News

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) provides health care to about 600,000 women veterans—half are of child-bearing age. Pregnancies in women veterans using VA care have increased by more than 80% since 2014, from 6950 in 2014 to 12,524 in 2022.

Until recently, VA maternity care coordinators would help women navigate health care from the beginning of pregnancy to 8 weeks postpartum. But “[e]vidence shows that new mothers often need support and care coordination long after 8 weeks postpartum, which is why VA is taking action to support veteran mothers for much longer after they give birth,” said Under Secretary for Health Shereef Elnahal, MD. As of October 1, 2023, the maternity support is now extended to 12 months postpartum.

The full range of maternity care services includes primary care, examinations, tests, ultrasounds, newborn care, and screening for social determinants of health, mental health risk factors, and relationship health and safety. Maternity care coordinators also connect veterans with care after delivery and ensure access to follow-up screenings.

The VA says expanding access to maternity care coordinators is part of the work it’s doing to implement the White House Blueprint for Addressing the Maternal Health Crisis, released last year. The US maternal mortality rate is the highest of any developed nation in the world and more than double the rate of peer countries, the report says. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), from 2018 to 2021, the maternal death rate in the US increased from 17.4 to 32.9 per 100,000 live births.

Moreover, “[t]housands of women experience unexpected outcomes of labor and delivery that result in significant short- or long-term consequences to their health,” the White House report says, “such as heart issues, the need for blood transfusions, eclampsia, and blood infections.” Disturbingly, more than 80% of pregnancy-related deaths are preventable. Black and American Indian/Alaska Native women, regardless of income or education, are most likely to experience poor outcomes. Women who live in rural America—where there are many maternal care “deserts”—are about 60% more likely to die, the White House report says.

Quality care requires “care organized for and provided to all women in a manner that maintains their dignity, privacy, and confidentiality, ensures freedom from harm and mistreatment, and enables informed choice and con­tinuous support during labor and childbirth,” say CDC researchers who surveyed 2407 women about their maternity care experiences. One in 5 respondents reported instances of mistreatment. Roughly one-third of Black, Hispanic, and multiracial women reported, for instance, receiving no response to requests for help, being shouted at or scolded, not having their physical privacy protected, and being threatened with withholding treatment or made to accept unwanted treatment.

The White House Blueprint delineates several goals. One is to ”ensure those giving birth are heard and are decisionmakers in accountable systems of care…to improve quality of care, hold providers accountable, and prioritize patient needs and their experience before, during, and after pregnancy.”

The Blueprint advises, for instance, expanding the Hear Her campaign to include culturally relevant materials to raise awareness of urgent maternal warning signs and improve communication between patients and clinicians. It also urges addressing social determinants of maternal health, supporting projects to expand maternal mental health access, increasing access to digital tools, and expanding models that train maternal health care practitoners and students on how to address implicit bias and racism and screen for social determinants of health.

Answering its question of “how we get there,” the Blueprint says, “In working toward this vision, the Biden-Harris Administration has developed, for the first time, a national, whole-of-government strategy to address our maternal health crisis. This strategy starts with the recognition that a concerted national effort to solve the crisis must begin with clear leadership and action from across the federal government. Addressing the maternal health crisis is not limited to a single health care policy or federal agency but should include experts across the government, including: the US Departments of Health and Human Services, Agriculture, Defense, Housing and Urban Development, Labor, Justice, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Personnel Management, as well as the VA.

“The Biden-Harris Administration believes that only through this whole-of-government approach—one that considers the entirety of a person’s health and experiences over the course of their full life—will we finally be able to make real progress in tackling this longstanding challenge.”

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) provides health care to about 600,000 women veterans—half are of child-bearing age. Pregnancies in women veterans using VA care have increased by more than 80% since 2014, from 6950 in 2014 to 12,524 in 2022.

Until recently, VA maternity care coordinators would help women navigate health care from the beginning of pregnancy to 8 weeks postpartum. But “[e]vidence shows that new mothers often need support and care coordination long after 8 weeks postpartum, which is why VA is taking action to support veteran mothers for much longer after they give birth,” said Under Secretary for Health Shereef Elnahal, MD. As of October 1, 2023, the maternity support is now extended to 12 months postpartum.

The full range of maternity care services includes primary care, examinations, tests, ultrasounds, newborn care, and screening for social determinants of health, mental health risk factors, and relationship health and safety. Maternity care coordinators also connect veterans with care after delivery and ensure access to follow-up screenings.

The VA says expanding access to maternity care coordinators is part of the work it’s doing to implement the White House Blueprint for Addressing the Maternal Health Crisis, released last year. The US maternal mortality rate is the highest of any developed nation in the world and more than double the rate of peer countries, the report says. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), from 2018 to 2021, the maternal death rate in the US increased from 17.4 to 32.9 per 100,000 live births.

Moreover, “[t]housands of women experience unexpected outcomes of labor and delivery that result in significant short- or long-term consequences to their health,” the White House report says, “such as heart issues, the need for blood transfusions, eclampsia, and blood infections.” Disturbingly, more than 80% of pregnancy-related deaths are preventable. Black and American Indian/Alaska Native women, regardless of income or education, are most likely to experience poor outcomes. Women who live in rural America—where there are many maternal care “deserts”—are about 60% more likely to die, the White House report says.

Quality care requires “care organized for and provided to all women in a manner that maintains their dignity, privacy, and confidentiality, ensures freedom from harm and mistreatment, and enables informed choice and con­tinuous support during labor and childbirth,” say CDC researchers who surveyed 2407 women about their maternity care experiences. One in 5 respondents reported instances of mistreatment. Roughly one-third of Black, Hispanic, and multiracial women reported, for instance, receiving no response to requests for help, being shouted at or scolded, not having their physical privacy protected, and being threatened with withholding treatment or made to accept unwanted treatment.

The White House Blueprint delineates several goals. One is to ”ensure those giving birth are heard and are decisionmakers in accountable systems of care…to improve quality of care, hold providers accountable, and prioritize patient needs and their experience before, during, and after pregnancy.”

The Blueprint advises, for instance, expanding the Hear Her campaign to include culturally relevant materials to raise awareness of urgent maternal warning signs and improve communication between patients and clinicians. It also urges addressing social determinants of maternal health, supporting projects to expand maternal mental health access, increasing access to digital tools, and expanding models that train maternal health care practitoners and students on how to address implicit bias and racism and screen for social determinants of health.

Answering its question of “how we get there,” the Blueprint says, “In working toward this vision, the Biden-Harris Administration has developed, for the first time, a national, whole-of-government strategy to address our maternal health crisis. This strategy starts with the recognition that a concerted national effort to solve the crisis must begin with clear leadership and action from across the federal government. Addressing the maternal health crisis is not limited to a single health care policy or federal agency but should include experts across the government, including: the US Departments of Health and Human Services, Agriculture, Defense, Housing and Urban Development, Labor, Justice, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Personnel Management, as well as the VA.

“The Biden-Harris Administration believes that only through this whole-of-government approach—one that considers the entirety of a person’s health and experiences over the course of their full life—will we finally be able to make real progress in tackling this longstanding challenge.”

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) provides health care to about 600,000 women veterans—half are of child-bearing age. Pregnancies in women veterans using VA care have increased by more than 80% since 2014, from 6950 in 2014 to 12,524 in 2022.

Until recently, VA maternity care coordinators would help women navigate health care from the beginning of pregnancy to 8 weeks postpartum. But “[e]vidence shows that new mothers often need support and care coordination long after 8 weeks postpartum, which is why VA is taking action to support veteran mothers for much longer after they give birth,” said Under Secretary for Health Shereef Elnahal, MD. As of October 1, 2023, the maternity support is now extended to 12 months postpartum.

The full range of maternity care services includes primary care, examinations, tests, ultrasounds, newborn care, and screening for social determinants of health, mental health risk factors, and relationship health and safety. Maternity care coordinators also connect veterans with care after delivery and ensure access to follow-up screenings.

The VA says expanding access to maternity care coordinators is part of the work it’s doing to implement the White House Blueprint for Addressing the Maternal Health Crisis, released last year. The US maternal mortality rate is the highest of any developed nation in the world and more than double the rate of peer countries, the report says. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), from 2018 to 2021, the maternal death rate in the US increased from 17.4 to 32.9 per 100,000 live births.

Moreover, “[t]housands of women experience unexpected outcomes of labor and delivery that result in significant short- or long-term consequences to their health,” the White House report says, “such as heart issues, the need for blood transfusions, eclampsia, and blood infections.” Disturbingly, more than 80% of pregnancy-related deaths are preventable. Black and American Indian/Alaska Native women, regardless of income or education, are most likely to experience poor outcomes. Women who live in rural America—where there are many maternal care “deserts”—are about 60% more likely to die, the White House report says.

Quality care requires “care organized for and provided to all women in a manner that maintains their dignity, privacy, and confidentiality, ensures freedom from harm and mistreatment, and enables informed choice and con­tinuous support during labor and childbirth,” say CDC researchers who surveyed 2407 women about their maternity care experiences. One in 5 respondents reported instances of mistreatment. Roughly one-third of Black, Hispanic, and multiracial women reported, for instance, receiving no response to requests for help, being shouted at or scolded, not having their physical privacy protected, and being threatened with withholding treatment or made to accept unwanted treatment.

The White House Blueprint delineates several goals. One is to ”ensure those giving birth are heard and are decisionmakers in accountable systems of care…to improve quality of care, hold providers accountable, and prioritize patient needs and their experience before, during, and after pregnancy.”

The Blueprint advises, for instance, expanding the Hear Her campaign to include culturally relevant materials to raise awareness of urgent maternal warning signs and improve communication between patients and clinicians. It also urges addressing social determinants of maternal health, supporting projects to expand maternal mental health access, increasing access to digital tools, and expanding models that train maternal health care practitoners and students on how to address implicit bias and racism and screen for social determinants of health.

Answering its question of “how we get there,” the Blueprint says, “In working toward this vision, the Biden-Harris Administration has developed, for the first time, a national, whole-of-government strategy to address our maternal health crisis. This strategy starts with the recognition that a concerted national effort to solve the crisis must begin with clear leadership and action from across the federal government. Addressing the maternal health crisis is not limited to a single health care policy or federal agency but should include experts across the government, including: the US Departments of Health and Human Services, Agriculture, Defense, Housing and Urban Development, Labor, Justice, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Personnel Management, as well as the VA.

“The Biden-Harris Administration believes that only through this whole-of-government approach—one that considers the entirety of a person’s health and experiences over the course of their full life—will we finally be able to make real progress in tackling this longstanding challenge.”

BERLIN – Further findings from the PSORRO study suggest that oral roflumilast may be an option for treating patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, particularly if they have a high body mass index (BMI).

Reporting secondary outcomes from the investigator-led trial at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, Alexander Egeberg, MD, PhD, DMSc, noted that “clinically significant weight loss” was seen among patients who were treated with oral roflumilast, 500 mcg once daily, versus those receiving placebo.

Indeed, after 12 weeks of therapy, one in three patients treated with oral roflumilast experienced at least a 5% drop in their baseline body weight vs no patients who received placebo (35% vs. 0%; P < .05).

Additionally, a respective 17% versus 0% of patients lost 10% or more of their body weight, and 4% versus 0% lost 15% or more of their baseline body weight at 12 weeks.

After 24 weeks’ treatment, a substantial percentage of patients still had greater than or equal to 5%, greater than or equal to 10%, or greater than or equal to 15% weight loss, at 30%, 17%, and 13% for oral roflumilast, compared with 9%, 0%, and 0% for placebo, respectively.

“We saw that the higher baseline weight correlated with the proportion of weight loss, so that the more heavy patients at baseline also were the ones who experienced the greatest weight loss,” said Dr. Egeberg, who is professor of dermatology at the University of Copenhagen and a senior consultant at the department of dermatology at Bispebjerg Hospital, Copenhagen.
 

A beneficial side effect in psoriasis?

“You may have heard in psoriasis about topical roflumilast, but oral roflumilast is actually also shown to be effective in treating psoriasis,” said Egeberg.

Topical roflumilast is approved in the United States and Canada for treating plaque psoriasis.

Efficacy results from the PSORRO study were published earlier this year and showed a significantly greater improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 75 with oral roflumilast vs. placebo at 12 weeks (35% vs. 0%), with a sustained effect seen at 24 weeks (44% vs. 40%).

Weight loss was among the most common side effects seen, leading Dr. Egeberg and fellow PSORRO investigators to wonder whether this may actually be a beneficial effect in patients with psoriasis.

“Oral roflumilast is actually a drug that has been on the market for quite a number of years,” Dr. Egeberg said.

Although only currently licensed for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in the United States, oral roflumilast, a phosphodiesterase (PDE) 4 inhibitor, is available as a generic, “which also means that it is extremely affordable,” suggested Dr. Edeberg.

Weight loss may be a problem in patients with COPD, he acknowledged; these patients tend to be underweight as a result of their poor state of health caused by the lung condition. Weight loss could be an advantage in patients with psoriasis who are overweight or living with obesity and have poor cardiometabolic parameters.

The psoriasis treatment with oral roflumilast study

The PSORRO study was a phase 2, multicenter, placebo-controlled, randomized trial performed between 2021 and 2022. A total of 46 adults with plaque psoriasis participated; half were initially treated with oral roflumilast and half with placebo.

Treatment was double-blind for the first 12 weeks, with all patients then receiving open-label treatment with roflumilast for 12 weeks.

The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving at least 75% reduction from baseline PASI (PASI75). A host of secondary endpoints were studied, including weight and cardiometabolic parameters, which Dr. Egeberg reported at the EADV meeting.

Looking at the baseline characteristics of the oral roflumilast and placebo groups, the mean age was a respective 38 and 39 years, 65% and 83% were men, and the mean starting body weight was 102 kg and 105.1 kg.

After 12 weeks of treatment, body weight fell by a mean of 5.4 kg in the oral roflumilast group, with a further decrease of 1.4 kg by 24 weeks, bringing the total average weight loss to 6.8 kg. By comparison, weight loss among those in the placebo group was 0 kg at 12 weeks and around 2 kg at 24 weeks.

The majority of participants in both groups had high baseline BMIs; 70% of those who received oral roflumilast and 61% of those who received placebo had a BMI of 30 or higher.

“We wanted to investigate the impact of body weight, [so] we didn’t allow patients to be underweight when they were included,” Dr. Egeberg explained. Thus, for inclusion, patients had to have a BMI of 20 or higher.

An “extraordinary” finding was how some patients’ weight status based on their BMI changed throughout the study.

