MAUI, HAWAII – There might well be a cure for hepatitis B in coming years, just like there is now for hepatitis C, according to Norah Terrault, MD, chief of the division of GI and liver at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

“We are going to have a laundry list of new drugs” that are in the pipeline now. Phase 2 results “look encouraging. You will hear much more about this in the years ahead,” said Dr. Terrault, lead author of the 2018 American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) hepatitis B guidance.

For now, though, the field is largely limited to the nucleoside analogues tenofovir and entecavir. Treatment is often indefinite because, although hepatitis B virus (HBV) e-antigen is cleared, it usually doesn’t clear the HBV surface antigen, which is linked to liver cancer. “Even with e-antigen–negative patients, we feel that indefinite therapy is really the way to go,” Dr. Terrault said at the Gastroenterology Updates, IBD, Liver Disease Conference.

One of the biggest problems with that strategy is what to do when HBV does not seem to be much of a problem for carriers. Such patients are referred to as immune tolerant.
 

A newly recognized cancer risk

Immune tolerant patients tend to be young and have extremely high viral loads but no apparent ill effects, with normal ALT levels, normal histology, and no sign of cirrhosis. Although the AASLD recommends not treating these patients until they are 40 years old, waiting makes people nervous. “You have a hammer, you want to hit a nail,” Dr. Terrault said.

A recent review (Gut. 2018 May;67[5]:945-52) suggests that hitting the nail might be the way to go. South Korean investigators found that 413 untreated immune tolerate patients with a mean age of 38 years had more than twice the risk of liver cancer over 10 years than did almost 1,500 treated patients with active disease.

The study investigators concluded that “unnecessary deaths could be prevented through earlier antiviral intervention in select [immune tolerate] patients.”

This finding is one reason “we [AASLD] are rethinking the mantra of not treating the immune tolerant. There is a group that is transitioning” to active disease. “I’m thinking we should really [lower] the age cutoff” to 30 years, as some other groups [European Association for the Study of the Liver and Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver] have done, plus “patients feel really good when they know the virus is controlled, and so do physicians,” Dr. Terrault said.
 

Entecavir versus tenofovir

Meanwhile, recent studies have raised the question of whether tenofovir is better than entecavir at preventing liver cancer.

A JAMA Oncology (JAMA Oncol. 2019 Jan 1;5[1]:30-6) study of some 25,000 patients in South Korea found a 32% lower risk of liver cancer when they were treated with tenofovir instead of entecavir. “This led to a lot of concern that maybe we should be moving all our patients to tenofovir,” she said.

Another study, a meta-analysis published earlier this year (Hepatol Int. 2020 Jan;14[1]:105-14), confirmed the difference in cancer risk when it combined those findings with other research. After adjustment for potential confounders, including disease stage and length of follow-up, “the difference disappeared” (hazard ration, 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.73-1.04), authors of the meta-analysis reported.

Study patients who received entecavir tended to be “treated many years ago and tended to have more severe [baseline] disease,” Dr. Terrault said.

So “while we see this difference, there’s not enough data yet for us to make a recommendation for our patients to switch from” entecavir to tenofovir. “Until a randomized controlled trial is done, this may remain an issue,” she said.
 

A drug holiday?

Dr. Terrault also reviewed research that suggests nucleoside analogue treatment can be stopped in e-antigen–negative patients after at least 3 years.

“The evidence is increasing that a finite NA [nucleoside analogue] treatment approach leads to higher HBsAg [hepatitis B surface antigen] loss rates, compared with the current long-term NA strategy, and can be considered a rational strategy to induce a functional cure in selected HBeAg-negative patients without cirrhosis who are willing to comply with close follow-up monitoring. ... The current observed functional cure rates” – perhaps about 40% – “would be well worth the effort,” editorialists commenting on the research concluded (Hepatology. 2018 Aug;68[2]:397-400).

It’s an interesting idea, Dr. Terrault said, but the virus will flare 8-12 weeks after treatment withdrawal, which is why it shouldn’t be considered in patients with cirrhosis.

Dr. Terrault is a consultant for AbbVie, Merck, Gilead, and other companies and disclosed grants from those companies and others.

aotto@mdedge.com

MAUI, HAWAII – There might well be a cure for hepatitis B in coming years, just like there is now for hepatitis C, according to Norah Terrault, MD, chief of the division of GI and liver at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

“We are going to have a laundry list of new drugs” that are in the pipeline now. Phase 2 results “look encouraging. You will hear much more about this in the years ahead,” said Dr. Terrault, lead author of the 2018 American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) hepatitis B guidance.

For now, though, the field is largely limited to the nucleoside analogues tenofovir and entecavir. Treatment is often indefinite because, although hepatitis B virus (HBV) e-antigen is cleared, it usually doesn’t clear the HBV surface antigen, which is linked to liver cancer. “Even with e-antigen–negative patients, we feel that indefinite therapy is really the way to go,” Dr. Terrault said at the Gastroenterology Updates, IBD, Liver Disease Conference.

One of the biggest problems with that strategy is what to do when HBV does not seem to be much of a problem for carriers. Such patients are referred to as immune tolerant.
 

A newly recognized cancer risk

Immune tolerant patients tend to be young and have extremely high viral loads but no apparent ill effects, with normal ALT levels, normal histology, and no sign of cirrhosis. Although the AASLD recommends not treating these patients until they are 40 years old, waiting makes people nervous. “You have a hammer, you want to hit a nail,” Dr. Terrault said.

A recent review (Gut. 2018 May;67[5]:945-52) suggests that hitting the nail might be the way to go. South Korean investigators found that 413 untreated immune tolerate patients with a mean age of 38 years had more than twice the risk of liver cancer over 10 years than did almost 1,500 treated patients with active disease.

The study investigators concluded that “unnecessary deaths could be prevented through earlier antiviral intervention in select [immune tolerate] patients.”

This finding is one reason “we [AASLD] are rethinking the mantra of not treating the immune tolerant. There is a group that is transitioning” to active disease. “I’m thinking we should really [lower] the age cutoff” to 30 years, as some other groups [European Association for the Study of the Liver and Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver] have done, plus “patients feel really good when they know the virus is controlled, and so do physicians,” Dr. Terrault said.
 

Entecavir versus tenofovir

Meanwhile, recent studies have raised the question of whether tenofovir is better than entecavir at preventing liver cancer.

A JAMA Oncology (JAMA Oncol. 2019 Jan 1;5[1]:30-6) study of some 25,000 patients in South Korea found a 32% lower risk of liver cancer when they were treated with tenofovir instead of entecavir. “This led to a lot of concern that maybe we should be moving all our patients to tenofovir,” she said.

Another study, a meta-analysis published earlier this year (Hepatol Int. 2020 Jan;14[1]:105-14), confirmed the difference in cancer risk when it combined those findings with other research. After adjustment for potential confounders, including disease stage and length of follow-up, “the difference disappeared” (hazard ration, 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.73-1.04), authors of the meta-analysis reported.

Study patients who received entecavir tended to be “treated many years ago and tended to have more severe [baseline] disease,” Dr. Terrault said.

So “while we see this difference, there’s not enough data yet for us to make a recommendation for our patients to switch from” entecavir to tenofovir. “Until a randomized controlled trial is done, this may remain an issue,” she said.
 

A drug holiday?

Dr. Terrault also reviewed research that suggests nucleoside analogue treatment can be stopped in e-antigen–negative patients after at least 3 years.

“The evidence is increasing that a finite NA [nucleoside analogue] treatment approach leads to higher HBsAg [hepatitis B surface antigen] loss rates, compared with the current long-term NA strategy, and can be considered a rational strategy to induce a functional cure in selected HBeAg-negative patients without cirrhosis who are willing to comply with close follow-up monitoring. ... The current observed functional cure rates” – perhaps about 40% – “would be well worth the effort,” editorialists commenting on the research concluded (Hepatology. 2018 Aug;68[2]:397-400).

It’s an interesting idea, Dr. Terrault said, but the virus will flare 8-12 weeks after treatment withdrawal, which is why it shouldn’t be considered in patients with cirrhosis.

Dr. Terrault is a consultant for AbbVie, Merck, Gilead, and other companies and disclosed grants from those companies and others.

aotto@mdedge.com

MAUI, HAWAII – There might well be a cure for hepatitis B in coming years, just like there is now for hepatitis C, according to Norah Terrault, MD, chief of the division of GI and liver at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

“We are going to have a laundry list of new drugs” that are in the pipeline now. Phase 2 results “look encouraging. You will hear much more about this in the years ahead,” said Dr. Terrault, lead author of the 2018 American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) hepatitis B guidance.

For now, though, the field is largely limited to the nucleoside analogues tenofovir and entecavir. Treatment is often indefinite because, although hepatitis B virus (HBV) e-antigen is cleared, it usually doesn’t clear the HBV surface antigen, which is linked to liver cancer. “Even with e-antigen–negative patients, we feel that indefinite therapy is really the way to go,” Dr. Terrault said at the Gastroenterology Updates, IBD, Liver Disease Conference.

One of the biggest problems with that strategy is what to do when HBV does not seem to be much of a problem for carriers. Such patients are referred to as immune tolerant.
 

A newly recognized cancer risk

Immune tolerant patients tend to be young and have extremely high viral loads but no apparent ill effects, with normal ALT levels, normal histology, and no sign of cirrhosis. Although the AASLD recommends not treating these patients until they are 40 years old, waiting makes people nervous. “You have a hammer, you want to hit a nail,” Dr. Terrault said.

A recent review (Gut. 2018 May;67[5]:945-52) suggests that hitting the nail might be the way to go. South Korean investigators found that 413 untreated immune tolerate patients with a mean age of 38 years had more than twice the risk of liver cancer over 10 years than did almost 1,500 treated patients with active disease.

The study investigators concluded that “unnecessary deaths could be prevented through earlier antiviral intervention in select [immune tolerate] patients.”

This finding is one reason “we [AASLD] are rethinking the mantra of not treating the immune tolerant. There is a group that is transitioning” to active disease. “I’m thinking we should really [lower] the age cutoff” to 30 years, as some other groups [European Association for the Study of the Liver and Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver] have done, plus “patients feel really good when they know the virus is controlled, and so do physicians,” Dr. Terrault said.
 

Entecavir versus tenofovir

Meanwhile, recent studies have raised the question of whether tenofovir is better than entecavir at preventing liver cancer.

A JAMA Oncology (JAMA Oncol. 2019 Jan 1;5[1]:30-6) study of some 25,000 patients in South Korea found a 32% lower risk of liver cancer when they were treated with tenofovir instead of entecavir. “This led to a lot of concern that maybe we should be moving all our patients to tenofovir,” she said.

Another study, a meta-analysis published earlier this year (Hepatol Int. 2020 Jan;14[1]:105-14), confirmed the difference in cancer risk when it combined those findings with other research. After adjustment for potential confounders, including disease stage and length of follow-up, “the difference disappeared” (hazard ration, 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.73-1.04), authors of the meta-analysis reported.

Study patients who received entecavir tended to be “treated many years ago and tended to have more severe [baseline] disease,” Dr. Terrault said.

So “while we see this difference, there’s not enough data yet for us to make a recommendation for our patients to switch from” entecavir to tenofovir. “Until a randomized controlled trial is done, this may remain an issue,” she said.
 

A drug holiday?

Dr. Terrault also reviewed research that suggests nucleoside analogue treatment can be stopped in e-antigen–negative patients after at least 3 years.

“The evidence is increasing that a finite NA [nucleoside analogue] treatment approach leads to higher HBsAg [hepatitis B surface antigen] loss rates, compared with the current long-term NA strategy, and can be considered a rational strategy to induce a functional cure in selected HBeAg-negative patients without cirrhosis who are willing to comply with close follow-up monitoring. ... The current observed functional cure rates” – perhaps about 40% – “would be well worth the effort,” editorialists commenting on the research concluded (Hepatology. 2018 Aug;68[2]:397-400).

It’s an interesting idea, Dr. Terrault said, but the virus will flare 8-12 weeks after treatment withdrawal, which is why it shouldn’t be considered in patients with cirrhosis.

Dr. Terrault is a consultant for AbbVie, Merck, Gilead, and other companies and disclosed grants from those companies and others.

aotto@mdedge.com

Children exposed to macrolides during the first trimester of pregnancy had an increased risk of major malformations, compared with first-trimester penicillin exposure, according to an observational study.

Creatas Images

Use of antibiotics is common in pregnancy, and macrolides commonly are used if a penicillin allergy is reported.

Hypospadias and other genital malformations also were more likely with exposure during any trimester to macrolides, although this association lost significance when limited to the first trimester. The researchers did not identify any associations with macrolides exposure and neurodevelopmental disorders.

The observational study could not establish causality, but the researchers calculated an estimate of likely excess malformations if the association were found to be causal: “For every 1,000 mothers prescribed macrolides instead of penicillins during the first trimester, an additional 4.1 children would have cardiovascular malformations,” Heng Fan, a PhD student at the University College London, and colleagues wrote in the BMJ. “The corresponding figures for prescriptions during any trimester and genital malformations would be 1.7.”

The researchers used records from the U.K. Clinical Practice Research Datalink to analyze outcomes in 104,605 children born between 1990 and 2016 to mothers who received at least one prescription of erythromycin, clarithromycin, azithromycin, or penicillin monotherapy between their fourth week of pregnancy and delivery. Women prescribed any known teratogenic medications were excluded.

The majority of the mothers (92%) had been prescribed penicillin once, and 8% were prescribed a macrolide antibiotic once during pregnancy.

The researchers tallied and calculated the children’s risk of major malformations; cerebral palsy; epilepsy; ADHD; autism spectrum disorder; and any nervous, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, genital, or urinary malformations. The children were tracked through a median 6 years of age.

In comparing risk of malformations or neurodevelopmental disorders among children, the researchers chose to compare exposure to macrolides and penicillin to reduce the likelihood of confounding by indication for infections. (They also included two negative control groups: unexposed siblings and women prescribed antibiotics before conception.) The authors acknowledged, however, that residual confounding still may occur “if macrolides were prescribed for specific indications (e.g., chlamydia), or when potential risk factors for malformations or neurodevelopmental outcomes differed between treatment groups.”

The overall rate of malformations was 22 per 1,000 children prenatally exposed to macrolides (28 in first trimester and 20 in second or third trimester) and 17 per 1,000 children prenatally exposed to penicillin. The risk and type of malformations varied, however, according to the trimester.

The researchers made adjustments to account for differences in a wide range of maternal factors: age at delivery, calendar year of delivery, alcohol misuse, illegal drug use, tobacco use, obesity, hypertension, diabetes, anxiety, depression, and epilepsy. They also adjusted for parity, multiples, and chronic medical treatments, as well as genitourinary tract infections or STIs during pregnancy, both of which are linked to preterm labor.

Compared with children exposed to penicillin during the first trimester of pregnancy, risk of malformations was 1.6 times greater in those exposed to macrolides in the first trimester (risk ratio, 1.55; 28 vs. 18 per 1,000). Erythromycin exposure in the first trimester also was linked to a 50% greater likelihood of any major malformation compared with penicillin (RR, 1.5; 27 vs. 18 per 1,000).

Cardiovascular malformations in particular were more likely in those exposed to macrolides (11 per 1,000), compared with penicillin (7 per 1,000) in the first trimester (RR, 1.62). Meanwhile, genital malformations, primarily hypospadias, occurred more frequently in children whose mothers were prescribed macrolides (5 per 1,000), compared with penicillin (3 per 1,000) in any trimester (RR, 1.58).

No increased risk of major malformations was associated with macrolides prescribed only in the second or third trimester, although a borderline significant association existed with gastrointestinal malformations. The authors also found no links between macrolides exposure and increased risk of cerebral palsy, epilepsy, ADHD, or autism spectrum disorder.

The findings did not change in several sensitivity analyses, including one that restricted analysis to antibiotics prescribed only for respiratory tract infections.

Dr. Fan and associates discussed several potential biological mechanisms for causation, including the arrhythmic effect of macrolides that may relate to cardiovascular malformations or contribute to fetal hypoxia. They noted that “macrolide prescribing during pregnancy warrants caution,” and recommend including on drug safety labels “that there is uncertainty about the safety of macrolides, including erythromycin” and alternative antibiotics should be used when possible.

