A Microsimulation Study of the Cost-Effectiveness of Hepatitis C Virus Screening Frequencies in Hemodialysis Centers.

BACKGROUND: National guidelines recommend twice-yearly hepatitis C virus (HCV) screening for patients receiving in-center hemodialysis. However, studies examining the cost-effectiveness of HCV screening methods or frequencies are lacking. METHODS: We populated an HCV screening, treatment, and disease microsimulation model with a cohort representative of the US in-center hemodialysis population. Clinical outcomes, costs, and cost-effectiveness of the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) 2018 guidelines-endorsed HCV screening frequency (every 6 months) were compared with less frequent periodic screening (yearly, every 2 years), screening only at hemodialysis initiation, and no screening. We estimated expected quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) between each screening strategy and the next less expensive alternative strategy, from a health care sector perspective, in 2019 US dollars. For each strategy, we modeled an HCV outbreak occurring in 1% of centers. In sensitivity analyses, we varied mortality, linkage to HCV cure, screening method (ribonucleic acid versus antibody testing), test sensitivity, HCV infection rates, and outbreak frequencies. RESULTS: Screening only at hemodialysis initiation yielded HCV cure rates of 79%, with an ICER of $82,739 per QALY saved compared with no testing. Compared with screening at hemodialysis entry only, screening every 2 years increased cure rates to 88% and decreased liver-related deaths by 52%, with an ICER of $140,193. Screening every 6 months had an ICER of $934,757; in sensitivity analyses using a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY gained, screening every 6 months was never cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: The KDIGO-recommended HCV screening interval (every 6 months) does not seem to be a cost-effective use of health care resources, suggesting that re-evaluation of less-frequent screening strategies should be considered.

Risk Factors Associated with Severe Macromastia among Adolescents and Young Women.

BACKGROUND: Macromastia is common among adolescents and young women and has well-documented negative physical and psychosocial effects. The pathogenesis of idiopathic macromastia has been attributed to increased end organ sensitivity to circulating gonadal hormones. Despite the known negative effects of macromastia, there is a paucity of literature examining the clinical risk factors associated with macromastia severity in this age group. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, standardized clinical forms were administered to patients between the ages of 12 and 21 years undergoing reduction mammaplasty. Data were collected pertaining to patient demographics, biometrics, breast symptoms, medical and family history, and breast tissue resection mass at the time of reduction. Resection mass was normalized to patient body surface area in analyses. RESULTS: A total of 375 patients were included in analyses. Mean age at surgery was 18.1 years. The following risk factors were positively associated with macromastia severity in both univariate and multivariate logistic regression models: overweight or obesity, racial or ethnic minority status, patient-reported gynecologic or endocrine complaints, and early menarche ( p < 0.05, all). More severe cases of macromastia were associated with approximately three times the odds of being overweight or obese or achieving menarche before 11 years old. CONCLUSIONS: In our sample, overweight or obesity, racial or ethnic minority status, early menarche, and patient-reported gynecologic or endocrine complaints were all positively associated with macromastia severity. Awareness of these factors can empower physicians to identify and address modifiable risk factors to prevent progression to more severe disease. Macromastia itself should prompt screening for gynecologic or endocrine complaints with referral as indicated. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, III.

The Impact of Combined Oral Contraceptives on Adolescents with Macromastia.

