stage renal disease.

Two interventions were compared: 

• Intensive treatment, with a systolic blood pressure goal of less than 120 mm Hg: the protocol called for polytherapy, even for participants who were 75 or older if their blood pressure was 140 mm Hg or higher
• Standard treatment, with a systolic blood pressure goal of less than 140 mm Hg: it used polytherapy for patients whose systolic blood pressure was 160 mm Hg or higher.

The trial was intended to last 5 years but was stopped early at a median of 3.26 years owing to a significantly lower rate of the primary composite outcome in the intensive-treatment group: 1.65% per year vs 2.19%, a 25% relative risk reduction (P < .001) or a 0.54% absolute risk reduction. We calculate the number needed to treat (NNT) for 1 year to prevent 1 event as 185, and over the 3.26 years of the trial, the investigators calculated the NNT as 61. Similarly, the rate of death from any cause was also lower with intensive treatment, 1.03% per year vs 1.40% per year, a 27% relative risk reduction (P = .003) or a 0.37% absolute risk reduction, NNT 270.

Using these findings, Bress et al¹⁶ estimated that implementing intensive blood pressure goals could prevent 107,500 deaths annually.

The downside is adverse effects. In SPRINT,¹⁵ the intensive-treatment group experienced significantly higher rates of serious adverse effects than the standard-treatment group, ie:

• Hypotension 2.4% vs 1.4%, P = .001
• Syncope 2.3% vs 1.7%, P = .05
• Electrolyte abnormalities 3.1% vs 2.3%, P = .02)
• Acute kidney injury or kidney failure 4.1% vs 2.5%, P < .001
• Any treatment-related adverse event 4.7% vs 2.5%, P = .001.

Thus, Bress et al¹⁶ estimated that fully implementing the intensive-treatment goals could cause an additional 56,100 episodes of hypotension per year, 34,400 cases of syncope, 43,400 serious electrolyte disorders, and 88,700 cases of acute kidney injury. All told, about 3 million Americans could suffer a serious adverse effect under the intensive-treatment goals.

SPRINT¹⁵ was stopped early, after 3.26 years instead of the planned 5 years. The true risk-benefit ratio may have been different if the trial had been extended longer.

In addition, SPRINT used automated office blood pressure measurements in which patients were seated alone and a device (Model 907, Omron Healthcare) took 3 blood pressure measurements at 1-minute intervals after 5 minutes of quiet rest. This was designed to reduce elevated blood pressure readings in the presence of a healthcare professional in a medical setting (ie, “white coat” hypertension).

Many physicians are still taking blood pressure manually, which tends to give higher readings. Therefore, if they aim for a lower goal, they may risk overtreating the patient.

About 50% of patients did not achieve the target systolic blood pressure (< 120 mm Hg) despite receiving an average of 2.8 antihypertensive medications in the intensive-treatment group and 1.8 in the standard-treatment group. The use of antihypertensive medications, however, was not a controlled variable in the trial, and practitioners chose the appropriate drugs for their patients.

Diastolic pressure, which can be markedly lower in older hypertensive patients, was largely ignored, although lower diastolic pressure may have contributed to higher syncope rates in response to alpha blockers and calcium blockers.

Moreover, the trial excluded those with significant comorbidities and those younger than 50 (the mean age was 67.9), which limits the generalizability of the results.

JNC 8 VS SPRINT GOALS: WHAT'S THE EFFECT ON OUTCOMES?

JNC 8⁴ recommended a relaxed target of less than 140/90 mm Hg for adults younger than 60, including those with chronic kidney disease or diabetes, and less than 150/90 mm Hg for adults 60 and older. The SPRINT findings upended those recommendations, showing that intensive treatment in adults age 75 or older significantly improved the composite cardiovascular disease outcome (2.59 vs 3.85 events per year; P < .001) and all-cause mortality (1.78 vs 2.63 events per year; P < .05) compared with standard treatment.¹⁷ Also, a subset review of SPRINT trial data found no difference in benefit based on chronic kidney disease status.¹⁸

A meta-analysis of 74 clinical trials (N = 306,273) offers a compromise between the SPRINT findings and the JNC 8 recommendations.¹⁹ It found that the beneficial effect of blood pressure treatment depended on the patient’s baseline systolic blood pressure. In those with a baseline systolic pressure of 160 mm Hg or higher, treatment reduced cardiovascular mortality by about 15% (relative risk [RR] 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77–0.95). In patients with systolic pressure below 140 mm Hg, treatment effects were neutral (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.87–1.20) and not associated with any benefit as primary prevention, although data suggest it may reduce the risk of adverse outcomes in patients with coronary heart disease.

OTHER TRIALS THAT INFLUENCED THE GUIDELINES

SHEP and HYVET (the Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly Program²⁰ and the Hypertension in the Very Elderly Trial)²¹ supported intensive blood pressure treatment for older patients by reporting a reduction in fatal and nonfatal stroke risks for those with a systolic blood pressure above 160 mm Hg.

FEVER (the Felodipine Event Reduction study)²² found that treatment with a calcium channel blocker in even a low dose can significantly decrease cardiovascular events, cardiovascular disease, and heart failure compared with no treatment.

JATOS and VALISH (the Japanese Trial to Assess Optimal Systolic Blood Pressure in Elderly Hypertensive Patients²³ and the Valsartan in Elderly Isolated Systolic Hypertension study)²⁴ found that outcomes were similar with intensive vs standard treatment.

Ettehad et al²⁵ performed a meta-analysis of 123 studies with more than 600,000 participants that provided strong evidence supporting blood pressure treatment goals below 130/90 mm Hg, in line with the SPRINT trial results.

BLOOD PRESSURE ISN’T EVERYTHING

Other trials remind us that although blood pressure is important, it is not the only factor affecting cardiovascular risk.

HOPE (the Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation)²⁶ investigated the use of ramipril (an ACE inhibitor) in preventing myocardial infarction, stroke, or cardiovascular death in patients at high risk of cardiovascular events. The study included 9,297 participants over age 55 (mean age 66) with a baseline blood pressure 139/79 mm Hg. Follow-up was 4.5 years.

Ramipril was better than placebo, with significantly fewer patients experiencing adverse end points in the ramipril group compared with the placebo group:

• Myocardial infarction 9.9% vs 12.3%, RR 0.80, P < .001
• Cardiovascular death 6.1% vs 8.1%, RR  0.74, P < .001
• Stroke 3.4% vs 4.9%, RR = .68, P < .001
• The composite end point 14.0% vs 17.8%, RR 0.78, P < .001).

Results were even better in the subset of patients who had diabetes.²⁷ However, the decrease in blood pressure attributable to anti­hypertensive therapy with ramipril was minimal (3–4 mm Hg systolic and 1–2 mm Hg diastolic). This slight change should not have been enough to produce significant differences in clinical outcomes, a major limitation of this trial. The investigators speculated that the positive results may be due to a class effect of ACE inhibitors.²⁶

HOPE 3^28–30 explored the effect of blood pressure- and cholesterol-controlling drugs on the same primary end points but in patients at intermediate risk of major cardiovascular events. Investigators randomized the 12,705 patients to 4 treatment groups:

• Blood pressure control with candesartan (an ARB) plus hydrochlorothiazide (a thiazide diuretic)
• Cholesterol control with rosuvastatin (a statin)
• Blood pressure plus cholesterol control
• Placebo.

Therapy was started at a systolic blood pressure above 140 mm Hg.

Compared with placebo, the rate of composite events was significantly reduced in the rosuvastatin group (3.7% vs 4.8%, HR 0.76, P = .002)²⁸ and the candesartan-hydrochlorothiazide-rosuvastatin group (3.6% vs 5.0%, HR 0.71; P = .005)²⁹ but not in the candesartan-hydrochlorothiazide group (4.1% vs 4.4%; HR 0.93; P = .40).³⁰

In addition, a subgroup analysis comparing active treatment vs placebo found a significant reduction in major cardiovascular events for treated patients whose baseline systolic blood pressure was in the upper third (> 143.5 mm Hg, mean 154.1 mm Hg), while treated patients in the lower middle and lower thirds had no significant reduction.³⁰

These results suggest that intensive treatment to achieve a systolic blood pressure below 140 mm Hg in patients at intermediate risk may not be helpful. Nevertheless, there seems to be agreement that intensive treatment generally leads to a reduction in cardiovascular events. The results also show the benefit of lowering cholesterol.

Bundy et al³¹ performed a meta-analysis that provides support for intensive antihypertensive treatment. Reviewing 42 clinical trials in more than 144,000 patients, they found that treating to reach a target systolic blood pressure of 120 to 124 mm Hg can reduce cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality.

The trade-off is a minimal increase in the risk of adverse events. Also, the risk-benefit ratio of intensive treatment seems to vary in different patient subgroups.

WHAT ABOUT PATIENTS WITH COMORBIDITIES?

The debate over intensive vs standard treatment in blood pressure management extends beyond hypertension and includes important comorbidities such as diabetes, stroke, and renal disease. Patients with a history of stroke or end-stage renal disease have only a minimal mention in the AHA/ACC guidelines.

Diabetes

Emdin et al,³² in a meta-analysis of 40 trials that included more than 100,000 patients with diabetes, concluded that a 10-mm Hg lowering of systolic blood pressure significantly reduces the rates of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular disease, coronary heart disease, stroke, albuminuria, and retinopathy. Stratifying the results according to the systolic blood pressure achieved (≥ 130 or < 130 mm Hg), the relative risks of mortality, coronary heart disease, cardiovascular disease, heart failure, and albuminuria were actually lower in the higher stratum than in the lower.

ACCORD (the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes)³³ study provides contrary results. It examined intensive and standard blood pressure control targets in patients with type 2 diabetes at high risk of cardiovascular events, using primary outcome measures similar to those in SPRINT. It found no significant difference in fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular events between the intensive and standard blood pressure target arms.

Despite those results, the ACC/AHA guidelines still advocate for more intensive treatment (goal < 130/80 mm Hg) in all patients, including those with diabetes.¹

The ADA position statement (September 2017) recommended a target below 140/90 mm Hg in patients with diabetes and hypertension.⁸ However, they also noted that lower systolic and diastolic blood pressure targets, such as below 130/80 mm Hg, may be appropriate for patients at high risk of cardiovascular disease “if they can be achieved without undue treatment burden.”⁸ Thus, it is not clear which blood pressure targets in patients with diabetes are the best.

Stroke

In patients with stroke, AHA/ACC guidelines¹ recommend treatment if the blood pressure is 140/90 mm Hg or higher because antihypertensive therapy has been associated with a decrease in the recurrence of transient ischemic attack and stroke. The ideal target blood pressure is not known, but a goal of less than 130/80 mm Hg may be reasonable.

In the Secondary Prevention of Small Subcortical Strokes (SPS3) trial, a retrospective open-label trial, a target blood pressure below 130/80 mm Hg in patients with a history of lacunar stroke was associated with a lower risk of intracranial hemorrhage, but the difference was not statistically significant.³⁴ For this reason, the ACC/AHA guidelines consider it reasonable to aim for a systolic blood pressure below 130 mm Hg in these patients.¹

Renal disease

The ACC/AHA guidelines do not address how to manage hypertension in patients with end-stage renal disease, but for patients with chronic kidney disease they recommend a blood pressure target below 130/80 mm Hg.¹ This recommendation is derived from the SPRINT trial,¹⁵ in which patients with stage 3 or 4 chronic kidney disease accounted for 28% of the study population. In that subgroup, intensive blood pressure control seemed to provide the same benefits for reduction in cardiovascular death and all-cause mortality.

TREAT PATIENTS, NOT NUMBERS

Blood pressure targets should be applied in the appropriate clinical context and on a patient-by-patient basis. In clinical practice, one size does not always fit all, as special cases exist.

For example, blood pressure can oscillate widely in patients with autonomic nerve disorders, making it difficult to strive for a specific target, especially an intensive one. Thus, it may be necessary to allow higher systolic blood pressure in these patients. Similarly, patients with diabetes or chronic kidney disease may be at higher risk of kidney injury with more intensive blood pressure management.

Treating numbers rather than patients may result in unbalanced patient care. The optimal approach to blood pressure management relies on a comprehensive risk factor assessment and shared decision-making with the patient before setting specific blood pressure targets.

OUR APPROACH

We aim for a blood pressure goal below 130/80 mm Hg for all patients with cardiovascular disease, according to the AHA/ACC guidelines. We aim for that same target in patients without cardiovascular disease but who have an elevated estimated cardiovascular risk (> 10%) over the next 10 years.

We recognize, however, that the benefits of aggressive blood pressure reduction may not be as clear in all patients, such as those with diabetes. We also recognize that some patient subgroups are at high risk of adverse events, including those with low diastolic pressure, chronic kidney disease, a history of falls, and older age. In those patients, we are extremely judicious when titrating antihypertensive medications. We often make smaller titrations, at longer intervals, and with more frequent laboratory testing and in-office follow-up.

Our process of managing hypertension through intensive blood pressure control to achieve lower systolic blood pressure targets requires a concerted effort among healthcare providers at all levels. It especially requires more involvement and investment from primary care providers to individualize treatment in their patients. This process has helped us to reach our treatment goals while limiting adverse effects of lower blood pressure targets.

MOVING FORWARD

Hypertension is a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease, and intensive blood pressure control has the potential to significantly reduce rates of morbidity and death associated with cardiovascular disease. Thus, a general consensus on the definition of hypertension and treatment goals is essential to reduce the risk of cardiovascular events in this large patient population.

Intensive blood pressure treatment has shown efficacy, but it has a small accompanying risk of adverse events, which varies in patient subgroups and affects the benefit-risk ratio of this therapy. For example, the cardiovascular benefit of intensive treatment is less clear in diabetic patients, and the risk of adverse events may be higher in older patients with chronic kidney disease.

Moving forward, more research is needed into the effects of intensive and standard treatment on patients of all ages, those with common comorbid conditions, and those with other important factors such as diastolic hypertension.

Finally, the various medical societies should collaborate on hypertension guideline development. This would require considerable planning and coordination but would ultimately be useful in creating a generalizable approach to hypertension management.

When treating high blood pressure, how low should we try to go? Debate continues about optimal blood pressure goals after publication of guidelines from the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) in 2017 that set or permitted a treatment goal of less than 130 mm Hg, depending on the population.¹

In this article, we summarize the evolution of hypertension guidelines and the evidence behind them.

HOW THE GOALS EVOLVED

JNC 7, 2003: 140/90 or 130/80

The seventh report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC 7),² published in 2003, specified treatment goals of:

• < 140/90 mm Hg for most patients
• < 130/80 mm Hg for those with diabetes or chronic kidney disease.

JNC 7 provided much-needed clarity and uniformity to managing hypertension. Since then, various scientific groups have published their own guidelines (Table 1).^1–9

ACC/AHA/CDC 2014: 140/90

In 2014, the ACC, AHA, and US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published an evidence-based algorithm for hypertension management.³ As in JNC 7, they suggested a blood pressure goal of less than 140/90 mm Hg, lifestyle modification, and polytherapy, eg, a thiazide diuretic for stage 1 hypertension (< 160/100 mm Hg) and combination therapy with a thiazide diuretic and an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor, angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB), or calcium channel blocker for stage 2 hypertension (≥ 160/100 mm Hg).

JNC 8 2014: 140/90 or 150/90

Soon after, the much-anticipated report of the panel members appointed to the eighth JNC (JNC 8) was published.⁴ Previous JNC reports were written and published under the auspices of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, but while the JNC 8 report was being prepared, this government body announced it would no longer publish guidelines.

In contrast to JNC 7, the JNC 8 panel based its recommendations on a systematic review of randomized clinical trials. However, the process and methodology were controversial, especially as the panel excluded some important clinical trials from the analysis.

JNC 8 relaxed the targets in several subgroups, such as patients over age 60 and those with diabetes and chronic kidney disease, due to a lack of definitive evidence on the impact of blood pressure targets lower than 140/90 mm Hg in these groups. Thus, their goals were:

• < 140/90 mm Hg for patients under age 60
• < 150/90 mm Hg for patients age 60 and older.

Of note, a minority of the JNC 8 panel disagreed with the new targets and provided evidence for keeping the systolic blood pressure target below 140 mm Hg for patients 60 and older.⁵ Further, the JNC 8 report was not endorsed by several important societies, ie, the AHA, ACC, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, and American Society of Hypertension (ASH). These issues compromised the acceptance and applicability of the guidelines.

ASH/ISH 2014: 140/90 or 150/90

Also in 2014, the ASH and the International Society of Hypertension released their own report.⁶ Their goals:

• < 140/90 mm Hg for most patients
• < 150/90 mm Hg for patients age 80 and older.

AHA/ACC/ASH 2015: Goals in subgroups

In 2015, the AHA, ACC, and ASH released a joint scientific statement outlining hypertension goals for specific patient populations⁷:

• < 150/90 mm Hg for those age 80 and older
• < 140/90 mm Hg for those with coronary artery disease
• < 130/80 mm Hg for those with comorbidities such as diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

ADA 2016: Goals for patients with diabetes

In 2016, the American Diabetes Association (ADA) set the following blood pressure goals for patients with diabetes⁸:

• < 140/90 mm Hg for adults with diabetes
• < 130/80 mm Hg for younger adults with diabetes and adults with a high risk of cardiovascular disease
• 120–160/80–105 mm Hg for pregnant patients with diabetes and preexisting hypertension who are treated with antihypertensive therapy.

In 2017, the American College of Physicians (ACP) and the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) recommended a relaxed systolic blood pressure target, ie, below 150 mm Hg, for adults over age 60, but a tighter goal of less than 140 mm Hg for the same age group if they have transient ischemic attack, stroke, or high cardiovascular risk.⁹

ACC/AHA 2017: 130/80

The 2017 ACC/AHA guidelines recommended a more aggressive goal of below 130/80 for all, including patients age 65 and older.¹

This is a class I (strong) recommendation for patients with known cardiovascular disease or a 10-year risk of a cardiovascular event of 10% or higher, with a B-R level of evidence for the systolic goal (ie, moderate-quality, based on systematic review of randomized controlled trials) and a C-EO level of evidence for the diastolic goal (ie, based on expert opinion).

For patients who do not have cardiovascular disease and who are at lower risk of it, this is a class IIb (weak) recommendation, ie, it “may be reasonable,” with a B-NR level of evidence (moderate-quality, based on nonrandomized studies) for the systolic goal and C-EO (expert opinion) for the diastolic goal.

For many patients, this involves drug treatment. For those with known cardiovascular disease or a 10-year risk of an atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease event of 10% or higher, the ACC/AHA guidelines say that drug treatment “is recommended” if their average blood pressure is 130/80 mm Hg or higher (class I recommendation, based on strong evidence for the systolic threshold and expert option for the diastolic). For those without cardiovascular disease and at lower risk, drug treatment is recommended if their average blood pressure is 140/90 mm Hg or higher (also class I, but based on limited data).

EVERYONE AGREES ON LIFESTYLE

Although the guidelines differ in their blood pressure targets, they consistently recommend lifestyle modifications.

Lifestyle modifications, first described in JNC 7, included weight loss, sodium restriction, and the DASH diet, which is rich in fruits, vegetables, low-fat dairy products, whole grains, poultry, and fish, and low in red meat, sweets, cholesterol, and total and saturated fat.²

These recommendations were based on results from 3 large randomized controlled trials in patients with and without hypertension.^10–12 In patients with no history of hypertension, interventions to promote weight loss and sodium restriction significantly reduced blood pressure and the incidence of hypertension (the latter by as much as 77%) compared with usual care.^10,11

In patients with and without hypertension, lowering sodium intake in conjunction with the DASH diet was associated with substantially larger reductions in systolic blood pressure.¹²

The recommendation to lower sodium intake has not changed in the guideline revisions. Meanwhile, other modifications have been added, such as incorporating both aerobic and resistance exercise and moderating alcohol intake. These recommendations have a class I level of evidence (ie, strongest level) in the 2017 ACC/AHA guidelines.¹

HYPERTENSION BEGINS AT 130/80

The definition of hypertension changed in the 2017 ACC/AHA guidelines¹: previously set at 140/90 mm Hg or higher, it is now 130/80 mm Hg or higher for all age groups. Adults with systolic blood pressure of 130 to 139 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure of 80 to 89 mm Hg are now classified as having stage 1 hypertension.

Under the new definition, the number of US adults who have hypertension expanded to 45.6% of the general population,¹³ up from 31.9% under the JNC 7 definition. Thus, overall, 103.3 million US adults now have hypertension, compared with 72.2 million under the JNC 7 criteria.