“We could see people that went from obese class 3, all the way to obese class 1. And we could see people going from being overweight to normal weight, which is really extraordinary for patients with psoriasis,” Dr. Egeberg said.

“But most importantly,” he added, “we didn’t have any patients who became underweight, suggesting that it actually is safe to use also in normal-weight patients.”
 

Reduced appetite behind benefit?

Trying to see why the weight loss occurred, Dr. Egeberg noted that it looked like it could be a result of a reduced appetite.

In common with other PDE-4 inhibitors, oral roflumilast treatment was associated with gastrointestinal symptoms – nausea, diarrhea, and abdominal pain – but all of these “decrease to placebo levels again, quite quickly,” he said.

“This really suggests that it’s not because of diarrhea, it’s not because of nausea and abdominal pain; it is because of a reduced appetite that patients actually lose weight when treated with roflumilast,” Dr. Egeberg said. It’s a potential bonus for the drug’s effects on the skin and could afford clinicians an opportunity to help motivate patients to eat well when they do eat, he observed.

Other cardiometabolic parameters assessed included blood pressure, glycated hemoglobin, total cholesterol and other key lipids, creatinine, alanine aminotransferase, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, but there were no noteworthy differences between the groups.

Roflumilast is an inexpensive drug because it is generic, Dr. Egeberg observed, but that also means that its use is likely to be off-label.

“It will be up to the treating physician to decide if this is an optimal therapy for their patients,” he suggested.
 

Cardiometabolic comorbidities important to target

Obesity is a cardiometabolic comorbidity that is important to consider when treating your patients with psoriasis, Paolo Gisondi, MD, of the University of Verona (Italy), said at a separate presentation at the EADV meeting.

While not directly commenting on the roflumilast study, he noted that moderate to severe psoriasis was “frequently associated” with metabolic disorders that put people at additional risk for cardiovascular and fatty liver diseases.

The PSORRO study was an investigator-initiated and investigator-led study and received no commercial funding. Research funding came from the Danish Psoriasis Foundation, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, and several charitable and humanitarian organizations. Dr. Egeberg acknowledged acting as the principal investigator, speaker, and/or consultant to multiple pharma companies, all of which were unrelated to the study he presented. Dr. Gisondi’s comments were from a separate presentation, and he was not involved in the study.

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

BERLIN – Further findings from the PSORRO study suggest that oral roflumilast may be an option for treating patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, particularly if they have a high body mass index (BMI).

Reporting secondary outcomes from the investigator-led trial at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, Alexander Egeberg, MD, PhD, DMSc, noted that “clinically significant weight loss” was seen among patients who were treated with oral roflumilast, 500 mcg once daily, versus those receiving placebo.

Indeed, after 12 weeks of therapy, one in three patients treated with oral roflumilast experienced at least a 5% drop in their baseline body weight vs no patients who received placebo (35% vs. 0%; P < .05).

Additionally, a respective 17% versus 0% of patients lost 10% or more of their body weight, and 4% versus 0% lost 15% or more of their baseline body weight at 12 weeks.

After 24 weeks’ treatment, a substantial percentage of patients still had greater than or equal to 5%, greater than or equal to 10%, or greater than or equal to 15% weight loss, at 30%, 17%, and 13% for oral roflumilast, compared with 9%, 0%, and 0% for placebo, respectively.

“We saw that the higher baseline weight correlated with the proportion of weight loss, so that the more heavy patients at baseline also were the ones who experienced the greatest weight loss,” said Dr. Egeberg, who is professor of dermatology at the University of Copenhagen and a senior consultant at the department of dermatology at Bispebjerg Hospital, Copenhagen.
 

A beneficial side effect in psoriasis?

“You may have heard in psoriasis about topical roflumilast, but oral roflumilast is actually also shown to be effective in treating psoriasis,” said Egeberg.

Topical roflumilast is approved in the United States and Canada for treating plaque psoriasis.

Efficacy results from the PSORRO study were published earlier this year and showed a significantly greater improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 75 with oral roflumilast vs. placebo at 12 weeks (35% vs. 0%), with a sustained effect seen at 24 weeks (44% vs. 40%).

Weight loss was among the most common side effects seen, leading Dr. Egeberg and fellow PSORRO investigators to wonder whether this may actually be a beneficial effect in patients with psoriasis.

“Oral roflumilast is actually a drug that has been on the market for quite a number of years,” Dr. Egeberg said.

Although only currently licensed for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in the United States, oral roflumilast, a phosphodiesterase (PDE) 4 inhibitor, is available as a generic, “which also means that it is extremely affordable,” suggested Dr. Edeberg.

Weight loss may be a problem in patients with COPD, he acknowledged; these patients tend to be underweight as a result of their poor state of health caused by the lung condition. Weight loss could be an advantage in patients with psoriasis who are overweight or living with obesity and have poor cardiometabolic parameters.

The psoriasis treatment with oral roflumilast study

The PSORRO study was a phase 2, multicenter, placebo-controlled, randomized trial performed between 2021 and 2022. A total of 46 adults with plaque psoriasis participated; half were initially treated with oral roflumilast and half with placebo.

Treatment was double-blind for the first 12 weeks, with all patients then receiving open-label treatment with roflumilast for 12 weeks.

The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving at least 75% reduction from baseline PASI (PASI75). A host of secondary endpoints were studied, including weight and cardiometabolic parameters, which Dr. Egeberg reported at the EADV meeting.

Looking at the baseline characteristics of the oral roflumilast and placebo groups, the mean age was a respective 38 and 39 years, 65% and 83% were men, and the mean starting body weight was 102 kg and 105.1 kg.

After 12 weeks of treatment, body weight fell by a mean of 5.4 kg in the oral roflumilast group, with a further decrease of 1.4 kg by 24 weeks, bringing the total average weight loss to 6.8 kg. By comparison, weight loss among those in the placebo group was 0 kg at 12 weeks and around 2 kg at 24 weeks.

The majority of participants in both groups had high baseline BMIs; 70% of those who received oral roflumilast and 61% of those who received placebo had a BMI of 30 or higher.

“We wanted to investigate the impact of body weight, [so] we didn’t allow patients to be underweight when they were included,” Dr. Egeberg explained. Thus, for inclusion, patients had to have a BMI of 20 or higher.

An “extraordinary” finding was how some patients’ weight status based on their BMI changed throughout the study.

“We could see people that went from obese class 3, all the way to obese class 1. And we could see people going from being overweight to normal weight, which is really extraordinary for patients with psoriasis,” Dr. Egeberg said.

“But most importantly,” he added, “we didn’t have any patients who became underweight, suggesting that it actually is safe to use also in normal-weight patients.”
 

Reduced appetite behind benefit?

Trying to see why the weight loss occurred, Dr. Egeberg noted that it looked like it could be a result of a reduced appetite.

In common with other PDE-4 inhibitors, oral roflumilast treatment was associated with gastrointestinal symptoms – nausea, diarrhea, and abdominal pain – but all of these “decrease to placebo levels again, quite quickly,” he said.

“This really suggests that it’s not because of diarrhea, it’s not because of nausea and abdominal pain; it is because of a reduced appetite that patients actually lose weight when treated with roflumilast,” Dr. Egeberg said. It’s a potential bonus for the drug’s effects on the skin and could afford clinicians an opportunity to help motivate patients to eat well when they do eat, he observed.

Other cardiometabolic parameters assessed included blood pressure, glycated hemoglobin, total cholesterol and other key lipids, creatinine, alanine aminotransferase, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, but there were no noteworthy differences between the groups.

Roflumilast is an inexpensive drug because it is generic, Dr. Egeberg observed, but that also means that its use is likely to be off-label.

“It will be up to the treating physician to decide if this is an optimal therapy for their patients,” he suggested.
 

Cardiometabolic comorbidities important to target

Obesity is a cardiometabolic comorbidity that is important to consider when treating your patients with psoriasis, Paolo Gisondi, MD, of the University of Verona (Italy), said at a separate presentation at the EADV meeting.

While not directly commenting on the roflumilast study, he noted that moderate to severe psoriasis was “frequently associated” with metabolic disorders that put people at additional risk for cardiovascular and fatty liver diseases.

The PSORRO study was an investigator-initiated and investigator-led study and received no commercial funding. Research funding came from the Danish Psoriasis Foundation, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, and several charitable and humanitarian organizations. Dr. Egeberg acknowledged acting as the principal investigator, speaker, and/or consultant to multiple pharma companies, all of which were unrelated to the study he presented. Dr. Gisondi’s comments were from a separate presentation, and he was not involved in the study.

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

BERLIN – Further findings from the PSORRO study suggest that oral roflumilast may be an option for treating patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, particularly if they have a high body mass index (BMI).

Reporting secondary outcomes from the investigator-led trial at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, Alexander Egeberg, MD, PhD, DMSc, noted that “clinically significant weight loss” was seen among patients who were treated with oral roflumilast, 500 mcg once daily, versus those receiving placebo.

Indeed, after 12 weeks of therapy, one in three patients treated with oral roflumilast experienced at least a 5% drop in their baseline body weight vs no patients who received placebo (35% vs. 0%; P < .05).

Additionally, a respective 17% versus 0% of patients lost 10% or more of their body weight, and 4% versus 0% lost 15% or more of their baseline body weight at 12 weeks.

After 24 weeks’ treatment, a substantial percentage of patients still had greater than or equal to 5%, greater than or equal to 10%, or greater than or equal to 15% weight loss, at 30%, 17%, and 13% for oral roflumilast, compared with 9%, 0%, and 0% for placebo, respectively.

“We saw that the higher baseline weight correlated with the proportion of weight loss, so that the more heavy patients at baseline also were the ones who experienced the greatest weight loss,” said Dr. Egeberg, who is professor of dermatology at the University of Copenhagen and a senior consultant at the department of dermatology at Bispebjerg Hospital, Copenhagen.
 

A beneficial side effect in psoriasis?

“You may have heard in psoriasis about topical roflumilast, but oral roflumilast is actually also shown to be effective in treating psoriasis,” said Egeberg.

Topical roflumilast is approved in the United States and Canada for treating plaque psoriasis.

Efficacy results from the PSORRO study were published earlier this year and showed a significantly greater improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 75 with oral roflumilast vs. placebo at 12 weeks (35% vs. 0%), with a sustained effect seen at 24 weeks (44% vs. 40%).

Weight loss was among the most common side effects seen, leading Dr. Egeberg and fellow PSORRO investigators to wonder whether this may actually be a beneficial effect in patients with psoriasis.

“Oral roflumilast is actually a drug that has been on the market for quite a number of years,” Dr. Egeberg said.

Although only currently licensed for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in the United States, oral roflumilast, a phosphodiesterase (PDE) 4 inhibitor, is available as a generic, “which also means that it is extremely affordable,” suggested Dr. Edeberg.

Weight loss may be a problem in patients with COPD, he acknowledged; these patients tend to be underweight as a result of their poor state of health caused by the lung condition. Weight loss could be an advantage in patients with psoriasis who are overweight or living with obesity and have poor cardiometabolic parameters.

The psoriasis treatment with oral roflumilast study

The PSORRO study was a phase 2, multicenter, placebo-controlled, randomized trial performed between 2021 and 2022. A total of 46 adults with plaque psoriasis participated; half were initially treated with oral roflumilast and half with placebo.

Treatment was double-blind for the first 12 weeks, with all patients then receiving open-label treatment with roflumilast for 12 weeks.

The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving at least 75% reduction from baseline PASI (PASI75). A host of secondary endpoints were studied, including weight and cardiometabolic parameters, which Dr. Egeberg reported at the EADV meeting.

Looking at the baseline characteristics of the oral roflumilast and placebo groups, the mean age was a respective 38 and 39 years, 65% and 83% were men, and the mean starting body weight was 102 kg and 105.1 kg.

After 12 weeks of treatment, body weight fell by a mean of 5.4 kg in the oral roflumilast group, with a further decrease of 1.4 kg by 24 weeks, bringing the total average weight loss to 6.8 kg. By comparison, weight loss among those in the placebo group was 0 kg at 12 weeks and around 2 kg at 24 weeks.

The majority of participants in both groups had high baseline BMIs; 70% of those who received oral roflumilast and 61% of those who received placebo had a BMI of 30 or higher.

“We wanted to investigate the impact of body weight, [so] we didn’t allow patients to be underweight when they were included,” Dr. Egeberg explained. Thus, for inclusion, patients had to have a BMI of 20 or higher.

An “extraordinary” finding was how some patients’ weight status based on their BMI changed throughout the study.

“We could see people that went from obese class 3, all the way to obese class 1. And we could see people going from being overweight to normal weight, which is really extraordinary for patients with psoriasis,” Dr. Egeberg said.

“But most importantly,” he added, “we didn’t have any patients who became underweight, suggesting that it actually is safe to use also in normal-weight patients.”
 

Reduced appetite behind benefit?

Trying to see why the weight loss occurred, Dr. Egeberg noted that it looked like it could be a result of a reduced appetite.

In common with other PDE-4 inhibitors, oral roflumilast treatment was associated with gastrointestinal symptoms – nausea, diarrhea, and abdominal pain – but all of these “decrease to placebo levels again, quite quickly,” he said.

“This really suggests that it’s not because of diarrhea, it’s not because of nausea and abdominal pain; it is because of a reduced appetite that patients actually lose weight when treated with roflumilast,” Dr. Egeberg said. It’s a potential bonus for the drug’s effects on the skin and could afford clinicians an opportunity to help motivate patients to eat well when they do eat, he observed.

Other cardiometabolic parameters assessed included blood pressure, glycated hemoglobin, total cholesterol and other key lipids, creatinine, alanine aminotransferase, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, but there were no noteworthy differences between the groups.

Roflumilast is an inexpensive drug because it is generic, Dr. Egeberg observed, but that also means that its use is likely to be off-label.

“It will be up to the treating physician to decide if this is an optimal therapy for their patients,” he suggested.
 

Cardiometabolic comorbidities important to target

Obesity is a cardiometabolic comorbidity that is important to consider when treating your patients with psoriasis, Paolo Gisondi, MD, of the University of Verona (Italy), said at a separate presentation at the EADV meeting.

While not directly commenting on the roflumilast study, he noted that moderate to severe psoriasis was “frequently associated” with metabolic disorders that put people at additional risk for cardiovascular and fatty liver diseases.

The PSORRO study was an investigator-initiated and investigator-led study and received no commercial funding. Research funding came from the Danish Psoriasis Foundation, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, and several charitable and humanitarian organizations. Dr. Egeberg acknowledged acting as the principal investigator, speaker, and/or consultant to multiple pharma companies, all of which were unrelated to the study he presented. Dr. Gisondi’s comments were from a separate presentation, and he was not involved in the study.

