MDedge Surgery

Guidance from professional societies on how to handle the risk for pulmonary aspiration during general anesthesia or deep sedation for patients taking glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) continues to evolve, as does the US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) labeling for the drugs. The changes can be challenging to keep up with, and endocrinologists seem to be making their own decisions based on clinical experience and their interpretations of the potential impact and value of the emerging information.

The latest FDA label change warns about the risk for pulmonary aspiration but notes “insufficient” data to inform recommendations to mitigate the risk in vulnerable patients. Yet, the latest multi-society guidance, led by the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) and based on consensus, not evidence, has nuanced advice for managing patients at risk.

Does the FDA’s label change make a difference regarding the multi-society guidance, which was published earlier? “The answer is no,” Girish Joshi, MD, vice chair, ASA Committee on Practice Parameters, told this news organization. “The concern of increased pulmonary aspiration in patients who are on GLP-1 receptor agonists has been known, and that concern still exists. So, we started with not an assumption but the premise that patients on GLP-1 receptor agonists are at a higher risk of aspiration during sedation, analgesia, and/or general anesthesia. The FDA basically confirms what we say in the guidance.”

Joshi, professor in the Anesthesiology and Pain Management Department at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, aimed to make the guidance, which was published simultaneously in several society journals, more implementable with a letter to the editor of Anesthesiology. The key, he said, is to identify patients at higher risk for aspiration; all others would follow treatment as usual.

The letter highlights three overarching recommendations and then expands upon them: Standardized preoperative assessment for risk for delayed gastric emptying (yes/no); selective preoperative care plan based on delayed gastric emptying assessment and shared decision-making; and on the day of the procedure, reassess for delayed gastric emptying and mitigate risk if there is clinical concern.

But it seems as though, for now, endocrinologists are managing these patients as they see fit, within the parameters of any institutional guidance requirements. Here is what they said about their practice:

Amy E. Rothberg, MD, DABOM, director of the Weight Management Program & Rewind at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, said, “I think it makes sense to inform our patients of the labeling and rare but potential adverse effects if they intend to undergo anesthesia for a scheduled procedure/surgery. There is never no risk of aspiration during anesthesia.”

“I find it a bit curious that ASA implies that those who experience GI side effects are more likely than those who do not to have this potential risk. I doubt there is evidence that those without GI side effects are necessarily ‘safer’ and a study to determine that is unlikely to take be conducted.”

“My institution does require a 1-week pause on GLP-1s for those undergoing anesthesia for surgery,” she added. “That’s not evidence-based either, but probably reduces the risk of aspiration during anesthesia — but I don’t know what the actual denominator is for aspiration in those who continued vs those who took a pause from GLP-1s. Pausing does certainly (anecdotally) increase the traffic of communications between physicians and their patients about what to do in the interval.”

Anne Peters, MD, a professor of clinical medicine and a clinical scholar at the Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said, “The FDA label change is a warning that really doesn’t say exactly who on GLP-1 RAs is at highest risk or what to do, and if any intervention has been shown to help. The ASA recommendations seem much more nuanced and practical, including point-of-care gastric ultrasound to see if there is retained food/fluid prior to surgery.”

“In my practice, I individualize what I say, depending on the person and the circumstance,” she said. “Mostly, I have people hold one dose before planned surgery, so they have been 10 days at least without a dose. But if worried about gastrointestinal symptoms or gastroparesis, I have them do a clear liquid diet for 24 hours presurgery. Or at least avoid heavy fat meals the day before.”

“There is a risk of aspiration with anything that slows gastric emptying — maybe even in patients with gastroparesis at baseline due to physiologic, not pharmacological, reasons — and anesthesiologists should be aware of the need to assess patients individually.”

Michael A. Weintraub, MD, of NYU Langone Health Diabetes & Endocrine Associates in New York City, observed, “The risk of a pulmonary aspiration event with GLP-1 medication is quite rare, but not zero. On the other hand, stopping the GLP-1 can cause hyperglycemia or rebound weight gain. Furthermore, it can become complicated to restart GLP1 dosing, particularly given the existing medication shortages.”

“In most cases, stopping a weekly GLP-1 medication 1 week prior to the procedure minimizes the risks of pulmonary aspiration and prevents any worsening hyperglycemia or weight gain,” he said. However, taking the drug 7 days prior to the procedure is optimal. “That way, they would be due for the next dose on the day of the procedure, and taking it the day following procedure minimizes disruption in their once-weekly regimen.”

Malini Gupta, MD, director of G2Endo Endocrinology & Metabolism, Memphis, Tennessee, advised that physicians weigh the risk of stopping the medication (which can cause a glycemic spike) vs risk for aspiration.

“In my opinion, all patients should follow a strict liquid diet or NPO status prior to a surgery to further decrease the risk of aspiration,” she said. “I generally hold the GLP-1 RA for a week before a surgery. If additional glycemic control is necessary, I will add to or adjust one of the patient’s other diabetes medications.”

Jaime Almandoz, MD, associate professor of medicine and medical director of the Weight Wellness Program in Dallas, said, “As endocrinologists, we typically rely on our anesthesia colleagues for guidance on perioperative management. In light of emerging guidelines for holding GLP-1 medications, we also recommend patients adopt a liquid diet 24 hours prior to surgery, along with the fasting protocol.”

“For those managing diabetes with GLP-1 therapies, it is crucial to establish a blood sugar management plan while off these medications, especially during fasting or postoperative periods, which can be further influenced by many factors, including nausea, pain medications, and antibiotics after the procedure.”

Joshi added that at Parkland Hospital in Dallas, “we do a huge number of cases using the same information. We identify patients who are at risk, and then we tell our proceduralists and our surgeons if they’re in the escalating phase of the dosing or if they have GI symptoms; don’t even schedule them as an elective case; wait till the escalation phase is over and then schedule them.”

“That way,” he said, “it becomes logistically easy to manage because the recommendation from the group is that patients who are at higher risk should receive a 24-hour liquid diet — the same as colonoscopy. But sometimes it can be challenging to do so.”

Joshi has received honoraria for consultation from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Vertex Pharmaceuticals, and Haisco-USA Pharmaceuticals. Gupta is on the speakers bureau for Amgen (Tepezza) and IBSA (Tirosint) and is a creative consultant for AbbVie. Almandoz serves on advisory boards for Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, and Boehringer Ingelheim. The other experts declared no relevant relationships.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Guidance from professional societies on how to handle the risk for pulmonary aspiration during general anesthesia or deep sedation for patients taking glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) continues to evolve, as does the US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) labeling for the drugs. The changes can be challenging to keep up with, and endocrinologists seem to be making their own decisions based on clinical experience and their interpretations of the potential impact and value of the emerging information.

The latest FDA label change warns about the risk for pulmonary aspiration but notes “insufficient” data to inform recommendations to mitigate the risk in vulnerable patients. Yet, the latest multi-society guidance, led by the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) and based on consensus, not evidence, has nuanced advice for managing patients at risk.

Does the FDA’s label change make a difference regarding the multi-society guidance, which was published earlier? “The answer is no,” Girish Joshi, MD, vice chair, ASA Committee on Practice Parameters, told this news organization. “The concern of increased pulmonary aspiration in patients who are on GLP-1 receptor agonists has been known, and that concern still exists. So, we started with not an assumption but the premise that patients on GLP-1 receptor agonists are at a higher risk of aspiration during sedation, analgesia, and/or general anesthesia. The FDA basically confirms what we say in the guidance.”

Joshi, professor in the Anesthesiology and Pain Management Department at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, aimed to make the guidance, which was published simultaneously in several society journals, more implementable with a letter to the editor of Anesthesiology. The key, he said, is to identify patients at higher risk for aspiration; all others would follow treatment as usual.

The letter highlights three overarching recommendations and then expands upon them: Standardized preoperative assessment for risk for delayed gastric emptying (yes/no); selective preoperative care plan based on delayed gastric emptying assessment and shared decision-making; and on the day of the procedure, reassess for delayed gastric emptying and mitigate risk if there is clinical concern.

But it seems as though, for now, endocrinologists are managing these patients as they see fit, within the parameters of any institutional guidance requirements. Here is what they said about their practice:

Amy E. Rothberg, MD, DABOM, director of the Weight Management Program & Rewind at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, said, “I think it makes sense to inform our patients of the labeling and rare but potential adverse effects if they intend to undergo anesthesia for a scheduled procedure/surgery. There is never no risk of aspiration during anesthesia.”

“I find it a bit curious that ASA implies that those who experience GI side effects are more likely than those who do not to have this potential risk. I doubt there is evidence that those without GI side effects are necessarily ‘safer’ and a study to determine that is unlikely to take be conducted.”

“My institution does require a 1-week pause on GLP-1s for those undergoing anesthesia for surgery,” she added. “That’s not evidence-based either, but probably reduces the risk of aspiration during anesthesia — but I don’t know what the actual denominator is for aspiration in those who continued vs those who took a pause from GLP-1s. Pausing does certainly (anecdotally) increase the traffic of communications between physicians and their patients about what to do in the interval.”

Anne Peters, MD, a professor of clinical medicine and a clinical scholar at the Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said, “The FDA label change is a warning that really doesn’t say exactly who on GLP-1 RAs is at highest risk or what to do, and if any intervention has been shown to help. The ASA recommendations seem much more nuanced and practical, including point-of-care gastric ultrasound to see if there is retained food/fluid prior to surgery.”

“In my practice, I individualize what I say, depending on the person and the circumstance,” she said. “Mostly, I have people hold one dose before planned surgery, so they have been 10 days at least without a dose. But if worried about gastrointestinal symptoms or gastroparesis, I have them do a clear liquid diet for 24 hours presurgery. Or at least avoid heavy fat meals the day before.”

“There is a risk of aspiration with anything that slows gastric emptying — maybe even in patients with gastroparesis at baseline due to physiologic, not pharmacological, reasons — and anesthesiologists should be aware of the need to assess patients individually.”

Michael A. Weintraub, MD, of NYU Langone Health Diabetes & Endocrine Associates in New York City, observed, “The risk of a pulmonary aspiration event with GLP-1 medication is quite rare, but not zero. On the other hand, stopping the GLP-1 can cause hyperglycemia or rebound weight gain. Furthermore, it can become complicated to restart GLP1 dosing, particularly given the existing medication shortages.”

“In most cases, stopping a weekly GLP-1 medication 1 week prior to the procedure minimizes the risks of pulmonary aspiration and prevents any worsening hyperglycemia or weight gain,” he said. However, taking the drug 7 days prior to the procedure is optimal. “That way, they would be due for the next dose on the day of the procedure, and taking it the day following procedure minimizes disruption in their once-weekly regimen.”