BACKGROUND: The combined oral contraceptive pill, containing both estrogen and progestin, is commonly prescribed to adolescents for numerous health benefits. However, there is concern among patients and providers that its use may exacerbate breast growth. This retrospective, case-control study examined the association between combined oral contraceptive pill use and macromastia-related breast hypertrophy and symptoms in adolescents. METHODS: A total of 378 patients undergoing reduction mammaplasty between the ages of 12 and 21 years were assessed for baseline and postoperative breast symptoms and combined oral contraceptive pill use. In addition, the medical records of 378 female controls of the same age range were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS: Although a lower proportion of the macromastia cohort used any hormonal contraception compared to controls (37.8 percent versus 64.8 percent; OR, 0.33; 95 percent CI, 0.24 to 0.44; p < 0.001), they were more often prescribed combined oral contraceptive pills (82.5 percent versus 52.7 percent; OR, 1.93; 95 percent CI, 1.29 to 2.68; p < 0.001). Participants with macromastia who used combined oral contraceptive pills had a smaller median normalized amount of breast tissue resected during reduction mammaplasty than those who never used hormonal contraception (639.5 g/m 2 versus 735.9 g/m 2 ; p = 0.003). Combined oral contraceptive pills were not associated with breast-related symptoms or clinical impairment, or postoperative breast growth ( p > 0.05 for all). CONCLUSIONS: Combined oral contraceptive pill use during adolescence may be associated with developing less severe breast hypertrophy. Combined oral contraceptive pills do not appear to exacerbate macromastia-related symptoms or impact postoperative growth in young women following reduction mammaplasty. Although additional research is needed, providers are encouraged to consider combined oral contraceptive pills for their patients with macromastia when indicated and appropriate. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, III.

The Impact of Progestin-only Contraception on Adolescents with Macromastia.

Progestin-only contraception has become increasingly popular among adolescents. However, patients, parents, and providers share concerns regarding the potential impact that progestin-only contraception may have on breast growth. We sought to explore the impact of progestin-only contraception on breast hypertrophy and symptomatology in adolescents with macromastia. METHODS: Patients between the ages of 12 and 21 years undergoing reduction mammaplasty were prospectively assessed for baseline and postoperative breast symptomatology and medication use. The medical records of female controls within the same age range were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS: A total of 378 participants with macromastia and 378 controls were included in analyses. A higher proportion of controls used progestin-only methods compared with participants with macromastia (28.0% versus 5.3%, P < 0.001). The most commonly prescribed methods were the depot medroxyprogesterone acetate injection (31.0%), levonorgestrel-containing intrauterine device (31.0%), and subdermal implant (26.2%). Patients with macromastia who used progestin-only contraception had a greater amount of breast tissue resected during reduction mammaplasty (P = 0.04), reported greater musculoskeletal pain (P = 0.008), and were roughly 500% more likely to experience breast pain (odds ratio, 4.94; 95% confidence interval, 1.58-15.47; P = 0.005) than those with macromastia who never used hormonal contraception. CONCLUSIONS: Adolescents with macromastia who use progestin-only contraception may have greater breast hypertrophy and worse breast and musculoskeletal pain. When appropriate, providers may wish to consider other contraception methods for patients who are at-risk for breast hypertrophy or those who suffer from macromastia-related symptoms.

Optimal Timing for Reduction Mammaplasty in Adolescents.

BACKGROUND: Reduction mammaplasty effectively alleviates symptoms and restores quality of life. However, operating on adolescents remains controversial, partly because of fear of potential postoperative breast growth. This cross-sectional study provides surgeons with a method to predict the optimal timing, or biological "sweet spot," for reduction mammaplasty to minimize the risk of breast regrowth in adolescents. METHODS: The authors reviewed the medical records of women aged 12 to 21 years who underwent reduction mammaplasty from 2007 to 2019. Collected data included symptomology, perioperative details, and postoperative outcomes. RESULTS: Four hundred eighty-one subjects were included in analyses and were, on average, 11.9 years old at first menses (menarche) and 17.9 years old at surgery. Six percent of subjects experienced postoperative breast growth. Breast size appears to stabilize considerably later in obese adolescents compared to healthy-weight and overweight patients, and breast growth in obese macromastia patients may not end until 9 years after menarche. Operating on obese women before this time point increased the likelihood of glandular breast regrowth by almost 120 percent (OR, 1.18; 95 percent CI, 1.11 to 1.26). Surgery performed less than 3 years after menarche, the commonly regarded end of puberty, increased the likelihood of glandular regrowth by over 700 percent in healthy-weight and overweight subjects (OR, 7.43; 95 percent CI, 1.37 to 40.41). CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that reduction mammaplasty age restrictions imposed by care providers and third-party payors may be arbitrary. Surgical readiness should be determined on an individual basis incorporating the patient's biological and psychological maturity, obesity status, potential for postoperative benefit, and risk tolerance for postoperative breast growth. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, III.