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

TOPLINE:

A topical fixed-dose combination of three approved acne treatments significantly improves moderate to severe acne with a strong safety profile.

METHODOLOGY:

• The two multicenter studies included 363 individuals aged 9 years and older with moderate to severe acne from 30 centers, including 15 in North America.
• Moderate to severe acne was defined as having 30-100 inflammatory lesions (papules, pustules, or nodules), 35-150 noninflammatory lesions (open or closed comedones), and at least two nodules.
• Participants were randomly assigned to receive treatment with a combination gel containing  phosphate 1.2%,  0.15%, and  3.1% (known as IDP-126) or a vehicle gel for once-daily application for 12 weeks.
• Treatment success was defined as a reduction of at least two grades from baseline on the Evaluator’s Global Severity Score (EGSS) and lesion counts of clear (0) or almost clear (1) at weeks 2, 4, 8, and 12.

TAKEAWAY:

• Treatment success occurred in 49.6% of the IDP-126 group, vs 24.9% of the vehicle group in study 1, and in 50.5% of the IDP-126 group, vs 20.5% of the vehicle group in study 2. Overall treatment compliance was 93.7% and 91.3% for studies 1 and 2, respectively (P < .01 for both).
• Patients in the IDP-126 groups for both studies 1 and 2 had significantly greater absolute mean reductions in both inflammatory and noninflammatory lesions from baseline to week 12 compared to the vehicle patients (P ≤ .001 for all).
• Significantly more patients in the IDP-126 group achieved a grade reduction of 2 or more in EGSS compared with those who received the vehicle, with treatment differences of approximately 32% in both studies. Changes in lesion reductions between the treatment and the vehicle groups were significantly greater as early as week 4.
• The most common treatment-related adverse events among patients treated with IDP-126 were erythema, application-site pain, dryness, irritation, and exfoliation. Discontinuation of the study drug as a result of adverse events occurred in 2.5% and 3.3% of these patients in studies 1 and 2, respectively.

IN PRACTICE:

“With its simple treatment regimen containing 3 recommended acne treatments (benzoyl peroxide, a topical retinoid, and a topical antibiotic), IDP-126 is a potential new treatment option for acne,” the researchers concluded.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Linda Stein Gold, MD, of Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit. The study was published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

In both studies, treatment duration was short, and the studies may not reflect patients’ real-world experiences. The results may be affected by interobserver bias or variation in assessment of acne severity.

DISCLOSURES:

Gold has served as investigator/consultant or speaker for Ortho Dermatologics, LEO Pharma, Dermavant, Incyte, Novartis, AbbVie, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, UCB, Arcutis, and Lilly. Other study coauthors have relationships with multiple companies, including Ortho Dermatologics, which provided medical writing support for the study.

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

TOPLINE:

A topical fixed-dose combination of three approved acne treatments significantly improves moderate to severe acne with a strong safety profile.

METHODOLOGY:

• The two multicenter studies included 363 individuals aged 9 years and older with moderate to severe acne from 30 centers, including 15 in North America.
• Moderate to severe acne was defined as having 30-100 inflammatory lesions (papules, pustules, or nodules), 35-150 noninflammatory lesions (open or closed comedones), and at least two nodules.
• Participants were randomly assigned to receive treatment with a combination gel containing  phosphate 1.2%,  0.15%, and  3.1% (known as IDP-126) or a vehicle gel for once-daily application for 12 weeks.
• Treatment success was defined as a reduction of at least two grades from baseline on the Evaluator’s Global Severity Score (EGSS) and lesion counts of clear (0) or almost clear (1) at weeks 2, 4, 8, and 12.

TAKEAWAY:

• Treatment success occurred in 49.6% of the IDP-126 group, vs 24.9% of the vehicle group in study 1, and in 50.5% of the IDP-126 group, vs 20.5% of the vehicle group in study 2. Overall treatment compliance was 93.7% and 91.3% for studies 1 and 2, respectively (P < .01 for both).
• Patients in the IDP-126 groups for both studies 1 and 2 had significantly greater absolute mean reductions in both inflammatory and noninflammatory lesions from baseline to week 12 compared to the vehicle patients (P ≤ .001 for all).
• Significantly more patients in the IDP-126 group achieved a grade reduction of 2 or more in EGSS compared with those who received the vehicle, with treatment differences of approximately 32% in both studies. Changes in lesion reductions between the treatment and the vehicle groups were significantly greater as early as week 4.
• The most common treatment-related adverse events among patients treated with IDP-126 were erythema, application-site pain, dryness, irritation, and exfoliation. Discontinuation of the study drug as a result of adverse events occurred in 2.5% and 3.3% of these patients in studies 1 and 2, respectively.

IN PRACTICE:

“With its simple treatment regimen containing 3 recommended acne treatments (benzoyl peroxide, a topical retinoid, and a topical antibiotic), IDP-126 is a potential new treatment option for acne,” the researchers concluded.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Linda Stein Gold, MD, of Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit. The study was published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

In both studies, treatment duration was short, and the studies may not reflect patients’ real-world experiences. The results may be affected by interobserver bias or variation in assessment of acne severity.

DISCLOSURES:

Gold has served as investigator/consultant or speaker for Ortho Dermatologics, LEO Pharma, Dermavant, Incyte, Novartis, AbbVie, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, UCB, Arcutis, and Lilly. Other study coauthors have relationships with multiple companies, including Ortho Dermatologics, which provided medical writing support for the study.

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

TOPLINE:

A topical fixed-dose combination of three approved acne treatments significantly improves moderate to severe acne with a strong safety profile.

METHODOLOGY:

• The two multicenter studies included 363 individuals aged 9 years and older with moderate to severe acne from 30 centers, including 15 in North America.
• Moderate to severe acne was defined as having 30-100 inflammatory lesions (papules, pustules, or nodules), 35-150 noninflammatory lesions (open or closed comedones), and at least two nodules.
• Participants were randomly assigned to receive treatment with a combination gel containing  phosphate 1.2%,  0.15%, and  3.1% (known as IDP-126) or a vehicle gel for once-daily application for 12 weeks.
• Treatment success was defined as a reduction of at least two grades from baseline on the Evaluator’s Global Severity Score (EGSS) and lesion counts of clear (0) or almost clear (1) at weeks 2, 4, 8, and 12.

TAKEAWAY:

• Treatment success occurred in 49.6% of the IDP-126 group, vs 24.9% of the vehicle group in study 1, and in 50.5% of the IDP-126 group, vs 20.5% of the vehicle group in study 2. Overall treatment compliance was 93.7% and 91.3% for studies 1 and 2, respectively (P < .01 for both).
• Patients in the IDP-126 groups for both studies 1 and 2 had significantly greater absolute mean reductions in both inflammatory and noninflammatory lesions from baseline to week 12 compared to the vehicle patients (P ≤ .001 for all).
• Significantly more patients in the IDP-126 group achieved a grade reduction of 2 or more in EGSS compared with those who received the vehicle, with treatment differences of approximately 32% in both studies. Changes in lesion reductions between the treatment and the vehicle groups were significantly greater as early as week 4.
• The most common treatment-related adverse events among patients treated with IDP-126 were erythema, application-site pain, dryness, irritation, and exfoliation. Discontinuation of the study drug as a result of adverse events occurred in 2.5% and 3.3% of these patients in studies 1 and 2, respectively.

IN PRACTICE:

“With its simple treatment regimen containing 3 recommended acne treatments (benzoyl peroxide, a topical retinoid, and a topical antibiotic), IDP-126 is a potential new treatment option for acne,” the researchers concluded.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Linda Stein Gold, MD, of Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit. The study was published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

In both studies, treatment duration was short, and the studies may not reflect patients’ real-world experiences. The results may be affected by interobserver bias or variation in assessment of acne severity.

DISCLOSURES:

Gold has served as investigator/consultant or speaker for Ortho Dermatologics, LEO Pharma, Dermavant, Incyte, Novartis, AbbVie, Pfizer, Sun Pharma, UCB, Arcutis, and Lilly. Other study coauthors have relationships with multiple companies, including Ortho Dermatologics, which provided medical writing support for the study.

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

Personal beliefs and health care system barriers contribute to inappropriate antibiotic use by patients, report researchers presenting results at an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.

Nonprescription antibiotic use includes accessing medication left over from a prior prescribed course, obtained from social networks, and purchased over-the-counter in other countries or illegally in stores and markets in the United States.

Overuse and misuse of antibiotics contributes to a growing threat of antimicrobial resistance, and it is tough to say how common it is, Lindsey A. Laytner, PhD, MPH, with Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, pointed out in her presentation.

“This is an understudied area. We don’t routinely collect these data, so we don’t actually know what the true prevalence is. The factors that contribute to this unsafe practice in the U.S. are also underexplored,” Dr. Laytner said.

To investigate, the researchers conducted in-depth interviews with 86 adults (median age, 49 years; 62% women) to identify patients’ motivations to use antibiotics without a prescription. All of them answered “yes” when asked in a previous survey whether they would use antibiotics without contacting a doctor, nurse, dentist, or clinic.

Dr. Laytner said several prominent themes emerged.

Nearly all interviewees reported nonprescription antibiotic use for symptoms that mostly do not warrant antibiotics. These included symptoms of COVID-19, influenza, and the common cold, as well as for pain management, allergies, and even wounds.
 

Ineffectively treating symptoms

Many felt they “knew their body, knew what they had, and knew how to treat themselves” without a health care provider, Dr. Laytner said.

They also felt the over-the-counter medicines “don’t always work and that antibiotics are like gold or this cure-all and because they are difficult to get a prescription for, they should be kept on hand,” she explained.

A variety of health care system barriers also contribute to inappropriate antibiotic use, including long wait times to schedule appointments and to see the doctor while at their appointments; high costs for clinic visits and prescriptions; and transportation issues.

Many patients opted to use nonprescription antibiotics out of “convenience,” Laytner added.

She explains that the findings could help inform community-level education efforts on inappropriate use of antibiotics and help shape policies to promote antibiotic stewardship.
 

Access to care, education

Commenting on the study, Emily Sydnor Spivak, MD, associate professor of medicine at University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said she “wasn’t totally surprised by the results, but found it very interesting how there was a theme of autonomy, or ‘I know my body,’ that seemed to drive patients to get antibiotics for relief of symptoms.”

“There is patient education that needs to happen about the role of antibiotics, how they act, and how they don’t actually provide symptom relief and have downsides and side effects,” said Dr. Spivak, who is also medical director of antimicrobial stewardship programs at University of Utah Health and VA Salt Lake City Health Care System.

“Given the lack of access to health care as a reason some patients use nonprescription antibiotics, we need to think about access to the health care system and process changes and policy changes to allow better access. Without better access or interaction with the health care system, we can’t educate patients,” Dr. Spivak said.

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Laytner and Dr. Spivak report no relevant financial disclosures.

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

Personal beliefs and health care system barriers contribute to inappropriate antibiotic use by patients, report researchers presenting results at an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.

Nonprescription antibiotic use includes accessing medication left over from a prior prescribed course, obtained from social networks, and purchased over-the-counter in other countries or illegally in stores and markets in the United States.

Overuse and misuse of antibiotics contributes to a growing threat of antimicrobial resistance, and it is tough to say how common it is, Lindsey A. Laytner, PhD, MPH, with Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, pointed out in her presentation.

“This is an understudied area. We don’t routinely collect these data, so we don’t actually know what the true prevalence is. The factors that contribute to this unsafe practice in the U.S. are also underexplored,” Dr. Laytner said.

To investigate, the researchers conducted in-depth interviews with 86 adults (median age, 49 years; 62% women) to identify patients’ motivations to use antibiotics without a prescription. All of them answered “yes” when asked in a previous survey whether they would use antibiotics without contacting a doctor, nurse, dentist, or clinic.

Dr. Laytner said several prominent themes emerged.

Nearly all interviewees reported nonprescription antibiotic use for symptoms that mostly do not warrant antibiotics. These included symptoms of COVID-19, influenza, and the common cold, as well as for pain management, allergies, and even wounds.
 

Ineffectively treating symptoms

Many felt they “knew their body, knew what they had, and knew how to treat themselves” without a health care provider, Dr. Laytner said.

They also felt the over-the-counter medicines “don’t always work and that antibiotics are like gold or this cure-all and because they are difficult to get a prescription for, they should be kept on hand,” she explained.

A variety of health care system barriers also contribute to inappropriate antibiotic use, including long wait times to schedule appointments and to see the doctor while at their appointments; high costs for clinic visits and prescriptions; and transportation issues.

Many patients opted to use nonprescription antibiotics out of “convenience,” Laytner added.

She explains that the findings could help inform community-level education efforts on inappropriate use of antibiotics and help shape policies to promote antibiotic stewardship.
 

Access to care, education

Commenting on the study, Emily Sydnor Spivak, MD, associate professor of medicine at University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said she “wasn’t totally surprised by the results, but found it very interesting how there was a theme of autonomy, or ‘I know my body,’ that seemed to drive patients to get antibiotics for relief of symptoms.”

“There is patient education that needs to happen about the role of antibiotics, how they act, and how they don’t actually provide symptom relief and have downsides and side effects,” said Dr. Spivak, who is also medical director of antimicrobial stewardship programs at University of Utah Health and VA Salt Lake City Health Care System.

“Given the lack of access to health care as a reason some patients use nonprescription antibiotics, we need to think about access to the health care system and process changes and policy changes to allow better access. Without better access or interaction with the health care system, we can’t educate patients,” Dr. Spivak said.

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Laytner and Dr. Spivak report no relevant financial disclosures.

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

Personal beliefs and health care system barriers contribute to inappropriate antibiotic use by patients, report researchers presenting results at an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.

Nonprescription antibiotic use includes accessing medication left over from a prior prescribed course, obtained from social networks, and purchased over-the-counter in other countries or illegally in stores and markets in the United States.

Overuse and misuse of antibiotics contributes to a growing threat of antimicrobial resistance, and it is tough to say how common it is, Lindsey A. Laytner, PhD, MPH, with Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, pointed out in her presentation.

“This is an understudied area. We don’t routinely collect these data, so we don’t actually know what the true prevalence is. The factors that contribute to this unsafe practice in the U.S. are also underexplored,” Dr. Laytner said.

To investigate, the researchers conducted in-depth interviews with 86 adults (median age, 49 years; 62% women) to identify patients’ motivations to use antibiotics without a prescription. All of them answered “yes” when asked in a previous survey whether they would use antibiotics without contacting a doctor, nurse, dentist, or clinic.

Dr. Laytner said several prominent themes emerged.

