PURLs

PRACTICE CHANGER
Consider prescribing oral naltrexone (50 mg/d) for patients with alcohol use disorder who wish to maintain abstinence after a brief period of detoxification.¹

STRENGTH OF RECOMMENDATION
A: Based on a meta-analysis of 95 randomized controlled trials.¹

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE
Your patient, a 42-year-old man with alcohol use disorder (AUD), detoxifies from alcohol during a recent hospitalization. He doesn’t want to resume drinking but reports frequent cravings. Are there any medications you can prescribe to help prevent relapse?

Excessive alcohol consumption is responsible for one of every 10 deaths among US adults ages 20 to 64.² About 20% to 36% of patients seen in a primary care office have AUD.³ Up to 70% of people who quit with psychosocial support alone will relapse.³

The US Preventive Services Task Force gives a grade B recommendation to screening all adults for AUD, indicating that clinicians should provide this service.⁴ For patients with AUD who wish to abstain but struggle with cravings and relapse, the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) recommends considering medication as an adjunct to brief behavioral counseling.⁵

Continue for study summary >>

STUDY SUMMARY
Evidence shows naltrexone can prevent a return to drinking
In a meta-analysis, Jonas et al¹ reviewed 123 studies (N = 22,803) of pharmacotherapy for AUD. After excluding 28 studies (seven were the only study of a given drug, one was a prospective cohort, and 20 had insufficient data), 95 randomized controlled trials were included in the analysis. Twenty-­two were placebo-controlled for acamprosate (1,000 to 3,000 mg/d), 44 for naltrexone (50 mg/d oral, 100 mg/d oral, or injectable) and four compared the two drugs. Additional studies evaluated disulfiram as well as 23 other off-­label medications, such as valproic acid and topiramate.

Two investigators independently reviewed the studies, checking for completeness and accuracy. Studies were also analyzed for bias using predefined criteria; those with high or unclear risk for bias were excluded from the main analysis but included in the sensitivity analysis. Funnel plots showed no evidence of publication bias. 

Participants were primarily recruited as inpatients, and in most studies the mean age was in the 40s. Most patients were diagnosed with alcohol dependence based on criteria in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition, text revision (DSM-IV-TR); this diagnosis translates to likely moderate to severe AUD in DSM-5. Prior to starting medications, participants underwent detoxification or achieved at least three days of sobriety. Most studies included psychosocial intervention in addition to medication, but the types of intervention varied. The duration of the trials ranged from 12 to 52 weeks.

Researchers analyzed five drinking outcomes—return to any drinking, return to heavy drinking (defined as ≥ 4 drinks/d for women and ≥ 5 drinks/d for men), number of drinking days, number of heavy drinking days, and drinks per drinking day. They also evaluated health outcomes (accidents, injuries, quality of life, function, and mortality) and adverse effects.

Acamprosate and oral naltrexone (50 mg/d) significantly decreased return to any drinking, with a number needed to treat (NNT) of 12 for acamprosate and 20 for naltrexone. Oral naltrexone (50 mg/d) also decreased return to heavy drinking (NNT, 12), while acamprosate did not. Neither medication showed a decrease in heavy drinking days.

In a post hoc subgroup analysis of acamprosate for return to any drinking, the drug appeared to be more effective in studies with a higher risk for bias and less effective in studies with a lower risk for bias. The two studies with the lowest risk for bias found no significant effect.

Disulfiram had no effect on any of the outcomes analyzed.

Of the off-label medications, topiramate showed a decrease in drinking days (weighted mean difference [WMD], –6.5%), heavy drinking days (WMD, –9.0%), and drinks per drinking day (WMD, –1.0).

There were no significant differences in health outcomes for any of the medications. Adverse events were greater in treatment groups than placebo groups. Acamprosate was associated with increased risk for diarrhea (number needed to harm [NNH], 11), vomiting (NNH, 42), and anxiety (NNH, 7). Naltrexone was associated with increased risk for nausea (NNH, 9), vomiting (NNH, 24), and dizziness (NNH, 16).

WHAT’S NEW
Consider prescribing naltrexone to prevent relapse
While previous studies suggested that pharmacotherapy could help patients with AUD remain abstinent, this methodologically rigorous meta-analysis compared the efficacy of several commonly used medications and found clear evidence favoring oral nal­trexone. Prescribe oral naltrexone (50 mg/d) to help patients with moderate to severe AUD avoid returning to any drinking or heavy drinking after alcohol detoxification. Acamprosate may also decrease return to drinking, although the evidence is not as strong (the studies with low bias showed no effect).

Next page: Caveats >>

CAVEATS
Medication should be used with psychosocial treatments
Pharmacotherapy for AUD should be reserved for patients who want to quit drinking and should be used in conjunction with psychosocial intervention.³ Only one of the studies analyzed by Jonas et al¹ was conducted in primary care. That said, many of the psychosocial interventions—such as regular follow-up visits to encourage adherence and monitor for adverse effects, in conjunction with attendance at Alcoholics Anonymous meetings—could be done in primary care settings.

Comorbidities may limit therapy options. Naltrexone is contraindicated in acute hepatitis and liver failure and in combination with opioids.⁵ Acamprosate is contraindicated in renal disease.⁵

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION
Cost, adherence may be factors for some patients
Perhaps the greatest hurdle in pharmacotherapy for AUD in primary care is a lack of familiarity with these medications. For clinicians who are comfortable with prescribing these medications, implementation may be hindered by a lack of available psychosocial resources for successful abstinence.

Additionally, the medications are expensive. The branded version of naltrexone (50 mg) costs approximately $118 for a 30-day supply,⁶ and the branded version of acamprosate costs approximately $284 for a 30-day supply.⁷

As is the case with any chronic medical condition, medication adherence is a challenge. Naltrexone is taken once daily, while acamprosate is taken three times a day. The risk for relapse is high until six to 12 months of sobriety is achieved and then wanes over several years.⁵ The NIAAA recommends treatment for a minimum of three months.⁵

REFERENCES
1. Jonas DE, Amick HR, Feltner C, et al. Pharmacotherapy for adults with alcohol use disorders in outpatient settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2014;311:1889-1900.

2. CDC. Fact sheets - Alcohol use and your health. www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/alcohol-use.htm. Accessed April 13, 2015.

3. Johnson BA. Pharmacotherapy for alcohol use disorder. UpToDate. www.uptodate.com/contents/pharmacotherapy-for-alcohol-use-disorder. Accessed April 13, 2015.

4. US Preventive Services Task Force. Final recommendation statement: Alcohol misuse: Screening and behavioral counseling interventions in primary care. www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Page/Document/RecommendationStatementFinal/alcohol-misuse-screening-and-behavioral-counseling-interventions-in-primary-care. Accessed April 13, 2015.

5. US Department of Health and Human Services; National Institutes of Health; National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. Excerpt from Helping Patients Who Drink Too Much: A Clinician’s Guide. http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/Practitioner/Clinicians Guide2005/PrescribingMeds.pdf. Accessed April 13, 2015.

6. Drugs.com. Revia prices, coupons and patient assistance programs. www.drugs.com/price-guide/revia. Accessed April 13, 2015.

7. Drugs.com. Campral prices, coupons and patient assistance programs. www.drugs.com/price-guide/campral. Accessed April 13, 2015.

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

Copyright © 2015. The Family Physicians Inquiries Network. All rights reserved. 

Reprinted with permission from the Family Physicians Inquiries Network and The Journal of Family Practice. 2015;64(4):238-240.

PRACTICE CHANGER
Consider prescribing oral naltrexone (50 mg/d) for patients with alcohol use disorder who wish to maintain abstinence after a brief period of detoxification.¹

STRENGTH OF RECOMMENDATION
A: Based on a meta-analysis of 95 randomized controlled trials.¹

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE
Your patient, a 42-year-old man with alcohol use disorder (AUD), detoxifies from alcohol during a recent hospitalization. He doesn’t want to resume drinking but reports frequent cravings. Are there any medications you can prescribe to help prevent relapse?

Excessive alcohol consumption is responsible for one of every 10 deaths among US adults ages 20 to 64.² About 20% to 36% of patients seen in a primary care office have AUD.³ Up to 70% of people who quit with psychosocial support alone will relapse.³

The US Preventive Services Task Force gives a grade B recommendation to screening all adults for AUD, indicating that clinicians should provide this service.⁴ For patients with AUD who wish to abstain but struggle with cravings and relapse, the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) recommends considering medication as an adjunct to brief behavioral counseling.⁵

Continue for study summary >>

STUDY SUMMARY
Evidence shows naltrexone can prevent a return to drinking
In a meta-analysis, Jonas et al¹ reviewed 123 studies (N = 22,803) of pharmacotherapy for AUD. After excluding 28 studies (seven were the only study of a given drug, one was a prospective cohort, and 20 had insufficient data), 95 randomized controlled trials were included in the analysis. Twenty-­two were placebo-controlled for acamprosate (1,000 to 3,000 mg/d), 44 for naltrexone (50 mg/d oral, 100 mg/d oral, or injectable) and four compared the two drugs. Additional studies evaluated disulfiram as well as 23 other off-­label medications, such as valproic acid and topiramate.

Two investigators independently reviewed the studies, checking for completeness and accuracy. Studies were also analyzed for bias using predefined criteria; those with high or unclear risk for bias were excluded from the main analysis but included in the sensitivity analysis. Funnel plots showed no evidence of publication bias. 

Participants were primarily recruited as inpatients, and in most studies the mean age was in the 40s. Most patients were diagnosed with alcohol dependence based on criteria in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition, text revision (DSM-IV-TR); this diagnosis translates to likely moderate to severe AUD in DSM-5. Prior to starting medications, participants underwent detoxification or achieved at least three days of sobriety. Most studies included psychosocial intervention in addition to medication, but the types of intervention varied. The duration of the trials ranged from 12 to 52 weeks.

Researchers analyzed five drinking outcomes—return to any drinking, return to heavy drinking (defined as ≥ 4 drinks/d for women and ≥ 5 drinks/d for men), number of drinking days, number of heavy drinking days, and drinks per drinking day. They also evaluated health outcomes (accidents, injuries, quality of life, function, and mortality) and adverse effects.

Acamprosate and oral naltrexone (50 mg/d) significantly decreased return to any drinking, with a number needed to treat (NNT) of 12 for acamprosate and 20 for naltrexone. Oral naltrexone (50 mg/d) also decreased return to heavy drinking (NNT, 12), while acamprosate did not. Neither medication showed a decrease in heavy drinking days.

In a post hoc subgroup analysis of acamprosate for return to any drinking, the drug appeared to be more effective in studies with a higher risk for bias and less effective in studies with a lower risk for bias. The two studies with the lowest risk for bias found no significant effect.

Disulfiram had no effect on any of the outcomes analyzed.

Of the off-label medications, topiramate showed a decrease in drinking days (weighted mean difference [WMD], –6.5%), heavy drinking days (WMD, –9.0%), and drinks per drinking day (WMD, –1.0).

There were no significant differences in health outcomes for any of the medications. Adverse events were greater in treatment groups than placebo groups. Acamprosate was associated with increased risk for diarrhea (number needed to harm [NNH], 11), vomiting (NNH, 42), and anxiety (NNH, 7). Naltrexone was associated with increased risk for nausea (NNH, 9), vomiting (NNH, 24), and dizziness (NNH, 16).

WHAT’S NEW
Consider prescribing naltrexone to prevent relapse
While previous studies suggested that pharmacotherapy could help patients with AUD remain abstinent, this methodologically rigorous meta-analysis compared the efficacy of several commonly used medications and found clear evidence favoring oral nal­trexone. Prescribe oral naltrexone (50 mg/d) to help patients with moderate to severe AUD avoid returning to any drinking or heavy drinking after alcohol detoxification. Acamprosate may also decrease return to drinking, although the evidence is not as strong (the studies with low bias showed no effect).

Next page: Caveats >>

CAVEATS
Medication should be used with psychosocial treatments
Pharmacotherapy for AUD should be reserved for patients who want to quit drinking and should be used in conjunction with psychosocial intervention.³ Only one of the studies analyzed by Jonas et al¹ was conducted in primary care. That said, many of the psychosocial interventions—such as regular follow-up visits to encourage adherence and monitor for adverse effects, in conjunction with attendance at Alcoholics Anonymous meetings—could be done in primary care settings.

Comorbidities may limit therapy options. Naltrexone is contraindicated in acute hepatitis and liver failure and in combination with opioids.⁵ Acamprosate is contraindicated in renal disease.⁵

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION
Cost, adherence may be factors for some patients
Perhaps the greatest hurdle in pharmacotherapy for AUD in primary care is a lack of familiarity with these medications. For clinicians who are comfortable with prescribing these medications, implementation may be hindered by a lack of available psychosocial resources for successful abstinence.

Additionally, the medications are expensive. The branded version of naltrexone (50 mg) costs approximately $118 for a 30-day supply,⁶ and the branded version of acamprosate costs approximately $284 for a 30-day supply.⁷

As is the case with any chronic medical condition, medication adherence is a challenge. Naltrexone is taken once daily, while acamprosate is taken three times a day. The risk for relapse is high until six to 12 months of sobriety is achieved and then wanes over several years.⁵ The NIAAA recommends treatment for a minimum of three months.⁵

REFERENCES
1. Jonas DE, Amick HR, Feltner C, et al. Pharmacotherapy for adults with alcohol use disorders in outpatient settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2014;311:1889-1900.

2. CDC. Fact sheets - Alcohol use and your health. www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/alcohol-use.htm. Accessed April 13, 2015.

3. Johnson BA. Pharmacotherapy for alcohol use disorder. UpToDate. www.uptodate.com/contents/pharmacotherapy-for-alcohol-use-disorder. Accessed April 13, 2015.

4. US Preventive Services Task Force. Final recommendation statement: Alcohol misuse: Screening and behavioral counseling interventions in primary care. www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Page/Document/RecommendationStatementFinal/alcohol-misuse-screening-and-behavioral-counseling-interventions-in-primary-care. Accessed April 13, 2015.

5. US Department of Health and Human Services; National Institutes of Health; National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. Excerpt from Helping Patients Who Drink Too Much: A Clinician’s Guide. http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/Practitioner/Clinicians Guide2005/PrescribingMeds.pdf. Accessed April 13, 2015.

6. Drugs.com. Revia prices, coupons and patient assistance programs. www.drugs.com/price-guide/revia. Accessed April 13, 2015.

7. Drugs.com. Campral prices, coupons and patient assistance programs. www.drugs.com/price-guide/campral. Accessed April 13, 2015.

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

Copyright © 2015. The Family Physicians Inquiries Network. All rights reserved. 

Reprinted with permission from the Family Physicians Inquiries Network and The Journal of Family Practice. 2015;64(4):238-240.

PRACTICE CHANGER
Consider prescribing oral naltrexone (50 mg/d) for patients with alcohol use disorder who wish to maintain abstinence after a brief period of detoxification.¹

STRENGTH OF RECOMMENDATION
A: Based on a meta-analysis of 95 randomized controlled trials.¹

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE
Your patient, a 42-year-old man with alcohol use disorder (AUD), detoxifies from alcohol during a recent hospitalization. He doesn’t want to resume drinking but reports frequent cravings. Are there any medications you can prescribe to help prevent relapse?

Excessive alcohol consumption is responsible for one of every 10 deaths among US adults ages 20 to 64.² About 20% to 36% of patients seen in a primary care office have AUD.³ Up to 70% of people who quit with psychosocial support alone will relapse.³

The US Preventive Services Task Force gives a grade B recommendation to screening all adults for AUD, indicating that clinicians should provide this service.⁴ For patients with AUD who wish to abstain but struggle with cravings and relapse, the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) recommends considering medication as an adjunct to brief behavioral counseling.⁵

Continue for study summary >>

STUDY SUMMARY
Evidence shows naltrexone can prevent a return to drinking
In a meta-analysis, Jonas et al¹ reviewed 123 studies (N = 22,803) of pharmacotherapy for AUD. After excluding 28 studies (seven were the only study of a given drug, one was a prospective cohort, and 20 had insufficient data), 95 randomized controlled trials were included in the analysis. Twenty-­two were placebo-controlled for acamprosate (1,000 to 3,000 mg/d), 44 for naltrexone (50 mg/d oral, 100 mg/d oral, or injectable) and four compared the two drugs. Additional studies evaluated disulfiram as well as 23 other off-­label medications, such as valproic acid and topiramate.

Two investigators independently reviewed the studies, checking for completeness and accuracy. Studies were also analyzed for bias using predefined criteria; those with high or unclear risk for bias were excluded from the main analysis but included in the sensitivity analysis. Funnel plots showed no evidence of publication bias. 

Participants were primarily recruited as inpatients, and in most studies the mean age was in the 40s. Most patients were diagnosed with alcohol dependence based on criteria in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition, text revision (DSM-IV-TR); this diagnosis translates to likely moderate to severe AUD in DSM-5. Prior to starting medications, participants underwent detoxification or achieved at least three days of sobriety. Most studies included psychosocial intervention in addition to medication, but the types of intervention varied. The duration of the trials ranged from 12 to 52 weeks.

Researchers analyzed five drinking outcomes—return to any drinking, return to heavy drinking (defined as ≥ 4 drinks/d for women and ≥ 5 drinks/d for men), number of drinking days, number of heavy drinking days, and drinks per drinking day. They also evaluated health outcomes (accidents, injuries, quality of life, function, and mortality) and adverse effects.

Acamprosate and oral naltrexone (50 mg/d) significantly decreased return to any drinking, with a number needed to treat (NNT) of 12 for acamprosate and 20 for naltrexone. Oral naltrexone (50 mg/d) also decreased return to heavy drinking (NNT, 12), while acamprosate did not. Neither medication showed a decrease in heavy drinking days.

In a post hoc subgroup analysis of acamprosate for return to any drinking, the drug appeared to be more effective in studies with a higher risk for bias and less effective in studies with a lower risk for bias. The two studies with the lowest risk for bias found no significant effect.

Disulfiram had no effect on any of the outcomes analyzed.

Of the off-label medications, topiramate showed a decrease in drinking days (weighted mean difference [WMD], –6.5%), heavy drinking days (WMD, –9.0%), and drinks per drinking day (WMD, –1.0).

There were no significant differences in health outcomes for any of the medications. Adverse events were greater in treatment groups than placebo groups. Acamprosate was associated with increased risk for diarrhea (number needed to harm [NNH], 11), vomiting (NNH, 42), and anxiety (NNH, 7). Naltrexone was associated with increased risk for nausea (NNH, 9), vomiting (NNH, 24), and dizziness (NNH, 16).

WHAT’S NEW
Consider prescribing naltrexone to prevent relapse
While previous studies suggested that pharmacotherapy could help patients with AUD remain abstinent, this methodologically rigorous meta-analysis compared the efficacy of several commonly used medications and found clear evidence favoring oral nal­trexone. Prescribe oral naltrexone (50 mg/d) to help patients with moderate to severe AUD avoid returning to any drinking or heavy drinking after alcohol detoxification. Acamprosate may also decrease return to drinking, although the evidence is not as strong (the studies with low bias showed no effect).

Next page: Caveats >>

CAVEATS
Medication should be used with psychosocial treatments
Pharmacotherapy for AUD should be reserved for patients who want to quit drinking and should be used in conjunction with psychosocial intervention.³ Only one of the studies analyzed by Jonas et al¹ was conducted in primary care. That said, many of the psychosocial interventions—such as regular follow-up visits to encourage adherence and monitor for adverse effects, in conjunction with attendance at Alcoholics Anonymous meetings—could be done in primary care settings.

Comorbidities may limit therapy options. Naltrexone is contraindicated in acute hepatitis and liver failure and in combination with opioids.⁵ Acamprosate is contraindicated in renal disease.⁵

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION
Cost, adherence may be factors for some patients
Perhaps the greatest hurdle in pharmacotherapy for AUD in primary care is a lack of familiarity with these medications. For clinicians who are comfortable with prescribing these medications, implementation may be hindered by a lack of available psychosocial resources for successful abstinence.

Additionally, the medications are expensive. The branded version of naltrexone (50 mg) costs approximately $118 for a 30-day supply,⁶ and the branded version of acamprosate costs approximately $284 for a 30-day supply.⁷

As is the case with any chronic medical condition, medication adherence is a challenge. Naltrexone is taken once daily, while acamprosate is taken three times a day. The risk for relapse is high until six to 12 months of sobriety is achieved and then wanes over several years.⁵ The NIAAA recommends treatment for a minimum of three months.⁵

REFERENCES
1. Jonas DE, Amick HR, Feltner C, et al. Pharmacotherapy for adults with alcohol use disorders in outpatient settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2014;311:1889-1900.

2. CDC. Fact sheets - Alcohol use and your health. www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/alcohol-use.htm. Accessed April 13, 2015.

3. Johnson BA. Pharmacotherapy for alcohol use disorder. UpToDate. www.uptodate.com/contents/pharmacotherapy-for-alcohol-use-disorder. Accessed April 13, 2015.

4. US Preventive Services Task Force. Final recommendation statement: Alcohol misuse: Screening and behavioral counseling interventions in primary care. www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Page/Document/RecommendationStatementFinal/alcohol-misuse-screening-and-behavioral-counseling-interventions-in-primary-care. Accessed April 13, 2015.

5. US Department of Health and Human Services; National Institutes of Health; National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. Excerpt from Helping Patients Who Drink Too Much: A Clinician’s Guide. http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/Practitioner/Clinicians Guide2005/PrescribingMeds.pdf. Accessed April 13, 2015.

6. Drugs.com. Revia prices, coupons and patient assistance programs. www.drugs.com/price-guide/revia. Accessed April 13, 2015.

7. Drugs.com. Campral prices, coupons and patient assistance programs. www.drugs.com/price-guide/campral. Accessed April 13, 2015.

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

Copyright © 2015. The Family Physicians Inquiries Network. All rights reserved. 

Reprinted with permission from the Family Physicians Inquiries Network and The Journal of Family Practice. 2015;64(4):238-240.

Illustrative case

A 22-year-old G2P1 pregnant woman at 18 weeks gestation who has a history of preeclampsia comes to your office for a routine prenatal visit. On exam, her blood pressure continues to be in the 110s/60s, as it has been for several visits. Her history puts her at risk of developing preeclampsia again, and you wonder if anything can be done to prevent this from happening.

The incidence of preeclampsia, which occurs in 2% to 8% of pregnancies worldwide and 3.4% of pregnancies in the United States, appears to be steadily increasing.^2,3 Preeclampsia is defined as new-onset hypertension at >20 weeks gestation, plus proteinuria, thrombocytopenia, renal insufficiency, impaired liver function, pulmonary edema, and/or cerebral or visual symptoms.⁴ The condition is associated with several adverse maternal and fetal outcomes, including eclampsia, abruption, intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR), preterm birth, stillbirth, and maternal death.^2,4 Risk factors for preeclampsia include previous preeclampsia, maternal age ≥40 years, chronic medical conditions, and multi-fetal pregnancy.⁵

The only effective treatment for preeclampsia is delivery.⁴ Given the lack of other treatments, strategies for preventing preeclampsia would be highly valuable.

In 1996, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) addressed this issue and concluded that there was insufficient evidence to recommend for or against using aspirin to prevent preeclampsia.⁶ More recently, Henderson et al¹ conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to support the USPSTF in a revision of its earlier recommendation.