In addition, the new guidelines expanded the population of adults for whom antihypertensive drug treatment is recommended to 36.2% (81.9 million). However, this represents only a 1.9% absolute increase over the JNC 7 recommendations (34.3%) and a 5.1% absolute increase over the JNC 8 recommendations.¹⁴

SPRINT: INTENSIVE TREATMENT IS BENEFICIAL

The new ACC/AHA guidelines¹ were based on evidence from several trials, including the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT).¹⁵

This multicenter trial investigated the effect of intensive blood pressure treatment on cardiovascular disease risk.¹⁶ The primary outcome was a composite of myocardial infarction, acute coronary syndrome, stroke, and heart failure.

The trial enrolled 9,361 participants at least 50 years of age with systolic blood pressure 130 mm Hg or higher and at least 1 additional risk factor for cardiovascular disease. It excluded anyone with a history of diabetes mellitus, stroke, symptomatic heart failure, or end-stage renal disease.

Two interventions were compared: 

• Intensive treatment, with a systolic blood pressure goal of less than 120 mm Hg: the protocol called for polytherapy, even for participants who were 75 or older if their blood pressure was 140 mm Hg or higher
• Standard treatment, with a systolic blood pressure goal of less than 140 mm Hg: it used polytherapy for patients whose systolic blood pressure was 160 mm Hg or higher.

The trial was intended to last 5 years but was stopped early at a median of 3.26 years owing to a significantly lower rate of the primary composite outcome in the intensive-treatment group: 1.65% per year vs 2.19%, a 25% relative risk reduction (P < .001) or a 0.54% absolute risk reduction. We calculate the number needed to treat (NNT) for 1 year to prevent 1 event as 185, and over the 3.26 years of the trial, the investigators calculated the NNT as 61. Similarly, the rate of death from any cause was also lower with intensive treatment, 1.03% per year vs 1.40% per year, a 27% relative risk reduction (P = .003) or a 0.37% absolute risk reduction, NNT 270.

Using these findings, Bress et al¹⁶ estimated that implementing intensive blood pressure goals could prevent 107,500 deaths annually.

The downside is adverse effects. In SPRINT,¹⁵ the intensive-treatment group experienced significantly higher rates of serious adverse effects than the standard-treatment group, ie:

• Hypotension 2.4% vs 1.4%, P = .001
• Syncope 2.3% vs 1.7%, P = .05
• Electrolyte abnormalities 3.1% vs 2.3%, P = .02)
• Acute kidney injury or kidney failure 4.1% vs 2.5%, P < .001
• Any treatment-related adverse event 4.7% vs 2.5%, P = .001.

Thus, Bress et al¹⁶ estimated that fully implementing the intensive-treatment goals could cause an additional 56,100 episodes of hypotension per year, 34,400 cases of syncope, 43,400 serious electrolyte disorders, and 88,700 cases of acute kidney injury. All told, about 3 million Americans could suffer a serious adverse effect under the intensive-treatment goals.

SPRINT¹⁵ was stopped early, after 3.26 years instead of the planned 5 years. The true risk-benefit ratio may have been different if the trial had been extended longer.

In addition, SPRINT used automated office blood pressure measurements in which patients were seated alone and a device (Model 907, Omron Healthcare) took 3 blood pressure measurements at 1-minute intervals after 5 minutes of quiet rest. This was designed to reduce elevated blood pressure readings in the presence of a healthcare professional in a medical setting (ie, “white coat” hypertension).

Many physicians are still taking blood pressure manually, which tends to give higher readings. Therefore, if they aim for a lower goal, they may risk overtreating the patient.

About 50% of patients did not achieve the target systolic blood pressure (< 120 mm Hg) despite receiving an average of 2.8 antihypertensive medications in the intensive-treatment group and 1.8 in the standard-treatment group. The use of antihypertensive medications, however, was not a controlled variable in the trial, and practitioners chose the appropriate drugs for their patients.

Diastolic pressure, which can be markedly lower in older hypertensive patients, was largely ignored, although lower diastolic pressure may have contributed to higher syncope rates in response to alpha blockers and calcium blockers.

Moreover, the trial excluded those with significant comorbidities and those younger than 50 (the mean age was 67.9), which limits the generalizability of the results.

JNC 8 VS SPRINT GOALS: WHAT'S THE EFFECT ON OUTCOMES?

JNC 8⁴ recommended a relaxed target of less than 140/90 mm Hg for adults younger than 60, including those with chronic kidney disease or diabetes, and less than 150/90 mm Hg for adults 60 and older. The SPRINT findings upended those recommendations, showing that intensive treatment in adults age 75 or older significantly improved the composite cardiovascular disease outcome (2.59 vs 3.85 events per year; P < .001) and all-cause mortality (1.78 vs 2.63 events per year; P < .05) compared with standard treatment.¹⁷ Also, a subset review of SPRINT trial data found no difference in benefit based on chronic kidney disease status.¹⁸

A meta-analysis of 74 clinical trials (N = 306,273) offers a compromise between the SPRINT findings and the JNC 8 recommendations.¹⁹ It found that the beneficial effect of blood pressure treatment depended on the patient’s baseline systolic blood pressure. In those with a baseline systolic pressure of 160 mm Hg or higher, treatment reduced cardiovascular mortality by about 15% (relative risk [RR] 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77–0.95). In patients with systolic pressure below 140 mm Hg, treatment effects were neutral (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.87–1.20) and not associated with any benefit as primary prevention, although data suggest it may reduce the risk of adverse outcomes in patients with coronary heart disease.

OTHER TRIALS THAT INFLUENCED THE GUIDELINES

SHEP and HYVET (the Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly Program²⁰ and the Hypertension in the Very Elderly Trial)²¹ supported intensive blood pressure treatment for older patients by reporting a reduction in fatal and nonfatal stroke risks for those with a systolic blood pressure above 160 mm Hg.

FEVER (the Felodipine Event Reduction study)²² found that treatment with a calcium channel blocker in even a low dose can significantly decrease cardiovascular events, cardiovascular disease, and heart failure compared with no treatment.

JATOS and VALISH (the Japanese Trial to Assess Optimal Systolic Blood Pressure in Elderly Hypertensive Patients²³ and the Valsartan in Elderly Isolated Systolic Hypertension study)²⁴ found that outcomes were similar with intensive vs standard treatment.

Ettehad et al²⁵ performed a meta-analysis of 123 studies with more than 600,000 participants that provided strong evidence supporting blood pressure treatment goals below 130/90 mm Hg, in line with the SPRINT trial results.

BLOOD PRESSURE ISN’T EVERYTHING

Other trials remind us that although blood pressure is important, it is not the only factor affecting cardiovascular risk.

HOPE (the Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation)²⁶ investigated the use of ramipril (an ACE inhibitor) in preventing myocardial infarction, stroke, or cardiovascular death in patients at high risk of cardiovascular events. The study included 9,297 participants over age 55 (mean age 66) with a baseline blood pressure 139/79 mm Hg. Follow-up was 4.5 years.

Ramipril was better than placebo, with significantly fewer patients experiencing adverse end points in the ramipril group compared with the placebo group:

• Myocardial infarction 9.9% vs 12.3%, RR 0.80, P < .001
• Cardiovascular death 6.1% vs 8.1%, RR  0.74, P < .001
• Stroke 3.4% vs 4.9%, RR = .68, P < .001
• The composite end point 14.0% vs 17.8%, RR 0.78, P < .001).

Results were even better in the subset of patients who had diabetes.²⁷ However, the decrease in blood pressure attributable to anti­hypertensive therapy with ramipril was minimal (3–4 mm Hg systolic and 1–2 mm Hg diastolic). This slight change should not have been enough to produce significant differences in clinical outcomes, a major limitation of this trial. The investigators speculated that the positive results may be due to a class effect of ACE inhibitors.²⁶

HOPE 3^28–30 explored the effect of blood pressure- and cholesterol-controlling drugs on the same primary end points but in patients at intermediate risk of major cardiovascular events. Investigators randomized the 12,705 patients to 4 treatment groups:

• Blood pressure control with candesartan (an ARB) plus hydrochlorothiazide (a thiazide diuretic)
• Cholesterol control with rosuvastatin (a statin)
• Blood pressure plus cholesterol control
• Placebo.

Therapy was started at a systolic blood pressure above 140 mm Hg.

Compared with placebo, the rate of composite events was significantly reduced in the rosuvastatin group (3.7% vs 4.8%, HR 0.76, P = .002)²⁸ and the candesartan-hydrochlorothiazide-rosuvastatin group (3.6% vs 5.0%, HR 0.71; P = .005)²⁹ but not in the candesartan-hydrochlorothiazide group (4.1% vs 4.4%; HR 0.93; P = .40).³⁰

In addition, a subgroup analysis comparing active treatment vs placebo found a significant reduction in major cardiovascular events for treated patients whose baseline systolic blood pressure was in the upper third (> 143.5 mm Hg, mean 154.1 mm Hg), while treated patients in the lower middle and lower thirds had no significant reduction.³⁰

These results suggest that intensive treatment to achieve a systolic blood pressure below 140 mm Hg in patients at intermediate risk may not be helpful. Nevertheless, there seems to be agreement that intensive treatment generally leads to a reduction in cardiovascular events. The results also show the benefit of lowering cholesterol.

Bundy et al³¹ performed a meta-analysis that provides support for intensive antihypertensive treatment. Reviewing 42 clinical trials in more than 144,000 patients, they found that treating to reach a target systolic blood pressure of 120 to 124 mm Hg can reduce cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality.

The trade-off is a minimal increase in the risk of adverse events. Also, the risk-benefit ratio of intensive treatment seems to vary in different patient subgroups.

WHAT ABOUT PATIENTS WITH COMORBIDITIES?

The debate over intensive vs standard treatment in blood pressure management extends beyond hypertension and includes important comorbidities such as diabetes, stroke, and renal disease. Patients with a history of stroke or end-stage renal disease have only a minimal mention in the AHA/ACC guidelines.

Diabetes

Emdin et al,³² in a meta-analysis of 40 trials that included more than 100,000 patients with diabetes, concluded that a 10-mm Hg lowering of systolic blood pressure significantly reduces the rates of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular disease, coronary heart disease, stroke, albuminuria, and retinopathy. Stratifying the results according to the systolic blood pressure achieved (≥ 130 or < 130 mm Hg), the relative risks of mortality, coronary heart disease, cardiovascular disease, heart failure, and albuminuria were actually lower in the higher stratum than in the lower.

ACCORD (the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes)³³ study provides contrary results. It examined intensive and standard blood pressure control targets in patients with type 2 diabetes at high risk of cardiovascular events, using primary outcome measures similar to those in SPRINT. It found no significant difference in fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular events between the intensive and standard blood pressure target arms.

Despite those results, the ACC/AHA guidelines still advocate for more intensive treatment (goal < 130/80 mm Hg) in all patients, including those with diabetes.¹

The ADA position statement (September 2017) recommended a target below 140/90 mm Hg in patients with diabetes and hypertension.⁸ However, they also noted that lower systolic and diastolic blood pressure targets, such as below 130/80 mm Hg, may be appropriate for patients at high risk of cardiovascular disease “if they can be achieved without undue treatment burden.”⁸ Thus, it is not clear which blood pressure targets in patients with diabetes are the best.

Stroke

In patients with stroke, AHA/ACC guidelines¹ recommend treatment if the blood pressure is 140/90 mm Hg or higher because antihypertensive therapy has been associated with a decrease in the recurrence of transient ischemic attack and stroke. The ideal target blood pressure is not known, but a goal of less than 130/80 mm Hg may be reasonable.

In the Secondary Prevention of Small Subcortical Strokes (SPS3) trial, a retrospective open-label trial, a target blood pressure below 130/80 mm Hg in patients with a history of lacunar stroke was associated with a lower risk of intracranial hemorrhage, but the difference was not statistically significant.³⁴ For this reason, the ACC/AHA guidelines consider it reasonable to aim for a systolic blood pressure below 130 mm Hg in these patients.¹

Renal disease

The ACC/AHA guidelines do not address how to manage hypertension in patients with end-stage renal disease, but for patients with chronic kidney disease they recommend a blood pressure target below 130/80 mm Hg.¹ This recommendation is derived from the SPRINT trial,¹⁵ in which patients with stage 3 or 4 chronic kidney disease accounted for 28% of the study population. In that subgroup, intensive blood pressure control seemed to provide the same benefits for reduction in cardiovascular death and all-cause mortality.

TREAT PATIENTS, NOT NUMBERS

Blood pressure targets should be applied in the appropriate clinical context and on a patient-by-patient basis. In clinical practice, one size does not always fit all, as special cases exist.

For example, blood pressure can oscillate widely in patients with autonomic nerve disorders, making it difficult to strive for a specific target, especially an intensive one. Thus, it may be necessary to allow higher systolic blood pressure in these patients. Similarly, patients with diabetes or chronic kidney disease may be at higher risk of kidney injury with more intensive blood pressure management.

Treating numbers rather than patients may result in unbalanced patient care. The optimal approach to blood pressure management relies on a comprehensive risk factor assessment and shared decision-making with the patient before setting specific blood pressure targets.

OUR APPROACH

We aim for a blood pressure goal below 130/80 mm Hg for all patients with cardiovascular disease, according to the AHA/ACC guidelines. We aim for that same target in patients without cardiovascular disease but who have an elevated estimated cardiovascular risk (> 10%) over the next 10 years.

We recognize, however, that the benefits of aggressive blood pressure reduction may not be as clear in all patients, such as those with diabetes. We also recognize that some patient subgroups are at high risk of adverse events, including those with low diastolic pressure, chronic kidney disease, a history of falls, and older age. In those patients, we are extremely judicious when titrating antihypertensive medications. We often make smaller titrations, at longer intervals, and with more frequent laboratory testing and in-office follow-up.

Our process of managing hypertension through intensive blood pressure control to achieve lower systolic blood pressure targets requires a concerted effort among healthcare providers at all levels. It especially requires more involvement and investment from primary care providers to individualize treatment in their patients. This process has helped us to reach our treatment goals while limiting adverse effects of lower blood pressure targets.

MOVING FORWARD

Hypertension is a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease, and intensive blood pressure control has the potential to significantly reduce rates of morbidity and death associated with cardiovascular disease. Thus, a general consensus on the definition of hypertension and treatment goals is essential to reduce the risk of cardiovascular events in this large patient population.

Intensive blood pressure treatment has shown efficacy, but it has a small accompanying risk of adverse events, which varies in patient subgroups and affects the benefit-risk ratio of this therapy. For example, the cardiovascular benefit of intensive treatment is less clear in diabetic patients, and the risk of adverse events may be higher in older patients with chronic kidney disease.

Moving forward, more research is needed into the effects of intensive and standard treatment on patients of all ages, those with common comorbid conditions, and those with other important factors such as diastolic hypertension.

Finally, the various medical societies should collaborate on hypertension guideline development. This would require considerable planning and coordination but would ultimately be useful in creating a generalizable approach to hypertension management.

When treating high blood pressure, how low should we try to go? Debate continues about optimal blood pressure goals after publication of guidelines from the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) in 2017 that set or permitted a treatment goal of less than 130 mm Hg, depending on the population.¹

In this article, we summarize the evolution of hypertension guidelines and the evidence behind them.

HOW THE GOALS EVOLVED

JNC 7, 2003: 140/90 or 130/80

The seventh report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC 7),² published in 2003, specified treatment goals of:

• < 140/90 mm Hg for most patients
• < 130/80 mm Hg for those with diabetes or chronic kidney disease.

JNC 7 provided much-needed clarity and uniformity to managing hypertension. Since then, various scientific groups have published their own guidelines (Table 1).^1–9

ACC/AHA/CDC 2014: 140/90

In 2014, the ACC, AHA, and US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published an evidence-based algorithm for hypertension management.³ As in JNC 7, they suggested a blood pressure goal of less than 140/90 mm Hg, lifestyle modification, and polytherapy, eg, a thiazide diuretic for stage 1 hypertension (< 160/100 mm Hg) and combination therapy with a thiazide diuretic and an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor, angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB), or calcium channel blocker for stage 2 hypertension (≥ 160/100 mm Hg).

JNC 8 2014: 140/90 or 150/90

Soon after, the much-anticipated report of the panel members appointed to the eighth JNC (JNC 8) was published.⁴ Previous JNC reports were written and published under the auspices of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, but while the JNC 8 report was being prepared, this government body announced it would no longer publish guidelines.

In contrast to JNC 7, the JNC 8 panel based its recommendations on a systematic review of randomized clinical trials. However, the process and methodology were controversial, especially as the panel excluded some important clinical trials from the analysis.

JNC 8 relaxed the targets in several subgroups, such as patients over age 60 and those with diabetes and chronic kidney disease, due to a lack of definitive evidence on the impact of blood pressure targets lower than 140/90 mm Hg in these groups. Thus, their goals were:

• < 140/90 mm Hg for patients under age 60
• < 150/90 mm Hg for patients age 60 and older.

Of note, a minority of the JNC 8 panel disagreed with the new targets and provided evidence for keeping the systolic blood pressure target below 140 mm Hg for patients 60 and older.⁵ Further, the JNC 8 report was not endorsed by several important societies, ie, the AHA, ACC, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, and American Society of Hypertension (ASH). These issues compromised the acceptance and applicability of the guidelines.

ASH/ISH 2014: 140/90 or 150/90

Also in 2014, the ASH and the International Society of Hypertension released their own report.⁶ Their goals:

• < 140/90 mm Hg for most patients
• < 150/90 mm Hg for patients age 80 and older.

AHA/ACC/ASH 2015: Goals in subgroups

In 2015, the AHA, ACC, and ASH released a joint scientific statement outlining hypertension goals for specific patient populations⁷:

• < 150/90 mm Hg for those age 80 and older
• < 140/90 mm Hg for those with coronary artery disease
• < 130/80 mm Hg for those with comorbidities such as diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

ADA 2016: Goals for patients with diabetes

In 2016, the American Diabetes Association (ADA) set the following blood pressure goals for patients with diabetes⁸:

• < 140/90 mm Hg for adults with diabetes
• < 130/80 mm Hg for younger adults with diabetes and adults with a high risk of cardiovascular disease
• 120–160/80–105 mm Hg for pregnant patients with diabetes and preexisting hypertension who are treated with antihypertensive therapy.

In 2017, the American College of Physicians (ACP) and the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) recommended a relaxed systolic blood pressure target, ie, below 150 mm Hg, for adults over age 60, but a tighter goal of less than 140 mm Hg for the same age group if they have transient ischemic attack, stroke, or high cardiovascular risk.⁹

ACC/AHA 2017: 130/80

The 2017 ACC/AHA guidelines recommended a more aggressive goal of below 130/80 for all, including patients age 65 and older.¹

This is a class I (strong) recommendation for patients with known cardiovascular disease or a 10-year risk of a cardiovascular event of 10% or higher, with a B-R level of evidence for the systolic goal (ie, moderate-quality, based on systematic review of randomized controlled trials) and a C-EO level of evidence for the diastolic goal (ie, based on expert opinion).

For patients who do not have cardiovascular disease and who are at lower risk of it, this is a class IIb (weak) recommendation, ie, it “may be reasonable,” with a B-NR level of evidence (moderate-quality, based on nonrandomized studies) for the systolic goal and C-EO (expert opinion) for the diastolic goal.

For many patients, this involves drug treatment. For those with known cardiovascular disease or a 10-year risk of an atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease event of 10% or higher, the ACC/AHA guidelines say that drug treatment “is recommended” if their average blood pressure is 130/80 mm Hg or higher (class I recommendation, based on strong evidence for the systolic threshold and expert option for the diastolic). For those without cardiovascular disease and at lower risk, drug treatment is recommended if their average blood pressure is 140/90 mm Hg or higher (also class I, but based on limited data).

EVERYONE AGREES ON LIFESTYLE

Although the guidelines differ in their blood pressure targets, they consistently recommend lifestyle modifications.