Nearly all interviewees reported nonprescription antibiotic use for symptoms that mostly do not warrant antibiotics. These included symptoms of COVID-19, influenza, and the common cold, as well as for pain management, allergies, and even wounds.
 

Ineffectively treating symptoms

Many felt they “knew their body, knew what they had, and knew how to treat themselves” without a health care provider, Dr. Laytner said.

They also felt the over-the-counter medicines “don’t always work and that antibiotics are like gold or this cure-all and because they are difficult to get a prescription for, they should be kept on hand,” she explained.

A variety of health care system barriers also contribute to inappropriate antibiotic use, including long wait times to schedule appointments and to see the doctor while at their appointments; high costs for clinic visits and prescriptions; and transportation issues.

Many patients opted to use nonprescription antibiotics out of “convenience,” Laytner added.

She explains that the findings could help inform community-level education efforts on inappropriate use of antibiotics and help shape policies to promote antibiotic stewardship.
 

Access to care, education

Commenting on the study, Emily Sydnor Spivak, MD, associate professor of medicine at University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said she “wasn’t totally surprised by the results, but found it very interesting how there was a theme of autonomy, or ‘I know my body,’ that seemed to drive patients to get antibiotics for relief of symptoms.”

“There is patient education that needs to happen about the role of antibiotics, how they act, and how they don’t actually provide symptom relief and have downsides and side effects,” said Dr. Spivak, who is also medical director of antimicrobial stewardship programs at University of Utah Health and VA Salt Lake City Health Care System.

“Given the lack of access to health care as a reason some patients use nonprescription antibiotics, we need to think about access to the health care system and process changes and policy changes to allow better access. Without better access or interaction with the health care system, we can’t educate patients,” Dr. Spivak said.

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Laytner and Dr. Spivak report no relevant financial disclosures.

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

Assessing a key aspect of bone architecture, for which clinicians can now be reimbursed under Medicare, can significantly improve the ability to predict a patient’s risk for bone fracture.

Although bone mineral density (BMD) is traditionally used to identify patients with osteoporosis or low bone mass, some physicians have begun incorporating the trabecular bone score (TBS) into their exams.

At the Cleveland Clinic Center for Specialized Women’s Health, factoring in the TBS changed the diagnosis for 16% of 432 patients, according to Holly Thacker, MD, the center’s director.

“Importantly, 11% got worse diagnoses, and I use that in terms of prioritizing treatment,” Dr. Thacker said in an interview. The ability to determine how degraded the bone microarchitecture is through a software system “is a huge advance.”

Dr. Thacker described her center’s experience with the technology at the annual meeting of the Menopause Society (formerly The North American Menopause Society).

While BMD captures the amount of minerals like calcium in the skeleton, TBS assesses the underlying microarchitecture by looking at the distribution of shades of gray on dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans.

Based on the TBS, patients’ bones are classified as normal, partially degraded, or degraded. Among the 432 patients who received a TBS analysis in 2022, 3% shifted from a normal diagnosis to osteopenia, 8% worsened from osteopenia to osteoporosis, 4% went from osteopenia to normal, and 1.6% downgraded from osteoporosis to osteopenia, Dr. Thacker reported.

The new test may also provide some reassurance for female patients who have thinner bones, which may raise alarms based on BMD. TBS, however, may show that the structure of the bone looks normal.

“When you know that the microarchitecture is normal, you’re a lot less concerned that they actually have a bone disease of osteoporosis,” Dr. Thacker said.

Conversely, unexpectedly degraded bone raises questions.

“That makes you go back and say [to the patient]: ‘Have you been on steroids? Were you malnourished? Is there some other metabolic problem? Have you had some calcium disorder?’ ” Dr. Thacker said.

Dr. Thacker leverages the TBS to help patients obtain effective therapy, typically an anabolic agent followed by antiresorptive medication.

“When I see a patient who not only has osteoporosis on bone density but has completely degraded bone architecture, it’s a lot easier for me to make the argument to the insurance company that this patient is at grave risk for a low trauma fracture and bad outcome without the best treatment,” Dr. Thacker said.
 

10-year-old tech, recently covered

The Food and Drug Administration approved TBS software in 2012, but Medicare only recently started paying for it.

Medimaps Group, a company that markets imaging software to calculate TBS, announced in 2022 that reimbursement from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services was available, at $41.53 on the Physician Fee Schedule and $82.61 on the Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment Schedule.

“Reimbursement through CMS is an important endorsement of the clinical value of TBS for clinicians and their patients,” Didier Hans, PhD, MBA, the CEO of Medimaps, said in a statement at the time. He noted that more than 600,000 TBS procedures were being performed in the United States each year.

Nevertheless, the initial investment in purchasing the software may be a barrier for health systems.

“We are the first and only site in our health system to offer TBS, as this is an extra expense and not uniformly reimbursed by insurers,” Dr. Thacker reported at the meeting.
 

Potential drawbacks

The TBS software used in Dr. Thacker’s study has been validated only in Asian and White patients between certain ages and weights, meaning the system is not designed to be used for other populations. Other researchers have highlighted a need for trabecular bone scoring to be validated more broadly. The authors of a recent analysis, however, suggest that TBS can be used the same way no matter a patient’s race.

TBS “is going to be most helpful in those with osteopenia who are right near the threshold for treatment,” said Marcella Donovan Walker, MD, MS, in a presentation on bone quality at the meeting.

Many studies have shown that TBS “provides additive information to bone density,” said Dr. Walker, a professor of medicine in the division of endocrinology at Columbia University, New York. For example, a large study of women in Manitoba found that, regardless of whether their bone density was normal, osteopenic, or osteoporotic, those with a low TBS had a much higher risk for fracture.
 

‘Opportunistic screening’ with CT?

TBS relies on the same DXA scans that are used to calculate bone mineral density, so obtaining the score does not add time or radiation to the scanning process, Dr. Thacker said.

But many patients who should receive DXA scans do not, which adds to the promise of “opportunistic screening” for osteoporosis, Dr. Walker said. With this approach, physicians would analyze a CT scan that a patient received for another purpose, such as to investigate abdominal pain or chest pain.

“In these images is information about the bone,” Dr. Walker said.

Researchers have used high-resolution peripheral quantitative CT to perform finite element analysis, where a computer program simulates compression of the bone to create a measure of bone stiffness and determine the load required for a break.

One study found that including those elements predicted fractures better than bone mineral density or the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool alone, Dr. Walker noted.

Other aspects of bone quality include how many cracks are in the bone, the amount of adipose in the marrow space, and the rate at which bone is broken down and rebuilt. But Dr. Walker suggested that the longstanding focus on bone mineral density in clinical practice makes sense.

“By far, bone mass is the most important bone quality,” Dr. Walker said.

Dr. Thacker is the executive director of the nonprofit Speaking of Women’s Health. Dr. Walker reported receiving funding from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases and Amgen.

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

Assessing a key aspect of bone architecture, for which clinicians can now be reimbursed under Medicare, can significantly improve the ability to predict a patient’s risk for bone fracture.

Although bone mineral density (BMD) is traditionally used to identify patients with osteoporosis or low bone mass, some physicians have begun incorporating the trabecular bone score (TBS) into their exams.

At the Cleveland Clinic Center for Specialized Women’s Health, factoring in the TBS changed the diagnosis for 16% of 432 patients, according to Holly Thacker, MD, the center’s director.

“Importantly, 11% got worse diagnoses, and I use that in terms of prioritizing treatment,” Dr. Thacker said in an interview. The ability to determine how degraded the bone microarchitecture is through a software system “is a huge advance.”

Dr. Thacker described her center’s experience with the technology at the annual meeting of the Menopause Society (formerly The North American Menopause Society).

While BMD captures the amount of minerals like calcium in the skeleton, TBS assesses the underlying microarchitecture by looking at the distribution of shades of gray on dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans.

Based on the TBS, patients’ bones are classified as normal, partially degraded, or degraded. Among the 432 patients who received a TBS analysis in 2022, 3% shifted from a normal diagnosis to osteopenia, 8% worsened from osteopenia to osteoporosis, 4% went from osteopenia to normal, and 1.6% downgraded from osteoporosis to osteopenia, Dr. Thacker reported.

The new test may also provide some reassurance for female patients who have thinner bones, which may raise alarms based on BMD. TBS, however, may show that the structure of the bone looks normal.

“When you know that the microarchitecture is normal, you’re a lot less concerned that they actually have a bone disease of osteoporosis,” Dr. Thacker said.

Conversely, unexpectedly degraded bone raises questions.

“That makes you go back and say [to the patient]: ‘Have you been on steroids? Were you malnourished? Is there some other metabolic problem? Have you had some calcium disorder?’ ” Dr. Thacker said.

Dr. Thacker leverages the TBS to help patients obtain effective therapy, typically an anabolic agent followed by antiresorptive medication.

“When I see a patient who not only has osteoporosis on bone density but has completely degraded bone architecture, it’s a lot easier for me to make the argument to the insurance company that this patient is at grave risk for a low trauma fracture and bad outcome without the best treatment,” Dr. Thacker said.
 

10-year-old tech, recently covered

The Food and Drug Administration approved TBS software in 2012, but Medicare only recently started paying for it.

Medimaps Group, a company that markets imaging software to calculate TBS, announced in 2022 that reimbursement from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services was available, at $41.53 on the Physician Fee Schedule and $82.61 on the Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment Schedule.

“Reimbursement through CMS is an important endorsement of the clinical value of TBS for clinicians and their patients,” Didier Hans, PhD, MBA, the CEO of Medimaps, said in a statement at the time. He noted that more than 600,000 TBS procedures were being performed in the United States each year.

Nevertheless, the initial investment in purchasing the software may be a barrier for health systems.

“We are the first and only site in our health system to offer TBS, as this is an extra expense and not uniformly reimbursed by insurers,” Dr. Thacker reported at the meeting.
 

Potential drawbacks

The TBS software used in Dr. Thacker’s study has been validated only in Asian and White patients between certain ages and weights, meaning the system is not designed to be used for other populations. Other researchers have highlighted a need for trabecular bone scoring to be validated more broadly. The authors of a recent analysis, however, suggest that TBS can be used the same way no matter a patient’s race.

TBS “is going to be most helpful in those with osteopenia who are right near the threshold for treatment,” said Marcella Donovan Walker, MD, MS, in a presentation on bone quality at the meeting.

Many studies have shown that TBS “provides additive information to bone density,” said Dr. Walker, a professor of medicine in the division of endocrinology at Columbia University, New York. For example, a large study of women in Manitoba found that, regardless of whether their bone density was normal, osteopenic, or osteoporotic, those with a low TBS had a much higher risk for fracture.
 

‘Opportunistic screening’ with CT?

TBS relies on the same DXA scans that are used to calculate bone mineral density, so obtaining the score does not add time or radiation to the scanning process, Dr. Thacker said.

But many patients who should receive DXA scans do not, which adds to the promise of “opportunistic screening” for osteoporosis, Dr. Walker said. With this approach, physicians would analyze a CT scan that a patient received for another purpose, such as to investigate abdominal pain or chest pain.

“In these images is information about the bone,” Dr. Walker said.

Researchers have used high-resolution peripheral quantitative CT to perform finite element analysis, where a computer program simulates compression of the bone to create a measure of bone stiffness and determine the load required for a break.

One study found that including those elements predicted fractures better than bone mineral density or the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool alone, Dr. Walker noted.

Other aspects of bone quality include how many cracks are in the bone, the amount of adipose in the marrow space, and the rate at which bone is broken down and rebuilt. But Dr. Walker suggested that the longstanding focus on bone mineral density in clinical practice makes sense.

“By far, bone mass is the most important bone quality,” Dr. Walker said.

Dr. Thacker is the executive director of the nonprofit Speaking of Women’s Health. Dr. Walker reported receiving funding from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases and Amgen.

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

Assessing a key aspect of bone architecture, for which clinicians can now be reimbursed under Medicare, can significantly improve the ability to predict a patient’s risk for bone fracture.

Although bone mineral density (BMD) is traditionally used to identify patients with osteoporosis or low bone mass, some physicians have begun incorporating the trabecular bone score (TBS) into their exams.

At the Cleveland Clinic Center for Specialized Women’s Health, factoring in the TBS changed the diagnosis for 16% of 432 patients, according to Holly Thacker, MD, the center’s director.

“Importantly, 11% got worse diagnoses, and I use that in terms of prioritizing treatment,” Dr. Thacker said in an interview. The ability to determine how degraded the bone microarchitecture is through a software system “is a huge advance.”

Dr. Thacker described her center’s experience with the technology at the annual meeting of the Menopause Society (formerly The North American Menopause Society).

While BMD captures the amount of minerals like calcium in the skeleton, TBS assesses the underlying microarchitecture by looking at the distribution of shades of gray on dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans.

Based on the TBS, patients’ bones are classified as normal, partially degraded, or degraded. Among the 432 patients who received a TBS analysis in 2022, 3% shifted from a normal diagnosis to osteopenia, 8% worsened from osteopenia to osteoporosis, 4% went from osteopenia to normal, and 1.6% downgraded from osteoporosis to osteopenia, Dr. Thacker reported.

The new test may also provide some reassurance for female patients who have thinner bones, which may raise alarms based on BMD. TBS, however, may show that the structure of the bone looks normal.

“When you know that the microarchitecture is normal, you’re a lot less concerned that they actually have a bone disease of osteoporosis,” Dr. Thacker said.

Conversely, unexpectedly degraded bone raises questions.

“That makes you go back and say [to the patient]: ‘Have you been on steroids? Were you malnourished? Is there some other metabolic problem? Have you had some calcium disorder?’ ” Dr. Thacker said.

Dr. Thacker leverages the TBS to help patients obtain effective therapy, typically an anabolic agent followed by antiresorptive medication.

“When I see a patient who not only has osteoporosis on bone density but has completely degraded bone architecture, it’s a lot easier for me to make the argument to the insurance company that this patient is at grave risk for a low trauma fracture and bad outcome without the best treatment,” Dr. Thacker said.
 

10-year-old tech, recently covered

The Food and Drug Administration approved TBS software in 2012, but Medicare only recently started paying for it.

Medimaps Group, a company that markets imaging software to calculate TBS, announced in 2022 that reimbursement from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services was available, at $41.53 on the Physician Fee Schedule and $82.61 on the Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment Schedule.

“Reimbursement through CMS is an important endorsement of the clinical value of TBS for clinicians and their patients,” Didier Hans, PhD, MBA, the CEO of Medimaps, said in a statement at the time. He noted that more than 600,000 TBS procedures were being performed in the United States each year.

Nevertheless, the initial investment in purchasing the software may be a barrier for health systems.