Malini Gupta, MD, director of G2Endo Endocrinology & Metabolism, Memphis, Tennessee, advised that physicians weigh the risk of stopping the medication (which can cause a glycemic spike) vs risk for aspiration.

“In my opinion, all patients should follow a strict liquid diet or NPO status prior to a surgery to further decrease the risk of aspiration,” she said. “I generally hold the GLP-1 RA for a week before a surgery. If additional glycemic control is necessary, I will add to or adjust one of the patient’s other diabetes medications.”

Jaime Almandoz, MD, associate professor of medicine and medical director of the Weight Wellness Program in Dallas, said, “As endocrinologists, we typically rely on our anesthesia colleagues for guidance on perioperative management. In light of emerging guidelines for holding GLP-1 medications, we also recommend patients adopt a liquid diet 24 hours prior to surgery, along with the fasting protocol.”

“For those managing diabetes with GLP-1 therapies, it is crucial to establish a blood sugar management plan while off these medications, especially during fasting or postoperative periods, which can be further influenced by many factors, including nausea, pain medications, and antibiotics after the procedure.”

Joshi added that at Parkland Hospital in Dallas, “we do a huge number of cases using the same information. We identify patients who are at risk, and then we tell our proceduralists and our surgeons if they’re in the escalating phase of the dosing or if they have GI symptoms; don’t even schedule them as an elective case; wait till the escalation phase is over and then schedule them.”

“That way,” he said, “it becomes logistically easy to manage because the recommendation from the group is that patients who are at higher risk should receive a 24-hour liquid diet — the same as colonoscopy. But sometimes it can be challenging to do so.”

Joshi has received honoraria for consultation from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Vertex Pharmaceuticals, and Haisco-USA Pharmaceuticals. Gupta is on the speakers bureau for Amgen (Tepezza) and IBSA (Tirosint) and is a creative consultant for AbbVie. Almandoz serves on advisory boards for Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, and Boehringer Ingelheim. The other experts declared no relevant relationships.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Guidance from professional societies on how to handle the risk for pulmonary aspiration during general anesthesia or deep sedation for patients taking glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) continues to evolve, as does the US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) labeling for the drugs. The changes can be challenging to keep up with, and endocrinologists seem to be making their own decisions based on clinical experience and their interpretations of the potential impact and value of the emerging information.

The latest FDA label change warns about the risk for pulmonary aspiration but notes “insufficient” data to inform recommendations to mitigate the risk in vulnerable patients. Yet, the latest multi-society guidance, led by the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) and based on consensus, not evidence, has nuanced advice for managing patients at risk.

Does the FDA’s label change make a difference regarding the multi-society guidance, which was published earlier? “The answer is no,” Girish Joshi, MD, vice chair, ASA Committee on Practice Parameters, told this news organization. “The concern of increased pulmonary aspiration in patients who are on GLP-1 receptor agonists has been known, and that concern still exists. So, we started with not an assumption but the premise that patients on GLP-1 receptor agonists are at a higher risk of aspiration during sedation, analgesia, and/or general anesthesia. The FDA basically confirms what we say in the guidance.”

Joshi, professor in the Anesthesiology and Pain Management Department at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, aimed to make the guidance, which was published simultaneously in several society journals, more implementable with a letter to the editor of Anesthesiology. The key, he said, is to identify patients at higher risk for aspiration; all others would follow treatment as usual.

The letter highlights three overarching recommendations and then expands upon them: Standardized preoperative assessment for risk for delayed gastric emptying (yes/no); selective preoperative care plan based on delayed gastric emptying assessment and shared decision-making; and on the day of the procedure, reassess for delayed gastric emptying and mitigate risk if there is clinical concern.

But it seems as though, for now, endocrinologists are managing these patients as they see fit, within the parameters of any institutional guidance requirements. Here is what they said about their practice:

Amy E. Rothberg, MD, DABOM, director of the Weight Management Program & Rewind at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, said, “I think it makes sense to inform our patients of the labeling and rare but potential adverse effects if they intend to undergo anesthesia for a scheduled procedure/surgery. There is never no risk of aspiration during anesthesia.”

“I find it a bit curious that ASA implies that those who experience GI side effects are more likely than those who do not to have this potential risk. I doubt there is evidence that those without GI side effects are necessarily ‘safer’ and a study to determine that is unlikely to take be conducted.”

“My institution does require a 1-week pause on GLP-1s for those undergoing anesthesia for surgery,” she added. “That’s not evidence-based either, but probably reduces the risk of aspiration during anesthesia — but I don’t know what the actual denominator is for aspiration in those who continued vs those who took a pause from GLP-1s. Pausing does certainly (anecdotally) increase the traffic of communications between physicians and their patients about what to do in the interval.”

Anne Peters, MD, a professor of clinical medicine and a clinical scholar at the Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said, “The FDA label change is a warning that really doesn’t say exactly who on GLP-1 RAs is at highest risk or what to do, and if any intervention has been shown to help. The ASA recommendations seem much more nuanced and practical, including point-of-care gastric ultrasound to see if there is retained food/fluid prior to surgery.”

“In my practice, I individualize what I say, depending on the person and the circumstance,” she said. “Mostly, I have people hold one dose before planned surgery, so they have been 10 days at least without a dose. But if worried about gastrointestinal symptoms or gastroparesis, I have them do a clear liquid diet for 24 hours presurgery. Or at least avoid heavy fat meals the day before.”

“There is a risk of aspiration with anything that slows gastric emptying — maybe even in patients with gastroparesis at baseline due to physiologic, not pharmacological, reasons — and anesthesiologists should be aware of the need to assess patients individually.”

Michael A. Weintraub, MD, of NYU Langone Health Diabetes & Endocrine Associates in New York City, observed, “The risk of a pulmonary aspiration event with GLP-1 medication is quite rare, but not zero. On the other hand, stopping the GLP-1 can cause hyperglycemia or rebound weight gain. Furthermore, it can become complicated to restart GLP1 dosing, particularly given the existing medication shortages.”

“In most cases, stopping a weekly GLP-1 medication 1 week prior to the procedure minimizes the risks of pulmonary aspiration and prevents any worsening hyperglycemia or weight gain,” he said. However, taking the drug 7 days prior to the procedure is optimal. “That way, they would be due for the next dose on the day of the procedure, and taking it the day following procedure minimizes disruption in their once-weekly regimen.”

Malini Gupta, MD, director of G2Endo Endocrinology & Metabolism, Memphis, Tennessee, advised that physicians weigh the risk of stopping the medication (which can cause a glycemic spike) vs risk for aspiration.

“In my opinion, all patients should follow a strict liquid diet or NPO status prior to a surgery to further decrease the risk of aspiration,” she said. “I generally hold the GLP-1 RA for a week before a surgery. If additional glycemic control is necessary, I will add to or adjust one of the patient’s other diabetes medications.”

Jaime Almandoz, MD, associate professor of medicine and medical director of the Weight Wellness Program in Dallas, said, “As endocrinologists, we typically rely on our anesthesia colleagues for guidance on perioperative management. In light of emerging guidelines for holding GLP-1 medications, we also recommend patients adopt a liquid diet 24 hours prior to surgery, along with the fasting protocol.”

“For those managing diabetes with GLP-1 therapies, it is crucial to establish a blood sugar management plan while off these medications, especially during fasting or postoperative periods, which can be further influenced by many factors, including nausea, pain medications, and antibiotics after the procedure.”

Joshi added that at Parkland Hospital in Dallas, “we do a huge number of cases using the same information. We identify patients who are at risk, and then we tell our proceduralists and our surgeons if they’re in the escalating phase of the dosing or if they have GI symptoms; don’t even schedule them as an elective case; wait till the escalation phase is over and then schedule them.”

“That way,” he said, “it becomes logistically easy to manage because the recommendation from the group is that patients who are at higher risk should receive a 24-hour liquid diet — the same as colonoscopy. But sometimes it can be challenging to do so.”

Joshi has received honoraria for consultation from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Vertex Pharmaceuticals, and Haisco-USA Pharmaceuticals. Gupta is on the speakers bureau for Amgen (Tepezza) and IBSA (Tirosint) and is a creative consultant for AbbVie. Almandoz serves on advisory boards for Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, and Boehringer Ingelheim. The other experts declared no relevant relationships.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Receiving radiotherapy after prostatectomy does negatively affect long-term health-related quality of life, including sexual function, urinary incontinence, and urinary irritation, but the timing of radiation after prostatectomy — within a year or over a year from surgery — does not appear to significantly affect patients’ quality of life over the long term, a recent analysis finds.

METHODOLOGY:

• Delaying radiotherapy after prostatectomy can help avoid overtreatment and mitigate genitourinary and erectile toxic effects. However, few studies have compared long-term patient-reported health-related quality-of-life outcomes on the basis of the timing of postprostatectomy radiotherapy.
• Researchers evaluated 1203 men (median age, 60.5 years; 92% were White and 6.8% were Black) with localized prostate cancer who underwent radical prostatectomy from the PROST-QA (2003-2006) and RP2 Consortium (2010-2013). Among these patients, 1082 underwent surgery only, 57 received early radiotherapy (within 12 months of surgery), and 64 underwent late radiotherapy (12 months or more after surgery).
• Patients who received early radiotherapy were more likely to receive androgen deprivation therapy than those who underwent late radiotherapy (40.4% vs 12.5%; P < .001).
• Primary outcome was health-related quality of life measured using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite at baseline, 2, 6, and 12 months, and annually after that. Health-related quality-of-life measures included sexual function, urinary incontinence, urinary irritation and/or obstruction, and bowel or rectal function.
• The median follow-up duration was 85.6 months.

TAKEAWAY:

• Postprostatectomy radiotherapy was associated with a significantly greater decline in health-related quality of life across all domains, including sexual function and urinary incontinence.
• Patients who received early radiation initially experienced worse urinary incontinence and sexual health, compared with patients in the late group, but the early group also had higher-risk disease and were more likely to receive concurrent androgen deprivation therapy.
• In the long term, the early radiotherapy group experienced more pronounced recovery of sexual function, urinary irritation, and urinary incontinence than the late radiotherapy group.
• Ultimately, patients in the early radiotherapy group had similar, potentially better, long-term health-related quality-of-life domain scores than those in the late group over the long term. For instance, the likelihood of being pad free increased for patients treated early with radiation, while it decreased for those treated late. In patients who received early radiation, the rate of freedom from pad use increased from 39% before radiation to 67% at the sixth follow-up visit after radiation, while it decreased from 73% to 48% in those who received late radiation.