Iris Krishna, MD, MPH, assistant professor of maternal-fetal medicine at Emory University, Atlanta, agreed with the study authors that use of macrolides in the first trimester warrants further investigation, and if an appropriate alternative antibiotic is available, then it should be preferentially considered when treating infections in the first trimester.

“However, if macrolides are the only treatment option, pregnant women can be reassured that the absolute risk of a birth defect is low, and this should not discourage them from taking a macrolide when needed as untreated infections pose a greater risk in pregnancy,” she said in an interview.

“This study does not establish that macrolide antibiotics cause birth defects, but it suggests a potential association. Previous studies examining the use of macrolides, such as erythromycin, have not demonstrated a consistent pattern of birth defects, and heart defects identified were classified as mostly mild. The authors suggest that the potential biologic mechanism based on rat models may be that macrolides might induce fetal cardiac arrhythmias and short-term fetal hypoxia. This study was underpowered to examine macrolide exposure for specific malformations. To avoid underpowered comparisons, the authors’ categorized malformations by organ systems, so the spectrum of cardiac defects is unclear,” commented Dr. Krishna, who also is a member of the Ob.Gyn. News editorial advisory board.

“Current recommendations for macrolide antibiotic use in pregnancy in the second and third trimester of pregnancy, and in particular when used for obstetric indications, such as prelabor rupture of membranes to prolong the latency period to delivery, should not be altered based on the findings of this study,” she concluded.

The research was funded by Child Health Research CIO Trust, the China Scholarship Council, Health Data Research UK, and the National Institute for Health Research. Dr. Fan and associates had no industry disclosures. Dr. Krishna had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Fan H et al. BMJ. 2020;368:m331.

Children exposed to macrolides during the first trimester of pregnancy had an increased risk of major malformations, compared with first-trimester penicillin exposure, according to an observational study.

Creatas Images

Use of antibiotics is common in pregnancy, and macrolides commonly are used if a penicillin allergy is reported.

Hypospadias and other genital malformations also were more likely with exposure during any trimester to macrolides, although this association lost significance when limited to the first trimester. The researchers did not identify any associations with macrolides exposure and neurodevelopmental disorders.

The observational study could not establish causality, but the researchers calculated an estimate of likely excess malformations if the association were found to be causal: “For every 1,000 mothers prescribed macrolides instead of penicillins during the first trimester, an additional 4.1 children would have cardiovascular malformations,” Heng Fan, a PhD student at the University College London, and colleagues wrote in the BMJ. “The corresponding figures for prescriptions during any trimester and genital malformations would be 1.7.”

The researchers used records from the U.K. Clinical Practice Research Datalink to analyze outcomes in 104,605 children born between 1990 and 2016 to mothers who received at least one prescription of erythromycin, clarithromycin, azithromycin, or penicillin monotherapy between their fourth week of pregnancy and delivery. Women prescribed any known teratogenic medications were excluded.

The majority of the mothers (92%) had been prescribed penicillin once, and 8% were prescribed a macrolide antibiotic once during pregnancy.

The researchers tallied and calculated the children’s risk of major malformations; cerebral palsy; epilepsy; ADHD; autism spectrum disorder; and any nervous, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, genital, or urinary malformations. The children were tracked through a median 6 years of age.

In comparing risk of malformations or neurodevelopmental disorders among children, the researchers chose to compare exposure to macrolides and penicillin to reduce the likelihood of confounding by indication for infections. (They also included two negative control groups: unexposed siblings and women prescribed antibiotics before conception.) The authors acknowledged, however, that residual confounding still may occur “if macrolides were prescribed for specific indications (e.g., chlamydia), or when potential risk factors for malformations or neurodevelopmental outcomes differed between treatment groups.”

The overall rate of malformations was 22 per 1,000 children prenatally exposed to macrolides (28 in first trimester and 20 in second or third trimester) and 17 per 1,000 children prenatally exposed to penicillin. The risk and type of malformations varied, however, according to the trimester.

The researchers made adjustments to account for differences in a wide range of maternal factors: age at delivery, calendar year of delivery, alcohol misuse, illegal drug use, tobacco use, obesity, hypertension, diabetes, anxiety, depression, and epilepsy. They also adjusted for parity, multiples, and chronic medical treatments, as well as genitourinary tract infections or STIs during pregnancy, both of which are linked to preterm labor.

Compared with children exposed to penicillin during the first trimester of pregnancy, risk of malformations was 1.6 times greater in those exposed to macrolides in the first trimester (risk ratio, 1.55; 28 vs. 18 per 1,000). Erythromycin exposure in the first trimester also was linked to a 50% greater likelihood of any major malformation compared with penicillin (RR, 1.5; 27 vs. 18 per 1,000).

Cardiovascular malformations in particular were more likely in those exposed to macrolides (11 per 1,000), compared with penicillin (7 per 1,000) in the first trimester (RR, 1.62). Meanwhile, genital malformations, primarily hypospadias, occurred more frequently in children whose mothers were prescribed macrolides (5 per 1,000), compared with penicillin (3 per 1,000) in any trimester (RR, 1.58).

No increased risk of major malformations was associated with macrolides prescribed only in the second or third trimester, although a borderline significant association existed with gastrointestinal malformations. The authors also found no links between macrolides exposure and increased risk of cerebral palsy, epilepsy, ADHD, or autism spectrum disorder.

The findings did not change in several sensitivity analyses, including one that restricted analysis to antibiotics prescribed only for respiratory tract infections.

Dr. Fan and associates discussed several potential biological mechanisms for causation, including the arrhythmic effect of macrolides that may relate to cardiovascular malformations or contribute to fetal hypoxia. They noted that “macrolide prescribing during pregnancy warrants caution,” and recommend including on drug safety labels “that there is uncertainty about the safety of macrolides, including erythromycin” and alternative antibiotics should be used when possible.

Iris Krishna, MD, MPH, assistant professor of maternal-fetal medicine at Emory University, Atlanta, agreed with the study authors that use of macrolides in the first trimester warrants further investigation, and if an appropriate alternative antibiotic is available, then it should be preferentially considered when treating infections in the first trimester.

“However, if macrolides are the only treatment option, pregnant women can be reassured that the absolute risk of a birth defect is low, and this should not discourage them from taking a macrolide when needed as untreated infections pose a greater risk in pregnancy,” she said in an interview.

“This study does not establish that macrolide antibiotics cause birth defects, but it suggests a potential association. Previous studies examining the use of macrolides, such as erythromycin, have not demonstrated a consistent pattern of birth defects, and heart defects identified were classified as mostly mild. The authors suggest that the potential biologic mechanism based on rat models may be that macrolides might induce fetal cardiac arrhythmias and short-term fetal hypoxia. This study was underpowered to examine macrolide exposure for specific malformations. To avoid underpowered comparisons, the authors’ categorized malformations by organ systems, so the spectrum of cardiac defects is unclear,” commented Dr. Krishna, who also is a member of the Ob.Gyn. News editorial advisory board.

“Current recommendations for macrolide antibiotic use in pregnancy in the second and third trimester of pregnancy, and in particular when used for obstetric indications, such as prelabor rupture of membranes to prolong the latency period to delivery, should not be altered based on the findings of this study,” she concluded.

The research was funded by Child Health Research CIO Trust, the China Scholarship Council, Health Data Research UK, and the National Institute for Health Research. Dr. Fan and associates had no industry disclosures. Dr. Krishna had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Fan H et al. BMJ. 2020;368:m331.

Children exposed to macrolides during the first trimester of pregnancy had an increased risk of major malformations, compared with first-trimester penicillin exposure, according to an observational study.

Creatas Images

Use of antibiotics is common in pregnancy, and macrolides commonly are used if a penicillin allergy is reported.

Hypospadias and other genital malformations also were more likely with exposure during any trimester to macrolides, although this association lost significance when limited to the first trimester. The researchers did not identify any associations with macrolides exposure and neurodevelopmental disorders.

The observational study could not establish causality, but the researchers calculated an estimate of likely excess malformations if the association were found to be causal: “For every 1,000 mothers prescribed macrolides instead of penicillins during the first trimester, an additional 4.1 children would have cardiovascular malformations,” Heng Fan, a PhD student at the University College London, and colleagues wrote in the BMJ. “The corresponding figures for prescriptions during any trimester and genital malformations would be 1.7.”

The researchers used records from the U.K. Clinical Practice Research Datalink to analyze outcomes in 104,605 children born between 1990 and 2016 to mothers who received at least one prescription of erythromycin, clarithromycin, azithromycin, or penicillin monotherapy between their fourth week of pregnancy and delivery. Women prescribed any known teratogenic medications were excluded.

The majority of the mothers (92%) had been prescribed penicillin once, and 8% were prescribed a macrolide antibiotic once during pregnancy.

The researchers tallied and calculated the children’s risk of major malformations; cerebral palsy; epilepsy; ADHD; autism spectrum disorder; and any nervous, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, genital, or urinary malformations. The children were tracked through a median 6 years of age.

In comparing risk of malformations or neurodevelopmental disorders among children, the researchers chose to compare exposure to macrolides and penicillin to reduce the likelihood of confounding by indication for infections. (They also included two negative control groups: unexposed siblings and women prescribed antibiotics before conception.) The authors acknowledged, however, that residual confounding still may occur “if macrolides were prescribed for specific indications (e.g., chlamydia), or when potential risk factors for malformations or neurodevelopmental outcomes differed between treatment groups.”

The overall rate of malformations was 22 per 1,000 children prenatally exposed to macrolides (28 in first trimester and 20 in second or third trimester) and 17 per 1,000 children prenatally exposed to penicillin. The risk and type of malformations varied, however, according to the trimester.

The researchers made adjustments to account for differences in a wide range of maternal factors: age at delivery, calendar year of delivery, alcohol misuse, illegal drug use, tobacco use, obesity, hypertension, diabetes, anxiety, depression, and epilepsy. They also adjusted for parity, multiples, and chronic medical treatments, as well as genitourinary tract infections or STIs during pregnancy, both of which are linked to preterm labor.

Compared with children exposed to penicillin during the first trimester of pregnancy, risk of malformations was 1.6 times greater in those exposed to macrolides in the first trimester (risk ratio, 1.55; 28 vs. 18 per 1,000). Erythromycin exposure in the first trimester also was linked to a 50% greater likelihood of any major malformation compared with penicillin (RR, 1.5; 27 vs. 18 per 1,000).

Cardiovascular malformations in particular were more likely in those exposed to macrolides (11 per 1,000), compared with penicillin (7 per 1,000) in the first trimester (RR, 1.62). Meanwhile, genital malformations, primarily hypospadias, occurred more frequently in children whose mothers were prescribed macrolides (5 per 1,000), compared with penicillin (3 per 1,000) in any trimester (RR, 1.58).

No increased risk of major malformations was associated with macrolides prescribed only in the second or third trimester, although a borderline significant association existed with gastrointestinal malformations. The authors also found no links between macrolides exposure and increased risk of cerebral palsy, epilepsy, ADHD, or autism spectrum disorder.

The findings did not change in several sensitivity analyses, including one that restricted analysis to antibiotics prescribed only for respiratory tract infections.

Dr. Fan and associates discussed several potential biological mechanisms for causation, including the arrhythmic effect of macrolides that may relate to cardiovascular malformations or contribute to fetal hypoxia. They noted that “macrolide prescribing during pregnancy warrants caution,” and recommend including on drug safety labels “that there is uncertainty about the safety of macrolides, including erythromycin” and alternative antibiotics should be used when possible.

Iris Krishna, MD, MPH, assistant professor of maternal-fetal medicine at Emory University, Atlanta, agreed with the study authors that use of macrolides in the first trimester warrants further investigation, and if an appropriate alternative antibiotic is available, then it should be preferentially considered when treating infections in the first trimester.

“However, if macrolides are the only treatment option, pregnant women can be reassured that the absolute risk of a birth defect is low, and this should not discourage them from taking a macrolide when needed as untreated infections pose a greater risk in pregnancy,” she said in an interview.

“This study does not establish that macrolide antibiotics cause birth defects, but it suggests a potential association. Previous studies examining the use of macrolides, such as erythromycin, have not demonstrated a consistent pattern of birth defects, and heart defects identified were classified as mostly mild. The authors suggest that the potential biologic mechanism based on rat models may be that macrolides might induce fetal cardiac arrhythmias and short-term fetal hypoxia. This study was underpowered to examine macrolide exposure for specific malformations. To avoid underpowered comparisons, the authors’ categorized malformations by organ systems, so the spectrum of cardiac defects is unclear,” commented Dr. Krishna, who also is a member of the Ob.Gyn. News editorial advisory board.

“Current recommendations for macrolide antibiotic use in pregnancy in the second and third trimester of pregnancy, and in particular when used for obstetric indications, such as prelabor rupture of membranes to prolong the latency period to delivery, should not be altered based on the findings of this study,” she concluded.

The research was funded by Child Health Research CIO Trust, the China Scholarship Council, Health Data Research UK, and the National Institute for Health Research. Dr. Fan and associates had no industry disclosures. Dr. Krishna had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Fan H et al. BMJ. 2020;368:m331.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has deemed the current evidence “insufficient” to make a recommendation in regard to screening for cognitive impairment in adults aged 65 years or older.

“More research is needed on the effect of screening and early detection of cognitive impairment on important patient, caregiver, and societal outcomes, including decision making, advance planning, and caregiver outcomes,” wrote lead author Douglas K. Owens, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University and fellow members of the task force. The statement was published in JAMA.

To update a 2014 recommendation from the USPSTF, which also found insufficient evidence to properly assess cognitive screening’s benefits and harms, the task force commissioned a systematic review of studies applicable to community-dwelling older adults who are not exhibiting signs or symptoms of cognitive impairment. For their statement, “cognitive impairment” is defined as mild cognitive impairment and mild to moderate dementia.

Ultimately, they determined several factors that limited the overall evidence, including the short duration of most trials and the heterogenous nature of interventions and inconsistencies in outcomes reported. Any evidence that suggested improvements was mostly applicable to patients with moderate dementia, meaning “its applicability to a screen-detected population is uncertain.”
 

Updating 2014 recommendations

Their statement was based on an evidence report, also published in JAMA, in which a team of researchers reviewed 287 studies that included more than 285,000 older adults; 92 of the studies were newly identified, while the other 195 were carried forward from the 2014 recommendation’s review. The researchers sought the answers to five key questions, carrying over the framework from the previous review.

“Despite the accumulation of new data, the conclusions for these key questions are essentially unchanged from the prior review,” wrote lead author Carrie D. Patnode, PhD, of the Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research in Portland, Ore., and coauthors.

Of the questions – which concerned the accuracy of screening instruments; the harms of screening; the harms of interventions; and if screening or interventions improved decision making or outcomes for the patient, family/caregiver, or society – moderate evidence was found to support the accuracy of the instruments, treatment with acetylcholinesterase inhibitors and memantine for patients with moderate dementia, and psychoeducation interventions for caregivers of patients with moderate dementia. At the same time, there was moderate evidence of adverse effects from acetylcholinesterase inhibitors and memantine in patients with moderate dementia.

“I think, eventually, there will be sufficient evidence to justify screening, once we have what I call a tiered approach,” Marwan Sabbagh, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic Lou Ruvo Center for Brain Health in Las Vegas, said in an interview. “The very near future will include blood tests for Alzheimer’s, or PET scans, or genetics, or something else. Right now, the cognitive screens lack the specificity and sensitivity, and the secondary screening infrastructure that would improve the accuracy doesn’t exist yet.

“I think this is a ‘not now,’ ” he added, “but I wouldn’t say ‘not ever.’ ”

Dr. Patnode and coauthors noted specific limitations in the evidence, including a lack of studies on how screening for and treating cognitive impairment affects decision making. In addition, details like quality of life and institutionalization were inconsistently reported, and “consistent and standardized reporting of results according to meaningful thresholds of clinical significance” would have been valuable across all measures.
 

Clinical implications

The implications of this report’s conclusions are substantial, especially as the rising prevalence of mild cognitive impairment and dementia becomes a worldwide concern, wrote Ronald C. Petersen, PhD, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and Kristine Yaffe, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, in an accompanying editorial.