Lifestyle modifications, first described in JNC 7, included weight loss, sodium restriction, and the DASH diet, which is rich in fruits, vegetables, low-fat dairy products, whole grains, poultry, and fish, and low in red meat, sweets, cholesterol, and total and saturated fat.²

These recommendations were based on results from 3 large randomized controlled trials in patients with and without hypertension.^10–12 In patients with no history of hypertension, interventions to promote weight loss and sodium restriction significantly reduced blood pressure and the incidence of hypertension (the latter by as much as 77%) compared with usual care.^10,11

In patients with and without hypertension, lowering sodium intake in conjunction with the DASH diet was associated with substantially larger reductions in systolic blood pressure.¹²

The recommendation to lower sodium intake has not changed in the guideline revisions. Meanwhile, other modifications have been added, such as incorporating both aerobic and resistance exercise and moderating alcohol intake. These recommendations have a class I level of evidence (ie, strongest level) in the 2017 ACC/AHA guidelines.¹

HYPERTENSION BEGINS AT 130/80

The definition of hypertension changed in the 2017 ACC/AHA guidelines¹: previously set at 140/90 mm Hg or higher, it is now 130/80 mm Hg or higher for all age groups. Adults with systolic blood pressure of 130 to 139 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure of 80 to 89 mm Hg are now classified as having stage 1 hypertension.

Under the new definition, the number of US adults who have hypertension expanded to 45.6% of the general population,¹³ up from 31.9% under the JNC 7 definition. Thus, overall, 103.3 million US adults now have hypertension, compared with 72.2 million under the JNC 7 criteria.

In addition, the new guidelines expanded the population of adults for whom antihypertensive drug treatment is recommended to 36.2% (81.9 million). However, this represents only a 1.9% absolute increase over the JNC 7 recommendations (34.3%) and a 5.1% absolute increase over the JNC 8 recommendations.¹⁴

SPRINT: INTENSIVE TREATMENT IS BENEFICIAL

The new ACC/AHA guidelines¹ were based on evidence from several trials, including the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT).¹⁵

This multicenter trial investigated the effect of intensive blood pressure treatment on cardiovascular disease risk.¹⁶ The primary outcome was a composite of myocardial infarction, acute coronary syndrome, stroke, and heart failure.

The trial enrolled 9,361 participants at least 50 years of age with systolic blood pressure 130 mm Hg or higher and at least 1 additional risk factor for cardiovascular disease. It excluded anyone with a history of diabetes mellitus, stroke, symptomatic heart failure, or end-stage renal disease.

Two interventions were compared: 

• Intensive treatment, with a systolic blood pressure goal of less than 120 mm Hg: the protocol called for polytherapy, even for participants who were 75 or older if their blood pressure was 140 mm Hg or higher
• Standard treatment, with a systolic blood pressure goal of less than 140 mm Hg: it used polytherapy for patients whose systolic blood pressure was 160 mm Hg or higher.

The trial was intended to last 5 years but was stopped early at a median of 3.26 years owing to a significantly lower rate of the primary composite outcome in the intensive-treatment group: 1.65% per year vs 2.19%, a 25% relative risk reduction (P < .001) or a 0.54% absolute risk reduction. We calculate the number needed to treat (NNT) for 1 year to prevent 1 event as 185, and over the 3.26 years of the trial, the investigators calculated the NNT as 61. Similarly, the rate of death from any cause was also lower with intensive treatment, 1.03% per year vs 1.40% per year, a 27% relative risk reduction (P = .003) or a 0.37% absolute risk reduction, NNT 270.

Using these findings, Bress et al¹⁶ estimated that implementing intensive blood pressure goals could prevent 107,500 deaths annually.

The downside is adverse effects. In SPRINT,¹⁵ the intensive-treatment group experienced significantly higher rates of serious adverse effects than the standard-treatment group, ie:

• Hypotension 2.4% vs 1.4%, P = .001
• Syncope 2.3% vs 1.7%, P = .05
• Electrolyte abnormalities 3.1% vs 2.3%, P = .02)
• Acute kidney injury or kidney failure 4.1% vs 2.5%, P < .001
• Any treatment-related adverse event 4.7% vs 2.5%, P = .001.

Thus, Bress et al¹⁶ estimated that fully implementing the intensive-treatment goals could cause an additional 56,100 episodes of hypotension per year, 34,400 cases of syncope, 43,400 serious electrolyte disorders, and 88,700 cases of acute kidney injury. All told, about 3 million Americans could suffer a serious adverse effect under the intensive-treatment goals.

SPRINT¹⁵ was stopped early, after 3.26 years instead of the planned 5 years. The true risk-benefit ratio may have been different if the trial had been extended longer.

In addition, SPRINT used automated office blood pressure measurements in which patients were seated alone and a device (Model 907, Omron Healthcare) took 3 blood pressure measurements at 1-minute intervals after 5 minutes of quiet rest. This was designed to reduce elevated blood pressure readings in the presence of a healthcare professional in a medical setting (ie, “white coat” hypertension).

Many physicians are still taking blood pressure manually, which tends to give higher readings. Therefore, if they aim for a lower goal, they may risk overtreating the patient.

About 50% of patients did not achieve the target systolic blood pressure (< 120 mm Hg) despite receiving an average of 2.8 antihypertensive medications in the intensive-treatment group and 1.8 in the standard-treatment group. The use of antihypertensive medications, however, was not a controlled variable in the trial, and practitioners chose the appropriate drugs for their patients.

Diastolic pressure, which can be markedly lower in older hypertensive patients, was largely ignored, although lower diastolic pressure may have contributed to higher syncope rates in response to alpha blockers and calcium blockers.

Moreover, the trial excluded those with significant comorbidities and those younger than 50 (the mean age was 67.9), which limits the generalizability of the results.

JNC 8 VS SPRINT GOALS: WHAT'S THE EFFECT ON OUTCOMES?

JNC 8⁴ recommended a relaxed target of less than 140/90 mm Hg for adults younger than 60, including those with chronic kidney disease or diabetes, and less than 150/90 mm Hg for adults 60 and older. The SPRINT findings upended those recommendations, showing that intensive treatment in adults age 75 or older significantly improved the composite cardiovascular disease outcome (2.59 vs 3.85 events per year; P < .001) and all-cause mortality (1.78 vs 2.63 events per year; P < .05) compared with standard treatment.¹⁷ Also, a subset review of SPRINT trial data found no difference in benefit based on chronic kidney disease status.¹⁸

A meta-analysis of 74 clinical trials (N = 306,273) offers a compromise between the SPRINT findings and the JNC 8 recommendations.¹⁹ It found that the beneficial effect of blood pressure treatment depended on the patient’s baseline systolic blood pressure. In those with a baseline systolic pressure of 160 mm Hg or higher, treatment reduced cardiovascular mortality by about 15% (relative risk [RR] 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77–0.95). In patients with systolic pressure below 140 mm Hg, treatment effects were neutral (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.87–1.20) and not associated with any benefit as primary prevention, although data suggest it may reduce the risk of adverse outcomes in patients with coronary heart disease.

OTHER TRIALS THAT INFLUENCED THE GUIDELINES

SHEP and HYVET (the Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly Program²⁰ and the Hypertension in the Very Elderly Trial)²¹ supported intensive blood pressure treatment for older patients by reporting a reduction in fatal and nonfatal stroke risks for those with a systolic blood pressure above 160 mm Hg.

FEVER (the Felodipine Event Reduction study)²² found that treatment with a calcium channel blocker in even a low dose can significantly decrease cardiovascular events, cardiovascular disease, and heart failure compared with no treatment.

JATOS and VALISH (the Japanese Trial to Assess Optimal Systolic Blood Pressure in Elderly Hypertensive Patients²³ and the Valsartan in Elderly Isolated Systolic Hypertension study)²⁴ found that outcomes were similar with intensive vs standard treatment.

Ettehad et al²⁵ performed a meta-analysis of 123 studies with more than 600,000 participants that provided strong evidence supporting blood pressure treatment goals below 130/90 mm Hg, in line with the SPRINT trial results.

BLOOD PRESSURE ISN’T EVERYTHING

Other trials remind us that although blood pressure is important, it is not the only factor affecting cardiovascular risk.

HOPE (the Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation)²⁶ investigated the use of ramipril (an ACE inhibitor) in preventing myocardial infarction, stroke, or cardiovascular death in patients at high risk of cardiovascular events. The study included 9,297 participants over age 55 (mean age 66) with a baseline blood pressure 139/79 mm Hg. Follow-up was 4.5 years.

Ramipril was better than placebo, with significantly fewer patients experiencing adverse end points in the ramipril group compared with the placebo group:

• Myocardial infarction 9.9% vs 12.3%, RR 0.80, P < .001
• Cardiovascular death 6.1% vs 8.1%, RR  0.74, P < .001
• Stroke 3.4% vs 4.9%, RR = .68, P < .001
• The composite end point 14.0% vs 17.8%, RR 0.78, P < .001).

Results were even better in the subset of patients who had diabetes.²⁷ However, the decrease in blood pressure attributable to anti­hypertensive therapy with ramipril was minimal (3–4 mm Hg systolic and 1–2 mm Hg diastolic). This slight change should not have been enough to produce significant differences in clinical outcomes, a major limitation of this trial. The investigators speculated that the positive results may be due to a class effect of ACE inhibitors.²⁶

HOPE 3^28–30 explored the effect of blood pressure- and cholesterol-controlling drugs on the same primary end points but in patients at intermediate risk of major cardiovascular events. Investigators randomized the 12,705 patients to 4 treatment groups:

• Blood pressure control with candesartan (an ARB) plus hydrochlorothiazide (a thiazide diuretic)
• Cholesterol control with rosuvastatin (a statin)
• Blood pressure plus cholesterol control
• Placebo.

Therapy was started at a systolic blood pressure above 140 mm Hg.

Compared with placebo, the rate of composite events was significantly reduced in the rosuvastatin group (3.7% vs 4.8%, HR 0.76, P = .002)²⁸ and the candesartan-hydrochlorothiazide-rosuvastatin group (3.6% vs 5.0%, HR 0.71; P = .005)²⁹ but not in the candesartan-hydrochlorothiazide group (4.1% vs 4.4%; HR 0.93; P = .40).³⁰

In addition, a subgroup analysis comparing active treatment vs placebo found a significant reduction in major cardiovascular events for treated patients whose baseline systolic blood pressure was in the upper third (> 143.5 mm Hg, mean 154.1 mm Hg), while treated patients in the lower middle and lower thirds had no significant reduction.³⁰

These results suggest that intensive treatment to achieve a systolic blood pressure below 140 mm Hg in patients at intermediate risk may not be helpful. Nevertheless, there seems to be agreement that intensive treatment generally leads to a reduction in cardiovascular events. The results also show the benefit of lowering cholesterol.

Bundy et al³¹ performed a meta-analysis that provides support for intensive antihypertensive treatment. Reviewing 42 clinical trials in more than 144,000 patients, they found that treating to reach a target systolic blood pressure of 120 to 124 mm Hg can reduce cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality.

The trade-off is a minimal increase in the risk of adverse events. Also, the risk-benefit ratio of intensive treatment seems to vary in different patient subgroups.

WHAT ABOUT PATIENTS WITH COMORBIDITIES?

The debate over intensive vs standard treatment in blood pressure management extends beyond hypertension and includes important comorbidities such as diabetes, stroke, and renal disease. Patients with a history of stroke or end-stage renal disease have only a minimal mention in the AHA/ACC guidelines.

Diabetes

Emdin et al,³² in a meta-analysis of 40 trials that included more than 100,000 patients with diabetes, concluded that a 10-mm Hg lowering of systolic blood pressure significantly reduces the rates of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular disease, coronary heart disease, stroke, albuminuria, and retinopathy. Stratifying the results according to the systolic blood pressure achieved (≥ 130 or < 130 mm Hg), the relative risks of mortality, coronary heart disease, cardiovascular disease, heart failure, and albuminuria were actually lower in the higher stratum than in the lower.

ACCORD (the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes)³³ study provides contrary results. It examined intensive and standard blood pressure control targets in patients with type 2 diabetes at high risk of cardiovascular events, using primary outcome measures similar to those in SPRINT. It found no significant difference in fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular events between the intensive and standard blood pressure target arms.

Despite those results, the ACC/AHA guidelines still advocate for more intensive treatment (goal < 130/80 mm Hg) in all patients, including those with diabetes.¹

The ADA position statement (September 2017) recommended a target below 140/90 mm Hg in patients with diabetes and hypertension.⁸ However, they also noted that lower systolic and diastolic blood pressure targets, such as below 130/80 mm Hg, may be appropriate for patients at high risk of cardiovascular disease “if they can be achieved without undue treatment burden.”⁸ Thus, it is not clear which blood pressure targets in patients with diabetes are the best.

Stroke

In patients with stroke, AHA/ACC guidelines¹ recommend treatment if the blood pressure is 140/90 mm Hg or higher because antihypertensive therapy has been associated with a decrease in the recurrence of transient ischemic attack and stroke. The ideal target blood pressure is not known, but a goal of less than 130/80 mm Hg may be reasonable.

In the Secondary Prevention of Small Subcortical Strokes (SPS3) trial, a retrospective open-label trial, a target blood pressure below 130/80 mm Hg in patients with a history of lacunar stroke was associated with a lower risk of intracranial hemorrhage, but the difference was not statistically significant.³⁴ For this reason, the ACC/AHA guidelines consider it reasonable to aim for a systolic blood pressure below 130 mm Hg in these patients.¹

Renal disease

The ACC/AHA guidelines do not address how to manage hypertension in patients with end-stage renal disease, but for patients with chronic kidney disease they recommend a blood pressure target below 130/80 mm Hg.¹ This recommendation is derived from the SPRINT trial,¹⁵ in which patients with stage 3 or 4 chronic kidney disease accounted for 28% of the study population. In that subgroup, intensive blood pressure control seemed to provide the same benefits for reduction in cardiovascular death and all-cause mortality.

TREAT PATIENTS, NOT NUMBERS

Blood pressure targets should be applied in the appropriate clinical context and on a patient-by-patient basis. In clinical practice, one size does not always fit all, as special cases exist.

For example, blood pressure can oscillate widely in patients with autonomic nerve disorders, making it difficult to strive for a specific target, especially an intensive one. Thus, it may be necessary to allow higher systolic blood pressure in these patients. Similarly, patients with diabetes or chronic kidney disease may be at higher risk of kidney injury with more intensive blood pressure management.

Treating numbers rather than patients may result in unbalanced patient care. The optimal approach to blood pressure management relies on a comprehensive risk factor assessment and shared decision-making with the patient before setting specific blood pressure targets.

OUR APPROACH

We aim for a blood pressure goal below 130/80 mm Hg for all patients with cardiovascular disease, according to the AHA/ACC guidelines. We aim for that same target in patients without cardiovascular disease but who have an elevated estimated cardiovascular risk (> 10%) over the next 10 years.

We recognize, however, that the benefits of aggressive blood pressure reduction may not be as clear in all patients, such as those with diabetes. We also recognize that some patient subgroups are at high risk of adverse events, including those with low diastolic pressure, chronic kidney disease, a history of falls, and older age. In those patients, we are extremely judicious when titrating antihypertensive medications. We often make smaller titrations, at longer intervals, and with more frequent laboratory testing and in-office follow-up.

Our process of managing hypertension through intensive blood pressure control to achieve lower systolic blood pressure targets requires a concerted effort among healthcare providers at all levels. It especially requires more involvement and investment from primary care providers to individualize treatment in their patients. This process has helped us to reach our treatment goals while limiting adverse effects of lower blood pressure targets.

MOVING FORWARD

Hypertension is a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease, and intensive blood pressure control has the potential to significantly reduce rates of morbidity and death associated with cardiovascular disease. Thus, a general consensus on the definition of hypertension and treatment goals is essential to reduce the risk of cardiovascular events in this large patient population.

Intensive blood pressure treatment has shown efficacy, but it has a small accompanying risk of adverse events, which varies in patient subgroups and affects the benefit-risk ratio of this therapy. For example, the cardiovascular benefit of intensive treatment is less clear in diabetic patients, and the risk of adverse events may be higher in older patients with chronic kidney disease.

Moving forward, more research is needed into the effects of intensive and standard treatment on patients of all ages, those with common comorbid conditions, and those with other important factors such as diastolic hypertension.

Finally, the various medical societies should collaborate on hypertension guideline development. This would require considerable planning and coordination but would ultimately be useful in creating a generalizable approach to hypertension management.

Breast concerns account for approximately 3% of all female visits to a primary care practice.¹ The most common symptoms are breast lumps and breast pain.

Because breast cancer is the most common malignancy in women in the United States, affecting nearly 1 in 8 women in their lifetime, women with breast problems often fear the worst. However, only about 3.5% of women reporting a concern have cancer; most problems are benign (Table 1).¹

Here, we present an evidence-based review of common breast problems in primary care practice and discuss how to evaluate and manage them.

GENERAL APPROACH

The evaluation of a breast concern requires a systematic approach, beginning with a history that documents the onset, severity, and frequency of symptoms. If the concern is a lump or mass, ask whether it becomes more tender or increases in size at any point during the menstrual cycle.

Focus the physical examination on the cervical, supraclavicular, infraclavicular, and axillary lymph nodes and on the breast itself. Assess breast symmetry, note any skin changes such as dimpling, and check the nipples for discharge and inversion. Palpate the breasts for masses.

PALPABLE BREAST MASS: IMAGING NEEDED

If a mass is present, it is more likely to be malignant if any of the following is true:

• Firm to hard texture or indistinct margins
• Attached to the underlying deep fascia or skin
• Associated nipple inversion or skin dimpling.²

Breast masses are more likely benign if they have discrete, well-defined margins, are mobile with a soft to rubbery consistency, and change with the menstrual cycle. However, clinical features are unreliable indicators of cause, and thus additional investigation with breast imaging is warranted.

Mammography remains the diagnostic test of choice for all women age 30 or older who have a palpable breast mass. It is less effective in younger women because they are more likely to have extremely dense fibroglandular tissue that will limit its sensitivity to imaging.

Order diagnostic mammography, which includes additional views focused on the area of concern, rather than screening mammography, which includes only standard cranio­caudal and mediolateral oblique views. A skin marker should be applied over the palpable lump to aid imaging. Because a breast that contains a mass may be denser than the opposite breast or may show asymmetry, both breasts should be imaged. The sensitivity of diagnostic mammography varies from 85% to 90%, so a negative mammogram does not rule out malignancy.^2,3

Targeted ultrasonography of the palpable mass helps identify solid masses such as fibroadenomas or malignant tumors, classifies the margins (lobulated, smooth, or irregular), and assesses vascularity. Ultrasonography is particularly useful for characterizing cystic lesions (eg, simple, septated, or clustered cysts) and cysts with internal echoes. It can also identify lipomas or sebaceous cysts.

If the findings on both mammography and ultrasonography are benign, the likelihood of cancer is very low, with an estimated negative predictive value of 97% to 100%.^2,3 Additionally, the likelihood of nonmalignant findings on biopsy after benign imaging is approximately 99%.³

Although radiologic imaging can define palpable masses, it is intended as a clinical aid. Suspicious findings on clinical examination should never be ignored even if findings on imaging are reassuring, as studies have documented that about 5% of breast cancers may be detected on clinical breast examination alone.⁴

Other imaging tests such as magnetic resonance imaging may be considered occasionally if clinical suspicion remains high after negative mammography and ultrasonography, but they cannot confirm a diagnosis of malignancy. In that case, refer the patient to a surgeon for consideration of excisional biopsy.

Patients with an indeterminate lesion can return in 3 to 12 weeks for a follow-up examination and repeat imaging, which helps assess interval clinical stability. The latter option is especially helpful for patients with masses that are of low suspicion or for patients who prefer to avoid invasive tissue biopsy.

Patients with clinical and radiologic findings that suggest a benign cause can return for short-term follow-up in 6 months or in 12 months for their regular mammogram.

More than 50% of women experience breast pain at some point in their life.⁵ Of these, 35% report that the pain adversely affects their sleep, and 41% note that the pain detrimentally affects their sexual quality of life. Up to 66% of breast pain correlates directly with the patient’s menstrual cycle.⁵ Breast pain is rarely associated with malignancy.

Regardless of its severity and the low likelihood of malignancy, breast pain can be a significant source of distress for the patient, primarily because of concerns about underlying malignancy. If the patient has a focal area of pain on examination, order mammography in combination with targeted ultrasonography. The sensitivity and negative predictive value of benign findings on combination mammography and ultrasonography in this setting are as high as 100%. The incidence of underlying cancer in patients with focal breast pain and no palpable mass is approximately 1.2%.⁶

The long-term prognosis in women with diffuse, often bilateral breast pain (in the absence of additional clinical findings) is excellent. In one study, the incidence of a breast cancer diagnosis was 1.8% after a median of 51 months of follow-up.⁷ Therefore, patients presenting with diffuse pain, no palpable abnormalities, and benign imaging can be safely reassured. Magnetic resonance imaging is rarely indicated in patients with breast pain unless other clinical findings, such as a mass or skin changes, are noted and the results of mammography and ultrasonography are negative.