STUDY SUMMARY: Aspirin use lowers risk of preeclampsia and preterm birth

Henderson et al¹ evaluated the impact of low-dose aspirin on maternal and fetal outcomes among pregnant women at risk for preeclampsia. The review of 23 studies included 21 randomized placebo-controlled trials that evaluated 24,666 patients. Slightly more than half of the studies that evaluated maternal and fetal health benefits were graded as good-quality, and 67% of those that evaluated maternal, perinatal, and developmental harms were rated good-quality.

Most women were white and ages 20 to 33 years. Aspirin doses ranged from 60 mg/d to 150 mg/d; most studies used 60 mg/d or 100 mg/d. Aspirin was initiated between 12 to 36 weeks gestation, with 9 trials initiating aspirin before 16 weeks. In most trials, aspirin was continued until delivery.

Among women at high preeclampsia risk (10 studies), the pooled relative risk (RR) for perinatal death was 0.81 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65-1.01) for low-dose aspirin compared to placebo. However, this finding was not statistically significant (P=.78).

Researchers found no evidence of increased maternal postpartum hemorrhage with aspirin use.

Among women who received low-dose aspirin, researchers noted a 14% risk reduction for preterm birth (RR=0.86; 95% CI, 0.76-0.98); a 20% risk reduction for IUGR (RR=0.80; 95% CI, 0.65-0.99), and a 24% risk reduction for preeclampsia (RR=0.76; 95% CI, 0.62-0.95). The absolute risk reduction for preeclampsia was estimated to be 2% to 5%.

While the results for preterm birth, IUGR, and preeclampsia were statistically significant, the authors noted that these results could have been biased by small study effects (the tendency of smaller studies to report positive findings, which in turn can skew the results of a meta-analysis based primarily on such studies). The timing and dosage of aspirin had no significant effect on outcomes.

There was no evidence of increased maternal postpartum hemorrhage with aspirin use (RR=1.02; 95% CI, 0.96-1.09). Aspirin use did not seem to increase perinatal mortality among all risk levels (RR=0.92; 95% CI, 0.76-1.11; P=.65). No differences were noted in the toddlers’ development at 18 months.

WHAT'S NEW: Low-dose aspirin use is now recommended

The 1996 USPSTF recommendation concluded that there was insufficient evidence to recommend aspirin use for preventing preeclampsia. This systematic review and meta-analysis, along with findings from a 2007 Cochrane review⁷ and a meta-analysis from the PARIS Collaborative Group,⁸ provide good-quality evidence that aspirin reduces negative maternal and fetal outcomes associated with preeclampsia. In 2014, the USPSTF cited this evidence when it decided to recommend using low-dose aspirin (81 mg/d) to prevent preeclampsia in women who are at high risk for preeclampsia (Grade B).⁹ (For more on the USPSTF, see “Catching up on the latest USPSTF recommendations”.)

CAVEATS: Much of the data came from small studies

A substantial portion of the data in this systematic review and meta-analysis came from small studies with positive findings. Because small studies with null findings tend to not be published, there is concern that the results reported by Henderson et al¹ may be somewhat biased, and that future studies may push the overall observed effect toward a null finding.

Also, the criteria used to define “high risk” for preeclampsia varied by study, so it’s unclear which groups of women would benefit most from aspirin use during pregnancy. Finally, there is a lack of high-quality data on the effects of aspirin use during pregnancy on long-term outcomes in children. Despite these caveats, the cumulative evidence strongly points to greater benefit than harm.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION: You need to determine which patients are at highest risk

The principle challenge lies in identifying which patients are at high risk for preeclampsia, and thus, will likely benefit from this intervention. This systematic review and meta-analysis used a large variety of risk factors to determine whether a woman was high risk. A 2013 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Task Force on Hypertension in Pregnancy report defined high-risk as women with a history of preeclampsia in more than one previous pregnancy or women with a previous preterm delivery due to preeclampsia.⁴

The updated USPSTF recommendation suggests that women be considered high risk if they have any of the following: 1) previous preeclampsia, 2) multifetal gestation, 3) chronic hypertension, 4) diabetes, 5) renal disease, or 6) autoimmune disease.⁹ We consider both sets of criteria reasonable for identifying women who may benefit from low-dose aspirin during pregnancy.

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

Illustrative case

A 22-year-old G2P1 pregnant woman at 18 weeks gestation who has a history of preeclampsia comes to your office for a routine prenatal visit. On exam, her blood pressure continues to be in the 110s/60s, as it has been for several visits. Her history puts her at risk of developing preeclampsia again, and you wonder if anything can be done to prevent this from happening.

The incidence of preeclampsia, which occurs in 2% to 8% of pregnancies worldwide and 3.4% of pregnancies in the United States, appears to be steadily increasing.^2,3 Preeclampsia is defined as new-onset hypertension at >20 weeks gestation, plus proteinuria, thrombocytopenia, renal insufficiency, impaired liver function, pulmonary edema, and/or cerebral or visual symptoms.⁴ The condition is associated with several adverse maternal and fetal outcomes, including eclampsia, abruption, intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR), preterm birth, stillbirth, and maternal death.^2,4 Risk factors for preeclampsia include previous preeclampsia, maternal age ≥40 years, chronic medical conditions, and multi-fetal pregnancy.⁵

The only effective treatment for preeclampsia is delivery.⁴ Given the lack of other treatments, strategies for preventing preeclampsia would be highly valuable.

In 1996, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) addressed this issue and concluded that there was insufficient evidence to recommend for or against using aspirin to prevent preeclampsia.⁶ More recently, Henderson et al¹ conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to support the USPSTF in a revision of its earlier recommendation.

STUDY SUMMARY: Aspirin use lowers risk of preeclampsia and preterm birth

Henderson et al¹ evaluated the impact of low-dose aspirin on maternal and fetal outcomes among pregnant women at risk for preeclampsia. The review of 23 studies included 21 randomized placebo-controlled trials that evaluated 24,666 patients. Slightly more than half of the studies that evaluated maternal and fetal health benefits were graded as good-quality, and 67% of those that evaluated maternal, perinatal, and developmental harms were rated good-quality.

Most women were white and ages 20 to 33 years. Aspirin doses ranged from 60 mg/d to 150 mg/d; most studies used 60 mg/d or 100 mg/d. Aspirin was initiated between 12 to 36 weeks gestation, with 9 trials initiating aspirin before 16 weeks. In most trials, aspirin was continued until delivery.

Among women at high preeclampsia risk (10 studies), the pooled relative risk (RR) for perinatal death was 0.81 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65-1.01) for low-dose aspirin compared to placebo. However, this finding was not statistically significant (P=.78).

Researchers found no evidence of increased maternal postpartum hemorrhage with aspirin use.

Among women who received low-dose aspirin, researchers noted a 14% risk reduction for preterm birth (RR=0.86; 95% CI, 0.76-0.98); a 20% risk reduction for IUGR (RR=0.80; 95% CI, 0.65-0.99), and a 24% risk reduction for preeclampsia (RR=0.76; 95% CI, 0.62-0.95). The absolute risk reduction for preeclampsia was estimated to be 2% to 5%.

While the results for preterm birth, IUGR, and preeclampsia were statistically significant, the authors noted that these results could have been biased by small study effects (the tendency of smaller studies to report positive findings, which in turn can skew the results of a meta-analysis based primarily on such studies). The timing and dosage of aspirin had no significant effect on outcomes.

There was no evidence of increased maternal postpartum hemorrhage with aspirin use (RR=1.02; 95% CI, 0.96-1.09). Aspirin use did not seem to increase perinatal mortality among all risk levels (RR=0.92; 95% CI, 0.76-1.11; P=.65). No differences were noted in the toddlers’ development at 18 months.

WHAT'S NEW: Low-dose aspirin use is now recommended

The 1996 USPSTF recommendation concluded that there was insufficient evidence to recommend aspirin use for preventing preeclampsia. This systematic review and meta-analysis, along with findings from a 2007 Cochrane review⁷ and a meta-analysis from the PARIS Collaborative Group,⁸ provide good-quality evidence that aspirin reduces negative maternal and fetal outcomes associated with preeclampsia. In 2014, the USPSTF cited this evidence when it decided to recommend using low-dose aspirin (81 mg/d) to prevent preeclampsia in women who are at high risk for preeclampsia (Grade B).⁹ (For more on the USPSTF, see “Catching up on the latest USPSTF recommendations”.)

CAVEATS: Much of the data came from small studies

A substantial portion of the data in this systematic review and meta-analysis came from small studies with positive findings. Because small studies with null findings tend to not be published, there is concern that the results reported by Henderson et al¹ may be somewhat biased, and that future studies may push the overall observed effect toward a null finding.

Also, the criteria used to define “high risk” for preeclampsia varied by study, so it’s unclear which groups of women would benefit most from aspirin use during pregnancy. Finally, there is a lack of high-quality data on the effects of aspirin use during pregnancy on long-term outcomes in children. Despite these caveats, the cumulative evidence strongly points to greater benefit than harm.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION: You need to determine which patients are at highest risk

The principle challenge lies in identifying which patients are at high risk for preeclampsia, and thus, will likely benefit from this intervention. This systematic review and meta-analysis used a large variety of risk factors to determine whether a woman was high risk. A 2013 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Task Force on Hypertension in Pregnancy report defined high-risk as women with a history of preeclampsia in more than one previous pregnancy or women with a previous preterm delivery due to preeclampsia.⁴

The updated USPSTF recommendation suggests that women be considered high risk if they have any of the following: 1) previous preeclampsia, 2) multifetal gestation, 3) chronic hypertension, 4) diabetes, 5) renal disease, or 6) autoimmune disease.⁹ We consider both sets of criteria reasonable for identifying women who may benefit from low-dose aspirin during pregnancy.

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

Illustrative case

A 22-year-old G2P1 pregnant woman at 18 weeks gestation who has a history of preeclampsia comes to your office for a routine prenatal visit. On exam, her blood pressure continues to be in the 110s/60s, as it has been for several visits. Her history puts her at risk of developing preeclampsia again, and you wonder if anything can be done to prevent this from happening.

The incidence of preeclampsia, which occurs in 2% to 8% of pregnancies worldwide and 3.4% of pregnancies in the United States, appears to be steadily increasing.^2,3 Preeclampsia is defined as new-onset hypertension at >20 weeks gestation, plus proteinuria, thrombocytopenia, renal insufficiency, impaired liver function, pulmonary edema, and/or cerebral or visual symptoms.⁴ The condition is associated with several adverse maternal and fetal outcomes, including eclampsia, abruption, intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR), preterm birth, stillbirth, and maternal death.^2,4 Risk factors for preeclampsia include previous preeclampsia, maternal age ≥40 years, chronic medical conditions, and multi-fetal pregnancy.⁵

The only effective treatment for preeclampsia is delivery.⁴ Given the lack of other treatments, strategies for preventing preeclampsia would be highly valuable.

In 1996, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) addressed this issue and concluded that there was insufficient evidence to recommend for or against using aspirin to prevent preeclampsia.⁶ More recently, Henderson et al¹ conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to support the USPSTF in a revision of its earlier recommendation.

STUDY SUMMARY: Aspirin use lowers risk of preeclampsia and preterm birth

Henderson et al¹ evaluated the impact of low-dose aspirin on maternal and fetal outcomes among pregnant women at risk for preeclampsia. The review of 23 studies included 21 randomized placebo-controlled trials that evaluated 24,666 patients. Slightly more than half of the studies that evaluated maternal and fetal health benefits were graded as good-quality, and 67% of those that evaluated maternal, perinatal, and developmental harms were rated good-quality.

Most women were white and ages 20 to 33 years. Aspirin doses ranged from 60 mg/d to 150 mg/d; most studies used 60 mg/d or 100 mg/d. Aspirin was initiated between 12 to 36 weeks gestation, with 9 trials initiating aspirin before 16 weeks. In most trials, aspirin was continued until delivery.

Among women at high preeclampsia risk (10 studies), the pooled relative risk (RR) for perinatal death was 0.81 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65-1.01) for low-dose aspirin compared to placebo. However, this finding was not statistically significant (P=.78).

Researchers found no evidence of increased maternal postpartum hemorrhage with aspirin use.

Among women who received low-dose aspirin, researchers noted a 14% risk reduction for preterm birth (RR=0.86; 95% CI, 0.76-0.98); a 20% risk reduction for IUGR (RR=0.80; 95% CI, 0.65-0.99), and a 24% risk reduction for preeclampsia (RR=0.76; 95% CI, 0.62-0.95). The absolute risk reduction for preeclampsia was estimated to be 2% to 5%.

While the results for preterm birth, IUGR, and preeclampsia were statistically significant, the authors noted that these results could have been biased by small study effects (the tendency of smaller studies to report positive findings, which in turn can skew the results of a meta-analysis based primarily on such studies). The timing and dosage of aspirin had no significant effect on outcomes.

There was no evidence of increased maternal postpartum hemorrhage with aspirin use (RR=1.02; 95% CI, 0.96-1.09). Aspirin use did not seem to increase perinatal mortality among all risk levels (RR=0.92; 95% CI, 0.76-1.11; P=.65). No differences were noted in the toddlers’ development at 18 months.

WHAT'S NEW: Low-dose aspirin use is now recommended

The 1996 USPSTF recommendation concluded that there was insufficient evidence to recommend aspirin use for preventing preeclampsia. This systematic review and meta-analysis, along with findings from a 2007 Cochrane review⁷ and a meta-analysis from the PARIS Collaborative Group,⁸ provide good-quality evidence that aspirin reduces negative maternal and fetal outcomes associated with preeclampsia. In 2014, the USPSTF cited this evidence when it decided to recommend using low-dose aspirin (81 mg/d) to prevent preeclampsia in women who are at high risk for preeclampsia (Grade B).⁹ (For more on the USPSTF, see “Catching up on the latest USPSTF recommendations”.)

CAVEATS: Much of the data came from small studies

A substantial portion of the data in this systematic review and meta-analysis came from small studies with positive findings. Because small studies with null findings tend to not be published, there is concern that the results reported by Henderson et al¹ may be somewhat biased, and that future studies may push the overall observed effect toward a null finding.

Also, the criteria used to define “high risk” for preeclampsia varied by study, so it’s unclear which groups of women would benefit most from aspirin use during pregnancy. Finally, there is a lack of high-quality data on the effects of aspirin use during pregnancy on long-term outcomes in children. Despite these caveats, the cumulative evidence strongly points to greater benefit than harm.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION: You need to determine which patients are at highest risk

The principle challenge lies in identifying which patients are at high risk for preeclampsia, and thus, will likely benefit from this intervention. This systematic review and meta-analysis used a large variety of risk factors to determine whether a woman was high risk. A 2013 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Task Force on Hypertension in Pregnancy report defined high-risk as women with a history of preeclampsia in more than one previous pregnancy or women with a previous preterm delivery due to preeclampsia.⁴

The updated USPSTF recommendation suggests that women be considered high risk if they have any of the following: 1) previous preeclampsia, 2) multifetal gestation, 3) chronic hypertension, 4) diabetes, 5) renal disease, or 6) autoimmune disease.⁹ We consider both sets of criteria reasonable for identifying women who may benefit from low-dose aspirin during pregnancy.

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

Illustrative case

Your patient, a 42-year-old man with alcohol use disorder (AUD), detoxifies from alcohol during a recent hospitalization. He doesn’t want to resume drinking, but reports frequent cravings. Are there any medications you can prescribe to help prevent relapse?

Excessive alcohol consumption is responsible for 1 of every 10 deaths among US adults ages 20 to 64 years.² Twenty percent to 36% of patients seen in a primary care office have AUD.³ Up to 70% of people who quit with psychosocial support alone will relapse.³

Listen to Shannon Robinson, MD discuss: Sobriety meds—A look at compliance and cost

The US Preventive Services Task Force gives a grade B recommendation to screening all adults for AUD, indicating that physicians should provide this service.⁴ For patients with AUD who wish to abstain but struggle with cravings and relapse, the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) recommends considering medication as an adjunct to brief behavioral counseling.⁵

STUDY SUMMARY: Evidence shows naltrexone can prevent a return to drinking

In a meta-analysis, Jonas et al¹ reviewed 123 studies (N=22,803) of pharmacotherapy for AUD. After excluding 28 studies (7 were the only study of a given drug, one was a prospective cohort, and 20 had insufficient data), 95 randomized control trials were included in the analysis. Twenty-two were placebo-controlled for acamprosate (1000-3000 mg/d), 44 for naltrexone (50 mg/d oral, 100 mg/d oral, or injectable) and 4 compared the 2 drugs. Additional studies evaluated disulfiram as well as 23 other off-label medications such as valproic acid and topiramate.

Two investigators independently reviewed the studies, checking for completeness and accuracy. Studies were also analyzed for bias using predefined criteria; those with high or unclear risk of bias were excluded from the main analysis but included in the sensitivity analysis. Funnel plots showed no evidence of publication bias.

Participants were primarily recruited as inpatients and in most studies the mean age was in the 40s. Most patients were diagnosed with alcohol dependence based on criteria in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition, text revision (DSM-IV-TR); this diagnosis translates to likely moderate to severe AUD in DSM-5. Prior to starting medications, participants underwent detoxification or achieved at least 3 days of sobriety. Most studies included psychosocial intervention in addition to medication, but the types of interventions varied. The duration of the trials ranged from 12 to 52 weeks.

Researchers analyzed 5 drinking outcomes—return to any drinking, return to heavy drinking (defined as ≥4 drinks/d for women and ≥5 drinks/d for men), number of drinking days, number of heavy drinking days, and drinks per drinking day. They also evaluated health outcomes (accidents, injuries, quality of life, function, and mortality) and adverse effects.

Acamprosate and oral naltrexone (50 mg/d) significantly decreased return to any drinking, with a number needed to treat (NNT) of 12 (95% confidence interval [CI], 8-26) for acamprosate and 20 (95% CI, 11-500) for naltrexone. Oral naltrexone (50 mg/d) also decreased return to heavy drinking (NNT=12; 95% CI, 8-26), while acamprosate did not. Neither medication showed a decrease in heavy drinking days. In a post hoc subgroup analysis of acamprosate for return to any drinking, the drug appeared to be more effective in studies with a higher risk of bias and less effective in studies with a lower risk of bias; the 2 studies with the lowest risk of bias found no significant effect.

Disulfiram had no effect on any of the drinking outcomes analyzed.

Of the off-label medications, topiramate showed a decrease in drinking days (weighted mean difference [WMD]=-6.5%; 95% CI, -12.0% to -1.0%), heavy drinking days (WMD=-9.0%; 95% CI, -15.3% to -2.7%), and drinks per drinking day (WMD=-1.0; 95% CI, -1.6 to -0.48).

Oral naltrexone 50 mg/d significantly decreased the number of patients who resumed drinking after detoxification.

There were no significant differences in health outcomes for any of the medications. Adverse events were greater in treatment groups than placebo groups. Acamprosate was associated with increased risk of diarrhea (number needed to harm [NNH]=11; 95% CI, 6-34), vomiting (NNH=42; 95% CI, 24-143), and anxiety (NNH=7; 95% CI, 5-11). Naltrexone was associated with increased risk of nausea (NNH=9; 95% CI, 7-14), vomiting (NNH=24; 95% CI, 17-44), and dizziness (NNH 16; 95% CI, 12-28).

WHAT'S NEW: Consider prescribing naltrexone to prevent relapse

While previous studies suggested that pharmacotherapy could help patients with AUD remain abstinent, this methodologically rigorous meta-analysis compared the efficacy of several commonly used medications and found clear evidence favoring oral naltrexone. Prescribe oral naltrexone 50 mg/d to help patients with moderate to severe AUD avoid returning to any drinking or heavy drinking after alcohol detoxification. Acamprosate may also decrease return to drinking, although the evidence is not as strong (the studies with low bias showed no effect).

CAVEATS: Medication should be used with psychosocial treatments

Pharmacotherapy for AUD should be reserved for patients who want to quit drinking and used in conjunction with psychosocial intervention.³ Only one of the studies analyzed by Jonas et al¹ was conducted in primary care. That said, many of the psychosocial interventions—such as regular follow-up visits to encourage adherence and monitor for adverse effects, in conjunction with attendance at Alcoholics Anonymous meetings—could be done in primary care settings.

Comorbidities may limit therapy options. Naltrexone is contraindicated in acute hepatitis and liver failure, and in combination with opioids.⁵ Acamprosate is contraindicated in renal disease.⁵

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION: Cost, adherence may be factors for some patients 

Perhaps the greatest hurdle in pharmacotherapy for AUD in primary care is a lack of familiarity with these medications. For physicians who are comfortable with prescribing these medications, implementation may be hindered by a lack of available psychosocial resources for successful abstinence.

Medications for alcohol use disorder should be reserved for patients who want to quit drinking, and should be combined with psychosocial interventions.

Additionally, the medications are expensive. The branded version of naltrexone 50 mg costs approximately $118 for a 30-day supply,⁶ and the branded version of acamprosate costs approximately $284 for a 30-day supply.⁷

As is the case with any chronic medical condition, medication adherence is a challenge. Naltrexone is taken once daily, while acamprosate is taken 3 times a day. The risk of relapse is high until 6 to 12 months of sobriety and then wanes over several years.⁵ The NIAAA recommends treatment for a minimum of 3 months.⁵

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

Illustrative case

Your patient, a 42-year-old man with alcohol use disorder (AUD), detoxifies from alcohol during a recent hospitalization. He doesn’t want to resume drinking, but reports frequent cravings. Are there any medications you can prescribe to help prevent relapse?

Excessive alcohol consumption is responsible for 1 of every 10 deaths among US adults ages 20 to 64 years.² Twenty percent to 36% of patients seen in a primary care office have AUD.³ Up to 70% of people who quit with psychosocial support alone will relapse.³

Listen to Shannon Robinson, MD discuss: Sobriety meds—A look at compliance and cost

The US Preventive Services Task Force gives a grade B recommendation to screening all adults for AUD, indicating that physicians should provide this service.⁴ For patients with AUD who wish to abstain but struggle with cravings and relapse, the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) recommends considering medication as an adjunct to brief behavioral counseling.⁵

STUDY SUMMARY: Evidence shows naltrexone can prevent a return to drinking

In a meta-analysis, Jonas et al¹ reviewed 123 studies (N=22,803) of pharmacotherapy for AUD. After excluding 28 studies (7 were the only study of a given drug, one was a prospective cohort, and 20 had insufficient data), 95 randomized control trials were included in the analysis. Twenty-two were placebo-controlled for acamprosate (1000-3000 mg/d), 44 for naltrexone (50 mg/d oral, 100 mg/d oral, or injectable) and 4 compared the 2 drugs. Additional studies evaluated disulfiram as well as 23 other off-label medications such as valproic acid and topiramate.

Two investigators independently reviewed the studies, checking for completeness and accuracy. Studies were also analyzed for bias using predefined criteria; those with high or unclear risk of bias were excluded from the main analysis but included in the sensitivity analysis. Funnel plots showed no evidence of publication bias.

Participants were primarily recruited as inpatients and in most studies the mean age was in the 40s. Most patients were diagnosed with alcohol dependence based on criteria in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition, text revision (DSM-IV-TR); this diagnosis translates to likely moderate to severe AUD in DSM-5. Prior to starting medications, participants underwent detoxification or achieved at least 3 days of sobriety. Most studies included psychosocial intervention in addition to medication, but the types of interventions varied. The duration of the trials ranged from 12 to 52 weeks.

Researchers analyzed 5 drinking outcomes—return to any drinking, return to heavy drinking (defined as ≥4 drinks/d for women and ≥5 drinks/d for men), number of drinking days, number of heavy drinking days, and drinks per drinking day. They also evaluated health outcomes (accidents, injuries, quality of life, function, and mortality) and adverse effects.