IN PRACTICE:

“Long-term patient-reported sexual, incontinence, and urinary irritative outcomes did not significantly differ between early vs late postprostatectomy [radiotherapy],” the authors said. In fact, “men receiving early [radiation] experienced greater recovery of these toxicity domains and achieved similar, and possibly better, domain scores as those receiving late [radiation] at long-term follow-up.” Overall, “these results may help guide treatment counseling and support consideration of early [radiotherapy] after prostatectomy for men at particularly high risk of recurrence and metastasis.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Sagar A. Patel, MD, MSc, Emory University in Atlanta, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The early and late postprostatectomy radiotherapy groups were relatively small and underpowered to detect statistically significant differences between groups. The study has a nonrandomized design, which may introduce unaccounted for imbalances among the different groups. The study did not directly compare health-related quality of life between patients receiving adjuvant vs salvage radiotherapy.

DISCLOSURES:

This study received funding from National Institutes of Health grants and the Paul Calabresi Career Development Award for Clinical Oncology. Several authors reported receiving personal fees, grants, and having other ties with various sources. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Receiving radiotherapy after prostatectomy does negatively affect long-term health-related quality of life, including sexual function, urinary incontinence, and urinary irritation, but the timing of radiation after prostatectomy — within a year or over a year from surgery — does not appear to significantly affect patients’ quality of life over the long term, a recent analysis finds.

METHODOLOGY:

• Delaying radiotherapy after prostatectomy can help avoid overtreatment and mitigate genitourinary and erectile toxic effects. However, few studies have compared long-term patient-reported health-related quality-of-life outcomes on the basis of the timing of postprostatectomy radiotherapy.
• Researchers evaluated 1203 men (median age, 60.5 years; 92% were White and 6.8% were Black) with localized prostate cancer who underwent radical prostatectomy from the PROST-QA (2003-2006) and RP2 Consortium (2010-2013). Among these patients, 1082 underwent surgery only, 57 received early radiotherapy (within 12 months of surgery), and 64 underwent late radiotherapy (12 months or more after surgery).
• Patients who received early radiotherapy were more likely to receive androgen deprivation therapy than those who underwent late radiotherapy (40.4% vs 12.5%; P < .001).
• Primary outcome was health-related quality of life measured using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite at baseline, 2, 6, and 12 months, and annually after that. Health-related quality-of-life measures included sexual function, urinary incontinence, urinary irritation and/or obstruction, and bowel or rectal function.
• The median follow-up duration was 85.6 months.

TAKEAWAY:

• Postprostatectomy radiotherapy was associated with a significantly greater decline in health-related quality of life across all domains, including sexual function and urinary incontinence.
• Patients who received early radiation initially experienced worse urinary incontinence and sexual health, compared with patients in the late group, but the early group also had higher-risk disease and were more likely to receive concurrent androgen deprivation therapy.
• In the long term, the early radiotherapy group experienced more pronounced recovery of sexual function, urinary irritation, and urinary incontinence than the late radiotherapy group.
• Ultimately, patients in the early radiotherapy group had similar, potentially better, long-term health-related quality-of-life domain scores than those in the late group over the long term. For instance, the likelihood of being pad free increased for patients treated early with radiation, while it decreased for those treated late. In patients who received early radiation, the rate of freedom from pad use increased from 39% before radiation to 67% at the sixth follow-up visit after radiation, while it decreased from 73% to 48% in those who received late radiation.

IN PRACTICE:

“Long-term patient-reported sexual, incontinence, and urinary irritative outcomes did not significantly differ between early vs late postprostatectomy [radiotherapy],” the authors said. In fact, “men receiving early [radiation] experienced greater recovery of these toxicity domains and achieved similar, and possibly better, domain scores as those receiving late [radiation] at long-term follow-up.” Overall, “these results may help guide treatment counseling and support consideration of early [radiotherapy] after prostatectomy for men at particularly high risk of recurrence and metastasis.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Sagar A. Patel, MD, MSc, Emory University in Atlanta, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The early and late postprostatectomy radiotherapy groups were relatively small and underpowered to detect statistically significant differences between groups. The study has a nonrandomized design, which may introduce unaccounted for imbalances among the different groups. The study did not directly compare health-related quality of life between patients receiving adjuvant vs salvage radiotherapy.

DISCLOSURES:

This study received funding from National Institutes of Health grants and the Paul Calabresi Career Development Award for Clinical Oncology. Several authors reported receiving personal fees, grants, and having other ties with various sources. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Receiving radiotherapy after prostatectomy does negatively affect long-term health-related quality of life, including sexual function, urinary incontinence, and urinary irritation, but the timing of radiation after prostatectomy — within a year or over a year from surgery — does not appear to significantly affect patients’ quality of life over the long term, a recent analysis finds.

METHODOLOGY:

• Delaying radiotherapy after prostatectomy can help avoid overtreatment and mitigate genitourinary and erectile toxic effects. However, few studies have compared long-term patient-reported health-related quality-of-life outcomes on the basis of the timing of postprostatectomy radiotherapy.
• Researchers evaluated 1203 men (median age, 60.5 years; 92% were White and 6.8% were Black) with localized prostate cancer who underwent radical prostatectomy from the PROST-QA (2003-2006) and RP2 Consortium (2010-2013). Among these patients, 1082 underwent surgery only, 57 received early radiotherapy (within 12 months of surgery), and 64 underwent late radiotherapy (12 months or more after surgery).
• Patients who received early radiotherapy were more likely to receive androgen deprivation therapy than those who underwent late radiotherapy (40.4% vs 12.5%; P < .001).
• Primary outcome was health-related quality of life measured using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite at baseline, 2, 6, and 12 months, and annually after that. Health-related quality-of-life measures included sexual function, urinary incontinence, urinary irritation and/or obstruction, and bowel or rectal function.
• The median follow-up duration was 85.6 months.

TAKEAWAY:

• Postprostatectomy radiotherapy was associated with a significantly greater decline in health-related quality of life across all domains, including sexual function and urinary incontinence.
• Patients who received early radiation initially experienced worse urinary incontinence and sexual health, compared with patients in the late group, but the early group also had higher-risk disease and were more likely to receive concurrent androgen deprivation therapy.
• In the long term, the early radiotherapy group experienced more pronounced recovery of sexual function, urinary irritation, and urinary incontinence than the late radiotherapy group.
• Ultimately, patients in the early radiotherapy group had similar, potentially better, long-term health-related quality-of-life domain scores than those in the late group over the long term. For instance, the likelihood of being pad free increased for patients treated early with radiation, while it decreased for those treated late. In patients who received early radiation, the rate of freedom from pad use increased from 39% before radiation to 67% at the sixth follow-up visit after radiation, while it decreased from 73% to 48% in those who received late radiation.

IN PRACTICE:

“Long-term patient-reported sexual, incontinence, and urinary irritative outcomes did not significantly differ between early vs late postprostatectomy [radiotherapy],” the authors said. In fact, “men receiving early [radiation] experienced greater recovery of these toxicity domains and achieved similar, and possibly better, domain scores as those receiving late [radiation] at long-term follow-up.” Overall, “these results may help guide treatment counseling and support consideration of early [radiotherapy] after prostatectomy for men at particularly high risk of recurrence and metastasis.”

SOURCE:

The study, led by Sagar A. Patel, MD, MSc, Emory University in Atlanta, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The early and late postprostatectomy radiotherapy groups were relatively small and underpowered to detect statistically significant differences between groups. The study has a nonrandomized design, which may introduce unaccounted for imbalances among the different groups. The study did not directly compare health-related quality of life between patients receiving adjuvant vs salvage radiotherapy.

DISCLOSURES:

This study received funding from National Institutes of Health grants and the Paul Calabresi Career Development Award for Clinical Oncology. Several authors reported receiving personal fees, grants, and having other ties with various sources. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Although hysterectomy remains the most common procedure for treating fibroids and fibroids are the leading indication for hysterectomy, its long-term sequelae make less invasive alternatives the better choice for managing most of these myometrial masses, an invited clinical practice paper in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) asserts.

The practice summary also calls for earlier identification and treatment of fibroid disease and may raise awareness among general gynecologists and primary care physicians less familiar with newer treatments.

Based on a review of evidence and existing formal guidelines, the paper urges wider use of uterus-sparing approaches such as hormone therapy, uterine-artery embolization, focused ultrasound ablation, and radiofrequency ablation. Authored by ob.gyns. Elizabeth A. Stewart, MD, and Shannon K. Laughlin-Tommaso, MD, MPH, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, the document also features textbook-style diagrams illustrating procedures.

“To clarify, this is not a new guidance but an invited clinical practice paper,” Laughlin-Tommaso told this news organization. “I believe NEJM recognized the gap in knowledge among all providers, for early diagnosis of uterine fibroids, especially in young patients and those presenting with anemia.”

The less invasive treatments highlighted in the paper can help women recover faster and resume their normal activities more quickly, said Laughlin-Tommaso. “Additionally, many studies have now shown that there are health benefits to keeping the uterus and the ovaries.”

Despite multiple uterine-sparing options, however, a recent study in a commercially insured population found nearly 60% of fibroid patients undergoing hysterectomy had never received a prior conservative treatment.

Why hysterectomy for a benign condition? Hysterectomy, which is universally available in ob.gyn. practices, makes decision-making easier for medical providers and patients, Laughlin-Tommaso explained. “It’s the only treatment that is definitive in that patients will not have bleeding or fibroids in the future and providers don’t have to determine which fibroids to treat or remove.”

More common in Black women, fibroids affect up to 80% of persons with a uterus during their lifetime and up to 50% have symptoms such as heavy and prolonged menstrual bleeding, anemia-associated fatigue, pelvic pressure, and menstrual and nonmenstrual pain, the authors noted. These lesions can also compress nearby structures causing painful intercourse, constipation, and urinary frequency, urgency, or retention.

In 2021 the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists issued a practice bulletin on the management of symptomatic uterine leiomyomas, similarly endorsing individualized care that accounts for the desire to preserve fertility or the uterus, increase quality of life, and reduce symptoms. It, too, recommended medical management as first-line treatment for symptomatic fibroids.

“This paper will be helpful for clinicians by covering some of the newer options such as gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonists introduced in the past 5 years and tailoring treatment to patients depending on whether they still want to conceive,” Sandra M. Hurtado, MD, an ob.gyn. and an assistant professor at UTHealth Houston Medical Center and McGovern Medical School in Houston, Texas, said in an interview. “And the illustrations will be useful to doctors who are not gynecologists and will help to explain the interventional options to patients,” added Hurtado, who was not involved in the paper.