Treating breast pain

Treating breast pain remains a challenge. The first step is to reassure the patient about her prognosis and help her make appropriate lifestyle modifications.

A well-fitting bra. Suggest getting a professional bra fitting. Wearing a well-fitted bra that offers lift, support, and compression and reduces excess motion can help improve benign breast pain. A bra fitting is especially important for women with large breasts because it can be difficult for these women to get an accurate size. Wearing a lightly fitted bra at night may also provide comfort if there is nighttime pain with breast tissue movement.

Reducing daily caffeine intake is often advised for pain management, but strong evidence of its efficacy is lacking.

Anti-inflammatory drugs can be beneficial if used short-term, especially if costochondritis is suspected.

Danazol improves pain in more than 70% of patients with cyclical symptoms and in up to 48% of those with noncyclical symptoms.

Bromocriptine is effective in up to 54% of those with cyclical symptoms and in up to 33% of those with noncyclical symptoms.⁸ However, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) withdrew approval for this indication because of adverse effects.

Tamoxifen, in contrast, provides relief in 94% of those with cyclical symptoms and in 56% of those with noncyclical symptoms.⁹

Adverse effects, however, limit the use of danazol, bromocriptine, and tamoxifen, and they should be prescribed only for short-term use (3 to 6 months) and only in women with chronic debilitating pain.

A few small studies have evaluated alternative options.

Toremifene is a triphenylethylene derivative similar to tamoxifen that is also used in the adjuvant treatment of postmenopausal breast cancer (but with fewer adverse effects). It has been documented to have a significant effect on premenstrual breast pain, with a 64% reduction in breast pain scores compared with a 26% reduction with placebo.¹⁰ However, the FDA has not approved it for this indication, and it can be cost-prohibitive.

Over-the-counter medications that may provide relief for cyclic breast pain include vitamin E or B₆, products containing oil of Vitex agnus castus (chaste tree or chasteberry), and flaxseed.^11,12

Acupuncture has been evaluated in patients with noncyclic breast pain and was found to reduce pain by 56% to 67% in one study,¹³ although it did not affect quality of life.

NIPPLE DISCHARGE

From 5% to 7% of women seek medical attention for nipple discharge.^14,15 Breast cancer is found in 5% to 15% of women who undergo surgery for nipple discharge.^16,17

Review the patient’s current medications and inquire about health conditions such as thyroid dysfunction or visual field changes that suggest a pituitary mass (which can lead to nipple discharge by causing hormonal dysregulation or hyperprolactinemia).

Palpate the breasts for an underlying mass, look for lesions on the nipple, and assess the color of the fluid. Also note whether there is discharge from one or both breasts, whether it is spontaneous or expressive, and whether it occurs from a single or multiple ducts. Nipple lesions may require further testing with punch biopsy.

Nonlactational nipple discharge is classified as physiologic or pathologic. Physiologic nipple discharge is typically bilateral, involving multiple ducts, and is often clear or straw-colored but may also be green, gray, or brown.

White, opaque fluid is often related to galactorrhea as a result of hyperprolactinemia, hypothyroidism, or medications such as antipsychotic drugs (eg, haloperidol and fluphenazine) and gastrointestinal motility agents such as metoclopramide. Discharge also commonly results from benign underlying ductal abnormalities such as intraductal papilloma, periductal mastitis, and duct ectasia.

Pathologic nipple discharge is often unilateral and persistent, occurring spontaneously from a solitary duct, and may be bloody or serous.

For women with pathologic nipple discharge who are 30 or older, diagnostic imaging with mammography and subareolar ultrasonography is recommended. If the patient is younger than 30, ultrasonography of the subareolar region alone can be used. Targeted ultrasonography of any palpable area is also advised.

Cytologic assessment of the fluid is not recommended because it can often lead to a false-positive finding of atypical cells. Imaging studies such as ductography, duct lavage, ductoscopy, and magnetic resonance imaging are also generally unnecessary; instead, a persistent clinical concern should prompt a surgical referral for consideration of duct excision.

When a patient has pathologic nipple discharge with a negative physical examination and breast imaging, studies have shown that the risk of cancer is 3% or less.¹⁸

Patients with spontaneous bloody or serous single-duct discharge with negative results on mammography and ultrasonography should be reassured that they have a low risk of underlying cancer. If the patient prefers, one approachto management is follow-up mammography and ultrasonography at 6 months and clinical examination for up to 2 years or until the discharge resolves on its own.

On the other hand, if the discharge is distressing to the patient, subareolar duct excision can be performed with both a diagnostic and therapeutic purpose.

A rash on the nipple or areolar region warrants careful evaluation because it may be the first sign of Paget disease of the breast.

In the clinical breast examination, assess the extent of the rash and the presence of any underlying breast mass or nipple discharge. Dermatitis often starts on the areola and resolves quickly with topical therapy. However, Paget disease tends to start directly on the nipple itself, is unresponsive or only partially responsive to topical therapy, and progresses gradually, leading to erosions and ultimately effacement of the nipple itself.

If the clinical examination suggests mild dermatitis and the results of breast imaging are negative, treat the patient with a topical medication because benign conditions such as dermatitis and eczema are common. However, continued follow-up is mandatory until the rash completely resolves: Paget disease sometimes initially improves with topical therapy due to its inflammatory nature.

If you suspect Paget disease or the rash does not fully resolve after 2 to 3 weeks of topical therapy, refer the patient to a dermatologist for full-thickness punch biopsy to establish the diagnosis.

Paget disease of the breast may or may not be associated with underlying ductal carcinoma in situ or invasive breast cancer.¹⁹ The absence of clinical or imaging abnormalities in a patient with Paget disease does not rule out underlying malignancy.²⁰

DENSE BREASTS

Increased breast density has been shown to be a risk factor for breast cancer and may be prognostically useful when combined with the Tyrer-Cuzick model or the Gail model of breast cancer risk.²⁴

Additionally, increased density can mask cancers on mammography, significantly reducing its sensitivity. In women with heterogeneously or extremely dense breasts, the sensitivity of mammography for detecting cancer is only 25% to 50%.²¹ Due to this low sensitivity, supplemental imaging is helpful, particularly in women already at risk of breast cancer based on family history.

Supplemental screening

Digital mammography with tomosynthesis was approved by the FDA in 2011 for use in combination with standard digital mammography for breast cancer screening. Compared with traditional 2-dimensional mammography alone, adding 3-D tomosynthesis decreases the recall rate and increases the cancer detection rate.²⁵

Tomosynthesis tends to perform better in women with heterogeneously dense breasts (BI-RADS category C). There is no significant improvement in cancer detection in women with extremely dense breasts (BI-RADS category D).²⁶

Depending on the methodology, radiation exposure can be either higher or lower than with traditional mammography. However, in all forms, the very small amount of radiation is considered safe.

Whole breast ultrasonography. When whole breast ultrasonography is used to supplement mammography, the recall rate is higher than when mammography is used alone (14% vs 7%–11%).²² It also increases the cancer detection rate by 4.4 additional cancers per 1,000 examinations. However, the false-positive rate with whole breast ultrasonography is higher; the positive predictive value of combined mammography and ultrasonography is 11.2% vs 22.6% for mammography alone.²² Therefore, we do not generally recommend whole breast ultrasonography as a supplement to mammography in women with dense breast tissue unless other studies are not an option.

Molecular breast imaging is not widely available because it requires special equipment, injection of a radiopharamceutical (technetium Tc 99m sestamibi), and a radiologist who specializes in breast imaging to interpret the results. When it is available, however, it increases the cancer detection rate by 8.8 in 1,000 examinations; the positive predictive value is similar to that of screening mammography alone.²¹ It is particularly useful in patients with dense breasts who do not qualify for screening magnetic resonance imaging (lifetime risk of < 20% to 25%).

Technetium sestamibi is associated with a minimal amount of radiation exposure (2.4 mSv vs 1.2 mSV with standard mammography). However, this exposure is much less than background radiation exposure and is considered safe.²¹

Screening mammography can disclose abnormalities such as calcifications, masses, asymmetry, or architectural distortion.²⁷ Abnormalities are reported using standardized BI-RADS categories designated with the numbers 0 through 6 (Table 3).²³

A report of BI-RADS category 0 (incomplete), 4 (suspicious), or 5 (highly suspicious) requires additional workup.

Category 1 (negative) requires no further follow-up, and the patient should resume age-appropriate screening.

For patients with category 2 (benign) findings, routine screening is recommended, whereas patients with category 3 (probably benign) are advised to come back in 6 months for follow-up imaging.

Diagnostic mammography includes additional assessments for focal symptoms or areas of abnormality noted on screening imaging or clinical examination. These may include spot magnification views of areas of asymmetry, mass, architectural distortion, or calcifications. Ultrasonography of focal breast abnormalities can help determine if there is an underlying cyst or solid mass.

MANAGEMENT OF BENIGN FINDINGS ON BREAST BIOPSY

Benign breast disease is diagnosed when a patient with a palpable or radiographic abnormality undergoes breast biopsy with benign findings.^28,29 It can be largely grouped into 3 categories: nonproliferative, proliferative without atypia, and proliferative with atypia (Table 4).^28,29

If core-needle biopsy study results are benign, the next step is to establish radiologic-pathologic and clinical-pathologic concordance. If the findings on clinical examination or imaging are not consistent with those on pathologic study, excisional biopsy should be performed, as imaging-directed biopsy may not have adequately sampled the lesion.³⁰

Nonproliferative lesions account for about 65% of findings on core-needle biopsy and include simple cysts, fibroadenomas, columnar cell changes, apocrine metaplasia, and mild ductal hyperplasia of the usual type. These lesions do not significantly increase the risk of breast cancer; the relative risk is 1.2 to 1.4.^28,29 Additionally, the risk of “upstaging” after excisional biopsy—ie, to a higher-risk lesion or to malignancy—is minimal. Therefore, no additional action is necessary when these findings alone are noted on core-needle biopsy.

Proliferative lesions without atypia account for about 30% of biopsy results and include usual ductal hyperplasia, sclerosing adenosis, columnar hyperplasia, papilloma, and radial scar. Generally, there is a slightly increased risk of subsequent breast cancer, with a relative risk of 1.7 to 2.1.²⁸ Usual ductal hyperplasia and columnar hyperplasia have little risk of upstaging with excision, and therefore, surgical consultation is not recommended.

Previously, surgical excision was recommended for any intraductal papilloma due to risk of upgrade in pathologic diagnosis at the time of excision. However, more recent data suggest that the upgrade rate is about 2.2% for a solitary papilloma that is less than 1 cm in diameter and without associated mass lesion (either clinically or radiographically), is concordant with radiographic findings, and has no associated atypical cells on biopsy.³¹ In this case, observation and short-interval clinical follow-up are reasonable. If there are multiple papillomas, the patient has symptoms such as persistent bloody nipple discharge, or any of the above criteria are not met, surgical excision is recommended.²⁸

Similarly, radial scars and complex sclerosing lesions are increasingly likely to be associated with malignancy based on size. Upstaging ranges from 0% to 12%. It is again important when evaluating radial scars that there is pathologic concordance and that there were no associated high-risk lesions on pathology. If this is the case, it is reasonable to clinically monitor patients with small radial scars, particularly in those who do not have an elevated risk of developing breast cancer.³⁰

For all patients who have undergone biopsy and whose pathology study results are benign, a thorough risk evaluation should be performed, including calculation of their lifetime risk of breast cancer. This can be done with the National Cancer Institute Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool, the International Breast Cancer Intervention Study (IBIS) risk calculator, or other model using family history as a basis for calculations. Patients found to have a lifetime risk of breast cancer of greater than 20% to 25% should be offered annual screening with magnetic resonance imaging in addition to mammography.

ATYPICAL HYPERPLASIA: INCREASED RISK

When biopsy study shows atypical ductal hyperplasia or atypical lobular hyperplasia, there is an increased risk of breast cancer.^28,32 The absolute overall risk of developing breast cancer in 25 years is 30%, and that risk is further stratified based on the number of foci of atypia noted in the specimen.²⁹

When core-needle biopsy study reveals atypical ductal hyperplasia in the tissue, there is a 15% to 30% risk of finding breast cancer with surgical excision.²⁸ Surgical excision is therefore recommended for atypical ductal hyperplasia noted on core-needle biopsy.²⁸

In contrast, when atypical lobular hyperplasia alone is noted, the risk of upstagingto malignancy varies widely—from 0% to 67%—although recent studies have noted risks of 1% to 3%.^33,34 Thus, the decision for surgical excision is more variable. Generally, if the atypical lobular hyperplasia is noted incidentally, is not associated with a higher grade lesion, and is concordant with imaging, it is reasonable to closely monitor with serial imaging and physical examination. Excision is unnecessary.³⁵

Patients found to have atypical hyperplasia on breast biopsy should receive counseling about risk-reducing medications. Selective estrogen receptor modulators such as tamoxifen and raloxifene have been shown to reduce the risk of breast cancer by as much as 86% in patients with atypical hyperplasia.³⁶ Similarly, aromatase inhibitors such as exemestane and anastrozole reduce breast cancer risk by approximately 65%.³⁷

Breast concerns account for approximately 3% of all female visits to a primary care practice.¹ The most common symptoms are breast lumps and breast pain.

Because breast cancer is the most common malignancy in women in the United States, affecting nearly 1 in 8 women in their lifetime, women with breast problems often fear the worst. However, only about 3.5% of women reporting a concern have cancer; most problems are benign (Table 1).¹

Here, we present an evidence-based review of common breast problems in primary care practice and discuss how to evaluate and manage them.

GENERAL APPROACH

The evaluation of a breast concern requires a systematic approach, beginning with a history that documents the onset, severity, and frequency of symptoms. If the concern is a lump or mass, ask whether it becomes more tender or increases in size at any point during the menstrual cycle.

Focus the physical examination on the cervical, supraclavicular, infraclavicular, and axillary lymph nodes and on the breast itself. Assess breast symmetry, note any skin changes such as dimpling, and check the nipples for discharge and inversion. Palpate the breasts for masses.

PALPABLE BREAST MASS: IMAGING NEEDED

If a mass is present, it is more likely to be malignant if any of the following is true:

• Firm to hard texture or indistinct margins
• Attached to the underlying deep fascia or skin
• Associated nipple inversion or skin dimpling.²

Breast masses are more likely benign if they have discrete, well-defined margins, are mobile with a soft to rubbery consistency, and change with the menstrual cycle. However, clinical features are unreliable indicators of cause, and thus additional investigation with breast imaging is warranted.

Mammography remains the diagnostic test of choice for all women age 30 or older who have a palpable breast mass. It is less effective in younger women because they are more likely to have extremely dense fibroglandular tissue that will limit its sensitivity to imaging.

Order diagnostic mammography, which includes additional views focused on the area of concern, rather than screening mammography, which includes only standard cranio­caudal and mediolateral oblique views. A skin marker should be applied over the palpable lump to aid imaging. Because a breast that contains a mass may be denser than the opposite breast or may show asymmetry, both breasts should be imaged. The sensitivity of diagnostic mammography varies from 85% to 90%, so a negative mammogram does not rule out malignancy.^2,3

Targeted ultrasonography of the palpable mass helps identify solid masses such as fibroadenomas or malignant tumors, classifies the margins (lobulated, smooth, or irregular), and assesses vascularity. Ultrasonography is particularly useful for characterizing cystic lesions (eg, simple, septated, or clustered cysts) and cysts with internal echoes. It can also identify lipomas or sebaceous cysts.

If the findings on both mammography and ultrasonography are benign, the likelihood of cancer is very low, with an estimated negative predictive value of 97% to 100%.^2,3 Additionally, the likelihood of nonmalignant findings on biopsy after benign imaging is approximately 99%.³

Although radiologic imaging can define palpable masses, it is intended as a clinical aid. Suspicious findings on clinical examination should never be ignored even if findings on imaging are reassuring, as studies have documented that about 5% of breast cancers may be detected on clinical breast examination alone.⁴

Other imaging tests such as magnetic resonance imaging may be considered occasionally if clinical suspicion remains high after negative mammography and ultrasonography, but they cannot confirm a diagnosis of malignancy. In that case, refer the patient to a surgeon for consideration of excisional biopsy.

Patients with an indeterminate lesion can return in 3 to 12 weeks for a follow-up examination and repeat imaging, which helps assess interval clinical stability. The latter option is especially helpful for patients with masses that are of low suspicion or for patients who prefer to avoid invasive tissue biopsy.

Patients with clinical and radiologic findings that suggest a benign cause can return for short-term follow-up in 6 months or in 12 months for their regular mammogram.

More than 50% of women experience breast pain at some point in their life.⁵ Of these, 35% report that the pain adversely affects their sleep, and 41% note that the pain detrimentally affects their sexual quality of life. Up to 66% of breast pain correlates directly with the patient’s menstrual cycle.⁵ Breast pain is rarely associated with malignancy.

Regardless of its severity and the low likelihood of malignancy, breast pain can be a significant source of distress for the patient, primarily because of concerns about underlying malignancy. If the patient has a focal area of pain on examination, order mammography in combination with targeted ultrasonography. The sensitivity and negative predictive value of benign findings on combination mammography and ultrasonography in this setting are as high as 100%. The incidence of underlying cancer in patients with focal breast pain and no palpable mass is approximately 1.2%.⁶

The long-term prognosis in women with diffuse, often bilateral breast pain (in the absence of additional clinical findings) is excellent. In one study, the incidence of a breast cancer diagnosis was 1.8% after a median of 51 months of follow-up.⁷ Therefore, patients presenting with diffuse pain, no palpable abnormalities, and benign imaging can be safely reassured. Magnetic resonance imaging is rarely indicated in patients with breast pain unless other clinical findings, such as a mass or skin changes, are noted and the results of mammography and ultrasonography are negative.

Treating breast pain

Treating breast pain remains a challenge. The first step is to reassure the patient about her prognosis and help her make appropriate lifestyle modifications.

A well-fitting bra. Suggest getting a professional bra fitting. Wearing a well-fitted bra that offers lift, support, and compression and reduces excess motion can help improve benign breast pain. A bra fitting is especially important for women with large breasts because it can be difficult for these women to get an accurate size. Wearing a lightly fitted bra at night may also provide comfort if there is nighttime pain with breast tissue movement.

Reducing daily caffeine intake is often advised for pain management, but strong evidence of its efficacy is lacking.

Anti-inflammatory drugs can be beneficial if used short-term, especially if costochondritis is suspected.

Danazol improves pain in more than 70% of patients with cyclical symptoms and in up to 48% of those with noncyclical symptoms.

Bromocriptine is effective in up to 54% of those with cyclical symptoms and in up to 33% of those with noncyclical symptoms.⁸ However, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) withdrew approval for this indication because of adverse effects.

Tamoxifen, in contrast, provides relief in 94% of those with cyclical symptoms and in 56% of those with noncyclical symptoms.⁹

Adverse effects, however, limit the use of danazol, bromocriptine, and tamoxifen, and they should be prescribed only for short-term use (3 to 6 months) and only in women with chronic debilitating pain.

A few small studies have evaluated alternative options.

Toremifene is a triphenylethylene derivative similar to tamoxifen that is also used in the adjuvant treatment of postmenopausal breast cancer (but with fewer adverse effects). It has been documented to have a significant effect on premenstrual breast pain, with a 64% reduction in breast pain scores compared with a 26% reduction with placebo.¹⁰ However, the FDA has not approved it for this indication, and it can be cost-prohibitive.

Over-the-counter medications that may provide relief for cyclic breast pain include vitamin E or B₆, products containing oil of Vitex agnus castus (chaste tree or chasteberry), and flaxseed.^11,12

Acupuncture has been evaluated in patients with noncyclic breast pain and was found to reduce pain by 56% to 67% in one study,¹³ although it did not affect quality of life.

NIPPLE DISCHARGE

From 5% to 7% of women seek medical attention for nipple discharge.^14,15 Breast cancer is found in 5% to 15% of women who undergo surgery for nipple discharge.^16,17

Review the patient’s current medications and inquire about health conditions such as thyroid dysfunction or visual field changes that suggest a pituitary mass (which can lead to nipple discharge by causing hormonal dysregulation or hyperprolactinemia).