Acamprosate and oral naltrexone (50 mg/d) significantly decreased return to any drinking, with a number needed to treat (NNT) of 12 (95% confidence interval [CI], 8-26) for acamprosate and 20 (95% CI, 11-500) for naltrexone. Oral naltrexone (50 mg/d) also decreased return to heavy drinking (NNT=12; 95% CI, 8-26), while acamprosate did not. Neither medication showed a decrease in heavy drinking days. In a post hoc subgroup analysis of acamprosate for return to any drinking, the drug appeared to be more effective in studies with a higher risk of bias and less effective in studies with a lower risk of bias; the 2 studies with the lowest risk of bias found no significant effect.

Disulfiram had no effect on any of the drinking outcomes analyzed.

Of the off-label medications, topiramate showed a decrease in drinking days (weighted mean difference [WMD]=-6.5%; 95% CI, -12.0% to -1.0%), heavy drinking days (WMD=-9.0%; 95% CI, -15.3% to -2.7%), and drinks per drinking day (WMD=-1.0; 95% CI, -1.6 to -0.48).

Oral naltrexone 50 mg/d significantly decreased the number of patients who resumed drinking after detoxification.

There were no significant differences in health outcomes for any of the medications. Adverse events were greater in treatment groups than placebo groups. Acamprosate was associated with increased risk of diarrhea (number needed to harm [NNH]=11; 95% CI, 6-34), vomiting (NNH=42; 95% CI, 24-143), and anxiety (NNH=7; 95% CI, 5-11). Naltrexone was associated with increased risk of nausea (NNH=9; 95% CI, 7-14), vomiting (NNH=24; 95% CI, 17-44), and dizziness (NNH 16; 95% CI, 12-28).

WHAT'S NEW: Consider prescribing naltrexone to prevent relapse

While previous studies suggested that pharmacotherapy could help patients with AUD remain abstinent, this methodologically rigorous meta-analysis compared the efficacy of several commonly used medications and found clear evidence favoring oral naltrexone. Prescribe oral naltrexone 50 mg/d to help patients with moderate to severe AUD avoid returning to any drinking or heavy drinking after alcohol detoxification. Acamprosate may also decrease return to drinking, although the evidence is not as strong (the studies with low bias showed no effect).

CAVEATS: Medication should be used with psychosocial treatments

Pharmacotherapy for AUD should be reserved for patients who want to quit drinking and used in conjunction with psychosocial intervention.³ Only one of the studies analyzed by Jonas et al¹ was conducted in primary care. That said, many of the psychosocial interventions—such as regular follow-up visits to encourage adherence and monitor for adverse effects, in conjunction with attendance at Alcoholics Anonymous meetings—could be done in primary care settings.

Comorbidities may limit therapy options. Naltrexone is contraindicated in acute hepatitis and liver failure, and in combination with opioids.⁵ Acamprosate is contraindicated in renal disease.⁵

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION: Cost, adherence may be factors for some patients 

Perhaps the greatest hurdle in pharmacotherapy for AUD in primary care is a lack of familiarity with these medications. For physicians who are comfortable with prescribing these medications, implementation may be hindered by a lack of available psychosocial resources for successful abstinence.

Medications for alcohol use disorder should be reserved for patients who want to quit drinking, and should be combined with psychosocial interventions.

Additionally, the medications are expensive. The branded version of naltrexone 50 mg costs approximately $118 for a 30-day supply,⁶ and the branded version of acamprosate costs approximately $284 for a 30-day supply.⁷

As is the case with any chronic medical condition, medication adherence is a challenge. Naltrexone is taken once daily, while acamprosate is taken 3 times a day. The risk of relapse is high until 6 to 12 months of sobriety and then wanes over several years.⁵ The NIAAA recommends treatment for a minimum of 3 months.⁵

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

Illustrative case

Your patient, a 42-year-old man with alcohol use disorder (AUD), detoxifies from alcohol during a recent hospitalization. He doesn’t want to resume drinking, but reports frequent cravings. Are there any medications you can prescribe to help prevent relapse?

Excessive alcohol consumption is responsible for 1 of every 10 deaths among US adults ages 20 to 64 years.² Twenty percent to 36% of patients seen in a primary care office have AUD.³ Up to 70% of people who quit with psychosocial support alone will relapse.³

Listen to Shannon Robinson, MD discuss: Sobriety meds—A look at compliance and cost

The US Preventive Services Task Force gives a grade B recommendation to screening all adults for AUD, indicating that physicians should provide this service.⁴ For patients with AUD who wish to abstain but struggle with cravings and relapse, the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) recommends considering medication as an adjunct to brief behavioral counseling.⁵

STUDY SUMMARY: Evidence shows naltrexone can prevent a return to drinking

In a meta-analysis, Jonas et al¹ reviewed 123 studies (N=22,803) of pharmacotherapy for AUD. After excluding 28 studies (7 were the only study of a given drug, one was a prospective cohort, and 20 had insufficient data), 95 randomized control trials were included in the analysis. Twenty-two were placebo-controlled for acamprosate (1000-3000 mg/d), 44 for naltrexone (50 mg/d oral, 100 mg/d oral, or injectable) and 4 compared the 2 drugs. Additional studies evaluated disulfiram as well as 23 other off-label medications such as valproic acid and topiramate.

Two investigators independently reviewed the studies, checking for completeness and accuracy. Studies were also analyzed for bias using predefined criteria; those with high or unclear risk of bias were excluded from the main analysis but included in the sensitivity analysis. Funnel plots showed no evidence of publication bias.

Participants were primarily recruited as inpatients and in most studies the mean age was in the 40s. Most patients were diagnosed with alcohol dependence based on criteria in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition, text revision (DSM-IV-TR); this diagnosis translates to likely moderate to severe AUD in DSM-5. Prior to starting medications, participants underwent detoxification or achieved at least 3 days of sobriety. Most studies included psychosocial intervention in addition to medication, but the types of interventions varied. The duration of the trials ranged from 12 to 52 weeks.

Researchers analyzed 5 drinking outcomes—return to any drinking, return to heavy drinking (defined as ≥4 drinks/d for women and ≥5 drinks/d for men), number of drinking days, number of heavy drinking days, and drinks per drinking day. They also evaluated health outcomes (accidents, injuries, quality of life, function, and mortality) and adverse effects.

Acamprosate and oral naltrexone (50 mg/d) significantly decreased return to any drinking, with a number needed to treat (NNT) of 12 (95% confidence interval [CI], 8-26) for acamprosate and 20 (95% CI, 11-500) for naltrexone. Oral naltrexone (50 mg/d) also decreased return to heavy drinking (NNT=12; 95% CI, 8-26), while acamprosate did not. Neither medication showed a decrease in heavy drinking days. In a post hoc subgroup analysis of acamprosate for return to any drinking, the drug appeared to be more effective in studies with a higher risk of bias and less effective in studies with a lower risk of bias; the 2 studies with the lowest risk of bias found no significant effect.

Disulfiram had no effect on any of the drinking outcomes analyzed.

Of the off-label medications, topiramate showed a decrease in drinking days (weighted mean difference [WMD]=-6.5%; 95% CI, -12.0% to -1.0%), heavy drinking days (WMD=-9.0%; 95% CI, -15.3% to -2.7%), and drinks per drinking day (WMD=-1.0; 95% CI, -1.6 to -0.48).

Oral naltrexone 50 mg/d significantly decreased the number of patients who resumed drinking after detoxification.

There were no significant differences in health outcomes for any of the medications. Adverse events were greater in treatment groups than placebo groups. Acamprosate was associated with increased risk of diarrhea (number needed to harm [NNH]=11; 95% CI, 6-34), vomiting (NNH=42; 95% CI, 24-143), and anxiety (NNH=7; 95% CI, 5-11). Naltrexone was associated with increased risk of nausea (NNH=9; 95% CI, 7-14), vomiting (NNH=24; 95% CI, 17-44), and dizziness (NNH 16; 95% CI, 12-28).

WHAT'S NEW: Consider prescribing naltrexone to prevent relapse

While previous studies suggested that pharmacotherapy could help patients with AUD remain abstinent, this methodologically rigorous meta-analysis compared the efficacy of several commonly used medications and found clear evidence favoring oral naltrexone. Prescribe oral naltrexone 50 mg/d to help patients with moderate to severe AUD avoid returning to any drinking or heavy drinking after alcohol detoxification. Acamprosate may also decrease return to drinking, although the evidence is not as strong (the studies with low bias showed no effect).

CAVEATS: Medication should be used with psychosocial treatments

Pharmacotherapy for AUD should be reserved for patients who want to quit drinking and used in conjunction with psychosocial intervention.³ Only one of the studies analyzed by Jonas et al¹ was conducted in primary care. That said, many of the psychosocial interventions—such as regular follow-up visits to encourage adherence and monitor for adverse effects, in conjunction with attendance at Alcoholics Anonymous meetings—could be done in primary care settings.

Comorbidities may limit therapy options. Naltrexone is contraindicated in acute hepatitis and liver failure, and in combination with opioids.⁵ Acamprosate is contraindicated in renal disease.⁵

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION: Cost, adherence may be factors for some patients 

Perhaps the greatest hurdle in pharmacotherapy for AUD in primary care is a lack of familiarity with these medications. For physicians who are comfortable with prescribing these medications, implementation may be hindered by a lack of available psychosocial resources for successful abstinence.

Medications for alcohol use disorder should be reserved for patients who want to quit drinking, and should be combined with psychosocial interventions.

Additionally, the medications are expensive. The branded version of naltrexone 50 mg costs approximately $118 for a 30-day supply,⁶ and the branded version of acamprosate costs approximately $284 for a 30-day supply.⁷

As is the case with any chronic medical condition, medication adherence is a challenge. Naltrexone is taken once daily, while acamprosate is taken 3 times a day. The risk of relapse is high until 6 to 12 months of sobriety and then wanes over several years.⁵ The NIAAA recommends treatment for a minimum of 3 months.⁵

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

PRACTICE CHANGER
Consider adding simvastatin (40 mg/d) to standard wound care and compression for patients with venous stasis ulcers.¹

STRENGTH OF RECOMMENDATION
B: Based on a high-quality randomized controlled trial (RCT).¹

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE
A 74-year-old woman with chronic lower extremity edema seeks treatment for a nonhealing venous stasis ulcer. For the past nine months, she’s been wearing compression stockings and receiving intermittent home-based wound care, but nothing seems to help. She asks if there’s anything else she can try.

Venous stasis ulcers affect 1% of US adults and lead to substantial morbidity and more than $2 billion in annual health care expenditures.^1,2 Edema management—generally limb elevation and compression therapy—has been the mainstay of therapy. Treatment can be lengthy, and ulcer recurrence is common.^2,3

Statins have been found to aid wound healing through their diverse physiologic (pleiotropic) effects. Evidence indicates they can be beneficial in treatment of diabetic foot ulcers,⁴ pressure ulcers,⁵ and ulcerations associated with systemic sclerosis and Raynaud phenomenon.⁶ Evangelista et al¹ investigated whether adding a statin to standard wound care and compression could improve venous stasis ulcer healing.

Continue for study summary >>

STUDY SUMMARY
Ulcers more likely to close when statin added
This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was performed at a large medical center in the Philippines. It was designed to assess the efficacy and safety of simvastatin (40 mg/d) for venous ulcer healing when combined with standard treatment (compression therapy, limb elevation, and standard wound care).¹

Study subjects were 66 patients, ages 41 to 71, who’d had one or more venous ulcers for at least three months. They were randomly assigned to receive either simvastatin (40 mg/d; n = 32) or an identical-appearing placebo (n = 34). Patients were excluded if they were pregnant, had an ulcer that was infected or > 10 cm in diameter, or were taking any medication that could interact with a statin. Patients were stratified according to ulcer diameter (≤ 5 cm and > 5 cm). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in the duration of venous ulceration (3.80 y in the placebo group vs 3.93 y in the simvastatin group) or incidence of diabetes (5% vs 3%, respectively).

The primary outcome was the proportion of patients whose ulcers completely healed at 10 weeks. Secondary outcomes were measures of the total surface area healed, healing time, and Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) scores. Baseline ulcer diameter and surface area and DLQI scores were obtained prior to therapy initiation. The same dermatologist, who was blinded to the patients’ group assignments, evaluated all patients every two weeks until wound closure or for a maximum of 10 weeks.

Overall, 90% of the patients who received simvastatin had complete ulcer closure at 10 weeks, compared with 34% of patients in the control group (relative risk [RR], 0.16; number needed to treat [NNT], 2).

Among patients with ulcers ≤ 5 cm, 100% of the ulcers healed in the simvastatin group, compared to 50% in the control group (RR, 0.10; NNT, 2). Perhaps more importantly, in patients with ulcers > 5 cm, 67% in the simvastatin group had closure with a mean healing time of nine weeks, whereas none of the ulcers of this size closed in the control group (RR, 0.33; NNT, 1.5), and the mean healed area was significantly larger in patients who received simvastatin (28.9 cm² vs 19.6 cm²).

In addition, in the simvastatin group, healing times were significantly reduced (7.53 ± 1.34 wk vs 8.55 ± 1.13 wk) and quality of life (as evaluated by DLQI scoring) significantly improved compared to the control group.

Study dropouts were minimal (8%; two in the placebo group and three in the intervention group). Using intention-to-treat analysis and worst-case scenarios for those who dropped out did not affect the primary outcome. There were no withdrawals due to adverse reactions.

WHAT’S NEW
Statins offer significant benefits for treating venous stasis ulcers
This is the first human study to investigate the use of a statin in venous stasis ulcer healing. This intervention demonstrated significant improvements in healing rate and time, a very small NNT for benefit, and improved patient quality of life compared to placebo.

Next page: Caveats >>

CAVEATS
Carefully selected patients
Many wounds will heal with compression therapy alone, as occurred in this study, in which 50% of ulcers ≤ 5 cm treated with standard therapy healed, albeit at a somewhat slower rate. Adding another medication to the regimen when target patients generally have multiple comorbidities should always prompt caution.

The study by Evangelista et al¹ was performed in a select population, and the exclusion criteria included the use of some commonly prescribed medications, such as ACE inhibitors. No data were collected on patient BMI, which is a risk factor for delayed healing.

The prevalence of obesity is lower in the Philippines than in the US. It is uncertain what role this difference would have in the statin’s effectiveness.

Further studies, especially those conducted with a less selective population, would better clarify the generalizability of this intervention.

Nontheless, we found the results of this study impressive. The methods reported are rigorous and consistent with standard RCT methodologies.

This is the only study of a statin in human venous stasis disease, but studies in animals—and studies of statins for other types of ulcers in humans—have consistently suggested benefit. It seems hard to argue against adding this low-cost, low-risk intervention.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION
There are no known barriers to implementation of this practice.

REFERENCES
1. Evangelista MT, Casintahan MF, Villafuerte LL. Simvastatin as a novel therapeutic agent for venous ulcers: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Br J Dermatol. 2014; 170:1151-1157.

2. Collins L, Seraj S. Diagnosis and treatment of venous ulcers. Am Fam Physician. 2010;81: 989-996.

3. The Australian Wound Management Association Inc, New Zealand Wound Care Society Inc. Australian and New Zealand clinical practice guideline for prevention and management of venous leg ulcers (2011). www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/ext003_venous_leg_ulcers_aust_nz_0.pdf. Accessed March 21, 2015.

4. Johansen OE, Birkeland KI, Jørgensen AP, et al. Diabetic foot ulcer burden may be modified by high-dose atorvastatin: a 6-month randomized controlled pilot trial. J Diabetes. 2009; 1:182-187.

5. Farsaei S, Khalili H, Farboud ES, et al. Efficacy of topical atorvastatin for the treatment of pressure ulcers: a randomized clinical trial. Pharmacotherapy. 2014;34:19-27.

6. Abou-Raya A, Abou-Raya S, Helmii M. Statins: potentially useful in therapy of systemic sclerosis-related Raynaud’s phenomenon and digital ulcers. J Rheumatol. 2008;35:1801-1808.

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

Copyright © 2015. The Family Physicians Inquiries Network. All rights reserved.

Reprinted with permission from the Family Physicians Inquiries Network and The Journal of Family Practice. 2015;64(3):182-184.

PRACTICE CHANGER
Consider adding simvastatin (40 mg/d) to standard wound care and compression for patients with venous stasis ulcers.¹

STRENGTH OF RECOMMENDATION
B: Based on a high-quality randomized controlled trial (RCT).¹

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE
A 74-year-old woman with chronic lower extremity edema seeks treatment for a nonhealing venous stasis ulcer. For the past nine months, she’s been wearing compression stockings and receiving intermittent home-based wound care, but nothing seems to help. She asks if there’s anything else she can try.

Venous stasis ulcers affect 1% of US adults and lead to substantial morbidity and more than $2 billion in annual health care expenditures.^1,2 Edema management—generally limb elevation and compression therapy—has been the mainstay of therapy. Treatment can be lengthy, and ulcer recurrence is common.^2,3

Statins have been found to aid wound healing through their diverse physiologic (pleiotropic) effects. Evidence indicates they can be beneficial in treatment of diabetic foot ulcers,⁴ pressure ulcers,⁵ and ulcerations associated with systemic sclerosis and Raynaud phenomenon.⁶ Evangelista et al¹ investigated whether adding a statin to standard wound care and compression could improve venous stasis ulcer healing.

Continue for study summary >>

STUDY SUMMARY
Ulcers more likely to close when statin added
This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was performed at a large medical center in the Philippines. It was designed to assess the efficacy and safety of simvastatin (40 mg/d) for venous ulcer healing when combined with standard treatment (compression therapy, limb elevation, and standard wound care).¹

Study subjects were 66 patients, ages 41 to 71, who’d had one or more venous ulcers for at least three months. They were randomly assigned to receive either simvastatin (40 mg/d; n = 32) or an identical-appearing placebo (n = 34). Patients were excluded if they were pregnant, had an ulcer that was infected or > 10 cm in diameter, or were taking any medication that could interact with a statin. Patients were stratified according to ulcer diameter (≤ 5 cm and > 5 cm). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in the duration of venous ulceration (3.80 y in the placebo group vs 3.93 y in the simvastatin group) or incidence of diabetes (5% vs 3%, respectively).

The primary outcome was the proportion of patients whose ulcers completely healed at 10 weeks. Secondary outcomes were measures of the total surface area healed, healing time, and Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) scores. Baseline ulcer diameter and surface area and DLQI scores were obtained prior to therapy initiation. The same dermatologist, who was blinded to the patients’ group assignments, evaluated all patients every two weeks until wound closure or for a maximum of 10 weeks.

Overall, 90% of the patients who received simvastatin had complete ulcer closure at 10 weeks, compared with 34% of patients in the control group (relative risk [RR], 0.16; number needed to treat [NNT], 2).

Among patients with ulcers ≤ 5 cm, 100% of the ulcers healed in the simvastatin group, compared to 50% in the control group (RR, 0.10; NNT, 2). Perhaps more importantly, in patients with ulcers > 5 cm, 67% in the simvastatin group had closure with a mean healing time of nine weeks, whereas none of the ulcers of this size closed in the control group (RR, 0.33; NNT, 1.5), and the mean healed area was significantly larger in patients who received simvastatin (28.9 cm² vs 19.6 cm²).

In addition, in the simvastatin group, healing times were significantly reduced (7.53 ± 1.34 wk vs 8.55 ± 1.13 wk) and quality of life (as evaluated by DLQI scoring) significantly improved compared to the control group.

Study dropouts were minimal (8%; two in the placebo group and three in the intervention group). Using intention-to-treat analysis and worst-case scenarios for those who dropped out did not affect the primary outcome. There were no withdrawals due to adverse reactions.

WHAT’S NEW
Statins offer significant benefits for treating venous stasis ulcers
This is the first human study to investigate the use of a statin in venous stasis ulcer healing. This intervention demonstrated significant improvements in healing rate and time, a very small NNT for benefit, and improved patient quality of life compared to placebo.

Next page: Caveats >>

CAVEATS
Carefully selected patients
Many wounds will heal with compression therapy alone, as occurred in this study, in which 50% of ulcers ≤ 5 cm treated with standard therapy healed, albeit at a somewhat slower rate. Adding another medication to the regimen when target patients generally have multiple comorbidities should always prompt caution.

The study by Evangelista et al¹ was performed in a select population, and the exclusion criteria included the use of some commonly prescribed medications, such as ACE inhibitors. No data were collected on patient BMI, which is a risk factor for delayed healing.

The prevalence of obesity is lower in the Philippines than in the US. It is uncertain what role this difference would have in the statin’s effectiveness.

Further studies, especially those conducted with a less selective population, would better clarify the generalizability of this intervention.

Nontheless, we found the results of this study impressive. The methods reported are rigorous and consistent with standard RCT methodologies.

This is the only study of a statin in human venous stasis disease, but studies in animals—and studies of statins for other types of ulcers in humans—have consistently suggested benefit. It seems hard to argue against adding this low-cost, low-risk intervention.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION
There are no known barriers to implementation of this practice.

REFERENCES
1. Evangelista MT, Casintahan MF, Villafuerte LL. Simvastatin as a novel therapeutic agent for venous ulcers: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Br J Dermatol. 2014; 170:1151-1157.

2. Collins L, Seraj S. Diagnosis and treatment of venous ulcers. Am Fam Physician. 2010;81: 989-996.

3. The Australian Wound Management Association Inc, New Zealand Wound Care Society Inc. Australian and New Zealand clinical practice guideline for prevention and management of venous leg ulcers (2011). www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/ext003_venous_leg_ulcers_aust_nz_0.pdf. Accessed March 21, 2015.

4. Johansen OE, Birkeland KI, Jørgensen AP, et al. Diabetic foot ulcer burden may be modified by high-dose atorvastatin: a 6-month randomized controlled pilot trial. J Diabetes. 2009; 1:182-187.

5. Farsaei S, Khalili H, Farboud ES, et al. Efficacy of topical atorvastatin for the treatment of pressure ulcers: a randomized clinical trial. Pharmacotherapy. 2014;34:19-27.

6. Abou-Raya A, Abou-Raya S, Helmii M. Statins: potentially useful in therapy of systemic sclerosis-related Raynaud’s phenomenon and digital ulcers. J Rheumatol. 2008;35:1801-1808.

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

Copyright © 2015. The Family Physicians Inquiries Network. All rights reserved.

Reprinted with permission from the Family Physicians Inquiries Network and The Journal of Family Practice. 2015;64(3):182-184.

PRACTICE CHANGER
Consider adding simvastatin (40 mg/d) to standard wound care and compression for patients with venous stasis ulcers.¹

STRENGTH OF RECOMMENDATION
B: Based on a high-quality randomized controlled trial (RCT).¹

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE
A 74-year-old woman with chronic lower extremity edema seeks treatment for a nonhealing venous stasis ulcer. For the past nine months, she’s been wearing compression stockings and receiving intermittent home-based wound care, but nothing seems to help. She asks if there’s anything else she can try.

Venous stasis ulcers affect 1% of US adults and lead to substantial morbidity and more than $2 billion in annual health care expenditures.^1,2 Edema management—generally limb elevation and compression therapy—has been the mainstay of therapy. Treatment can be lengthy, and ulcer recurrence is common.^2,3

Statins have been found to aid wound healing through their diverse physiologic (pleiotropic) effects. Evidence indicates they can be beneficial in treatment of diabetic foot ulcers,⁴ pressure ulcers,⁵ and ulcerations associated with systemic sclerosis and Raynaud phenomenon.⁶ Evangelista et al¹ investigated whether adding a statin to standard wound care and compression could improve venous stasis ulcer healing.

