PURLs

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 35-year-old healthy woman without a history of high-grade precancerous cervical lesions, immunodeficiency, or exposure to diethylstilbestrol presents to your office for her routine health visit. During your conversation with her, she shares, “I read on the Internet that I only need to be tested for human papillomavirus, but I’m wondering how I’ll be checked for cervical cancer.” She asks for your opinion about cervical cancer screening methods.

The National Cancer Institute predicts that there will be 13,800 new cases of cervical cancer this year, with an estimated 4290 deaths.³ This type of cancer is primarily caused by high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) infections. Fortunately, high-grade precancerous cervical lesions and cervical cancer can be detected with routine Papanicolaou (Pap) smears, which have led to a substantial decrease in the number of deaths from cervical cancer in the United States—from 2.8 per 100,000 women in 2000 to 2.3 deaths per 100,000 women in 2015.³ In addition to hrHPV infection, risk factors for cervical cancer include low socioeconomic status, cigarette smoking, marrying before 18 years of age, young age at first coitus, multiple sexual partners, multiple sexual partners of a partner, and multiple childbirths.⁴

Cervical cancer is associated with numerous negative outcomes, including a decrease in quality of life, decreased libido, poor mental health, infertility, negative body image, and death.⁵ This is particularly true among women of lower socioeconomic status or whose language differs from that of their primary health care provider.^1,5

Given the enormous impact cervical cancer screening has made on the detection and mortality rate of this devastating disease,^4,5 it is crucial to identify the types of screening tests and screening intervals that lead to the greatest benefit and least harm for all patient populations. The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) previously addressed this issue in 2012, concluding that cytology alone every 3 years for women ages 21 to 65 years and cytology alone every 3 years or co-testing with cytology and hrHPV every 5 years in women ages 30 to 65 years was of substantial benefit (strength of recommendation [SOR]: A).⁶

STUDY SUMMARY

Another option for some women: hrHPV testing alone every 5 years

In this 2018 systematic review and modeling study by the USPSTF, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies that compared cytology to hrHPV testing alone or co-testing (cytology with hrHPV) were used to determine the optimal frequency of, and age group for, cervical cancer screening that would yield the least harm and the most benefit from each of these screening methods.^7-9

Similar to the previous recommendation, the USPSTF found that screening women < 21 years or > 65 years if previously adequately screened (defined as 3 consecutive negative screenings or 2 negative screenings within the past 10 years with the most recent being within the past 5 years) led to more harm than benefit. They therefore concluded that women in these age groups should not be screened routinely (SOR: D). The USPSTF also recommends against cervical cancer screening in women who have had a hysterectomy with removal of the cervix and who do not have a history of a high-grade precancerous lesion or cervical cancer (SOR: D).

Any 1 of 3 screening methods is adequately sensitive for detecting precancerous high-grade cervical lesions or cervical cancer in women ages 30 to 65 years.

However, for women ages 21 to 65 years, the USPSTF found that screening substantially reduces cervical cancer incidence and mortality, and that for women ages 21 to 29 years, screening every 3 years with cytology alone offers the best balance of benefits and harms (SOR: A). For women ages 30 to 65 years, the USPSTF recommends screening every 3 years with cytology alone or every 5 years with either primary hrHPV testing or co-testing (hrHPV with cytology) (SOR: A). The recommendations apply to all ­asymptomatic women with a cervix; exceptions include those with a history of a high-grade precancerous cervical lesion or cancer, in utero exposure to diethylstilbestrol, or a compromised immune system.

Continue to: The change

The change in this current set of recommendations by the USPSTF is the inclusion of screening with hrHPV alone every 5 years as an additional cervical cancer screening option for women ages 30 to 65 years. The decision to include this option was based largely on a decision analysis model commissioned by the USPSTF and reviewed along with clinical trials and cohort studies. The modeling studies found that both primary hrHPV testing alone and co-testing every 5 years prevented a similar number of cervical cancer cases and required a similar number of colposcopies.

Finally, the USPSTF emphasized that screening alone is not sufficient for the prevention of cervical cancer and that efforts should be made to create equitable access to follow-up of abnormal results and the provision of appropriate treatment.^1,2

WHAT’S NEW

When it comes to cervical cancer screening, 3 solid options now exist

The previous USPSTF recommendation concluded that women ages 30 to 65 years should be screened with either cytology alone every 3 years or co-testing (cytology and hrHPV) every 5 years. This systematic review and modeling study concluded that any one of the stated screening methods would be adequately sensitive for detecting precancerous high-grade cervical lesions or cervical cancer: cytology every 3 years, primary hrHPV every 5 years, or co-testing every 5 years.^7-9

CAVEATS

No studies comparing hrHPVto co-testing and no meta-analysis

No studies were found that directly compared primary hrHPV testing with co-testing.¹ A meta-analysis could not be performed due to the methodological differences in RCTs and cohort studies reviewed. The new recommendation is unique in its reliance on modeling to simulate a direct comparison of these 2 screening methods.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Getting the word out and increasing comfort levels

The principal challenge to implementation lies in practitioners’ knowledge of this new recommendation and a possible low comfort level with ordering hrHPV testing alone. Patients will need to be engaged in shared decision-making to understand and make use of the 3 options.

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 35-year-old healthy woman without a history of high-grade precancerous cervical lesions, immunodeficiency, or exposure to diethylstilbestrol presents to your office for her routine health visit. During your conversation with her, she shares, “I read on the Internet that I only need to be tested for human papillomavirus, but I’m wondering how I’ll be checked for cervical cancer.” She asks for your opinion about cervical cancer screening methods.

The National Cancer Institute predicts that there will be 13,800 new cases of cervical cancer this year, with an estimated 4290 deaths.³ This type of cancer is primarily caused by high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) infections. Fortunately, high-grade precancerous cervical lesions and cervical cancer can be detected with routine Papanicolaou (Pap) smears, which have led to a substantial decrease in the number of deaths from cervical cancer in the United States—from 2.8 per 100,000 women in 2000 to 2.3 deaths per 100,000 women in 2015.³ In addition to hrHPV infection, risk factors for cervical cancer include low socioeconomic status, cigarette smoking, marrying before 18 years of age, young age at first coitus, multiple sexual partners, multiple sexual partners of a partner, and multiple childbirths.⁴

Cervical cancer is associated with numerous negative outcomes, including a decrease in quality of life, decreased libido, poor mental health, infertility, negative body image, and death.⁵ This is particularly true among women of lower socioeconomic status or whose language differs from that of their primary health care provider.^1,5

Given the enormous impact cervical cancer screening has made on the detection and mortality rate of this devastating disease,^4,5 it is crucial to identify the types of screening tests and screening intervals that lead to the greatest benefit and least harm for all patient populations. The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) previously addressed this issue in 2012, concluding that cytology alone every 3 years for women ages 21 to 65 years and cytology alone every 3 years or co-testing with cytology and hrHPV every 5 years in women ages 30 to 65 years was of substantial benefit (strength of recommendation [SOR]: A).⁶

STUDY SUMMARY

Another option for some women: hrHPV testing alone every 5 years

In this 2018 systematic review and modeling study by the USPSTF, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies that compared cytology to hrHPV testing alone or co-testing (cytology with hrHPV) were used to determine the optimal frequency of, and age group for, cervical cancer screening that would yield the least harm and the most benefit from each of these screening methods.^7-9

Similar to the previous recommendation, the USPSTF found that screening women < 21 years or > 65 years if previously adequately screened (defined as 3 consecutive negative screenings or 2 negative screenings within the past 10 years with the most recent being within the past 5 years) led to more harm than benefit. They therefore concluded that women in these age groups should not be screened routinely (SOR: D). The USPSTF also recommends against cervical cancer screening in women who have had a hysterectomy with removal of the cervix and who do not have a history of a high-grade precancerous lesion or cervical cancer (SOR: D).

Any 1 of 3 screening methods is adequately sensitive for detecting precancerous high-grade cervical lesions or cervical cancer in women ages 30 to 65 years.

However, for women ages 21 to 65 years, the USPSTF found that screening substantially reduces cervical cancer incidence and mortality, and that for women ages 21 to 29 years, screening every 3 years with cytology alone offers the best balance of benefits and harms (SOR: A). For women ages 30 to 65 years, the USPSTF recommends screening every 3 years with cytology alone or every 5 years with either primary hrHPV testing or co-testing (hrHPV with cytology) (SOR: A). The recommendations apply to all ­asymptomatic women with a cervix; exceptions include those with a history of a high-grade precancerous cervical lesion or cancer, in utero exposure to diethylstilbestrol, or a compromised immune system.

Continue to: The change

The change in this current set of recommendations by the USPSTF is the inclusion of screening with hrHPV alone every 5 years as an additional cervical cancer screening option for women ages 30 to 65 years. The decision to include this option was based largely on a decision analysis model commissioned by the USPSTF and reviewed along with clinical trials and cohort studies. The modeling studies found that both primary hrHPV testing alone and co-testing every 5 years prevented a similar number of cervical cancer cases and required a similar number of colposcopies.

Finally, the USPSTF emphasized that screening alone is not sufficient for the prevention of cervical cancer and that efforts should be made to create equitable access to follow-up of abnormal results and the provision of appropriate treatment.^1,2

WHAT’S NEW

When it comes to cervical cancer screening, 3 solid options now exist

The previous USPSTF recommendation concluded that women ages 30 to 65 years should be screened with either cytology alone every 3 years or co-testing (cytology and hrHPV) every 5 years. This systematic review and modeling study concluded that any one of the stated screening methods would be adequately sensitive for detecting precancerous high-grade cervical lesions or cervical cancer: cytology every 3 years, primary hrHPV every 5 years, or co-testing every 5 years.^7-9

CAVEATS

No studies comparing hrHPVto co-testing and no meta-analysis

No studies were found that directly compared primary hrHPV testing with co-testing.¹ A meta-analysis could not be performed due to the methodological differences in RCTs and cohort studies reviewed. The new recommendation is unique in its reliance on modeling to simulate a direct comparison of these 2 screening methods.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Getting the word out and increasing comfort levels

The principal challenge to implementation lies in practitioners’ knowledge of this new recommendation and a possible low comfort level with ordering hrHPV testing alone. Patients will need to be engaged in shared decision-making to understand and make use of the 3 options.

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 35-year-old healthy woman without a history of high-grade precancerous cervical lesions, immunodeficiency, or exposure to diethylstilbestrol presents to your office for her routine health visit. During your conversation with her, she shares, “I read on the Internet that I only need to be tested for human papillomavirus, but I’m wondering how I’ll be checked for cervical cancer.” She asks for your opinion about cervical cancer screening methods.