Palpate the breasts for an underlying mass, look for lesions on the nipple, and assess the color of the fluid. Also note whether there is discharge from one or both breasts, whether it is spontaneous or expressive, and whether it occurs from a single or multiple ducts. Nipple lesions may require further testing with punch biopsy.

Nonlactational nipple discharge is classified as physiologic or pathologic. Physiologic nipple discharge is typically bilateral, involving multiple ducts, and is often clear or straw-colored but may also be green, gray, or brown.

White, opaque fluid is often related to galactorrhea as a result of hyperprolactinemia, hypothyroidism, or medications such as antipsychotic drugs (eg, haloperidol and fluphenazine) and gastrointestinal motility agents such as metoclopramide. Discharge also commonly results from benign underlying ductal abnormalities such as intraductal papilloma, periductal mastitis, and duct ectasia.

Pathologic nipple discharge is often unilateral and persistent, occurring spontaneously from a solitary duct, and may be bloody or serous.

For women with pathologic nipple discharge who are 30 or older, diagnostic imaging with mammography and subareolar ultrasonography is recommended. If the patient is younger than 30, ultrasonography of the subareolar region alone can be used. Targeted ultrasonography of any palpable area is also advised.

Cytologic assessment of the fluid is not recommended because it can often lead to a false-positive finding of atypical cells. Imaging studies such as ductography, duct lavage, ductoscopy, and magnetic resonance imaging are also generally unnecessary; instead, a persistent clinical concern should prompt a surgical referral for consideration of duct excision.

When a patient has pathologic nipple discharge with a negative physical examination and breast imaging, studies have shown that the risk of cancer is 3% or less.¹⁸

Patients with spontaneous bloody or serous single-duct discharge with negative results on mammography and ultrasonography should be reassured that they have a low risk of underlying cancer. If the patient prefers, one approachto management is follow-up mammography and ultrasonography at 6 months and clinical examination for up to 2 years or until the discharge resolves on its own.

On the other hand, if the discharge is distressing to the patient, subareolar duct excision can be performed with both a diagnostic and therapeutic purpose.

A rash on the nipple or areolar region warrants careful evaluation because it may be the first sign of Paget disease of the breast.

In the clinical breast examination, assess the extent of the rash and the presence of any underlying breast mass or nipple discharge. Dermatitis often starts on the areola and resolves quickly with topical therapy. However, Paget disease tends to start directly on the nipple itself, is unresponsive or only partially responsive to topical therapy, and progresses gradually, leading to erosions and ultimately effacement of the nipple itself.

If the clinical examination suggests mild dermatitis and the results of breast imaging are negative, treat the patient with a topical medication because benign conditions such as dermatitis and eczema are common. However, continued follow-up is mandatory until the rash completely resolves: Paget disease sometimes initially improves with topical therapy due to its inflammatory nature.

If you suspect Paget disease or the rash does not fully resolve after 2 to 3 weeks of topical therapy, refer the patient to a dermatologist for full-thickness punch biopsy to establish the diagnosis.

Paget disease of the breast may or may not be associated with underlying ductal carcinoma in situ or invasive breast cancer.¹⁹ The absence of clinical or imaging abnormalities in a patient with Paget disease does not rule out underlying malignancy.²⁰

DENSE BREASTS

Increased breast density has been shown to be a risk factor for breast cancer and may be prognostically useful when combined with the Tyrer-Cuzick model or the Gail model of breast cancer risk.²⁴

Additionally, increased density can mask cancers on mammography, significantly reducing its sensitivity. In women with heterogeneously or extremely dense breasts, the sensitivity of mammography for detecting cancer is only 25% to 50%.²¹ Due to this low sensitivity, supplemental imaging is helpful, particularly in women already at risk of breast cancer based on family history.

Supplemental screening

Digital mammography with tomosynthesis was approved by the FDA in 2011 for use in combination with standard digital mammography for breast cancer screening. Compared with traditional 2-dimensional mammography alone, adding 3-D tomosynthesis decreases the recall rate and increases the cancer detection rate.²⁵

Tomosynthesis tends to perform better in women with heterogeneously dense breasts (BI-RADS category C). There is no significant improvement in cancer detection in women with extremely dense breasts (BI-RADS category D).²⁶

Depending on the methodology, radiation exposure can be either higher or lower than with traditional mammography. However, in all forms, the very small amount of radiation is considered safe.

Whole breast ultrasonography. When whole breast ultrasonography is used to supplement mammography, the recall rate is higher than when mammography is used alone (14% vs 7%–11%).²² It also increases the cancer detection rate by 4.4 additional cancers per 1,000 examinations. However, the false-positive rate with whole breast ultrasonography is higher; the positive predictive value of combined mammography and ultrasonography is 11.2% vs 22.6% for mammography alone.²² Therefore, we do not generally recommend whole breast ultrasonography as a supplement to mammography in women with dense breast tissue unless other studies are not an option.

Molecular breast imaging is not widely available because it requires special equipment, injection of a radiopharamceutical (technetium Tc 99m sestamibi), and a radiologist who specializes in breast imaging to interpret the results. When it is available, however, it increases the cancer detection rate by 8.8 in 1,000 examinations; the positive predictive value is similar to that of screening mammography alone.²¹ It is particularly useful in patients with dense breasts who do not qualify for screening magnetic resonance imaging (lifetime risk of < 20% to 25%).

Technetium sestamibi is associated with a minimal amount of radiation exposure (2.4 mSv vs 1.2 mSV with standard mammography). However, this exposure is much less than background radiation exposure and is considered safe.²¹

Screening mammography can disclose abnormalities such as calcifications, masses, asymmetry, or architectural distortion.²⁷ Abnormalities are reported using standardized BI-RADS categories designated with the numbers 0 through 6 (Table 3).²³

A report of BI-RADS category 0 (incomplete), 4 (suspicious), or 5 (highly suspicious) requires additional workup.

Category 1 (negative) requires no further follow-up, and the patient should resume age-appropriate screening.

For patients with category 2 (benign) findings, routine screening is recommended, whereas patients with category 3 (probably benign) are advised to come back in 6 months for follow-up imaging.

Diagnostic mammography includes additional assessments for focal symptoms or areas of abnormality noted on screening imaging or clinical examination. These may include spot magnification views of areas of asymmetry, mass, architectural distortion, or calcifications. Ultrasonography of focal breast abnormalities can help determine if there is an underlying cyst or solid mass.

MANAGEMENT OF BENIGN FINDINGS ON BREAST BIOPSY

Benign breast disease is diagnosed when a patient with a palpable or radiographic abnormality undergoes breast biopsy with benign findings.^28,29 It can be largely grouped into 3 categories: nonproliferative, proliferative without atypia, and proliferative with atypia (Table 4).^28,29

If core-needle biopsy study results are benign, the next step is to establish radiologic-pathologic and clinical-pathologic concordance. If the findings on clinical examination or imaging are not consistent with those on pathologic study, excisional biopsy should be performed, as imaging-directed biopsy may not have adequately sampled the lesion.³⁰

Nonproliferative lesions account for about 65% of findings on core-needle biopsy and include simple cysts, fibroadenomas, columnar cell changes, apocrine metaplasia, and mild ductal hyperplasia of the usual type. These lesions do not significantly increase the risk of breast cancer; the relative risk is 1.2 to 1.4.^28,29 Additionally, the risk of “upstaging” after excisional biopsy—ie, to a higher-risk lesion or to malignancy—is minimal. Therefore, no additional action is necessary when these findings alone are noted on core-needle biopsy.

Proliferative lesions without atypia account for about 30% of biopsy results and include usual ductal hyperplasia, sclerosing adenosis, columnar hyperplasia, papilloma, and radial scar. Generally, there is a slightly increased risk of subsequent breast cancer, with a relative risk of 1.7 to 2.1.²⁸ Usual ductal hyperplasia and columnar hyperplasia have little risk of upstaging with excision, and therefore, surgical consultation is not recommended.

Previously, surgical excision was recommended for any intraductal papilloma due to risk of upgrade in pathologic diagnosis at the time of excision. However, more recent data suggest that the upgrade rate is about 2.2% for a solitary papilloma that is less than 1 cm in diameter and without associated mass lesion (either clinically or radiographically), is concordant with radiographic findings, and has no associated atypical cells on biopsy.³¹ In this case, observation and short-interval clinical follow-up are reasonable. If there are multiple papillomas, the patient has symptoms such as persistent bloody nipple discharge, or any of the above criteria are not met, surgical excision is recommended.²⁸

Similarly, radial scars and complex sclerosing lesions are increasingly likely to be associated with malignancy based on size. Upstaging ranges from 0% to 12%. It is again important when evaluating radial scars that there is pathologic concordance and that there were no associated high-risk lesions on pathology. If this is the case, it is reasonable to clinically monitor patients with small radial scars, particularly in those who do not have an elevated risk of developing breast cancer.³⁰

For all patients who have undergone biopsy and whose pathology study results are benign, a thorough risk evaluation should be performed, including calculation of their lifetime risk of breast cancer. This can be done with the National Cancer Institute Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool, the International Breast Cancer Intervention Study (IBIS) risk calculator, or other model using family history as a basis for calculations. Patients found to have a lifetime risk of breast cancer of greater than 20% to 25% should be offered annual screening with magnetic resonance imaging in addition to mammography.

ATYPICAL HYPERPLASIA: INCREASED RISK

When biopsy study shows atypical ductal hyperplasia or atypical lobular hyperplasia, there is an increased risk of breast cancer.^28,32 The absolute overall risk of developing breast cancer in 25 years is 30%, and that risk is further stratified based on the number of foci of atypia noted in the specimen.²⁹

When core-needle biopsy study reveals atypical ductal hyperplasia in the tissue, there is a 15% to 30% risk of finding breast cancer with surgical excision.²⁸ Surgical excision is therefore recommended for atypical ductal hyperplasia noted on core-needle biopsy.²⁸

In contrast, when atypical lobular hyperplasia alone is noted, the risk of upstagingto malignancy varies widely—from 0% to 67%—although recent studies have noted risks of 1% to 3%.^33,34 Thus, the decision for surgical excision is more variable. Generally, if the atypical lobular hyperplasia is noted incidentally, is not associated with a higher grade lesion, and is concordant with imaging, it is reasonable to closely monitor with serial imaging and physical examination. Excision is unnecessary.³⁵

Patients found to have atypical hyperplasia on breast biopsy should receive counseling about risk-reducing medications. Selective estrogen receptor modulators such as tamoxifen and raloxifene have been shown to reduce the risk of breast cancer by as much as 86% in patients with atypical hyperplasia.³⁶ Similarly, aromatase inhibitors such as exemestane and anastrozole reduce breast cancer risk by approximately 65%.³⁷

Breast concerns account for approximately 3% of all female visits to a primary care practice.¹ The most common symptoms are breast lumps and breast pain.

Because breast cancer is the most common malignancy in women in the United States, affecting nearly 1 in 8 women in their lifetime, women with breast problems often fear the worst. However, only about 3.5% of women reporting a concern have cancer; most problems are benign (Table 1).¹

Here, we present an evidence-based review of common breast problems in primary care practice and discuss how to evaluate and manage them.

GENERAL APPROACH

The evaluation of a breast concern requires a systematic approach, beginning with a history that documents the onset, severity, and frequency of symptoms. If the concern is a lump or mass, ask whether it becomes more tender or increases in size at any point during the menstrual cycle.

Focus the physical examination on the cervical, supraclavicular, infraclavicular, and axillary lymph nodes and on the breast itself. Assess breast symmetry, note any skin changes such as dimpling, and check the nipples for discharge and inversion. Palpate the breasts for masses.

PALPABLE BREAST MASS: IMAGING NEEDED

If a mass is present, it is more likely to be malignant if any of the following is true:

• Firm to hard texture or indistinct margins
• Attached to the underlying deep fascia or skin
• Associated nipple inversion or skin dimpling.²

Breast masses are more likely benign if they have discrete, well-defined margins, are mobile with a soft to rubbery consistency, and change with the menstrual cycle. However, clinical features are unreliable indicators of cause, and thus additional investigation with breast imaging is warranted.

Mammography remains the diagnostic test of choice for all women age 30 or older who have a palpable breast mass. It is less effective in younger women because they are more likely to have extremely dense fibroglandular tissue that will limit its sensitivity to imaging.

Order diagnostic mammography, which includes additional views focused on the area of concern, rather than screening mammography, which includes only standard cranio­caudal and mediolateral oblique views. A skin marker should be applied over the palpable lump to aid imaging. Because a breast that contains a mass may be denser than the opposite breast or may show asymmetry, both breasts should be imaged. The sensitivity of diagnostic mammography varies from 85% to 90%, so a negative mammogram does not rule out malignancy.^2,3

Targeted ultrasonography of the palpable mass helps identify solid masses such as fibroadenomas or malignant tumors, classifies the margins (lobulated, smooth, or irregular), and assesses vascularity. Ultrasonography is particularly useful for characterizing cystic lesions (eg, simple, septated, or clustered cysts) and cysts with internal echoes. It can also identify lipomas or sebaceous cysts.

If the findings on both mammography and ultrasonography are benign, the likelihood of cancer is very low, with an estimated negative predictive value of 97% to 100%.^2,3 Additionally, the likelihood of nonmalignant findings on biopsy after benign imaging is approximately 99%.³

Although radiologic imaging can define palpable masses, it is intended as a clinical aid. Suspicious findings on clinical examination should never be ignored even if findings on imaging are reassuring, as studies have documented that about 5% of breast cancers may be detected on clinical breast examination alone.⁴

Other imaging tests such as magnetic resonance imaging may be considered occasionally if clinical suspicion remains high after negative mammography and ultrasonography, but they cannot confirm a diagnosis of malignancy. In that case, refer the patient to a surgeon for consideration of excisional biopsy.

Patients with an indeterminate lesion can return in 3 to 12 weeks for a follow-up examination and repeat imaging, which helps assess interval clinical stability. The latter option is especially helpful for patients with masses that are of low suspicion or for patients who prefer to avoid invasive tissue biopsy.

Patients with clinical and radiologic findings that suggest a benign cause can return for short-term follow-up in 6 months or in 12 months for their regular mammogram.

More than 50% of women experience breast pain at some point in their life.⁵ Of these, 35% report that the pain adversely affects their sleep, and 41% note that the pain detrimentally affects their sexual quality of life. Up to 66% of breast pain correlates directly with the patient’s menstrual cycle.⁵ Breast pain is rarely associated with malignancy.

Regardless of its severity and the low likelihood of malignancy, breast pain can be a significant source of distress for the patient, primarily because of concerns about underlying malignancy. If the patient has a focal area of pain on examination, order mammography in combination with targeted ultrasonography. The sensitivity and negative predictive value of benign findings on combination mammography and ultrasonography in this setting are as high as 100%. The incidence of underlying cancer in patients with focal breast pain and no palpable mass is approximately 1.2%.⁶

The long-term prognosis in women with diffuse, often bilateral breast pain (in the absence of additional clinical findings) is excellent. In one study, the incidence of a breast cancer diagnosis was 1.8% after a median of 51 months of follow-up.⁷ Therefore, patients presenting with diffuse pain, no palpable abnormalities, and benign imaging can be safely reassured. Magnetic resonance imaging is rarely indicated in patients with breast pain unless other clinical findings, such as a mass or skin changes, are noted and the results of mammography and ultrasonography are negative.

Treating breast pain

Treating breast pain remains a challenge. The first step is to reassure the patient about her prognosis and help her make appropriate lifestyle modifications.

A well-fitting bra. Suggest getting a professional bra fitting. Wearing a well-fitted bra that offers lift, support, and compression and reduces excess motion can help improve benign breast pain. A bra fitting is especially important for women with large breasts because it can be difficult for these women to get an accurate size. Wearing a lightly fitted bra at night may also provide comfort if there is nighttime pain with breast tissue movement.

Reducing daily caffeine intake is often advised for pain management, but strong evidence of its efficacy is lacking.

Anti-inflammatory drugs can be beneficial if used short-term, especially if costochondritis is suspected.

Danazol improves pain in more than 70% of patients with cyclical symptoms and in up to 48% of those with noncyclical symptoms.

Bromocriptine is effective in up to 54% of those with cyclical symptoms and in up to 33% of those with noncyclical symptoms.⁸ However, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) withdrew approval for this indication because of adverse effects.

Tamoxifen, in contrast, provides relief in 94% of those with cyclical symptoms and in 56% of those with noncyclical symptoms.⁹

Adverse effects, however, limit the use of danazol, bromocriptine, and tamoxifen, and they should be prescribed only for short-term use (3 to 6 months) and only in women with chronic debilitating pain.

A few small studies have evaluated alternative options.

Toremifene is a triphenylethylene derivative similar to tamoxifen that is also used in the adjuvant treatment of postmenopausal breast cancer (but with fewer adverse effects). It has been documented to have a significant effect on premenstrual breast pain, with a 64% reduction in breast pain scores compared with a 26% reduction with placebo.¹⁰ However, the FDA has not approved it for this indication, and it can be cost-prohibitive.

Over-the-counter medications that may provide relief for cyclic breast pain include vitamin E or B₆, products containing oil of Vitex agnus castus (chaste tree or chasteberry), and flaxseed.^11,12

Acupuncture has been evaluated in patients with noncyclic breast pain and was found to reduce pain by 56% to 67% in one study,¹³ although it did not affect quality of life.

NIPPLE DISCHARGE

From 5% to 7% of women seek medical attention for nipple discharge.^14,15 Breast cancer is found in 5% to 15% of women who undergo surgery for nipple discharge.^16,17

Review the patient’s current medications and inquire about health conditions such as thyroid dysfunction or visual field changes that suggest a pituitary mass (which can lead to nipple discharge by causing hormonal dysregulation or hyperprolactinemia).

Palpate the breasts for an underlying mass, look for lesions on the nipple, and assess the color of the fluid. Also note whether there is discharge from one or both breasts, whether it is spontaneous or expressive, and whether it occurs from a single or multiple ducts. Nipple lesions may require further testing with punch biopsy.

Nonlactational nipple discharge is classified as physiologic or pathologic. Physiologic nipple discharge is typically bilateral, involving multiple ducts, and is often clear or straw-colored but may also be green, gray, or brown.

White, opaque fluid is often related to galactorrhea as a result of hyperprolactinemia, hypothyroidism, or medications such as antipsychotic drugs (eg, haloperidol and fluphenazine) and gastrointestinal motility agents such as metoclopramide. Discharge also commonly results from benign underlying ductal abnormalities such as intraductal papilloma, periductal mastitis, and duct ectasia.

Pathologic nipple discharge is often unilateral and persistent, occurring spontaneously from a solitary duct, and may be bloody or serous.

For women with pathologic nipple discharge who are 30 or older, diagnostic imaging with mammography and subareolar ultrasonography is recommended. If the patient is younger than 30, ultrasonography of the subareolar region alone can be used. Targeted ultrasonography of any palpable area is also advised.

Cytologic assessment of the fluid is not recommended because it can often lead to a false-positive finding of atypical cells. Imaging studies such as ductography, duct lavage, ductoscopy, and magnetic resonance imaging are also generally unnecessary; instead, a persistent clinical concern should prompt a surgical referral for consideration of duct excision.

When a patient has pathologic nipple discharge with a negative physical examination and breast imaging, studies have shown that the risk of cancer is 3% or less.¹⁸

Patients with spontaneous bloody or serous single-duct discharge with negative results on mammography and ultrasonography should be reassured that they have a low risk of underlying cancer. If the patient prefers, one approachto management is follow-up mammography and ultrasonography at 6 months and clinical examination for up to 2 years or until the discharge resolves on its own.

On the other hand, if the discharge is distressing to the patient, subareolar duct excision can be performed with both a diagnostic and therapeutic purpose.

A rash on the nipple or areolar region warrants careful evaluation because it may be the first sign of Paget disease of the breast.

In the clinical breast examination, assess the extent of the rash and the presence of any underlying breast mass or nipple discharge. Dermatitis often starts on the areola and resolves quickly with topical therapy. However, Paget disease tends to start directly on the nipple itself, is unresponsive or only partially responsive to topical therapy, and progresses gradually, leading to erosions and ultimately effacement of the nipple itself.

If the clinical examination suggests mild dermatitis and the results of breast imaging are negative, treat the patient with a topical medication because benign conditions such as dermatitis and eczema are common. However, continued follow-up is mandatory until the rash completely resolves: Paget disease sometimes initially improves with topical therapy due to its inflammatory nature.

If you suspect Paget disease or the rash does not fully resolve after 2 to 3 weeks of topical therapy, refer the patient to a dermatologist for full-thickness punch biopsy to establish the diagnosis.