Though the data does not explicitly support screening, Dr. Petersen and Dr. Yaffe noted that it still may have benefits. An estimated 10% of cognitive impairment is caused by at least somewhat reversible causes, and screening could also be used to improve care in medical problems that are worsened by cognitive impairment. To find the true value of these efforts, they wrote, researchers need to design and execute additional clinical trials that “answer many of the important questions surrounding screening and treatment of cognitive impairment.”

“The absence of evidence for benefit may lead to inaction,” they added, noting that clinicians screening should still consider the value of screening on a case-by-case basis in order to keep up with the impact of new disease-modifying therapies for certain neurodegenerative diseases.

All members of the USPSTF received travel reimbursement and an honorarium for participating in meetings. One member reported receiving grants and personal fees from Healthwise. The study was funded by the Department of Health & Human Services. One of the authors reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration. Dr. Petersen and Dr. Yaffe reported consulting for, and receiving funding from, various pharmaceutical companies, foundations, and government organizations.

SOURCES: Owens DK et al. JAMA. 2020 Feb 25. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.0435; Patnode CD et al. JAMA. 2020 Feb 25. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.22258.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has deemed the current evidence “insufficient” to make a recommendation in regard to screening for cognitive impairment in adults aged 65 years or older.

“More research is needed on the effect of screening and early detection of cognitive impairment on important patient, caregiver, and societal outcomes, including decision making, advance planning, and caregiver outcomes,” wrote lead author Douglas K. Owens, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University and fellow members of the task force. The statement was published in JAMA.

To update a 2014 recommendation from the USPSTF, which also found insufficient evidence to properly assess cognitive screening’s benefits and harms, the task force commissioned a systematic review of studies applicable to community-dwelling older adults who are not exhibiting signs or symptoms of cognitive impairment. For their statement, “cognitive impairment” is defined as mild cognitive impairment and mild to moderate dementia.

Ultimately, they determined several factors that limited the overall evidence, including the short duration of most trials and the heterogenous nature of interventions and inconsistencies in outcomes reported. Any evidence that suggested improvements was mostly applicable to patients with moderate dementia, meaning “its applicability to a screen-detected population is uncertain.”
 

Updating 2014 recommendations

Their statement was based on an evidence report, also published in JAMA, in which a team of researchers reviewed 287 studies that included more than 285,000 older adults; 92 of the studies were newly identified, while the other 195 were carried forward from the 2014 recommendation’s review. The researchers sought the answers to five key questions, carrying over the framework from the previous review.

“Despite the accumulation of new data, the conclusions for these key questions are essentially unchanged from the prior review,” wrote lead author Carrie D. Patnode, PhD, of the Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research in Portland, Ore., and coauthors.

Of the questions – which concerned the accuracy of screening instruments; the harms of screening; the harms of interventions; and if screening or interventions improved decision making or outcomes for the patient, family/caregiver, or society – moderate evidence was found to support the accuracy of the instruments, treatment with acetylcholinesterase inhibitors and memantine for patients with moderate dementia, and psychoeducation interventions for caregivers of patients with moderate dementia. At the same time, there was moderate evidence of adverse effects from acetylcholinesterase inhibitors and memantine in patients with moderate dementia.

“I think, eventually, there will be sufficient evidence to justify screening, once we have what I call a tiered approach,” Marwan Sabbagh, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic Lou Ruvo Center for Brain Health in Las Vegas, said in an interview. “The very near future will include blood tests for Alzheimer’s, or PET scans, or genetics, or something else. Right now, the cognitive screens lack the specificity and sensitivity, and the secondary screening infrastructure that would improve the accuracy doesn’t exist yet.

“I think this is a ‘not now,’ ” he added, “but I wouldn’t say ‘not ever.’ ”

Dr. Patnode and coauthors noted specific limitations in the evidence, including a lack of studies on how screening for and treating cognitive impairment affects decision making. In addition, details like quality of life and institutionalization were inconsistently reported, and “consistent and standardized reporting of results according to meaningful thresholds of clinical significance” would have been valuable across all measures.
 

Clinical implications

The implications of this report’s conclusions are substantial, especially as the rising prevalence of mild cognitive impairment and dementia becomes a worldwide concern, wrote Ronald C. Petersen, PhD, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and Kristine Yaffe, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, in an accompanying editorial.

Though the data does not explicitly support screening, Dr. Petersen and Dr. Yaffe noted that it still may have benefits. An estimated 10% of cognitive impairment is caused by at least somewhat reversible causes, and screening could also be used to improve care in medical problems that are worsened by cognitive impairment. To find the true value of these efforts, they wrote, researchers need to design and execute additional clinical trials that “answer many of the important questions surrounding screening and treatment of cognitive impairment.”

“The absence of evidence for benefit may lead to inaction,” they added, noting that clinicians screening should still consider the value of screening on a case-by-case basis in order to keep up with the impact of new disease-modifying therapies for certain neurodegenerative diseases.

All members of the USPSTF received travel reimbursement and an honorarium for participating in meetings. One member reported receiving grants and personal fees from Healthwise. The study was funded by the Department of Health & Human Services. One of the authors reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration. Dr. Petersen and Dr. Yaffe reported consulting for, and receiving funding from, various pharmaceutical companies, foundations, and government organizations.

SOURCES: Owens DK et al. JAMA. 2020 Feb 25. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.0435; Patnode CD et al. JAMA. 2020 Feb 25. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.22258.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has deemed the current evidence “insufficient” to make a recommendation in regard to screening for cognitive impairment in adults aged 65 years or older.

“More research is needed on the effect of screening and early detection of cognitive impairment on important patient, caregiver, and societal outcomes, including decision making, advance planning, and caregiver outcomes,” wrote lead author Douglas K. Owens, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University and fellow members of the task force. The statement was published in JAMA.

To update a 2014 recommendation from the USPSTF, which also found insufficient evidence to properly assess cognitive screening’s benefits and harms, the task force commissioned a systematic review of studies applicable to community-dwelling older adults who are not exhibiting signs or symptoms of cognitive impairment. For their statement, “cognitive impairment” is defined as mild cognitive impairment and mild to moderate dementia.

Ultimately, they determined several factors that limited the overall evidence, including the short duration of most trials and the heterogenous nature of interventions and inconsistencies in outcomes reported. Any evidence that suggested improvements was mostly applicable to patients with moderate dementia, meaning “its applicability to a screen-detected population is uncertain.”
 

Updating 2014 recommendations

Their statement was based on an evidence report, also published in JAMA, in which a team of researchers reviewed 287 studies that included more than 285,000 older adults; 92 of the studies were newly identified, while the other 195 were carried forward from the 2014 recommendation’s review. The researchers sought the answers to five key questions, carrying over the framework from the previous review.

“Despite the accumulation of new data, the conclusions for these key questions are essentially unchanged from the prior review,” wrote lead author Carrie D. Patnode, PhD, of the Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research in Portland, Ore., and coauthors.

Of the questions – which concerned the accuracy of screening instruments; the harms of screening; the harms of interventions; and if screening or interventions improved decision making or outcomes for the patient, family/caregiver, or society – moderate evidence was found to support the accuracy of the instruments, treatment with acetylcholinesterase inhibitors and memantine for patients with moderate dementia, and psychoeducation interventions for caregivers of patients with moderate dementia. At the same time, there was moderate evidence of adverse effects from acetylcholinesterase inhibitors and memantine in patients with moderate dementia.

“I think, eventually, there will be sufficient evidence to justify screening, once we have what I call a tiered approach,” Marwan Sabbagh, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic Lou Ruvo Center for Brain Health in Las Vegas, said in an interview. “The very near future will include blood tests for Alzheimer’s, or PET scans, or genetics, or something else. Right now, the cognitive screens lack the specificity and sensitivity, and the secondary screening infrastructure that would improve the accuracy doesn’t exist yet.

“I think this is a ‘not now,’ ” he added, “but I wouldn’t say ‘not ever.’ ”

Dr. Patnode and coauthors noted specific limitations in the evidence, including a lack of studies on how screening for and treating cognitive impairment affects decision making. In addition, details like quality of life and institutionalization were inconsistently reported, and “consistent and standardized reporting of results according to meaningful thresholds of clinical significance” would have been valuable across all measures.
 

Clinical implications

The implications of this report’s conclusions are substantial, especially as the rising prevalence of mild cognitive impairment and dementia becomes a worldwide concern, wrote Ronald C. Petersen, PhD, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and Kristine Yaffe, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, in an accompanying editorial.

Though the data does not explicitly support screening, Dr. Petersen and Dr. Yaffe noted that it still may have benefits. An estimated 10% of cognitive impairment is caused by at least somewhat reversible causes, and screening could also be used to improve care in medical problems that are worsened by cognitive impairment. To find the true value of these efforts, they wrote, researchers need to design and execute additional clinical trials that “answer many of the important questions surrounding screening and treatment of cognitive impairment.”

“The absence of evidence for benefit may lead to inaction,” they added, noting that clinicians screening should still consider the value of screening on a case-by-case basis in order to keep up with the impact of new disease-modifying therapies for certain neurodegenerative diseases.

All members of the USPSTF received travel reimbursement and an honorarium for participating in meetings. One member reported receiving grants and personal fees from Healthwise. The study was funded by the Department of Health & Human Services. One of the authors reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration. Dr. Petersen and Dr. Yaffe reported consulting for, and receiving funding from, various pharmaceutical companies, foundations, and government organizations.

SOURCES: Owens DK et al. JAMA. 2020 Feb 25. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.0435; Patnode CD et al. JAMA. 2020 Feb 25. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.22258.

Women who had gestational diabetes mellitus had an increased risk for later type 2 diabetes if they carried certain genetic risk factors for the disease, according to a new analysis in BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care of data from two independent populations.

A higher genetic risk score (GRS) had a modest association with developing type 2 diabetes, but a healthier diet may mitigate this risk, as Mengying Li, PhD, and her colleagues found for participants in the Nurses’ Health Study and members of the Danish National Birth Cohort who developed gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM).

Of 1,884 white women with a history of GDM in the Nurses’ Health Study II (NHSII), 446 (23.7%) went on to develop type 2 diabetes, and of the 550 women who had GDM in the Danish National Birth Cohort (DNBC), 155 (28.2%) developed the disease. The researchers calculated a GRS for type 2 diabetes for the full cohort. Genome-wide association studies completed in European populations were used to identify 59 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with the disease.

Dr. Li, an epidemiologist and postdoctoral researcher at the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development in Bethesda, Md., and her coauthors found that women whose GRS was in the highest quartile had a relative risk of 1.19 for type 2 diabetes. The relative risks for the three lower quartiles were 1.25, 0.97, and 1.00, respectively (P value for trend = .02). For each increase of five risk alleles in the GRS, NHSII participants had a 7% increased risk for type 2 diabetes, and DNBC participants saw a 9% increased risk.

Comparing these findings with other studies looking at genetic risk and type 2 diabetes in the general population, Dr. Li and her coauthors noted that the increase in relative risk for type 2 disease with increase in GRS was actually slightly weaker in the GDM cohort they studied. “The smaller effect size among women with GDM likely reflects an already higher baseline genetic risk for [type 2 diabetes] than the general population, as we have demonstrated,” they explained.

Though 11 individual SNPs had a significant individual association with the risk for type 2 diabetes initially, that association disappeared after correction for a false-discovery rate. Dr. Li and her coinvestigators conducted a sensitivity analysis that included only 42 SNPs that were later definitively associated with type 2 disease and they saw essentially unchanged results.

The researchers also investigated how dietary quality affected the GRS–type 2 diabetes association by dichotomizing self-reported diet quality in both cohorts into healthier diet quality and less healthy diet quality. They found a tighter association between GRS and type 2 diabetes for women with diet quality below the median, whereas women with higher diet quality did not have such a strong association between GRS and type 2 disease. The researchers wrote that there was “suggestive evidence that a healthful diet might mitigate the excessive risk of T2D [type 2 diabetes] related to greater genetic susceptibility, which supports public health efforts of encouraging a healthful diet” for diabetes prevention in this high-risk population.

Patients in the NHSII were followed for a mean 21.3 years, and those in the DNBC were followed for a mean 12.7 years. Mean age at index pregnancy was 30.5 years for the NHSII cohort and 31.7 for the DNBC cohort. In the NHSII cohort, just 8.4% of participants reported smoking before pregnancy, compared with 26.4% of those in the DNBC cohort. The NHSII cohort participants, wrote Dr. Li and her coauthors, “were also less likely to have a family history of diabetes, less likely to smoke, and be leaner than women in the DNBC.”

Dr. Li and her coauthors noted that, “despite being the largest genetic study by far on [type 2 diabetes] among women with GDM, our study may not be sufficiently powered to examine the associations of individual T2D SNPs in relation to the risk of developing T2D.” Another limitation was that for the Danish cohort, information about diet was drawn from a one-time questionnaire administered between 9 and 16 years after the index pregnancy, so full data about dietary quality over time was not available. Also of note is that the study included only white participants, limiting generalizability to women of color. The authors called for expanding this research into more racially diverse populations.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. The authors reported that they had no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Li M et al. BMJ Open Diab Res Care. 2020 Feb 13. doi: 10.1136/bmjdrc-2019-000850.

Women who had gestational diabetes mellitus had an increased risk for later type 2 diabetes if they carried certain genetic risk factors for the disease, according to a new analysis in BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care of data from two independent populations.

A higher genetic risk score (GRS) had a modest association with developing type 2 diabetes, but a healthier diet may mitigate this risk, as Mengying Li, PhD, and her colleagues found for participants in the Nurses’ Health Study and members of the Danish National Birth Cohort who developed gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM).

Of 1,884 white women with a history of GDM in the Nurses’ Health Study II (NHSII), 446 (23.7%) went on to develop type 2 diabetes, and of the 550 women who had GDM in the Danish National Birth Cohort (DNBC), 155 (28.2%) developed the disease. The researchers calculated a GRS for type 2 diabetes for the full cohort. Genome-wide association studies completed in European populations were used to identify 59 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with the disease.

Dr. Li, an epidemiologist and postdoctoral researcher at the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development in Bethesda, Md., and her coauthors found that women whose GRS was in the highest quartile had a relative risk of 1.19 for type 2 diabetes. The relative risks for the three lower quartiles were 1.25, 0.97, and 1.00, respectively (P value for trend = .02). For each increase of five risk alleles in the GRS, NHSII participants had a 7% increased risk for type 2 diabetes, and DNBC participants saw a 9% increased risk.

Comparing these findings with other studies looking at genetic risk and type 2 diabetes in the general population, Dr. Li and her coauthors noted that the increase in relative risk for type 2 disease with increase in GRS was actually slightly weaker in the GDM cohort they studied. “The smaller effect size among women with GDM likely reflects an already higher baseline genetic risk for [type 2 diabetes] than the general population, as we have demonstrated,” they explained.

Though 11 individual SNPs had a significant individual association with the risk for type 2 diabetes initially, that association disappeared after correction for a false-discovery rate. Dr. Li and her coinvestigators conducted a sensitivity analysis that included only 42 SNPs that were later definitively associated with type 2 disease and they saw essentially unchanged results.

The researchers also investigated how dietary quality affected the GRS–type 2 diabetes association by dichotomizing self-reported diet quality in both cohorts into healthier diet quality and less healthy diet quality. They found a tighter association between GRS and type 2 diabetes for women with diet quality below the median, whereas women with higher diet quality did not have such a strong association between GRS and type 2 disease. The researchers wrote that there was “suggestive evidence that a healthful diet might mitigate the excessive risk of T2D [type 2 diabetes] related to greater genetic susceptibility, which supports public health efforts of encouraging a healthful diet” for diabetes prevention in this high-risk population.

Patients in the NHSII were followed for a mean 21.3 years, and those in the DNBC were followed for a mean 12.7 years. Mean age at index pregnancy was 30.5 years for the NHSII cohort and 31.7 for the DNBC cohort. In the NHSII cohort, just 8.4% of participants reported smoking before pregnancy, compared with 26.4% of those in the DNBC cohort. The NHSII cohort participants, wrote Dr. Li and her coauthors, “were also less likely to have a family history of diabetes, less likely to smoke, and be leaner than women in the DNBC.”