The National Cancer Institute predicts that there will be 13,800 new cases of cervical cancer this year, with an estimated 4290 deaths.³ This type of cancer is primarily caused by high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) infections. Fortunately, high-grade precancerous cervical lesions and cervical cancer can be detected with routine Papanicolaou (Pap) smears, which have led to a substantial decrease in the number of deaths from cervical cancer in the United States—from 2.8 per 100,000 women in 2000 to 2.3 deaths per 100,000 women in 2015.³ In addition to hrHPV infection, risk factors for cervical cancer include low socioeconomic status, cigarette smoking, marrying before 18 years of age, young age at first coitus, multiple sexual partners, multiple sexual partners of a partner, and multiple childbirths.⁴

Cervical cancer is associated with numerous negative outcomes, including a decrease in quality of life, decreased libido, poor mental health, infertility, negative body image, and death.⁵ This is particularly true among women of lower socioeconomic status or whose language differs from that of their primary health care provider.^1,5

Given the enormous impact cervical cancer screening has made on the detection and mortality rate of this devastating disease,^4,5 it is crucial to identify the types of screening tests and screening intervals that lead to the greatest benefit and least harm for all patient populations. The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) previously addressed this issue in 2012, concluding that cytology alone every 3 years for women ages 21 to 65 years and cytology alone every 3 years or co-testing with cytology and hrHPV every 5 years in women ages 30 to 65 years was of substantial benefit (strength of recommendation [SOR]: A).⁶

STUDY SUMMARY

Another option for some women: hrHPV testing alone every 5 years

In this 2018 systematic review and modeling study by the USPSTF, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies that compared cytology to hrHPV testing alone or co-testing (cytology with hrHPV) were used to determine the optimal frequency of, and age group for, cervical cancer screening that would yield the least harm and the most benefit from each of these screening methods.^7-9

Similar to the previous recommendation, the USPSTF found that screening women < 21 years or > 65 years if previously adequately screened (defined as 3 consecutive negative screenings or 2 negative screenings within the past 10 years with the most recent being within the past 5 years) led to more harm than benefit. They therefore concluded that women in these age groups should not be screened routinely (SOR: D). The USPSTF also recommends against cervical cancer screening in women who have had a hysterectomy with removal of the cervix and who do not have a history of a high-grade precancerous lesion or cervical cancer (SOR: D).

Any 1 of 3 screening methods is adequately sensitive for detecting precancerous high-grade cervical lesions or cervical cancer in women ages 30 to 65 years.

However, for women ages 21 to 65 years, the USPSTF found that screening substantially reduces cervical cancer incidence and mortality, and that for women ages 21 to 29 years, screening every 3 years with cytology alone offers the best balance of benefits and harms (SOR: A). For women ages 30 to 65 years, the USPSTF recommends screening every 3 years with cytology alone or every 5 years with either primary hrHPV testing or co-testing (hrHPV with cytology) (SOR: A). The recommendations apply to all ­asymptomatic women with a cervix; exceptions include those with a history of a high-grade precancerous cervical lesion or cancer, in utero exposure to diethylstilbestrol, or a compromised immune system.

Continue to: The change

The change in this current set of recommendations by the USPSTF is the inclusion of screening with hrHPV alone every 5 years as an additional cervical cancer screening option for women ages 30 to 65 years. The decision to include this option was based largely on a decision analysis model commissioned by the USPSTF and reviewed along with clinical trials and cohort studies. The modeling studies found that both primary hrHPV testing alone and co-testing every 5 years prevented a similar number of cervical cancer cases and required a similar number of colposcopies.

Finally, the USPSTF emphasized that screening alone is not sufficient for the prevention of cervical cancer and that efforts should be made to create equitable access to follow-up of abnormal results and the provision of appropriate treatment.^1,2

WHAT’S NEW

When it comes to cervical cancer screening, 3 solid options now exist

The previous USPSTF recommendation concluded that women ages 30 to 65 years should be screened with either cytology alone every 3 years or co-testing (cytology and hrHPV) every 5 years. This systematic review and modeling study concluded that any one of the stated screening methods would be adequately sensitive for detecting precancerous high-grade cervical lesions or cervical cancer: cytology every 3 years, primary hrHPV every 5 years, or co-testing every 5 years.^7-9

CAVEATS

No studies comparing hrHPVto co-testing and no meta-analysis

No studies were found that directly compared primary hrHPV testing with co-testing.¹ A meta-analysis could not be performed due to the methodological differences in RCTs and cohort studies reviewed. The new recommendation is unique in its reliance on modeling to simulate a direct comparison of these 2 screening methods.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Getting the word out and increasing comfort levels

The principal challenge to implementation lies in practitioners’ knowledge of this new recommendation and a possible low comfort level with ordering hrHPV testing alone. Patients will need to be engaged in shared decision-making to understand and make use of the 3 options.

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 40-year-old woman presents to your office to establish care. During your interview you realize that she has never been screened for cervical cancer. In fact, she has not had a pelvic exam because she is fearful of the procedure. She would like to know if alternatives exist for cervical cancer screening. What can you suggest?

Although deaths from cervical cancer decreased in the United States from 1975 to 2017, demographic and social disparities in the burden of the disease remain.^2,3 Data from 2016 reveal that cervical cancer incidence per 100,000 women is lowest among white (7.5), Asian-Pacific Islander (5.8), and American Indian/Alaska native (5.6) women, and highest among Hispanic (9.8) and black (8.7) women, which could be explained by lower screening rates in these populations.^4,5 The National Cancer Institute’s publication on reducing cancer health disparities states that the most effective way to reduce cervical cancer incidence and mortality is by increasing screening rates among women who have not been screened or who have not been screened regularly.⁶

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the first human papillomavirus (HPV) screening test in 2003.⁷ Evidence now suggests that high-risk HPV screening provides greater protection against cervical cancer than screening with cytology alone.⁸ The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) have changed their recommendations to include primary HPV testing as an alternative method to Pap smears for cervical cancer screening.⁹

An advantage of primary HPV screening is that it can be performed on a specimen collected by the patient, which could potentially increase rates of screening and help to decrease demographic and social disparities. A randomized trial of almost 2000 women ages 21 to 65 years that evaluated the acceptability of this method to patients revealed that more than half of women prefer the idea of a self-collected specimen to one that is collected by a clinician because it is more convenient and obviates the need for a pelvic exam.¹⁰

A meta-analysis of 36 studies and more than 150,000 women concluded that when self-collected samples were used with signal-based assays, the tests were not as sensitive or specific as when clinician-collected samples were used.¹¹ However, the meta-analysis also found that some polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based HPV tests were similarly sensitive for both self- and clinician-collected samples.

STUDY SUMMARY

PCR vs signal amplification HPV tests with collection by patients vs clinicians

This meta-analysis compared the accuracy of high-risk HPV self-screening with clinician collection of samples (56 diagnostic accuracy trials; total N not provided) in identifying cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN 2+) with signal amplification and PCR tests evaluated separately.¹ In addition, this review evaluated strategies to screen women who are underscreened or not screened, which was defined as women who were irregularly or never screened, or did not respond to reminder letters about cervical cancer screening (25 randomized controlled trials [RCTs]; total N not provided).

In the diagnostic accuracy studies, patients collected a vaginal sample themselves and then had a sample taken by a clinician. CIN 2+ or 3+ was confirmed by either colposcopy and biopsy performed on all patients or by a positive high-risk HPV test result. Studies were further divided into those using assays based on signal amplification or PCR.

Continue to: In signal amplification assays...

In signal amplification assays, the pooled sensitivity for CIN 2+ was lower in the group with the self-collected samples than in the clinician-collected sample group (77%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 69%-82% vs 93%; 95% CI, 89%-96%). The pooled specificity to exclude CIN 2+ was also lower in the group with the self-collected samples (84%; 95% CI, 77%-88% vs 86%; 95% CI, 81%-90%). In high-risk HPV assays based on PCR, there was no difference in sensitivity (96%) or specificity (79%) between the specimen groups.

This study offers robust evidence that high-risk HPV PCR-based assays using patient-collected specimens are as sensitive at diagnosing CIN 2+ or 3+ as using clinician-collected samples.

With regard to the pooled relative sensitivity and specificity of signal amplification assays, those using self-swab samples were less sensitive and less specific for CIN 2+ (sensitivity ratio = 0.85; 95% CI, 0.80-0.89; specificity ratio = 0.96; 95% CI, 0.93-0.98) and CIN 3+ (sensitivity ratio = 0.86; 95% CI, 0.76-0.98; specificity ratio = 0.97; 95% CI, 0.95-0.99). Using PCR assays, there was no difference between groups in relative sensitivity for the diagnosis of CIN 2+ (sensitivity ratio = 0.99; 95% CI, 0.97-1.02) and CIN 3+ (sensitivity ratio = 0.99; 95% CI, 0.96-1.02). Relative specificity was slightly lower in the self-swab group for CIN 2+ (specificity ratio = 0.98; 95% CI, 0.97-0.99) and CIN 3+ (specificity ratio = 0.98; 95% CI, 0.97-0.99).

The second analysis to evaluate which outreach strategies are effective methods for screening underscreened/unscreened women found that delivering self-sample kits to patients was more effective than the control method, which was sending reminders to women to undergo conventional screening (95% vs 53%; mean difference [MD], 41%; 95% CI, 3%-78%). Similarly, mailing kits to patients compared favorably to the control method (25% vs 12%; MD, 13%; 95% CI, 10%-15%).

WHAT’S NEW

Self-collected specimens can beas reliable as clinician-collected ones

This is the first study to provide robust evidence that high-risk HPV PCR-based assays using patient self-collected specimens are as sensitive at diagnosing CIN 2+ or 3+ as using clinician-collected samples.

CAVEATS

Balancing lower specificity with reaching underscreened populations

Patients with a positive HPV test result require additional testing. The success rates for this follow-up are not known and could be a barrier to accurate diagnoses because of accessibility and patient willingness to follow up with a pelvic exam. In addition, self-collection may be less specific than cytology and could increase colposcopy referrals that lead to negative findings and overtreatment.¹² However, the increased acceptance of this screening method could make it an effective strategy to reach underscreened or reluctant patients.

Continue to: CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Availability of PCR-based HPV assays may be an issue

HPV PCR assays may not be available at all laboratories, but signal amplification HPV tests have been shown to be inferior to PCR assays. Physicians will have to confirm with their laboratories whether PCR-based HPV assays are available.

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 40-year-old woman presents to your office to establish care. During your interview you realize that she has never been screened for cervical cancer. In fact, she has not had a pelvic exam because she is fearful of the procedure. She would like to know if alternatives exist for cervical cancer screening. What can you suggest?

Although deaths from cervical cancer decreased in the United States from 1975 to 2017, demographic and social disparities in the burden of the disease remain.^2,3 Data from 2016 reveal that cervical cancer incidence per 100,000 women is lowest among white (7.5), Asian-Pacific Islander (5.8), and American Indian/Alaska native (5.6) women, and highest among Hispanic (9.8) and black (8.7) women, which could be explained by lower screening rates in these populations.^4,5 The National Cancer Institute’s publication on reducing cancer health disparities states that the most effective way to reduce cervical cancer incidence and mortality is by increasing screening rates among women who have not been screened or who have not been screened regularly.⁶

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the first human papillomavirus (HPV) screening test in 2003.⁷ Evidence now suggests that high-risk HPV screening provides greater protection against cervical cancer than screening with cytology alone.⁸ The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) have changed their recommendations to include primary HPV testing as an alternative method to Pap smears for cervical cancer screening.⁹

An advantage of primary HPV screening is that it can be performed on a specimen collected by the patient, which could potentially increase rates of screening and help to decrease demographic and social disparities. A randomized trial of almost 2000 women ages 21 to 65 years that evaluated the acceptability of this method to patients revealed that more than half of women prefer the idea of a self-collected specimen to one that is collected by a clinician because it is more convenient and obviates the need for a pelvic exam.¹⁰

A meta-analysis of 36 studies and more than 150,000 women concluded that when self-collected samples were used with signal-based assays, the tests were not as sensitive or specific as when clinician-collected samples were used.¹¹ However, the meta-analysis also found that some polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based HPV tests were similarly sensitive for both self- and clinician-collected samples.