Paget disease of the breast may or may not be associated with underlying ductal carcinoma in situ or invasive breast cancer.¹⁹ The absence of clinical or imaging abnormalities in a patient with Paget disease does not rule out underlying malignancy.²⁰

DENSE BREASTS

Increased breast density has been shown to be a risk factor for breast cancer and may be prognostically useful when combined with the Tyrer-Cuzick model or the Gail model of breast cancer risk.²⁴

Additionally, increased density can mask cancers on mammography, significantly reducing its sensitivity. In women with heterogeneously or extremely dense breasts, the sensitivity of mammography for detecting cancer is only 25% to 50%.²¹ Due to this low sensitivity, supplemental imaging is helpful, particularly in women already at risk of breast cancer based on family history.

Supplemental screening

Digital mammography with tomosynthesis was approved by the FDA in 2011 for use in combination with standard digital mammography for breast cancer screening. Compared with traditional 2-dimensional mammography alone, adding 3-D tomosynthesis decreases the recall rate and increases the cancer detection rate.²⁵

Tomosynthesis tends to perform better in women with heterogeneously dense breasts (BI-RADS category C). There is no significant improvement in cancer detection in women with extremely dense breasts (BI-RADS category D).²⁶

Depending on the methodology, radiation exposure can be either higher or lower than with traditional mammography. However, in all forms, the very small amount of radiation is considered safe.

Whole breast ultrasonography. When whole breast ultrasonography is used to supplement mammography, the recall rate is higher than when mammography is used alone (14% vs 7%–11%).²² It also increases the cancer detection rate by 4.4 additional cancers per 1,000 examinations. However, the false-positive rate with whole breast ultrasonography is higher; the positive predictive value of combined mammography and ultrasonography is 11.2% vs 22.6% for mammography alone.²² Therefore, we do not generally recommend whole breast ultrasonography as a supplement to mammography in women with dense breast tissue unless other studies are not an option.

Molecular breast imaging is not widely available because it requires special equipment, injection of a radiopharamceutical (technetium Tc 99m sestamibi), and a radiologist who specializes in breast imaging to interpret the results. When it is available, however, it increases the cancer detection rate by 8.8 in 1,000 examinations; the positive predictive value is similar to that of screening mammography alone.²¹ It is particularly useful in patients with dense breasts who do not qualify for screening magnetic resonance imaging (lifetime risk of < 20% to 25%).

Technetium sestamibi is associated with a minimal amount of radiation exposure (2.4 mSv vs 1.2 mSV with standard mammography). However, this exposure is much less than background radiation exposure and is considered safe.²¹

Screening mammography can disclose abnormalities such as calcifications, masses, asymmetry, or architectural distortion.²⁷ Abnormalities are reported using standardized BI-RADS categories designated with the numbers 0 through 6 (Table 3).²³

A report of BI-RADS category 0 (incomplete), 4 (suspicious), or 5 (highly suspicious) requires additional workup.

Category 1 (negative) requires no further follow-up, and the patient should resume age-appropriate screening.

For patients with category 2 (benign) findings, routine screening is recommended, whereas patients with category 3 (probably benign) are advised to come back in 6 months for follow-up imaging.

Diagnostic mammography includes additional assessments for focal symptoms or areas of abnormality noted on screening imaging or clinical examination. These may include spot magnification views of areas of asymmetry, mass, architectural distortion, or calcifications. Ultrasonography of focal breast abnormalities can help determine if there is an underlying cyst or solid mass.

MANAGEMENT OF BENIGN FINDINGS ON BREAST BIOPSY

Benign breast disease is diagnosed when a patient with a palpable or radiographic abnormality undergoes breast biopsy with benign findings.^28,29 It can be largely grouped into 3 categories: nonproliferative, proliferative without atypia, and proliferative with atypia (Table 4).^28,29

If core-needle biopsy study results are benign, the next step is to establish radiologic-pathologic and clinical-pathologic concordance. If the findings on clinical examination or imaging are not consistent with those on pathologic study, excisional biopsy should be performed, as imaging-directed biopsy may not have adequately sampled the lesion.³⁰

Nonproliferative lesions account for about 65% of findings on core-needle biopsy and include simple cysts, fibroadenomas, columnar cell changes, apocrine metaplasia, and mild ductal hyperplasia of the usual type. These lesions do not significantly increase the risk of breast cancer; the relative risk is 1.2 to 1.4.^28,29 Additionally, the risk of “upstaging” after excisional biopsy—ie, to a higher-risk lesion or to malignancy—is minimal. Therefore, no additional action is necessary when these findings alone are noted on core-needle biopsy.

Proliferative lesions without atypia account for about 30% of biopsy results and include usual ductal hyperplasia, sclerosing adenosis, columnar hyperplasia, papilloma, and radial scar. Generally, there is a slightly increased risk of subsequent breast cancer, with a relative risk of 1.7 to 2.1.²⁸ Usual ductal hyperplasia and columnar hyperplasia have little risk of upstaging with excision, and therefore, surgical consultation is not recommended.

Previously, surgical excision was recommended for any intraductal papilloma due to risk of upgrade in pathologic diagnosis at the time of excision. However, more recent data suggest that the upgrade rate is about 2.2% for a solitary papilloma that is less than 1 cm in diameter and without associated mass lesion (either clinically or radiographically), is concordant with radiographic findings, and has no associated atypical cells on biopsy.³¹ In this case, observation and short-interval clinical follow-up are reasonable. If there are multiple papillomas, the patient has symptoms such as persistent bloody nipple discharge, or any of the above criteria are not met, surgical excision is recommended.²⁸

Similarly, radial scars and complex sclerosing lesions are increasingly likely to be associated with malignancy based on size. Upstaging ranges from 0% to 12%. It is again important when evaluating radial scars that there is pathologic concordance and that there were no associated high-risk lesions on pathology. If this is the case, it is reasonable to clinically monitor patients with small radial scars, particularly in those who do not have an elevated risk of developing breast cancer.³⁰

For all patients who have undergone biopsy and whose pathology study results are benign, a thorough risk evaluation should be performed, including calculation of their lifetime risk of breast cancer. This can be done with the National Cancer Institute Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool, the International Breast Cancer Intervention Study (IBIS) risk calculator, or other model using family history as a basis for calculations. Patients found to have a lifetime risk of breast cancer of greater than 20% to 25% should be offered annual screening with magnetic resonance imaging in addition to mammography.

ATYPICAL HYPERPLASIA: INCREASED RISK

When biopsy study shows atypical ductal hyperplasia or atypical lobular hyperplasia, there is an increased risk of breast cancer.^28,32 The absolute overall risk of developing breast cancer in 25 years is 30%, and that risk is further stratified based on the number of foci of atypia noted in the specimen.²⁹

When core-needle biopsy study reveals atypical ductal hyperplasia in the tissue, there is a 15% to 30% risk of finding breast cancer with surgical excision.²⁸ Surgical excision is therefore recommended for atypical ductal hyperplasia noted on core-needle biopsy.²⁸

In contrast, when atypical lobular hyperplasia alone is noted, the risk of upstagingto malignancy varies widely—from 0% to 67%—although recent studies have noted risks of 1% to 3%.^33,34 Thus, the decision for surgical excision is more variable. Generally, if the atypical lobular hyperplasia is noted incidentally, is not associated with a higher grade lesion, and is concordant with imaging, it is reasonable to closely monitor with serial imaging and physical examination. Excision is unnecessary.³⁵

Patients found to have atypical hyperplasia on breast biopsy should receive counseling about risk-reducing medications. Selective estrogen receptor modulators such as tamoxifen and raloxifene have been shown to reduce the risk of breast cancer by as much as 86% in patients with atypical hyperplasia.³⁶ Similarly, aromatase inhibitors such as exemestane and anastrozole reduce breast cancer risk by approximately 65%.³⁷

LAS VEGAS – It’s the number of uterine incisions and fibroids removed that increase the risk of miscarriage after fibroid treatment, not the type of procedure, according to a review of 252 cases at Northwestern University, Chicago.

Surgeons feel terrible when a woman loses a pregnancy after fibroid treatment, and wonder if they “caused it, or if it was just a bad uterus or a bad initial pathology,” said lead investigator Laura M. Glaser, MD, an ob.gyn. in private practice in Lake Forest, Ill.

Her study, which was presented at a meeting sponsored by AAGL, suggests that miscarriage occurs mostly from complex pathology, as indicated by the number of fibroids and the degree of uterine cutting needed to remove them. The team reviewed outcomes among women who conceived after treatment; 28 had robotic-assisted myomectomies; 208 had open, abdominal myomectomies; and 16 had uterine fibroid embolization (UFE). Miscarriage was defined as pregnancy loss before 24 weeks.

After the researchers adjusted for age, body mass index, and parity, there were no statistically significant differences in miscarriage rates among the three groups (31% after UFE, 29% after robotic myomectomy, and 22% after abdominal myomectomy).

Open cases had the largest dominant fibroid at a mean of 8.5 cm, the most fibroids removed at 4.5, and the highest rate of cavity entry, 42%. Even so, at 22%, open cases were the least likely to miscarry.

Uterine size, specimen weight, time from procedure to pregnancy, and fibroid location didn’t seem to matter otherwise. The only risk factors that reached statistical significance were among women who had myomectomies; an increasing number of uterine cuts (odds ratio, 1.558; P = .004) and fibroids removed (OR, 1.11; P = .033) increased the odds of miscarriage.

More than 40% of women in the UFE group had previous fibroid surgery, versus 5% among women who had myomectomies. UFE women also were far more likely to have had a previous birth (50% versus 17%), but less likely to have subserosal fibroids (13% versus 33%), and their dominant fibroid was a few centimeters smaller.

Subjects were in their mid-30s, on average, with a mean body mass index of about 28 kg/m². Just over 40% of the women who had myomectomies were white, versus 19% of women who had UFE.

There was no outside funding for the work, and the investigators didn’t have any disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Glaser LM et al. 2018 AAGL Global Congress, Abstract 160

LAS VEGAS – It’s the number of uterine incisions and fibroids removed that increase the risk of miscarriage after fibroid treatment, not the type of procedure, according to a review of 252 cases at Northwestern University, Chicago.

Surgeons feel terrible when a woman loses a pregnancy after fibroid treatment, and wonder if they “caused it, or if it was just a bad uterus or a bad initial pathology,” said lead investigator Laura M. Glaser, MD, an ob.gyn. in private practice in Lake Forest, Ill.

Her study, which was presented at a meeting sponsored by AAGL, suggests that miscarriage occurs mostly from complex pathology, as indicated by the number of fibroids and the degree of uterine cutting needed to remove them. The team reviewed outcomes among women who conceived after treatment; 28 had robotic-assisted myomectomies; 208 had open, abdominal myomectomies; and 16 had uterine fibroid embolization (UFE). Miscarriage was defined as pregnancy loss before 24 weeks.

After the researchers adjusted for age, body mass index, and parity, there were no statistically significant differences in miscarriage rates among the three groups (31% after UFE, 29% after robotic myomectomy, and 22% after abdominal myomectomy).

Open cases had the largest dominant fibroid at a mean of 8.5 cm, the most fibroids removed at 4.5, and the highest rate of cavity entry, 42%. Even so, at 22%, open cases were the least likely to miscarry.

Uterine size, specimen weight, time from procedure to pregnancy, and fibroid location didn’t seem to matter otherwise. The only risk factors that reached statistical significance were among women who had myomectomies; an increasing number of uterine cuts (odds ratio, 1.558; P = .004) and fibroids removed (OR, 1.11; P = .033) increased the odds of miscarriage.

More than 40% of women in the UFE group had previous fibroid surgery, versus 5% among women who had myomectomies. UFE women also were far more likely to have had a previous birth (50% versus 17%), but less likely to have subserosal fibroids (13% versus 33%), and their dominant fibroid was a few centimeters smaller.

Subjects were in their mid-30s, on average, with a mean body mass index of about 28 kg/m². Just over 40% of the women who had myomectomies were white, versus 19% of women who had UFE.

There was no outside funding for the work, and the investigators didn’t have any disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Glaser LM et al. 2018 AAGL Global Congress, Abstract 160

LAS VEGAS – It’s the number of uterine incisions and fibroids removed that increase the risk of miscarriage after fibroid treatment, not the type of procedure, according to a review of 252 cases at Northwestern University, Chicago.

Surgeons feel terrible when a woman loses a pregnancy after fibroid treatment, and wonder if they “caused it, or if it was just a bad uterus or a bad initial pathology,” said lead investigator Laura M. Glaser, MD, an ob.gyn. in private practice in Lake Forest, Ill.

Her study, which was presented at a meeting sponsored by AAGL, suggests that miscarriage occurs mostly from complex pathology, as indicated by the number of fibroids and the degree of uterine cutting needed to remove them. The team reviewed outcomes among women who conceived after treatment; 28 had robotic-assisted myomectomies; 208 had open, abdominal myomectomies; and 16 had uterine fibroid embolization (UFE). Miscarriage was defined as pregnancy loss before 24 weeks.

After the researchers adjusted for age, body mass index, and parity, there were no statistically significant differences in miscarriage rates among the three groups (31% after UFE, 29% after robotic myomectomy, and 22% after abdominal myomectomy).

Open cases had the largest dominant fibroid at a mean of 8.5 cm, the most fibroids removed at 4.5, and the highest rate of cavity entry, 42%. Even so, at 22%, open cases were the least likely to miscarry.

Uterine size, specimen weight, time from procedure to pregnancy, and fibroid location didn’t seem to matter otherwise. The only risk factors that reached statistical significance were among women who had myomectomies; an increasing number of uterine cuts (odds ratio, 1.558; P = .004) and fibroids removed (OR, 1.11; P = .033) increased the odds of miscarriage.

More than 40% of women in the UFE group had previous fibroid surgery, versus 5% among women who had myomectomies. UFE women also were far more likely to have had a previous birth (50% versus 17%), but less likely to have subserosal fibroids (13% versus 33%), and their dominant fibroid was a few centimeters smaller.

Subjects were in their mid-30s, on average, with a mean body mass index of about 28 kg/m². Just over 40% of the women who had myomectomies were white, versus 19% of women who had UFE.

There was no outside funding for the work, and the investigators didn’t have any disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Glaser LM et al. 2018 AAGL Global Congress, Abstract 160

Women with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) were not more likely to take aspirin during pregnancy than when not pregnant, despite the potential to reduce preeclampsia risk, based on data from 300 women.

Although aspirin is recommended to reduce preeclampsia risk in pregnant SLE patients, data on current practice patterns are limited, wrote Arielle Mendel, MD, of McGill University, Montreal, and colleagues in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

The researchers identified 475 pregnancies among 300 women aged 18-45 years who were pregnant during the study period from 2000 to 2017. The average duration of SLE duration at the time of pregnancy was 5.6 years, and approximately half (51%) of pregnancies had one or more traditional preeclampsia risk factors. In addition, 33% of the women had positive antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL).

Overall, 25% of the pregnancies included aspirin use, with no significant difference among those with one or more risk factors, any individual risk factor, or nephritis.

The study population was 44% white, 19% black, 14% Asian, 13% Hispanic, 5% from the Indian subcontinent, 1% Native American, and 5% other ethnicities.

Approximately 34% of white patients and 32% of Hispanic patients were exposed to aspirin, compared with 18% and 20% of black and Asian patients, respectively. Aspirin use did not increase over the study period, although there was a trend for increased use in patients with a positive aPL, compared with those with no aPL.

“The low aspirin use among black SLE subjects is noteworthy given the worse reproductive outcomes observed in this population,” the researchers wrote.

The findings were limited by several factors, including a lack of data on gestational age and pregnancy outcomes, the researchers noted. However, the results highlight the gap between recommendations and practice, and the need for additional research on aspirin use in pregnant SLE patients.

The study was supported in part by a McGill University Health Centre Research Award; the researchers reported no financial conflicts.

SOURCE: Mendel A et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2018 Dec 20. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2018-214434.

Women with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) were not more likely to take aspirin during pregnancy than when not pregnant, despite the potential to reduce preeclampsia risk, based on data from 300 women.

Although aspirin is recommended to reduce preeclampsia risk in pregnant SLE patients, data on current practice patterns are limited, wrote Arielle Mendel, MD, of McGill University, Montreal, and colleagues in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

The researchers identified 475 pregnancies among 300 women aged 18-45 years who were pregnant during the study period from 2000 to 2017. The average duration of SLE duration at the time of pregnancy was 5.6 years, and approximately half (51%) of pregnancies had one or more traditional preeclampsia risk factors. In addition, 33% of the women had positive antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL).

Overall, 25% of the pregnancies included aspirin use, with no significant difference among those with one or more risk factors, any individual risk factor, or nephritis.

The study population was 44% white, 19% black, 14% Asian, 13% Hispanic, 5% from the Indian subcontinent, 1% Native American, and 5% other ethnicities.

Approximately 34% of white patients and 32% of Hispanic patients were exposed to aspirin, compared with 18% and 20% of black and Asian patients, respectively. Aspirin use did not increase over the study period, although there was a trend for increased use in patients with a positive aPL, compared with those with no aPL.

“The low aspirin use among black SLE subjects is noteworthy given the worse reproductive outcomes observed in this population,” the researchers wrote.

The findings were limited by several factors, including a lack of data on gestational age and pregnancy outcomes, the researchers noted. However, the results highlight the gap between recommendations and practice, and the need for additional research on aspirin use in pregnant SLE patients.

The study was supported in part by a McGill University Health Centre Research Award; the researchers reported no financial conflicts.

SOURCE: Mendel A et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2018 Dec 20. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2018-214434.

Women with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) were not more likely to take aspirin during pregnancy than when not pregnant, despite the potential to reduce preeclampsia risk, based on data from 300 women.

Although aspirin is recommended to reduce preeclampsia risk in pregnant SLE patients, data on current practice patterns are limited, wrote Arielle Mendel, MD, of McGill University, Montreal, and colleagues in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

The researchers identified 475 pregnancies among 300 women aged 18-45 years who were pregnant during the study period from 2000 to 2017. The average duration of SLE duration at the time of pregnancy was 5.6 years, and approximately half (51%) of pregnancies had one or more traditional preeclampsia risk factors. In addition, 33% of the women had positive antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL).

Overall, 25% of the pregnancies included aspirin use, with no significant difference among those with one or more risk factors, any individual risk factor, or nephritis.

The study population was 44% white, 19% black, 14% Asian, 13% Hispanic, 5% from the Indian subcontinent, 1% Native American, and 5% other ethnicities.

Approximately 34% of white patients and 32% of Hispanic patients were exposed to aspirin, compared with 18% and 20% of black and Asian patients, respectively. Aspirin use did not increase over the study period, although there was a trend for increased use in patients with a positive aPL, compared with those with no aPL.

“The low aspirin use among black SLE subjects is noteworthy given the worse reproductive outcomes observed in this population,” the researchers wrote.

The findings were limited by several factors, including a lack of data on gestational age and pregnancy outcomes, the researchers noted. However, the results highlight the gap between recommendations and practice, and the need for additional research on aspirin use in pregnant SLE patients.

The study was supported in part by a McGill University Health Centre Research Award; the researchers reported no financial conflicts.

SOURCE: Mendel A et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2018 Dec 20. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2018-214434.

The Food and Drug Administration has ordered Bayer to expand a postmarketing surveillance study of its implantable contraceptive device Essure, despite its imminent disappearance from the U.S. market on December 31.

Courtesy Bayer

The study, ordered in 2016, will now run 5 years instead of 3, and the cohort will be enlarged to add any women who elect implantation while the device is still on the market, FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD, announced in a press statement. The agency also added a key biological measure: All patients with Essure will undergo regular blood work to evaluate proinflammatory markers that could be device related.

“We’re requiring additional blood testing of patients enrolled in follow-up visits during the study to learn more about patients’ levels of certain inflammatory markers that can be indicators of increased inflammation,” Dr. Gottlieb said. “This could help us better evaluate potential immune reactions to the device and whether these findings are associated with symptoms that patients have reported related to Essure.”

The device has been associated with severe problems in some patients, he noted.

“I personally had the opportunity to meet with women who have been adversely affected by Essure to listen and learn about their concerns. Some of the women I spoke with developed significant medical problems that they ascribe to their use of the product. We remain committed to these women and to improving how we monitor the safety of medical devices, including those related to women’s health.”

The study expansion comes as Bayer is facing more than 16,000 lawsuits over adverse events associated with Essure implantation.