Continue for study summary >>

STUDY SUMMARY
Ulcers more likely to close when statin added
This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was performed at a large medical center in the Philippines. It was designed to assess the efficacy and safety of simvastatin (40 mg/d) for venous ulcer healing when combined with standard treatment (compression therapy, limb elevation, and standard wound care).¹

Study subjects were 66 patients, ages 41 to 71, who’d had one or more venous ulcers for at least three months. They were randomly assigned to receive either simvastatin (40 mg/d; n = 32) or an identical-appearing placebo (n = 34). Patients were excluded if they were pregnant, had an ulcer that was infected or > 10 cm in diameter, or were taking any medication that could interact with a statin. Patients were stratified according to ulcer diameter (≤ 5 cm and > 5 cm). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in the duration of venous ulceration (3.80 y in the placebo group vs 3.93 y in the simvastatin group) or incidence of diabetes (5% vs 3%, respectively).

The primary outcome was the proportion of patients whose ulcers completely healed at 10 weeks. Secondary outcomes were measures of the total surface area healed, healing time, and Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) scores. Baseline ulcer diameter and surface area and DLQI scores were obtained prior to therapy initiation. The same dermatologist, who was blinded to the patients’ group assignments, evaluated all patients every two weeks until wound closure or for a maximum of 10 weeks.

Overall, 90% of the patients who received simvastatin had complete ulcer closure at 10 weeks, compared with 34% of patients in the control group (relative risk [RR], 0.16; number needed to treat [NNT], 2).

Among patients with ulcers ≤ 5 cm, 100% of the ulcers healed in the simvastatin group, compared to 50% in the control group (RR, 0.10; NNT, 2). Perhaps more importantly, in patients with ulcers > 5 cm, 67% in the simvastatin group had closure with a mean healing time of nine weeks, whereas none of the ulcers of this size closed in the control group (RR, 0.33; NNT, 1.5), and the mean healed area was significantly larger in patients who received simvastatin (28.9 cm² vs 19.6 cm²).

In addition, in the simvastatin group, healing times were significantly reduced (7.53 ± 1.34 wk vs 8.55 ± 1.13 wk) and quality of life (as evaluated by DLQI scoring) significantly improved compared to the control group.

Study dropouts were minimal (8%; two in the placebo group and three in the intervention group). Using intention-to-treat analysis and worst-case scenarios for those who dropped out did not affect the primary outcome. There were no withdrawals due to adverse reactions.

WHAT’S NEW
Statins offer significant benefits for treating venous stasis ulcers
This is the first human study to investigate the use of a statin in venous stasis ulcer healing. This intervention demonstrated significant improvements in healing rate and time, a very small NNT for benefit, and improved patient quality of life compared to placebo.

Next page: Caveats >>

CAVEATS
Carefully selected patients
Many wounds will heal with compression therapy alone, as occurred in this study, in which 50% of ulcers ≤ 5 cm treated with standard therapy healed, albeit at a somewhat slower rate. Adding another medication to the regimen when target patients generally have multiple comorbidities should always prompt caution.

The study by Evangelista et al¹ was performed in a select population, and the exclusion criteria included the use of some commonly prescribed medications, such as ACE inhibitors. No data were collected on patient BMI, which is a risk factor for delayed healing.

The prevalence of obesity is lower in the Philippines than in the US. It is uncertain what role this difference would have in the statin’s effectiveness.

Further studies, especially those conducted with a less selective population, would better clarify the generalizability of this intervention.

Nontheless, we found the results of this study impressive. The methods reported are rigorous and consistent with standard RCT methodologies.

This is the only study of a statin in human venous stasis disease, but studies in animals—and studies of statins for other types of ulcers in humans—have consistently suggested benefit. It seems hard to argue against adding this low-cost, low-risk intervention.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION
There are no known barriers to implementation of this practice.

REFERENCES
1. Evangelista MT, Casintahan MF, Villafuerte LL. Simvastatin as a novel therapeutic agent for venous ulcers: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Br J Dermatol. 2014; 170:1151-1157.

2. Collins L, Seraj S. Diagnosis and treatment of venous ulcers. Am Fam Physician. 2010;81: 989-996.

3. The Australian Wound Management Association Inc, New Zealand Wound Care Society Inc. Australian and New Zealand clinical practice guideline for prevention and management of venous leg ulcers (2011). www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/ext003_venous_leg_ulcers_aust_nz_0.pdf. Accessed March 21, 2015.

4. Johansen OE, Birkeland KI, Jørgensen AP, et al. Diabetic foot ulcer burden may be modified by high-dose atorvastatin: a 6-month randomized controlled pilot trial. J Diabetes. 2009; 1:182-187.

5. Farsaei S, Khalili H, Farboud ES, et al. Efficacy of topical atorvastatin for the treatment of pressure ulcers: a randomized clinical trial. Pharmacotherapy. 2014;34:19-27.

6. Abou-Raya A, Abou-Raya S, Helmii M. Statins: potentially useful in therapy of systemic sclerosis-related Raynaud’s phenomenon and digital ulcers. J Rheumatol. 2008;35:1801-1808.

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

Copyright © 2015. The Family Physicians Inquiries Network. All rights reserved.

Reprinted with permission from the Family Physicians Inquiries Network and The Journal of Family Practice. 2015;64(3):182-184.

Illustrative case

A 74-year-old woman with chronic lower extremity edema seeks treatment for a nonhealing venous stasis ulcer. For the past 9 months, she’s been wearing compression stockings and receiving intermittent home-based wound care, but nothing seems to help. She asks if there’s anything else she can try.

Venous stasis ulcers affect 1% of US adults and lead to substantial morbidity and more than $2 billion in annual health care expenditures.^1,2 Edema management—generally limb elevation and compression therapy—has been the mainstay of therapy. Treatment can be lengthy, and ulcer recurrences are common.^2,3

Statins have been found to help wound healing through their diverse physiologic (pleiotropic) effects. Evidence shows they can be beneficial for treating diabetic foot ulcers,⁴ pressure ulcers,⁵ and ulcerations associated with systemic sclerosis and Raynaud’s phenomenon.⁶ Evangelista et al¹ investigated whether adding a statin to standard wound care and compression could improve venous stasis ulcer healing.

STUDY SUMMARY: Ulcers are more likely to close when a statin is added to standard care

This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was performed at a large medical center in the Philippines. It was designed to assess the efficacy and safety of simvastatin 40 mg/d for venous ulcer healing when combined with standard treatment (compression therapy, limb elevation, and standard wound care).¹

Researchers randomized 66 patients ages 41 to 71 who’d had one or more venous ulcers for at least 3 months to receive either simvastatin 40 mg/d (N=32) or an identical appearing placebo (N=34). Patients were excluded if they were pregnant, had an ulcer that was infected or >10 cm in diameter, or were taking any medication that could interact with a statin. Patients were stratified according to ulcer diameter (≤5 cm and >5 cm). There was no statistically significant difference between the 2 groups in the duration of venous ulceration (3.80 years in the placebo group vs 3.93 years in the simvastatin group) or incidence of diabetes (5% in the placebo group vs 3% in the simvastatin group).

The primary outcome was the proportion of patients whose ulcers completely healed at 10 weeks. Secondary outcomes were measures of the total surface area healed and healing time, and Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) scores. Baseline ulcer diameter and surface area and DLQI scores were obtained prior to therapy. The same dermatologist, who was blinded to the patients’ assigned group, evaluated all patients every 2 weeks until wound closure or for a maximum of 10 weeks.

Overall, 90% of the patients who received simvastatin had complete ulcer closure at 10 weeks, compared with 34% of patients in the control group (relative risk [RR]=0.16; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.05-0.47; number needed to treat [NNT]=2).

Sixty-seven percent of ulcers >5 cm in the simvastatin group had closure, while none of those in the control group did. Among patients with ulcers ≤5 cm, 100% of the ulcers healed in the simvastatin group, compared to 50% in the control group (RR=0.10; 95% CI, 0.01-0.71; NNT=2). Perhaps more importantly, in patients with ulcers >5 cm, 67% of the ulcers in the simvastatin group had closure with a mean healing time of 9 weeks, whereas none of the ulcers of this size closed in the control group (RR=0.33; 95% CI, 0.12-0.84; NNT=1.5), and the mean healed area was significantly larger in patients who received simvastatin (28.9 cm² vs 19.6 cm²; P=.03).

In addition, in the simvastatin group, healing times were significantly reduced (7.53±1.34 weeks vs 8.55±1.13 weeks) and quality of life (as evaluated by DLQI scoring) significantly improved compared to the control group.

Study dropouts (8%; 2 in the placebo group and 3 in the intervention group) were minimal. Using intention-to-treat analysis and worst-case scenarios for dropouts did not affect the primary outcome. There were no withdrawals for adverse reactions.

WHAT’S NEW: Statins offer significant benefits for treating venous stasis ulcers

This is the first human study to investigate the use of a statin in venous stasis ulcer healing. This intervention demonstrated significant improvements in healing rate and time, a very small NNT for benefit, and improved patient quality of life compared to placebo.

CAVEATS: Results were found in a carefully selected group of patients

Many wounds will heal with compression therapy alone, as occurred in this study, where 50% of ulcers ≤5 cm treated with standard therapy healed, albeit at a somewhat slower rate. Adding another medication to the regimen when these patients generally have multiple comorbidities should always prompt caution.

The study by Evangelista et al¹ was performed in a select population, and the exclusion criteria included the use of some commonly prescribed medications, such as angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. No data were collected on patient body mass index, which is a risk factor for delayed healing. The prevalence of obesity is lower in the Philippines than in the United States, and it is uncertain what role this difference would have in the statin’s effectiveness. Further studies, especially those conducted with a less selective population, would better clarify the generalizability of this intervention.

We found the results of this study impressive. The methods reported are rigorous and consistent with standard RCT methodologies. This is the only study of a statin in human venous stasis disease, but studies in animals—and studies of statins for other types of ulcers in humans—have consistently suggested benefit. It seems hard to argue against adding this low-cost, low-risk intervention.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

There are no known barriers to implementing this practice.

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

Illustrative case

A 74-year-old woman with chronic lower extremity edema seeks treatment for a nonhealing venous stasis ulcer. For the past 9 months, she’s been wearing compression stockings and receiving intermittent home-based wound care, but nothing seems to help. She asks if there’s anything else she can try.

Venous stasis ulcers affect 1% of US adults and lead to substantial morbidity and more than $2 billion in annual health care expenditures.^1,2 Edema management—generally limb elevation and compression therapy—has been the mainstay of therapy. Treatment can be lengthy, and ulcer recurrences are common.^2,3

Statins have been found to help wound healing through their diverse physiologic (pleiotropic) effects. Evidence shows they can be beneficial for treating diabetic foot ulcers,⁴ pressure ulcers,⁵ and ulcerations associated with systemic sclerosis and Raynaud’s phenomenon.⁶ Evangelista et al¹ investigated whether adding a statin to standard wound care and compression could improve venous stasis ulcer healing.

STUDY SUMMARY: Ulcers are more likely to close when a statin is added to standard care

This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was performed at a large medical center in the Philippines. It was designed to assess the efficacy and safety of simvastatin 40 mg/d for venous ulcer healing when combined with standard treatment (compression therapy, limb elevation, and standard wound care).¹

Researchers randomized 66 patients ages 41 to 71 who’d had one or more venous ulcers for at least 3 months to receive either simvastatin 40 mg/d (N=32) or an identical appearing placebo (N=34). Patients were excluded if they were pregnant, had an ulcer that was infected or >10 cm in diameter, or were taking any medication that could interact with a statin. Patients were stratified according to ulcer diameter (≤5 cm and >5 cm). There was no statistically significant difference between the 2 groups in the duration of venous ulceration (3.80 years in the placebo group vs 3.93 years in the simvastatin group) or incidence of diabetes (5% in the placebo group vs 3% in the simvastatin group).

The primary outcome was the proportion of patients whose ulcers completely healed at 10 weeks. Secondary outcomes were measures of the total surface area healed and healing time, and Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) scores. Baseline ulcer diameter and surface area and DLQI scores were obtained prior to therapy. The same dermatologist, who was blinded to the patients’ assigned group, evaluated all patients every 2 weeks until wound closure or for a maximum of 10 weeks.

Overall, 90% of the patients who received simvastatin had complete ulcer closure at 10 weeks, compared with 34% of patients in the control group (relative risk [RR]=0.16; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.05-0.47; number needed to treat [NNT]=2).

Sixty-seven percent of ulcers >5 cm in the simvastatin group had closure, while none of those in the control group did. Among patients with ulcers ≤5 cm, 100% of the ulcers healed in the simvastatin group, compared to 50% in the control group (RR=0.10; 95% CI, 0.01-0.71; NNT=2). Perhaps more importantly, in patients with ulcers >5 cm, 67% of the ulcers in the simvastatin group had closure with a mean healing time of 9 weeks, whereas none of the ulcers of this size closed in the control group (RR=0.33; 95% CI, 0.12-0.84; NNT=1.5), and the mean healed area was significantly larger in patients who received simvastatin (28.9 cm² vs 19.6 cm²; P=.03).

In addition, in the simvastatin group, healing times were significantly reduced (7.53±1.34 weeks vs 8.55±1.13 weeks) and quality of life (as evaluated by DLQI scoring) significantly improved compared to the control group.

Study dropouts (8%; 2 in the placebo group and 3 in the intervention group) were minimal. Using intention-to-treat analysis and worst-case scenarios for dropouts did not affect the primary outcome. There were no withdrawals for adverse reactions.

WHAT’S NEW: Statins offer significant benefits for treating venous stasis ulcers

This is the first human study to investigate the use of a statin in venous stasis ulcer healing. This intervention demonstrated significant improvements in healing rate and time, a very small NNT for benefit, and improved patient quality of life compared to placebo.

CAVEATS: Results were found in a carefully selected group of patients

Many wounds will heal with compression therapy alone, as occurred in this study, where 50% of ulcers ≤5 cm treated with standard therapy healed, albeit at a somewhat slower rate. Adding another medication to the regimen when these patients generally have multiple comorbidities should always prompt caution.

The study by Evangelista et al¹ was performed in a select population, and the exclusion criteria included the use of some commonly prescribed medications, such as angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. No data were collected on patient body mass index, which is a risk factor for delayed healing. The prevalence of obesity is lower in the Philippines than in the United States, and it is uncertain what role this difference would have in the statin’s effectiveness. Further studies, especially those conducted with a less selective population, would better clarify the generalizability of this intervention.

We found the results of this study impressive. The methods reported are rigorous and consistent with standard RCT methodologies. This is the only study of a statin in human venous stasis disease, but studies in animals—and studies of statins for other types of ulcers in humans—have consistently suggested benefit. It seems hard to argue against adding this low-cost, low-risk intervention.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

There are no known barriers to implementing this practice.

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

Illustrative case

A 74-year-old woman with chronic lower extremity edema seeks treatment for a nonhealing venous stasis ulcer. For the past 9 months, she’s been wearing compression stockings and receiving intermittent home-based wound care, but nothing seems to help. She asks if there’s anything else she can try.

Venous stasis ulcers affect 1% of US adults and lead to substantial morbidity and more than $2 billion in annual health care expenditures.^1,2 Edema management—generally limb elevation and compression therapy—has been the mainstay of therapy. Treatment can be lengthy, and ulcer recurrences are common.^2,3

Statins have been found to help wound healing through their diverse physiologic (pleiotropic) effects. Evidence shows they can be beneficial for treating diabetic foot ulcers,⁴ pressure ulcers,⁵ and ulcerations associated with systemic sclerosis and Raynaud’s phenomenon.⁶ Evangelista et al¹ investigated whether adding a statin to standard wound care and compression could improve venous stasis ulcer healing.

STUDY SUMMARY: Ulcers are more likely to close when a statin is added to standard care

This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was performed at a large medical center in the Philippines. It was designed to assess the efficacy and safety of simvastatin 40 mg/d for venous ulcer healing when combined with standard treatment (compression therapy, limb elevation, and standard wound care).¹

Researchers randomized 66 patients ages 41 to 71 who’d had one or more venous ulcers for at least 3 months to receive either simvastatin 40 mg/d (N=32) or an identical appearing placebo (N=34). Patients were excluded if they were pregnant, had an ulcer that was infected or >10 cm in diameter, or were taking any medication that could interact with a statin. Patients were stratified according to ulcer diameter (≤5 cm and >5 cm). There was no statistically significant difference between the 2 groups in the duration of venous ulceration (3.80 years in the placebo group vs 3.93 years in the simvastatin group) or incidence of diabetes (5% in the placebo group vs 3% in the simvastatin group).

The primary outcome was the proportion of patients whose ulcers completely healed at 10 weeks. Secondary outcomes were measures of the total surface area healed and healing time, and Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) scores. Baseline ulcer diameter and surface area and DLQI scores were obtained prior to therapy. The same dermatologist, who was blinded to the patients’ assigned group, evaluated all patients every 2 weeks until wound closure or for a maximum of 10 weeks.

Overall, 90% of the patients who received simvastatin had complete ulcer closure at 10 weeks, compared with 34% of patients in the control group (relative risk [RR]=0.16; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.05-0.47; number needed to treat [NNT]=2).

Sixty-seven percent of ulcers >5 cm in the simvastatin group had closure, while none of those in the control group did. Among patients with ulcers ≤5 cm, 100% of the ulcers healed in the simvastatin group, compared to 50% in the control group (RR=0.10; 95% CI, 0.01-0.71; NNT=2). Perhaps more importantly, in patients with ulcers >5 cm, 67% of the ulcers in the simvastatin group had closure with a mean healing time of 9 weeks, whereas none of the ulcers of this size closed in the control group (RR=0.33; 95% CI, 0.12-0.84; NNT=1.5), and the mean healed area was significantly larger in patients who received simvastatin (28.9 cm² vs 19.6 cm²; P=.03).

In addition, in the simvastatin group, healing times were significantly reduced (7.53±1.34 weeks vs 8.55±1.13 weeks) and quality of life (as evaluated by DLQI scoring) significantly improved compared to the control group.

Study dropouts (8%; 2 in the placebo group and 3 in the intervention group) were minimal. Using intention-to-treat analysis and worst-case scenarios for dropouts did not affect the primary outcome. There were no withdrawals for adverse reactions.

WHAT’S NEW: Statins offer significant benefits for treating venous stasis ulcers

This is the first human study to investigate the use of a statin in venous stasis ulcer healing. This intervention demonstrated significant improvements in healing rate and time, a very small NNT for benefit, and improved patient quality of life compared to placebo.

CAVEATS: Results were found in a carefully selected group of patients

Many wounds will heal with compression therapy alone, as occurred in this study, where 50% of ulcers ≤5 cm treated with standard therapy healed, albeit at a somewhat slower rate. Adding another medication to the regimen when these patients generally have multiple comorbidities should always prompt caution.

The study by Evangelista et al¹ was performed in a select population, and the exclusion criteria included the use of some commonly prescribed medications, such as angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. No data were collected on patient body mass index, which is a risk factor for delayed healing. The prevalence of obesity is lower in the Philippines than in the United States, and it is uncertain what role this difference would have in the statin’s effectiveness. Further studies, especially those conducted with a less selective population, would better clarify the generalizability of this intervention.

We found the results of this study impressive. The methods reported are rigorous and consistent with standard RCT methodologies. This is the only study of a statin in human venous stasis disease, but studies in animals—and studies of statins for other types of ulcers in humans—have consistently suggested benefit. It seems hard to argue against adding this low-cost, low-risk intervention.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

There are no known barriers to implementing this practice.

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

PRACTICE CHANGER
Stop requiring your patients to fast before undergoing lipid testing. Nonfasting total cholesterol (TC), HDL cholesterol, and LDL cholesterol levels are equally predictive of cardiovascular mortality and all-cause mortality.¹

STRENGTH OF RECOMMENDATION
B: Based on a large, cross-sectional cohort study of adults followed for a mean of 14 years with patient-oriented outcomes.¹

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE
A 57-year-old man with diabetes refuses to fast before coming to the clinic for lipid testing because he’s afraid he’ll become hypoglycemic. You have not been able to obtain a lipid panel on him for more than a year, and you want to determine his LDL level. Will a nonfasting lipid panel be useful?

Approximately 71 million adults in the United States have high LDL.² The 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines recommend fasting cholesterol checks for all adults ages 21 and older for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease.³ The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has long recommended screening cholesterol in adults to prevent atherosclerotic vascular disease.

In 2008, the USPSTF recommended lipid screening for all men ages 35 and older, for all men ages 20 to 35 who are at increased risk for coronary heart disease, and for all women ages 20 and older who are at increased risk for coronary heart disease.⁴ The ­USPSTF recommends TC and HDL as the preferred screening tests and states that these can be performed on fasting or nonfasting samples; however, if LDL is added, a fasting sample is recommended.⁴ Other national and international guidelines on cholesterol management also recommend a fasting lipid panel to stratify patients’ risk and determine treatment options.^5-7

LDL usually is reported as a calculated value using the Friedewald equation (LDL equals TC minus HDL minus [triglycerides divided by 5]).⁸ This calculation is not accurate for patients with triglyceride levels > 400 mg/dL, which has prompted most authorities to recommend a fasting sample. That’s because while TC and HDL are not affected by food (and LDL may vary by only 10% or less), triglycerides can fluctuate by 20% to 30%, which would influence the calculation of a nonfasting LDL.^9,10 LDL can be measured directly, but the process is generally expensive and not commonly used.¹¹

The CDC estimates that more than 20% of US adults (48 million people) have not had a screening lipid panel in the previous five years.¹² One barrier to screening is that both clinicians and patients often believe that a fasting specimen is required. Yet fasting specimens are difficult to obtain because they often require a separate visit to the clinic, which can result in lost time from work and additional transportation costs.

Continue for study summary >>

STUDY SUMMARY
There’s no difference between fasting and nonfasting LDL
Doran et al¹ used data from the NHANES III survey to compare the prognostic value of fasting versus nonfasting LDL for all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality. NHANES III is a nationally representative cross-sectional survey that was conducted from 1988 to 1994.¹³ Doran et al¹ included 16,161 US adults ages 18 and older for whom data on fasting time were available. Participants for whom LDL calculations were not possible (due to missing HDL, TC, or triglyceride levels) were excluded. Those with triglycerides ≥ 400 mg/dL were excluded from the primary analysis.

Participants were stratified based on fasting status (≥ 8 hours or < 8 hours) and followed for a mean of 14 years. To control for possible confounders, the researchers used propensity score matching to identify 4,299 pairs of fasting and nonfasting individuals with similar cardiovascular risk factors, including race, smoking history, prior cardiovascular disease, cholesterol medication use, diabetes, elevated TC, low HDL, hypertension, enlarged waist circumference, and low socioeconomic status. After matching, the baseline characteristics of the fasting and nonfasting groups were similar.

The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, and the secondary outcome was cardiovascular mortality. The prognostic value of fasting and nonfasting LDL for these outcomes was evaluated as the area under the receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve using the Hosmer-Lemeshow C-statistic.¹⁴ (In this case, similar C-statistics indicate that the tests have similar prognostic values.*) Kaplan-Meier curves were used to assess survival. The association of LDL with mortality, after adjustment for potential confounders, was evaluated using Cox proportional hazard models. The groups were divided into tertiles based on LDL levels (< 100 mg/dL, 100-130 mg/dL, and > 130 mg/dL).

As expected, compared to individuals in the first LDL tertile (< 100 mg/dL), those with a higher LDL had an increased risk for all-cause mortality (hazard ratios [HR], 1.61 for the second tertile and 2.10 for the third tertile). The prognostic value of fasting versus nonfasting status for predicting all-cause mortality was similar, as suggested by the C-statistics (0.59 vs 0.58; P = .73).