STUDY SUMMARY

PCR vs signal amplification HPV tests with collection by patients vs clinicians

This meta-analysis compared the accuracy of high-risk HPV self-screening with clinician collection of samples (56 diagnostic accuracy trials; total N not provided) in identifying cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN 2+) with signal amplification and PCR tests evaluated separately.¹ In addition, this review evaluated strategies to screen women who are underscreened or not screened, which was defined as women who were irregularly or never screened, or did not respond to reminder letters about cervical cancer screening (25 randomized controlled trials [RCTs]; total N not provided).

In the diagnostic accuracy studies, patients collected a vaginal sample themselves and then had a sample taken by a clinician. CIN 2+ or 3+ was confirmed by either colposcopy and biopsy performed on all patients or by a positive high-risk HPV test result. Studies were further divided into those using assays based on signal amplification or PCR.

Continue to: In signal amplification assays...

In signal amplification assays, the pooled sensitivity for CIN 2+ was lower in the group with the self-collected samples than in the clinician-collected sample group (77%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 69%-82% vs 93%; 95% CI, 89%-96%). The pooled specificity to exclude CIN 2+ was also lower in the group with the self-collected samples (84%; 95% CI, 77%-88% vs 86%; 95% CI, 81%-90%). In high-risk HPV assays based on PCR, there was no difference in sensitivity (96%) or specificity (79%) between the specimen groups.

This study offers robust evidence that high-risk HPV PCR-based assays using patient-collected specimens are as sensitive at diagnosing CIN 2+ or 3+ as using clinician-collected samples.

With regard to the pooled relative sensitivity and specificity of signal amplification assays, those using self-swab samples were less sensitive and less specific for CIN 2+ (sensitivity ratio = 0.85; 95% CI, 0.80-0.89; specificity ratio = 0.96; 95% CI, 0.93-0.98) and CIN 3+ (sensitivity ratio = 0.86; 95% CI, 0.76-0.98; specificity ratio = 0.97; 95% CI, 0.95-0.99). Using PCR assays, there was no difference between groups in relative sensitivity for the diagnosis of CIN 2+ (sensitivity ratio = 0.99; 95% CI, 0.97-1.02) and CIN 3+ (sensitivity ratio = 0.99; 95% CI, 0.96-1.02). Relative specificity was slightly lower in the self-swab group for CIN 2+ (specificity ratio = 0.98; 95% CI, 0.97-0.99) and CIN 3+ (specificity ratio = 0.98; 95% CI, 0.97-0.99).

The second analysis to evaluate which outreach strategies are effective methods for screening underscreened/unscreened women found that delivering self-sample kits to patients was more effective than the control method, which was sending reminders to women to undergo conventional screening (95% vs 53%; mean difference [MD], 41%; 95% CI, 3%-78%). Similarly, mailing kits to patients compared favorably to the control method (25% vs 12%; MD, 13%; 95% CI, 10%-15%).

WHAT’S NEW

Self-collected specimens can beas reliable as clinician-collected ones

This is the first study to provide robust evidence that high-risk HPV PCR-based assays using patient self-collected specimens are as sensitive at diagnosing CIN 2+ or 3+ as using clinician-collected samples.

CAVEATS

Balancing lower specificity with reaching underscreened populations

Patients with a positive HPV test result require additional testing. The success rates for this follow-up are not known and could be a barrier to accurate diagnoses because of accessibility and patient willingness to follow up with a pelvic exam. In addition, self-collection may be less specific than cytology and could increase colposcopy referrals that lead to negative findings and overtreatment.¹² However, the increased acceptance of this screening method could make it an effective strategy to reach underscreened or reluctant patients.

Continue to: CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Availability of PCR-based HPV assays may be an issue

HPV PCR assays may not be available at all laboratories, but signal amplification HPV tests have been shown to be inferior to PCR assays. Physicians will have to confirm with their laboratories whether PCR-based HPV assays are available.

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 40-year-old woman presents to your office to establish care. During your interview you realize that she has never been screened for cervical cancer. In fact, she has not had a pelvic exam because she is fearful of the procedure. She would like to know if alternatives exist for cervical cancer screening. What can you suggest?

Although deaths from cervical cancer decreased in the United States from 1975 to 2017, demographic and social disparities in the burden of the disease remain.^2,3 Data from 2016 reveal that cervical cancer incidence per 100,000 women is lowest among white (7.5), Asian-Pacific Islander (5.8), and American Indian/Alaska native (5.6) women, and highest among Hispanic (9.8) and black (8.7) women, which could be explained by lower screening rates in these populations.^4,5 The National Cancer Institute’s publication on reducing cancer health disparities states that the most effective way to reduce cervical cancer incidence and mortality is by increasing screening rates among women who have not been screened or who have not been screened regularly.⁶

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the first human papillomavirus (HPV) screening test in 2003.⁷ Evidence now suggests that high-risk HPV screening provides greater protection against cervical cancer than screening with cytology alone.⁸ The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) have changed their recommendations to include primary HPV testing as an alternative method to Pap smears for cervical cancer screening.⁹

An advantage of primary HPV screening is that it can be performed on a specimen collected by the patient, which could potentially increase rates of screening and help to decrease demographic and social disparities. A randomized trial of almost 2000 women ages 21 to 65 years that evaluated the acceptability of this method to patients revealed that more than half of women prefer the idea of a self-collected specimen to one that is collected by a clinician because it is more convenient and obviates the need for a pelvic exam.¹⁰

A meta-analysis of 36 studies and more than 150,000 women concluded that when self-collected samples were used with signal-based assays, the tests were not as sensitive or specific as when clinician-collected samples were used.¹¹ However, the meta-analysis also found that some polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based HPV tests were similarly sensitive for both self- and clinician-collected samples.

STUDY SUMMARY

PCR vs signal amplification HPV tests with collection by patients vs clinicians

This meta-analysis compared the accuracy of high-risk HPV self-screening with clinician collection of samples (56 diagnostic accuracy trials; total N not provided) in identifying cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN 2+) with signal amplification and PCR tests evaluated separately.¹ In addition, this review evaluated strategies to screen women who are underscreened or not screened, which was defined as women who were irregularly or never screened, or did not respond to reminder letters about cervical cancer screening (25 randomized controlled trials [RCTs]; total N not provided).

In the diagnostic accuracy studies, patients collected a vaginal sample themselves and then had a sample taken by a clinician. CIN 2+ or 3+ was confirmed by either colposcopy and biopsy performed on all patients or by a positive high-risk HPV test result. Studies were further divided into those using assays based on signal amplification or PCR.

Continue to: In signal amplification assays...

In signal amplification assays, the pooled sensitivity for CIN 2+ was lower in the group with the self-collected samples than in the clinician-collected sample group (77%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 69%-82% vs 93%; 95% CI, 89%-96%). The pooled specificity to exclude CIN 2+ was also lower in the group with the self-collected samples (84%; 95% CI, 77%-88% vs 86%; 95% CI, 81%-90%). In high-risk HPV assays based on PCR, there was no difference in sensitivity (96%) or specificity (79%) between the specimen groups.

This study offers robust evidence that high-risk HPV PCR-based assays using patient-collected specimens are as sensitive at diagnosing CIN 2+ or 3+ as using clinician-collected samples.

With regard to the pooled relative sensitivity and specificity of signal amplification assays, those using self-swab samples were less sensitive and less specific for CIN 2+ (sensitivity ratio = 0.85; 95% CI, 0.80-0.89; specificity ratio = 0.96; 95% CI, 0.93-0.98) and CIN 3+ (sensitivity ratio = 0.86; 95% CI, 0.76-0.98; specificity ratio = 0.97; 95% CI, 0.95-0.99). Using PCR assays, there was no difference between groups in relative sensitivity for the diagnosis of CIN 2+ (sensitivity ratio = 0.99; 95% CI, 0.97-1.02) and CIN 3+ (sensitivity ratio = 0.99; 95% CI, 0.96-1.02). Relative specificity was slightly lower in the self-swab group for CIN 2+ (specificity ratio = 0.98; 95% CI, 0.97-0.99) and CIN 3+ (specificity ratio = 0.98; 95% CI, 0.97-0.99).

The second analysis to evaluate which outreach strategies are effective methods for screening underscreened/unscreened women found that delivering self-sample kits to patients was more effective than the control method, which was sending reminders to women to undergo conventional screening (95% vs 53%; mean difference [MD], 41%; 95% CI, 3%-78%). Similarly, mailing kits to patients compared favorably to the control method (25% vs 12%; MD, 13%; 95% CI, 10%-15%).

WHAT’S NEW

Self-collected specimens can beas reliable as clinician-collected ones

This is the first study to provide robust evidence that high-risk HPV PCR-based assays using patient self-collected specimens are as sensitive at diagnosing CIN 2+ or 3+ as using clinician-collected samples.

CAVEATS

Balancing lower specificity with reaching underscreened populations

Patients with a positive HPV test result require additional testing. The success rates for this follow-up are not known and could be a barrier to accurate diagnoses because of accessibility and patient willingness to follow up with a pelvic exam. In addition, self-collection may be less specific than cytology and could increase colposcopy referrals that lead to negative findings and overtreatment.¹² However, the increased acceptance of this screening method could make it an effective strategy to reach underscreened or reluctant patients.

Continue to: CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Availability of PCR-based HPV assays may be an issue

HPV PCR assays may not be available at all laboratories, but signal amplification HPV tests have been shown to be inferior to PCR assays. Physicians will have to confirm with their laboratories whether PCR-based HPV assays are available.

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

Ms. M is a 76-year-old woman with well-­controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus for 10 years and well-controlled mild hypertension. She is otherwise healthy, and her mother lived to age 95. Ms. M has never smoked, has no previous history of vascular/cardiovascular disease, and drinks 1 glass of wine 2 to 3 times per week. Based on the American College of Cardiology (ACC) calculator, she was started on atorvastatin years ago. Is continued use of the medication of any benefit at her current age?

The 2018 American Heart Association (AHA)/ACC/Multi-Society cholesterol guidelines do not provide primary prevention recommendations for those older than age 75 years.³ Up to age 75, the guidelines recommend that patients with type 2 diabetes and a low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level ≥ 70 mg/dL, as well as those without diabetes but with an LDL-C ≥ 70 mg/dL and a 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk ≥ 10%, be started on medium-intensity statin therapy.

A 2018 consensus panel review of the current literature, sponsored by the National Institute on Aging and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, concluded that there was insufficient evidence regarding the benefits and harms of statins in older adults, especially those with comorbidities, and that there was a paucity of evidence about statin therapy outcomes (both adverse and beneficial) relevant to older adults.⁴

A review of all guidelines published since 2013 revealed that only the United Kingdom’s 2014 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline provides a strong, risk-based recommendation for initiating primary prevention with statins in patients > 75 years old.⁵ These recommendations are based on the QRISK2 calculator (which has since been updated to the QRISK3), which assigns everyone ages > 75 years a > 10% 10-year risk score. This provides a universal statin indication for anyone in the 76-to-84 age range.⁶

Both the ACC/AHA and US Preventive Services Task Force guidelines clearly state that there are too few data and inadequate evidence in people older than 75 for a strong, risk-based statin recommendation.⁵ The Canadian Cardiovascular Society guideline takes a similar stance, emphasizing that the recommended Framingham risk model is not well validated in people > 75 years.⁵

STUDY SUMMARIES

Two different looks at statin use in the elderly

A retrospective cohort study (N = 46,864; median follow-up, 5.6 years) examined whether statin treatment is associated with a reduction in atherosclerotic disease and mortality in old and very old adults with and without type 2 diabetes.¹ Patients were enrolled from a large, anonymized national database in Spain. The researchers looked only at first-time users of statins and those without a statin prescription within the past 18 months.