Since its approval, Essure is estimated to have been used by more than 750,000 patients worldwide. Bayer claims the device is 99% effective in preventing pregnancy, but it’s also been associated with some serious risks, including persistent pain, perforation of the uterus and fallopian tubes, and migration of the coils into the pelvis or abdomen. In view of these – and more than 15,000 adverse events reported to the FDA – the agency announced new restrictions on Essure earlier this year. Those restrictions, plus a prior boxed warning on the label, contributed to about a 70% decline in U.S. sales, which Bayer says prompted the discontinuation.

The open-label prospective observational study will compare women who have the Essure device to a matched cohort that underwent laparoscopic tubal ligation. The main safety endpoints are chronic pelvic pain and abnormal uterine bleeding, as well as the new measure of inflammatory markers. As of Dec. 3, 791 patients have been enrolled (293 in the Essure arm and 498 in the laparoscopic tubal ligation arm).

Women who have the implant now and remain free of any adverse events should probably keep the device, Dr. Gottlieb advised.

“We believe women who’ve been using Essure successfully to prevent pregnancy can and should continue to do so. Women who suspect the device may be related to symptoms they are experiencing, such as persistent pain, should talk to their doctor on what steps may be appropriate. Device removal has its own risks. Patients should discuss the benefits and risks of any procedure with their health care providers before deciding on the best option for them.”

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has ordered Bayer to expand a postmarketing surveillance study of its implantable contraceptive device Essure, despite its imminent disappearance from the U.S. market on December 31.

Courtesy Bayer

The study, ordered in 2016, will now run 5 years instead of 3, and the cohort will be enlarged to add any women who elect implantation while the device is still on the market, FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD, announced in a press statement. The agency also added a key biological measure: All patients with Essure will undergo regular blood work to evaluate proinflammatory markers that could be device related.

“We’re requiring additional blood testing of patients enrolled in follow-up visits during the study to learn more about patients’ levels of certain inflammatory markers that can be indicators of increased inflammation,” Dr. Gottlieb said. “This could help us better evaluate potential immune reactions to the device and whether these findings are associated with symptoms that patients have reported related to Essure.”

The device has been associated with severe problems in some patients, he noted.

“I personally had the opportunity to meet with women who have been adversely affected by Essure to listen and learn about their concerns. Some of the women I spoke with developed significant medical problems that they ascribe to their use of the product. We remain committed to these women and to improving how we monitor the safety of medical devices, including those related to women’s health.”

The study expansion comes as Bayer is facing more than 16,000 lawsuits over adverse events associated with Essure implantation.

Since its approval, Essure is estimated to have been used by more than 750,000 patients worldwide. Bayer claims the device is 99% effective in preventing pregnancy, but it’s also been associated with some serious risks, including persistent pain, perforation of the uterus and fallopian tubes, and migration of the coils into the pelvis or abdomen. In view of these – and more than 15,000 adverse events reported to the FDA – the agency announced new restrictions on Essure earlier this year. Those restrictions, plus a prior boxed warning on the label, contributed to about a 70% decline in U.S. sales, which Bayer says prompted the discontinuation.

The open-label prospective observational study will compare women who have the Essure device to a matched cohort that underwent laparoscopic tubal ligation. The main safety endpoints are chronic pelvic pain and abnormal uterine bleeding, as well as the new measure of inflammatory markers. As of Dec. 3, 791 patients have been enrolled (293 in the Essure arm and 498 in the laparoscopic tubal ligation arm).

Women who have the implant now and remain free of any adverse events should probably keep the device, Dr. Gottlieb advised.

“We believe women who’ve been using Essure successfully to prevent pregnancy can and should continue to do so. Women who suspect the device may be related to symptoms they are experiencing, such as persistent pain, should talk to their doctor on what steps may be appropriate. Device removal has its own risks. Patients should discuss the benefits and risks of any procedure with their health care providers before deciding on the best option for them.”

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has ordered Bayer to expand a postmarketing surveillance study of its implantable contraceptive device Essure, despite its imminent disappearance from the U.S. market on December 31.

Courtesy Bayer

The study, ordered in 2016, will now run 5 years instead of 3, and the cohort will be enlarged to add any women who elect implantation while the device is still on the market, FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD, announced in a press statement. The agency also added a key biological measure: All patients with Essure will undergo regular blood work to evaluate proinflammatory markers that could be device related.

“We’re requiring additional blood testing of patients enrolled in follow-up visits during the study to learn more about patients’ levels of certain inflammatory markers that can be indicators of increased inflammation,” Dr. Gottlieb said. “This could help us better evaluate potential immune reactions to the device and whether these findings are associated with symptoms that patients have reported related to Essure.”

The device has been associated with severe problems in some patients, he noted.

“I personally had the opportunity to meet with women who have been adversely affected by Essure to listen and learn about their concerns. Some of the women I spoke with developed significant medical problems that they ascribe to their use of the product. We remain committed to these women and to improving how we monitor the safety of medical devices, including those related to women’s health.”

The study expansion comes as Bayer is facing more than 16,000 lawsuits over adverse events associated with Essure implantation.

Since its approval, Essure is estimated to have been used by more than 750,000 patients worldwide. Bayer claims the device is 99% effective in preventing pregnancy, but it’s also been associated with some serious risks, including persistent pain, perforation of the uterus and fallopian tubes, and migration of the coils into the pelvis or abdomen. In view of these – and more than 15,000 adverse events reported to the FDA – the agency announced new restrictions on Essure earlier this year. Those restrictions, plus a prior boxed warning on the label, contributed to about a 70% decline in U.S. sales, which Bayer says prompted the discontinuation.

The open-label prospective observational study will compare women who have the Essure device to a matched cohort that underwent laparoscopic tubal ligation. The main safety endpoints are chronic pelvic pain and abnormal uterine bleeding, as well as the new measure of inflammatory markers. As of Dec. 3, 791 patients have been enrolled (293 in the Essure arm and 498 in the laparoscopic tubal ligation arm).

Women who have the implant now and remain free of any adverse events should probably keep the device, Dr. Gottlieb advised.

“We believe women who’ve been using Essure successfully to prevent pregnancy can and should continue to do so. Women who suspect the device may be related to symptoms they are experiencing, such as persistent pain, should talk to their doctor on what steps may be appropriate. Device removal has its own risks. Patients should discuss the benefits and risks of any procedure with their health care providers before deciding on the best option for them.”

[email protected]

LAS VEGAS – Officially a type of precancerous lesion is known as vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia (VIN); unofficially, an obstetrician-gynecologist calls it something else: “The Great Mimicker.” That’s because symptoms of VIN can fool physicians into thinking they’re seeing other vulvar conditions. The good news: A biopsy can offer crucial insight and should be performed on any dysplastic or unusual lesion on the vulva.

Courtesy Cashman Photo

Amanda Nickles Fader, MD, of Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, offered this advice and other tips about this type of precancerous vulvar lesion in a presentation at the Pelvic Anatomy and Gynecologic Surgery Symposium.

According to Dr. Nickles Fader, vulvar cancer accounts for 5% of all gynecologic malignancies, and it appears most in women aged 65-75 years. However, about 15% of all vulvar cancers appear in women under the age of 40 years. “We’re seeing a greater number of premenopausal women with this condition, probably due to HPV [human papillomavirus],” she said, adding that HPV vaccines are crucial to prevention.

The VIN form of precancerous lesion is most common in premenopausal women (75%) and – like vulvar cancer – is linked to HPV infection, HIV infection, cigarette smoking, and weakened or suppressed immune systems, Dr. Nickles Faber said at the meeting jointly provided by Global Academy for Medical Education and the University of Cincinnati. Global Academy and this news organization are owned by the same company.

VIN presents with symptoms such as pruritus, altered vulvar appearance at the site of the lesion, palpable abnormality, and perineal pain or burning. About 40% of cases do not show symptoms and are diagnosed by gynecologists at annual visits.

It’s important to biopsy these lesions, she said, because they can mimic other conditions such as vulvar cancer, condyloma acuminatum (genital warts), lichen sclerosus, lichen planus, and condyloma latum (a lesion linked to syphilis).

“Biopsy, biopsy, biopsy,” she urged.

In fact, one form of VIN – differentiated VIN – is associated with dermatologic conditions such as lichen sclerosus, and treatment of these conditions can prevent development of this VIN type.

As for treatment, Dr. Nickles Faber said surgery is the mainstay. About 90% of the time, wide local excision is the “go-to” approach, although the skinning vulvectomy procedure may be appropriate in lesions that are more extensive or multifocal and confluent. “It’s a lot more disfiguring.”

Laser ablation is a “very reasonable” option when cancer has been eliminated as a possibility, she said. It may be appropriate in multifocal or extensive lesions and can have important cosmetic advantages when excision would be inappropriate.

Off-label use of imiquimod 5%, a topical immune response modifier, can be appropriate in multifocal high-grade VINs, but it’s crucial to exclude invasive squamous cell carcinoma. As she noted, imiquimod is Food and Drug Administration–approved for anogenital warts but not for VIN. Beware of toxicity over the long term.

Dr. Nickles Fader reported no relevant financial disclosures.

LAS VEGAS – Officially a type of precancerous lesion is known as vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia (VIN); unofficially, an obstetrician-gynecologist calls it something else: “The Great Mimicker.” That’s because symptoms of VIN can fool physicians into thinking they’re seeing other vulvar conditions. The good news: A biopsy can offer crucial insight and should be performed on any dysplastic or unusual lesion on the vulva.

Courtesy Cashman Photo

Amanda Nickles Fader, MD, of Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, offered this advice and other tips about this type of precancerous vulvar lesion in a presentation at the Pelvic Anatomy and Gynecologic Surgery Symposium.

According to Dr. Nickles Fader, vulvar cancer accounts for 5% of all gynecologic malignancies, and it appears most in women aged 65-75 years. However, about 15% of all vulvar cancers appear in women under the age of 40 years. “We’re seeing a greater number of premenopausal women with this condition, probably due to HPV [human papillomavirus],” she said, adding that HPV vaccines are crucial to prevention.

The VIN form of precancerous lesion is most common in premenopausal women (75%) and – like vulvar cancer – is linked to HPV infection, HIV infection, cigarette smoking, and weakened or suppressed immune systems, Dr. Nickles Faber said at the meeting jointly provided by Global Academy for Medical Education and the University of Cincinnati. Global Academy and this news organization are owned by the same company.

VIN presents with symptoms such as pruritus, altered vulvar appearance at the site of the lesion, palpable abnormality, and perineal pain or burning. About 40% of cases do not show symptoms and are diagnosed by gynecologists at annual visits.

It’s important to biopsy these lesions, she said, because they can mimic other conditions such as vulvar cancer, condyloma acuminatum (genital warts), lichen sclerosus, lichen planus, and condyloma latum (a lesion linked to syphilis).

“Biopsy, biopsy, biopsy,” she urged.

In fact, one form of VIN – differentiated VIN – is associated with dermatologic conditions such as lichen sclerosus, and treatment of these conditions can prevent development of this VIN type.

As for treatment, Dr. Nickles Faber said surgery is the mainstay. About 90% of the time, wide local excision is the “go-to” approach, although the skinning vulvectomy procedure may be appropriate in lesions that are more extensive or multifocal and confluent. “It’s a lot more disfiguring.”

Laser ablation is a “very reasonable” option when cancer has been eliminated as a possibility, she said. It may be appropriate in multifocal or extensive lesions and can have important cosmetic advantages when excision would be inappropriate.

Off-label use of imiquimod 5%, a topical immune response modifier, can be appropriate in multifocal high-grade VINs, but it’s crucial to exclude invasive squamous cell carcinoma. As she noted, imiquimod is Food and Drug Administration–approved for anogenital warts but not for VIN. Beware of toxicity over the long term.

Dr. Nickles Fader reported no relevant financial disclosures.

LAS VEGAS – Officially a type of precancerous lesion is known as vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia (VIN); unofficially, an obstetrician-gynecologist calls it something else: “The Great Mimicker.” That’s because symptoms of VIN can fool physicians into thinking they’re seeing other vulvar conditions. The good news: A biopsy can offer crucial insight and should be performed on any dysplastic or unusual lesion on the vulva.

Courtesy Cashman Photo

Amanda Nickles Fader, MD, of Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, offered this advice and other tips about this type of precancerous vulvar lesion in a presentation at the Pelvic Anatomy and Gynecologic Surgery Symposium.

According to Dr. Nickles Fader, vulvar cancer accounts for 5% of all gynecologic malignancies, and it appears most in women aged 65-75 years. However, about 15% of all vulvar cancers appear in women under the age of 40 years. “We’re seeing a greater number of premenopausal women with this condition, probably due to HPV [human papillomavirus],” she said, adding that HPV vaccines are crucial to prevention.

The VIN form of precancerous lesion is most common in premenopausal women (75%) and – like vulvar cancer – is linked to HPV infection, HIV infection, cigarette smoking, and weakened or suppressed immune systems, Dr. Nickles Faber said at the meeting jointly provided by Global Academy for Medical Education and the University of Cincinnati. Global Academy and this news organization are owned by the same company.

VIN presents with symptoms such as pruritus, altered vulvar appearance at the site of the lesion, palpable abnormality, and perineal pain or burning. About 40% of cases do not show symptoms and are diagnosed by gynecologists at annual visits.

It’s important to biopsy these lesions, she said, because they can mimic other conditions such as vulvar cancer, condyloma acuminatum (genital warts), lichen sclerosus, lichen planus, and condyloma latum (a lesion linked to syphilis).

“Biopsy, biopsy, biopsy,” she urged.

In fact, one form of VIN – differentiated VIN – is associated with dermatologic conditions such as lichen sclerosus, and treatment of these conditions can prevent development of this VIN type.

As for treatment, Dr. Nickles Faber said surgery is the mainstay. About 90% of the time, wide local excision is the “go-to” approach, although the skinning vulvectomy procedure may be appropriate in lesions that are more extensive or multifocal and confluent. “It’s a lot more disfiguring.”

Laser ablation is a “very reasonable” option when cancer has been eliminated as a possibility, she said. It may be appropriate in multifocal or extensive lesions and can have important cosmetic advantages when excision would be inappropriate.

Off-label use of imiquimod 5%, a topical immune response modifier, can be appropriate in multifocal high-grade VINs, but it’s crucial to exclude invasive squamous cell carcinoma. As she noted, imiquimod is Food and Drug Administration–approved for anogenital warts but not for VIN. Beware of toxicity over the long term.

Dr. Nickles Fader reported no relevant financial disclosures.

Pregnant women commonly refuse vaccines, and refusal of influenza vaccine is more common than refusal of Tdap vaccine, according to a nationally representative survey of obstetrician/gynecologists.

“It appears vaccine refusal among pregnant women may be more common than parental refusal of childhood vaccines,” Sean T. O’Leary, MD, MPH, director of the Colorado Children’s Outcomes Network at the University of Colorado in Aurora, and his coauthors wrote in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

The survey was sent to 477 ob.gyns. via both email and mail between March and June 2016. The response rate was 69%, and almost all respondents reported recommending both influenza (97%) and Tdap (95%) vaccines to pregnant women.

However, respondents also reported that refusal of both vaccines was common, with more refusals of influenza vaccine than Tdap vaccine. Of ob.gyns. who responded, 62% reported that 10% or greater of their pregnant patients refused the influenza vaccine, compared with 32% reporting this for Tdap vaccine (P greater than .001; x2, less than 10% vs. 10% or greater). Of those refusing the vaccine, 48% believed influenza vaccine would make them sick; 38% felt they were unlikely to get a vaccine-preventable disease; and 32% had general worries about vaccines overall. In addition, the only strategy perceived as “very effective” in convincing a vaccine refuser to choose otherwise was “explaining that not getting the vaccine puts the fetus or newborn at risk.”

The authors shared potential limitations of their study, including the fact that they examined reported practices and perceptions, not observed practices, along with the potential that the attitudes and practices of respondents may differ from those of nonrespondents. However, they noted that this is unlikely given prior work and that next steps should consider responses to refusal while also sympathizing with the patients’ concerns. “Future work should focus on testing evidence-based strategies for addressing vaccine refusal in the obstetric setting and understanding how the unique concerns of pregnant women influence the effectiveness of such strategies,” they wrote.

The study was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. No conflicts of interest were reported.

SOURCE: O’Leary ST et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Dec. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003005.

Pregnant women commonly refuse vaccines, and refusal of influenza vaccine is more common than refusal of Tdap vaccine, according to a nationally representative survey of obstetrician/gynecologists.

“It appears vaccine refusal among pregnant women may be more common than parental refusal of childhood vaccines,” Sean T. O’Leary, MD, MPH, director of the Colorado Children’s Outcomes Network at the University of Colorado in Aurora, and his coauthors wrote in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

The survey was sent to 477 ob.gyns. via both email and mail between March and June 2016. The response rate was 69%, and almost all respondents reported recommending both influenza (97%) and Tdap (95%) vaccines to pregnant women.

However, respondents also reported that refusal of both vaccines was common, with more refusals of influenza vaccine than Tdap vaccine. Of ob.gyns. who responded, 62% reported that 10% or greater of their pregnant patients refused the influenza vaccine, compared with 32% reporting this for Tdap vaccine (P greater than .001; x2, less than 10% vs. 10% or greater). Of those refusing the vaccine, 48% believed influenza vaccine would make them sick; 38% felt they were unlikely to get a vaccine-preventable disease; and 32% had general worries about vaccines overall. In addition, the only strategy perceived as “very effective” in convincing a vaccine refuser to choose otherwise was “explaining that not getting the vaccine puts the fetus or newborn at risk.”

The authors shared potential limitations of their study, including the fact that they examined reported practices and perceptions, not observed practices, along with the potential that the attitudes and practices of respondents may differ from those of nonrespondents. However, they noted that this is unlikely given prior work and that next steps should consider responses to refusal while also sympathizing with the patients’ concerns. “Future work should focus on testing evidence-based strategies for addressing vaccine refusal in the obstetric setting and understanding how the unique concerns of pregnant women influence the effectiveness of such strategies,” they wrote.

The study was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. No conflicts of interest were reported.

SOURCE: O’Leary ST et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Dec. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003005.

Pregnant women commonly refuse vaccines, and refusal of influenza vaccine is more common than refusal of Tdap vaccine, according to a nationally representative survey of obstetrician/gynecologists.

“It appears vaccine refusal among pregnant women may be more common than parental refusal of childhood vaccines,” Sean T. O’Leary, MD, MPH, director of the Colorado Children’s Outcomes Network at the University of Colorado in Aurora, and his coauthors wrote in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

The survey was sent to 477 ob.gyns. via both email and mail between March and June 2016. The response rate was 69%, and almost all respondents reported recommending both influenza (97%) and Tdap (95%) vaccines to pregnant women.

However, respondents also reported that refusal of both vaccines was common, with more refusals of influenza vaccine than Tdap vaccine. Of ob.gyns. who responded, 62% reported that 10% or greater of their pregnant patients refused the influenza vaccine, compared with 32% reporting this for Tdap vaccine (P greater than .001; x2, less than 10% vs. 10% or greater). Of those refusing the vaccine, 48% believed influenza vaccine would make them sick; 38% felt they were unlikely to get a vaccine-preventable disease; and 32% had general worries about vaccines overall. In addition, the only strategy perceived as “very effective” in convincing a vaccine refuser to choose otherwise was “explaining that not getting the vaccine puts the fetus or newborn at risk.”

The authors shared potential limitations of their study, including the fact that they examined reported practices and perceptions, not observed practices, along with the potential that the attitudes and practices of respondents may differ from those of nonrespondents. However, they noted that this is unlikely given prior work and that next steps should consider responses to refusal while also sympathizing with the patients’ concerns. “Future work should focus on testing evidence-based strategies for addressing vaccine refusal in the obstetric setting and understanding how the unique concerns of pregnant women influence the effectiveness of such strategies,” they wrote.

The study was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. No conflicts of interest were reported.

SOURCE: O’Leary ST et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Dec. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003005.

SAN ANTONIO – Young women with early breast cancer who undergo mastectomy instead of breast-conserving surgery have poorer quality of life in the longer term, according to investigators for a multicenter cross-sectional cohort study reported at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

Women aged 40 or younger make up about 7% of all newly diagnosed cases of breast cancer in the United States, according to lead author, Laura S. Dominici, MD, of Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women’s Cancer Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston.