The risk for cardiovascular mortality also increased with increasing LDL tertiles. As was the case with all-cause mortality, the prognostic value of fasting versus nonfasting status was similar for predicting cardiovascular mortality as observed by similar C-statistics (0.64 vs 0.63; P = .49). In addition, fasting versus nonfasting C-statistics were similar for both diabetic and nondiabetic patients.

WHAT’S NEW
Results suggest fasting may no longer be necessary
While obtaining a fasting lipid panel is recommended by multiple guidelines and has become traditional practice, the need for fasting originated primarily out of concern for the effect of postprandial triglycerides on calculating LDL. This is the first study that compared the prognostic value of fasting and nonfasting LDL levels for predicting mortality; it demonstrated that they are essentially the same.

Next page: Caveats and challenges >>

CAVEATS
Fasting and nonfasting ­measurements were taken from different patients
The fasting and nonfasting lipids were not collected from the same individuals. However, to decrease confounding, Doran et al¹ factored in multiple cardiovascular risk factors as covariables.

Another caveat is that individuals with triglyceride levels > 400 mg/dL were excluded. However, investigators ran a sensitivity analysis that included individuals with triglycerides > 400 mg/dL and found no significant difference in C-statistics between the fasting and nonfasting groups.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION
Dropping the requirement to fast goes against established practice
It may be difficult for clinicians to change a longstanding practice of checking fasting lipid profiles, but we see no other barriers to adopting this recommendation.

REFERENCES
1. Doran B, Guo Y, Xu J, et al. Prognostic value of fasting versus nonfasting low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels on long-term mortality: insight from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey III (NHANES-III). Circulation. 2014;130:546-553.
2. CDC. Vital signs: prevalence, treatment, and control of high levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol—United States, 1999-2002 and 2005-2008. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2011;60:109-114.
3. Stone NJ, Robinson JG, Lichtenstein AH, et al; American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. 2013 ACC/AHA guideline on the treatment of blood cholesterol to reduce atherosclerotic cardiovascular risk in adults: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63(25 pt B):2889-2934.
4. US Preventive Services Task Force. Clinical summary: lipid disorders in adults (cholesterol, dyslipidemia)—screening. www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Page/Docu ment/ClinicalSummaryFinal/lipid-disorders-in-adults-cholesterol-dyslipidemia-screening. Accessed February 13, 2015.
5. National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults (Adult Treatment Panel III). Third report of the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults (Adult Treatment Panel III) final report. Circulation. 2002;106: 3143-3421.
6. De Backer G, Ambrosioni E, Borch-Johnsen K, et al; European Society of Cardiology, American Heart Association. American College of Cardiology. European guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice: third Joint Task Force of European and other Societies on Cardiovascular Disease Prevention in Clinical Practice (constituted by representatives of eight societies and by invited experts). Atherosclerosis. 2004;173:381-391.
7. Genest J, McPherson R, Frohlich J, et al. 2009 Canadian Cardiovascular Society/Canadian guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of dyslipidemia and prevention of cardiovascular disease in the adult—2009 recommendations. Can J Cardiol. 2009;25:567-579.
8. Friedewald WT, Levy RI, Fredrickson DS. ­Estimation of the concentration of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol in plasma, without use of the preparative ultracentrifuge. Clin Chem. 1972;8:499-502.
9. Sidhu D, Naugler C. Fasting time and lipid levels in a community-based population: a cross-sectional study. Arch Intern Med. 2012;172:1707-1710.
10. Langsted A, Nordestgaard BG. Nonfasting lipids, lipoproteins, and apolipoproteins in individuals with and without diabetes: 58,434 individuals from the Copenhagen General Population Study. Clin Chem. 2001;57:482-489.
11. Mora S, Rifai N, Buring JE, et al. Comparison of LDL cholesterol concentrations by Friedewald calculation and direct measurement in relation to cardiovascular events in 27,331 women. Clin Chem. 2009;55:888-894.
12. Gillespie CD, Keenan NL, Miner JB, et al; CDC. Screening for lipid disorders among adults—National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, United States, 2005-2008. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2012;61 suppl:26-31.
13.  CDC. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/nh3data.htm. Accessed February 13, 2015.
14.  Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S. Applied Logistic Regression. 2nd ed. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons; 2000.

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

Copyright © 2015. The Family Physicians Inquiries Network. All rights reserved.

Reprinted with permission from the Family Physicians Inquiries Network and The Journal of Family Practice. 2015;64(2):113-115.

PRACTICE CHANGER
Stop requiring your patients to fast before undergoing lipid testing. Nonfasting total cholesterol (TC), HDL cholesterol, and LDL cholesterol levels are equally predictive of cardiovascular mortality and all-cause mortality.¹

STRENGTH OF RECOMMENDATION
B: Based on a large, cross-sectional cohort study of adults followed for a mean of 14 years with patient-oriented outcomes.¹

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE
A 57-year-old man with diabetes refuses to fast before coming to the clinic for lipid testing because he’s afraid he’ll become hypoglycemic. You have not been able to obtain a lipid panel on him for more than a year, and you want to determine his LDL level. Will a nonfasting lipid panel be useful?

Approximately 71 million adults in the United States have high LDL.² The 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines recommend fasting cholesterol checks for all adults ages 21 and older for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease.³ The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has long recommended screening cholesterol in adults to prevent atherosclerotic vascular disease.

In 2008, the USPSTF recommended lipid screening for all men ages 35 and older, for all men ages 20 to 35 who are at increased risk for coronary heart disease, and for all women ages 20 and older who are at increased risk for coronary heart disease.⁴ The ­USPSTF recommends TC and HDL as the preferred screening tests and states that these can be performed on fasting or nonfasting samples; however, if LDL is added, a fasting sample is recommended.⁴ Other national and international guidelines on cholesterol management also recommend a fasting lipid panel to stratify patients’ risk and determine treatment options.^5-7

LDL usually is reported as a calculated value using the Friedewald equation (LDL equals TC minus HDL minus [triglycerides divided by 5]).⁸ This calculation is not accurate for patients with triglyceride levels > 400 mg/dL, which has prompted most authorities to recommend a fasting sample. That’s because while TC and HDL are not affected by food (and LDL may vary by only 10% or less), triglycerides can fluctuate by 20% to 30%, which would influence the calculation of a nonfasting LDL.^9,10 LDL can be measured directly, but the process is generally expensive and not commonly used.¹¹

The CDC estimates that more than 20% of US adults (48 million people) have not had a screening lipid panel in the previous five years.¹² One barrier to screening is that both clinicians and patients often believe that a fasting specimen is required. Yet fasting specimens are difficult to obtain because they often require a separate visit to the clinic, which can result in lost time from work and additional transportation costs.

Continue for study summary >>

STUDY SUMMARY
There’s no difference between fasting and nonfasting LDL
Doran et al¹ used data from the NHANES III survey to compare the prognostic value of fasting versus nonfasting LDL for all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality. NHANES III is a nationally representative cross-sectional survey that was conducted from 1988 to 1994.¹³ Doran et al¹ included 16,161 US adults ages 18 and older for whom data on fasting time were available. Participants for whom LDL calculations were not possible (due to missing HDL, TC, or triglyceride levels) were excluded. Those with triglycerides ≥ 400 mg/dL were excluded from the primary analysis.

Participants were stratified based on fasting status (≥ 8 hours or < 8 hours) and followed for a mean of 14 years. To control for possible confounders, the researchers used propensity score matching to identify 4,299 pairs of fasting and nonfasting individuals with similar cardiovascular risk factors, including race, smoking history, prior cardiovascular disease, cholesterol medication use, diabetes, elevated TC, low HDL, hypertension, enlarged waist circumference, and low socioeconomic status. After matching, the baseline characteristics of the fasting and nonfasting groups were similar.

The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, and the secondary outcome was cardiovascular mortality. The prognostic value of fasting and nonfasting LDL for these outcomes was evaluated as the area under the receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve using the Hosmer-Lemeshow C-statistic.¹⁴ (In this case, similar C-statistics indicate that the tests have similar prognostic values.*) Kaplan-Meier curves were used to assess survival. The association of LDL with mortality, after adjustment for potential confounders, was evaluated using Cox proportional hazard models. The groups were divided into tertiles based on LDL levels (< 100 mg/dL, 100-130 mg/dL, and > 130 mg/dL).

As expected, compared to individuals in the first LDL tertile (< 100 mg/dL), those with a higher LDL had an increased risk for all-cause mortality (hazard ratios [HR], 1.61 for the second tertile and 2.10 for the third tertile). The prognostic value of fasting versus nonfasting status for predicting all-cause mortality was similar, as suggested by the C-statistics (0.59 vs 0.58; P = .73).

The risk for cardiovascular mortality also increased with increasing LDL tertiles. As was the case with all-cause mortality, the prognostic value of fasting versus nonfasting status was similar for predicting cardiovascular mortality as observed by similar C-statistics (0.64 vs 0.63; P = .49). In addition, fasting versus nonfasting C-statistics were similar for both diabetic and nondiabetic patients.

WHAT’S NEW
Results suggest fasting may no longer be necessary
While obtaining a fasting lipid panel is recommended by multiple guidelines and has become traditional practice, the need for fasting originated primarily out of concern for the effect of postprandial triglycerides on calculating LDL. This is the first study that compared the prognostic value of fasting and nonfasting LDL levels for predicting mortality; it demonstrated that they are essentially the same.

Next page: Caveats and challenges >>

CAVEATS
Fasting and nonfasting ­measurements were taken from different patients
The fasting and nonfasting lipids were not collected from the same individuals. However, to decrease confounding, Doran et al¹ factored in multiple cardiovascular risk factors as covariables.

Another caveat is that individuals with triglyceride levels > 400 mg/dL were excluded. However, investigators ran a sensitivity analysis that included individuals with triglycerides > 400 mg/dL and found no significant difference in C-statistics between the fasting and nonfasting groups.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION
Dropping the requirement to fast goes against established practice
It may be difficult for clinicians to change a longstanding practice of checking fasting lipid profiles, but we see no other barriers to adopting this recommendation.

REFERENCES
1. Doran B, Guo Y, Xu J, et al. Prognostic value of fasting versus nonfasting low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels on long-term mortality: insight from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey III (NHANES-III). Circulation. 2014;130:546-553.
2. CDC. Vital signs: prevalence, treatment, and control of high levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol—United States, 1999-2002 and 2005-2008. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2011;60:109-114.
3. Stone NJ, Robinson JG, Lichtenstein AH, et al; American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. 2013 ACC/AHA guideline on the treatment of blood cholesterol to reduce atherosclerotic cardiovascular risk in adults: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63(25 pt B):2889-2934.
4. US Preventive Services Task Force. Clinical summary: lipid disorders in adults (cholesterol, dyslipidemia)—screening. www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Page/Docu ment/ClinicalSummaryFinal/lipid-disorders-in-adults-cholesterol-dyslipidemia-screening. Accessed February 13, 2015.
5. National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults (Adult Treatment Panel III). Third report of the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults (Adult Treatment Panel III) final report. Circulation. 2002;106: 3143-3421.
6. De Backer G, Ambrosioni E, Borch-Johnsen K, et al; European Society of Cardiology, American Heart Association. American College of Cardiology. European guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice: third Joint Task Force of European and other Societies on Cardiovascular Disease Prevention in Clinical Practice (constituted by representatives of eight societies and by invited experts). Atherosclerosis. 2004;173:381-391.
7. Genest J, McPherson R, Frohlich J, et al. 2009 Canadian Cardiovascular Society/Canadian guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of dyslipidemia and prevention of cardiovascular disease in the adult—2009 recommendations. Can J Cardiol. 2009;25:567-579.
8. Friedewald WT, Levy RI, Fredrickson DS. ­Estimation of the concentration of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol in plasma, without use of the preparative ultracentrifuge. Clin Chem. 1972;8:499-502.
9. Sidhu D, Naugler C. Fasting time and lipid levels in a community-based population: a cross-sectional study. Arch Intern Med. 2012;172:1707-1710.
10. Langsted A, Nordestgaard BG. Nonfasting lipids, lipoproteins, and apolipoproteins in individuals with and without diabetes: 58,434 individuals from the Copenhagen General Population Study. Clin Chem. 2001;57:482-489.
11. Mora S, Rifai N, Buring JE, et al. Comparison of LDL cholesterol concentrations by Friedewald calculation and direct measurement in relation to cardiovascular events in 27,331 women. Clin Chem. 2009;55:888-894.
12. Gillespie CD, Keenan NL, Miner JB, et al; CDC. Screening for lipid disorders among adults—National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, United States, 2005-2008. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2012;61 suppl:26-31.
13.  CDC. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/nh3data.htm. Accessed February 13, 2015.
14.  Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S. Applied Logistic Regression. 2nd ed. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons; 2000.

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

Copyright © 2015. The Family Physicians Inquiries Network. All rights reserved.

Reprinted with permission from the Family Physicians Inquiries Network and The Journal of Family Practice. 2015;64(2):113-115.

PRACTICE CHANGER
Stop requiring your patients to fast before undergoing lipid testing. Nonfasting total cholesterol (TC), HDL cholesterol, and LDL cholesterol levels are equally predictive of cardiovascular mortality and all-cause mortality.¹

STRENGTH OF RECOMMENDATION
B: Based on a large, cross-sectional cohort study of adults followed for a mean of 14 years with patient-oriented outcomes.¹

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE
A 57-year-old man with diabetes refuses to fast before coming to the clinic for lipid testing because he’s afraid he’ll become hypoglycemic. You have not been able to obtain a lipid panel on him for more than a year, and you want to determine his LDL level. Will a nonfasting lipid panel be useful?

Approximately 71 million adults in the United States have high LDL.² The 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines recommend fasting cholesterol checks for all adults ages 21 and older for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease.³ The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has long recommended screening cholesterol in adults to prevent atherosclerotic vascular disease.

In 2008, the USPSTF recommended lipid screening for all men ages 35 and older, for all men ages 20 to 35 who are at increased risk for coronary heart disease, and for all women ages 20 and older who are at increased risk for coronary heart disease.⁴ The ­USPSTF recommends TC and HDL as the preferred screening tests and states that these can be performed on fasting or nonfasting samples; however, if LDL is added, a fasting sample is recommended.⁴ Other national and international guidelines on cholesterol management also recommend a fasting lipid panel to stratify patients’ risk and determine treatment options.^5-7

LDL usually is reported as a calculated value using the Friedewald equation (LDL equals TC minus HDL minus [triglycerides divided by 5]).⁸ This calculation is not accurate for patients with triglyceride levels > 400 mg/dL, which has prompted most authorities to recommend a fasting sample. That’s because while TC and HDL are not affected by food (and LDL may vary by only 10% or less), triglycerides can fluctuate by 20% to 30%, which would influence the calculation of a nonfasting LDL.^9,10 LDL can be measured directly, but the process is generally expensive and not commonly used.¹¹

The CDC estimates that more than 20% of US adults (48 million people) have not had a screening lipid panel in the previous five years.¹² One barrier to screening is that both clinicians and patients often believe that a fasting specimen is required. Yet fasting specimens are difficult to obtain because they often require a separate visit to the clinic, which can result in lost time from work and additional transportation costs.

Continue for study summary >>

STUDY SUMMARY
There’s no difference between fasting and nonfasting LDL
Doran et al¹ used data from the NHANES III survey to compare the prognostic value of fasting versus nonfasting LDL for all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality. NHANES III is a nationally representative cross-sectional survey that was conducted from 1988 to 1994.¹³ Doran et al¹ included 16,161 US adults ages 18 and older for whom data on fasting time were available. Participants for whom LDL calculations were not possible (due to missing HDL, TC, or triglyceride levels) were excluded. Those with triglycerides ≥ 400 mg/dL were excluded from the primary analysis.

Participants were stratified based on fasting status (≥ 8 hours or < 8 hours) and followed for a mean of 14 years. To control for possible confounders, the researchers used propensity score matching to identify 4,299 pairs of fasting and nonfasting individuals with similar cardiovascular risk factors, including race, smoking history, prior cardiovascular disease, cholesterol medication use, diabetes, elevated TC, low HDL, hypertension, enlarged waist circumference, and low socioeconomic status. After matching, the baseline characteristics of the fasting and nonfasting groups were similar.

The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, and the secondary outcome was cardiovascular mortality. The prognostic value of fasting and nonfasting LDL for these outcomes was evaluated as the area under the receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve using the Hosmer-Lemeshow C-statistic.¹⁴ (In this case, similar C-statistics indicate that the tests have similar prognostic values.*) Kaplan-Meier curves were used to assess survival. The association of LDL with mortality, after adjustment for potential confounders, was evaluated using Cox proportional hazard models. The groups were divided into tertiles based on LDL levels (< 100 mg/dL, 100-130 mg/dL, and > 130 mg/dL).

As expected, compared to individuals in the first LDL tertile (< 100 mg/dL), those with a higher LDL had an increased risk for all-cause mortality (hazard ratios [HR], 1.61 for the second tertile and 2.10 for the third tertile). The prognostic value of fasting versus nonfasting status for predicting all-cause mortality was similar, as suggested by the C-statistics (0.59 vs 0.58; P = .73).

The risk for cardiovascular mortality also increased with increasing LDL tertiles. As was the case with all-cause mortality, the prognostic value of fasting versus nonfasting status was similar for predicting cardiovascular mortality as observed by similar C-statistics (0.64 vs 0.63; P = .49). In addition, fasting versus nonfasting C-statistics were similar for both diabetic and nondiabetic patients.

WHAT’S NEW
Results suggest fasting may no longer be necessary
While obtaining a fasting lipid panel is recommended by multiple guidelines and has become traditional practice, the need for fasting originated primarily out of concern for the effect of postprandial triglycerides on calculating LDL. This is the first study that compared the prognostic value of fasting and nonfasting LDL levels for predicting mortality; it demonstrated that they are essentially the same.

Next page: Caveats and challenges >>

CAVEATS
Fasting and nonfasting ­measurements were taken from different patients
The fasting and nonfasting lipids were not collected from the same individuals. However, to decrease confounding, Doran et al¹ factored in multiple cardiovascular risk factors as covariables.

Another caveat is that individuals with triglyceride levels > 400 mg/dL were excluded. However, investigators ran a sensitivity analysis that included individuals with triglycerides > 400 mg/dL and found no significant difference in C-statistics between the fasting and nonfasting groups.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION
Dropping the requirement to fast goes against established practice
It may be difficult for clinicians to change a longstanding practice of checking fasting lipid profiles, but we see no other barriers to adopting this recommendation.

REFERENCES
1. Doran B, Guo Y, Xu J, et al. Prognostic value of fasting versus nonfasting low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels on long-term mortality: insight from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey III (NHANES-III). Circulation. 2014;130:546-553.
2. CDC. Vital signs: prevalence, treatment, and control of high levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol—United States, 1999-2002 and 2005-2008. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2011;60:109-114.
3. Stone NJ, Robinson JG, Lichtenstein AH, et al; American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. 2013 ACC/AHA guideline on the treatment of blood cholesterol to reduce atherosclerotic cardiovascular risk in adults: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63(25 pt B):2889-2934.
4. US Preventive Services Task Force. Clinical summary: lipid disorders in adults (cholesterol, dyslipidemia)—screening. www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Page/Docu ment/ClinicalSummaryFinal/lipid-disorders-in-adults-cholesterol-dyslipidemia-screening. Accessed February 13, 2015.
5. National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults (Adult Treatment Panel III). Third report of the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults (Adult Treatment Panel III) final report. Circulation. 2002;106: 3143-3421.
6. De Backer G, Ambrosioni E, Borch-Johnsen K, et al; European Society of Cardiology, American Heart Association. American College of Cardiology. European guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice: third Joint Task Force of European and other Societies on Cardiovascular Disease Prevention in Clinical Practice (constituted by representatives of eight societies and by invited experts). Atherosclerosis. 2004;173:381-391.
7. Genest J, McPherson R, Frohlich J, et al. 2009 Canadian Cardiovascular Society/Canadian guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of dyslipidemia and prevention of cardiovascular disease in the adult—2009 recommendations. Can J Cardiol. 2009;25:567-579.
8. Friedewald WT, Levy RI, Fredrickson DS. ­Estimation of the concentration of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol in plasma, without use of the preparative ultracentrifuge. Clin Chem. 1972;8:499-502.
9. Sidhu D, Naugler C. Fasting time and lipid levels in a community-based population: a cross-sectional study. Arch Intern Med. 2012;172:1707-1710.
10. Langsted A, Nordestgaard BG. Nonfasting lipids, lipoproteins, and apolipoproteins in individuals with and without diabetes: 58,434 individuals from the Copenhagen General Population Study. Clin Chem. 2001;57:482-489.
11. Mora S, Rifai N, Buring JE, et al. Comparison of LDL cholesterol concentrations by Friedewald calculation and direct measurement in relation to cardiovascular events in 27,331 women. Clin Chem. 2009;55:888-894.
12. Gillespie CD, Keenan NL, Miner JB, et al; CDC. Screening for lipid disorders among adults—National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, United States, 2005-2008. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2012;61 suppl:26-31.
13.  CDC. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/nh3data.htm. Accessed February 13, 2015.
14.  Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S. Applied Logistic Regression. 2nd ed. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons; 2000.

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

Copyright © 2015. The Family Physicians Inquiries Network. All rights reserved.

Reprinted with permission from the Family Physicians Inquiries Network and The Journal of Family Practice. 2015;64(2):113-115.

Illustrative case

A 57-year-old man with diabetes refuses to fast before coming to the clinic for lipid testing because he’s afraid he’ll become hypoglycemic. You have not been able to obtain a lipid panel on him for more than a year and you want to determine his LDL level. Will a nonfasting lipid panel be useful?

Approximately 71 million US adults have high LDL.² The 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines recommend fasting cholesterol checks for all adults ages 21 and older for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease.³ The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has long recommended screening cholesterol in adults to prevent atherosclerotic vascular disease.

In 2008, the USPSTF recommended lipid screening for all men ages 35 years and older, for all men ages 20 to 35 years who are at increased risk for coronary heart disease, and for all women ages 20 years and older who are at increased risk for coronary heart disease.⁴ The USPSTF recommends TC and HDL as the preferred screening tests and states that these tests can be performed on fasting or nonfasting samples, but if LDL is added, a fasting sample is recommended.⁴ Other national and international guidelines on cholesterol management also recommend a fasting lipid panel to stratify patients’ risk and determine treatment options.^5-7

LDL usually is reported as a calculated value using the Friedewald equation (LDL equals TC minus HDL minus [triglycerides divided by 5]).⁸ This calculation is not accurate for patients with triglyceride levels >400 mg/dL, which has prompted most authorities to recommend a fasting sample. That’s because while TC and HDL are not affected by food (and LDL may vary by only 10% or less), triglycerides can fluctuate by 20% to 30%, which would influence the calculation of a nonfasting LDL.^9,10 LDL can be measured directly, but the process is generally expensive and not commonly used.¹¹

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that over 20% of US adults (more than 48 million people) have not had a screening lipid panel in the previous 5 years.¹² One barrier to screening is that both physicians and patients often believe that a fasting specimen is required. Yet fasting specimens are difficult to obtain because they often require a separate visit to the clinic, which can result in lost time from work and additional transportation costs.