Statin therapy seems to provide no benefit to patients ages > 75 years without ASCVD or in patients ages ≥ 85 years without ASCVD, regardless of type 2 diabetes status.

Patients with previous ASCVD, type 1 diabetes, previous lipid-lowering treatment, dementia, cancer, or paralysis were excluded, as were those who were in residential care, were on dialysis, or had received an organ transplant. Patients were stratified by age (75-84 years and ≥ 85 years), diabetes status (with or without type 2 diabetes), and statin use (nonuser or new user).

Continue to: Results

Results. For patients with type 2 diabetes, the risk of ASCVD (a composite of coronary heart disease and stroke) was lower among those who took statins than among those who did not in the 75-to-84 group (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65-0.89; 1-year number needed to treat [NNT] = 164). Among those who took statins, there was also lower all-cause mortality (HR = 0.84; 95% CI, 0.75-0.94; 1-year NNT = 306). In those ages ≥ 85 years with diabetes, the statin group did not have a lower risk of ASCVD (HR = 0.82; 95% CI, 0.53-1.26) or all-cause mortality (HR = 1.05; 95% CI, 0.86-1.28).

For patients ages 75 to 84 years without diabetes, there was no difference in risk between groups for ASCVD (HR = 0.94; 95% CI, 0.86–1.04) or all-cause mortality (HR = 0.98; 95% CI, 0.91-1.05). In those ages ≥ 85 years without diabetes, there was also no difference between groups for ASCVD (HR = 1; 95% CI, 0.80-1.24) or for all-cause mortality (HR = 1; 95% CI, 0.90-1.11).

A 2019 meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (n = 134,537) and RCT summary data (n = 12,705) evaluated the safety and efficacy of statin therapy in patients ages ≥ 55 years.² In the group of patients ages > 75 years (n = 14,483; median follow-up, 4.9 years), each 1 mmol/L reduction in LDL-C was associated with significant decreased risk for major vascular events (risk ratio [RR] = 0.82; 95% CI, 0.70-0.95) and for major coronary events (RR = 0.82; 95% CI, 0.70-0.96).

In subgroup analysis by the presence or absence of previous vascular disease, there was a decreased risk per 1 mmol/L LDL-C reduction of major vascular events in patients with previous vascular disease (RR = 0.85; 95% CI, 0.73-0.98); however, there was not a significant effect in patients without previous vascular disease (RR = 0.92; 95% CI, 0.73-1.16).

WHAT’S NEW

Statins may be unnecessary in older adults without ASCVD or T2DM

Statin therapy reduces the risk of ASCVD and mortality in patients ages 75 to 84 with type 2 diabetes and in patients > 75 years with known vascular disease. However, statin therapy seems to provide no benefit in patients ages > 75 years without ASCVD or in patients ages ≥ 85 years without ASCVD, regardless of type 2 diabetes status.

Continue to: CAVEATS

CAVEATS

Retrospective cohort design leaves cause and effect equivocal

Even though the first study was large (with more than 46,000 patients) and the median follow-up was 5.6 years, it was a retrospective cohort study. While there is clearly an association between statin therapy and reduced ASCVD and all-cause mortality in patients with diabetes ages 75 to 84 years, cause and effect cannot be unequivocally stated. However, the meta-analysis, which included RCTs, confirms the benefit of statins in secondary prevention for older patients.

The cohort study did not look at adverse effects from statin therapy in this age group, but the data from the 2019 meta-analysis did not reveal any significant risk of myopathy.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Guidelines are lacking and discontinuing meds requires discussion

The lack of supporting guidelines to treat this age group with statins remains the largest barrier to implementation. Many patients may already be taking a statin, so a discussion about discontinuing medication will need to be initiated.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

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

Ms. M is a 76-year-old woman with well-­controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus for 10 years and well-controlled mild hypertension. She is otherwise healthy, and her mother lived to age 95. Ms. M has never smoked, has no previous history of vascular/cardiovascular disease, and drinks 1 glass of wine 2 to 3 times per week. Based on the American College of Cardiology (ACC) calculator, she was started on atorvastatin years ago. Is continued use of the medication of any benefit at her current age?

The 2018 American Heart Association (AHA)/ACC/Multi-Society cholesterol guidelines do not provide primary prevention recommendations for those older than age 75 years.³ Up to age 75, the guidelines recommend that patients with type 2 diabetes and a low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level ≥ 70 mg/dL, as well as those without diabetes but with an LDL-C ≥ 70 mg/dL and a 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk ≥ 10%, be started on medium-intensity statin therapy.

A 2018 consensus panel review of the current literature, sponsored by the National Institute on Aging and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, concluded that there was insufficient evidence regarding the benefits and harms of statins in older adults, especially those with comorbidities, and that there was a paucity of evidence about statin therapy outcomes (both adverse and beneficial) relevant to older adults.⁴

A review of all guidelines published since 2013 revealed that only the United Kingdom’s 2014 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline provides a strong, risk-based recommendation for initiating primary prevention with statins in patients > 75 years old.⁵ These recommendations are based on the QRISK2 calculator (which has since been updated to the QRISK3), which assigns everyone ages > 75 years a > 10% 10-year risk score. This provides a universal statin indication for anyone in the 76-to-84 age range.⁶

Both the ACC/AHA and US Preventive Services Task Force guidelines clearly state that there are too few data and inadequate evidence in people older than 75 for a strong, risk-based statin recommendation.⁵ The Canadian Cardiovascular Society guideline takes a similar stance, emphasizing that the recommended Framingham risk model is not well validated in people > 75 years.⁵

STUDY SUMMARIES

Two different looks at statin use in the elderly

A retrospective cohort study (N = 46,864; median follow-up, 5.6 years) examined whether statin treatment is associated with a reduction in atherosclerotic disease and mortality in old and very old adults with and without type 2 diabetes.¹ Patients were enrolled from a large, anonymized national database in Spain. The researchers looked only at first-time users of statins and those without a statin prescription within the past 18 months.

Statin therapy seems to provide no benefit to patients ages > 75 years without ASCVD or in patients ages ≥ 85 years without ASCVD, regardless of type 2 diabetes status.

Patients with previous ASCVD, type 1 diabetes, previous lipid-lowering treatment, dementia, cancer, or paralysis were excluded, as were those who were in residential care, were on dialysis, or had received an organ transplant. Patients were stratified by age (75-84 years and ≥ 85 years), diabetes status (with or without type 2 diabetes), and statin use (nonuser or new user).

Continue to: Results

Results. For patients with type 2 diabetes, the risk of ASCVD (a composite of coronary heart disease and stroke) was lower among those who took statins than among those who did not in the 75-to-84 group (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65-0.89; 1-year number needed to treat [NNT] = 164). Among those who took statins, there was also lower all-cause mortality (HR = 0.84; 95% CI, 0.75-0.94; 1-year NNT = 306). In those ages ≥ 85 years with diabetes, the statin group did not have a lower risk of ASCVD (HR = 0.82; 95% CI, 0.53-1.26) or all-cause mortality (HR = 1.05; 95% CI, 0.86-1.28).

For patients ages 75 to 84 years without diabetes, there was no difference in risk between groups for ASCVD (HR = 0.94; 95% CI, 0.86–1.04) or all-cause mortality (HR = 0.98; 95% CI, 0.91-1.05). In those ages ≥ 85 years without diabetes, there was also no difference between groups for ASCVD (HR = 1; 95% CI, 0.80-1.24) or for all-cause mortality (HR = 1; 95% CI, 0.90-1.11).

A 2019 meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (n = 134,537) and RCT summary data (n = 12,705) evaluated the safety and efficacy of statin therapy in patients ages ≥ 55 years.² In the group of patients ages > 75 years (n = 14,483; median follow-up, 4.9 years), each 1 mmol/L reduction in LDL-C was associated with significant decreased risk for major vascular events (risk ratio [RR] = 0.82; 95% CI, 0.70-0.95) and for major coronary events (RR = 0.82; 95% CI, 0.70-0.96).

In subgroup analysis by the presence or absence of previous vascular disease, there was a decreased risk per 1 mmol/L LDL-C reduction of major vascular events in patients with previous vascular disease (RR = 0.85; 95% CI, 0.73-0.98); however, there was not a significant effect in patients without previous vascular disease (RR = 0.92; 95% CI, 0.73-1.16).

WHAT’S NEW

Statins may be unnecessary in older adults without ASCVD or T2DM

Statin therapy reduces the risk of ASCVD and mortality in patients ages 75 to 84 with type 2 diabetes and in patients > 75 years with known vascular disease. However, statin therapy seems to provide no benefit in patients ages > 75 years without ASCVD or in patients ages ≥ 85 years without ASCVD, regardless of type 2 diabetes status.

Continue to: CAVEATS

CAVEATS

Retrospective cohort design leaves cause and effect equivocal

Even though the first study was large (with more than 46,000 patients) and the median follow-up was 5.6 years, it was a retrospective cohort study. While there is clearly an association between statin therapy and reduced ASCVD and all-cause mortality in patients with diabetes ages 75 to 84 years, cause and effect cannot be unequivocally stated. However, the meta-analysis, which included RCTs, confirms the benefit of statins in secondary prevention for older patients.

The cohort study did not look at adverse effects from statin therapy in this age group, but the data from the 2019 meta-analysis did not reveal any significant risk of myopathy.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Guidelines are lacking and discontinuing meds requires discussion

The lack of supporting guidelines to treat this age group with statins remains the largest barrier to implementation. Many patients may already be taking a statin, so a discussion about discontinuing medication will need to be initiated.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

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

Ms. M is a 76-year-old woman with well-­controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus for 10 years and well-controlled mild hypertension. She is otherwise healthy, and her mother lived to age 95. Ms. M has never smoked, has no previous history of vascular/cardiovascular disease, and drinks 1 glass of wine 2 to 3 times per week. Based on the American College of Cardiology (ACC) calculator, she was started on atorvastatin years ago. Is continued use of the medication of any benefit at her current age?

The 2018 American Heart Association (AHA)/ACC/Multi-Society cholesterol guidelines do not provide primary prevention recommendations for those older than age 75 years.³ Up to age 75, the guidelines recommend that patients with type 2 diabetes and a low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level ≥ 70 mg/dL, as well as those without diabetes but with an LDL-C ≥ 70 mg/dL and a 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk ≥ 10%, be started on medium-intensity statin therapy.

A 2018 consensus panel review of the current literature, sponsored by the National Institute on Aging and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, concluded that there was insufficient evidence regarding the benefits and harms of statins in older adults, especially those with comorbidities, and that there was a paucity of evidence about statin therapy outcomes (both adverse and beneficial) relevant to older adults.⁴

A review of all guidelines published since 2013 revealed that only the United Kingdom’s 2014 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline provides a strong, risk-based recommendation for initiating primary prevention with statins in patients > 75 years old.⁵ These recommendations are based on the QRISK2 calculator (which has since been updated to the QRISK3), which assigns everyone ages > 75 years a > 10% 10-year risk score. This provides a universal statin indication for anyone in the 76-to-84 age range.⁶

Both the ACC/AHA and US Preventive Services Task Force guidelines clearly state that there are too few data and inadequate evidence in people older than 75 for a strong, risk-based statin recommendation.⁵ The Canadian Cardiovascular Society guideline takes a similar stance, emphasizing that the recommended Framingham risk model is not well validated in people > 75 years.⁵

STUDY SUMMARIES

Two different looks at statin use in the elderly

A retrospective cohort study (N = 46,864; median follow-up, 5.6 years) examined whether statin treatment is associated with a reduction in atherosclerotic disease and mortality in old and very old adults with and without type 2 diabetes.¹ Patients were enrolled from a large, anonymized national database in Spain. The researchers looked only at first-time users of statins and those without a statin prescription within the past 18 months.