“Despite the fact that there is equivalent local-regional control with breast conservation and mastectomy, the rates of mastectomy and particularly bilateral mastectomy are increasing in young women, with a 10-fold increase seen from 1998 to 2011,” she noted in a press conference. “Young women are at particular risk for poorer psychosocial outcomes following a breast cancer diagnosis and in survivorship. However, little is known about the impact of surgery, particularly in the era of increasing bilateral mastectomy, on the quality of life of young survivors.”

Nearly three-fourths of the 560 young breast cancer survivors studied had undergone mastectomy, usually with some kind of reconstruction. Roughly 6 years later, compared with peers who had undergone breast-conserving surgery, women who had undergone unilateral or bilateral mastectomy had significantly poorer adjusted BREAST-Q scores for satisfaction with the appearance and feel of their breasts (beta, –8.7 and –9.3 points) and psychosocial well-being (–8.3 and –10.5 points). The latter also had poorer adjusted scores for sexual well-being (–8.1 points). Physical well-being, which captures aspects such as pain and range of motion, did not differ significantly by type of surgery.

“Local therapy decisions are associated with a persistent impact on quality of life in young breast cancer survivors,” Dr. Dominici concluded. “Knowledge of the potential long-term impact of surgery and quality of life is of critical importance for counseling young women about surgical decisions.”
 

Moving away from mastectomy

“The data are, to me anyway, more disconcerting when you consider the high mastectomy rate in this country relative to Europe, and this urge to have bilateral mastectomies, which, pardon the expression, is ridiculous in some cases because it doesn’t improve your outcome. And yet, it does have deleterious effects that last for years psychologically,” commented SABCS codirector and press conference moderator C. Kent Osborne, MD, who is director of the Dan L. Duncan Cancer Center at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston. “What can we do about that?” he asked.

“It’s a really challenging problem,” Dr. Dominici replied. “Part of what we are missing in the conversation that we have with our patients is this kind of information. We can certainly tell patients that the outcomes are equivalent, but if they don’t know that the long-term [quality of life] impact is potentially worse, then that may not affect their decision. The more prospective data that we generate to help us figure out which patients are going to have better or worse outcomes with these different types of surgery, the better we will be able to counsel patients with things that will be meaningful to them in the long run.”

The study was not designed to tease out the specific role of anxiety about a recurrence or a new breast cancer, which is a major driver of the decision to have mastectomy and also needs to be addressed during counseling, Dr. Dominici and Dr. Osborne agreed. “I think I spend more time talking patients out of bilateral mastectomy or mastectomy at all than anything,” he commented.
 

Study details

The women studied were participants in the prospective Young Women’s Breast Cancer Study (YWS) and had a mean age of 37 years at diagnosis. Most (86%) had stage 0-2 breast cancer. (Those with metastatic disease at diagnosis or a recurrence during follow-up were excluded.)

Overall, 52% of the women underwent bilateral mastectomy, 20% underwent unilateral mastectomy, and 28% underwent breast-conserving surgery, Dr. Dominici reported. Within the mastectomy group, most underwent implant-based reconstruction (69%) or flap reconstruction (12%), while some opted for no reconstruction (11%).

Multivariate analyses showed that, in addition to mastectomy, other significant predictors of poorer breast satisfaction were receipt of radiation therapy (beta, –7.5 points) and having a financially uncomfortable status as compared with a comfortable one (–5.4 points).

Additional significant predictors of poorer psychosocial well-being were receiving radiation (beta, –6.0 points), being financially uncomfortable (–7 points), and being overweight or obese (–4.2 points), and additional significant predictors of poorer sexual well-being were being financially uncomfortable (–6.8 points), being overweight or obese (–5.3 points), and having lymphedema a year after diagnosis (–3.8 points).

The only significant predictors of poorer physical health were financially uncomfortable status (beta, –4.8 points) and lymphedema (–6.4 points), whereas longer time since surgery (more than 5 years) predicted better physical health (+6.0 points), according to Dr. Dominici.

Age, race, marital status, work status, education level, disease stage, chemotherapy, and endocrine therapy did not significantly predict any of the outcomes studied.

“This was a one-time survey of women who were enrolled in an observational cohort study, and we know that preoperative quality of life likely drives surgical choices,” she commented, addressing the study’s limitations. “Our findings may have limited generalizability to a more diverse population in that the majority of our participants were white and of high socioeconomic status.”

Dr. Dominici disclosed that she had no conflicts of interest. The study was funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Susan G. Komen, the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, and The Pink Agenda.

SOURCE: Dominici LS et al. SABCS 2018, Abstract GS6-06,

SAN ANTONIO – Young women with early breast cancer who undergo mastectomy instead of breast-conserving surgery have poorer quality of life in the longer term, according to investigators for a multicenter cross-sectional cohort study reported at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

Women aged 40 or younger make up about 7% of all newly diagnosed cases of breast cancer in the United States, according to lead author, Laura S. Dominici, MD, of Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women’s Cancer Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston.

“Despite the fact that there is equivalent local-regional control with breast conservation and mastectomy, the rates of mastectomy and particularly bilateral mastectomy are increasing in young women, with a 10-fold increase seen from 1998 to 2011,” she noted in a press conference. “Young women are at particular risk for poorer psychosocial outcomes following a breast cancer diagnosis and in survivorship. However, little is known about the impact of surgery, particularly in the era of increasing bilateral mastectomy, on the quality of life of young survivors.”

Nearly three-fourths of the 560 young breast cancer survivors studied had undergone mastectomy, usually with some kind of reconstruction. Roughly 6 years later, compared with peers who had undergone breast-conserving surgery, women who had undergone unilateral or bilateral mastectomy had significantly poorer adjusted BREAST-Q scores for satisfaction with the appearance and feel of their breasts (beta, –8.7 and –9.3 points) and psychosocial well-being (–8.3 and –10.5 points). The latter also had poorer adjusted scores for sexual well-being (–8.1 points). Physical well-being, which captures aspects such as pain and range of motion, did not differ significantly by type of surgery.

“Local therapy decisions are associated with a persistent impact on quality of life in young breast cancer survivors,” Dr. Dominici concluded. “Knowledge of the potential long-term impact of surgery and quality of life is of critical importance for counseling young women about surgical decisions.”
 

Moving away from mastectomy

“The data are, to me anyway, more disconcerting when you consider the high mastectomy rate in this country relative to Europe, and this urge to have bilateral mastectomies, which, pardon the expression, is ridiculous in some cases because it doesn’t improve your outcome. And yet, it does have deleterious effects that last for years psychologically,” commented SABCS codirector and press conference moderator C. Kent Osborne, MD, who is director of the Dan L. Duncan Cancer Center at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston. “What can we do about that?” he asked.

“It’s a really challenging problem,” Dr. Dominici replied. “Part of what we are missing in the conversation that we have with our patients is this kind of information. We can certainly tell patients that the outcomes are equivalent, but if they don’t know that the long-term [quality of life] impact is potentially worse, then that may not affect their decision. The more prospective data that we generate to help us figure out which patients are going to have better or worse outcomes with these different types of surgery, the better we will be able to counsel patients with things that will be meaningful to them in the long run.”

The study was not designed to tease out the specific role of anxiety about a recurrence or a new breast cancer, which is a major driver of the decision to have mastectomy and also needs to be addressed during counseling, Dr. Dominici and Dr. Osborne agreed. “I think I spend more time talking patients out of bilateral mastectomy or mastectomy at all than anything,” he commented.
 

Study details

The women studied were participants in the prospective Young Women’s Breast Cancer Study (YWS) and had a mean age of 37 years at diagnosis. Most (86%) had stage 0-2 breast cancer. (Those with metastatic disease at diagnosis or a recurrence during follow-up were excluded.)

Overall, 52% of the women underwent bilateral mastectomy, 20% underwent unilateral mastectomy, and 28% underwent breast-conserving surgery, Dr. Dominici reported. Within the mastectomy group, most underwent implant-based reconstruction (69%) or flap reconstruction (12%), while some opted for no reconstruction (11%).

Multivariate analyses showed that, in addition to mastectomy, other significant predictors of poorer breast satisfaction were receipt of radiation therapy (beta, –7.5 points) and having a financially uncomfortable status as compared with a comfortable one (–5.4 points).

Additional significant predictors of poorer psychosocial well-being were receiving radiation (beta, –6.0 points), being financially uncomfortable (–7 points), and being overweight or obese (–4.2 points), and additional significant predictors of poorer sexual well-being were being financially uncomfortable (–6.8 points), being overweight or obese (–5.3 points), and having lymphedema a year after diagnosis (–3.8 points).

The only significant predictors of poorer physical health were financially uncomfortable status (beta, –4.8 points) and lymphedema (–6.4 points), whereas longer time since surgery (more than 5 years) predicted better physical health (+6.0 points), according to Dr. Dominici.

Age, race, marital status, work status, education level, disease stage, chemotherapy, and endocrine therapy did not significantly predict any of the outcomes studied.

“This was a one-time survey of women who were enrolled in an observational cohort study, and we know that preoperative quality of life likely drives surgical choices,” she commented, addressing the study’s limitations. “Our findings may have limited generalizability to a more diverse population in that the majority of our participants were white and of high socioeconomic status.”

Dr. Dominici disclosed that she had no conflicts of interest. The study was funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Susan G. Komen, the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, and The Pink Agenda.

SOURCE: Dominici LS et al. SABCS 2018, Abstract GS6-06,

SAN ANTONIO – Young women with early breast cancer who undergo mastectomy instead of breast-conserving surgery have poorer quality of life in the longer term, according to investigators for a multicenter cross-sectional cohort study reported at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

Women aged 40 or younger make up about 7% of all newly diagnosed cases of breast cancer in the United States, according to lead author, Laura S. Dominici, MD, of Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women’s Cancer Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston.

“Despite the fact that there is equivalent local-regional control with breast conservation and mastectomy, the rates of mastectomy and particularly bilateral mastectomy are increasing in young women, with a 10-fold increase seen from 1998 to 2011,” she noted in a press conference. “Young women are at particular risk for poorer psychosocial outcomes following a breast cancer diagnosis and in survivorship. However, little is known about the impact of surgery, particularly in the era of increasing bilateral mastectomy, on the quality of life of young survivors.”

Nearly three-fourths of the 560 young breast cancer survivors studied had undergone mastectomy, usually with some kind of reconstruction. Roughly 6 years later, compared with peers who had undergone breast-conserving surgery, women who had undergone unilateral or bilateral mastectomy had significantly poorer adjusted BREAST-Q scores for satisfaction with the appearance and feel of their breasts (beta, –8.7 and –9.3 points) and psychosocial well-being (–8.3 and –10.5 points). The latter also had poorer adjusted scores for sexual well-being (–8.1 points). Physical well-being, which captures aspects such as pain and range of motion, did not differ significantly by type of surgery.

“Local therapy decisions are associated with a persistent impact on quality of life in young breast cancer survivors,” Dr. Dominici concluded. “Knowledge of the potential long-term impact of surgery and quality of life is of critical importance for counseling young women about surgical decisions.”
 

Moving away from mastectomy

“The data are, to me anyway, more disconcerting when you consider the high mastectomy rate in this country relative to Europe, and this urge to have bilateral mastectomies, which, pardon the expression, is ridiculous in some cases because it doesn’t improve your outcome. And yet, it does have deleterious effects that last for years psychologically,” commented SABCS codirector and press conference moderator C. Kent Osborne, MD, who is director of the Dan L. Duncan Cancer Center at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston. “What can we do about that?” he asked.

“It’s a really challenging problem,” Dr. Dominici replied. “Part of what we are missing in the conversation that we have with our patients is this kind of information. We can certainly tell patients that the outcomes are equivalent, but if they don’t know that the long-term [quality of life] impact is potentially worse, then that may not affect their decision. The more prospective data that we generate to help us figure out which patients are going to have better or worse outcomes with these different types of surgery, the better we will be able to counsel patients with things that will be meaningful to them in the long run.”

The study was not designed to tease out the specific role of anxiety about a recurrence or a new breast cancer, which is a major driver of the decision to have mastectomy and also needs to be addressed during counseling, Dr. Dominici and Dr. Osborne agreed. “I think I spend more time talking patients out of bilateral mastectomy or mastectomy at all than anything,” he commented.
 

Study details

The women studied were participants in the prospective Young Women’s Breast Cancer Study (YWS) and had a mean age of 37 years at diagnosis. Most (86%) had stage 0-2 breast cancer. (Those with metastatic disease at diagnosis or a recurrence during follow-up were excluded.)

Overall, 52% of the women underwent bilateral mastectomy, 20% underwent unilateral mastectomy, and 28% underwent breast-conserving surgery, Dr. Dominici reported. Within the mastectomy group, most underwent implant-based reconstruction (69%) or flap reconstruction (12%), while some opted for no reconstruction (11%).

Multivariate analyses showed that, in addition to mastectomy, other significant predictors of poorer breast satisfaction were receipt of radiation therapy (beta, –7.5 points) and having a financially uncomfortable status as compared with a comfortable one (–5.4 points).

Additional significant predictors of poorer psychosocial well-being were receiving radiation (beta, –6.0 points), being financially uncomfortable (–7 points), and being overweight or obese (–4.2 points), and additional significant predictors of poorer sexual well-being were being financially uncomfortable (–6.8 points), being overweight or obese (–5.3 points), and having lymphedema a year after diagnosis (–3.8 points).

The only significant predictors of poorer physical health were financially uncomfortable status (beta, –4.8 points) and lymphedema (–6.4 points), whereas longer time since surgery (more than 5 years) predicted better physical health (+6.0 points), according to Dr. Dominici.

Age, race, marital status, work status, education level, disease stage, chemotherapy, and endocrine therapy did not significantly predict any of the outcomes studied.

“This was a one-time survey of women who were enrolled in an observational cohort study, and we know that preoperative quality of life likely drives surgical choices,” she commented, addressing the study’s limitations. “Our findings may have limited generalizability to a more diverse population in that the majority of our participants were white and of high socioeconomic status.”

Dr. Dominici disclosed that she had no conflicts of interest. The study was funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Susan G. Komen, the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, and The Pink Agenda.

SOURCE: Dominici LS et al. SABCS 2018, Abstract GS6-06,

Carol Bernstein, MD, joins Nick Andrews once again this week to talk about physician burnout and physician suicide.

Apple Podcasts
Google Podcasts
 

Carol Bernstein, MD, joins Nick Andrews once again this week to talk about physician burnout and physician suicide.

Apple Podcasts
Google Podcasts
 

Carol Bernstein, MD, joins Nick Andrews once again this week to talk about physician burnout and physician suicide.

Apple Podcasts
Google Podcasts
 

Syphilis cases increased by 61% between 2012 and 2016 among pregnant women, and the proportion of syphilis cases was higher for women who were non-Hispanic black race and Hispanic ethnicity, according to research in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

“These findings support current recommendations for universal syphilis screening at the first prenatal visit and indicate that it may be necessary to include population context when determining whether to implement repeat screening during pregnancy,” Shivika Trivedi, MD, MSc, of the CDC Foundation and the Division of STD Prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and colleagues wrote.

Dr. Trivedi and colleagues identified 9,883 pregnant women with reported syphilis in the CDC National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System during 2012-2016. During that time, there was an increase in the number of female syphilis cases from 9,551 cases in 2012 to 14,838 cases in 2016 (55%), while there was an increase in the number of syphilis cases for pregnant women from 1,561 cases in 2012 to 2,508 cases in 2016 (61%). Of the risk factors reported for syphilis, 49% reported no risk factors within 12 priors before diagnosis, 43% said they had had at least one sexually transmitted disease, and 30% reported more than one sexual partner within the last year.

The greatest prevalence for syphilis was among women who were in their 20s (59%), located in the South (56%), and were non-Hispanic black (49%) or Hispanic (28%). However, researchers noted the rates of syphilis increased among all women between 18 years and 45 years and in every race and ethnicity group between 2012 and 2016. Early syphilis cases increased from 35% in 2012 to 58% in 2016, while late latent cases decreased from 65% in 2012 to 42% in 2016.

Researchers noted several limitations in the study, including case-based surveillance data, which potentially underreported the rates of syphilis, and a lack of pregnancy outcomes for pregnant women with syphilitic infections. However, they noted the data do show a trend of syphilis infections in pregnant women because the live birth rate “was relatively stable and did not fluctuate more than” 1.5% between 2012 and 2016.

“Through an increased awareness of the rising syphilis cases among pregnant women as well as these trend data, health care providers can be better informed to ensure they are following national guidelines and state policies for syphilis screening in pregnancy,” Dr. Trivedi and colleagues concluded.

The authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Trivedi S et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2018. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003000.

Syphilis cases increased by 61% between 2012 and 2016 among pregnant women, and the proportion of syphilis cases was higher for women who were non-Hispanic black race and Hispanic ethnicity, according to research in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

“These findings support current recommendations for universal syphilis screening at the first prenatal visit and indicate that it may be necessary to include population context when determining whether to implement repeat screening during pregnancy,” Shivika Trivedi, MD, MSc, of the CDC Foundation and the Division of STD Prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and colleagues wrote.

Dr. Trivedi and colleagues identified 9,883 pregnant women with reported syphilis in the CDC National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System during 2012-2016. During that time, there was an increase in the number of female syphilis cases from 9,551 cases in 2012 to 14,838 cases in 2016 (55%), while there was an increase in the number of syphilis cases for pregnant women from 1,561 cases in 2012 to 2,508 cases in 2016 (61%). Of the risk factors reported for syphilis, 49% reported no risk factors within 12 priors before diagnosis, 43% said they had had at least one sexually transmitted disease, and 30% reported more than one sexual partner within the last year.

The greatest prevalence for syphilis was among women who were in their 20s (59%), located in the South (56%), and were non-Hispanic black (49%) or Hispanic (28%). However, researchers noted the rates of syphilis increased among all women between 18 years and 45 years and in every race and ethnicity group between 2012 and 2016. Early syphilis cases increased from 35% in 2012 to 58% in 2016, while late latent cases decreased from 65% in 2012 to 42% in 2016.

Researchers noted several limitations in the study, including case-based surveillance data, which potentially underreported the rates of syphilis, and a lack of pregnancy outcomes for pregnant women with syphilitic infections. However, they noted the data do show a trend of syphilis infections in pregnant women because the live birth rate “was relatively stable and did not fluctuate more than” 1.5% between 2012 and 2016.

“Through an increased awareness of the rising syphilis cases among pregnant women as well as these trend data, health care providers can be better informed to ensure they are following national guidelines and state policies for syphilis screening in pregnancy,” Dr. Trivedi and colleagues concluded.

The authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Trivedi S et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2018. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003000.

Syphilis cases increased by 61% between 2012 and 2016 among pregnant women, and the proportion of syphilis cases was higher for women who were non-Hispanic black race and Hispanic ethnicity, according to research in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

“These findings support current recommendations for universal syphilis screening at the first prenatal visit and indicate that it may be necessary to include population context when determining whether to implement repeat screening during pregnancy,” Shivika Trivedi, MD, MSc, of the CDC Foundation and the Division of STD Prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and colleagues wrote.

Dr. Trivedi and colleagues identified 9,883 pregnant women with reported syphilis in the CDC National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System during 2012-2016. During that time, there was an increase in the number of female syphilis cases from 9,551 cases in 2012 to 14,838 cases in 2016 (55%), while there was an increase in the number of syphilis cases for pregnant women from 1,561 cases in 2012 to 2,508 cases in 2016 (61%). Of the risk factors reported for syphilis, 49% reported no risk factors within 12 priors before diagnosis, 43% said they had had at least one sexually transmitted disease, and 30% reported more than one sexual partner within the last year.

The greatest prevalence for syphilis was among women who were in their 20s (59%), located in the South (56%), and were non-Hispanic black (49%) or Hispanic (28%). However, researchers noted the rates of syphilis increased among all women between 18 years and 45 years and in every race and ethnicity group between 2012 and 2016. Early syphilis cases increased from 35% in 2012 to 58% in 2016, while late latent cases decreased from 65% in 2012 to 42% in 2016.

Researchers noted several limitations in the study, including case-based surveillance data, which potentially underreported the rates of syphilis, and a lack of pregnancy outcomes for pregnant women with syphilitic infections. However, they noted the data do show a trend of syphilis infections in pregnant women because the live birth rate “was relatively stable and did not fluctuate more than” 1.5% between 2012 and 2016.

“Through an increased awareness of the rising syphilis cases among pregnant women as well as these trend data, health care providers can be better informed to ensure they are following national guidelines and state policies for syphilis screening in pregnancy,” Dr. Trivedi and colleagues concluded.

The authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Trivedi S et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2018. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003000.