Dr. Li and her coauthors noted that, “despite being the largest genetic study by far on [type 2 diabetes] among women with GDM, our study may not be sufficiently powered to examine the associations of individual T2D SNPs in relation to the risk of developing T2D.” Another limitation was that for the Danish cohort, information about diet was drawn from a one-time questionnaire administered between 9 and 16 years after the index pregnancy, so full data about dietary quality over time was not available. Also of note is that the study included only white participants, limiting generalizability to women of color. The authors called for expanding this research into more racially diverse populations.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. The authors reported that they had no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Li M et al. BMJ Open Diab Res Care. 2020 Feb 13. doi: 10.1136/bmjdrc-2019-000850.

Women who had gestational diabetes mellitus had an increased risk for later type 2 diabetes if they carried certain genetic risk factors for the disease, according to a new analysis in BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care of data from two independent populations.

A higher genetic risk score (GRS) had a modest association with developing type 2 diabetes, but a healthier diet may mitigate this risk, as Mengying Li, PhD, and her colleagues found for participants in the Nurses’ Health Study and members of the Danish National Birth Cohort who developed gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM).

Of 1,884 white women with a history of GDM in the Nurses’ Health Study II (NHSII), 446 (23.7%) went on to develop type 2 diabetes, and of the 550 women who had GDM in the Danish National Birth Cohort (DNBC), 155 (28.2%) developed the disease. The researchers calculated a GRS for type 2 diabetes for the full cohort. Genome-wide association studies completed in European populations were used to identify 59 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with the disease.

Dr. Li, an epidemiologist and postdoctoral researcher at the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development in Bethesda, Md., and her coauthors found that women whose GRS was in the highest quartile had a relative risk of 1.19 for type 2 diabetes. The relative risks for the three lower quartiles were 1.25, 0.97, and 1.00, respectively (P value for trend = .02). For each increase of five risk alleles in the GRS, NHSII participants had a 7% increased risk for type 2 diabetes, and DNBC participants saw a 9% increased risk.

Comparing these findings with other studies looking at genetic risk and type 2 diabetes in the general population, Dr. Li and her coauthors noted that the increase in relative risk for type 2 disease with increase in GRS was actually slightly weaker in the GDM cohort they studied. “The smaller effect size among women with GDM likely reflects an already higher baseline genetic risk for [type 2 diabetes] than the general population, as we have demonstrated,” they explained.

Though 11 individual SNPs had a significant individual association with the risk for type 2 diabetes initially, that association disappeared after correction for a false-discovery rate. Dr. Li and her coinvestigators conducted a sensitivity analysis that included only 42 SNPs that were later definitively associated with type 2 disease and they saw essentially unchanged results.

The researchers also investigated how dietary quality affected the GRS–type 2 diabetes association by dichotomizing self-reported diet quality in both cohorts into healthier diet quality and less healthy diet quality. They found a tighter association between GRS and type 2 diabetes for women with diet quality below the median, whereas women with higher diet quality did not have such a strong association between GRS and type 2 disease. The researchers wrote that there was “suggestive evidence that a healthful diet might mitigate the excessive risk of T2D [type 2 diabetes] related to greater genetic susceptibility, which supports public health efforts of encouraging a healthful diet” for diabetes prevention in this high-risk population.

Patients in the NHSII were followed for a mean 21.3 years, and those in the DNBC were followed for a mean 12.7 years. Mean age at index pregnancy was 30.5 years for the NHSII cohort and 31.7 for the DNBC cohort. In the NHSII cohort, just 8.4% of participants reported smoking before pregnancy, compared with 26.4% of those in the DNBC cohort. The NHSII cohort participants, wrote Dr. Li and her coauthors, “were also less likely to have a family history of diabetes, less likely to smoke, and be leaner than women in the DNBC.”

Dr. Li and her coauthors noted that, “despite being the largest genetic study by far on [type 2 diabetes] among women with GDM, our study may not be sufficiently powered to examine the associations of individual T2D SNPs in relation to the risk of developing T2D.” Another limitation was that for the Danish cohort, information about diet was drawn from a one-time questionnaire administered between 9 and 16 years after the index pregnancy, so full data about dietary quality over time was not available. Also of note is that the study included only white participants, limiting generalizability to women of color. The authors called for expanding this research into more racially diverse populations.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. The authors reported that they had no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Li M et al. BMJ Open Diab Res Care. 2020 Feb 13. doi: 10.1136/bmjdrc-2019-000850.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) finalized a new regulation requiring all hospitals participating in its programs to establish antimicrobial stewardship programs by March 30, 2020 (https://federalregister.gov/d/2019-20736). This welcome action was prompted by the rise in antimicrobial resistance; recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates more than 2.8 million antibiotic-resistant infections with more than 35,000 deaths occur in the United States each year (https://www.cdc.gov/drugresistance/biggest-threats.html). CMS recommended that hospitals follow stewardship guidelines established by CDC, and other nationally recognized sources (https://www.cdc.gov/antibiotic-use/healthcare/pdfs/hospital-core-elements-H.pdf). Antibiotic stewardship includes optimization of several aspects of antimicrobial therapy including the drugs, formulations, doses, and dosing intervals. It also includes obtaining and updating local, regional, and national susceptibility data to provide regularly updated guidance regarding diagnosis and therapy.

How does this new CMS rule affect gastroenterologists and what role, if any, do we play in the epidemic of antibiotic resistance? The one infectious disease that gastroenterology effectively owns is Helicobacter pylori. Treatment of this disease has the potential to be involved in the epidemic of antimicrobial resistance. Current H. pylori therapies were largely devised without considering the principles of antibiotic stewardship. Therapies for H. pylori have largely been developed using trial and error, antimicrobial susceptibility testing is rarely available, and local and regional susceptibility are not readily available or updated. Current national treatment recommendations are most often based on comparisons of regimens grouping trials containing different drugs, doses, and durations of therapy performed in populations in whom resistance was neither assessed nor taken into account. Finally, some of the most highly recommended effective regimens inevitably contain at least one antibiotic unnecessary for the outcome, and inadvertently serve to increase population antibiotic exposure.

Clarithromycin-amoxicillin-PPI triple is still the most often used legacy therapy in the United States with an average cure rate of 70%. Recent guidelines have suggested adding a fourth drug, metronidazole to produce a quadruple therapy (concomitant therapy); the premise is that although both clarithromycin and metronidazole resistance are common, dual resistance is not. However, this benefit comes at the price of every patient receiving at least one unnecessary antibiotic, and patients with treatment failures receiving three unnecessary antibiotics. The cumulative effect given the approximately 2 million treatments annually is 10s of thousands of kilograms of inappropriate antibiotic use annually with the likely consequence of increasing resistance.

How to move forward? The CDC documents regarding antimicrobial stewardship in hospitals with limited resources (https://www.cdc.gov/antibiotic-use/core-elements/resource-limited.html) suggest creation and promotion of evidence-based treatment guidelines for common clinical syndromes, tracking of antibiotic dispensing using available data, setting of national targets for improvement, and description of resistance patterns to improve treatment guidelines and identify priority pathogens. The CDC documents require creation and promotion of evidence-and susceptibility-based treatment guidelines, tracking of antibiotic dispensing and setting targets for improvement (i.e., monitoring and reporting). It is important to note that the CMS rule focused on hospitals as hospitals have traditionally been the sites where local susceptibility data are obtained and gathered to provide the regional data and updated treatment guidelines used to treat most infectious diseases.

The Houston Consensus Conference on Testing for Helicobacter pylori Infection in the United States in 2017 had several recommendations that would effectively address the CMS rule and CDC recommendations. For example, statement 15: that empiric eradication therapy for H. pylori be based on region or population-specific antibiotic susceptibility data (Grade 1B); Statement 17: that validated diagnostic testing of stool or gastric mucosal biopsy by culture and susceptibility, or molecular analysis be universally available (Grade 1); Statement 18: that antibiotics that may be routinely evaluated for susceptibility include amoxicillin, clarithromycin, levofloxacin, metronidazole, and tetracycline. (Grade 2C); and Statement 19: that professional societies provide the research needed to support evidence-based reimbursement decisions for antibiotic susceptibility testing for H. pylori (Grade 1).

Organized gastroenterology needs to join with the infectious disease community to make H. pylori an infection of joint interest. Mass eradication of H. pylori worldwide offers the promise of elimination of gastric cancer. The CMS rule should ultimately result in significant changes in the approach of treating H. pylori infections that includes improved testing and availability and implementation of knowledge of local susceptibility and resistance patterns. Therapies that reliably cure H. pylori without unnecessary antibiotics need to be used whereas regimens that fail to reliably achieve high cure rates should be abandoned. We should consider establishing quality metrics related to appropriate diagnostic testing for both the initial infection as well as posttreatment evaluations. We must add our voice to advocate for hospitals and central laboratories to offer susceptibility testing locally or as a send out for clinicians to provide locally relevant antimicrobial therapy for H. pylori infections. The CMS rule provides both the impetus and the methods to move forward and deal with H. pylori like other infectious diseases.
 

Dr. Graham is a professor of medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston; Dr. El-Serag is chair of the department of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston. Neither had conflicts of interest related to this comment.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) finalized a new regulation requiring all hospitals participating in its programs to establish antimicrobial stewardship programs by March 30, 2020 (https://federalregister.gov/d/2019-20736). This welcome action was prompted by the rise in antimicrobial resistance; recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates more than 2.8 million antibiotic-resistant infections with more than 35,000 deaths occur in the United States each year (https://www.cdc.gov/drugresistance/biggest-threats.html). CMS recommended that hospitals follow stewardship guidelines established by CDC, and other nationally recognized sources (https://www.cdc.gov/antibiotic-use/healthcare/pdfs/hospital-core-elements-H.pdf). Antibiotic stewardship includes optimization of several aspects of antimicrobial therapy including the drugs, formulations, doses, and dosing intervals. It also includes obtaining and updating local, regional, and national susceptibility data to provide regularly updated guidance regarding diagnosis and therapy.

How does this new CMS rule affect gastroenterologists and what role, if any, do we play in the epidemic of antibiotic resistance? The one infectious disease that gastroenterology effectively owns is Helicobacter pylori. Treatment of this disease has the potential to be involved in the epidemic of antimicrobial resistance. Current H. pylori therapies were largely devised without considering the principles of antibiotic stewardship. Therapies for H. pylori have largely been developed using trial and error, antimicrobial susceptibility testing is rarely available, and local and regional susceptibility are not readily available or updated. Current national treatment recommendations are most often based on comparisons of regimens grouping trials containing different drugs, doses, and durations of therapy performed in populations in whom resistance was neither assessed nor taken into account. Finally, some of the most highly recommended effective regimens inevitably contain at least one antibiotic unnecessary for the outcome, and inadvertently serve to increase population antibiotic exposure.

Clarithromycin-amoxicillin-PPI triple is still the most often used legacy therapy in the United States with an average cure rate of 70%. Recent guidelines have suggested adding a fourth drug, metronidazole to produce a quadruple therapy (concomitant therapy); the premise is that although both clarithromycin and metronidazole resistance are common, dual resistance is not. However, this benefit comes at the price of every patient receiving at least one unnecessary antibiotic, and patients with treatment failures receiving three unnecessary antibiotics. The cumulative effect given the approximately 2 million treatments annually is 10s of thousands of kilograms of inappropriate antibiotic use annually with the likely consequence of increasing resistance.

How to move forward? The CDC documents regarding antimicrobial stewardship in hospitals with limited resources (https://www.cdc.gov/antibiotic-use/core-elements/resource-limited.html) suggest creation and promotion of evidence-based treatment guidelines for common clinical syndromes, tracking of antibiotic dispensing using available data, setting of national targets for improvement, and description of resistance patterns to improve treatment guidelines and identify priority pathogens. The CDC documents require creation and promotion of evidence-and susceptibility-based treatment guidelines, tracking of antibiotic dispensing and setting targets for improvement (i.e., monitoring and reporting). It is important to note that the CMS rule focused on hospitals as hospitals have traditionally been the sites where local susceptibility data are obtained and gathered to provide the regional data and updated treatment guidelines used to treat most infectious diseases.

The Houston Consensus Conference on Testing for Helicobacter pylori Infection in the United States in 2017 had several recommendations that would effectively address the CMS rule and CDC recommendations. For example, statement 15: that empiric eradication therapy for H. pylori be based on region or population-specific antibiotic susceptibility data (Grade 1B); Statement 17: that validated diagnostic testing of stool or gastric mucosal biopsy by culture and susceptibility, or molecular analysis be universally available (Grade 1); Statement 18: that antibiotics that may be routinely evaluated for susceptibility include amoxicillin, clarithromycin, levofloxacin, metronidazole, and tetracycline. (Grade 2C); and Statement 19: that professional societies provide the research needed to support evidence-based reimbursement decisions for antibiotic susceptibility testing for H. pylori (Grade 1).

Organized gastroenterology needs to join with the infectious disease community to make H. pylori an infection of joint interest. Mass eradication of H. pylori worldwide offers the promise of elimination of gastric cancer. The CMS rule should ultimately result in significant changes in the approach of treating H. pylori infections that includes improved testing and availability and implementation of knowledge of local susceptibility and resistance patterns. Therapies that reliably cure H. pylori without unnecessary antibiotics need to be used whereas regimens that fail to reliably achieve high cure rates should be abandoned. We should consider establishing quality metrics related to appropriate diagnostic testing for both the initial infection as well as posttreatment evaluations. We must add our voice to advocate for hospitals and central laboratories to offer susceptibility testing locally or as a send out for clinicians to provide locally relevant antimicrobial therapy for H. pylori infections. The CMS rule provides both the impetus and the methods to move forward and deal with H. pylori like other infectious diseases.
 

Dr. Graham is a professor of medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston; Dr. El-Serag is chair of the department of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston. Neither had conflicts of interest related to this comment.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) finalized a new regulation requiring all hospitals participating in its programs to establish antimicrobial stewardship programs by March 30, 2020 (https://federalregister.gov/d/2019-20736). This welcome action was prompted by the rise in antimicrobial resistance; recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates more than 2.8 million antibiotic-resistant infections with more than 35,000 deaths occur in the United States each year (https://www.cdc.gov/drugresistance/biggest-threats.html). CMS recommended that hospitals follow stewardship guidelines established by CDC, and other nationally recognized sources (https://www.cdc.gov/antibiotic-use/healthcare/pdfs/hospital-core-elements-H.pdf). Antibiotic stewardship includes optimization of several aspects of antimicrobial therapy including the drugs, formulations, doses, and dosing intervals. It also includes obtaining and updating local, regional, and national susceptibility data to provide regularly updated guidance regarding diagnosis and therapy.

How does this new CMS rule affect gastroenterologists and what role, if any, do we play in the epidemic of antibiotic resistance? The one infectious disease that gastroenterology effectively owns is Helicobacter pylori. Treatment of this disease has the potential to be involved in the epidemic of antimicrobial resistance. Current H. pylori therapies were largely devised without considering the principles of antibiotic stewardship. Therapies for H. pylori have largely been developed using trial and error, antimicrobial susceptibility testing is rarely available, and local and regional susceptibility are not readily available or updated. Current national treatment recommendations are most often based on comparisons of regimens grouping trials containing different drugs, doses, and durations of therapy performed in populations in whom resistance was neither assessed nor taken into account. Finally, some of the most highly recommended effective regimens inevitably contain at least one antibiotic unnecessary for the outcome, and inadvertently serve to increase population antibiotic exposure.

Clarithromycin-amoxicillin-PPI triple is still the most often used legacy therapy in the United States with an average cure rate of 70%. Recent guidelines have suggested adding a fourth drug, metronidazole to produce a quadruple therapy (concomitant therapy); the premise is that although both clarithromycin and metronidazole resistance are common, dual resistance is not. However, this benefit comes at the price of every patient receiving at least one unnecessary antibiotic, and patients with treatment failures receiving three unnecessary antibiotics. The cumulative effect given the approximately 2 million treatments annually is 10s of thousands of kilograms of inappropriate antibiotic use annually with the likely consequence of increasing resistance.