Statin therapy seems to provide no benefit to patients ages > 75 years without ASCVD or in patients ages ≥ 85 years without ASCVD, regardless of type 2 diabetes status.

Patients with previous ASCVD, type 1 diabetes, previous lipid-lowering treatment, dementia, cancer, or paralysis were excluded, as were those who were in residential care, were on dialysis, or had received an organ transplant. Patients were stratified by age (75-84 years and ≥ 85 years), diabetes status (with or without type 2 diabetes), and statin use (nonuser or new user).

Continue to: Results

Results. For patients with type 2 diabetes, the risk of ASCVD (a composite of coronary heart disease and stroke) was lower among those who took statins than among those who did not in the 75-to-84 group (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65-0.89; 1-year number needed to treat [NNT] = 164). Among those who took statins, there was also lower all-cause mortality (HR = 0.84; 95% CI, 0.75-0.94; 1-year NNT = 306). In those ages ≥ 85 years with diabetes, the statin group did not have a lower risk of ASCVD (HR = 0.82; 95% CI, 0.53-1.26) or all-cause mortality (HR = 1.05; 95% CI, 0.86-1.28).

For patients ages 75 to 84 years without diabetes, there was no difference in risk between groups for ASCVD (HR = 0.94; 95% CI, 0.86–1.04) or all-cause mortality (HR = 0.98; 95% CI, 0.91-1.05). In those ages ≥ 85 years without diabetes, there was also no difference between groups for ASCVD (HR = 1; 95% CI, 0.80-1.24) or for all-cause mortality (HR = 1; 95% CI, 0.90-1.11).

A 2019 meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (n = 134,537) and RCT summary data (n = 12,705) evaluated the safety and efficacy of statin therapy in patients ages ≥ 55 years.² In the group of patients ages > 75 years (n = 14,483; median follow-up, 4.9 years), each 1 mmol/L reduction in LDL-C was associated with significant decreased risk for major vascular events (risk ratio [RR] = 0.82; 95% CI, 0.70-0.95) and for major coronary events (RR = 0.82; 95% CI, 0.70-0.96).

In subgroup analysis by the presence or absence of previous vascular disease, there was a decreased risk per 1 mmol/L LDL-C reduction of major vascular events in patients with previous vascular disease (RR = 0.85; 95% CI, 0.73-0.98); however, there was not a significant effect in patients without previous vascular disease (RR = 0.92; 95% CI, 0.73-1.16).

WHAT’S NEW

Statins may be unnecessary in older adults without ASCVD or T2DM

Statin therapy reduces the risk of ASCVD and mortality in patients ages 75 to 84 with type 2 diabetes and in patients > 75 years with known vascular disease. However, statin therapy seems to provide no benefit in patients ages > 75 years without ASCVD or in patients ages ≥ 85 years without ASCVD, regardless of type 2 diabetes status.

Continue to: CAVEATS

CAVEATS

Retrospective cohort design leaves cause and effect equivocal

Even though the first study was large (with more than 46,000 patients) and the median follow-up was 5.6 years, it was a retrospective cohort study. While there is clearly an association between statin therapy and reduced ASCVD and all-cause mortality in patients with diabetes ages 75 to 84 years, cause and effect cannot be unequivocally stated. However, the meta-analysis, which included RCTs, confirms the benefit of statins in secondary prevention for older patients.

The cohort study did not look at adverse effects from statin therapy in this age group, but the data from the 2019 meta-analysis did not reveal any significant risk of myopathy.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Guidelines are lacking and discontinuing meds requires discussion

The lack of supporting guidelines to treat this age group with statins remains the largest barrier to implementation. Many patients may already be taking a statin, so a discussion about discontinuing medication will need to be initiated.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

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 27-year-old G1P000 at term with an uncomplicated pregnancy has been laboring for 6 hours with an epidural in place and a reassuring fetal heart tracing. She is at –2 station with complete cervical dilation and effacement. Should she push now or delay pushing to allow for more descent?

More than 10,000 women give birth each day in the United States, yet few of our approaches to labor management are evidence based.² For example, there are no clear guidelines on whether immediate pushing or delayed pushing (waiting 1-2 hours) in the second stage of labor (the time from complete cervical dilation to delivery of the fetus) leads to better outcomes.

A recent Cochrane review, which included very low- to moderate-quality trials of nulliparous and multiparous women using epidural analgesia showed that delayed pushing resulted in more vaginal deliveries, longer duration of second stage of labor, and shorter duration of pushing.³ But many of the trials included in this Cochrane review were noted to have study design limitations and significant heterogeneity.

A recent retrospective study found that delayed pushing resulted in longer duration of pushing and increased risks for cesarean section, operative vaginal delivery, and postpartum hemorrhage in nulliparous patients with and without epidurals.⁴ The World Health Organization recommends delayed pushing in women with epidural analgesia if time and fetal monitoring resources are available.⁵

STUDY SUMMARY

Does the timing of second stage pushing efforts affect outcomes?

This multicenter randomized controlled trial (RCT) evaluated the effect on spontaneous vaginal delivery of delayed pushing vs immediate pushing in 2404 term nulliparous women using epidural analgesia.¹ Patients were ≥ 37 weeks’ gestation. Once patients achieved 10 cm of cervical dilation, they were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either immediate pushing or to delayed (for 60 minutes) pushing (unless there was an irresistible urge to push or they were otherwise instructed by their provider).

Outcome and results. The primary outcome was spontaneous vaginal delivery without the use of any operative support. The mean time to pushing after complete cervical dilation was 19 minutes in the immediate pushing group and 60 minutes in the delayed group. There was no difference in the rate of spontaneous vaginal delivery between the immediate and delayed pushing groups (86% vs 87%, respectively; P = .67). The immediate pushing group had a shorter duration of second stage of labor (102 minutes vs 134 minutes; mean difference [MD] = –32 minutes; 95% confidence interval [CI], –37 to –27; P < .001) and a slightly longer duration of active pushing (84 minutes vs 75 minutes; MD = 9.2 minutes; 95% CI, 6-13; P < .001).

Delaying pushing once the cervix is completely dilated is not indicated, even for nulliparous women receiving epidural analgesia.

There was no significant difference in operative vaginal or cesarean deliveries. Postpartum hemorrhage was lower in the immediate pushing group (2.3% vs 4%; risk ratio [RR] = 0.6; 95% CI, 0.3-0.9; P = .03; number needed to treat [NNT] = 58), as was chorioamnionitis (6.7% vs 9.1%; RR = 0.7; 95% CI, 0.66-0.90; P = .005; NNT = 40). There was no significant difference in neonatal morbidity between groups. And in subgroup analysis, there was no significant difference in rates of vaginal delivery based on fetal position (occiput anterior, posterior, or transverse) or station (defined as high [< 2 cm] or low [≥ 2 cm]) between groups. Recruitment was stopped early at 75% because there was no difference in the primary outcome and there was concern regarding an increased risk of hemorrhage in the delayed pushing group.

Continue to: WHAT'S NEW

WHAT’S NEW

There’s no good reason to delay pushing

Delaying pushing once the cervix is completely dilated is not indicated, even for nulliparous women receiving epidural analgesia, as it does not decrease the rate of spontaneous vaginal delivery. It does, however, increase the length of second stage labor and the risk of postpartum hemorrhage and chorioamnionitis.

CAVEATS

Study was stopped early, and groups were unblinded

This study was stopped early, so it is not known if it was underpowered for some of the secondary outcomes. Also, it was not possible to blind the groups, so it is not clear if any bias in patient management or diagnosis resulted.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Will current practice and culture pose obstacles?

Although the overt challenges to enacting a policy of immediate pushing are minimal, the inertia of current practice and culture could affect the implementation of this strategy.

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 27-year-old G1P000 at term with an uncomplicated pregnancy has been laboring for 6 hours with an epidural in place and a reassuring fetal heart tracing. She is at –2 station with complete cervical dilation and effacement. Should she push now or delay pushing to allow for more descent?

More than 10,000 women give birth each day in the United States, yet few of our approaches to labor management are evidence based.² For example, there are no clear guidelines on whether immediate pushing or delayed pushing (waiting 1-2 hours) in the second stage of labor (the time from complete cervical dilation to delivery of the fetus) leads to better outcomes.

A recent Cochrane review, which included very low- to moderate-quality trials of nulliparous and multiparous women using epidural analgesia showed that delayed pushing resulted in more vaginal deliveries, longer duration of second stage of labor, and shorter duration of pushing.³ But many of the trials included in this Cochrane review were noted to have study design limitations and significant heterogeneity.

A recent retrospective study found that delayed pushing resulted in longer duration of pushing and increased risks for cesarean section, operative vaginal delivery, and postpartum hemorrhage in nulliparous patients with and without epidurals.⁴ The World Health Organization recommends delayed pushing in women with epidural analgesia if time and fetal monitoring resources are available.⁵

STUDY SUMMARY

Does the timing of second stage pushing efforts affect outcomes?

This multicenter randomized controlled trial (RCT) evaluated the effect on spontaneous vaginal delivery of delayed pushing vs immediate pushing in 2404 term nulliparous women using epidural analgesia.¹ Patients were ≥ 37 weeks’ gestation. Once patients achieved 10 cm of cervical dilation, they were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either immediate pushing or to delayed (for 60 minutes) pushing (unless there was an irresistible urge to push or they were otherwise instructed by their provider).

Outcome and results. The primary outcome was spontaneous vaginal delivery without the use of any operative support. The mean time to pushing after complete cervical dilation was 19 minutes in the immediate pushing group and 60 minutes in the delayed group. There was no difference in the rate of spontaneous vaginal delivery between the immediate and delayed pushing groups (86% vs 87%, respectively; P = .67). The immediate pushing group had a shorter duration of second stage of labor (102 minutes vs 134 minutes; mean difference [MD] = –32 minutes; 95% confidence interval [CI], –37 to –27; P < .001) and a slightly longer duration of active pushing (84 minutes vs 75 minutes; MD = 9.2 minutes; 95% CI, 6-13; P < .001).

Delaying pushing once the cervix is completely dilated is not indicated, even for nulliparous women receiving epidural analgesia.

There was no significant difference in operative vaginal or cesarean deliveries. Postpartum hemorrhage was lower in the immediate pushing group (2.3% vs 4%; risk ratio [RR] = 0.6; 95% CI, 0.3-0.9; P = .03; number needed to treat [NNT] = 58), as was chorioamnionitis (6.7% vs 9.1%; RR = 0.7; 95% CI, 0.66-0.90; P = .005; NNT = 40). There was no significant difference in neonatal morbidity between groups. And in subgroup analysis, there was no significant difference in rates of vaginal delivery based on fetal position (occiput anterior, posterior, or transverse) or station (defined as high [< 2 cm] or low [≥ 2 cm]) between groups. Recruitment was stopped early at 75% because there was no difference in the primary outcome and there was concern regarding an increased risk of hemorrhage in the delayed pushing group.

Continue to: WHAT'S NEW

WHAT’S NEW

There’s no good reason to delay pushing

Delaying pushing once the cervix is completely dilated is not indicated, even for nulliparous women receiving epidural analgesia, as it does not decrease the rate of spontaneous vaginal delivery. It does, however, increase the length of second stage labor and the risk of postpartum hemorrhage and chorioamnionitis.