Offering another outside perspective on the paper, Charles J. Ascher-Walsh, MD, senior system vice chair for gynecology and division director of urogynecology in the Raquel and Jaime Gilinski Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Science at Mount Sinai in New York City, called it a useful though not new summary. Reaching the wider audience of NEJM may raise awareness of newer fibroid therapies among general, nonspecialist ob.gyns., whose practices may concentrate largely on obstetrics, he added, “and the excellent illustrations clarify the treatment options.” In his view, broader awareness may increase much-needed funding for this neglected area of research.

Among the paper’s recommendations:

Diagnosis

Pelvic ultrasonography is the most cost-effective imaging method, providing information on size, location, and number of fibroids and ruling out adnexal masses. It is limited, however, by less-accurate resolution if the uterine volume is greater than 375 mL or if fibroids number more than four.

Medical Alternatives to Hysterectomy

Early diagnosis and first-line medical therapies are recommended.

Contraceptive hormones to control heavy menstrual bleeding are the first step in most algorithms for treating fibroid-related bleeding, despite low-quality evidence.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents and tranexamic acid during menstruation also limit heavy menses but have more evidence of efficacy for idiopathic heavy menses.

Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists in depot form are approved for short-term preoperative therapy. While they cause amenorrhea in nearly 90% of patients and reduce uterine volume by 30%-60%, they have a high incidence of hypogonadal symptoms, including bone loss and hot flushes. They also cause a “steroidal flare” when the stored gonadotropins are released and cause subsequent heavy menstrual bleeding with the rapid decrease in estrogen levels. 

Oral GnRH antagonist combinations are a major therapeutic advance, pairing a GnRH antagonist (such as elagolix or relugolix, which rapidly inhibit ovarian steroidogenesis) with estradiol and progestin at doses equivalent to systemic levels in the early follicular phase of the menstrual cycle.

In clinical trials these combinations decreased heavy menstrual bleeding by 50%-75%, pain by 40%-50%, and bulk-related symptoms through a 10% decrease in uterine volume. Side effects are few, with hot flushes, headaches, and nausea occurring in fewer than 20% of participants.
 

Smaller fibroids in the submucosal to intramural spaces can be treated transcervically, while larger lesions of any type or smaller subserosa fibroids are treated abdominally.

Uterine-artery embolization uses minimally invasive radiologically guided catheterization to release embolic particles directly into both uterine arteries. This process causes ischemic infarction of the fibroids and decreases bleeding, pain, and bulk-related symptoms.

Other procedures shrink individual fibroids with energy that creates coagulative necrosis. These include focused ultrasound ablation (with MRI or ultrasound guidance) and radiofrequency ablation (with laparoscopic or transcervical ultrasound guidance).

Unlike uterine-artery embolization, which treats all fibroids concurrently, these therapies require individual targeting of fibroids.

Radiofrequency ablation can be done concurrently with other surgical therapies, such as laparoscopic excision of endometriosis or hysteroscopic myomectomy.

Myomectomy, or the surgical removal of fibroids, is most often used in persons actively seeking pregnancy or having very large fibroids in whom shrinkage would be inadequate. Most guidelines recommend surgical excision rather than shrinking procedures to optimize fertility. However, myomectomy often commits patients to future cesarean section, which increases pregnancy-related morbidity.

Although myomectomy is seen as superior to uterine-artery embolization for improving quality of life, both approaches provide substantial symptom relief.
 

Recurrence

Incidence of recurring fibroids is high, with, for example, new fibroids developing in approximately 50% of persons within 5 years of myomectomy.

Earlier this year, a large cohort study reported that myomectomy was best for avoiding reintervention after surgical leiomyoma management.

Reintervention rates vary according to procedure, patient age, disease extent, and symptoms and can be as high as 33% up to 5 years after treatment, with lower percentages seen among persons older than 45 years of age.
 

Hysterectomy

Minimally invasive hysterectomy is recommended. Drawbacks to hysterectomy include perioperative risk and concomitant oophorectomy, which was common until the early 2000s when large cohort studies showed elevated risks of death, cardiovascular disease, dementia, and other illnesses compared with hysterectomy plus ovarian conservation. Oophorectomy but not hysterectomy rates have since decreased.

Still needing study, according to Laughlin-Tommaso are the underlying reasons for health disparities in fibroids, especially among Black and Latina individuals. “Some studies have found associations with vitamin D deficiency and with stress and racism,” she said.

Looking ahead, the authors stressed the need for a fibroid risk-prediction model, a staging system, and large randomized trials of treatment effectiveness. Also needed are methods for primary and secondary prevention. “Earlier screening and medical treatment in primary care settings could potentially minimize morbidity and the incidence of unnecessary hysterectomies, and primary care–based screening trials are warranted,” they wrote.
 

In addition to procedural illustrations the practice document includes a vignette of a 33-year-old never-pregnant Black woman (but desiring motherhood) with heavy menstrual bleeding, abdominal bloating, and non–iron deficiency anemia. Evaluation for thalassemia and sickle cell anemia is negative, but ultrasonography reveals an enlarged uterus with multiple fibroids and normal ovaries.

In line with the clinical review, the authors prescribe oral GnRH agonist combination therapy, plus iron and multivitamin supplementation, and recommend annual reassessment — earlier if pregnancy is desired or if symptoms escalate. Since the patient prioritizes fertility, hysterectomy would be appropriate only if she had biopsy-proven cancer. 

The authors received no external funding for this practice paper, but both have funding from the National Institutes of Health for fibroid research. Laughlin-Tommaso reported royalties from UpToDate. Stewart reported research support from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and speaking, data-monitoring, and consulting fees for various private companies, including AbbVie, Anylam Pharmaceuticals, ASKA Pharma, and Myovant Sciences. She holds a patent on treatment for abnormal uterine bleeding and has been involved in CME for various medical educational agencies. Hurtado and Ascher-Walsh had no relevant conflicts of interest to declare.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Although hysterectomy remains the most common procedure for treating fibroids and fibroids are the leading indication for hysterectomy, its long-term sequelae make less invasive alternatives the better choice for managing most of these myometrial masses, an invited clinical practice paper in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) asserts.

The practice summary also calls for earlier identification and treatment of fibroid disease and may raise awareness among general gynecologists and primary care physicians less familiar with newer treatments.

Based on a review of evidence and existing formal guidelines, the paper urges wider use of uterus-sparing approaches such as hormone therapy, uterine-artery embolization, focused ultrasound ablation, and radiofrequency ablation. Authored by ob.gyns. Elizabeth A. Stewart, MD, and Shannon K. Laughlin-Tommaso, MD, MPH, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, the document also features textbook-style diagrams illustrating procedures.

“To clarify, this is not a new guidance but an invited clinical practice paper,” Laughlin-Tommaso told this news organization. “I believe NEJM recognized the gap in knowledge among all providers, for early diagnosis of uterine fibroids, especially in young patients and those presenting with anemia.”

The less invasive treatments highlighted in the paper can help women recover faster and resume their normal activities more quickly, said Laughlin-Tommaso. “Additionally, many studies have now shown that there are health benefits to keeping the uterus and the ovaries.”

Despite multiple uterine-sparing options, however, a recent study in a commercially insured population found nearly 60% of fibroid patients undergoing hysterectomy had never received a prior conservative treatment.

Why hysterectomy for a benign condition? Hysterectomy, which is universally available in ob.gyn. practices, makes decision-making easier for medical providers and patients, Laughlin-Tommaso explained. “It’s the only treatment that is definitive in that patients will not have bleeding or fibroids in the future and providers don’t have to determine which fibroids to treat or remove.”

More common in Black women, fibroids affect up to 80% of persons with a uterus during their lifetime and up to 50% have symptoms such as heavy and prolonged menstrual bleeding, anemia-associated fatigue, pelvic pressure, and menstrual and nonmenstrual pain, the authors noted. These lesions can also compress nearby structures causing painful intercourse, constipation, and urinary frequency, urgency, or retention.

In 2021 the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists issued a practice bulletin on the management of symptomatic uterine leiomyomas, similarly endorsing individualized care that accounts for the desire to preserve fertility or the uterus, increase quality of life, and reduce symptoms. It, too, recommended medical management as first-line treatment for symptomatic fibroids.

“This paper will be helpful for clinicians by covering some of the newer options such as gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonists introduced in the past 5 years and tailoring treatment to patients depending on whether they still want to conceive,” Sandra M. Hurtado, MD, an ob.gyn. and an assistant professor at UTHealth Houston Medical Center and McGovern Medical School in Houston, Texas, said in an interview. “And the illustrations will be useful to doctors who are not gynecologists and will help to explain the interventional options to patients,” added Hurtado, who was not involved in the paper.

Offering another outside perspective on the paper, Charles J. Ascher-Walsh, MD, senior system vice chair for gynecology and division director of urogynecology in the Raquel and Jaime Gilinski Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Science at Mount Sinai in New York City, called it a useful though not new summary. Reaching the wider audience of NEJM may raise awareness of newer fibroid therapies among general, nonspecialist ob.gyns., whose practices may concentrate largely on obstetrics, he added, “and the excellent illustrations clarify the treatment options.” In his view, broader awareness may increase much-needed funding for this neglected area of research.

Among the paper’s recommendations:

Diagnosis

Pelvic ultrasonography is the most cost-effective imaging method, providing information on size, location, and number of fibroids and ruling out adnexal masses. It is limited, however, by less-accurate resolution if the uterine volume is greater than 375 mL or if fibroids number more than four.

Medical Alternatives to Hysterectomy

Early diagnosis and first-line medical therapies are recommended.

Contraceptive hormones to control heavy menstrual bleeding are the first step in most algorithms for treating fibroid-related bleeding, despite low-quality evidence.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents and tranexamic acid during menstruation also limit heavy menses but have more evidence of efficacy for idiopathic heavy menses.

Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists in depot form are approved for short-term preoperative therapy. While they cause amenorrhea in nearly 90% of patients and reduce uterine volume by 30%-60%, they have a high incidence of hypogonadal symptoms, including bone loss and hot flushes. They also cause a “steroidal flare” when the stored gonadotropins are released and cause subsequent heavy menstrual bleeding with the rapid decrease in estrogen levels. 

Oral GnRH antagonist combinations are a major therapeutic advance, pairing a GnRH antagonist (such as elagolix or relugolix, which rapidly inhibit ovarian steroidogenesis) with estradiol and progestin at doses equivalent to systemic levels in the early follicular phase of the menstrual cycle.