“We are the first and only site in our health system to offer TBS, as this is an extra expense and not uniformly reimbursed by insurers,” Dr. Thacker reported at the meeting.
 

Potential drawbacks

The TBS software used in Dr. Thacker’s study has been validated only in Asian and White patients between certain ages and weights, meaning the system is not designed to be used for other populations. Other researchers have highlighted a need for trabecular bone scoring to be validated more broadly. The authors of a recent analysis, however, suggest that TBS can be used the same way no matter a patient’s race.

TBS “is going to be most helpful in those with osteopenia who are right near the threshold for treatment,” said Marcella Donovan Walker, MD, MS, in a presentation on bone quality at the meeting.

Many studies have shown that TBS “provides additive information to bone density,” said Dr. Walker, a professor of medicine in the division of endocrinology at Columbia University, New York. For example, a large study of women in Manitoba found that, regardless of whether their bone density was normal, osteopenic, or osteoporotic, those with a low TBS had a much higher risk for fracture.
 

‘Opportunistic screening’ with CT?

TBS relies on the same DXA scans that are used to calculate bone mineral density, so obtaining the score does not add time or radiation to the scanning process, Dr. Thacker said.

But many patients who should receive DXA scans do not, which adds to the promise of “opportunistic screening” for osteoporosis, Dr. Walker said. With this approach, physicians would analyze a CT scan that a patient received for another purpose, such as to investigate abdominal pain or chest pain.

“In these images is information about the bone,” Dr. Walker said.

Researchers have used high-resolution peripheral quantitative CT to perform finite element analysis, where a computer program simulates compression of the bone to create a measure of bone stiffness and determine the load required for a break.

One study found that including those elements predicted fractures better than bone mineral density or the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool alone, Dr. Walker noted.

Other aspects of bone quality include how many cracks are in the bone, the amount of adipose in the marrow space, and the rate at which bone is broken down and rebuilt. But Dr. Walker suggested that the longstanding focus on bone mineral density in clinical practice makes sense.

“By far, bone mass is the most important bone quality,” Dr. Walker said.

Dr. Thacker is the executive director of the nonprofit Speaking of Women’s Health. Dr. Walker reported receiving funding from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases and Amgen.

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

SAN DIEGO – Radiation has become a crucial component of treatment for diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) over the past 25 years. But radiologists presenting at an annual conference cautioned colleagues to keep the limitations of radiology in mind and not to assume that it’s always a necessary adjunct to chemotherapy.

For example, radiation may not be needed for advanced-stage patients who’ve received at least four cycles of R-CHOP chemotherapy (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone plus rituximab), and whose PET scans show no sign of disease at interim or end-of treatment phases, said Joanna Yang, MD, MPH, of Washington University in St. Louis, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology.

These patients “may be able to omit radiotherapy without sacrificing good outcomes,” Dr. Yang said. In contrast, those whose PET scans show signs of disease at interim and end-of-treatment points may benefit from radiotherapy to selected sites, she said.

Dr. Yang highlighted a 2021 study in Blood that tracked 723 patients with advanced-stage DLBCL who were diagnosed from 2005 to 2017. All were treated with R-CHOP, and some of those who were PET-positive – that is, showing signs of malignant disease – were treated with radiotherapy.

Over a mean follow-up of 4.3 years, the study reported “time to progression and overall survival at 3 years were 83% vs. 56% and 87% vs. 64% in patients with PET-NEG and PET-POS scans, respectively.”

These findings aren’t surprising, Dr. Yang said. But “the PET-positive patients who got radiation actually had outcomes that came close to the outcomes that the PET-negative patients were able to achieve.” Their 3-year overall survival was 80% vs. 87% in the PET-negative, no-radiation group vs. 44% in the PET-positive, no-radiation group.

Dr. Yang cautioned, however, that withholding radiation in PET-negative patients isn’t right for everyone: “This doesn’t mean this should be the approach for every single patient.”

What about early-stage DLBCL? In patients without risk factors, Dr. Yang recommends PET scans after four treatments with R-CHOP. “Getting that end-of-treatment PET is going to be super-critical because that’s going to help guide you in terms of the patients who you may feel comfortable omitting radiation versus the patients who remain PET-positive at the end of chemotherapy. Many places will also add an interim PET as well.”

According to her, radiotherapy is appropriate in patients who are PET-positive, based on the findings of the FLYER and LYSA-GOELAMS 02-03 trials.

In early-stage patients who have risk factors such as advanced age or bulky or extra-nodal disease, Dr. Yang suggests examining interim PET scans after three treatments with R-CHOP. If they are negative, another R-CHOP treatment is appropriate – with or without radiotherapy.

“There’s a lot that goes into that decision. The first thing I think about in patients who have risk factors is: What salvage options are available for my patient? Can they tolerate these salvage option? If they’re older, they might not be eligible for auto [autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation]. If they’re frail, they might not be eligible for auto or CAR T cells. If they have bulk, it’s certainly an area of concern. It seems like radiation does help control disease in areas of bulk for patients with DLBCL.”

If these patients are PET-positive, go directly to radiotherapy, Dr. Yang advised. Trials that support this approach include S1001, LYSA-GOELAMS 02-03, and RICOVER-noRTH, she said.

What about double-hit and triple-hit lymphomas, which are especially aggressive due to genetic variations? Research suggests that “even if double hit/triple hit is not responding to chemo, it still responds to radiation,” Dr. Yang said.

In regard to advanced-stage disease, “if patients are receiving full-dose chemo for least six cycles, I use that end-of-treatment PET to help guide me. And then I make an individualized decision based on how bulky that disease is, where the location is, how morbid a relapse would be. If they’re older or receiving reduced-dose chemotherapy, then I’ll more seriously consider radiation just because there are limited options for these patients. And we know that DLCBL is most commonly a disease of the elderly.”

In an adjoining presentation at ASTRO, Andrea Ng, MD, MPH, of Harvard Medical School/Dana-Farber Brigham Cancer Center, Boston, discussed which patients with incomplete response or refractory/relapsed DLCBL can benefit from radiotherapy.

She highlighted patients with good partial response and end-of-treatment PET-positive with evidence of residual 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose activity via PET scan (Deauville 4/5) – a group that “we’re increasingly seeing.” In these patients, “radiation can be quite effective” at doses of 36-45 Gy. She highlighted a study from 2011 that linked consolidation radiotherapy to 5-year event-free survival in 65% of patients.

As for relapsed/refractory disease in patients who aren’t candidates for further systemic therapy – the “frail without good options” – Dr. Ng said data about salvage radiotherapy is limited. However, a 2015 study tracked 65 patients who were treated with a median dose of 40 Gy with “curative” intent. Local control was “not great” at 72% at 2 years, Dr. Ng said, while overall survival was 60% and progress-free survival was 46%.

Dr. Ng, who was one of this study’s authors, said several groups did better: Those with refractory vs. relapsed disease and those who were responsive to chemotherapy vs. those who were not.

She also highlighted a similar 2019 study of 32 patients with refractory/relapsed disease treated with salvage radiotherapy (median dose of 42.7 Gy) found that 61.8% reached progress-free survival at 5 years – a better outcome.

Dr. Yang has no disclosures. Dr. Ng discloses royalties from UpToDate and Elsevier.
 

SAN DIEGO – Radiation has become a crucial component of treatment for diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) over the past 25 years. But radiologists presenting at an annual conference cautioned colleagues to keep the limitations of radiology in mind and not to assume that it’s always a necessary adjunct to chemotherapy.

For example, radiation may not be needed for advanced-stage patients who’ve received at least four cycles of R-CHOP chemotherapy (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone plus rituximab), and whose PET scans show no sign of disease at interim or end-of treatment phases, said Joanna Yang, MD, MPH, of Washington University in St. Louis, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology.

These patients “may be able to omit radiotherapy without sacrificing good outcomes,” Dr. Yang said. In contrast, those whose PET scans show signs of disease at interim and end-of-treatment points may benefit from radiotherapy to selected sites, she said.

Dr. Yang highlighted a 2021 study in Blood that tracked 723 patients with advanced-stage DLBCL who were diagnosed from 2005 to 2017. All were treated with R-CHOP, and some of those who were PET-positive – that is, showing signs of malignant disease – were treated with radiotherapy.

Over a mean follow-up of 4.3 years, the study reported “time to progression and overall survival at 3 years were 83% vs. 56% and 87% vs. 64% in patients with PET-NEG and PET-POS scans, respectively.”

These findings aren’t surprising, Dr. Yang said. But “the PET-positive patients who got radiation actually had outcomes that came close to the outcomes that the PET-negative patients were able to achieve.” Their 3-year overall survival was 80% vs. 87% in the PET-negative, no-radiation group vs. 44% in the PET-positive, no-radiation group.

Dr. Yang cautioned, however, that withholding radiation in PET-negative patients isn’t right for everyone: “This doesn’t mean this should be the approach for every single patient.”

What about early-stage DLBCL? In patients without risk factors, Dr. Yang recommends PET scans after four treatments with R-CHOP. “Getting that end-of-treatment PET is going to be super-critical because that’s going to help guide you in terms of the patients who you may feel comfortable omitting radiation versus the patients who remain PET-positive at the end of chemotherapy. Many places will also add an interim PET as well.”

According to her, radiotherapy is appropriate in patients who are PET-positive, based on the findings of the FLYER and LYSA-GOELAMS 02-03 trials.

In early-stage patients who have risk factors such as advanced age or bulky or extra-nodal disease, Dr. Yang suggests examining interim PET scans after three treatments with R-CHOP. If they are negative, another R-CHOP treatment is appropriate – with or without radiotherapy.

“There’s a lot that goes into that decision. The first thing I think about in patients who have risk factors is: What salvage options are available for my patient? Can they tolerate these salvage option? If they’re older, they might not be eligible for auto [autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation]. If they’re frail, they might not be eligible for auto or CAR T cells. If they have bulk, it’s certainly an area of concern. It seems like radiation does help control disease in areas of bulk for patients with DLBCL.”

If these patients are PET-positive, go directly to radiotherapy, Dr. Yang advised. Trials that support this approach include S1001, LYSA-GOELAMS 02-03, and RICOVER-noRTH, she said.

What about double-hit and triple-hit lymphomas, which are especially aggressive due to genetic variations? Research suggests that “even if double hit/triple hit is not responding to chemo, it still responds to radiation,” Dr. Yang said.

In regard to advanced-stage disease, “if patients are receiving full-dose chemo for least six cycles, I use that end-of-treatment PET to help guide me. And then I make an individualized decision based on how bulky that disease is, where the location is, how morbid a relapse would be. If they’re older or receiving reduced-dose chemotherapy, then I’ll more seriously consider radiation just because there are limited options for these patients. And we know that DLCBL is most commonly a disease of the elderly.”

In an adjoining presentation at ASTRO, Andrea Ng, MD, MPH, of Harvard Medical School/Dana-Farber Brigham Cancer Center, Boston, discussed which patients with incomplete response or refractory/relapsed DLCBL can benefit from radiotherapy.

She highlighted patients with good partial response and end-of-treatment PET-positive with evidence of residual 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose activity via PET scan (Deauville 4/5) – a group that “we’re increasingly seeing.” In these patients, “radiation can be quite effective” at doses of 36-45 Gy. She highlighted a study from 2011 that linked consolidation radiotherapy to 5-year event-free survival in 65% of patients.

As for relapsed/refractory disease in patients who aren’t candidates for further systemic therapy – the “frail without good options” – Dr. Ng said data about salvage radiotherapy is limited. However, a 2015 study tracked 65 patients who were treated with a median dose of 40 Gy with “curative” intent. Local control was “not great” at 72% at 2 years, Dr. Ng said, while overall survival was 60% and progress-free survival was 46%.

Dr. Ng, who was one of this study’s authors, said several groups did better: Those with refractory vs. relapsed disease and those who were responsive to chemotherapy vs. those who were not.

She also highlighted a similar 2019 study of 32 patients with refractory/relapsed disease treated with salvage radiotherapy (median dose of 42.7 Gy) found that 61.8% reached progress-free survival at 5 years – a better outcome.

Dr. Yang has no disclosures. Dr. Ng discloses royalties from UpToDate and Elsevier.
 

SAN DIEGO – Radiation has become a crucial component of treatment for diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) over the past 25 years. But radiologists presenting at an annual conference cautioned colleagues to keep the limitations of radiology in mind and not to assume that it’s always a necessary adjunct to chemotherapy.

For example, radiation may not be needed for advanced-stage patients who’ve received at least four cycles of R-CHOP chemotherapy (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone plus rituximab), and whose PET scans show no sign of disease at interim or end-of treatment phases, said Joanna Yang, MD, MPH, of Washington University in St. Louis, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology.

These patients “may be able to omit radiotherapy without sacrificing good outcomes,” Dr. Yang said. In contrast, those whose PET scans show signs of disease at interim and end-of-treatment points may benefit from radiotherapy to selected sites, she said.

Dr. Yang highlighted a 2021 study in Blood that tracked 723 patients with advanced-stage DLBCL who were diagnosed from 2005 to 2017. All were treated with R-CHOP, and some of those who were PET-positive – that is, showing signs of malignant disease – were treated with radiotherapy.

Over a mean follow-up of 4.3 years, the study reported “time to progression and overall survival at 3 years were 83% vs. 56% and 87% vs. 64% in patients with PET-NEG and PET-POS scans, respectively.”

These findings aren’t surprising, Dr. Yang said. But “the PET-positive patients who got radiation actually had outcomes that came close to the outcomes that the PET-negative patients were able to achieve.” Their 3-year overall survival was 80% vs. 87% in the PET-negative, no-radiation group vs. 44% in the PET-positive, no-radiation group.

Dr. Yang cautioned, however, that withholding radiation in PET-negative patients isn’t right for everyone: “This doesn’t mean this should be the approach for every single patient.”

What about early-stage DLBCL? In patients without risk factors, Dr. Yang recommends PET scans after four treatments with R-CHOP. “Getting that end-of-treatment PET is going to be super-critical because that’s going to help guide you in terms of the patients who you may feel comfortable omitting radiation versus the patients who remain PET-positive at the end of chemotherapy. Many places will also add an interim PET as well.”

According to her, radiotherapy is appropriate in patients who are PET-positive, based on the findings of the FLYER and LYSA-GOELAMS 02-03 trials.

In early-stage patients who have risk factors such as advanced age or bulky or extra-nodal disease, Dr. Yang suggests examining interim PET scans after three treatments with R-CHOP. If they are negative, another R-CHOP treatment is appropriate – with or without radiotherapy.