CAVEATS

Study was stopped early, and groups were unblinded

This study was stopped early, so it is not known if it was underpowered for some of the secondary outcomes. Also, it was not possible to blind the groups, so it is not clear if any bias in patient management or diagnosis resulted.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Will current practice and culture pose obstacles?

Although the overt challenges to enacting a policy of immediate pushing are minimal, the inertia of current practice and culture could affect the implementation of this strategy.

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 27-year-old G1P000 at term with an uncomplicated pregnancy has been laboring for 6 hours with an epidural in place and a reassuring fetal heart tracing. She is at –2 station with complete cervical dilation and effacement. Should she push now or delay pushing to allow for more descent?

More than 10,000 women give birth each day in the United States, yet few of our approaches to labor management are evidence based.² For example, there are no clear guidelines on whether immediate pushing or delayed pushing (waiting 1-2 hours) in the second stage of labor (the time from complete cervical dilation to delivery of the fetus) leads to better outcomes.

A recent Cochrane review, which included very low- to moderate-quality trials of nulliparous and multiparous women using epidural analgesia showed that delayed pushing resulted in more vaginal deliveries, longer duration of second stage of labor, and shorter duration of pushing.³ But many of the trials included in this Cochrane review were noted to have study design limitations and significant heterogeneity.

A recent retrospective study found that delayed pushing resulted in longer duration of pushing and increased risks for cesarean section, operative vaginal delivery, and postpartum hemorrhage in nulliparous patients with and without epidurals.⁴ The World Health Organization recommends delayed pushing in women with epidural analgesia if time and fetal monitoring resources are available.⁵

STUDY SUMMARY

Does the timing of second stage pushing efforts affect outcomes?

This multicenter randomized controlled trial (RCT) evaluated the effect on spontaneous vaginal delivery of delayed pushing vs immediate pushing in 2404 term nulliparous women using epidural analgesia.¹ Patients were ≥ 37 weeks’ gestation. Once patients achieved 10 cm of cervical dilation, they were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either immediate pushing or to delayed (for 60 minutes) pushing (unless there was an irresistible urge to push or they were otherwise instructed by their provider).

Outcome and results. The primary outcome was spontaneous vaginal delivery without the use of any operative support. The mean time to pushing after complete cervical dilation was 19 minutes in the immediate pushing group and 60 minutes in the delayed group. There was no difference in the rate of spontaneous vaginal delivery between the immediate and delayed pushing groups (86% vs 87%, respectively; P = .67). The immediate pushing group had a shorter duration of second stage of labor (102 minutes vs 134 minutes; mean difference [MD] = –32 minutes; 95% confidence interval [CI], –37 to –27; P < .001) and a slightly longer duration of active pushing (84 minutes vs 75 minutes; MD = 9.2 minutes; 95% CI, 6-13; P < .001).

Delaying pushing once the cervix is completely dilated is not indicated, even for nulliparous women receiving epidural analgesia.

There was no significant difference in operative vaginal or cesarean deliveries. Postpartum hemorrhage was lower in the immediate pushing group (2.3% vs 4%; risk ratio [RR] = 0.6; 95% CI, 0.3-0.9; P = .03; number needed to treat [NNT] = 58), as was chorioamnionitis (6.7% vs 9.1%; RR = 0.7; 95% CI, 0.66-0.90; P = .005; NNT = 40). There was no significant difference in neonatal morbidity between groups. And in subgroup analysis, there was no significant difference in rates of vaginal delivery based on fetal position (occiput anterior, posterior, or transverse) or station (defined as high [< 2 cm] or low [≥ 2 cm]) between groups. Recruitment was stopped early at 75% because there was no difference in the primary outcome and there was concern regarding an increased risk of hemorrhage in the delayed pushing group.

Continue to: WHAT'S NEW

WHAT’S NEW

There’s no good reason to delay pushing

Delaying pushing once the cervix is completely dilated is not indicated, even for nulliparous women receiving epidural analgesia, as it does not decrease the rate of spontaneous vaginal delivery. It does, however, increase the length of second stage labor and the risk of postpartum hemorrhage and chorioamnionitis.

CAVEATS

Study was stopped early, and groups were unblinded

This study was stopped early, so it is not known if it was underpowered for some of the secondary outcomes. Also, it was not possible to blind the groups, so it is not clear if any bias in patient management or diagnosis resulted.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Will current practice and culture pose obstacles?

Although the overt challenges to enacting a policy of immediate pushing are minimal, the inertia of current practice and culture could affect the implementation of this strategy.

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 23-year-old nonpregnant woman, whom you treated 3 times in the past year for cystitis, comes to you for follow-up. She wants to know what she can do to prevent another urinary tract infection other than taking prophylactic antibiotics. Should you recommend that this patient increase her daily water intake to prevent recurrent cystitis?

Urinary tract infection (UTI) is the most common bacterial infection encountered in the ambulatory setting. Half of all women report having had at least 1 UTI by the time they are 32 years old.² Recurrence is also common, with 27% of women having 1 recurrence within 6 months of their first episode.²

Because of growing antimicrobial resistance, the World Health Organization has urged using novel antimicrobial-sparing approaches to infectious diseases.³ Physicians have long recommended behavioral, nonantimicrobial strategies for prevention of recurrent uncomplicated cystitis. Such behavioral recommendations include drinking fluids liberally, urinating after intercourse, not delaying urination, wiping front to back, and avoiding tight-fitting underwear. However, these behavior modification strategies have been studied largely in case-control trials that have yet to find an association between behavior modification and reduced risk of UTI.² Although unproven as a prevention strategy, increasing daily fluid intake has long been a recommendation because of the belief that it helps to dilute and clear bactiuria.⁴ This study is the first non–case-control trial to examine the association between increased fluid intake and decreased UTIs.¹

STUDY SUMMARY

RCT looks at whether more water leads to fewer UTIs

Hooton and colleagues¹ conducted an open-label, randomized controlled trial (RCT) of premenopausal women with recurrent UTIs and low baseline fluid intake and compared increased fluid intake (an additional 1.5 L/d) with no additional fluids. Participants were provided three 500-mL bottles of water per day and were followed for 1 year. Screened women were included if they had 3 or more symptomatic UTIs in the previous year, 1 culture-confirmed UTI, self-reported fluid intake < 1.5 L /d, and were otherwise in good health. Fluid intake was verified by 24-hour urine collection, requiring a volume < 1.2 L and urine osmolality of ≥ 500 mOsm/kg. Exclusion criteria included a history of pyelonephritis within the past year, interstitial cystitis, pregnancy, or current symptoms of UTI.

The primary outcome was frequency of UTI during the study period, defined as 1 urinary symptom and at least 10³ CFU/mL uropathogens in a urine culture. Secondary outcomes included the number of antimicrobial agents used, time to first UTI, mean time interval between cystitis episodes, and adverse events.¹

This is the first RCT to show that increased daily water intake can reduce the risk of recurrent cystitis in premenopausal patients with low fluid intake who are at high risk for UTI.

A total of 140 participants were randomized with 70 in the water group and 70 in the control group. The mean age of the participants was 35.7 years, and the mean number of reported cystitis episodes was 3.3 in the 12 months prior to the study. By the end of the 12-month study period, mean daily fluid intake had increased by 1.7 L above baseline in the water group. During the 12-month study period, the mean (SD) number of cystitis episodes was 1.7 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.5-1.8) in the water group compared with 3.2 (95% CI, 3-3.4) in the control group, with a difference in means of 1.5 (95% CI, 1.2-1.8; P < .001).

The mean number of antimicrobial agents used for UTI was 1.9 (95% CI, 1.7-2.2) in the water group and 3.6 (95% CI, 3.3-4) in the control group. The median time to first UTI episode was 148 days in the water group compared with 93.5 days in the control group (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.51; 95% CI, 0.36-0.74; P < .001) and the difference in means for the time interval between UTI episodes was 58.4 days (95% CI, 39.4-77.4; P < .001). No serious adverse events were reported.¹

Continue to: WHAT'S NEW

WHAT’S NEW

Proof that increased fluid intake reduces the risk of recurrent UTI

Increasing daily fluid intake is a long-held but previously unproven recommendation. This is the first RCT to show increased daily water intake can reduce the risk of recurrent cystitis in premenopausal patients at high risk for UTI and with low fluid intake. No additional risk of adverse events was found.

CAVEATS

Is there a risk of overhydration?

The study did not address the effect of increasing water intake in women who do not have low-volume fluid intake. Case reports of overhydration emphasize the need to be cautious when making recommendations to hydrate.⁵ It is not known if physicians should screen for fluid intake at baseline to identify those (with low intake) who would be eligible for this intervention.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

It’s unclear whether the strategy will work without monitoring

The intervention is both low-risk and low-cost to the patient. However, the intervention was supported by home delivery of water and monthly monitoring interventions that are not typical in normal care. Although the clinical intervention of drinking more fluids (primarily water) appears sound, it is not known whether a physician’s recommendation would result in the same adherence and risk reduction as water delivery and monitoring.

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 23-year-old nonpregnant woman, whom you treated 3 times in the past year for cystitis, comes to you for follow-up. She wants to know what she can do to prevent another urinary tract infection other than taking prophylactic antibiotics. Should you recommend that this patient increase her daily water intake to prevent recurrent cystitis?

Urinary tract infection (UTI) is the most common bacterial infection encountered in the ambulatory setting. Half of all women report having had at least 1 UTI by the time they are 32 years old.² Recurrence is also common, with 27% of women having 1 recurrence within 6 months of their first episode.²

Because of growing antimicrobial resistance, the World Health Organization has urged using novel antimicrobial-sparing approaches to infectious diseases.³ Physicians have long recommended behavioral, nonantimicrobial strategies for prevention of recurrent uncomplicated cystitis. Such behavioral recommendations include drinking fluids liberally, urinating after intercourse, not delaying urination, wiping front to back, and avoiding tight-fitting underwear. However, these behavior modification strategies have been studied largely in case-control trials that have yet to find an association between behavior modification and reduced risk of UTI.² Although unproven as a prevention strategy, increasing daily fluid intake has long been a recommendation because of the belief that it helps to dilute and clear bactiuria.⁴ This study is the first non–case-control trial to examine the association between increased fluid intake and decreased UTIs.¹

STUDY SUMMARY

RCT looks at whether more water leads to fewer UTIs

Hooton and colleagues¹ conducted an open-label, randomized controlled trial (RCT) of premenopausal women with recurrent UTIs and low baseline fluid intake and compared increased fluid intake (an additional 1.5 L/d) with no additional fluids. Participants were provided three 500-mL bottles of water per day and were followed for 1 year. Screened women were included if they had 3 or more symptomatic UTIs in the previous year, 1 culture-confirmed UTI, self-reported fluid intake < 1.5 L /d, and were otherwise in good health. Fluid intake was verified by 24-hour urine collection, requiring a volume < 1.2 L and urine osmolality of ≥ 500 mOsm/kg. Exclusion criteria included a history of pyelonephritis within the past year, interstitial cystitis, pregnancy, or current symptoms of UTI.

The primary outcome was frequency of UTI during the study period, defined as 1 urinary symptom and at least 10³ CFU/mL uropathogens in a urine culture. Secondary outcomes included the number of antimicrobial agents used, time to first UTI, mean time interval between cystitis episodes, and adverse events.¹

This is the first RCT to show that increased daily water intake can reduce the risk of recurrent cystitis in premenopausal patients with low fluid intake who are at high risk for UTI.