In clinical trials these combinations decreased heavy menstrual bleeding by 50%-75%, pain by 40%-50%, and bulk-related symptoms through a 10% decrease in uterine volume. Side effects are few, with hot flushes, headaches, and nausea occurring in fewer than 20% of participants.
 

Smaller fibroids in the submucosal to intramural spaces can be treated transcervically, while larger lesions of any type or smaller subserosa fibroids are treated abdominally.

Uterine-artery embolization uses minimally invasive radiologically guided catheterization to release embolic particles directly into both uterine arteries. This process causes ischemic infarction of the fibroids and decreases bleeding, pain, and bulk-related symptoms.

Other procedures shrink individual fibroids with energy that creates coagulative necrosis. These include focused ultrasound ablation (with MRI or ultrasound guidance) and radiofrequency ablation (with laparoscopic or transcervical ultrasound guidance).

Unlike uterine-artery embolization, which treats all fibroids concurrently, these therapies require individual targeting of fibroids.

Radiofrequency ablation can be done concurrently with other surgical therapies, such as laparoscopic excision of endometriosis or hysteroscopic myomectomy.

Myomectomy, or the surgical removal of fibroids, is most often used in persons actively seeking pregnancy or having very large fibroids in whom shrinkage would be inadequate. Most guidelines recommend surgical excision rather than shrinking procedures to optimize fertility. However, myomectomy often commits patients to future cesarean section, which increases pregnancy-related morbidity.

Although myomectomy is seen as superior to uterine-artery embolization for improving quality of life, both approaches provide substantial symptom relief.
 

Recurrence

Incidence of recurring fibroids is high, with, for example, new fibroids developing in approximately 50% of persons within 5 years of myomectomy.

Earlier this year, a large cohort study reported that myomectomy was best for avoiding reintervention after surgical leiomyoma management.

Reintervention rates vary according to procedure, patient age, disease extent, and symptoms and can be as high as 33% up to 5 years after treatment, with lower percentages seen among persons older than 45 years of age.
 

Hysterectomy

Minimally invasive hysterectomy is recommended. Drawbacks to hysterectomy include perioperative risk and concomitant oophorectomy, which was common until the early 2000s when large cohort studies showed elevated risks of death, cardiovascular disease, dementia, and other illnesses compared with hysterectomy plus ovarian conservation. Oophorectomy but not hysterectomy rates have since decreased.

Still needing study, according to Laughlin-Tommaso are the underlying reasons for health disparities in fibroids, especially among Black and Latina individuals. “Some studies have found associations with vitamin D deficiency and with stress and racism,” she said.

Looking ahead, the authors stressed the need for a fibroid risk-prediction model, a staging system, and large randomized trials of treatment effectiveness. Also needed are methods for primary and secondary prevention. “Earlier screening and medical treatment in primary care settings could potentially minimize morbidity and the incidence of unnecessary hysterectomies, and primary care–based screening trials are warranted,” they wrote.
 

In addition to procedural illustrations the practice document includes a vignette of a 33-year-old never-pregnant Black woman (but desiring motherhood) with heavy menstrual bleeding, abdominal bloating, and non–iron deficiency anemia. Evaluation for thalassemia and sickle cell anemia is negative, but ultrasonography reveals an enlarged uterus with multiple fibroids and normal ovaries.

In line with the clinical review, the authors prescribe oral GnRH agonist combination therapy, plus iron and multivitamin supplementation, and recommend annual reassessment — earlier if pregnancy is desired or if symptoms escalate. Since the patient prioritizes fertility, hysterectomy would be appropriate only if she had biopsy-proven cancer. 

The authors received no external funding for this practice paper, but both have funding from the National Institutes of Health for fibroid research. Laughlin-Tommaso reported royalties from UpToDate. Stewart reported research support from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and speaking, data-monitoring, and consulting fees for various private companies, including AbbVie, Anylam Pharmaceuticals, ASKA Pharma, and Myovant Sciences. She holds a patent on treatment for abnormal uterine bleeding and has been involved in CME for various medical educational agencies. Hurtado and Ascher-Walsh had no relevant conflicts of interest to declare.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Although hysterectomy remains the most common procedure for treating fibroids and fibroids are the leading indication for hysterectomy, its long-term sequelae make less invasive alternatives the better choice for managing most of these myometrial masses, an invited clinical practice paper in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) asserts.

The practice summary also calls for earlier identification and treatment of fibroid disease and may raise awareness among general gynecologists and primary care physicians less familiar with newer treatments.

Based on a review of evidence and existing formal guidelines, the paper urges wider use of uterus-sparing approaches such as hormone therapy, uterine-artery embolization, focused ultrasound ablation, and radiofrequency ablation. Authored by ob.gyns. Elizabeth A. Stewart, MD, and Shannon K. Laughlin-Tommaso, MD, MPH, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, the document also features textbook-style diagrams illustrating procedures.

“To clarify, this is not a new guidance but an invited clinical practice paper,” Laughlin-Tommaso told this news organization. “I believe NEJM recognized the gap in knowledge among all providers, for early diagnosis of uterine fibroids, especially in young patients and those presenting with anemia.”

The less invasive treatments highlighted in the paper can help women recover faster and resume their normal activities more quickly, said Laughlin-Tommaso. “Additionally, many studies have now shown that there are health benefits to keeping the uterus and the ovaries.”

Despite multiple uterine-sparing options, however, a recent study in a commercially insured population found nearly 60% of fibroid patients undergoing hysterectomy had never received a prior conservative treatment.

Why hysterectomy for a benign condition? Hysterectomy, which is universally available in ob.gyn. practices, makes decision-making easier for medical providers and patients, Laughlin-Tommaso explained. “It’s the only treatment that is definitive in that patients will not have bleeding or fibroids in the future and providers don’t have to determine which fibroids to treat or remove.”

More common in Black women, fibroids affect up to 80% of persons with a uterus during their lifetime and up to 50% have symptoms such as heavy and prolonged menstrual bleeding, anemia-associated fatigue, pelvic pressure, and menstrual and nonmenstrual pain, the authors noted. These lesions can also compress nearby structures causing painful intercourse, constipation, and urinary frequency, urgency, or retention.

In 2021 the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists issued a practice bulletin on the management of symptomatic uterine leiomyomas, similarly endorsing individualized care that accounts for the desire to preserve fertility or the uterus, increase quality of life, and reduce symptoms. It, too, recommended medical management as first-line treatment for symptomatic fibroids.

“This paper will be helpful for clinicians by covering some of the newer options such as gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonists introduced in the past 5 years and tailoring treatment to patients depending on whether they still want to conceive,” Sandra M. Hurtado, MD, an ob.gyn. and an assistant professor at UTHealth Houston Medical Center and McGovern Medical School in Houston, Texas, said in an interview. “And the illustrations will be useful to doctors who are not gynecologists and will help to explain the interventional options to patients,” added Hurtado, who was not involved in the paper.

Offering another outside perspective on the paper, Charles J. Ascher-Walsh, MD, senior system vice chair for gynecology and division director of urogynecology in the Raquel and Jaime Gilinski Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Science at Mount Sinai in New York City, called it a useful though not new summary. Reaching the wider audience of NEJM may raise awareness of newer fibroid therapies among general, nonspecialist ob.gyns., whose practices may concentrate largely on obstetrics, he added, “and the excellent illustrations clarify the treatment options.” In his view, broader awareness may increase much-needed funding for this neglected area of research.

Among the paper’s recommendations:

Diagnosis

Pelvic ultrasonography is the most cost-effective imaging method, providing information on size, location, and number of fibroids and ruling out adnexal masses. It is limited, however, by less-accurate resolution if the uterine volume is greater than 375 mL or if fibroids number more than four.

Medical Alternatives to Hysterectomy

Early diagnosis and first-line medical therapies are recommended.

Contraceptive hormones to control heavy menstrual bleeding are the first step in most algorithms for treating fibroid-related bleeding, despite low-quality evidence.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents and tranexamic acid during menstruation also limit heavy menses but have more evidence of efficacy for idiopathic heavy menses.

Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists in depot form are approved for short-term preoperative therapy. While they cause amenorrhea in nearly 90% of patients and reduce uterine volume by 30%-60%, they have a high incidence of hypogonadal symptoms, including bone loss and hot flushes. They also cause a “steroidal flare” when the stored gonadotropins are released and cause subsequent heavy menstrual bleeding with the rapid decrease in estrogen levels. 

Oral GnRH antagonist combinations are a major therapeutic advance, pairing a GnRH antagonist (such as elagolix or relugolix, which rapidly inhibit ovarian steroidogenesis) with estradiol and progestin at doses equivalent to systemic levels in the early follicular phase of the menstrual cycle.

In clinical trials these combinations decreased heavy menstrual bleeding by 50%-75%, pain by 40%-50%, and bulk-related symptoms through a 10% decrease in uterine volume. Side effects are few, with hot flushes, headaches, and nausea occurring in fewer than 20% of participants.
 

Smaller fibroids in the submucosal to intramural spaces can be treated transcervically, while larger lesions of any type or smaller subserosa fibroids are treated abdominally.

Uterine-artery embolization uses minimally invasive radiologically guided catheterization to release embolic particles directly into both uterine arteries. This process causes ischemic infarction of the fibroids and decreases bleeding, pain, and bulk-related symptoms.

Other procedures shrink individual fibroids with energy that creates coagulative necrosis. These include focused ultrasound ablation (with MRI or ultrasound guidance) and radiofrequency ablation (with laparoscopic or transcervical ultrasound guidance).

Unlike uterine-artery embolization, which treats all fibroids concurrently, these therapies require individual targeting of fibroids.

Radiofrequency ablation can be done concurrently with other surgical therapies, such as laparoscopic excision of endometriosis or hysteroscopic myomectomy.

Myomectomy, or the surgical removal of fibroids, is most often used in persons actively seeking pregnancy or having very large fibroids in whom shrinkage would be inadequate. Most guidelines recommend surgical excision rather than shrinking procedures to optimize fertility. However, myomectomy often commits patients to future cesarean section, which increases pregnancy-related morbidity.

Although myomectomy is seen as superior to uterine-artery embolization for improving quality of life, both approaches provide substantial symptom relief.
 

Recurrence

Incidence of recurring fibroids is high, with, for example, new fibroids developing in approximately 50% of persons within 5 years of myomectomy.

Earlier this year, a large cohort study reported that myomectomy was best for avoiding reintervention after surgical leiomyoma management.

Reintervention rates vary according to procedure, patient age, disease extent, and symptoms and can be as high as 33% up to 5 years after treatment, with lower percentages seen among persons older than 45 years of age.
 