“There’s a lot that goes into that decision. The first thing I think about in patients who have risk factors is: What salvage options are available for my patient? Can they tolerate these salvage option? If they’re older, they might not be eligible for auto [autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation]. If they’re frail, they might not be eligible for auto or CAR T cells. If they have bulk, it’s certainly an area of concern. It seems like radiation does help control disease in areas of bulk for patients with DLBCL.”

If these patients are PET-positive, go directly to radiotherapy, Dr. Yang advised. Trials that support this approach include S1001, LYSA-GOELAMS 02-03, and RICOVER-noRTH, she said.

What about double-hit and triple-hit lymphomas, which are especially aggressive due to genetic variations? Research suggests that “even if double hit/triple hit is not responding to chemo, it still responds to radiation,” Dr. Yang said.

In regard to advanced-stage disease, “if patients are receiving full-dose chemo for least six cycles, I use that end-of-treatment PET to help guide me. And then I make an individualized decision based on how bulky that disease is, where the location is, how morbid a relapse would be. If they’re older or receiving reduced-dose chemotherapy, then I’ll more seriously consider radiation just because there are limited options for these patients. And we know that DLCBL is most commonly a disease of the elderly.”

In an adjoining presentation at ASTRO, Andrea Ng, MD, MPH, of Harvard Medical School/Dana-Farber Brigham Cancer Center, Boston, discussed which patients with incomplete response or refractory/relapsed DLCBL can benefit from radiotherapy.

She highlighted patients with good partial response and end-of-treatment PET-positive with evidence of residual 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose activity via PET scan (Deauville 4/5) – a group that “we’re increasingly seeing.” In these patients, “radiation can be quite effective” at doses of 36-45 Gy. She highlighted a study from 2011 that linked consolidation radiotherapy to 5-year event-free survival in 65% of patients.

As for relapsed/refractory disease in patients who aren’t candidates for further systemic therapy – the “frail without good options” – Dr. Ng said data about salvage radiotherapy is limited. However, a 2015 study tracked 65 patients who were treated with a median dose of 40 Gy with “curative” intent. Local control was “not great” at 72% at 2 years, Dr. Ng said, while overall survival was 60% and progress-free survival was 46%.

Dr. Ng, who was one of this study’s authors, said several groups did better: Those with refractory vs. relapsed disease and those who were responsive to chemotherapy vs. those who were not.

She also highlighted a similar 2019 study of 32 patients with refractory/relapsed disease treated with salvage radiotherapy (median dose of 42.7 Gy) found that 61.8% reached progress-free survival at 5 years – a better outcome.

Dr. Yang has no disclosures. Dr. Ng discloses royalties from UpToDate and Elsevier.
 

Recently updated colorectal cancer (CRC) screening guidance from the American College of Physicians is raising concerns among some specialists.

The ACP’s clinical guidance, published in Annals of Internal Medicine, called for CRC screenings to start at age 50 in average-risk individuals who are asymptomatic. This recommendation, however, conflicts with guidelines from the American Cancer Society and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which, in 2021, officially lowered the recommended initial age of screening to 45.

Following the ACP’s announcement, several professional organizations, such as the American College of Radiology, criticized the new guidelines, calling them “a step backward” and warning they may hinder recent gains against CRC.

Some physicians believe the discordance will confuse patients and lead to varying referral practices among primary care physicians. And while insurers will likely continue to pay for screening procedures based on the USPSTF guidelines, which dictate insurance coverage, some physicians worry that insurers could create additional roadblocks for CRC screening coverage, such as requiring prior authorization.

“We’re in a conflicted space on this issue as a country,” said John L. Marshall, MD, a GI oncologist and director of The Ruesch Center for the Cure of GI Cancers at Georgetown University, Washington.

Ultimately, the physician community wants an inexpensive screening test that’s effective at preventing cancer and deaths, but the evidence thus far doesn’t necessarily support colonoscopy as that test, said Dr. Marshall, also chief medical officer for Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center.

Although colonoscopy can prevent CRC by removing precancerous polyps and can reduce deaths from cancer, it has not been shown to lower all-cause mortality, Dr. Marshall explained. A recent meta-analysis, for example, found that, aside from sigmoidoscopy for colon cancer screening, no other cancer screening modalities meaningfully changed life expectancy.

“That’s why we’re struggling,” Dr. Marshall said. “We’re emotionally invested in having screening available to younger people because we’re seeing colon cancer in younger people. So, we want it to move earlier, but it’s expensive and it’s invasive.”
 

Docs debate differing guidance

The new ACP guidance, based on a critical review of existing guidelines, evidence, and modeling studies, argues that the potential harms of screening average-risk individuals under age 50 may outweigh the potential benefits.

The benefits of screening, of course, include identifying and removing precancerous lesions or localized cancer, while the potential harms include false positives that may lead to unnecessary additional tests, treatments, and costs. More invasive screening procedures, such as colonoscopy, can also come with their own risks, including serious bleeding and perforation.

For colonoscopy, for instance, the ACP team determined that starting screening at age 45 vs. 50 could prevent three additional CRC cases per 1,000 individuals screened (58 vs. 61) and one CRC death (27 vs. 28) over the recommended screening time frame. On the flip side, screening starting at age 45 could increase the incidence of gastrointestinal or cardiovascular events (14 vs. 16).

“Even if we assumed the modeling study had no limitations and accepted the results at face value, we would conclude that the small estimated benefits and harms roughly balance each other out, resulting in an inadequate net benefit to warrant CRC screening in average-risk adults aged 45 to 49 years,” Amir Qaseem, MD, PhD, and ACP coauthors write.

Family physician Kenny Lin, MD, MPH, believes the updated ACP guidelines are reasonable, and points out the ACP is not the first group to disagree with the USPSTF’s recommendations.

“I think the [ACP] guidelines make a lot of sense,” said Dr. Lin, who practices in Lancaster, Pa. The American Academy of Family Physicians “also did not endorse the recommendations to start screenings at 45.” In its 2021 updated guidance, the AAFP recommended screening for CRC starting at age 50, concluding there was “insufficient evidence to assess the benefits and harms of screening” in the 45 to 49 population.

However, Jason R. Woloski, MD, a family physician based in Wilkes-Barre, Pa., expressed concern that the differing guidelines will confuse patients as well as present challenges for primary care physicians.

“I feel like we took the last couple of years convincing people that earlier is better,” said Dr. Woloski, an associate professor of family medicine at Geisinger Commonwealth School of Medicine, Scranton, Pa. “It can send a mixed message to a patient after we’ve been stressing the importance of earlier [screening], and then saying, ‘Maybe we got it wrong; maybe we were okay the first time.’ ”

Mark A. Lewis, MD, a GI oncologist, had a similar initial reaction upon hearing about the updated guidelines: “The lack of synchronization across groups is going to create confusion among patients.”

Although he could not say definitively whether the recommendations will affect GI oncologists, because he only sees patients with advanced CRC, he does see the demands in primary care and gastroenterology shifting.

“I think the much bigger impact will be on primary care physicians and gastroenterologists,” said Dr. Lewis, director of gastrointestinal oncology at Intermountain Healthcare in Murray, Utah. “My best guess is that the procedural burden on the latter will be mitigated by more stool testing ordered by primary care physicians. Patients may understandably prefer the convenience and lack of invasiveness of home-based fecal testing, but a positive FIT [fecal immunochemical test] without a follow-up scope is an incomplete screening.”

Dr. Marshall, however, had a different take. He does not envision the updated guidelines having much of a practical impact on physician practice. Most of the country is already not receiving proper colon cancer screenings, he said. Research shows more than 40% of Americans skip standard CRC screenings. Even anecdotally, he noted, friends in their 60s come to him and admit they haven’t had a colonoscopy yet.
 

Potential impact on patient outcomes, costs

Beyond mixed messaging, some experts worry that pushing CRC screening later could mean cancers are caught later, when they’re more advanced.

Finding cancers earlier, when they are easier and less expensive to treat, make earlier CRC screenings worthwhile, Dr. Woloski explained.

Dr. Lewis sees earlier screening as a way to stop a tumor from progressing before it can really pick up steam.

“To me the biggest advantage of colonoscopy is the interruption of the adenoma-to-carcinoma sequence, whereby a polyp that is completely removed cannot become an invasive adenocarcinoma,” Dr. Lewis said. “We’ve also had evidence for well over a decade that flexible sigmoidoscopy, which doesn’t come close to visualizing the entire colon, can confer a survival benefit.”

Another concern is the potential effect on insurance coverage.

Medicare and other insurers use USPSTF guidelines to make coverage decisions. However, because of this mixed message, Dr. Woloski questioned whether there would be more challenges regarding insurance coverage. “Does it mean primary care doctors are going to have to preauthorize a lot of these screenings even if you have shared decision-making with the patient?” he asked.

When it comes to screening referrals, Douglas A. Corley, MD, PhD, a gastroenterologist at Kaiser Permanente in northern California, said it’s critical for primary care physicians to educate patients about the differing views on screening benefits and harms as well as the different screening options.

“Given the different opinions, it is important to let people in this age group know that screening is an option recommended by some groups,” Dr. Corley said. “Colorectal cancer screening is very effective for decreasing the risk for death from colorectal cancer, which is the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States. Making sure all eligible people know this is an option provides the best way for patients to have an informed choice.”

Dr. Lin has already begun talking with patients about the differing recommendations. He said it’s helpful to simplify the issue and focus the conversation on what patients value most. For more assertive patients whose priority is finding every possible cancer early, starting screenings at age 45 may be reasonable, he said, whereas other patients may not find the process or possible side effects worth it.

“And then you have the middle group that decides, ‘Yes, I want to start at 45, but I want the fecal test. I don’t want to just jump into colonoscopy.’ ” Dr. Lin said. “That would be kind of a compromise where you’d be starting screening earlier, but not subjecting yourself to something that has more potential for harms.”

Dr. Woloski said he plans to continue making referrals based on the USPSTF recommendations.

“With every screening, it is about informed decision-making with the patient, but I think for now, since USPSTF still supports the earlier screening, I will probably stick with offering it earlier,” he said.

But when deciding on the appropriate timing for evaluating CRC, the most important distinction is between screening and diagnosis, Dr. Lewis added.

“The former is only appropriate in patients who are truly asymptomatic and who are truly average-risk,” he said. “The latter is critical in any patient with symptoms. I cannot count the number of times I have seen blood in the stool discounted as hemorrhoids without even an exam, digital rectal, or scope, to demonstrate that hemorrhoids are present and the culprit for blood loss.”

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

Recently updated colorectal cancer (CRC) screening guidance from the American College of Physicians is raising concerns among some specialists.

The ACP’s clinical guidance, published in Annals of Internal Medicine, called for CRC screenings to start at age 50 in average-risk individuals who are asymptomatic. This recommendation, however, conflicts with guidelines from the American Cancer Society and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which, in 2021, officially lowered the recommended initial age of screening to 45.

Following the ACP’s announcement, several professional organizations, such as the American College of Radiology, criticized the new guidelines, calling them “a step backward” and warning they may hinder recent gains against CRC.

Some physicians believe the discordance will confuse patients and lead to varying referral practices among primary care physicians. And while insurers will likely continue to pay for screening procedures based on the USPSTF guidelines, which dictate insurance coverage, some physicians worry that insurers could create additional roadblocks for CRC screening coverage, such as requiring prior authorization.

“We’re in a conflicted space on this issue as a country,” said John L. Marshall, MD, a GI oncologist and director of The Ruesch Center for the Cure of GI Cancers at Georgetown University, Washington.

Ultimately, the physician community wants an inexpensive screening test that’s effective at preventing cancer and deaths, but the evidence thus far doesn’t necessarily support colonoscopy as that test, said Dr. Marshall, also chief medical officer for Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center.

Although colonoscopy can prevent CRC by removing precancerous polyps and can reduce deaths from cancer, it has not been shown to lower all-cause mortality, Dr. Marshall explained. A recent meta-analysis, for example, found that, aside from sigmoidoscopy for colon cancer screening, no other cancer screening modalities meaningfully changed life expectancy.

“That’s why we’re struggling,” Dr. Marshall said. “We’re emotionally invested in having screening available to younger people because we’re seeing colon cancer in younger people. So, we want it to move earlier, but it’s expensive and it’s invasive.”
 

Docs debate differing guidance

The new ACP guidance, based on a critical review of existing guidelines, evidence, and modeling studies, argues that the potential harms of screening average-risk individuals under age 50 may outweigh the potential benefits.

The benefits of screening, of course, include identifying and removing precancerous lesions or localized cancer, while the potential harms include false positives that may lead to unnecessary additional tests, treatments, and costs. More invasive screening procedures, such as colonoscopy, can also come with their own risks, including serious bleeding and perforation.

For colonoscopy, for instance, the ACP team determined that starting screening at age 45 vs. 50 could prevent three additional CRC cases per 1,000 individuals screened (58 vs. 61) and one CRC death (27 vs. 28) over the recommended screening time frame. On the flip side, screening starting at age 45 could increase the incidence of gastrointestinal or cardiovascular events (14 vs. 16).

“Even if we assumed the modeling study had no limitations and accepted the results at face value, we would conclude that the small estimated benefits and harms roughly balance each other out, resulting in an inadequate net benefit to warrant CRC screening in average-risk adults aged 45 to 49 years,” Amir Qaseem, MD, PhD, and ACP coauthors write.

Family physician Kenny Lin, MD, MPH, believes the updated ACP guidelines are reasonable, and points out the ACP is not the first group to disagree with the USPSTF’s recommendations.

“I think the [ACP] guidelines make a lot of sense,” said Dr. Lin, who practices in Lancaster, Pa. The American Academy of Family Physicians “also did not endorse the recommendations to start screenings at 45.” In its 2021 updated guidance, the AAFP recommended screening for CRC starting at age 50, concluding there was “insufficient evidence to assess the benefits and harms of screening” in the 45 to 49 population.

However, Jason R. Woloski, MD, a family physician based in Wilkes-Barre, Pa., expressed concern that the differing guidelines will confuse patients as well as present challenges for primary care physicians.

“I feel like we took the last couple of years convincing people that earlier is better,” said Dr. Woloski, an associate professor of family medicine at Geisinger Commonwealth School of Medicine, Scranton, Pa. “It can send a mixed message to a patient after we’ve been stressing the importance of earlier [screening], and then saying, ‘Maybe we got it wrong; maybe we were okay the first time.’ ”

Mark A. Lewis, MD, a GI oncologist, had a similar initial reaction upon hearing about the updated guidelines: “The lack of synchronization across groups is going to create confusion among patients.”

Although he could not say definitively whether the recommendations will affect GI oncologists, because he only sees patients with advanced CRC, he does see the demands in primary care and gastroenterology shifting.