A total of 140 participants were randomized with 70 in the water group and 70 in the control group. The mean age of the participants was 35.7 years, and the mean number of reported cystitis episodes was 3.3 in the 12 months prior to the study. By the end of the 12-month study period, mean daily fluid intake had increased by 1.7 L above baseline in the water group. During the 12-month study period, the mean (SD) number of cystitis episodes was 1.7 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.5-1.8) in the water group compared with 3.2 (95% CI, 3-3.4) in the control group, with a difference in means of 1.5 (95% CI, 1.2-1.8; P < .001).

The mean number of antimicrobial agents used for UTI was 1.9 (95% CI, 1.7-2.2) in the water group and 3.6 (95% CI, 3.3-4) in the control group. The median time to first UTI episode was 148 days in the water group compared with 93.5 days in the control group (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.51; 95% CI, 0.36-0.74; P < .001) and the difference in means for the time interval between UTI episodes was 58.4 days (95% CI, 39.4-77.4; P < .001). No serious adverse events were reported.¹

Continue to: WHAT'S NEW

WHAT’S NEW

Proof that increased fluid intake reduces the risk of recurrent UTI

Increasing daily fluid intake is a long-held but previously unproven recommendation. This is the first RCT to show increased daily water intake can reduce the risk of recurrent cystitis in premenopausal patients at high risk for UTI and with low fluid intake. No additional risk of adverse events was found.

CAVEATS

Is there a risk of overhydration?

The study did not address the effect of increasing water intake in women who do not have low-volume fluid intake. Case reports of overhydration emphasize the need to be cautious when making recommendations to hydrate.⁵ It is not known if physicians should screen for fluid intake at baseline to identify those (with low intake) who would be eligible for this intervention.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

It’s unclear whether the strategy will work without monitoring

The intervention is both low-risk and low-cost to the patient. However, the intervention was supported by home delivery of water and monthly monitoring interventions that are not typical in normal care. Although the clinical intervention of drinking more fluids (primarily water) appears sound, it is not known whether a physician’s recommendation would result in the same adherence and risk reduction as water delivery and monitoring.

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 23-year-old nonpregnant woman, whom you treated 3 times in the past year for cystitis, comes to you for follow-up. She wants to know what she can do to prevent another urinary tract infection other than taking prophylactic antibiotics. Should you recommend that this patient increase her daily water intake to prevent recurrent cystitis?

Urinary tract infection (UTI) is the most common bacterial infection encountered in the ambulatory setting. Half of all women report having had at least 1 UTI by the time they are 32 years old.² Recurrence is also common, with 27% of women having 1 recurrence within 6 months of their first episode.²

Because of growing antimicrobial resistance, the World Health Organization has urged using novel antimicrobial-sparing approaches to infectious diseases.³ Physicians have long recommended behavioral, nonantimicrobial strategies for prevention of recurrent uncomplicated cystitis. Such behavioral recommendations include drinking fluids liberally, urinating after intercourse, not delaying urination, wiping front to back, and avoiding tight-fitting underwear. However, these behavior modification strategies have been studied largely in case-control trials that have yet to find an association between behavior modification and reduced risk of UTI.² Although unproven as a prevention strategy, increasing daily fluid intake has long been a recommendation because of the belief that it helps to dilute and clear bactiuria.⁴ This study is the first non–case-control trial to examine the association between increased fluid intake and decreased UTIs.¹

STUDY SUMMARY

RCT looks at whether more water leads to fewer UTIs

Hooton and colleagues¹ conducted an open-label, randomized controlled trial (RCT) of premenopausal women with recurrent UTIs and low baseline fluid intake and compared increased fluid intake (an additional 1.5 L/d) with no additional fluids. Participants were provided three 500-mL bottles of water per day and were followed for 1 year. Screened women were included if they had 3 or more symptomatic UTIs in the previous year, 1 culture-confirmed UTI, self-reported fluid intake < 1.5 L /d, and were otherwise in good health. Fluid intake was verified by 24-hour urine collection, requiring a volume < 1.2 L and urine osmolality of ≥ 500 mOsm/kg. Exclusion criteria included a history of pyelonephritis within the past year, interstitial cystitis, pregnancy, or current symptoms of UTI.

The primary outcome was frequency of UTI during the study period, defined as 1 urinary symptom and at least 10³ CFU/mL uropathogens in a urine culture. Secondary outcomes included the number of antimicrobial agents used, time to first UTI, mean time interval between cystitis episodes, and adverse events.¹

This is the first RCT to show that increased daily water intake can reduce the risk of recurrent cystitis in premenopausal patients with low fluid intake who are at high risk for UTI.

A total of 140 participants were randomized with 70 in the water group and 70 in the control group. The mean age of the participants was 35.7 years, and the mean number of reported cystitis episodes was 3.3 in the 12 months prior to the study. By the end of the 12-month study period, mean daily fluid intake had increased by 1.7 L above baseline in the water group. During the 12-month study period, the mean (SD) number of cystitis episodes was 1.7 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.5-1.8) in the water group compared with 3.2 (95% CI, 3-3.4) in the control group, with a difference in means of 1.5 (95% CI, 1.2-1.8; P < .001).

The mean number of antimicrobial agents used for UTI was 1.9 (95% CI, 1.7-2.2) in the water group and 3.6 (95% CI, 3.3-4) in the control group. The median time to first UTI episode was 148 days in the water group compared with 93.5 days in the control group (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.51; 95% CI, 0.36-0.74; P < .001) and the difference in means for the time interval between UTI episodes was 58.4 days (95% CI, 39.4-77.4; P < .001). No serious adverse events were reported.¹

Continue to: WHAT'S NEW

WHAT’S NEW

Proof that increased fluid intake reduces the risk of recurrent UTI

Increasing daily fluid intake is a long-held but previously unproven recommendation. This is the first RCT to show increased daily water intake can reduce the risk of recurrent cystitis in premenopausal patients at high risk for UTI and with low fluid intake. No additional risk of adverse events was found.

CAVEATS

Is there a risk of overhydration?

The study did not address the effect of increasing water intake in women who do not have low-volume fluid intake. Case reports of overhydration emphasize the need to be cautious when making recommendations to hydrate.⁵ It is not known if physicians should screen for fluid intake at baseline to identify those (with low intake) who would be eligible for this intervention.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

It’s unclear whether the strategy will work without monitoring

The intervention is both low-risk and low-cost to the patient. However, the intervention was supported by home delivery of water and monthly monitoring interventions that are not typical in normal care. Although the clinical intervention of drinking more fluids (primarily water) appears sound, it is not known whether a physician’s recommendation would result in the same adherence and risk reduction as water delivery and monitoring.

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 healthy 72-year-old man with well-controlled hypertension on amlodipine 10 mg/d presents to you for an annual exam. He has no history of coronary artery disease or stroke. Should you recommend that he start aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease?

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains the leading cause of death in the United States.² Aspirin therapy remains the standard of care for secondary prevention of CVD in patients with known coronary artery disease (CAD).³ Aspirin reduces the risk of atherothrombosis by irreversibly inhibiting platelet function. At the same time, it increases the risk of major bleeding, including gastrointestinal bleeds and hemorrhagic strokes. Even though the benefit of aspirin in patients with known CAD is well established, the benefit of aspirin as primary prevention is less certain.

Two recent large randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examined the benefits and risks of aspirin in a variety of patient populations. The ARRIVE trial looked at more than 12,000 patients with a mean age of 63 years with moderate risk of CVD (approximately 15% risk of a cardiovascular event in 10 years) and randomly assigned them to receive aspirin or placebo.⁴ After an average follow-up period of 5 years, researchers observed that actual cardiovascular event risk was < 10% in both groups, and there was no significant difference in the primary outcome of first cardiovascular event or all-cause mortality. There was, however, a significant increase in bleeding events in the group receiving aspirin.⁴

The ASCEND trial evaluated aspirin vs placebo in more than 15,000 adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and a low risk of CVD (< 10% risk of cardiovascular event in 5 years). ⁵ The primary endpoint of the study was first cardiovascular event. The authors found a significantly lower rate of cardiovascular events in the aspirin group, as well as more major bleeding events. Additionally, there was no difference between the aspirin and placebo groups in all-cause ­mortality after 7 years. The authors concluded that the benefits of aspirin in this group were ­counterbalanced by the harms.⁵

Currently, several organizations offer recommendations on aspirin use in people 40 to 70 years of age based on a patient’s risk of bleeding and risk of CVD.^6-8 Recommendations regarding aspirin use as primary prevention have been less clear for patients < 40 and > 70 years of age.⁶

Elderly patients are at higher risk of CVD and bleeding, but until recently, few studies had evaluated elderly populations to assess the benefits vs the risks of aspirin for primary CVD prevention. As of 2016, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) stated the evidence was insufficient to assess the balance of the benefits and harms of initiating aspirin use for primary prevention of CVD in patients older than 70 years of age.⁶ This trial focuses on aspirin use for primary prevention of CVD in healthy elderly adults.

STUDY SUMMARY

Don’t use aspirin as primary prevention of CVD in the elderly

This secondary analysis of a prior double-blind RCT, which found low-dose aspirin did not prolong survival in elderly patients, examined the effect of aspirin on CVD and hemorrhage in 19,114 elderly patients without known CVD.¹ The patients were ≥ 70 years of age (≥ 65 years for blacks and Hispanics) with a mean age of 74 years and were from Australia (87%) and the United States (13%). Approximately one-third of the patients were taking a statin, and 14% were taking a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) regularly. Patients were randomized to either aspirin 100 mg/d or matching placebo and were followed for an average of 4.7 years.

Continue to: Outcomes

Outcomes. The outcome of CVD was a composite of fatal coronary heart disease, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), fatal or nonfatal ischemic stroke, or hospitalization for heart failure, and the outcome of major adverse cardiovascular event was a composite of fatal cardiovascular disease (excluding death from heart failure), nonfatal MI, or fatal and nonfatal ischemic stroke.

Results. No difference was seen between the aspirin and placebo groups in CVD outcomes (10.7 events per 1000 person-years vs 11.3 events per 1000 person-years, respectively; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83-1.08) or major cardiovascular events (7.8 events per 1000 person-years vs 8.8 events per 1000 person-years, respectively; HR = 0.89; 95% CI, 0.77-1.03). The composite and individual endpoints of fatal cardiovascular disease, heart failure hospitalizations, fatal and nonfatal MI, and ischemic stroke also did not differ significantly between the groups.

Because of this trial, the ACC and AHA have updated their guidelines on primary prevention of CVD to recommend against the routine use of aspirin in patients > 70 years of age.

The rate of major hemorrhagic events (composite of hemorrhagic stroke, intracranial bleed, or extracranial bleed), however, was higher in the aspirin vs the placebo group (8.6 events per 1000 person-years vs 6.2 events per 1000 person-years, respectively; HR = 1.4; 95% CI, 1.2-1.6; number needed to harm = 98).

WHAT’S NEW

Finding of more harm than good leads to change in ACC/AHA guidelines

Although the most recent USPSTF guidelines state the evidence is insufficient to assess the risks and benefits of aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in this age group, this trial reveals there is a greater risk of hemorrhagic events than there is prevention of cardiovascular outcomes with aspirin use in healthy elderly patients > 70 years of age.⁶ Because of this trial, the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the American Heart Association (AHA) have updated their guidelines on the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease to recommend that aspirin not be used routinely in patients > 70 years of age.⁷

CAVEATS

Potential benefit to people at higher risk?