Hysterectomy

Minimally invasive hysterectomy is recommended. Drawbacks to hysterectomy include perioperative risk and concomitant oophorectomy, which was common until the early 2000s when large cohort studies showed elevated risks of death, cardiovascular disease, dementia, and other illnesses compared with hysterectomy plus ovarian conservation. Oophorectomy but not hysterectomy rates have since decreased.

Still needing study, according to Laughlin-Tommaso are the underlying reasons for health disparities in fibroids, especially among Black and Latina individuals. “Some studies have found associations with vitamin D deficiency and with stress and racism,” she said.

Looking ahead, the authors stressed the need for a fibroid risk-prediction model, a staging system, and large randomized trials of treatment effectiveness. Also needed are methods for primary and secondary prevention. “Earlier screening and medical treatment in primary care settings could potentially minimize morbidity and the incidence of unnecessary hysterectomies, and primary care–based screening trials are warranted,” they wrote.
 

In addition to procedural illustrations the practice document includes a vignette of a 33-year-old never-pregnant Black woman (but desiring motherhood) with heavy menstrual bleeding, abdominal bloating, and non–iron deficiency anemia. Evaluation for thalassemia and sickle cell anemia is negative, but ultrasonography reveals an enlarged uterus with multiple fibroids and normal ovaries.

In line with the clinical review, the authors prescribe oral GnRH agonist combination therapy, plus iron and multivitamin supplementation, and recommend annual reassessment — earlier if pregnancy is desired or if symptoms escalate. Since the patient prioritizes fertility, hysterectomy would be appropriate only if she had biopsy-proven cancer. 

The authors received no external funding for this practice paper, but both have funding from the National Institutes of Health for fibroid research. Laughlin-Tommaso reported royalties from UpToDate. Stewart reported research support from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and speaking, data-monitoring, and consulting fees for various private companies, including AbbVie, Anylam Pharmaceuticals, ASKA Pharma, and Myovant Sciences. She holds a patent on treatment for abnormal uterine bleeding and has been involved in CME for various medical educational agencies. Hurtado and Ascher-Walsh had no relevant conflicts of interest to declare.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The majority of patients may safely take glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) before elective surgery and gastrointestinal endoscopies, according to updated guidance from five medical societies.

The new guidance, contrasting with earlier recommendations, says these incrementally used agents can be taken up until the day of surgery, but patients are advised to follow a liquid diet for 24 hours before the procedure. The decision to proceed with endoscopy and other procedures should be based on shared decision-making with the patient and interdisciplinary care teams in conjunction with minimization of the aspiration risk from delayed gastric emptying, the guidance stresses.

The five endorsing organizations are the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA), American Gastroenterological Association, International Society of Perioperative Care of Patients with Obesity, and Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons. The societies emphasize that the statement is intended as guidance only and is not an evidence-based formal guideline.

GLP-1 RAs are known to delay gastric emptying, raising concerns about regurgitation, aspiration, and airway compromise during anesthesia. Rare serious adverse events have also been observed, prompting the ASA in 2023 to recommend holding these agents for 1 week for the injectable form and 1 day for the oral form before all procedures requiring anesthesia. 

 

University of Michigan

That abundance of caution, however, had negative impacts of its own. “This guidance has led to cancellations and postponements of many endoscopic and surgical procedures or required patients to undergo general anesthesia who may otherwise have had their procedures performed under moderate sedation,” said guidance coauthor Allison R. Schulman, MD, MPH, an associate professor of medicine and surgery and chief of endoscopy at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. “Nearly all institutions have been forced to revise preprocedural protocols, despite a lack of high-level evidence to suggest that these adjustments are necessary.”

“Studies have yielded mixed results as to whether patients on GLP-1s are at increased risk of these events, and the limited data available are inconsistent,” Schulman said. “As a result, there are inconsistencies in the recommendations from various societies leading to growing uncertainty with proceduralists on how to provide safe, effective, and timely procedural care to patients taking GLP-1 RAs.”

The new joint-society guidance may alleviate some of the uncertainty. Among the recommendations:

• Continuing GLP-1 RAs in the perioperative period should be based on shared decision-making with the patient and all care teams balancing the metabolic need for the GLP-1 RA with individual patient risk.
• Certain variables may increase the risk for delayed gastric emptying and aspiration with the periprocedural use of GLP-1 RAs: escalation phase — This phase vs the maintenance phase is associated with a higher risk for delayed gastric emptying; higher dose — the higher the dose, the greater the risk for gastrointestinal (GI) side effects; weekly dosing — GI side effects are more common with weekly vs daily formulations; presence of GI symptoms — nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, dyspepsia, and constipation may suggest delayed gastric emptying; and medical problems beyond GLP-1 RA indications with GI effects — assess for such conditions as bowel dysmotility, gastroparesis, and Parkinson’s disease.
• Risk factors should be assessed in advance to allow sufficient time to adjust preoperative care, including diet modification and medication bridging if GLP-1 RA cessation is deemed advisable.
• If retained gastric contents are a concern on the day of a procedure, point-of-care gastric ultrasound could be used to assess aspiration risk, resources permitting.
• The aspiration risk from delayed gastric emptying should be minimized by preoperative diet modification and/or altering the anesthesia plan to consider rapid sequence induction of general anesthesia for tracheal intubation. A 24-hour preoperative liquid diet, as before colonoscopy and bariatric surgery, can be utilized when delayed gastric emptying is a concern.
• When concern about retained gastric contents exists on procedure day, providers should engage patients in a shared decision-making model and consider the benefits and risks of rapid-sequence induction of general anesthesia for tracheal intubation to minimize aspiration risk vs procedure cancellation.

“Safe continuation of surgery and gastrointestinal endoscopy, and prevention of procedure cancellation, for patients on GLP-1 RAs can be prioritized following the recommendations above, as would occur for other patient populations with gastroparesis,” the guidance panel wrote.

 

Digestive Health Center of Huntington

Commenting on the statement but not involved in it, David B. Purow, MD, managing director of the Digestive Health Center at Northwell Health/Huntington Hospital in Huntington, New York, said the recommendations will encourage clinicians to be more discerning about actual risk in individual cases rather than follow the previous blanket recommendation to stop these agents before procedures requiring sedation. 

While GLP-1 RAs were prescribed for the relatively small number of patients with diabetes, he said, the risk was not apparent but became clearer with the widespread use of these agents for weight loss — often unregulated and undisclosed to care providers.

“The pendulum shifted too far the other way, and now it’s shifted back,” he said in an interview. “The new guidance is great because now we can be more thoughtful about managing individual patients.” He cited, for instance, the recommendations on the greater risk in patients in the dose escalation phase or on higher doses, and the risk-reducing measure of a liquid diet for 24 hours before surgery.

His center is already using point-of-care ultrasound and recently had a case in which a patient who forgot and took his GLP-1 RA before a scheduled procedure was found on ultrasound to have a full stomach. “In some cases, these drugs can cause an almost gastroparesis level of delayed emptying,” Purow said.

Purow thinks this early guidance will probably progress to firm guidelines within a year. Schulman is more cautious. “Our understanding of this complex topic is increasing rapidly, and ongoing clinical research will ultimately lead to evidence-based guidelines in this changing landscape,” she said.

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Schulman is a consultant for Apollo Endosurgery, Boston Scientific, Olympus, Microtech, and Fractyl. Purow had no competing interests to declare.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The majority of patients may safely take glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) before elective surgery and gastrointestinal endoscopies, according to updated guidance from five medical societies.

The new guidance, contrasting with earlier recommendations, says these incrementally used agents can be taken up until the day of surgery, but patients are advised to follow a liquid diet for 24 hours before the procedure. The decision to proceed with endoscopy and other procedures should be based on shared decision-making with the patient and interdisciplinary care teams in conjunction with minimization of the aspiration risk from delayed gastric emptying, the guidance stresses.

The five endorsing organizations are the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA), American Gastroenterological Association, International Society of Perioperative Care of Patients with Obesity, and Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons. The societies emphasize that the statement is intended as guidance only and is not an evidence-based formal guideline.

GLP-1 RAs are known to delay gastric emptying, raising concerns about regurgitation, aspiration, and airway compromise during anesthesia. Rare serious adverse events have also been observed, prompting the ASA in 2023 to recommend holding these agents for 1 week for the injectable form and 1 day for the oral form before all procedures requiring anesthesia. 

 

University of Michigan

That abundance of caution, however, had negative impacts of its own. “This guidance has led to cancellations and postponements of many endoscopic and surgical procedures or required patients to undergo general anesthesia who may otherwise have had their procedures performed under moderate sedation,” said guidance coauthor Allison R. Schulman, MD, MPH, an associate professor of medicine and surgery and chief of endoscopy at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. “Nearly all institutions have been forced to revise preprocedural protocols, despite a lack of high-level evidence to suggest that these adjustments are necessary.”

“Studies have yielded mixed results as to whether patients on GLP-1s are at increased risk of these events, and the limited data available are inconsistent,” Schulman said. “As a result, there are inconsistencies in the recommendations from various societies leading to growing uncertainty with proceduralists on how to provide safe, effective, and timely procedural care to patients taking GLP-1 RAs.”

The new joint-society guidance may alleviate some of the uncertainty. Among the recommendations:

• Continuing GLP-1 RAs in the perioperative period should be based on shared decision-making with the patient and all care teams balancing the metabolic need for the GLP-1 RA with individual patient risk.
• Certain variables may increase the risk for delayed gastric emptying and aspiration with the periprocedural use of GLP-1 RAs: escalation phase — This phase vs the maintenance phase is associated with a higher risk for delayed gastric emptying; higher dose — the higher the dose, the greater the risk for gastrointestinal (GI) side effects; weekly dosing — GI side effects are more common with weekly vs daily formulations; presence of GI symptoms — nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, dyspepsia, and constipation may suggest delayed gastric emptying; and medical problems beyond GLP-1 RA indications with GI effects — assess for such conditions as bowel dysmotility, gastroparesis, and Parkinson’s disease.
• Risk factors should be assessed in advance to allow sufficient time to adjust preoperative care, including diet modification and medication bridging if GLP-1 RA cessation is deemed advisable.
• If retained gastric contents are a concern on the day of a procedure, point-of-care gastric ultrasound could be used to assess aspiration risk, resources permitting.
• The aspiration risk from delayed gastric emptying should be minimized by preoperative diet modification and/or altering the anesthesia plan to consider rapid sequence induction of general anesthesia for tracheal intubation. A 24-hour preoperative liquid diet, as before colonoscopy and bariatric surgery, can be utilized when delayed gastric emptying is a concern.
• When concern about retained gastric contents exists on procedure day, providers should engage patients in a shared decision-making model and consider the benefits and risks of rapid-sequence induction of general anesthesia for tracheal intubation to minimize aspiration risk vs procedure cancellation.