“I think the much bigger impact will be on primary care physicians and gastroenterologists,” said Dr. Lewis, director of gastrointestinal oncology at Intermountain Healthcare in Murray, Utah. “My best guess is that the procedural burden on the latter will be mitigated by more stool testing ordered by primary care physicians. Patients may understandably prefer the convenience and lack of invasiveness of home-based fecal testing, but a positive FIT [fecal immunochemical test] without a follow-up scope is an incomplete screening.”

Dr. Marshall, however, had a different take. He does not envision the updated guidelines having much of a practical impact on physician practice. Most of the country is already not receiving proper colon cancer screenings, he said. Research shows more than 40% of Americans skip standard CRC screenings. Even anecdotally, he noted, friends in their 60s come to him and admit they haven’t had a colonoscopy yet.
 

Potential impact on patient outcomes, costs

Beyond mixed messaging, some experts worry that pushing CRC screening later could mean cancers are caught later, when they’re more advanced.

Finding cancers earlier, when they are easier and less expensive to treat, make earlier CRC screenings worthwhile, Dr. Woloski explained.

Dr. Lewis sees earlier screening as a way to stop a tumor from progressing before it can really pick up steam.

“To me the biggest advantage of colonoscopy is the interruption of the adenoma-to-carcinoma sequence, whereby a polyp that is completely removed cannot become an invasive adenocarcinoma,” Dr. Lewis said. “We’ve also had evidence for well over a decade that flexible sigmoidoscopy, which doesn’t come close to visualizing the entire colon, can confer a survival benefit.”

Another concern is the potential effect on insurance coverage.

Medicare and other insurers use USPSTF guidelines to make coverage decisions. However, because of this mixed message, Dr. Woloski questioned whether there would be more challenges regarding insurance coverage. “Does it mean primary care doctors are going to have to preauthorize a lot of these screenings even if you have shared decision-making with the patient?” he asked.

When it comes to screening referrals, Douglas A. Corley, MD, PhD, a gastroenterologist at Kaiser Permanente in northern California, said it’s critical for primary care physicians to educate patients about the differing views on screening benefits and harms as well as the different screening options.

“Given the different opinions, it is important to let people in this age group know that screening is an option recommended by some groups,” Dr. Corley said. “Colorectal cancer screening is very effective for decreasing the risk for death from colorectal cancer, which is the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States. Making sure all eligible people know this is an option provides the best way for patients to have an informed choice.”

Dr. Lin has already begun talking with patients about the differing recommendations. He said it’s helpful to simplify the issue and focus the conversation on what patients value most. For more assertive patients whose priority is finding every possible cancer early, starting screenings at age 45 may be reasonable, he said, whereas other patients may not find the process or possible side effects worth it.

“And then you have the middle group that decides, ‘Yes, I want to start at 45, but I want the fecal test. I don’t want to just jump into colonoscopy.’ ” Dr. Lin said. “That would be kind of a compromise where you’d be starting screening earlier, but not subjecting yourself to something that has more potential for harms.”

Dr. Woloski said he plans to continue making referrals based on the USPSTF recommendations.

“With every screening, it is about informed decision-making with the patient, but I think for now, since USPSTF still supports the earlier screening, I will probably stick with offering it earlier,” he said.

But when deciding on the appropriate timing for evaluating CRC, the most important distinction is between screening and diagnosis, Dr. Lewis added.

“The former is only appropriate in patients who are truly asymptomatic and who are truly average-risk,” he said. “The latter is critical in any patient with symptoms. I cannot count the number of times I have seen blood in the stool discounted as hemorrhoids without even an exam, digital rectal, or scope, to demonstrate that hemorrhoids are present and the culprit for blood loss.”

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

Recently updated colorectal cancer (CRC) screening guidance from the American College of Physicians is raising concerns among some specialists.

The ACP’s clinical guidance, published in Annals of Internal Medicine, called for CRC screenings to start at age 50 in average-risk individuals who are asymptomatic. This recommendation, however, conflicts with guidelines from the American Cancer Society and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which, in 2021, officially lowered the recommended initial age of screening to 45.

Following the ACP’s announcement, several professional organizations, such as the American College of Radiology, criticized the new guidelines, calling them “a step backward” and warning they may hinder recent gains against CRC.

Some physicians believe the discordance will confuse patients and lead to varying referral practices among primary care physicians. And while insurers will likely continue to pay for screening procedures based on the USPSTF guidelines, which dictate insurance coverage, some physicians worry that insurers could create additional roadblocks for CRC screening coverage, such as requiring prior authorization.

“We’re in a conflicted space on this issue as a country,” said John L. Marshall, MD, a GI oncologist and director of The Ruesch Center for the Cure of GI Cancers at Georgetown University, Washington.

Ultimately, the physician community wants an inexpensive screening test that’s effective at preventing cancer and deaths, but the evidence thus far doesn’t necessarily support colonoscopy as that test, said Dr. Marshall, also chief medical officer for Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center.

Although colonoscopy can prevent CRC by removing precancerous polyps and can reduce deaths from cancer, it has not been shown to lower all-cause mortality, Dr. Marshall explained. A recent meta-analysis, for example, found that, aside from sigmoidoscopy for colon cancer screening, no other cancer screening modalities meaningfully changed life expectancy.

“That’s why we’re struggling,” Dr. Marshall said. “We’re emotionally invested in having screening available to younger people because we’re seeing colon cancer in younger people. So, we want it to move earlier, but it’s expensive and it’s invasive.”
 

Docs debate differing guidance

The new ACP guidance, based on a critical review of existing guidelines, evidence, and modeling studies, argues that the potential harms of screening average-risk individuals under age 50 may outweigh the potential benefits.

The benefits of screening, of course, include identifying and removing precancerous lesions or localized cancer, while the potential harms include false positives that may lead to unnecessary additional tests, treatments, and costs. More invasive screening procedures, such as colonoscopy, can also come with their own risks, including serious bleeding and perforation.

For colonoscopy, for instance, the ACP team determined that starting screening at age 45 vs. 50 could prevent three additional CRC cases per 1,000 individuals screened (58 vs. 61) and one CRC death (27 vs. 28) over the recommended screening time frame. On the flip side, screening starting at age 45 could increase the incidence of gastrointestinal or cardiovascular events (14 vs. 16).

“Even if we assumed the modeling study had no limitations and accepted the results at face value, we would conclude that the small estimated benefits and harms roughly balance each other out, resulting in an inadequate net benefit to warrant CRC screening in average-risk adults aged 45 to 49 years,” Amir Qaseem, MD, PhD, and ACP coauthors write.

Family physician Kenny Lin, MD, MPH, believes the updated ACP guidelines are reasonable, and points out the ACP is not the first group to disagree with the USPSTF’s recommendations.

“I think the [ACP] guidelines make a lot of sense,” said Dr. Lin, who practices in Lancaster, Pa. The American Academy of Family Physicians “also did not endorse the recommendations to start screenings at 45.” In its 2021 updated guidance, the AAFP recommended screening for CRC starting at age 50, concluding there was “insufficient evidence to assess the benefits and harms of screening” in the 45 to 49 population.

However, Jason R. Woloski, MD, a family physician based in Wilkes-Barre, Pa., expressed concern that the differing guidelines will confuse patients as well as present challenges for primary care physicians.

“I feel like we took the last couple of years convincing people that earlier is better,” said Dr. Woloski, an associate professor of family medicine at Geisinger Commonwealth School of Medicine, Scranton, Pa. “It can send a mixed message to a patient after we’ve been stressing the importance of earlier [screening], and then saying, ‘Maybe we got it wrong; maybe we were okay the first time.’ ”

Mark A. Lewis, MD, a GI oncologist, had a similar initial reaction upon hearing about the updated guidelines: “The lack of synchronization across groups is going to create confusion among patients.”

Although he could not say definitively whether the recommendations will affect GI oncologists, because he only sees patients with advanced CRC, he does see the demands in primary care and gastroenterology shifting.

“I think the much bigger impact will be on primary care physicians and gastroenterologists,” said Dr. Lewis, director of gastrointestinal oncology at Intermountain Healthcare in Murray, Utah. “My best guess is that the procedural burden on the latter will be mitigated by more stool testing ordered by primary care physicians. Patients may understandably prefer the convenience and lack of invasiveness of home-based fecal testing, but a positive FIT [fecal immunochemical test] without a follow-up scope is an incomplete screening.”

Dr. Marshall, however, had a different take. He does not envision the updated guidelines having much of a practical impact on physician practice. Most of the country is already not receiving proper colon cancer screenings, he said. Research shows more than 40% of Americans skip standard CRC screenings. Even anecdotally, he noted, friends in their 60s come to him and admit they haven’t had a colonoscopy yet.
 

Potential impact on patient outcomes, costs

Beyond mixed messaging, some experts worry that pushing CRC screening later could mean cancers are caught later, when they’re more advanced.

Finding cancers earlier, when they are easier and less expensive to treat, make earlier CRC screenings worthwhile, Dr. Woloski explained.

Dr. Lewis sees earlier screening as a way to stop a tumor from progressing before it can really pick up steam.

“To me the biggest advantage of colonoscopy is the interruption of the adenoma-to-carcinoma sequence, whereby a polyp that is completely removed cannot become an invasive adenocarcinoma,” Dr. Lewis said. “We’ve also had evidence for well over a decade that flexible sigmoidoscopy, which doesn’t come close to visualizing the entire colon, can confer a survival benefit.”

Another concern is the potential effect on insurance coverage.

Medicare and other insurers use USPSTF guidelines to make coverage decisions. However, because of this mixed message, Dr. Woloski questioned whether there would be more challenges regarding insurance coverage. “Does it mean primary care doctors are going to have to preauthorize a lot of these screenings even if you have shared decision-making with the patient?” he asked.

When it comes to screening referrals, Douglas A. Corley, MD, PhD, a gastroenterologist at Kaiser Permanente in northern California, said it’s critical for primary care physicians to educate patients about the differing views on screening benefits and harms as well as the different screening options.

“Given the different opinions, it is important to let people in this age group know that screening is an option recommended by some groups,” Dr. Corley said. “Colorectal cancer screening is very effective for decreasing the risk for death from colorectal cancer, which is the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States. Making sure all eligible people know this is an option provides the best way for patients to have an informed choice.”

Dr. Lin has already begun talking with patients about the differing recommendations. He said it’s helpful to simplify the issue and focus the conversation on what patients value most. For more assertive patients whose priority is finding every possible cancer early, starting screenings at age 45 may be reasonable, he said, whereas other patients may not find the process or possible side effects worth it.

“And then you have the middle group that decides, ‘Yes, I want to start at 45, but I want the fecal test. I don’t want to just jump into colonoscopy.’ ” Dr. Lin said. “That would be kind of a compromise where you’d be starting screening earlier, but not subjecting yourself to something that has more potential for harms.”

Dr. Woloski said he plans to continue making referrals based on the USPSTF recommendations.

“With every screening, it is about informed decision-making with the patient, but I think for now, since USPSTF still supports the earlier screening, I will probably stick with offering it earlier,” he said.

But when deciding on the appropriate timing for evaluating CRC, the most important distinction is between screening and diagnosis, Dr. Lewis added.

“The former is only appropriate in patients who are truly asymptomatic and who are truly average-risk,” he said. “The latter is critical in any patient with symptoms. I cannot count the number of times I have seen blood in the stool discounted as hemorrhoids without even an exam, digital rectal, or scope, to demonstrate that hemorrhoids are present and the culprit for blood loss.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved etrasimod (Velsipity, Pfizer) for treating moderate to severe active ulcerative colitis (UC) in adults, Pfizer announced on Oct. 13.

Etrasimod is an oral sphingosine-1-phosphate (S1P) receptor that binds with high affinity to receptors 1, 4, and 5. The approved recommended dose is 2 mg once daily.

Etrasimod is the second agent in the S1P class approved for UC in the United States. The other agent, ozanimod (Zeposia, Bristol-Myers Squibb), received FDA approval for moderately to severely active UC in May 2021.

The approval of etrasimod was based on safety and efficacy data from two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trials: ELEVATE UC 52 trial and the ELEVATE UC 12 trial. The Lancet published full results from the two trials in March.

Both trials enrolled patients with UC who had previously failed or were intolerant of at least one conventional, biologic, or Janus kinase inhibitor therapy.

In ELEVATE UC 52, clinical remission at 12 weeks occurred in 27% of patients taking etrasimod versus 7% of patients taking a placebo (20% difference; P < .001). At week 52, remission rates were 32% with active treatment verus 7% with placebo (26% difference; P < .001).

In ELEVATE UC 12, clinical remission was achieved among 26% of patients who received etrasimod versus 15.0% of patients who received placebo (11% difference; P < .05).

Statistically significant improvements were also observed with etrasimod (vs. placebo) on all key secondary endpoints, including endoscopic improvement and mucosal healing at weeks 12 and 52, and corticosteroid-free remission and sustained clinical remission at week 52.

The most common side effects of etrasimod were found to be headache, elevated values on liver tests, worsening of UC, SARS-CoV-2 infection, dizziness, pyrexia, arthralgia, abdominal pain, and nausea. Full prescribing information is available online.

Etrasimod is “a proven advanced treatment with a favorable benefit-risk profile,” Michael Chiorean, MD, codirector of the IBD Center at Swedish Medical Center, Seattle, who is an investigator in the ELEVATE studies, said in a Pfizer news release.

“UC can affect patients differently and many people living with this disease struggle with ongoing symptoms. The introduction of a new treatment for UC could increase options for patients, and we look forward to seeing the impact of Velsipity for patients across the U.S.,” added Michael Osso, president and CEO of the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved etrasimod (Velsipity, Pfizer) for treating moderate to severe active ulcerative colitis (UC) in adults, Pfizer announced on Oct. 13.

Etrasimod is an oral sphingosine-1-phosphate (S1P) receptor that binds with high affinity to receptors 1, 4, and 5. The approved recommended dose is 2 mg once daily.

Etrasimod is the second agent in the S1P class approved for UC in the United States. The other agent, ozanimod (Zeposia, Bristol-Myers Squibb), received FDA approval for moderately to severely active UC in May 2021.

The approval of etrasimod was based on safety and efficacy data from two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trials: ELEVATE UC 52 trial and the ELEVATE UC 12 trial. The Lancet published full results from the two trials in March.

Both trials enrolled patients with UC who had previously failed or were intolerant of at least one conventional, biologic, or Janus kinase inhibitor therapy.

In ELEVATE UC 52, clinical remission at 12 weeks occurred in 27% of patients taking etrasimod versus 7% of patients taking a placebo (20% difference; P < .001). At week 52, remission rates were 32% with active treatment verus 7% with placebo (26% difference; P < .001).