How to move forward? The CDC documents regarding antimicrobial stewardship in hospitals with limited resources (https://www.cdc.gov/antibiotic-use/core-elements/resource-limited.html) suggest creation and promotion of evidence-based treatment guidelines for common clinical syndromes, tracking of antibiotic dispensing using available data, setting of national targets for improvement, and description of resistance patterns to improve treatment guidelines and identify priority pathogens. The CDC documents require creation and promotion of evidence-and susceptibility-based treatment guidelines, tracking of antibiotic dispensing and setting targets for improvement (i.e., monitoring and reporting). It is important to note that the CMS rule focused on hospitals as hospitals have traditionally been the sites where local susceptibility data are obtained and gathered to provide the regional data and updated treatment guidelines used to treat most infectious diseases.

The Houston Consensus Conference on Testing for Helicobacter pylori Infection in the United States in 2017 had several recommendations that would effectively address the CMS rule and CDC recommendations. For example, statement 15: that empiric eradication therapy for H. pylori be based on region or population-specific antibiotic susceptibility data (Grade 1B); Statement 17: that validated diagnostic testing of stool or gastric mucosal biopsy by culture and susceptibility, or molecular analysis be universally available (Grade 1); Statement 18: that antibiotics that may be routinely evaluated for susceptibility include amoxicillin, clarithromycin, levofloxacin, metronidazole, and tetracycline. (Grade 2C); and Statement 19: that professional societies provide the research needed to support evidence-based reimbursement decisions for antibiotic susceptibility testing for H. pylori (Grade 1).

Organized gastroenterology needs to join with the infectious disease community to make H. pylori an infection of joint interest. Mass eradication of H. pylori worldwide offers the promise of elimination of gastric cancer. The CMS rule should ultimately result in significant changes in the approach of treating H. pylori infections that includes improved testing and availability and implementation of knowledge of local susceptibility and resistance patterns. Therapies that reliably cure H. pylori without unnecessary antibiotics need to be used whereas regimens that fail to reliably achieve high cure rates should be abandoned. We should consider establishing quality metrics related to appropriate diagnostic testing for both the initial infection as well as posttreatment evaluations. We must add our voice to advocate for hospitals and central laboratories to offer susceptibility testing locally or as a send out for clinicians to provide locally relevant antimicrobial therapy for H. pylori infections. The CMS rule provides both the impetus and the methods to move forward and deal with H. pylori like other infectious diseases.
 

Dr. Graham is a professor of medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston; Dr. El-Serag is chair of the department of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston. Neither had conflicts of interest related to this comment.

Evaluation and Management (E/M) coding and guidelines are about to undergo the most significant changes since their implementation in the 1990s. For now, the changes are limited to new and established outpatient visits (CPT codes 99202-99205, 99211-99215) and will take place as of Jan. 1, 2021. Changes to all E/M codes are anticipated in the coming years.

The changes to the new and established office/outpatient codes will impact everyone in health care who assigns codes, manages health information, or pays claims including physicians and qualified health professionals, coders, health information managers, payers, health systems, and hospitals. The American Medical Association (AMA) has already released a preview of the CPT 2021 changes as well as free E/M education modules. They are planning to release more educational resources in the near future.
 

Why were changes needed?

The AMA developed the 2021 E/M changes in response to interest from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) in reducing physician burden, simplifying documentation requirements, and making changes to payments for the E/M codes. CMS’s initial proposal was to collapse office visit E/M levels 2-5 to a single payment. While the new rates would have provided a modest increase for level 2 and 3 E/M codes, they would have cut reimbursement for the top-level codes by more than 50%. There was concern that these changes would adversely affect physicians caring for complex patients across medical specialties. There was an outcry from the physician community opposing CMS’s proposal, and the agency agreed to get more input from the public before moving forward.

The AMA worked with stakeholders, including the AGA and our sister GI societies, to create E/M guidelines that decrease documentation requirements while also continuing to differentiate payment based on complexity of care. CMS announced in the 2020 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (MPFS) final rule that it would adopt the AMA’s proposal as well as their recommended relative values for 2021 CPT E/M codes. Of note, there will be modest payment increases for most office E/M codes beginning Jan. 1, 2021, which may benefit those who manage patients with complex conditions.

In sum, what are the 2021 E/M changes

While there will be many changes to office/outpatient E/M visits, the most significant are deletion of code 99201 (Level 1 new patient visit), addition of a 15-minute prolonged services code that can be reported with 99205 and 99215, and the following restructuring of office visit code selection:

1. Elimination of history and physical as elements for code selection: While obtaining a pertinent history and performing a relevant physical exam are clinically necessary and contribute to both time and medical decision making, these elements will not factor in to code selection. Instead, the code level will be determined solely by medical decision making or time.

2. Choice of using medical decision making (MDM) or total time as the basis of E/M level documentation:

• MDM. While there will still be three MDM subcomponents (number/complexity of problems, data, and risk), extensive edits were made to the ways in which these elements are defined and tallied.
• Time. The definition of time is now minimum time, not typical time or “face-to-face” time. Minimum time represents total physician/qualified health care professional time on the date of service. This redefinition of time allows Medicare to better recognize the work involved in non–face-to-face services like care coordination and record review. Of note, these definitions only apply when code selection is based on time and not MDM.

3. Modification of the criteria for MDM: The current CMS Table of Risk was used as a foundation for designing the revised required elements for MDM.

• Terms. Removed ambiguous terms (e.g., “mild”) and defined previously ambiguous concepts (e.g., “acute or chronic illness with systemic symptoms”).
• Definitions. Defined important terms, such as “independent historian.”
• Data elements. Re-defined the data elements to move away from simply adding up tasks to focusing on how those tasks affect the management of the patient (e.g., independent interpretation of a test performed by another provider and/or discussion of test interpretation with another physician).

CMS also plans to add a new Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) add-on code as of Jan. 1, 2021, that can be used to recognize additional resource costs that are inherent in treating complex patients.

• GPCX1 - Visit complexity inherent to evaluation and management associated with medical care services that serve as the continuing focal point for all needed health care services and/or with medical care services that are part of ongoing care related to a patient’s single, serious, or complex chronic condition. (Add-on code, list separately in addition to office/outpatient evaluation and management visit, new or established.).

GPC1X can be reported with all levels of E/M office/outpatient codes in which care of a patient’s single, serious, or complex chronic condition is the focus. CMS plans to reimburse GPC1X at 0.33 RVUs (about $12).
 

Who do these changes apply to?

The changes to the E/M office/outpatient CPT codes and guidelines for new and established patients apply to all traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage plans, Medicaid, and all commercial payers. E/M HCPCS codes apply to Medicare, Medicare Advantage plans, and Medicaid only; commercial payers are not required to accept HCPCS codes.

What should you do?

Visit the AMA E/M Microsite; there you will find the AMA’s early release of the 2021 E/M coding and guideline changes, the AMA E/M learning module and future resources on the use of time and MDM that are expected to be released in March.

AMA E/M Microsite: https://www.ama-assn.org/practice-management/cpt/cpt-evaluation-and-management

2021 E/M changes: https://www.ama-assn.org/system/files/2019-06/cpt-office-prolonged-svs-code-changes.pdf

AMA E/M learning module: https://edhub.ama-assn.org/interactive/18057429

AMA MDM table: https://www.ama-assn.org/system/files/2019-06/cpt-revised-mdm-grid.pdf

Connect with your coders and/or medical billing company to create a plan for training physicians and staff to ensure a smooth transition on Jan. 1, 2021.

Contact your Electronic Health Records (EHR) vendor to confirm the system your practice uses will be ready to implement the new E/M coding and guidelines changes on Jan. 1, 2021.

Run an analysis using the new E/M office/outpatient payment rates recommended by the AMA for 2021 (https://www.ama-assn.org/about/rvs-update-committee-ruc/ruc-recommendations-minutes-voting) for each of your practice’s contracted payers to determine if your practice will benefit from the new rates. While CMS has proposed to accept the AMA recommended rates, this will not be finalized until CMS publishes the 2021 proposed rule in early July 2020.

Once CMS confirms its decision, reach out to your payers to negotiate implementing the new E/M rates starting in 2021.

With changes this big, we encourage you to prepare early. Watch for more information on the 2021 E/M changes in Washington Insider and AGA eDigest.
 

Dr. Kuo is the AGA’s Advisor to the AMA CPT Editorial Panel and a member of the AGA Practice Management and Economics Committee’s (PMEC) Coverage and Reimbursement Subcommittee (CRS) and assistant professor of medicine and gastroenterology, Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston; Dr. Losurdo is the AGA’s Alternate Advisor to the AMA CPT Editorial Panel, a member of the AGA PMEC’s CRS, and Managing Partner and medical director of Illinois Gastroenterology Group, Elgin, Ill.; Dr. Mehta is the AGA’s advisor to the AMA RVS Update Committee (RUC), a member of the AGA PMEC’s CRS, and assistant professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia; and Dr. Garcia is the AGA’s Alternate Advisor to the AMA RUC, a member of the AGA PMEC’s CRS, and assistant professor of medicine and gastroenterology at Stanford (Calif.) University. There were no conflicts of interest.

Evaluation and Management (E/M) coding and guidelines are about to undergo the most significant changes since their implementation in the 1990s. For now, the changes are limited to new and established outpatient visits (CPT codes 99202-99205, 99211-99215) and will take place as of Jan. 1, 2021. Changes to all E/M codes are anticipated in the coming years.

The changes to the new and established office/outpatient codes will impact everyone in health care who assigns codes, manages health information, or pays claims including physicians and qualified health professionals, coders, health information managers, payers, health systems, and hospitals. The American Medical Association (AMA) has already released a preview of the CPT 2021 changes as well as free E/M education modules. They are planning to release more educational resources in the near future.
 

Why were changes needed?

The AMA developed the 2021 E/M changes in response to interest from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) in reducing physician burden, simplifying documentation requirements, and making changes to payments for the E/M codes. CMS’s initial proposal was to collapse office visit E/M levels 2-5 to a single payment. While the new rates would have provided a modest increase for level 2 and 3 E/M codes, they would have cut reimbursement for the top-level codes by more than 50%. There was concern that these changes would adversely affect physicians caring for complex patients across medical specialties. There was an outcry from the physician community opposing CMS’s proposal, and the agency agreed to get more input from the public before moving forward.

The AMA worked with stakeholders, including the AGA and our sister GI societies, to create E/M guidelines that decrease documentation requirements while also continuing to differentiate payment based on complexity of care. CMS announced in the 2020 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (MPFS) final rule that it would adopt the AMA’s proposal as well as their recommended relative values for 2021 CPT E/M codes. Of note, there will be modest payment increases for most office E/M codes beginning Jan. 1, 2021, which may benefit those who manage patients with complex conditions.

In sum, what are the 2021 E/M changes

While there will be many changes to office/outpatient E/M visits, the most significant are deletion of code 99201 (Level 1 new patient visit), addition of a 15-minute prolonged services code that can be reported with 99205 and 99215, and the following restructuring of office visit code selection:

1. Elimination of history and physical as elements for code selection: While obtaining a pertinent history and performing a relevant physical exam are clinically necessary and contribute to both time and medical decision making, these elements will not factor in to code selection. Instead, the code level will be determined solely by medical decision making or time.

2. Choice of using medical decision making (MDM) or total time as the basis of E/M level documentation:

• MDM. While there will still be three MDM subcomponents (number/complexity of problems, data, and risk), extensive edits were made to the ways in which these elements are defined and tallied.
• Time. The definition of time is now minimum time, not typical time or “face-to-face” time. Minimum time represents total physician/qualified health care professional time on the date of service. This redefinition of time allows Medicare to better recognize the work involved in non–face-to-face services like care coordination and record review. Of note, these definitions only apply when code selection is based on time and not MDM.

3. Modification of the criteria for MDM: The current CMS Table of Risk was used as a foundation for designing the revised required elements for MDM.

• Terms. Removed ambiguous terms (e.g., “mild”) and defined previously ambiguous concepts (e.g., “acute or chronic illness with systemic symptoms”).
• Definitions. Defined important terms, such as “independent historian.”
• Data elements. Re-defined the data elements to move away from simply adding up tasks to focusing on how those tasks affect the management of the patient (e.g., independent interpretation of a test performed by another provider and/or discussion of test interpretation with another physician).

CMS also plans to add a new Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) add-on code as of Jan. 1, 2021, that can be used to recognize additional resource costs that are inherent in treating complex patients.

• GPCX1 - Visit complexity inherent to evaluation and management associated with medical care services that serve as the continuing focal point for all needed health care services and/or with medical care services that are part of ongoing care related to a patient’s single, serious, or complex chronic condition. (Add-on code, list separately in addition to office/outpatient evaluation and management visit, new or established.).

GPC1X can be reported with all levels of E/M office/outpatient codes in which care of a patient’s single, serious, or complex chronic condition is the focus. CMS plans to reimburse GPC1X at 0.33 RVUs (about $12).
 

Who do these changes apply to?

The changes to the E/M office/outpatient CPT codes and guidelines for new and established patients apply to all traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage plans, Medicaid, and all commercial payers. E/M HCPCS codes apply to Medicare, Medicare Advantage plans, and Medicaid only; commercial payers are not required to accept HCPCS codes.

What should you do?

Visit the AMA E/M Microsite; there you will find the AMA’s early release of the 2021 E/M coding and guideline changes, the AMA E/M learning module and future resources on the use of time and MDM that are expected to be released in March.

AMA E/M Microsite: https://www.ama-assn.org/practice-management/cpt/cpt-evaluation-and-management

2021 E/M changes: https://www.ama-assn.org/system/files/2019-06/cpt-office-prolonged-svs-code-changes.pdf

AMA E/M learning module: https://edhub.ama-assn.org/interactive/18057429

AMA MDM table: https://www.ama-assn.org/system/files/2019-06/cpt-revised-mdm-grid.pdf

Connect with your coders and/or medical billing company to create a plan for training physicians and staff to ensure a smooth transition on Jan. 1, 2021.

Contact your Electronic Health Records (EHR) vendor to confirm the system your practice uses will be ready to implement the new E/M coding and guidelines changes on Jan. 1, 2021.

Run an analysis using the new E/M office/outpatient payment rates recommended by the AMA for 2021 (https://www.ama-assn.org/about/rvs-update-committee-ruc/ruc-recommendations-minutes-voting) for each of your practice’s contracted payers to determine if your practice will benefit from the new rates. While CMS has proposed to accept the AMA recommended rates, this will not be finalized until CMS publishes the 2021 proposed rule in early July 2020.

Once CMS confirms its decision, reach out to your payers to negotiate implementing the new E/M rates starting in 2021.

With changes this big, we encourage you to prepare early. Watch for more information on the 2021 E/M changes in Washington Insider and AGA eDigest.
 

Dr. Kuo is the AGA’s Advisor to the AMA CPT Editorial Panel and a member of the AGA Practice Management and Economics Committee’s (PMEC) Coverage and Reimbursement Subcommittee (CRS) and assistant professor of medicine and gastroenterology, Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston; Dr. Losurdo is the AGA’s Alternate Advisor to the AMA CPT Editorial Panel, a member of the AGA PMEC’s CRS, and Managing Partner and medical director of Illinois Gastroenterology Group, Elgin, Ill.; Dr. Mehta is the AGA’s advisor to the AMA RVS Update Committee (RUC), a member of the AGA PMEC’s CRS, and assistant professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia; and Dr. Garcia is the AGA’s Alternate Advisor to the AMA RUC, a member of the AGA PMEC’s CRS, and assistant professor of medicine and gastroenterology at Stanford (Calif.) University. There were no conflicts of interest.

Evaluation and Management (E/M) coding and guidelines are about to undergo the most significant changes since their implementation in the 1990s. For now, the changes are limited to new and established outpatient visits (CPT codes 99202-99205, 99211-99215) and will take place as of Jan. 1, 2021. Changes to all E/M codes are anticipated in the coming years.

The changes to the new and established office/outpatient codes will impact everyone in health care who assigns codes, manages health information, or pays claims including physicians and qualified health professionals, coders, health information managers, payers, health systems, and hospitals. The American Medical Association (AMA) has already released a preview of the CPT 2021 changes as well as free E/M education modules. They are planning to release more educational resources in the near future.
 

Why were changes needed?