“Safe continuation of surgery and gastrointestinal endoscopy, and prevention of procedure cancellation, for patients on GLP-1 RAs can be prioritized following the recommendations above, as would occur for other patient populations with gastroparesis,” the guidance panel wrote.

 

Digestive Health Center of Huntington

Commenting on the statement but not involved in it, David B. Purow, MD, managing director of the Digestive Health Center at Northwell Health/Huntington Hospital in Huntington, New York, said the recommendations will encourage clinicians to be more discerning about actual risk in individual cases rather than follow the previous blanket recommendation to stop these agents before procedures requiring sedation. 

While GLP-1 RAs were prescribed for the relatively small number of patients with diabetes, he said, the risk was not apparent but became clearer with the widespread use of these agents for weight loss — often unregulated and undisclosed to care providers.

“The pendulum shifted too far the other way, and now it’s shifted back,” he said in an interview. “The new guidance is great because now we can be more thoughtful about managing individual patients.” He cited, for instance, the recommendations on the greater risk in patients in the dose escalation phase or on higher doses, and the risk-reducing measure of a liquid diet for 24 hours before surgery.

His center is already using point-of-care ultrasound and recently had a case in which a patient who forgot and took his GLP-1 RA before a scheduled procedure was found on ultrasound to have a full stomach. “In some cases, these drugs can cause an almost gastroparesis level of delayed emptying,” Purow said.

Purow thinks this early guidance will probably progress to firm guidelines within a year. Schulman is more cautious. “Our understanding of this complex topic is increasing rapidly, and ongoing clinical research will ultimately lead to evidence-based guidelines in this changing landscape,” she said.

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Schulman is a consultant for Apollo Endosurgery, Boston Scientific, Olympus, Microtech, and Fractyl. Purow had no competing interests to declare.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The majority of patients may safely take glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) before elective surgery and gastrointestinal endoscopies, according to updated guidance from five medical societies.

The new guidance, contrasting with earlier recommendations, says these incrementally used agents can be taken up until the day of surgery, but patients are advised to follow a liquid diet for 24 hours before the procedure. The decision to proceed with endoscopy and other procedures should be based on shared decision-making with the patient and interdisciplinary care teams in conjunction with minimization of the aspiration risk from delayed gastric emptying, the guidance stresses.

The five endorsing organizations are the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA), American Gastroenterological Association, International Society of Perioperative Care of Patients with Obesity, and Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons. The societies emphasize that the statement is intended as guidance only and is not an evidence-based formal guideline.

GLP-1 RAs are known to delay gastric emptying, raising concerns about regurgitation, aspiration, and airway compromise during anesthesia. Rare serious adverse events have also been observed, prompting the ASA in 2023 to recommend holding these agents for 1 week for the injectable form and 1 day for the oral form before all procedures requiring anesthesia. 

 

University of Michigan

That abundance of caution, however, had negative impacts of its own. “This guidance has led to cancellations and postponements of many endoscopic and surgical procedures or required patients to undergo general anesthesia who may otherwise have had their procedures performed under moderate sedation,” said guidance coauthor Allison R. Schulman, MD, MPH, an associate professor of medicine and surgery and chief of endoscopy at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. “Nearly all institutions have been forced to revise preprocedural protocols, despite a lack of high-level evidence to suggest that these adjustments are necessary.”

“Studies have yielded mixed results as to whether patients on GLP-1s are at increased risk of these events, and the limited data available are inconsistent,” Schulman said. “As a result, there are inconsistencies in the recommendations from various societies leading to growing uncertainty with proceduralists on how to provide safe, effective, and timely procedural care to patients taking GLP-1 RAs.”

The new joint-society guidance may alleviate some of the uncertainty. Among the recommendations:

• Continuing GLP-1 RAs in the perioperative period should be based on shared decision-making with the patient and all care teams balancing the metabolic need for the GLP-1 RA with individual patient risk.
• Certain variables may increase the risk for delayed gastric emptying and aspiration with the periprocedural use of GLP-1 RAs: escalation phase — This phase vs the maintenance phase is associated with a higher risk for delayed gastric emptying; higher dose — the higher the dose, the greater the risk for gastrointestinal (GI) side effects; weekly dosing — GI side effects are more common with weekly vs daily formulations; presence of GI symptoms — nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, dyspepsia, and constipation may suggest delayed gastric emptying; and medical problems beyond GLP-1 RA indications with GI effects — assess for such conditions as bowel dysmotility, gastroparesis, and Parkinson’s disease.
• Risk factors should be assessed in advance to allow sufficient time to adjust preoperative care, including diet modification and medication bridging if GLP-1 RA cessation is deemed advisable.
• If retained gastric contents are a concern on the day of a procedure, point-of-care gastric ultrasound could be used to assess aspiration risk, resources permitting.
• The aspiration risk from delayed gastric emptying should be minimized by preoperative diet modification and/or altering the anesthesia plan to consider rapid sequence induction of general anesthesia for tracheal intubation. A 24-hour preoperative liquid diet, as before colonoscopy and bariatric surgery, can be utilized when delayed gastric emptying is a concern.
• When concern about retained gastric contents exists on procedure day, providers should engage patients in a shared decision-making model and consider the benefits and risks of rapid-sequence induction of general anesthesia for tracheal intubation to minimize aspiration risk vs procedure cancellation.

“Safe continuation of surgery and gastrointestinal endoscopy, and prevention of procedure cancellation, for patients on GLP-1 RAs can be prioritized following the recommendations above, as would occur for other patient populations with gastroparesis,” the guidance panel wrote.

 

Digestive Health Center of Huntington

Commenting on the statement but not involved in it, David B. Purow, MD, managing director of the Digestive Health Center at Northwell Health/Huntington Hospital in Huntington, New York, said the recommendations will encourage clinicians to be more discerning about actual risk in individual cases rather than follow the previous blanket recommendation to stop these agents before procedures requiring sedation. 

While GLP-1 RAs were prescribed for the relatively small number of patients with diabetes, he said, the risk was not apparent but became clearer with the widespread use of these agents for weight loss — often unregulated and undisclosed to care providers.

“The pendulum shifted too far the other way, and now it’s shifted back,” he said in an interview. “The new guidance is great because now we can be more thoughtful about managing individual patients.” He cited, for instance, the recommendations on the greater risk in patients in the dose escalation phase or on higher doses, and the risk-reducing measure of a liquid diet for 24 hours before surgery.

His center is already using point-of-care ultrasound and recently had a case in which a patient who forgot and took his GLP-1 RA before a scheduled procedure was found on ultrasound to have a full stomach. “In some cases, these drugs can cause an almost gastroparesis level of delayed emptying,” Purow said.

Purow thinks this early guidance will probably progress to firm guidelines within a year. Schulman is more cautious. “Our understanding of this complex topic is increasing rapidly, and ongoing clinical research will ultimately lead to evidence-based guidelines in this changing landscape,” she said.

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Schulman is a consultant for Apollo Endosurgery, Boston Scientific, Olympus, Microtech, and Fractyl. Purow had no competing interests to declare.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

When psychiatrist Paul Sartain, MD (not his real name), received a letter from his state’s medical board, he was concerned. A patient’s family complained that he made sexual advances to a young woman he treated for psychotic depression.

“There was absolutely no evidence, and the claims were vague,” he said. “I think the family was angry at me and with the system — the woman had not gotten better.” Sartain reviewed his medical records and then called his malpractice insurer.

The insurer asked about his involvement with the patient’s case, if there was anything credible to the patient’s complaint, and if he had thorough documentation. Then, the carrier offered Sartain his choice of several attorneys who could represent him. The medical board ultimately closed the case with no findings against him, and the patient’s family never sued him.

While Sartain said he trusted his carrier-provided attorney, he would have considered hiring his own attorney as well if a criminal issue was also alleged.

“If I’m wrongly accused, I’m defended (by the carrier). If I had stolen money or had a sexual relationship with the patient, then you’re acting outside the bounds of what is protected (by the carrier),” he said.
 

How Medical Board and Malpractice Insurer Investigations Differ

Medical board complaints differ from malpractice claims, in which patients seek damages. The investigation process also varies.

When a patient reports a doctor to a state medical board, they may also sue the doctor for monetary damages in civil court. The medical board responds to patient complaints made directly to them, but it also may also initiate its own investigations. Those can be prompted by a malpractice claim resolution, with a court verdict against the doctor, or a settlement recorded in the National Practitioner Data Bank.

Malpractice insurers may offer limited legal representation for medical board investigations, requiring the doctor to report the medical board issue to them before the doctor takes any action. Often, they will cover up to $50,000 in defense costs but not cover any subsequent medical board fines or required classes or medical board fees.

When a doctor contacts the carrier about a medical board investigation, the carrier may ask for the medical board document and the medical records, said Alex Keoskey, a partner in Frier Levitt’s life sciences group.

The carrier may want to ask about the patient, staff members involved, the doctor’s background, if there have been previous medical board investigations or lawsuits against this doctor, and the doctor’s opinion of the allegations. The doctor should be transparent with the carrier, Keoskey said.

Some carriers conduct more in-depth investigations, examining record-keeping, prescription practices, patient consent processes, and continuing medical education status. That’s because the medical board may inquire about these as well should its own investigation expand.

Not all carriers explore cases like these, even if reimbursing for defense costs, said Karen Frisella, director of professional liability claims at BETA Healthcare Group in California. In her experience, a licensing investigation usually follows a claim resolution that was already worked up by the carrier. If a complaint was made directly to the licensing board without an accompanying liability claim, the carrier’s ability to initiate an investigation on the incident depends on the policy terms or coverage available.

“Typically, a professional liability policy requires that the insured report a claim to trigger coverage. The carrier can’t unilaterally decide to open a claim,” she said. A licensing board investigation is not a claim by definition and therefore does not provide a mechanism for the carrier to open a liability claim file, she added.

If the medical board ultimately restricts the doctor’s license or puts the doctor on probation, that becomes public, and the underwriting department may then look into it.

Malpractice insurers routinely monitor licensing board discipline notices. A reprimand or restrictions on a doctor’s license could trigger a review of the physician’s future insurability and lead to higher premiums or even nonrenewal, Frisella said.

If a carrier investigates a reported claim and determines there are issues with the care rendered, whether there is an accompanying medical board action, that also can affect underwriting decisions, Frisella said.
 

Who Is Your Attorney Really Working for?