STUDY SUMMARY: There’s no difference between fasting and nonfasting LDL

Doran et al¹ used data from the NHANES-III survey to compare the prognostic value of fasting vs nonfasting LDL for all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality. NHANES-III is a nationally representative cross-sectional survey that was performed from 1988 to 1994.¹³ Doran et al¹ included 16,161 US adults ages 18 years and older for whom data on fasting time were available. Participants for whom LDL calculations were not possible due to missing HDL, TC, or triglyceride levels were excluded. Those with triglycerides ≥400 mg/dL were excluded from the primary analysis.

Participants were stratified based on fasting status (≥8 hours or <8 hours) and followed for a mean of 14 (± .22) years. To control for possible cofounders, researchers used propensity score matching to identify 4299 pairs of fasting and nonfasting individuals with similar cardiovascular risk factors, including race, smoking history, prior cardiovascular disease, cholesterol medication use, diabetes, elevated TC, low HDL, hypertension, enlarged waist circumference, and low socioeconomic status. After matching, the baseline characteristics of the fasting and nonfasting groups were similar.

The prognostic value of fasting vs nonfasting status for predicting all-cause mortality was similar.The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, and the secondary outcome was cardiovascular mortality. The prognostic value of fasting and nonfasting LDL for these outcomes was evaluated as the area under the receiver operator curve (ROC) using the Hosmer-Lemeshow C-statistic.¹⁴ (In this case, similar C-statistics indicate that the tests have similar prognostic values.*) Kaplan-Meier curves were used to assess survival. The association of LDL with mortality, after adjustment of potential confounders, was evaluated using Cox proportional hazard models. The groups were divided into tertiles based on LDL levels (<100 mg/dL, 100-130 mg/dL, and >130 mg/dL).

As expected, compared to individuals in the first LDL tertile (<100 mg/dL), those with a higher LDL had an increased risk of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR]=1.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.25-2.08 [second tertile] and HR=2.10;  95% CI, 1.70-2.61 [third tertile]). The prognostic value of fasting vs nonfasting status for predicting all-cause mortality was similar, as suggested by the C-statistics (0.59 [95% CI, 0.56-0.61] vs 0.58 [95% CI, 0.56-0.60]; P=.73).

The risk of cardiovascular mortality also increased with increasing LDL tertiles. As was the case with all-cause mortality, the prognostic value of fasting vs nonfasting status was similar for predicting cardiovascular mortality as observed by similar C-statistics (0.64 [95% CI, 0.62-0.66] vs 0.63 [95% CI, 0.60-0.65]; P=.49). In addition, fasting vs nonfasting C-statistics were similar for both diabetic and non-diabetic patients.

WHAT’S NEW: Results suggest fasting may no longer be necessary

While obtaining a fasting lipid panel is recommended by multiple guidelines and has become traditional practice, the need for fasting originated primarily out of concern for the effect of postprandial triglycerides on calculating LDL. This is the first study that compared the prognostic value of fasting and nonfasting LDL values for predicting mortality; it demonstrated that they are essentially the same.

CAVEATS: Fasting and nonfasting measurements were taken from different patients

The only challenge: It may be difficult for physicians to change a longstanding practice of checking fasting lipid profiles.The fasting and nonfasting lipids were not collected from the same individuals. However, to decrease confounding, Doran et al¹ factored in multiple cardiovascular risk factors as covariables.

Another caveat is that individuals with triglyceride levels >400 mg/dL were excluded. However, investigators ran a sensitivity analysis that included individuals with triglycerides >400 mg/dL and found no significant difference in C-statistics between the fasting and nonfasting groups.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION: Dropping the requirement to fast goes against established practice

It may be difficult for physicians to change a longstanding practice of checking fasting lipid profiles, but we see no other barriers to adopting this recommendation.

* The C-statistic is the probability that predicting the outcome is better than chance and is used to compare the goodness of fit of logistic regression models. Values for this measure range from 0.5 to 1.0. A value of 0.5 indicates that the model is no better than chance at making a prediction of membership in a group and a value of 1.0 indicates that the model perfectly identifies those within a group and those not.

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

Illustrative case

A 57-year-old man with diabetes refuses to fast before coming to the clinic for lipid testing because he’s afraid he’ll become hypoglycemic. You have not been able to obtain a lipid panel on him for more than a year and you want to determine his LDL level. Will a nonfasting lipid panel be useful?

Approximately 71 million US adults have high LDL.² The 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines recommend fasting cholesterol checks for all adults ages 21 and older for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease.³ The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has long recommended screening cholesterol in adults to prevent atherosclerotic vascular disease.

In 2008, the USPSTF recommended lipid screening for all men ages 35 years and older, for all men ages 20 to 35 years who are at increased risk for coronary heart disease, and for all women ages 20 years and older who are at increased risk for coronary heart disease.⁴ The USPSTF recommends TC and HDL as the preferred screening tests and states that these tests can be performed on fasting or nonfasting samples, but if LDL is added, a fasting sample is recommended.⁴ Other national and international guidelines on cholesterol management also recommend a fasting lipid panel to stratify patients’ risk and determine treatment options.^5-7

LDL usually is reported as a calculated value using the Friedewald equation (LDL equals TC minus HDL minus [triglycerides divided by 5]).⁸ This calculation is not accurate for patients with triglyceride levels >400 mg/dL, which has prompted most authorities to recommend a fasting sample. That’s because while TC and HDL are not affected by food (and LDL may vary by only 10% or less), triglycerides can fluctuate by 20% to 30%, which would influence the calculation of a nonfasting LDL.^9,10 LDL can be measured directly, but the process is generally expensive and not commonly used.¹¹

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that over 20% of US adults (more than 48 million people) have not had a screening lipid panel in the previous 5 years.¹² One barrier to screening is that both physicians and patients often believe that a fasting specimen is required. Yet fasting specimens are difficult to obtain because they often require a separate visit to the clinic, which can result in lost time from work and additional transportation costs.

STUDY SUMMARY: There’s no difference between fasting and nonfasting LDL

Doran et al¹ used data from the NHANES-III survey to compare the prognostic value of fasting vs nonfasting LDL for all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality. NHANES-III is a nationally representative cross-sectional survey that was performed from 1988 to 1994.¹³ Doran et al¹ included 16,161 US adults ages 18 years and older for whom data on fasting time were available. Participants for whom LDL calculations were not possible due to missing HDL, TC, or triglyceride levels were excluded. Those with triglycerides ≥400 mg/dL were excluded from the primary analysis.

Participants were stratified based on fasting status (≥8 hours or <8 hours) and followed for a mean of 14 (± .22) years. To control for possible cofounders, researchers used propensity score matching to identify 4299 pairs of fasting and nonfasting individuals with similar cardiovascular risk factors, including race, smoking history, prior cardiovascular disease, cholesterol medication use, diabetes, elevated TC, low HDL, hypertension, enlarged waist circumference, and low socioeconomic status. After matching, the baseline characteristics of the fasting and nonfasting groups were similar.

The prognostic value of fasting vs nonfasting status for predicting all-cause mortality was similar.The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, and the secondary outcome was cardiovascular mortality. The prognostic value of fasting and nonfasting LDL for these outcomes was evaluated as the area under the receiver operator curve (ROC) using the Hosmer-Lemeshow C-statistic.¹⁴ (In this case, similar C-statistics indicate that the tests have similar prognostic values.*) Kaplan-Meier curves were used to assess survival. The association of LDL with mortality, after adjustment of potential confounders, was evaluated using Cox proportional hazard models. The groups were divided into tertiles based on LDL levels (<100 mg/dL, 100-130 mg/dL, and >130 mg/dL).

As expected, compared to individuals in the first LDL tertile (<100 mg/dL), those with a higher LDL had an increased risk of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR]=1.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.25-2.08 [second tertile] and HR=2.10;  95% CI, 1.70-2.61 [third tertile]). The prognostic value of fasting vs nonfasting status for predicting all-cause mortality was similar, as suggested by the C-statistics (0.59 [95% CI, 0.56-0.61] vs 0.58 [95% CI, 0.56-0.60]; P=.73).

The risk of cardiovascular mortality also increased with increasing LDL tertiles. As was the case with all-cause mortality, the prognostic value of fasting vs nonfasting status was similar for predicting cardiovascular mortality as observed by similar C-statistics (0.64 [95% CI, 0.62-0.66] vs 0.63 [95% CI, 0.60-0.65]; P=.49). In addition, fasting vs nonfasting C-statistics were similar for both diabetic and non-diabetic patients.

WHAT’S NEW: Results suggest fasting may no longer be necessary

While obtaining a fasting lipid panel is recommended by multiple guidelines and has become traditional practice, the need for fasting originated primarily out of concern for the effect of postprandial triglycerides on calculating LDL. This is the first study that compared the prognostic value of fasting and nonfasting LDL values for predicting mortality; it demonstrated that they are essentially the same.

CAVEATS: Fasting and nonfasting measurements were taken from different patients

The only challenge: It may be difficult for physicians to change a longstanding practice of checking fasting lipid profiles.The fasting and nonfasting lipids were not collected from the same individuals. However, to decrease confounding, Doran et al¹ factored in multiple cardiovascular risk factors as covariables.

Another caveat is that individuals with triglyceride levels >400 mg/dL were excluded. However, investigators ran a sensitivity analysis that included individuals with triglycerides >400 mg/dL and found no significant difference in C-statistics between the fasting and nonfasting groups.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION: Dropping the requirement to fast goes against established practice

It may be difficult for physicians to change a longstanding practice of checking fasting lipid profiles, but we see no other barriers to adopting this recommendation.

* The C-statistic is the probability that predicting the outcome is better than chance and is used to compare the goodness of fit of logistic regression models. Values for this measure range from 0.5 to 1.0. A value of 0.5 indicates that the model is no better than chance at making a prediction of membership in a group and a value of 1.0 indicates that the model perfectly identifies those within a group and those not.

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

Illustrative case

A 57-year-old man with diabetes refuses to fast before coming to the clinic for lipid testing because he’s afraid he’ll become hypoglycemic. You have not been able to obtain a lipid panel on him for more than a year and you want to determine his LDL level. Will a nonfasting lipid panel be useful?

Approximately 71 million US adults have high LDL.² The 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines recommend fasting cholesterol checks for all adults ages 21 and older for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease.³ The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has long recommended screening cholesterol in adults to prevent atherosclerotic vascular disease.

In 2008, the USPSTF recommended lipid screening for all men ages 35 years and older, for all men ages 20 to 35 years who are at increased risk for coronary heart disease, and for all women ages 20 years and older who are at increased risk for coronary heart disease.⁴ The USPSTF recommends TC and HDL as the preferred screening tests and states that these tests can be performed on fasting or nonfasting samples, but if LDL is added, a fasting sample is recommended.⁴ Other national and international guidelines on cholesterol management also recommend a fasting lipid panel to stratify patients’ risk and determine treatment options.^5-7

LDL usually is reported as a calculated value using the Friedewald equation (LDL equals TC minus HDL minus [triglycerides divided by 5]).⁸ This calculation is not accurate for patients with triglyceride levels >400 mg/dL, which has prompted most authorities to recommend a fasting sample. That’s because while TC and HDL are not affected by food (and LDL may vary by only 10% or less), triglycerides can fluctuate by 20% to 30%, which would influence the calculation of a nonfasting LDL.^9,10 LDL can be measured directly, but the process is generally expensive and not commonly used.¹¹

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that over 20% of US adults (more than 48 million people) have not had a screening lipid panel in the previous 5 years.¹² One barrier to screening is that both physicians and patients often believe that a fasting specimen is required. Yet fasting specimens are difficult to obtain because they often require a separate visit to the clinic, which can result in lost time from work and additional transportation costs.

STUDY SUMMARY: There’s no difference between fasting and nonfasting LDL

Doran et al¹ used data from the NHANES-III survey to compare the prognostic value of fasting vs nonfasting LDL for all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality. NHANES-III is a nationally representative cross-sectional survey that was performed from 1988 to 1994.¹³ Doran et al¹ included 16,161 US adults ages 18 years and older for whom data on fasting time were available. Participants for whom LDL calculations were not possible due to missing HDL, TC, or triglyceride levels were excluded. Those with triglycerides ≥400 mg/dL were excluded from the primary analysis.

Participants were stratified based on fasting status (≥8 hours or <8 hours) and followed for a mean of 14 (± .22) years. To control for possible cofounders, researchers used propensity score matching to identify 4299 pairs of fasting and nonfasting individuals with similar cardiovascular risk factors, including race, smoking history, prior cardiovascular disease, cholesterol medication use, diabetes, elevated TC, low HDL, hypertension, enlarged waist circumference, and low socioeconomic status. After matching, the baseline characteristics of the fasting and nonfasting groups were similar.

The prognostic value of fasting vs nonfasting status for predicting all-cause mortality was similar.The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, and the secondary outcome was cardiovascular mortality. The prognostic value of fasting and nonfasting LDL for these outcomes was evaluated as the area under the receiver operator curve (ROC) using the Hosmer-Lemeshow C-statistic.¹⁴ (In this case, similar C-statistics indicate that the tests have similar prognostic values.*) Kaplan-Meier curves were used to assess survival. The association of LDL with mortality, after adjustment of potential confounders, was evaluated using Cox proportional hazard models. The groups were divided into tertiles based on LDL levels (<100 mg/dL, 100-130 mg/dL, and >130 mg/dL).

As expected, compared to individuals in the first LDL tertile (<100 mg/dL), those with a higher LDL had an increased risk of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR]=1.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.25-2.08 [second tertile] and HR=2.10;  95% CI, 1.70-2.61 [third tertile]). The prognostic value of fasting vs nonfasting status for predicting all-cause mortality was similar, as suggested by the C-statistics (0.59 [95% CI, 0.56-0.61] vs 0.58 [95% CI, 0.56-0.60]; P=.73).

The risk of cardiovascular mortality also increased with increasing LDL tertiles. As was the case with all-cause mortality, the prognostic value of fasting vs nonfasting status was similar for predicting cardiovascular mortality as observed by similar C-statistics (0.64 [95% CI, 0.62-0.66] vs 0.63 [95% CI, 0.60-0.65]; P=.49). In addition, fasting vs nonfasting C-statistics were similar for both diabetic and non-diabetic patients.

WHAT’S NEW: Results suggest fasting may no longer be necessary

While obtaining a fasting lipid panel is recommended by multiple guidelines and has become traditional practice, the need for fasting originated primarily out of concern for the effect of postprandial triglycerides on calculating LDL. This is the first study that compared the prognostic value of fasting and nonfasting LDL values for predicting mortality; it demonstrated that they are essentially the same.

CAVEATS: Fasting and nonfasting measurements were taken from different patients

The only challenge: It may be difficult for physicians to change a longstanding practice of checking fasting lipid profiles.The fasting and nonfasting lipids were not collected from the same individuals. However, to decrease confounding, Doran et al¹ factored in multiple cardiovascular risk factors as covariables.

Another caveat is that individuals with triglyceride levels >400 mg/dL were excluded. However, investigators ran a sensitivity analysis that included individuals with triglycerides >400 mg/dL and found no significant difference in C-statistics between the fasting and nonfasting groups.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION: Dropping the requirement to fast goes against established practice

It may be difficult for physicians to change a longstanding practice of checking fasting lipid profiles, but we see no other barriers to adopting this recommendation.

* The C-statistic is the probability that predicting the outcome is better than chance and is used to compare the goodness of fit of logistic regression models. Values for this measure range from 0.5 to 1.0. A value of 0.5 indicates that the model is no better than chance at making a prediction of membership in a group and a value of 1.0 indicates that the model perfectly identifies those within a group and those not.

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

PRACTICE CHANGER
Do not recommend helmet therapy for positional skull deformity in infants and children. Wearing a helmet causes adverse effects but does not alter the natural course of head growth.¹

STRENGTH OF RECOMMENDATION
B: Based on a single-blind, randomized controlled trial (RCT).¹

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE
The parents of a 6-month-old girl with moderate plagiocephaly bring their daughter in for a well-child visit. Previously, you had recommended that the parents increase “tummy time” when the baby is awake, change her position in bed, and monitor the progression of the condition. They do not feel these interventions have made a difference in the shape of their daughter’s skull and ask about using a helmet to help correct the deformity. How would you counsel them?

Approximately 45% of infants ages 7 to 12 weeks are estimated to have positional skull deformity (PSD), although three-quarters of them have mild cases.² The incidence of PSD began to increase in 1992 after the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) introduced its “Back to Sleep” campaign, which encouraged parents to place their infants on their back at bedtime to reduce sudden infant death syndrome.³

There are two common forms of PSD: plagiocephaly and brachycephaly.¹ Plagiocephaly is unilateral occipital flattening, which may be accompanied by ipsilateral forehead prominence and asymmetrical ears. Brachycephaly is symmetric flattening of the back of the head, which can lead to prominence of the temporal areas, making the head appear wide. The cranial sutures remain open in both kinds of PSD.

Evaluating infants for PSD is part of the routine physical exam, and when the condition is noted, the exam should also differentiate PSD from other causes of skull deformity (eg, craniosynostosis). Infants and preschool-aged children with PSD may score lower on developmental testing than children without skull deformity.⁴ However, these differences are small and inconsistent (2-3 points on a 100-point scale).⁴ Skull deformity persists into adolescence in only 1% to 2% of patients.⁵

Neither the AAP nor the American Academy of Family Physicians has a guideline or consensus statement on PSD. Helmets are intended to correct PSD by fitting closely to an infant’s head but allowing room for the skull to grow at the flattened area.¹ A 2011 clinical report by Laughlin et al⁶ recommended against use of helmets for infants with mild to moderate deformities but stated that there was little evidence of harm. Earlier studies have suggested that physical therapy might be effective for plagiocephaly identified early (ie, when the child is 7 to 8 weeks of age).^7,8 Biggs⁹ suggested considering helmet therapy for infants whose cranial sutures remain open and who do not respond to four to eight weeks of physical therapy for PSD. van Wijk et al¹ conducted an RCT to explore the risks and benefits of helmet therapy for children with PSD.

Continue for study summary >>

STUDY SUMMARY
Helmets: No help, some harm
In this single-blind RCT of 84 infants (ages 5 or 6 months) with moderate or severe PSD, helmet therapy (n = 42) was compared to no intervention (allowing natural growth; n = 42). Infants were excluded if they had very severe PSD or skull deformity from another cause, such as torticollis or craniosynostosis.

Infants in the helmet therapy group received a custom-made helmet that they wore 23 hours a day until age 1 year, with regular evaluation by an orthotist and modification of the helmet as necessary to allow skull growth. The control group received usual care and no helmet.

The primary outcome was improvement in skull shape at age 24 months, as measured by the oblique diameter difference index (ODDI; a unitless measurement of plagiocephaly calculated as the ratio of measures of two dimensions of cranial diameter) and the cranioproportional index (CPI; a similar measurement of brachycephaly). Infants were considered fully recovered if they achieved an ODDI score < 104% and a CPI score < 90%. These scores indicate a normal head shape; higher scores indicate worse PSD.

At study’s end, the reduction in ODDI and CPI scores was almost the same in both groups. Ten children in the helmet group (26%) and nine in the control group (23%) experienced complete resolution of their PSD.

Both groups were similar in secondary outcomes of infant motor development, infant quality of life, and parental satisfaction. Parental anxiety was assessed using the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (scores range from 20 to 80; a higher score indicates greater anxiety). There was less parental anxiety in the helmet therapy group (–3.9).

All parents of infants in the helmet therapy group reported at least one adverse effect from the intervention. These effects included skin irritation (96%), bad helmet odor (76%), pain associated with the helmet (33%), and feeling hindered from cuddling their child (77%).

Continue for new evidence on helmets for PSD >>

WHAT’S NEW
Stronger evidence that ­helmets are not effective
Previously, the evidence on helmets for PSD had been obtained mainly from observational or poorly designed studies with significant flaws.⁶ This study by van Wijk et al¹ included objective measurement of skull deformity, along with clinically meaningful outcomes of parental satisfaction, motor development, and parental anxiety.

It also found that helmet therapy was significantly more expensive than care that focused on waiting for PSD to resolve on its own ($1,935 vs $196, respectively).¹

CAVEATS
Results may not apply to all infants with skull deformity
These findings do not apply to infants with very severe PSD or those with skull deformity due to secondary causes.¹ In addition, this is the only RCT to date that has assessed helmet use in PSD, so it is possible that future studies will find helmets are effective.

Continue for challenges to implementation >>

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION
Parents may find this evidence hard to accept
To appropriately implement this recommendation, a clinician must be comfortable making the assessment of mild, moderate, severe, or very severe PSD. Referral to physical therapy might be appropriate for infants with very severe PSD.

If another clinician or physical therapist recommends helmet therapy—or if a parent requests it—explaining the findings of this study may be challenging. We believe that the reduction in parental anxiety in the helmet group likely occurred because the parents believed that the helmet would accelerate the normal reshaping of the skull shape that occurs spontaneously in almost all infants with PSD. Since this study shows that helmets don’t help correct skull deformities, parents can be assured that a helmet is unnecessary and costly and causes adverse effects.

REFERENCES
1. van Wijk RM, van Vlimmeren LA, Groothuis-Oudshoorn CG, et al. Helmet therapy in infants with positional skull deformation: randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2014;348:g2741.
2. Mawji A, Vollman AR, Hatfield J, et al. The incidence of positional plagiocephaly: a cohort study. Pediatrics. 2013;132:298-304.
3. Peitsch WK, Keefer CH, LaBrie RA, et al. Incidence of cranial asymmetry in healthy newborns. Pediatrics. 2002;110:e72.
4. Collett BR, Gray KE, Starr JR, et al. Development at age 36 months in children with deformational plagiocephaly. Pediatrics. 2013;131: e109-e115.
5. Roby BB, Finkelstein M, Tibesar RJ, et al. Prevalence of positional plagiocephaly in teens born after the “Back to Sleep” campaign. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2012;146:823-828.
6. Laughlin J, Luerssen TG, Dias MS; Committee on Practice and Ambulatory Medicine, Section on Neurological Surgery. Prevention and management of positional skull deformities in infants. Pediatrics. 2011;128:1236-1241.
7. van Vlimmeren LA, van der Graaf Y, Boere-Boonekamp MM, et al. Effect of pediatric physical therapy on deformational plagiocephaly in children with positional preference: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2008;162:712-718.
8. Vargish, L, Mendoza MD, Ewigman, B. Use physical therapy to head off this deformity in infants. Consider early PT to prevent severe deformational plagiocephaly. J Fam Pract. 2009;58:E1-E3.
9. Biggs WS. Diagnosis and management of positional head deformity. Am Fam Physician. 2003;67:1953-1956.

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

Copyright © 2015. The Family Physicians Inquiries Network. All rights reserved.

Reprinted with permission from the Family Physicians Inquiries Network and The Journal of Family Practice. 2015;64(1):44-46.

PRACTICE CHANGER
Do not recommend helmet therapy for positional skull deformity in infants and children. Wearing a helmet causes adverse effects but does not alter the natural course of head growth.¹

STRENGTH OF RECOMMENDATION
B: Based on a single-blind, randomized controlled trial (RCT).¹

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE
The parents of a 6-month-old girl with moderate plagiocephaly bring their daughter in for a well-child visit. Previously, you had recommended that the parents increase “tummy time” when the baby is awake, change her position in bed, and monitor the progression of the condition. They do not feel these interventions have made a difference in the shape of their daughter’s skull and ask about using a helmet to help correct the deformity. How would you counsel them?