The AMA developed the 2021 E/M changes in response to interest from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) in reducing physician burden, simplifying documentation requirements, and making changes to payments for the E/M codes. CMS’s initial proposal was to collapse office visit E/M levels 2-5 to a single payment. While the new rates would have provided a modest increase for level 2 and 3 E/M codes, they would have cut reimbursement for the top-level codes by more than 50%. There was concern that these changes would adversely affect physicians caring for complex patients across medical specialties. There was an outcry from the physician community opposing CMS’s proposal, and the agency agreed to get more input from the public before moving forward.

The AMA worked with stakeholders, including the AGA and our sister GI societies, to create E/M guidelines that decrease documentation requirements while also continuing to differentiate payment based on complexity of care. CMS announced in the 2020 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (MPFS) final rule that it would adopt the AMA’s proposal as well as their recommended relative values for 2021 CPT E/M codes. Of note, there will be modest payment increases for most office E/M codes beginning Jan. 1, 2021, which may benefit those who manage patients with complex conditions.

In sum, what are the 2021 E/M changes

While there will be many changes to office/outpatient E/M visits, the most significant are deletion of code 99201 (Level 1 new patient visit), addition of a 15-minute prolonged services code that can be reported with 99205 and 99215, and the following restructuring of office visit code selection:

1. Elimination of history and physical as elements for code selection: While obtaining a pertinent history and performing a relevant physical exam are clinically necessary and contribute to both time and medical decision making, these elements will not factor in to code selection. Instead, the code level will be determined solely by medical decision making or time.

2. Choice of using medical decision making (MDM) or total time as the basis of E/M level documentation:

• MDM. While there will still be three MDM subcomponents (number/complexity of problems, data, and risk), extensive edits were made to the ways in which these elements are defined and tallied.
• Time. The definition of time is now minimum time, not typical time or “face-to-face” time. Minimum time represents total physician/qualified health care professional time on the date of service. This redefinition of time allows Medicare to better recognize the work involved in non–face-to-face services like care coordination and record review. Of note, these definitions only apply when code selection is based on time and not MDM.

3. Modification of the criteria for MDM: The current CMS Table of Risk was used as a foundation for designing the revised required elements for MDM.

• Terms. Removed ambiguous terms (e.g., “mild”) and defined previously ambiguous concepts (e.g., “acute or chronic illness with systemic symptoms”).
• Definitions. Defined important terms, such as “independent historian.”
• Data elements. Re-defined the data elements to move away from simply adding up tasks to focusing on how those tasks affect the management of the patient (e.g., independent interpretation of a test performed by another provider and/or discussion of test interpretation with another physician).

CMS also plans to add a new Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) add-on code as of Jan. 1, 2021, that can be used to recognize additional resource costs that are inherent in treating complex patients.

• GPCX1 - Visit complexity inherent to evaluation and management associated with medical care services that serve as the continuing focal point for all needed health care services and/or with medical care services that are part of ongoing care related to a patient’s single, serious, or complex chronic condition. (Add-on code, list separately in addition to office/outpatient evaluation and management visit, new or established.).

GPC1X can be reported with all levels of E/M office/outpatient codes in which care of a patient’s single, serious, or complex chronic condition is the focus. CMS plans to reimburse GPC1X at 0.33 RVUs (about $12).
 

Who do these changes apply to?

The changes to the E/M office/outpatient CPT codes and guidelines for new and established patients apply to all traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage plans, Medicaid, and all commercial payers. E/M HCPCS codes apply to Medicare, Medicare Advantage plans, and Medicaid only; commercial payers are not required to accept HCPCS codes.

What should you do?

Visit the AMA E/M Microsite; there you will find the AMA’s early release of the 2021 E/M coding and guideline changes, the AMA E/M learning module and future resources on the use of time and MDM that are expected to be released in March.

AMA E/M Microsite: https://www.ama-assn.org/practice-management/cpt/cpt-evaluation-and-management

2021 E/M changes: https://www.ama-assn.org/system/files/2019-06/cpt-office-prolonged-svs-code-changes.pdf

AMA E/M learning module: https://edhub.ama-assn.org/interactive/18057429

AMA MDM table: https://www.ama-assn.org/system/files/2019-06/cpt-revised-mdm-grid.pdf

Connect with your coders and/or medical billing company to create a plan for training physicians and staff to ensure a smooth transition on Jan. 1, 2021.

Contact your Electronic Health Records (EHR) vendor to confirm the system your practice uses will be ready to implement the new E/M coding and guidelines changes on Jan. 1, 2021.

Run an analysis using the new E/M office/outpatient payment rates recommended by the AMA for 2021 (https://www.ama-assn.org/about/rvs-update-committee-ruc/ruc-recommendations-minutes-voting) for each of your practice’s contracted payers to determine if your practice will benefit from the new rates. While CMS has proposed to accept the AMA recommended rates, this will not be finalized until CMS publishes the 2021 proposed rule in early July 2020.

Once CMS confirms its decision, reach out to your payers to negotiate implementing the new E/M rates starting in 2021.

With changes this big, we encourage you to prepare early. Watch for more information on the 2021 E/M changes in Washington Insider and AGA eDigest.
 

Dr. Kuo is the AGA’s Advisor to the AMA CPT Editorial Panel and a member of the AGA Practice Management and Economics Committee’s (PMEC) Coverage and Reimbursement Subcommittee (CRS) and assistant professor of medicine and gastroenterology, Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston; Dr. Losurdo is the AGA’s Alternate Advisor to the AMA CPT Editorial Panel, a member of the AGA PMEC’s CRS, and Managing Partner and medical director of Illinois Gastroenterology Group, Elgin, Ill.; Dr. Mehta is the AGA’s advisor to the AMA RVS Update Committee (RUC), a member of the AGA PMEC’s CRS, and assistant professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia; and Dr. Garcia is the AGA’s Alternate Advisor to the AMA RUC, a member of the AGA PMEC’s CRS, and assistant professor of medicine and gastroenterology at Stanford (Calif.) University. There were no conflicts of interest.

Cancer patients in states that opted to expand Medicaid insurance coverage under the Affordable Care Act saw a slightly better rate of early diagnosis, compared with patients in states that refused expansion, according to a new study. However, time to treatment was similar in states that opted for expansion and states that did not.

Samuel U. Takvorian, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues reported these results in JAMA Network Open.

The researchers used the National Cancer Database to examine the changes in health insurance coverage and cancer health outcomes in nonelderly patients following implementation of the Affordable Care Act in January 2014. The investigators identified records for 925,543 patients who had new-onset breast (59%), colon (15%), or non–small cell lung (27%) cancer between 2011 and 2016. The patients’ mean age was 55 years (range, 40-64 years), 79% were women, 14% were black, and 6% were Hispanic.

The researchers looked at insurance status, cancer stage at diagnosis, and treatment initiation within 30 and 90 days of diagnosis. The cohort was equally divided between residents of Medicaid expansion states (48%) and nonexpansion states (52%).

Using a statistical technique that mimics a controlled experiment, the investigators found the percentage of uninsured patients decreased more in the expansion states (adjusted difference-in-differences, −0.7 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, −1.2 to −0.3; P = .001), compared with nonexpansion states. Expansion states also had a greater increase in early-stage cancer diagnoses (adjusted DID, 0.8; 95% CI 0.3-1.2; P = .001) and a greater decrease in advanced-stage cancer diagnoses (adjusted DID, −0.5; 95% CI, −0.9 to −0.2; P = .003).

Among the 848,329 patients who underwent cancer treatment within a year of diagnosis, the percentage initiating treatment within 30 days declined from 52.7% before to 48% after Medicaid expansion in states opting in (unadjusted DID, −4.7; percentage points, 95% CI; −5.1 to −4.5). States that did not expand their Medicaid programs, meanwhile, saw the share decline from 56.9% to 51.5% in the same time period (adjusted DID, −5.4; 95% CI, −5.6 to −5.1). There was no statistically significant difference in timely treatment associated with Medicaid expansion (adjusted DID, 0.6; 95% CI, −0.2 to 1.4; P = .14).

The researchers speculated that the lack of significant between-group differences in time to treatment, despite an improvement in early-stage diagnoses associated with Medicaid expansion, could reflect a cancer care system strained by a surge in insured patients, overall increases in cancer prevalence and complexity of care, a shortage of workers, or a mixture of factors.

In a related editorial, Sue Fu, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, and colleagues wrote that, while the findings of increased early diagnosis seen in the study are promising, the time to treatment results are “puzzling” and deserve further consideration.

Time to treatment is important in cancer, as longer times are associated with increased mortality, Dr. Fu and colleagues noted. Slowing times to cancer treatment is a systemic problem in the United States that has been documented since the mid-2000s. Paradoxically, expanded insurance coverage could contribute to increasing time to treatment even after timely diagnosis by adding administrative burdens leading to longer wait times. “Newly insured and underinsured individuals may be particularly vulnerable to this,” the editorialists wrote.

Dr. Takvorian and colleagues noted as weaknesses of their study its observational design, a limited range of ages and cancers included, and an inability to adjust for state-level effects.

This study was funded by the National Cancer Institute and the Agency for Health Research and Quality. The authors of the study and the editorial disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCES: Takvorian SU et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Feb 5;3(2):e1921653; Fu S et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Feb 5;3(2):e1921690.

Cancer patients in states that opted to expand Medicaid insurance coverage under the Affordable Care Act saw a slightly better rate of early diagnosis, compared with patients in states that refused expansion, according to a new study. However, time to treatment was similar in states that opted for expansion and states that did not.

Samuel U. Takvorian, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues reported these results in JAMA Network Open.

The researchers used the National Cancer Database to examine the changes in health insurance coverage and cancer health outcomes in nonelderly patients following implementation of the Affordable Care Act in January 2014. The investigators identified records for 925,543 patients who had new-onset breast (59%), colon (15%), or non–small cell lung (27%) cancer between 2011 and 2016. The patients’ mean age was 55 years (range, 40-64 years), 79% were women, 14% were black, and 6% were Hispanic.

The researchers looked at insurance status, cancer stage at diagnosis, and treatment initiation within 30 and 90 days of diagnosis. The cohort was equally divided between residents of Medicaid expansion states (48%) and nonexpansion states (52%).

Using a statistical technique that mimics a controlled experiment, the investigators found the percentage of uninsured patients decreased more in the expansion states (adjusted difference-in-differences, −0.7 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, −1.2 to −0.3; P = .001), compared with nonexpansion states. Expansion states also had a greater increase in early-stage cancer diagnoses (adjusted DID, 0.8; 95% CI 0.3-1.2; P = .001) and a greater decrease in advanced-stage cancer diagnoses (adjusted DID, −0.5; 95% CI, −0.9 to −0.2; P = .003).

Among the 848,329 patients who underwent cancer treatment within a year of diagnosis, the percentage initiating treatment within 30 days declined from 52.7% before to 48% after Medicaid expansion in states opting in (unadjusted DID, −4.7; percentage points, 95% CI; −5.1 to −4.5). States that did not expand their Medicaid programs, meanwhile, saw the share decline from 56.9% to 51.5% in the same time period (adjusted DID, −5.4; 95% CI, −5.6 to −5.1). There was no statistically significant difference in timely treatment associated with Medicaid expansion (adjusted DID, 0.6; 95% CI, −0.2 to 1.4; P = .14).

The researchers speculated that the lack of significant between-group differences in time to treatment, despite an improvement in early-stage diagnoses associated with Medicaid expansion, could reflect a cancer care system strained by a surge in insured patients, overall increases in cancer prevalence and complexity of care, a shortage of workers, or a mixture of factors.

In a related editorial, Sue Fu, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, and colleagues wrote that, while the findings of increased early diagnosis seen in the study are promising, the time to treatment results are “puzzling” and deserve further consideration.

Time to treatment is important in cancer, as longer times are associated with increased mortality, Dr. Fu and colleagues noted. Slowing times to cancer treatment is a systemic problem in the United States that has been documented since the mid-2000s. Paradoxically, expanded insurance coverage could contribute to increasing time to treatment even after timely diagnosis by adding administrative burdens leading to longer wait times. “Newly insured and underinsured individuals may be particularly vulnerable to this,” the editorialists wrote.

Dr. Takvorian and colleagues noted as weaknesses of their study its observational design, a limited range of ages and cancers included, and an inability to adjust for state-level effects.

This study was funded by the National Cancer Institute and the Agency for Health Research and Quality. The authors of the study and the editorial disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCES: Takvorian SU et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Feb 5;3(2):e1921653; Fu S et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Feb 5;3(2):e1921690.

Cancer patients in states that opted to expand Medicaid insurance coverage under the Affordable Care Act saw a slightly better rate of early diagnosis, compared with patients in states that refused expansion, according to a new study. However, time to treatment was similar in states that opted for expansion and states that did not.

Samuel U. Takvorian, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and colleagues reported these results in JAMA Network Open.

The researchers used the National Cancer Database to examine the changes in health insurance coverage and cancer health outcomes in nonelderly patients following implementation of the Affordable Care Act in January 2014. The investigators identified records for 925,543 patients who had new-onset breast (59%), colon (15%), or non–small cell lung (27%) cancer between 2011 and 2016. The patients’ mean age was 55 years (range, 40-64 years), 79% were women, 14% were black, and 6% were Hispanic.

The researchers looked at insurance status, cancer stage at diagnosis, and treatment initiation within 30 and 90 days of diagnosis. The cohort was equally divided between residents of Medicaid expansion states (48%) and nonexpansion states (52%).

Using a statistical technique that mimics a controlled experiment, the investigators found the percentage of uninsured patients decreased more in the expansion states (adjusted difference-in-differences, −0.7 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, −1.2 to −0.3; P = .001), compared with nonexpansion states. Expansion states also had a greater increase in early-stage cancer diagnoses (adjusted DID, 0.8; 95% CI 0.3-1.2; P = .001) and a greater decrease in advanced-stage cancer diagnoses (adjusted DID, −0.5; 95% CI, −0.9 to −0.2; P = .003).

Among the 848,329 patients who underwent cancer treatment within a year of diagnosis, the percentage initiating treatment within 30 days declined from 52.7% before to 48% after Medicaid expansion in states opting in (unadjusted DID, −4.7; percentage points, 95% CI; −5.1 to −4.5). States that did not expand their Medicaid programs, meanwhile, saw the share decline from 56.9% to 51.5% in the same time period (adjusted DID, −5.4; 95% CI, −5.6 to −5.1). There was no statistically significant difference in timely treatment associated with Medicaid expansion (adjusted DID, 0.6; 95% CI, −0.2 to 1.4; P = .14).

The researchers speculated that the lack of significant between-group differences in time to treatment, despite an improvement in early-stage diagnoses associated with Medicaid expansion, could reflect a cancer care system strained by a surge in insured patients, overall increases in cancer prevalence and complexity of care, a shortage of workers, or a mixture of factors.

In a related editorial, Sue Fu, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, and colleagues wrote that, while the findings of increased early diagnosis seen in the study are promising, the time to treatment results are “puzzling” and deserve further consideration.

Time to treatment is important in cancer, as longer times are associated with increased mortality, Dr. Fu and colleagues noted. Slowing times to cancer treatment is a systemic problem in the United States that has been documented since the mid-2000s. Paradoxically, expanded insurance coverage could contribute to increasing time to treatment even after timely diagnosis by adding administrative burdens leading to longer wait times. “Newly insured and underinsured individuals may be particularly vulnerable to this,” the editorialists wrote.

Dr. Takvorian and colleagues noted as weaknesses of their study its observational design, a limited range of ages and cancers included, and an inability to adjust for state-level effects.

This study was funded by the National Cancer Institute and the Agency for Health Research and Quality. The authors of the study and the editorial disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCES: Takvorian SU et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Feb 5;3(2):e1921653; Fu S et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Feb 5;3(2):e1921690.

Physicians with difficult patient scenarios regularly bring their questions to the AGA Community (https://community.gastro.org) to seek advice from colleagues about therapy and disease management options, best practices, and diagnoses. In case you missed it, here are the most popular clinical discussions shared in the forum recently:

1. Adherence to noninvasive CRC screening (http://ow.ly/6eng30qfUKq)

2. Q&A with Guideline authors: Management of gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM) (http://ow.ly/Cxsl30qfUYm).