The doctor should understand whose interests the attorney represents. In a medical board claim, the attorney — even if defense is paid by the carrier — represents the doctor.

Frisella said her organization provides pass-through coverage, meaning it reimburses the doctor for medical board defense costs. “Because the carrier isn’t directing the medical board defense, it is not generally privy to the work product.”

If a patient files a malpractice claim, however, the attorney ultimately represents the insurance company.

“The panel counsel who works for the insurer does not work for the doctor, and that’s always important to remember,” Keoskey said. While the attorney will do their best to aggressively defend the doctor, “he’s going to protect the insurer’s interest before the doctor’s.”

Physicians who find any conflict of interest with their insurer should seek counsel.

Such conflicts could include:

• Disagreements over the case’s ultimate worth. For example, a physician might want a case to settle for less than their carrier is willing to pay.
• The legal judgment may exceed the carrier’s policy limits, or there are punitive damages or allegations of criminal acts that the insurer does not cover.

In these cases, the insurance company should recommend the doctor get personal counsel. They will send a reservation of rights letter saying they will defend the doctor for now, but if the facts show the doctor committed some type of misconduct, they may decline coverage, said Keoskey. Some states, including California, require that the carrier pay for this independent counsel.

Unless there is a conflict of interest, though, having a personal attorney just makes the situation more complicated, said Frisella.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

When psychiatrist Paul Sartain, MD (not his real name), received a letter from his state’s medical board, he was concerned. A patient’s family complained that he made sexual advances to a young woman he treated for psychotic depression.

“There was absolutely no evidence, and the claims were vague,” he said. “I think the family was angry at me and with the system — the woman had not gotten better.” Sartain reviewed his medical records and then called his malpractice insurer.

The insurer asked about his involvement with the patient’s case, if there was anything credible to the patient’s complaint, and if he had thorough documentation. Then, the carrier offered Sartain his choice of several attorneys who could represent him. The medical board ultimately closed the case with no findings against him, and the patient’s family never sued him.

While Sartain said he trusted his carrier-provided attorney, he would have considered hiring his own attorney as well if a criminal issue was also alleged.

“If I’m wrongly accused, I’m defended (by the carrier). If I had stolen money or had a sexual relationship with the patient, then you’re acting outside the bounds of what is protected (by the carrier),” he said.
 

How Medical Board and Malpractice Insurer Investigations Differ

Medical board complaints differ from malpractice claims, in which patients seek damages. The investigation process also varies.

When a patient reports a doctor to a state medical board, they may also sue the doctor for monetary damages in civil court. The medical board responds to patient complaints made directly to them, but it also may also initiate its own investigations. Those can be prompted by a malpractice claim resolution, with a court verdict against the doctor, or a settlement recorded in the National Practitioner Data Bank.

Malpractice insurers may offer limited legal representation for medical board investigations, requiring the doctor to report the medical board issue to them before the doctor takes any action. Often, they will cover up to $50,000 in defense costs but not cover any subsequent medical board fines or required classes or medical board fees.

When a doctor contacts the carrier about a medical board investigation, the carrier may ask for the medical board document and the medical records, said Alex Keoskey, a partner in Frier Levitt’s life sciences group.

The carrier may want to ask about the patient, staff members involved, the doctor’s background, if there have been previous medical board investigations or lawsuits against this doctor, and the doctor’s opinion of the allegations. The doctor should be transparent with the carrier, Keoskey said.

Some carriers conduct more in-depth investigations, examining record-keeping, prescription practices, patient consent processes, and continuing medical education status. That’s because the medical board may inquire about these as well should its own investigation expand.

Not all carriers explore cases like these, even if reimbursing for defense costs, said Karen Frisella, director of professional liability claims at BETA Healthcare Group in California. In her experience, a licensing investigation usually follows a claim resolution that was already worked up by the carrier. If a complaint was made directly to the licensing board without an accompanying liability claim, the carrier’s ability to initiate an investigation on the incident depends on the policy terms or coverage available.

“Typically, a professional liability policy requires that the insured report a claim to trigger coverage. The carrier can’t unilaterally decide to open a claim,” she said. A licensing board investigation is not a claim by definition and therefore does not provide a mechanism for the carrier to open a liability claim file, she added.

If the medical board ultimately restricts the doctor’s license or puts the doctor on probation, that becomes public, and the underwriting department may then look into it.

Malpractice insurers routinely monitor licensing board discipline notices. A reprimand or restrictions on a doctor’s license could trigger a review of the physician’s future insurability and lead to higher premiums or even nonrenewal, Frisella said.

If a carrier investigates a reported claim and determines there are issues with the care rendered, whether there is an accompanying medical board action, that also can affect underwriting decisions, Frisella said.
 

Who Is Your Attorney Really Working for?

The doctor should understand whose interests the attorney represents. In a medical board claim, the attorney — even if defense is paid by the carrier — represents the doctor.

Frisella said her organization provides pass-through coverage, meaning it reimburses the doctor for medical board defense costs. “Because the carrier isn’t directing the medical board defense, it is not generally privy to the work product.”

If a patient files a malpractice claim, however, the attorney ultimately represents the insurance company.

“The panel counsel who works for the insurer does not work for the doctor, and that’s always important to remember,” Keoskey said. While the attorney will do their best to aggressively defend the doctor, “he’s going to protect the insurer’s interest before the doctor’s.”

Physicians who find any conflict of interest with their insurer should seek counsel.

Such conflicts could include:

• Disagreements over the case’s ultimate worth. For example, a physician might want a case to settle for less than their carrier is willing to pay.
• The legal judgment may exceed the carrier’s policy limits, or there are punitive damages or allegations of criminal acts that the insurer does not cover.

In these cases, the insurance company should recommend the doctor get personal counsel. They will send a reservation of rights letter saying they will defend the doctor for now, but if the facts show the doctor committed some type of misconduct, they may decline coverage, said Keoskey. Some states, including California, require that the carrier pay for this independent counsel.

Unless there is a conflict of interest, though, having a personal attorney just makes the situation more complicated, said Frisella.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

When psychiatrist Paul Sartain, MD (not his real name), received a letter from his state’s medical board, he was concerned. A patient’s family complained that he made sexual advances to a young woman he treated for psychotic depression.

“There was absolutely no evidence, and the claims were vague,” he said. “I think the family was angry at me and with the system — the woman had not gotten better.” Sartain reviewed his medical records and then called his malpractice insurer.

The insurer asked about his involvement with the patient’s case, if there was anything credible to the patient’s complaint, and if he had thorough documentation. Then, the carrier offered Sartain his choice of several attorneys who could represent him. The medical board ultimately closed the case with no findings against him, and the patient’s family never sued him.

While Sartain said he trusted his carrier-provided attorney, he would have considered hiring his own attorney as well if a criminal issue was also alleged.

“If I’m wrongly accused, I’m defended (by the carrier). If I had stolen money or had a sexual relationship with the patient, then you’re acting outside the bounds of what is protected (by the carrier),” he said.
 

How Medical Board and Malpractice Insurer Investigations Differ

Medical board complaints differ from malpractice claims, in which patients seek damages. The investigation process also varies.

When a patient reports a doctor to a state medical board, they may also sue the doctor for monetary damages in civil court. The medical board responds to patient complaints made directly to them, but it also may also initiate its own investigations. Those can be prompted by a malpractice claim resolution, with a court verdict against the doctor, or a settlement recorded in the National Practitioner Data Bank.

Malpractice insurers may offer limited legal representation for medical board investigations, requiring the doctor to report the medical board issue to them before the doctor takes any action. Often, they will cover up to $50,000 in defense costs but not cover any subsequent medical board fines or required classes or medical board fees.

When a doctor contacts the carrier about a medical board investigation, the carrier may ask for the medical board document and the medical records, said Alex Keoskey, a partner in Frier Levitt’s life sciences group.

The carrier may want to ask about the patient, staff members involved, the doctor’s background, if there have been previous medical board investigations or lawsuits against this doctor, and the doctor’s opinion of the allegations. The doctor should be transparent with the carrier, Keoskey said.

Some carriers conduct more in-depth investigations, examining record-keeping, prescription practices, patient consent processes, and continuing medical education status. That’s because the medical board may inquire about these as well should its own investigation expand.

Not all carriers explore cases like these, even if reimbursing for defense costs, said Karen Frisella, director of professional liability claims at BETA Healthcare Group in California. In her experience, a licensing investigation usually follows a claim resolution that was already worked up by the carrier. If a complaint was made directly to the licensing board without an accompanying liability claim, the carrier’s ability to initiate an investigation on the incident depends on the policy terms or coverage available.

“Typically, a professional liability policy requires that the insured report a claim to trigger coverage. The carrier can’t unilaterally decide to open a claim,” she said. A licensing board investigation is not a claim by definition and therefore does not provide a mechanism for the carrier to open a liability claim file, she added.

If the medical board ultimately restricts the doctor’s license or puts the doctor on probation, that becomes public, and the underwriting department may then look into it.

Malpractice insurers routinely monitor licensing board discipline notices. A reprimand or restrictions on a doctor’s license could trigger a review of the physician’s future insurability and lead to higher premiums or even nonrenewal, Frisella said.

If a carrier investigates a reported claim and determines there are issues with the care rendered, whether there is an accompanying medical board action, that also can affect underwriting decisions, Frisella said.
 

Who Is Your Attorney Really Working for?

The doctor should understand whose interests the attorney represents. In a medical board claim, the attorney — even if defense is paid by the carrier — represents the doctor.

Frisella said her organization provides pass-through coverage, meaning it reimburses the doctor for medical board defense costs. “Because the carrier isn’t directing the medical board defense, it is not generally privy to the work product.”

If a patient files a malpractice claim, however, the attorney ultimately represents the insurance company.

“The panel counsel who works for the insurer does not work for the doctor, and that’s always important to remember,” Keoskey said. While the attorney will do their best to aggressively defend the doctor, “he’s going to protect the insurer’s interest before the doctor’s.”

Physicians who find any conflict of interest with their insurer should seek counsel.

Such conflicts could include:

• Disagreements over the case’s ultimate worth. For example, a physician might want a case to settle for less than their carrier is willing to pay.
• The legal judgment may exceed the carrier’s policy limits, or there are punitive damages or allegations of criminal acts that the insurer does not cover.

In these cases, the insurance company should recommend the doctor get personal counsel. They will send a reservation of rights letter saying they will defend the doctor for now, but if the facts show the doctor committed some type of misconduct, they may decline coverage, said Keoskey. Some states, including California, require that the carrier pay for this independent counsel.

Unless there is a conflict of interest, though, having a personal attorney just makes the situation more complicated, said Frisella.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.