Approximately 45% of infants ages 7 to 12 weeks are estimated to have positional skull deformity (PSD), although three-quarters of them have mild cases.² The incidence of PSD began to increase in 1992 after the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) introduced its “Back to Sleep” campaign, which encouraged parents to place their infants on their back at bedtime to reduce sudden infant death syndrome.³

There are two common forms of PSD: plagiocephaly and brachycephaly.¹ Plagiocephaly is unilateral occipital flattening, which may be accompanied by ipsilateral forehead prominence and asymmetrical ears. Brachycephaly is symmetric flattening of the back of the head, which can lead to prominence of the temporal areas, making the head appear wide. The cranial sutures remain open in both kinds of PSD.

Evaluating infants for PSD is part of the routine physical exam, and when the condition is noted, the exam should also differentiate PSD from other causes of skull deformity (eg, craniosynostosis). Infants and preschool-aged children with PSD may score lower on developmental testing than children without skull deformity.⁴ However, these differences are small and inconsistent (2-3 points on a 100-point scale).⁴ Skull deformity persists into adolescence in only 1% to 2% of patients.⁵

Neither the AAP nor the American Academy of Family Physicians has a guideline or consensus statement on PSD. Helmets are intended to correct PSD by fitting closely to an infant’s head but allowing room for the skull to grow at the flattened area.¹ A 2011 clinical report by Laughlin et al⁶ recommended against use of helmets for infants with mild to moderate deformities but stated that there was little evidence of harm. Earlier studies have suggested that physical therapy might be effective for plagiocephaly identified early (ie, when the child is 7 to 8 weeks of age).^7,8 Biggs⁹ suggested considering helmet therapy for infants whose cranial sutures remain open and who do not respond to four to eight weeks of physical therapy for PSD. van Wijk et al¹ conducted an RCT to explore the risks and benefits of helmet therapy for children with PSD.

Continue for study summary >>

STUDY SUMMARY
Helmets: No help, some harm
In this single-blind RCT of 84 infants (ages 5 or 6 months) with moderate or severe PSD, helmet therapy (n = 42) was compared to no intervention (allowing natural growth; n = 42). Infants were excluded if they had very severe PSD or skull deformity from another cause, such as torticollis or craniosynostosis.

Infants in the helmet therapy group received a custom-made helmet that they wore 23 hours a day until age 1 year, with regular evaluation by an orthotist and modification of the helmet as necessary to allow skull growth. The control group received usual care and no helmet.

The primary outcome was improvement in skull shape at age 24 months, as measured by the oblique diameter difference index (ODDI; a unitless measurement of plagiocephaly calculated as the ratio of measures of two dimensions of cranial diameter) and the cranioproportional index (CPI; a similar measurement of brachycephaly). Infants were considered fully recovered if they achieved an ODDI score < 104% and a CPI score < 90%. These scores indicate a normal head shape; higher scores indicate worse PSD.

At study’s end, the reduction in ODDI and CPI scores was almost the same in both groups. Ten children in the helmet group (26%) and nine in the control group (23%) experienced complete resolution of their PSD.

Both groups were similar in secondary outcomes of infant motor development, infant quality of life, and parental satisfaction. Parental anxiety was assessed using the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (scores range from 20 to 80; a higher score indicates greater anxiety). There was less parental anxiety in the helmet therapy group (–3.9).

All parents of infants in the helmet therapy group reported at least one adverse effect from the intervention. These effects included skin irritation (96%), bad helmet odor (76%), pain associated with the helmet (33%), and feeling hindered from cuddling their child (77%).

Continue for new evidence on helmets for PSD >>

WHAT’S NEW
Stronger evidence that ­helmets are not effective
Previously, the evidence on helmets for PSD had been obtained mainly from observational or poorly designed studies with significant flaws.⁶ This study by van Wijk et al¹ included objective measurement of skull deformity, along with clinically meaningful outcomes of parental satisfaction, motor development, and parental anxiety.

It also found that helmet therapy was significantly more expensive than care that focused on waiting for PSD to resolve on its own ($1,935 vs $196, respectively).¹

CAVEATS
Results may not apply to all infants with skull deformity
These findings do not apply to infants with very severe PSD or those with skull deformity due to secondary causes.¹ In addition, this is the only RCT to date that has assessed helmet use in PSD, so it is possible that future studies will find helmets are effective.

Continue for challenges to implementation >>

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION
Parents may find this evidence hard to accept
To appropriately implement this recommendation, a clinician must be comfortable making the assessment of mild, moderate, severe, or very severe PSD. Referral to physical therapy might be appropriate for infants with very severe PSD.

If another clinician or physical therapist recommends helmet therapy—or if a parent requests it—explaining the findings of this study may be challenging. We believe that the reduction in parental anxiety in the helmet group likely occurred because the parents believed that the helmet would accelerate the normal reshaping of the skull shape that occurs spontaneously in almost all infants with PSD. Since this study shows that helmets don’t help correct skull deformities, parents can be assured that a helmet is unnecessary and costly and causes adverse effects.

REFERENCES
1. van Wijk RM, van Vlimmeren LA, Groothuis-Oudshoorn CG, et al. Helmet therapy in infants with positional skull deformation: randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2014;348:g2741.
2. Mawji A, Vollman AR, Hatfield J, et al. The incidence of positional plagiocephaly: a cohort study. Pediatrics. 2013;132:298-304.
3. Peitsch WK, Keefer CH, LaBrie RA, et al. Incidence of cranial asymmetry in healthy newborns. Pediatrics. 2002;110:e72.
4. Collett BR, Gray KE, Starr JR, et al. Development at age 36 months in children with deformational plagiocephaly. Pediatrics. 2013;131: e109-e115.
5. Roby BB, Finkelstein M, Tibesar RJ, et al. Prevalence of positional plagiocephaly in teens born after the “Back to Sleep” campaign. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2012;146:823-828.
6. Laughlin J, Luerssen TG, Dias MS; Committee on Practice and Ambulatory Medicine, Section on Neurological Surgery. Prevention and management of positional skull deformities in infants. Pediatrics. 2011;128:1236-1241.
7. van Vlimmeren LA, van der Graaf Y, Boere-Boonekamp MM, et al. Effect of pediatric physical therapy on deformational plagiocephaly in children with positional preference: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2008;162:712-718.
8. Vargish, L, Mendoza MD, Ewigman, B. Use physical therapy to head off this deformity in infants. Consider early PT to prevent severe deformational plagiocephaly. J Fam Pract. 2009;58:E1-E3.
9. Biggs WS. Diagnosis and management of positional head deformity. Am Fam Physician. 2003;67:1953-1956.

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

Copyright © 2015. The Family Physicians Inquiries Network. All rights reserved.

Reprinted with permission from the Family Physicians Inquiries Network and The Journal of Family Practice. 2015;64(1):44-46.

PRACTICE CHANGER
Do not recommend helmet therapy for positional skull deformity in infants and children. Wearing a helmet causes adverse effects but does not alter the natural course of head growth.¹

STRENGTH OF RECOMMENDATION
B: Based on a single-blind, randomized controlled trial (RCT).¹

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE
The parents of a 6-month-old girl with moderate plagiocephaly bring their daughter in for a well-child visit. Previously, you had recommended that the parents increase “tummy time” when the baby is awake, change her position in bed, and monitor the progression of the condition. They do not feel these interventions have made a difference in the shape of their daughter’s skull and ask about using a helmet to help correct the deformity. How would you counsel them?

Approximately 45% of infants ages 7 to 12 weeks are estimated to have positional skull deformity (PSD), although three-quarters of them have mild cases.² The incidence of PSD began to increase in 1992 after the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) introduced its “Back to Sleep” campaign, which encouraged parents to place their infants on their back at bedtime to reduce sudden infant death syndrome.³

There are two common forms of PSD: plagiocephaly and brachycephaly.¹ Plagiocephaly is unilateral occipital flattening, which may be accompanied by ipsilateral forehead prominence and asymmetrical ears. Brachycephaly is symmetric flattening of the back of the head, which can lead to prominence of the temporal areas, making the head appear wide. The cranial sutures remain open in both kinds of PSD.

Evaluating infants for PSD is part of the routine physical exam, and when the condition is noted, the exam should also differentiate PSD from other causes of skull deformity (eg, craniosynostosis). Infants and preschool-aged children with PSD may score lower on developmental testing than children without skull deformity.⁴ However, these differences are small and inconsistent (2-3 points on a 100-point scale).⁴ Skull deformity persists into adolescence in only 1% to 2% of patients.⁵

Neither the AAP nor the American Academy of Family Physicians has a guideline or consensus statement on PSD. Helmets are intended to correct PSD by fitting closely to an infant’s head but allowing room for the skull to grow at the flattened area.¹ A 2011 clinical report by Laughlin et al⁶ recommended against use of helmets for infants with mild to moderate deformities but stated that there was little evidence of harm. Earlier studies have suggested that physical therapy might be effective for plagiocephaly identified early (ie, when the child is 7 to 8 weeks of age).^7,8 Biggs⁹ suggested considering helmet therapy for infants whose cranial sutures remain open and who do not respond to four to eight weeks of physical therapy for PSD. van Wijk et al¹ conducted an RCT to explore the risks and benefits of helmet therapy for children with PSD.

Continue for study summary >>

STUDY SUMMARY
Helmets: No help, some harm
In this single-blind RCT of 84 infants (ages 5 or 6 months) with moderate or severe PSD, helmet therapy (n = 42) was compared to no intervention (allowing natural growth; n = 42). Infants were excluded if they had very severe PSD or skull deformity from another cause, such as torticollis or craniosynostosis.

Infants in the helmet therapy group received a custom-made helmet that they wore 23 hours a day until age 1 year, with regular evaluation by an orthotist and modification of the helmet as necessary to allow skull growth. The control group received usual care and no helmet.

The primary outcome was improvement in skull shape at age 24 months, as measured by the oblique diameter difference index (ODDI; a unitless measurement of plagiocephaly calculated as the ratio of measures of two dimensions of cranial diameter) and the cranioproportional index (CPI; a similar measurement of brachycephaly). Infants were considered fully recovered if they achieved an ODDI score < 104% and a CPI score < 90%. These scores indicate a normal head shape; higher scores indicate worse PSD.

At study’s end, the reduction in ODDI and CPI scores was almost the same in both groups. Ten children in the helmet group (26%) and nine in the control group (23%) experienced complete resolution of their PSD.

Both groups were similar in secondary outcomes of infant motor development, infant quality of life, and parental satisfaction. Parental anxiety was assessed using the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (scores range from 20 to 80; a higher score indicates greater anxiety). There was less parental anxiety in the helmet therapy group (–3.9).

All parents of infants in the helmet therapy group reported at least one adverse effect from the intervention. These effects included skin irritation (96%), bad helmet odor (76%), pain associated with the helmet (33%), and feeling hindered from cuddling their child (77%).

Continue for new evidence on helmets for PSD >>

WHAT’S NEW
Stronger evidence that ­helmets are not effective
Previously, the evidence on helmets for PSD had been obtained mainly from observational or poorly designed studies with significant flaws.⁶ This study by van Wijk et al¹ included objective measurement of skull deformity, along with clinically meaningful outcomes of parental satisfaction, motor development, and parental anxiety.

It also found that helmet therapy was significantly more expensive than care that focused on waiting for PSD to resolve on its own ($1,935 vs $196, respectively).¹

CAVEATS
Results may not apply to all infants with skull deformity
These findings do not apply to infants with very severe PSD or those with skull deformity due to secondary causes.¹ In addition, this is the only RCT to date that has assessed helmet use in PSD, so it is possible that future studies will find helmets are effective.

Continue for challenges to implementation >>

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION
Parents may find this evidence hard to accept
To appropriately implement this recommendation, a clinician must be comfortable making the assessment of mild, moderate, severe, or very severe PSD. Referral to physical therapy might be appropriate for infants with very severe PSD.

If another clinician or physical therapist recommends helmet therapy—or if a parent requests it—explaining the findings of this study may be challenging. We believe that the reduction in parental anxiety in the helmet group likely occurred because the parents believed that the helmet would accelerate the normal reshaping of the skull shape that occurs spontaneously in almost all infants with PSD. Since this study shows that helmets don’t help correct skull deformities, parents can be assured that a helmet is unnecessary and costly and causes adverse effects.

REFERENCES
1. van Wijk RM, van Vlimmeren LA, Groothuis-Oudshoorn CG, et al. Helmet therapy in infants with positional skull deformation: randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2014;348:g2741.
2. Mawji A, Vollman AR, Hatfield J, et al. The incidence of positional plagiocephaly: a cohort study. Pediatrics. 2013;132:298-304.
3. Peitsch WK, Keefer CH, LaBrie RA, et al. Incidence of cranial asymmetry in healthy newborns. Pediatrics. 2002;110:e72.
4. Collett BR, Gray KE, Starr JR, et al. Development at age 36 months in children with deformational plagiocephaly. Pediatrics. 2013;131: e109-e115.
5. Roby BB, Finkelstein M, Tibesar RJ, et al. Prevalence of positional plagiocephaly in teens born after the “Back to Sleep” campaign. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2012;146:823-828.
6. Laughlin J, Luerssen TG, Dias MS; Committee on Practice and Ambulatory Medicine, Section on Neurological Surgery. Prevention and management of positional skull deformities in infants. Pediatrics. 2011;128:1236-1241.
7. van Vlimmeren LA, van der Graaf Y, Boere-Boonekamp MM, et al. Effect of pediatric physical therapy on deformational plagiocephaly in children with positional preference: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2008;162:712-718.
8. Vargish, L, Mendoza MD, Ewigman, B. Use physical therapy to head off this deformity in infants. Consider early PT to prevent severe deformational plagiocephaly. J Fam Pract. 2009;58:E1-E3.
9. Biggs WS. Diagnosis and management of positional head deformity. Am Fam Physician. 2003;67:1953-1956.

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

Copyright © 2015. The Family Physicians Inquiries Network. All rights reserved.

Reprinted with permission from the Family Physicians Inquiries Network and The Journal of Family Practice. 2015;64(1):44-46.

Illustrative case

The parents of a 6-month-old girl with moderate plagiocephaly bring their daughter in for a well child visit. Previously, you had recommended that the parents increase “tummy time” when the baby is awake, change her position in bed, and monitor the progression of the condition. They do not feel these interventions have made a difference in the shape of their daughter’s skull, and ask about using a helmet to help correct the deformity. How would you counsel them?

Positional skull deformity (PSD) is a common problem of infancy. Approximately 45% of infants ages 7 to 12 weeks are estimated to have PSD, although three-quarters of them have mild cases.² The incidence of PSD began to increase in 1992 after the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) introduced its “Back to Sleep” campaign, which encouraged parents to place their infants on their back at bedtime to reduce sudden infant death syndrome.³

There are 2 common forms of PSD: plagiocephaly, and brachycephaly.¹ Plagiocephaly is unilateral occipital flattening, which may be accompanied by ipsilateral forehead prominence and asymmetrical ears. Brachycephaly is symmetric flattening of the back of the head, which can lead to prominence of the temporal areas, making the head appear wide. Children with severe plagiocephaly have a misshapen, asymmetric skull, while children with brachycephaly have a flattened skull. The cranial sutures remain open in both kinds of PSD.

Evaluating infants for PSD is part of the routine physical exam, and when the condition is noted, the exam should also differentiate PSD from other causes of skull deformity, such as craniosynostosis. Infants and preschool-aged children with PSD may score lower on developmental testing than children without skull deformity.⁴ However, these differences are small and inconsistent (2-3 points on a 100-point scale).⁴ Skull deformity persists into adolescence in only 1% to 2% of patients.⁵

Neither the AAP nor the American Academy of Family Physicians has a guideline or consensus statement on PSD. Helmets are intended to correct PSD by fitting closely to an infant’s head but allowing room for the skill to grow at the flattened area.¹ A 2011 clinical report by Laughlin et al⁶ recommended against using helmets for infants with mild to moderate deformities, but stated that there was little evidence of harm. Earlier studies have suggested that physical therapy might be effective for plagiocephaly caught early (7 and 8 weeks of age).^7,8 Biggs⁹ suggested considering helmet therapy for infants whose cranial sutures remain open and who do not respond to 4 to 8 weeks of physical therapy for PSD. van Wijk et al¹ conducted an RCT to explore the risks and benefits of helmet therapy for children with PSD.

STUDY SUMMARY: Helmets for infants: No help and some harm

This single-blind RCT of 84 infants ages 5 or 6 months with moderate or severe PSD compared helmet therapy (n=42) to no intervention (allowing natural growth, n=42). Infants were excluded if they had very severe PSD or skull deformity from another cause, such as torticollis or craniosynostosis.

Infants in the helmet therapy group received a custom-made helmet that they wore 23 hours a day until they were a year old, with regular evaluation by an orthotist and modification of the helmet as necessary to allow skull growth. The control group had usual care and no helmet.

At the end of the study, improvement in skull shape was almost the same in the helmet therapy and control groups. The primary outcome was improvement in skull shape at age 24 months as measured by the oblique diameter difference index (ODDI), a unitless measurement of plagiocephaly calculated by taking the ratio of measures of 2 dimensions of cranial diameter, and the cranioproportional index (CPI), a similar measurement of brachycephaly. Infants were considered fully recovered if they achieved an ODDI score of <104% and a CPI score of <90%. These scores indicate a normal head shape; higher scores indicate worse PSD.

At the end of the study, the reduction in ODDI and CPI scores was almost the same in both  the helmet therapy and the control groups. Ten children in the helmet group (26%) and 9 in the control group (23%) experienced complete resolution of their PSD (P=.74).

Secondary outcomes included infant motor development, infant quality of life, parental satisfaction with the shape of their infant’s head, and parental anxiety. Both groups were similar in infant motor development, infant quality of life, and parental satisfaction. Parental anxiety was assessed using the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (scores range from 20-80; a higher score indicates greater anxiety). There was less parental anxiety in the helmet therapy group: (-3.9; 95% confidence interval, -7.5 to -0.2; P=.04).

All parents of infants in the helmet therapy group reported at least one adverse effect from the intervention. These effects included skin irritation (96%), bad helmet odor (76%), pain associated with the helmet (33%), and feeling hindered from cuddling their child (77%).

WHAT’S NEW: RCT provides stronger evidence that helmets are not effective

This is the first RCT that assessed helmet therapy for PSD in children.¹ Before this, the evidence on helmets for PSD had been obtained mainly from observational or poorly designed studies with significant flaws.⁶ This study by van Wijk et al¹ included objective measurement of skull deformity, along with clinically meaningful outcomes of parental satisfaction, motor development, and parental anxiety. It also found that helmet therapy was significantly more expensive than care that focused on waiting for PSD to resolve on its own ($1935 vs $196, respectively).¹

CAVEATS: Results may not apply to all infants with skull deformity

These findings do not apply to infants with very severe cases of PSD or those with skull deformity due to secondary causes, such as craniosynostosis, who were excluded from this study.¹ In addition, this is the only RCT to date that has assessed helmet use in PSD, so it is possible that future studies will find helmets are effective.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION: Parents may find this evidence hard to accept

To appropriately implement this recommendation, a family physician must be comfortable making the assessment of mild, moderate, severe, or very severe PSD. Referral to physical therapy might be appropriate for infants with very severe PSD.

If another physician or physical therapist recommends helmet therapy—or if a parent requests it—explaining the findings of this study may be challenging. We believe that the reduction in parental anxiety in the helmet group likely occurred because the parents believed that the helmet would accelerate the normal reshaping of the skull shape that occurs spontaneously in almost all infants with PSD. Since this study shows that helmets don’t help correct skull deformities, parents can be assured that a helmet is unnecessary, costly, and causes adverse effects.

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

Illustrative case

The parents of a 6-month-old girl with moderate plagiocephaly bring their daughter in for a well child visit. Previously, you had recommended that the parents increase “tummy time” when the baby is awake, change her position in bed, and monitor the progression of the condition. They do not feel these interventions have made a difference in the shape of their daughter’s skull, and ask about using a helmet to help correct the deformity. How would you counsel them?

Positional skull deformity (PSD) is a common problem of infancy. Approximately 45% of infants ages 7 to 12 weeks are estimated to have PSD, although three-quarters of them have mild cases.² The incidence of PSD began to increase in 1992 after the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) introduced its “Back to Sleep” campaign, which encouraged parents to place their infants on their back at bedtime to reduce sudden infant death syndrome.³

There are 2 common forms of PSD: plagiocephaly, and brachycephaly.¹ Plagiocephaly is unilateral occipital flattening, which may be accompanied by ipsilateral forehead prominence and asymmetrical ears. Brachycephaly is symmetric flattening of the back of the head, which can lead to prominence of the temporal areas, making the head appear wide. Children with severe plagiocephaly have a misshapen, asymmetric skull, while children with brachycephaly have a flattened skull. The cranial sutures remain open in both kinds of PSD.

Evaluating infants for PSD is part of the routine physical exam, and when the condition is noted, the exam should also differentiate PSD from other causes of skull deformity, such as craniosynostosis. Infants and preschool-aged children with PSD may score lower on developmental testing than children without skull deformity.⁴ However, these differences are small and inconsistent (2-3 points on a 100-point scale).⁴ Skull deformity persists into adolescence in only 1% to 2% of patients.⁵

Neither the AAP nor the American Academy of Family Physicians has a guideline or consensus statement on PSD. Helmets are intended to correct PSD by fitting closely to an infant’s head but allowing room for the skill to grow at the flattened area.¹ A 2011 clinical report by Laughlin et al⁶ recommended against using helmets for infants with mild to moderate deformities, but stated that there was little evidence of harm. Earlier studies have suggested that physical therapy might be effective for plagiocephaly caught early (7 and 8 weeks of age).^7,8 Biggs⁹ suggested considering helmet therapy for infants whose cranial sutures remain open and who do not respond to 4 to 8 weeks of physical therapy for PSD. van Wijk et al¹ conducted an RCT to explore the risks and benefits of helmet therapy for children with PSD.

STUDY SUMMARY: Helmets for infants: No help and some harm

This single-blind RCT of 84 infants ages 5 or 6 months with moderate or severe PSD compared helmet therapy (n=42) to no intervention (allowing natural growth, n=42). Infants were excluded if they had very severe PSD or skull deformity from another cause, such as torticollis or craniosynostosis.

Infants in the helmet therapy group received a custom-made helmet that they wore 23 hours a day until they were a year old, with regular evaluation by an orthotist and modification of the helmet as necessary to allow skull growth. The control group had usual care and no helmet.

At the end of the study, improvement in skull shape was almost the same in the helmet therapy and control groups. The primary outcome was improvement in skull shape at age 24 months as measured by the oblique diameter difference index (ODDI), a unitless measurement of plagiocephaly calculated by taking the ratio of measures of 2 dimensions of cranial diameter, and the cranioproportional index (CPI), a similar measurement of brachycephaly. Infants were considered fully recovered if they achieved an ODDI score of <104% and a CPI score of <90%. These scores indicate a normal head shape; higher scores indicate worse PSD.

At the end of the study, the reduction in ODDI and CPI scores was almost the same in both  the helmet therapy and the control groups. Ten children in the helmet group (26%) and 9 in the control group (23%) experienced complete resolution of their PSD (P=.74).

Secondary outcomes included infant motor development, infant quality of life, parental satisfaction with the shape of their infant’s head, and parental anxiety. Both groups were similar in infant motor development, infant quality of life, and parental satisfaction. Parental anxiety was assessed using the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (scores range from 20-80; a higher score indicates greater anxiety). There was less parental anxiety in the helmet therapy group: (-3.9; 95% confidence interval, -7.5 to -0.2; P=.04).