3. IBD patient: Crohn’s colitis (http://ow.ly/DsOg30qfUNt).

4. Patient with intractable abdominal pain (http://ow.ly/EPFi30qfUsi).

5. IBD patient: Ulcerative colitis (http://ow.ly/d6e730qfUVZ).

Access these clinical cases and more discussions at https://community.gastro.org/discussions.

Physicians with difficult patient scenarios regularly bring their questions to the AGA Community (https://community.gastro.org) to seek advice from colleagues about therapy and disease management options, best practices, and diagnoses. In case you missed it, here are the most popular clinical discussions shared in the forum recently:

1. Adherence to noninvasive CRC screening (http://ow.ly/6eng30qfUKq)

2. Q&A with Guideline authors: Management of gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM) (http://ow.ly/Cxsl30qfUYm).

3. IBD patient: Crohn’s colitis (http://ow.ly/DsOg30qfUNt).

4. Patient with intractable abdominal pain (http://ow.ly/EPFi30qfUsi).

5. IBD patient: Ulcerative colitis (http://ow.ly/d6e730qfUVZ).

Access these clinical cases and more discussions at https://community.gastro.org/discussions.

Physicians with difficult patient scenarios regularly bring their questions to the AGA Community (https://community.gastro.org) to seek advice from colleagues about therapy and disease management options, best practices, and diagnoses. In case you missed it, here are the most popular clinical discussions shared in the forum recently:

1. Adherence to noninvasive CRC screening (http://ow.ly/6eng30qfUKq)

2. Q&A with Guideline authors: Management of gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM) (http://ow.ly/Cxsl30qfUYm).

3. IBD patient: Crohn’s colitis (http://ow.ly/DsOg30qfUNt).

4. Patient with intractable abdominal pain (http://ow.ly/EPFi30qfUsi).

5. IBD patient: Ulcerative colitis (http://ow.ly/d6e730qfUVZ).

Access these clinical cases and more discussions at https://community.gastro.org/discussions.

Five serum markers detect systemic inflammation in patients with psoriatic disease in the absence of elevated C-reactive protein, according to a cross-sectional study of patients and healthy controls.

“Different clinical subsets of psoriatic disease based on skin, entheseal, and joint involvement are characterized by specific inflammation marker profiles,” Maria V. Sokolova, MD, of Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg and University Clinic Erlangen (Germany) and colleagues reported in Arthritis Research & Therapy. “Treatment of psoriatic disease with cytokine inhibitors reduces these elevated levels of systemic inflammation markers.”

Quantifying systemic inflammation in psoriatic disease has been a challenge, Dr. Sokolova and colleagues wrote. Levels of C-reactive protein (CRP), a commonly used measure of systemic inflammation, “are often low or absent.” To examine other potential markers of systemic inflammation in psoriatic disease, the investigators conducted cross-sectional and longitudinal studies that included healthy controls and patients with psoriatic disease. Patients had isolated or combined manifestations of psoriatic disease, including the skin, the entheses, and the joints. The researchers grouped patients by isolated psoriatic skin disease; isolated enthesitis; isolated arthritis; psoriatic skin disease with enthesitis; psoriatic skin disease with arthritis; arthritis and enthesitis; and combined psoriatic skin disease, arthritis, and enthesitis.
 

Data from more than 100 patients

The researchers first assessed 10 potential markers using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay: calprotectin, interleukin-22, IL-8, lipocalin 2, beta-defensin 2, IL-17, IL-23, vascular endothelial growth factors, LL37 (cathelicidin), and pentraxin 3. They measured the markers in 10 healthy controls and 10 patients with active polymorphic psoriatic arthritis. Five parameters – beta-defensin 2, lipocalin 2, IL-22, IL-8, and calprotectin – significantly differed between healthy controls and patients with psoriatic disease. Lipocalin 2, beta-defensin 2, and IL-22 are associated with IL-17/IL-23 activation, and calprotectin and IL-8 are associated with innate immune cell activation. The other markers did not significantly differ or were not detectable in enough participants.

To validate the signals, the researchers measured the five parameters as well as CRP in 105 controls and 105 patients with psoriatic disease, including 15 patients in each of the seven disease pattern groups. “As expected, CRP levels were normal in the majority of individuals,” the authors wrote. The proportion of patients with CRP greater than 5 mg/L was 0% in isolated psoriatic skin disease, 0% in isolated enthesitis; 20% in isolated arthritis; 7% in psoriatic skin disease with enthesitis; 33% in psoriatic skin disease with arthritis; 27% in arthritis with enthesitis; and 33% in combined psoriatic skin disease, arthritis, and enthesitis.

“Only a subset of patients with arthritis, but not patients with skin or entheseal disease show elevated CRP,” the researchers wrote. “In sharp contrast,” beta-defensin 2 and lipocalin 2 were elevated in a majority of patients with monomorphic skin and entheseal disease, but not in joint disease. “Both proteins were significantly correlated to the extent of skin disease and to a lesser extent also entheseal disease,” they added. Calprotectin and IL-8 were elevated in a majority of patients with joint disease and correlated with the extent of arthritis. “IL-22 was elevated ... in all three manifestations of psoriatic disease,” and the vast majority of patients with polymorphic disease had “widespread marker elevation,” the researchers wrote.
 

Effects of treatment

In a study of 20 patients with psoriatic arthritis, treatment with secukinumab or adalimumab significantly lowered all five markers. Compared with tumor necrosis factor inhibition with adalimumab, “IL-17 inhibition [with secukinumab] showed a more pronounced lowering of lipocalin 2 and beta-defensin 2 levels,” the investigators noted.

“These results confirm earlier data showing elevated beta-defensin levels in psoriasis patients and its association with the extent of skin involvement,” Dr. Sokolova and colleagues wrote. “Overall, these results offer a new possibility to measure systemic inflammation in psoriatic disease.”

The study was supported by the German Research Foundation and other grant and fellowship funding. The authors had no competing interests.

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Sokolova MV et al. Arthritis Res Ther. 2020;22:26.

Five serum markers detect systemic inflammation in patients with psoriatic disease in the absence of elevated C-reactive protein, according to a cross-sectional study of patients and healthy controls.

“Different clinical subsets of psoriatic disease based on skin, entheseal, and joint involvement are characterized by specific inflammation marker profiles,” Maria V. Sokolova, MD, of Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg and University Clinic Erlangen (Germany) and colleagues reported in Arthritis Research & Therapy. “Treatment of psoriatic disease with cytokine inhibitors reduces these elevated levels of systemic inflammation markers.”

Quantifying systemic inflammation in psoriatic disease has been a challenge, Dr. Sokolova and colleagues wrote. Levels of C-reactive protein (CRP), a commonly used measure of systemic inflammation, “are often low or absent.” To examine other potential markers of systemic inflammation in psoriatic disease, the investigators conducted cross-sectional and longitudinal studies that included healthy controls and patients with psoriatic disease. Patients had isolated or combined manifestations of psoriatic disease, including the skin, the entheses, and the joints. The researchers grouped patients by isolated psoriatic skin disease; isolated enthesitis; isolated arthritis; psoriatic skin disease with enthesitis; psoriatic skin disease with arthritis; arthritis and enthesitis; and combined psoriatic skin disease, arthritis, and enthesitis.
 

Data from more than 100 patients

The researchers first assessed 10 potential markers using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay: calprotectin, interleukin-22, IL-8, lipocalin 2, beta-defensin 2, IL-17, IL-23, vascular endothelial growth factors, LL37 (cathelicidin), and pentraxin 3. They measured the markers in 10 healthy controls and 10 patients with active polymorphic psoriatic arthritis. Five parameters – beta-defensin 2, lipocalin 2, IL-22, IL-8, and calprotectin – significantly differed between healthy controls and patients with psoriatic disease. Lipocalin 2, beta-defensin 2, and IL-22 are associated with IL-17/IL-23 activation, and calprotectin and IL-8 are associated with innate immune cell activation. The other markers did not significantly differ or were not detectable in enough participants.

To validate the signals, the researchers measured the five parameters as well as CRP in 105 controls and 105 patients with psoriatic disease, including 15 patients in each of the seven disease pattern groups. “As expected, CRP levels were normal in the majority of individuals,” the authors wrote. The proportion of patients with CRP greater than 5 mg/L was 0% in isolated psoriatic skin disease, 0% in isolated enthesitis; 20% in isolated arthritis; 7% in psoriatic skin disease with enthesitis; 33% in psoriatic skin disease with arthritis; 27% in arthritis with enthesitis; and 33% in combined psoriatic skin disease, arthritis, and enthesitis.

“Only a subset of patients with arthritis, but not patients with skin or entheseal disease show elevated CRP,” the researchers wrote. “In sharp contrast,” beta-defensin 2 and lipocalin 2 were elevated in a majority of patients with monomorphic skin and entheseal disease, but not in joint disease. “Both proteins were significantly correlated to the extent of skin disease and to a lesser extent also entheseal disease,” they added. Calprotectin and IL-8 were elevated in a majority of patients with joint disease and correlated with the extent of arthritis. “IL-22 was elevated ... in all three manifestations of psoriatic disease,” and the vast majority of patients with polymorphic disease had “widespread marker elevation,” the researchers wrote.
 

Effects of treatment

In a study of 20 patients with psoriatic arthritis, treatment with secukinumab or adalimumab significantly lowered all five markers. Compared with tumor necrosis factor inhibition with adalimumab, “IL-17 inhibition [with secukinumab] showed a more pronounced lowering of lipocalin 2 and beta-defensin 2 levels,” the investigators noted.

“These results confirm earlier data showing elevated beta-defensin levels in psoriasis patients and its association with the extent of skin involvement,” Dr. Sokolova and colleagues wrote. “Overall, these results offer a new possibility to measure systemic inflammation in psoriatic disease.”

The study was supported by the German Research Foundation and other grant and fellowship funding. The authors had no competing interests.

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Sokolova MV et al. Arthritis Res Ther. 2020;22:26.

Five serum markers detect systemic inflammation in patients with psoriatic disease in the absence of elevated C-reactive protein, according to a cross-sectional study of patients and healthy controls.

“Different clinical subsets of psoriatic disease based on skin, entheseal, and joint involvement are characterized by specific inflammation marker profiles,” Maria V. Sokolova, MD, of Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg and University Clinic Erlangen (Germany) and colleagues reported in Arthritis Research & Therapy. “Treatment of psoriatic disease with cytokine inhibitors reduces these elevated levels of systemic inflammation markers.”

Quantifying systemic inflammation in psoriatic disease has been a challenge, Dr. Sokolova and colleagues wrote. Levels of C-reactive protein (CRP), a commonly used measure of systemic inflammation, “are often low or absent.” To examine other potential markers of systemic inflammation in psoriatic disease, the investigators conducted cross-sectional and longitudinal studies that included healthy controls and patients with psoriatic disease. Patients had isolated or combined manifestations of psoriatic disease, including the skin, the entheses, and the joints. The researchers grouped patients by isolated psoriatic skin disease; isolated enthesitis; isolated arthritis; psoriatic skin disease with enthesitis; psoriatic skin disease with arthritis; arthritis and enthesitis; and combined psoriatic skin disease, arthritis, and enthesitis.
 

Data from more than 100 patients

The researchers first assessed 10 potential markers using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay: calprotectin, interleukin-22, IL-8, lipocalin 2, beta-defensin 2, IL-17, IL-23, vascular endothelial growth factors, LL37 (cathelicidin), and pentraxin 3. They measured the markers in 10 healthy controls and 10 patients with active polymorphic psoriatic arthritis. Five parameters – beta-defensin 2, lipocalin 2, IL-22, IL-8, and calprotectin – significantly differed between healthy controls and patients with psoriatic disease. Lipocalin 2, beta-defensin 2, and IL-22 are associated with IL-17/IL-23 activation, and calprotectin and IL-8 are associated with innate immune cell activation. The other markers did not significantly differ or were not detectable in enough participants.

To validate the signals, the researchers measured the five parameters as well as CRP in 105 controls and 105 patients with psoriatic disease, including 15 patients in each of the seven disease pattern groups. “As expected, CRP levels were normal in the majority of individuals,” the authors wrote. The proportion of patients with CRP greater than 5 mg/L was 0% in isolated psoriatic skin disease, 0% in isolated enthesitis; 20% in isolated arthritis; 7% in psoriatic skin disease with enthesitis; 33% in psoriatic skin disease with arthritis; 27% in arthritis with enthesitis; and 33% in combined psoriatic skin disease, arthritis, and enthesitis.

“Only a subset of patients with arthritis, but not patients with skin or entheseal disease show elevated CRP,” the researchers wrote. “In sharp contrast,” beta-defensin 2 and lipocalin 2 were elevated in a majority of patients with monomorphic skin and entheseal disease, but not in joint disease. “Both proteins were significantly correlated to the extent of skin disease and to a lesser extent also entheseal disease,” they added. Calprotectin and IL-8 were elevated in a majority of patients with joint disease and correlated with the extent of arthritis. “IL-22 was elevated ... in all three manifestations of psoriatic disease,” and the vast majority of patients with polymorphic disease had “widespread marker elevation,” the researchers wrote.
 

Effects of treatment

In a study of 20 patients with psoriatic arthritis, treatment with secukinumab or adalimumab significantly lowered all five markers. Compared with tumor necrosis factor inhibition with adalimumab, “IL-17 inhibition [with secukinumab] showed a more pronounced lowering of lipocalin 2 and beta-defensin 2 levels,” the investigators noted.

“These results confirm earlier data showing elevated beta-defensin levels in psoriasis patients and its association with the extent of skin involvement,” Dr. Sokolova and colleagues wrote. “Overall, these results offer a new possibility to measure systemic inflammation in psoriatic disease.”

The study was supported by the German Research Foundation and other grant and fellowship funding. The authors had no competing interests.

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Sokolova MV et al. Arthritis Res Ther. 2020;22:26.

LAHAINA, HAWAII – Teledermatology and dermoscopy were made for each other, Trilokraj Tejasvi, MBBS, MD, declared at the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar provided by the Global Academy for Medical Education/Skin Disease Education Foundation.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“If somebody is trying to start a practice in lesional teledermatology, I would recommend getting dermoscopy images with all of the teledermatology consults. The dermatoscope manufacturers make teledermoscopy systems with attachments for iPhones, iPads, and Android devices,” said Dr. Tejasvi, who is director of teledermatology services and also director of the cutaneous lymphoma program at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

To make his point, he presented slides of six standard unenhanced teledermatologic photos of ambiguous pigmented skin lesions. When he asked the large audience which ones they’d want to biopsy and which they were confident were benign, there was absolutely no consensus. But when he followed up with teledermoscopic photos of the same lesions, the dermoscopists in the audience quickly voiced agreement that four of the lesions were benign and two were obvious melanoma. Based on that information, instead of having to bring in all six patients for biopsy of their indeterminant suspicious lesions, only two of the patients would need to come in promptly for treatment of their malignancy.

“Dermoscopy changes the whole triage system and the teledermoscopy concept model, because dermoscopy remains the same: it’s going to stay [two-dimensional] whether you’re going to see the images in the clinic or in teledermatology. So using teledermoscopy images actually makes it far better for your teledermatology services,” explained Dr. Tejasvi, who is also chief of the dermatology service at the Ann Arbor Veterans Affairs Hospital.

Why get into teledermatology?

The benefits of teledermatology include earlier diagnosis and treatment of skin cancers as documented in a Spanish study of 43,677 patients. The Spanish dermatologists reported that teledermatologically detected melanomas had a thinner Breslow depth and lower tumor stage because they were diagnosed earlier. Teledermatology also brought a twofold increase in the basal cell carcinoma detection rate and – most importantly – a reduction in time to biopsy for what turned out to be skin cancers (JAMA Dermatol. 2015 Dec 1;151[12]:1289-90).

In addition, teledermatology is an effective triage tool for busy clinicians whose appointment calendars are booked weeks or months in advance.

“Let’s say you are the only dermatologist in the surrounding five counties. You can use teledermatology to see which patients actually need to come to your clinic,” Dr. Tejasvri said. Just make sure the referring primary care providers know to send photos taken with the dermatoscope attachment.

Internet-based teledermatology also provides a way to follow patients with chronic conditions, including psoriasis, atopic dermatitis, and venous ulcers, he noted.
 