The rate of cardiovascular disease was lower than expected in this overall healthy population, so it is not known if cardiovascular benefits may outweigh the risk of bleeding in a higher-risk population. The trial also didn’t address the potential harms of deprescribing aspirin. Additionally, although aspirin may not be protective for cardiovascular events and may lead to more bleeding, there may be other benefits to aspirin in this patient population that were not addressed by this study.

Continue to: CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Popular beliefs and wide availability may make tide difficult to change

Patients have been told for years to take a daily aspirin to “protect their heart”; this behavior may be difficult to change. And because aspirin is widely available over the counter, patients may take it without their physician’s knowledge.

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 healthy 72-year-old man with well-controlled hypertension on amlodipine 10 mg/d presents to you for an annual exam. He has no history of coronary artery disease or stroke. Should you recommend that he start aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease?

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains the leading cause of death in the United States.² Aspirin therapy remains the standard of care for secondary prevention of CVD in patients with known coronary artery disease (CAD).³ Aspirin reduces the risk of atherothrombosis by irreversibly inhibiting platelet function. At the same time, it increases the risk of major bleeding, including gastrointestinal bleeds and hemorrhagic strokes. Even though the benefit of aspirin in patients with known CAD is well established, the benefit of aspirin as primary prevention is less certain.

Two recent large randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examined the benefits and risks of aspirin in a variety of patient populations. The ARRIVE trial looked at more than 12,000 patients with a mean age of 63 years with moderate risk of CVD (approximately 15% risk of a cardiovascular event in 10 years) and randomly assigned them to receive aspirin or placebo.⁴ After an average follow-up period of 5 years, researchers observed that actual cardiovascular event risk was < 10% in both groups, and there was no significant difference in the primary outcome of first cardiovascular event or all-cause mortality. There was, however, a significant increase in bleeding events in the group receiving aspirin.⁴

The ASCEND trial evaluated aspirin vs placebo in more than 15,000 adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and a low risk of CVD (< 10% risk of cardiovascular event in 5 years). ⁵ The primary endpoint of the study was first cardiovascular event. The authors found a significantly lower rate of cardiovascular events in the aspirin group, as well as more major bleeding events. Additionally, there was no difference between the aspirin and placebo groups in all-cause ­mortality after 7 years. The authors concluded that the benefits of aspirin in this group were ­counterbalanced by the harms.⁵

Currently, several organizations offer recommendations on aspirin use in people 40 to 70 years of age based on a patient’s risk of bleeding and risk of CVD.^6-8 Recommendations regarding aspirin use as primary prevention have been less clear for patients < 40 and > 70 years of age.⁶

Elderly patients are at higher risk of CVD and bleeding, but until recently, few studies had evaluated elderly populations to assess the benefits vs the risks of aspirin for primary CVD prevention. As of 2016, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) stated the evidence was insufficient to assess the balance of the benefits and harms of initiating aspirin use for primary prevention of CVD in patients older than 70 years of age.⁶ This trial focuses on aspirin use for primary prevention of CVD in healthy elderly adults.

STUDY SUMMARY

Don’t use aspirin as primary prevention of CVD in the elderly

This secondary analysis of a prior double-blind RCT, which found low-dose aspirin did not prolong survival in elderly patients, examined the effect of aspirin on CVD and hemorrhage in 19,114 elderly patients without known CVD.¹ The patients were ≥ 70 years of age (≥ 65 years for blacks and Hispanics) with a mean age of 74 years and were from Australia (87%) and the United States (13%). Approximately one-third of the patients were taking a statin, and 14% were taking a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) regularly. Patients were randomized to either aspirin 100 mg/d or matching placebo and were followed for an average of 4.7 years.

Continue to: Outcomes

Outcomes. The outcome of CVD was a composite of fatal coronary heart disease, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), fatal or nonfatal ischemic stroke, or hospitalization for heart failure, and the outcome of major adverse cardiovascular event was a composite of fatal cardiovascular disease (excluding death from heart failure), nonfatal MI, or fatal and nonfatal ischemic stroke.

Results. No difference was seen between the aspirin and placebo groups in CVD outcomes (10.7 events per 1000 person-years vs 11.3 events per 1000 person-years, respectively; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83-1.08) or major cardiovascular events (7.8 events per 1000 person-years vs 8.8 events per 1000 person-years, respectively; HR = 0.89; 95% CI, 0.77-1.03). The composite and individual endpoints of fatal cardiovascular disease, heart failure hospitalizations, fatal and nonfatal MI, and ischemic stroke also did not differ significantly between the groups.

Because of this trial, the ACC and AHA have updated their guidelines on primary prevention of CVD to recommend against the routine use of aspirin in patients > 70 years of age.

The rate of major hemorrhagic events (composite of hemorrhagic stroke, intracranial bleed, or extracranial bleed), however, was higher in the aspirin vs the placebo group (8.6 events per 1000 person-years vs 6.2 events per 1000 person-years, respectively; HR = 1.4; 95% CI, 1.2-1.6; number needed to harm = 98).

WHAT’S NEW

Finding of more harm than good leads to change in ACC/AHA guidelines

Although the most recent USPSTF guidelines state the evidence is insufficient to assess the risks and benefits of aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in this age group, this trial reveals there is a greater risk of hemorrhagic events than there is prevention of cardiovascular outcomes with aspirin use in healthy elderly patients > 70 years of age.⁶ Because of this trial, the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the American Heart Association (AHA) have updated their guidelines on the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease to recommend that aspirin not be used routinely in patients > 70 years of age.⁷

CAVEATS

Potential benefit to people at higher risk?

The rate of cardiovascular disease was lower than expected in this overall healthy population, so it is not known if cardiovascular benefits may outweigh the risk of bleeding in a higher-risk population. The trial also didn’t address the potential harms of deprescribing aspirin. Additionally, although aspirin may not be protective for cardiovascular events and may lead to more bleeding, there may be other benefits to aspirin in this patient population that were not addressed by this study.

Continue to: CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Popular beliefs and wide availability may make tide difficult to change

Patients have been told for years to take a daily aspirin to “protect their heart”; this behavior may be difficult to change. And because aspirin is widely available over the counter, patients may take it without their physician’s knowledge.

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 healthy 72-year-old man with well-controlled hypertension on amlodipine 10 mg/d presents to you for an annual exam. He has no history of coronary artery disease or stroke. Should you recommend that he start aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease?

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains the leading cause of death in the United States.² Aspirin therapy remains the standard of care for secondary prevention of CVD in patients with known coronary artery disease (CAD).³ Aspirin reduces the risk of atherothrombosis by irreversibly inhibiting platelet function. At the same time, it increases the risk of major bleeding, including gastrointestinal bleeds and hemorrhagic strokes. Even though the benefit of aspirin in patients with known CAD is well established, the benefit of aspirin as primary prevention is less certain.

Two recent large randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examined the benefits and risks of aspirin in a variety of patient populations. The ARRIVE trial looked at more than 12,000 patients with a mean age of 63 years with moderate risk of CVD (approximately 15% risk of a cardiovascular event in 10 years) and randomly assigned them to receive aspirin or placebo.⁴ After an average follow-up period of 5 years, researchers observed that actual cardiovascular event risk was < 10% in both groups, and there was no significant difference in the primary outcome of first cardiovascular event or all-cause mortality. There was, however, a significant increase in bleeding events in the group receiving aspirin.⁴

The ASCEND trial evaluated aspirin vs placebo in more than 15,000 adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and a low risk of CVD (< 10% risk of cardiovascular event in 5 years). ⁵ The primary endpoint of the study was first cardiovascular event. The authors found a significantly lower rate of cardiovascular events in the aspirin group, as well as more major bleeding events. Additionally, there was no difference between the aspirin and placebo groups in all-cause ­mortality after 7 years. The authors concluded that the benefits of aspirin in this group were ­counterbalanced by the harms.⁵

Currently, several organizations offer recommendations on aspirin use in people 40 to 70 years of age based on a patient’s risk of bleeding and risk of CVD.^6-8 Recommendations regarding aspirin use as primary prevention have been less clear for patients < 40 and > 70 years of age.⁶

Elderly patients are at higher risk of CVD and bleeding, but until recently, few studies had evaluated elderly populations to assess the benefits vs the risks of aspirin for primary CVD prevention. As of 2016, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) stated the evidence was insufficient to assess the balance of the benefits and harms of initiating aspirin use for primary prevention of CVD in patients older than 70 years of age.⁶ This trial focuses on aspirin use for primary prevention of CVD in healthy elderly adults.

STUDY SUMMARY

Don’t use aspirin as primary prevention of CVD in the elderly

This secondary analysis of a prior double-blind RCT, which found low-dose aspirin did not prolong survival in elderly patients, examined the effect of aspirin on CVD and hemorrhage in 19,114 elderly patients without known CVD.¹ The patients were ≥ 70 years of age (≥ 65 years for blacks and Hispanics) with a mean age of 74 years and were from Australia (87%) and the United States (13%). Approximately one-third of the patients were taking a statin, and 14% were taking a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) regularly. Patients were randomized to either aspirin 100 mg/d or matching placebo and were followed for an average of 4.7 years.

Continue to: Outcomes

Outcomes. The outcome of CVD was a composite of fatal coronary heart disease, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), fatal or nonfatal ischemic stroke, or hospitalization for heart failure, and the outcome of major adverse cardiovascular event was a composite of fatal cardiovascular disease (excluding death from heart failure), nonfatal MI, or fatal and nonfatal ischemic stroke.

Results. No difference was seen between the aspirin and placebo groups in CVD outcomes (10.7 events per 1000 person-years vs 11.3 events per 1000 person-years, respectively; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83-1.08) or major cardiovascular events (7.8 events per 1000 person-years vs 8.8 events per 1000 person-years, respectively; HR = 0.89; 95% CI, 0.77-1.03). The composite and individual endpoints of fatal cardiovascular disease, heart failure hospitalizations, fatal and nonfatal MI, and ischemic stroke also did not differ significantly between the groups.

Because of this trial, the ACC and AHA have updated their guidelines on primary prevention of CVD to recommend against the routine use of aspirin in patients > 70 years of age.

The rate of major hemorrhagic events (composite of hemorrhagic stroke, intracranial bleed, or extracranial bleed), however, was higher in the aspirin vs the placebo group (8.6 events per 1000 person-years vs 6.2 events per 1000 person-years, respectively; HR = 1.4; 95% CI, 1.2-1.6; number needed to harm = 98).

WHAT’S NEW

Finding of more harm than good leads to change in ACC/AHA guidelines

Although the most recent USPSTF guidelines state the evidence is insufficient to assess the risks and benefits of aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in this age group, this trial reveals there is a greater risk of hemorrhagic events than there is prevention of cardiovascular outcomes with aspirin use in healthy elderly patients > 70 years of age.⁶ Because of this trial, the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the American Heart Association (AHA) have updated their guidelines on the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease to recommend that aspirin not be used routinely in patients > 70 years of age.⁷

CAVEATS

Potential benefit to people at higher risk?

The rate of cardiovascular disease was lower than expected in this overall healthy population, so it is not known if cardiovascular benefits may outweigh the risk of bleeding in a higher-risk population. The trial also didn’t address the potential harms of deprescribing aspirin. Additionally, although aspirin may not be protective for cardiovascular events and may lead to more bleeding, there may be other benefits to aspirin in this patient population that were not addressed by this study.

Continue to: CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Popular beliefs and wide availability may make tide difficult to change

Patients have been told for years to take a daily aspirin to “protect their heart”; this behavior may be difficult to change. And because aspirin is widely available over the counter, patients may take it without their physician’s knowledge.

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.