All parents of infants in the helmet therapy group reported at least one adverse effect from the intervention. These effects included skin irritation (96%), bad helmet odor (76%), pain associated with the helmet (33%), and feeling hindered from cuddling their child (77%).

WHAT’S NEW: RCT provides stronger evidence that helmets are not effective

This is the first RCT that assessed helmet therapy for PSD in children.¹ Before this, the evidence on helmets for PSD had been obtained mainly from observational or poorly designed studies with significant flaws.⁶ This study by van Wijk et al¹ included objective measurement of skull deformity, along with clinically meaningful outcomes of parental satisfaction, motor development, and parental anxiety. It also found that helmet therapy was significantly more expensive than care that focused on waiting for PSD to resolve on its own ($1935 vs $196, respectively).¹

CAVEATS: Results may not apply to all infants with skull deformity

These findings do not apply to infants with very severe cases of PSD or those with skull deformity due to secondary causes, such as craniosynostosis, who were excluded from this study.¹ In addition, this is the only RCT to date that has assessed helmet use in PSD, so it is possible that future studies will find helmets are effective.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION: Parents may find this evidence hard to accept

To appropriately implement this recommendation, a family physician must be comfortable making the assessment of mild, moderate, severe, or very severe PSD. Referral to physical therapy might be appropriate for infants with very severe PSD.

If another physician or physical therapist recommends helmet therapy—or if a parent requests it—explaining the findings of this study may be challenging. We believe that the reduction in parental anxiety in the helmet group likely occurred because the parents believed that the helmet would accelerate the normal reshaping of the skull shape that occurs spontaneously in almost all infants with PSD. Since this study shows that helmets don’t help correct skull deformities, parents can be assured that a helmet is unnecessary, costly, and causes adverse effects.

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

Illustrative case

The parents of a 6-month-old girl with moderate plagiocephaly bring their daughter in for a well child visit. Previously, you had recommended that the parents increase “tummy time” when the baby is awake, change her position in bed, and monitor the progression of the condition. They do not feel these interventions have made a difference in the shape of their daughter’s skull, and ask about using a helmet to help correct the deformity. How would you counsel them?

Positional skull deformity (PSD) is a common problem of infancy. Approximately 45% of infants ages 7 to 12 weeks are estimated to have PSD, although three-quarters of them have mild cases.² The incidence of PSD began to increase in 1992 after the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) introduced its “Back to Sleep” campaign, which encouraged parents to place their infants on their back at bedtime to reduce sudden infant death syndrome.³

There are 2 common forms of PSD: plagiocephaly, and brachycephaly.¹ Plagiocephaly is unilateral occipital flattening, which may be accompanied by ipsilateral forehead prominence and asymmetrical ears. Brachycephaly is symmetric flattening of the back of the head, which can lead to prominence of the temporal areas, making the head appear wide. Children with severe plagiocephaly have a misshapen, asymmetric skull, while children with brachycephaly have a flattened skull. The cranial sutures remain open in both kinds of PSD.

Evaluating infants for PSD is part of the routine physical exam, and when the condition is noted, the exam should also differentiate PSD from other causes of skull deformity, such as craniosynostosis. Infants and preschool-aged children with PSD may score lower on developmental testing than children without skull deformity.⁴ However, these differences are small and inconsistent (2-3 points on a 100-point scale).⁴ Skull deformity persists into adolescence in only 1% to 2% of patients.⁵

Neither the AAP nor the American Academy of Family Physicians has a guideline or consensus statement on PSD. Helmets are intended to correct PSD by fitting closely to an infant’s head but allowing room for the skill to grow at the flattened area.¹ A 2011 clinical report by Laughlin et al⁶ recommended against using helmets for infants with mild to moderate deformities, but stated that there was little evidence of harm. Earlier studies have suggested that physical therapy might be effective for plagiocephaly caught early (7 and 8 weeks of age).^7,8 Biggs⁹ suggested considering helmet therapy for infants whose cranial sutures remain open and who do not respond to 4 to 8 weeks of physical therapy for PSD. van Wijk et al¹ conducted an RCT to explore the risks and benefits of helmet therapy for children with PSD.

STUDY SUMMARY: Helmets for infants: No help and some harm

This single-blind RCT of 84 infants ages 5 or 6 months with moderate or severe PSD compared helmet therapy (n=42) to no intervention (allowing natural growth, n=42). Infants were excluded if they had very severe PSD or skull deformity from another cause, such as torticollis or craniosynostosis.

Infants in the helmet therapy group received a custom-made helmet that they wore 23 hours a day until they were a year old, with regular evaluation by an orthotist and modification of the helmet as necessary to allow skull growth. The control group had usual care and no helmet.

At the end of the study, improvement in skull shape was almost the same in the helmet therapy and control groups. The primary outcome was improvement in skull shape at age 24 months as measured by the oblique diameter difference index (ODDI), a unitless measurement of plagiocephaly calculated by taking the ratio of measures of 2 dimensions of cranial diameter, and the cranioproportional index (CPI), a similar measurement of brachycephaly. Infants were considered fully recovered if they achieved an ODDI score of <104% and a CPI score of <90%. These scores indicate a normal head shape; higher scores indicate worse PSD.

At the end of the study, the reduction in ODDI and CPI scores was almost the same in both  the helmet therapy and the control groups. Ten children in the helmet group (26%) and 9 in the control group (23%) experienced complete resolution of their PSD (P=.74).

Secondary outcomes included infant motor development, infant quality of life, parental satisfaction with the shape of their infant’s head, and parental anxiety. Both groups were similar in infant motor development, infant quality of life, and parental satisfaction. Parental anxiety was assessed using the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (scores range from 20-80; a higher score indicates greater anxiety). There was less parental anxiety in the helmet therapy group: (-3.9; 95% confidence interval, -7.5 to -0.2; P=.04).

All parents of infants in the helmet therapy group reported at least one adverse effect from the intervention. These effects included skin irritation (96%), bad helmet odor (76%), pain associated with the helmet (33%), and feeling hindered from cuddling their child (77%).

WHAT’S NEW: RCT provides stronger evidence that helmets are not effective

This is the first RCT that assessed helmet therapy for PSD in children.¹ Before this, the evidence on helmets for PSD had been obtained mainly from observational or poorly designed studies with significant flaws.⁶ This study by van Wijk et al¹ included objective measurement of skull deformity, along with clinically meaningful outcomes of parental satisfaction, motor development, and parental anxiety. It also found that helmet therapy was significantly more expensive than care that focused on waiting for PSD to resolve on its own ($1935 vs $196, respectively).¹

CAVEATS: Results may not apply to all infants with skull deformity

These findings do not apply to infants with very severe cases of PSD or those with skull deformity due to secondary causes, such as craniosynostosis, who were excluded from this study.¹ In addition, this is the only RCT to date that has assessed helmet use in PSD, so it is possible that future studies will find helmets are effective.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION: Parents may find this evidence hard to accept

To appropriately implement this recommendation, a family physician must be comfortable making the assessment of mild, moderate, severe, or very severe PSD. Referral to physical therapy might be appropriate for infants with very severe PSD.

If another physician or physical therapist recommends helmet therapy—or if a parent requests it—explaining the findings of this study may be challenging. We believe that the reduction in parental anxiety in the helmet group likely occurred because the parents believed that the helmet would accelerate the normal reshaping of the skull shape that occurs spontaneously in almost all infants with PSD. Since this study shows that helmets don’t help correct skull deformities, parents can be assured that a helmet is unnecessary, costly, and causes adverse effects.

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

PRACTICE CHANGER
Prescribe a high-dose statin before any patient with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoes percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI); it may be reasonable to extend this to patients being evaluated for ACS.¹

STRENGTH OF RECOMMENDATION
A: Based on a meta-analysis¹

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE
A 48-year-old man comes to the emergency department with chest pain and is diagnosed with ACS. He is scheduled to have PCI within the next 24 hours. When should you start him on a statin?

Statins are the mainstay pharmaceutical treatment for hyperlipidemia and are used for primary and secondary prevention of coronary artery disease and stroke.^2,3 Well known for their cholesterol-lowering effect, they also offer benefits independent of lipids, including improving endothelial function, decreasing oxidative stress, and decreasing vascular inflammation.^4-6

Compared to patients with stable angina, those with ACS experience markedly higher rates of coronary events, especially immediately before and after PCI and during the subsequent 30 days.¹ American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guidelines for the management of non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) advocate starting statins before patients are discharged from the hospital, but they don’t specify precisely when.⁷

Considering the higher risk for coronary events before and after PCI and statins’ pleiotropic effects, it is reasonable to investigate the optimal time to start statins in patients with ACS.

Continue for study summary >>

STUDY SUMMARY
Meta-analysis shows statins before PCI cut risk for MI
Navarese et al¹ performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing the clinical outcomes of patients with ACS who received statins before or after PCI (statins group) with those who received low-dose or no statins (control group). The authors searched PubMed, Cochrane, Google Scholar, and ­CINAHL databases as well as key conference proceedings for studies published before November 2013. Using reasonable inclusion and exclusion criteria and appropriate statistical methods, they analyzed the results of 20 randomized controlled trials that included 8,750 patients. Four studies enrolled only patients with ST elevation MI (STEMI), eight were restricted to NSTEMI, and the remaining eight studies enrolled patients with any type of MI or unstable angina.

For patients who were started on a statin before PCI, the mean timing of administration was 0.53 days before. For those started after PCI, the average time to administration was 3.18 days after.

Administering statins before PCI resulted in a greater reduction in the odds of MI than did starting them afterward. Whether administered before or after PCI, statins reduced the incidence of MIs. The overall 30-day incidence of MIs was 3.4% (123 of 3,621) in the statins group and 5% (179 of 3,577) in the control group. This resulted in an absolute risk reduction of 1.6% (number needed to treat = 62.5) and a 33% reduction of the odds of MI (odds ratio [OR] = 0.67). There was also a trend toward reduced mortality in the statin group (OR = 0.66).

In addition, administering statins before PCI resulted in a greater reduction in the odds of MI at 30 days (OR = 0.38) than starting them post-PCI (OR = 0.85) when compared to the controls. The difference between the pre-PCI OR and the post-PCI OR was statistically significant; these findings persisted past 30 days.

WHAT’S NEW
Early statin administration is most effective
According to ACC/AHA guidelines, all patients with ACS should be receiving a statin by the time they are discharged. However, when to start the statin is not specified. This meta-analysis is the first report to show that administering a statin before PCI can significantly reduce the risk for subsequent MI.

Next page: Caveats and challenges >>

CAVEATS
Benefits might vary with ­different statins
The studies evaluated in this ­meta-analysis used various statins and dosing regimens, which could have affected the results. However, sensitivity analyses found similar benefits across different types of statins. In addition, most of the included trials used high doses of statins, which minimized the potential discrepancy in outcomes from various dosing regimens. And while the included studies were not perfect, Navarese et al¹ used reasonable methods to identify potential biases.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION
No barriers to earlier start
Implementing this intervention may be as simple as editing a standard order. This meta-analysis also suggests that the earlier the intervention, the greater the benefit, which may be an argument for starting a statin when a patient first presents for evaluation for ACS, since the associated risks are quite low. We believe it would be beneficial if the next update of the ACC/AHA guidelines⁷ included this recommendation.

REFERENCES
1. Navarese EP, Kowalewski M, Andreotti F, et al. Meta-analysis of time-related benefits of statin therapy in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Am J Cardiol. 2014;113:1753-1764.
2. Pignone M, Phillips C, Mulrow C. Use of lipid lowering drugs for primary prevention of coronary heart disease: meta-analysis of randomised trials. BMJ. 2000;321:983-986.
3. The Long-Term Intervention with Pravastatin in Ischaemic Disease (LIPID) Study Group. Prevention of cardiovascular events and death with pravastatin in patients with coronary heart disease and a broad range of initial cholesterol levels. N Engl J Med. 1998;339:1349-1357.
4. Liao JK. Beyond lipid lowering: the role of statins in vascular protection. Int J Cardiol. 2002;86:5-18.
5. Li J, Li JJ, He JG, et al. Atorvastatin decreases C-reactive protein-induced inflammatory response in pulmonary artery smooth muscle cells by inhibiting nuclear factor-kappaB pathway. Cardiovasc Ther. 2010;28:8-14.
6. Tandon V, Bano G, Khajuria V, et al. Pleiotropic effects of statins. Indian J Pharmacol. 2005; 37:77-85.
7. Wright RS, Anderson JL, Adams CD, et al; American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. 2011 ACCF/AHA focused update incorporated into the ACC/AHA 2007 Guidelines for the Management of Patients with Unstable Angina/Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines developed in collaboration with the American Academy of Family Physicians, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;57: e215-e367.

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

Copyright © 2014. The Family Physicians Inquiries Network. All rights reserved.

Reprinted with permission from the Family Physicians Inquiries Network and The Journal of Family Practice. 2014;63(12):735, 738.

PRACTICE CHANGER
Prescribe a high-dose statin before any patient with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoes percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI); it may be reasonable to extend this to patients being evaluated for ACS.¹

STRENGTH OF RECOMMENDATION
A: Based on a meta-analysis¹

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE
A 48-year-old man comes to the emergency department with chest pain and is diagnosed with ACS. He is scheduled to have PCI within the next 24 hours. When should you start him on a statin?

Statins are the mainstay pharmaceutical treatment for hyperlipidemia and are used for primary and secondary prevention of coronary artery disease and stroke.^2,3 Well known for their cholesterol-lowering effect, they also offer benefits independent of lipids, including improving endothelial function, decreasing oxidative stress, and decreasing vascular inflammation.^4-6

Compared to patients with stable angina, those with ACS experience markedly higher rates of coronary events, especially immediately before and after PCI and during the subsequent 30 days.¹ American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guidelines for the management of non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) advocate starting statins before patients are discharged from the hospital, but they don’t specify precisely when.⁷

Considering the higher risk for coronary events before and after PCI and statins’ pleiotropic effects, it is reasonable to investigate the optimal time to start statins in patients with ACS.

Continue for study summary >>

STUDY SUMMARY
Meta-analysis shows statins before PCI cut risk for MI
Navarese et al¹ performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing the clinical outcomes of patients with ACS who received statins before or after PCI (statins group) with those who received low-dose or no statins (control group). The authors searched PubMed, Cochrane, Google Scholar, and ­CINAHL databases as well as key conference proceedings for studies published before November 2013. Using reasonable inclusion and exclusion criteria and appropriate statistical methods, they analyzed the results of 20 randomized controlled trials that included 8,750 patients. Four studies enrolled only patients with ST elevation MI (STEMI), eight were restricted to NSTEMI, and the remaining eight studies enrolled patients with any type of MI or unstable angina.

For patients who were started on a statin before PCI, the mean timing of administration was 0.53 days before. For those started after PCI, the average time to administration was 3.18 days after.

Administering statins before PCI resulted in a greater reduction in the odds of MI than did starting them afterward. Whether administered before or after PCI, statins reduced the incidence of MIs. The overall 30-day incidence of MIs was 3.4% (123 of 3,621) in the statins group and 5% (179 of 3,577) in the control group. This resulted in an absolute risk reduction of 1.6% (number needed to treat = 62.5) and a 33% reduction of the odds of MI (odds ratio [OR] = 0.67). There was also a trend toward reduced mortality in the statin group (OR = 0.66).

In addition, administering statins before PCI resulted in a greater reduction in the odds of MI at 30 days (OR = 0.38) than starting them post-PCI (OR = 0.85) when compared to the controls. The difference between the pre-PCI OR and the post-PCI OR was statistically significant; these findings persisted past 30 days.

WHAT’S NEW
Early statin administration is most effective
According to ACC/AHA guidelines, all patients with ACS should be receiving a statin by the time they are discharged. However, when to start the statin is not specified. This meta-analysis is the first report to show that administering a statin before PCI can significantly reduce the risk for subsequent MI.

Next page: Caveats and challenges >>

CAVEATS
Benefits might vary with ­different statins
The studies evaluated in this ­meta-analysis used various statins and dosing regimens, which could have affected the results. However, sensitivity analyses found similar benefits across different types of statins. In addition, most of the included trials used high doses of statins, which minimized the potential discrepancy in outcomes from various dosing regimens. And while the included studies were not perfect, Navarese et al¹ used reasonable methods to identify potential biases.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION
No barriers to earlier start
Implementing this intervention may be as simple as editing a standard order. This meta-analysis also suggests that the earlier the intervention, the greater the benefit, which may be an argument for starting a statin when a patient first presents for evaluation for ACS, since the associated risks are quite low. We believe it would be beneficial if the next update of the ACC/AHA guidelines⁷ included this recommendation.

REFERENCES
1. Navarese EP, Kowalewski M, Andreotti F, et al. Meta-analysis of time-related benefits of statin therapy in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Am J Cardiol. 2014;113:1753-1764.
2. Pignone M, Phillips C, Mulrow C. Use of lipid lowering drugs for primary prevention of coronary heart disease: meta-analysis of randomised trials. BMJ. 2000;321:983-986.
3. The Long-Term Intervention with Pravastatin in Ischaemic Disease (LIPID) Study Group. Prevention of cardiovascular events and death with pravastatin in patients with coronary heart disease and a broad range of initial cholesterol levels. N Engl J Med. 1998;339:1349-1357.
4. Liao JK. Beyond lipid lowering: the role of statins in vascular protection. Int J Cardiol. 2002;86:5-18.
5. Li J, Li JJ, He JG, et al. Atorvastatin decreases C-reactive protein-induced inflammatory response in pulmonary artery smooth muscle cells by inhibiting nuclear factor-kappaB pathway. Cardiovasc Ther. 2010;28:8-14.
6. Tandon V, Bano G, Khajuria V, et al. Pleiotropic effects of statins. Indian J Pharmacol. 2005; 37:77-85.
7. Wright RS, Anderson JL, Adams CD, et al; American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. 2011 ACCF/AHA focused update incorporated into the ACC/AHA 2007 Guidelines for the Management of Patients with Unstable Angina/Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines developed in collaboration with the American Academy of Family Physicians, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;57: e215-e367.

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

Copyright © 2014. The Family Physicians Inquiries Network. All rights reserved.

Reprinted with permission from the Family Physicians Inquiries Network and The Journal of Family Practice. 2014;63(12):735, 738.

PRACTICE CHANGER
Prescribe a high-dose statin before any patient with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoes percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI); it may be reasonable to extend this to patients being evaluated for ACS.¹

STRENGTH OF RECOMMENDATION
A: Based on a meta-analysis¹

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE
A 48-year-old man comes to the emergency department with chest pain and is diagnosed with ACS. He is scheduled to have PCI within the next 24 hours. When should you start him on a statin?

Statins are the mainstay pharmaceutical treatment for hyperlipidemia and are used for primary and secondary prevention of coronary artery disease and stroke.^2,3 Well known for their cholesterol-lowering effect, they also offer benefits independent of lipids, including improving endothelial function, decreasing oxidative stress, and decreasing vascular inflammation.^4-6

Compared to patients with stable angina, those with ACS experience markedly higher rates of coronary events, especially immediately before and after PCI and during the subsequent 30 days.¹ American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guidelines for the management of non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) advocate starting statins before patients are discharged from the hospital, but they don’t specify precisely when.⁷

Considering the higher risk for coronary events before and after PCI and statins’ pleiotropic effects, it is reasonable to investigate the optimal time to start statins in patients with ACS.

Continue for study summary >>

STUDY SUMMARY
Meta-analysis shows statins before PCI cut risk for MI
Navarese et al¹ performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing the clinical outcomes of patients with ACS who received statins before or after PCI (statins group) with those who received low-dose or no statins (control group). The authors searched PubMed, Cochrane, Google Scholar, and ­CINAHL databases as well as key conference proceedings for studies published before November 2013. Using reasonable inclusion and exclusion criteria and appropriate statistical methods, they analyzed the results of 20 randomized controlled trials that included 8,750 patients. Four studies enrolled only patients with ST elevation MI (STEMI), eight were restricted to NSTEMI, and the remaining eight studies enrolled patients with any type of MI or unstable angina.

For patients who were started on a statin before PCI, the mean timing of administration was 0.53 days before. For those started after PCI, the average time to administration was 3.18 days after.

Administering statins before PCI resulted in a greater reduction in the odds of MI than did starting them afterward. Whether administered before or after PCI, statins reduced the incidence of MIs. The overall 30-day incidence of MIs was 3.4% (123 of 3,621) in the statins group and 5% (179 of 3,577) in the control group. This resulted in an absolute risk reduction of 1.6% (number needed to treat = 62.5) and a 33% reduction of the odds of MI (odds ratio [OR] = 0.67). There was also a trend toward reduced mortality in the statin group (OR = 0.66).

In addition, administering statins before PCI resulted in a greater reduction in the odds of MI at 30 days (OR = 0.38) than starting them post-PCI (OR = 0.85) when compared to the controls. The difference between the pre-PCI OR and the post-PCI OR was statistically significant; these findings persisted past 30 days.

WHAT’S NEW
Early statin administration is most effective
According to ACC/AHA guidelines, all patients with ACS should be receiving a statin by the time they are discharged. However, when to start the statin is not specified. This meta-analysis is the first report to show that administering a statin before PCI can significantly reduce the risk for subsequent MI.

Next page: Caveats and challenges >>

CAVEATS
Benefits might vary with ­different statins
The studies evaluated in this ­meta-analysis used various statins and dosing regimens, which could have affected the results. However, sensitivity analyses found similar benefits across different types of statins. In addition, most of the included trials used high doses of statins, which minimized the potential discrepancy in outcomes from various dosing regimens. And while the included studies were not perfect, Navarese et al¹ used reasonable methods to identify potential biases.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION
No barriers to earlier start
Implementing this intervention may be as simple as editing a standard order. This meta-analysis also suggests that the earlier the intervention, the greater the benefit, which may be an argument for starting a statin when a patient first presents for evaluation for ACS, since the associated risks are quite low. We believe it would be beneficial if the next update of the ACC/AHA guidelines⁷ included this recommendation.

REFERENCES
1. Navarese EP, Kowalewski M, Andreotti F, et al. Meta-analysis of time-related benefits of statin therapy in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Am J Cardiol. 2014;113:1753-1764.
2. Pignone M, Phillips C, Mulrow C. Use of lipid lowering drugs for primary prevention of coronary heart disease: meta-analysis of randomised trials. BMJ. 2000;321:983-986.
3. The Long-Term Intervention with Pravastatin in Ischaemic Disease (LIPID) Study Group. Prevention of cardiovascular events and death with pravastatin in patients with coronary heart disease and a broad range of initial cholesterol levels. N Engl J Med. 1998;339:1349-1357.
4. Liao JK. Beyond lipid lowering: the role of statins in vascular protection. Int J Cardiol. 2002;86:5-18.
5. Li J, Li JJ, He JG, et al. Atorvastatin decreases C-reactive protein-induced inflammatory response in pulmonary artery smooth muscle cells by inhibiting nuclear factor-kappaB pathway. Cardiovasc Ther. 2010;28:8-14.
6. Tandon V, Bano G, Khajuria V, et al. Pleiotropic effects of statins. Indian J Pharmacol. 2005; 37:77-85.
7. Wright RS, Anderson JL, Adams CD, et al; American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. 2011 ACCF/AHA focused update incorporated into the ACC/AHA 2007 Guidelines for the Management of Patients with Unstable Angina/Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines developed in collaboration with the American Academy of Family Physicians, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;57: e215-e367.

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

Copyright © 2014. The Family Physicians Inquiries Network. All rights reserved.

Reprinted with permission from the Family Physicians Inquiries Network and The Journal of Family Practice. 2014;63(12):735, 738.