Before getting started

Dr. Tejasvri emphasized the importance of visiting the American Academy of Dermatology Teledermatology Task Force website as well as the American Telemedicine Association’s Teledermatology Special Interest Group, which he chairs. These resources, he stressed, are invaluable.

The AAD site, open to all academy members, includes a tool kit for getting started in teledermatology. It’s individually tailored for the dermatologist in solo, small group, academic, or multispecialty practice. This highly practical tool kit includes a checklist that aids in determining whether a dermatologist’s practice is suited for teledermatology, as well as the suggested optimal teledermatology practice model for that individual, the nuts and bolts of equipment, relevant state laws, and how to navigate legal concerns, among the most critical of which is to get in writing the malpractice insurer’s verbal reassurance that the policy covers telemedicine.

The American Telemedicine Association Teledermatology Special Interest Group provides best-practice guidelines (Telemed J E Health. 2016 Dec;22[12]:981-90)

Teledermatology practice model options

The most common teledermatology model is called “store-and-forward.” It relies upon transmission of still images of skin lesions. Its advantages are that it’s not dependent upon internet speed and it accommodates physicians working in different time zones. Most commonly, this is a consult model in which a remote primary care provider takes the photos and transmits them to the dermatologist specialist. The referring provider retains responsibility for patient care.

The other model entails creation of a virtual clinic with real-time videoconference-based communication using a HIPAA-compliant high-speed broadband internet connection. The advantages are that reimbursement is good – indeed, the same as for a face-to-face office visit – and it’s possible to ask questions of the patient and referring physician, although that’s generally not necessary for the straightforward evaluation of suspicious pigmented or nonpigmented skin lesions. However, the video image quality isn’t as good as with still photos, the virtual clinic requires dedicated scheduling, and the quality of the experience is highly dependent upon internet speed.

“If you have a bad internet speed the whole process becomes choppy. When you ask a question, the answer you get is the one to your previous question,” Dr. Tejasvi said.

Reimbursement

Currently 38 states and Washington, D.C., have laws governing private payer telehealth reimbursement policy.

Under the 2019 Medicare physician fee schedule, code number 99446 – interprofessional telephone/internet consult lasting 5-10 minutes – pays $18.36. A 99447, lasting 11-20 minutes, pays $36.36, and a 99448, representing a 21-30 minute interprofessional consult, pays $54.72.

“Reimbursement is poor. It’s not a lot at all. If you spend 5-10 minutes on a consult you get paid about 20 bucks. But it’s better than nothing, and it used to be that patients had to pay out of pocket,” the dermatologist commented.

And of course, the improved timely and efficient patient access to dermatologist evaluation of potential skin cancer that’s afforded via teledermatology helps out with the profession’s workforce shortage and responds to the common criticism that dermatologists are geographically maldistributed and treatment delayed is treatment denied.
 

How accurate is teledermatology?

Numerous studies have reported diagnostic concordance rates between teledermatology and face-to-face clinical diagnosis of 72.5%-90% for melanoma, dropping off markedly to 31.2%-62% for lentigines. However, teledermoscopic images greatly improved the diagnostic accuracy.

In one recent study involving teledermatology versus face-to-face evaluation of 293 index lesions, the face-to-face dermatologist examination turned up 131 incidental skin lesions, including 6 incidental melanomas not suspected or photographed by the consulting primary care providers. That worked out to a 2.6% risk of incidental melanoma per consult, which Dr. Tejasvi called “kind of scary.”

“All six of the incidental melanomas were located on the back, chest, or abdomen, so a good teaching point is that, if you’re doing a teledermatology consult, ask the primary care provider who’s sending you this consult to do a careful waist-up exam to look for other lesions,” he advised.

He added that more and larger studies are needed in order to determine the diagnostic concordance rate for nonpigmented lesions.

Dr. Tejasvi reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.

SDEF/Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

bjancin@mdedge.com

LAHAINA, HAWAII – Teledermatology and dermoscopy were made for each other, Trilokraj Tejasvi, MBBS, MD, declared at the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar provided by the Global Academy for Medical Education/Skin Disease Education Foundation.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“If somebody is trying to start a practice in lesional teledermatology, I would recommend getting dermoscopy images with all of the teledermatology consults. The dermatoscope manufacturers make teledermoscopy systems with attachments for iPhones, iPads, and Android devices,” said Dr. Tejasvi, who is director of teledermatology services and also director of the cutaneous lymphoma program at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

To make his point, he presented slides of six standard unenhanced teledermatologic photos of ambiguous pigmented skin lesions. When he asked the large audience which ones they’d want to biopsy and which they were confident were benign, there was absolutely no consensus. But when he followed up with teledermoscopic photos of the same lesions, the dermoscopists in the audience quickly voiced agreement that four of the lesions were benign and two were obvious melanoma. Based on that information, instead of having to bring in all six patients for biopsy of their indeterminant suspicious lesions, only two of the patients would need to come in promptly for treatment of their malignancy.

“Dermoscopy changes the whole triage system and the teledermoscopy concept model, because dermoscopy remains the same: it’s going to stay [two-dimensional] whether you’re going to see the images in the clinic or in teledermatology. So using teledermoscopy images actually makes it far better for your teledermatology services,” explained Dr. Tejasvi, who is also chief of the dermatology service at the Ann Arbor Veterans Affairs Hospital.

Why get into teledermatology?

The benefits of teledermatology include earlier diagnosis and treatment of skin cancers as documented in a Spanish study of 43,677 patients. The Spanish dermatologists reported that teledermatologically detected melanomas had a thinner Breslow depth and lower tumor stage because they were diagnosed earlier. Teledermatology also brought a twofold increase in the basal cell carcinoma detection rate and – most importantly – a reduction in time to biopsy for what turned out to be skin cancers (JAMA Dermatol. 2015 Dec 1;151[12]:1289-90).

In addition, teledermatology is an effective triage tool for busy clinicians whose appointment calendars are booked weeks or months in advance.

“Let’s say you are the only dermatologist in the surrounding five counties. You can use teledermatology to see which patients actually need to come to your clinic,” Dr. Tejasvri said. Just make sure the referring primary care providers know to send photos taken with the dermatoscope attachment.

Internet-based teledermatology also provides a way to follow patients with chronic conditions, including psoriasis, atopic dermatitis, and venous ulcers, he noted.
 

Before getting started

Dr. Tejasvri emphasized the importance of visiting the American Academy of Dermatology Teledermatology Task Force website as well as the American Telemedicine Association’s Teledermatology Special Interest Group, which he chairs. These resources, he stressed, are invaluable.

The AAD site, open to all academy members, includes a tool kit for getting started in teledermatology. It’s individually tailored for the dermatologist in solo, small group, academic, or multispecialty practice. This highly practical tool kit includes a checklist that aids in determining whether a dermatologist’s practice is suited for teledermatology, as well as the suggested optimal teledermatology practice model for that individual, the nuts and bolts of equipment, relevant state laws, and how to navigate legal concerns, among the most critical of which is to get in writing the malpractice insurer’s verbal reassurance that the policy covers telemedicine.

The American Telemedicine Association Teledermatology Special Interest Group provides best-practice guidelines (Telemed J E Health. 2016 Dec;22[12]:981-90)

Teledermatology practice model options

The most common teledermatology model is called “store-and-forward.” It relies upon transmission of still images of skin lesions. Its advantages are that it’s not dependent upon internet speed and it accommodates physicians working in different time zones. Most commonly, this is a consult model in which a remote primary care provider takes the photos and transmits them to the dermatologist specialist. The referring provider retains responsibility for patient care.

The other model entails creation of a virtual clinic with real-time videoconference-based communication using a HIPAA-compliant high-speed broadband internet connection. The advantages are that reimbursement is good – indeed, the same as for a face-to-face office visit – and it’s possible to ask questions of the patient and referring physician, although that’s generally not necessary for the straightforward evaluation of suspicious pigmented or nonpigmented skin lesions. However, the video image quality isn’t as good as with still photos, the virtual clinic requires dedicated scheduling, and the quality of the experience is highly dependent upon internet speed.

“If you have a bad internet speed the whole process becomes choppy. When you ask a question, the answer you get is the one to your previous question,” Dr. Tejasvi said.

Reimbursement

Currently 38 states and Washington, D.C., have laws governing private payer telehealth reimbursement policy.

Under the 2019 Medicare physician fee schedule, code number 99446 – interprofessional telephone/internet consult lasting 5-10 minutes – pays $18.36. A 99447, lasting 11-20 minutes, pays $36.36, and a 99448, representing a 21-30 minute interprofessional consult, pays $54.72.

“Reimbursement is poor. It’s not a lot at all. If you spend 5-10 minutes on a consult you get paid about 20 bucks. But it’s better than nothing, and it used to be that patients had to pay out of pocket,” the dermatologist commented.

And of course, the improved timely and efficient patient access to dermatologist evaluation of potential skin cancer that’s afforded via teledermatology helps out with the profession’s workforce shortage and responds to the common criticism that dermatologists are geographically maldistributed and treatment delayed is treatment denied.
 

How accurate is teledermatology?

Numerous studies have reported diagnostic concordance rates between teledermatology and face-to-face clinical diagnosis of 72.5%-90% for melanoma, dropping off markedly to 31.2%-62% for lentigines. However, teledermoscopic images greatly improved the diagnostic accuracy.

In one recent study involving teledermatology versus face-to-face evaluation of 293 index lesions, the face-to-face dermatologist examination turned up 131 incidental skin lesions, including 6 incidental melanomas not suspected or photographed by the consulting primary care providers. That worked out to a 2.6% risk of incidental melanoma per consult, which Dr. Tejasvi called “kind of scary.”

“All six of the incidental melanomas were located on the back, chest, or abdomen, so a good teaching point is that, if you’re doing a teledermatology consult, ask the primary care provider who’s sending you this consult to do a careful waist-up exam to look for other lesions,” he advised.

He added that more and larger studies are needed in order to determine the diagnostic concordance rate for nonpigmented lesions.

Dr. Tejasvi reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.

SDEF/Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

bjancin@mdedge.com

LAHAINA, HAWAII – Teledermatology and dermoscopy were made for each other, Trilokraj Tejasvi, MBBS, MD, declared at the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar provided by the Global Academy for Medical Education/Skin Disease Education Foundation.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“If somebody is trying to start a practice in lesional teledermatology, I would recommend getting dermoscopy images with all of the teledermatology consults. The dermatoscope manufacturers make teledermoscopy systems with attachments for iPhones, iPads, and Android devices,” said Dr. Tejasvi, who is director of teledermatology services and also director of the cutaneous lymphoma program at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

To make his point, he presented slides of six standard unenhanced teledermatologic photos of ambiguous pigmented skin lesions. When he asked the large audience which ones they’d want to biopsy and which they were confident were benign, there was absolutely no consensus. But when he followed up with teledermoscopic photos of the same lesions, the dermoscopists in the audience quickly voiced agreement that four of the lesions were benign and two were obvious melanoma. Based on that information, instead of having to bring in all six patients for biopsy of their indeterminant suspicious lesions, only two of the patients would need to come in promptly for treatment of their malignancy.

“Dermoscopy changes the whole triage system and the teledermoscopy concept model, because dermoscopy remains the same: it’s going to stay [two-dimensional] whether you’re going to see the images in the clinic or in teledermatology. So using teledermoscopy images actually makes it far better for your teledermatology services,” explained Dr. Tejasvi, who is also chief of the dermatology service at the Ann Arbor Veterans Affairs Hospital.

Why get into teledermatology?

The benefits of teledermatology include earlier diagnosis and treatment of skin cancers as documented in a Spanish study of 43,677 patients. The Spanish dermatologists reported that teledermatologically detected melanomas had a thinner Breslow depth and lower tumor stage because they were diagnosed earlier. Teledermatology also brought a twofold increase in the basal cell carcinoma detection rate and – most importantly – a reduction in time to biopsy for what turned out to be skin cancers (JAMA Dermatol. 2015 Dec 1;151[12]:1289-90).

In addition, teledermatology is an effective triage tool for busy clinicians whose appointment calendars are booked weeks or months in advance.

“Let’s say you are the only dermatologist in the surrounding five counties. You can use teledermatology to see which patients actually need to come to your clinic,” Dr. Tejasvri said. Just make sure the referring primary care providers know to send photos taken with the dermatoscope attachment.

Internet-based teledermatology also provides a way to follow patients with chronic conditions, including psoriasis, atopic dermatitis, and venous ulcers, he noted.
 

Before getting started

Dr. Tejasvri emphasized the importance of visiting the American Academy of Dermatology Teledermatology Task Force website as well as the American Telemedicine Association’s Teledermatology Special Interest Group, which he chairs. These resources, he stressed, are invaluable.

The AAD site, open to all academy members, includes a tool kit for getting started in teledermatology. It’s individually tailored for the dermatologist in solo, small group, academic, or multispecialty practice. This highly practical tool kit includes a checklist that aids in determining whether a dermatologist’s practice is suited for teledermatology, as well as the suggested optimal teledermatology practice model for that individual, the nuts and bolts of equipment, relevant state laws, and how to navigate legal concerns, among the most critical of which is to get in writing the malpractice insurer’s verbal reassurance that the policy covers telemedicine.

The American Telemedicine Association Teledermatology Special Interest Group provides best-practice guidelines (Telemed J E Health. 2016 Dec;22[12]:981-90)

Teledermatology practice model options

The most common teledermatology model is called “store-and-forward.” It relies upon transmission of still images of skin lesions. Its advantages are that it’s not dependent upon internet speed and it accommodates physicians working in different time zones. Most commonly, this is a consult model in which a remote primary care provider takes the photos and transmits them to the dermatologist specialist. The referring provider retains responsibility for patient care.

The other model entails creation of a virtual clinic with real-time videoconference-based communication using a HIPAA-compliant high-speed broadband internet connection. The advantages are that reimbursement is good – indeed, the same as for a face-to-face office visit – and it’s possible to ask questions of the patient and referring physician, although that’s generally not necessary for the straightforward evaluation of suspicious pigmented or nonpigmented skin lesions. However, the video image quality isn’t as good as with still photos, the virtual clinic requires dedicated scheduling, and the quality of the experience is highly dependent upon internet speed.

“If you have a bad internet speed the whole process becomes choppy. When you ask a question, the answer you get is the one to your previous question,” Dr. Tejasvi said.

Reimbursement

Currently 38 states and Washington, D.C., have laws governing private payer telehealth reimbursement policy.

Under the 2019 Medicare physician fee schedule, code number 99446 – interprofessional telephone/internet consult lasting 5-10 minutes – pays $18.36. A 99447, lasting 11-20 minutes, pays $36.36, and a 99448, representing a 21-30 minute interprofessional consult, pays $54.72.

“Reimbursement is poor. It’s not a lot at all. If you spend 5-10 minutes on a consult you get paid about 20 bucks. But it’s better than nothing, and it used to be that patients had to pay out of pocket,” the dermatologist commented.

And of course, the improved timely and efficient patient access to dermatologist evaluation of potential skin cancer that’s afforded via teledermatology helps out with the profession’s workforce shortage and responds to the common criticism that dermatologists are geographically maldistributed and treatment delayed is treatment denied.
 

How accurate is teledermatology?

Numerous studies have reported diagnostic concordance rates between teledermatology and face-to-face clinical diagnosis of 72.5%-90% for melanoma, dropping off markedly to 31.2%-62% for lentigines. However, teledermoscopic images greatly improved the diagnostic accuracy.

In one recent study involving teledermatology versus face-to-face evaluation of 293 index lesions, the face-to-face dermatologist examination turned up 131 incidental skin lesions, including 6 incidental melanomas not suspected or photographed by the consulting primary care providers. That worked out to a 2.6% risk of incidental melanoma per consult, which Dr. Tejasvi called “kind of scary.”

“All six of the incidental melanomas were located on the back, chest, or abdomen, so a good teaching point is that, if you’re doing a teledermatology consult, ask the primary care provider who’s sending you this consult to do a careful waist-up exam to look for other lesions,” he advised.

He added that more and larger studies are needed in order to determine the diagnostic concordance rate for nonpigmented lesions.

Dr. Tejasvi reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.

SDEF/Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

bjancin@mdedge.com