In ELEVATE UC 12, clinical remission was achieved among 26% of patients who received etrasimod versus 15.0% of patients who received placebo (11% difference; P < .05).

Statistically significant improvements were also observed with etrasimod (vs. placebo) on all key secondary endpoints, including endoscopic improvement and mucosal healing at weeks 12 and 52, and corticosteroid-free remission and sustained clinical remission at week 52.

The most common side effects of etrasimod were found to be headache, elevated values on liver tests, worsening of UC, SARS-CoV-2 infection, dizziness, pyrexia, arthralgia, abdominal pain, and nausea. Full prescribing information is available online.

Etrasimod is “a proven advanced treatment with a favorable benefit-risk profile,” Michael Chiorean, MD, codirector of the IBD Center at Swedish Medical Center, Seattle, who is an investigator in the ELEVATE studies, said in a Pfizer news release.

“UC can affect patients differently and many people living with this disease struggle with ongoing symptoms. The introduction of a new treatment for UC could increase options for patients, and we look forward to seeing the impact of Velsipity for patients across the U.S.,” added Michael Osso, president and CEO of the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved etrasimod (Velsipity, Pfizer) for treating moderate to severe active ulcerative colitis (UC) in adults, Pfizer announced on Oct. 13.

Etrasimod is an oral sphingosine-1-phosphate (S1P) receptor that binds with high affinity to receptors 1, 4, and 5. The approved recommended dose is 2 mg once daily.

Etrasimod is the second agent in the S1P class approved for UC in the United States. The other agent, ozanimod (Zeposia, Bristol-Myers Squibb), received FDA approval for moderately to severely active UC in May 2021.

The approval of etrasimod was based on safety and efficacy data from two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trials: ELEVATE UC 52 trial and the ELEVATE UC 12 trial. The Lancet published full results from the two trials in March.

Both trials enrolled patients with UC who had previously failed or were intolerant of at least one conventional, biologic, or Janus kinase inhibitor therapy.

In ELEVATE UC 52, clinical remission at 12 weeks occurred in 27% of patients taking etrasimod versus 7% of patients taking a placebo (20% difference; P < .001). At week 52, remission rates were 32% with active treatment verus 7% with placebo (26% difference; P < .001).

In ELEVATE UC 12, clinical remission was achieved among 26% of patients who received etrasimod versus 15.0% of patients who received placebo (11% difference; P < .05).

Statistically significant improvements were also observed with etrasimod (vs. placebo) on all key secondary endpoints, including endoscopic improvement and mucosal healing at weeks 12 and 52, and corticosteroid-free remission and sustained clinical remission at week 52.

The most common side effects of etrasimod were found to be headache, elevated values on liver tests, worsening of UC, SARS-CoV-2 infection, dizziness, pyrexia, arthralgia, abdominal pain, and nausea. Full prescribing information is available online.

Etrasimod is “a proven advanced treatment with a favorable benefit-risk profile,” Michael Chiorean, MD, codirector of the IBD Center at Swedish Medical Center, Seattle, who is an investigator in the ELEVATE studies, said in a Pfizer news release.

“UC can affect patients differently and many people living with this disease struggle with ongoing symptoms. The introduction of a new treatment for UC could increase options for patients, and we look forward to seeing the impact of Velsipity for patients across the U.S.,” added Michael Osso, president and CEO of the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation.

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

In its September meeting, the safety committee (Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee) of the European Medicines Agency confirmed that atrial fibrillation will now be included as a common side effect in the Summary of Product Characteristics for medicinal products containing omega-3-acid ethyl esters. Should atrial fibrillation develop, intake of the medication must be stopped permanently.

Omega-3-acid ethyl esters are used to treat hypertriglyceridemia if lifestyle changes, particularly those related to nutrition, have not been sufficient to lower the blood triglyceride level. Hypertriglyceridemia is a risk factor for coronary heart disease.

During a Periodic Safety Update Single Assessment Procedure, the EMA safety committee analyzed systematic overviews and meta-analyses of randomized, controlled clinical studies. Experts found a dose-dependent increase in the risk for atrial fibrillation in patients with cardiovascular diseases or cardiovascular risk factors who were being treated with omega-3-acid ethyl esters, compared with those treated with placebo. The observed risk was at its highest at a dose of 4 g/d.

The PRAC will recommend an update to the Summary of Product Characteristics for preparations that contain omega-3-acid ethyl esters. The aim is to inform physicians, pharmacists, and patients of the risk for atrial fibrillation. A notification will be sent to health care professionals soon to inform them of further details.

This article was translated from the Medscape German Edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

In its September meeting, the safety committee (Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee) of the European Medicines Agency confirmed that atrial fibrillation will now be included as a common side effect in the Summary of Product Characteristics for medicinal products containing omega-3-acid ethyl esters. Should atrial fibrillation develop, intake of the medication must be stopped permanently.

Omega-3-acid ethyl esters are used to treat hypertriglyceridemia if lifestyle changes, particularly those related to nutrition, have not been sufficient to lower the blood triglyceride level. Hypertriglyceridemia is a risk factor for coronary heart disease.

During a Periodic Safety Update Single Assessment Procedure, the EMA safety committee analyzed systematic overviews and meta-analyses of randomized, controlled clinical studies. Experts found a dose-dependent increase in the risk for atrial fibrillation in patients with cardiovascular diseases or cardiovascular risk factors who were being treated with omega-3-acid ethyl esters, compared with those treated with placebo. The observed risk was at its highest at a dose of 4 g/d.

The PRAC will recommend an update to the Summary of Product Characteristics for preparations that contain omega-3-acid ethyl esters. The aim is to inform physicians, pharmacists, and patients of the risk for atrial fibrillation. A notification will be sent to health care professionals soon to inform them of further details.

This article was translated from the Medscape German Edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

In its September meeting, the safety committee (Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee) of the European Medicines Agency confirmed that atrial fibrillation will now be included as a common side effect in the Summary of Product Characteristics for medicinal products containing omega-3-acid ethyl esters. Should atrial fibrillation develop, intake of the medication must be stopped permanently.

Omega-3-acid ethyl esters are used to treat hypertriglyceridemia if lifestyle changes, particularly those related to nutrition, have not been sufficient to lower the blood triglyceride level. Hypertriglyceridemia is a risk factor for coronary heart disease.

During a Periodic Safety Update Single Assessment Procedure, the EMA safety committee analyzed systematic overviews and meta-analyses of randomized, controlled clinical studies. Experts found a dose-dependent increase in the risk for atrial fibrillation in patients with cardiovascular diseases or cardiovascular risk factors who were being treated with omega-3-acid ethyl esters, compared with those treated with placebo. The observed risk was at its highest at a dose of 4 g/d.

The PRAC will recommend an update to the Summary of Product Characteristics for preparations that contain omega-3-acid ethyl esters. The aim is to inform physicians, pharmacists, and patients of the risk for atrial fibrillation. A notification will be sent to health care professionals soon to inform them of further details.

This article was translated from the Medscape German Edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

MILAN – Ocrelizumab (Ocrevus) effectively prevents relapse in older patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), researchers have shown for the first time, although the extremely low risk for relapse in this population should be taken into account, they say.

The researchers studied about 700 patients with MS aged 60 years and older from an international database, comparing outcomes with the anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody ocrelizumab versus those for interferon/glatiramer acetate (BRACE). They found ocrelizumab significantly reduced the annual rate of relapses, although after adjustments, patients overall faced a relapse rate of less than 0.1 per year. There were also no significant differences in either disability progression or improvement between the two treatments.

“We believe this study is unique in that ocrelizumab demonstrates a very clear differential treatment benefit in this age group,” said study presenter Yi Chao Foong, MD, department of neuroscience, Monash University, Melbourne. “However, this has to be balanced against the fact that overall relapse activity is extremely low in people with MS over the age of 60. We believe that this study adds valuable, real-world data for nuanced benefit versus risk DMT discussions with for older adults with MS.”

The findings were presented at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS meeting.
 

Lack of data in older patients

Dr. Fong explained the comparative efficacy of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) has not been demonstrated in older people with MS, as all landmark trials to date have excluded people older than age 60 years. He underlined, however, that the inflammatory aspect of MS reduces with age, when neurodegenerative processes begin to predominate.

“This, combined with increased risk of acute infections in older adults have raised concerns over the benefit ratios of DMTs in this age group,” Dr. Fong said.

This has led to several de-escalation studies in older patients already on treatment for MS, but with “varied results.”

One study, published earlier in 2023, was unable to conclude whether DMT discontinuation was noninferior to continuation in older patients with no recent relapse or new MRI activity.

To investigate further, the Australian team used the MSBase database to study patients with a confirmed MS diagnosis who had started or switched to ocrelizumab or BRACE when older than 60 years of age.

They were also required to have undergone an Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) assessment around the time of the initiation of DMT. In all, 675 patients met the inclusion criteria, of whom 248 started with ocrelizumab and 427 with BRACE.

The treatment groups were well balanced, although baseline EDSS scores were higher in patients given ocrelizumab, at 5.22 versus 3.89 with BRACE (P = .05), and they had a lower relapse rate prior in the year (P = .01) and 2 years (P = .02) prior to baseline.
 

Only relapse rates reduced

With more than 571 patient-years of follow-up, there were eight relapses in patients treated with ocrelizumab, compared with 182 relapses during 2238 patient-years among those given BRACE.

The team then performed propensity matching based on patient age, disease duration, sex, baseline EDSS, prior relapses, and prior DMTs.

They found that, over a median follow-up of 2.47 years for ocrelizumab and 4.48 years for BRACE, there was a lower rate of relapse with ocrelizumab, at a weighted annualized relapse rate of 0.01 versus 0.08 (P < .0001). This, they calculated, equated to an ARR ratio in favor of ocrelizumab of 0.15 (P < .01).

The time to first relapse was also longer for ocrelizumab versus BRACE, at a weighted hazard ratio for relapse of 0.11 (P < .001) and with, as Dr. Fong highlighted, separation of the curves at 5 months.

Over a follow-up duration of 3.6 years, there was, however, no significant difference in confirmed disability progression between the two treatments (P = .31), with similar results seen for confirmed disability improvement (P = .92).

Dr. Fong noted the study was limited by an inherent treatment indication bias, affecting the sensitivity analysis and weighing, while assessment of confirmed disability progression and confirmed disability improvement was hampered by the relatively short follow-up period and the lack of data on comorbidities.

He also highlighted the lack of safety data for the study population, as well as the lack of MRI.
 

Muddling the data

Approached for comment, Pavan Bhargava, MBBS, MD, associate professor of neurology, Johns Hopkins Precision Medicine Center of Excellence for Multiple Sclerosis, Baltimore, pointed out the study is based on retrospective data.

“The main question that we normally come up against in clinical practice, once people are older, is: What do you do with their treatment?” he asked.

This, Dr. Bhargava said, was the question that was addressed in the previous de-escalation studies.

The current study “actually answered a completely different question: If you were starting or changing a treatment after 60, which one would be better to choose?” This is a “much rarer scenario,” he said.

The results nevertheless showed what is seen in younger patients; in other words, “a more efficacious treatment is more effective at reducing relapses than a less efficacious treatment, even though overall the number of relapses is quite low,” Dr. Bhargava said.

“The other problem,” he added, is the study included “not just relapsing but also progressive patients, so that kind of muddles the data a little bit.”

Consequently, “it’s hard to really make a definitive conclusion” from the results, Dr. Bhargava concluded.

No funding was declared. Dr. Fong declares relationships with Biogen, National Health and Medical Research Council, Multiple Sclerosis Research Australia, and the Australian and New Zealand Association of Neurologists. Several coauthors also declared financial relationships with industry.

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

MILAN – Ocrelizumab (Ocrevus) effectively prevents relapse in older patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), researchers have shown for the first time, although the extremely low risk for relapse in this population should be taken into account, they say.

The researchers studied about 700 patients with MS aged 60 years and older from an international database, comparing outcomes with the anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody ocrelizumab versus those for interferon/glatiramer acetate (BRACE). They found ocrelizumab significantly reduced the annual rate of relapses, although after adjustments, patients overall faced a relapse rate of less than 0.1 per year. There were also no significant differences in either disability progression or improvement between the two treatments.

“We believe this study is unique in that ocrelizumab demonstrates a very clear differential treatment benefit in this age group,” said study presenter Yi Chao Foong, MD, department of neuroscience, Monash University, Melbourne. “However, this has to be balanced against the fact that overall relapse activity is extremely low in people with MS over the age of 60. We believe that this study adds valuable, real-world data for nuanced benefit versus risk DMT discussions with for older adults with MS.”

The findings were presented at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS meeting.
 

Lack of data in older patients

Dr. Fong explained the comparative efficacy of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) has not been demonstrated in older people with MS, as all landmark trials to date have excluded people older than age 60 years. He underlined, however, that the inflammatory aspect of MS reduces with age, when neurodegenerative processes begin to predominate.

“This, combined with increased risk of acute infections in older adults have raised concerns over the benefit ratios of DMTs in this age group,” Dr. Fong said.

This has led to several de-escalation studies in older patients already on treatment for MS, but with “varied results.”

One study, published earlier in 2023, was unable to conclude whether DMT discontinuation was noninferior to continuation in older patients with no recent relapse or new MRI activity.

To investigate further, the Australian team used the MSBase database to study patients with a confirmed MS diagnosis who had started or switched to ocrelizumab or BRACE when older than 60 years of age.

They were also required to have undergone an Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) assessment around the time of the initiation of DMT. In all, 675 patients met the inclusion criteria, of whom 248 started with ocrelizumab and 427 with BRACE.

The treatment groups were well balanced, although baseline EDSS scores were higher in patients given ocrelizumab, at 5.22 versus 3.89 with BRACE (P = .05), and they had a lower relapse rate prior in the year (P = .01) and 2 years (P = .02) prior to baseline.
 

Only relapse rates reduced

With more than 571 patient-years of follow-up, there were eight relapses in patients treated with ocrelizumab, compared with 182 relapses during 2238 patient-years among those given BRACE.

The team then performed propensity matching based on patient age, disease duration, sex, baseline EDSS, prior relapses, and prior DMTs.

They found that, over a median follow-up of 2.47 years for ocrelizumab and 4.48 years for BRACE, there was a lower rate of relapse with ocrelizumab, at a weighted annualized relapse rate of 0.01 versus 0.08 (P < .0001). This, they calculated, equated to an ARR ratio in favor of ocrelizumab of 0.15 (P < .01).

The time to first relapse was also longer for ocrelizumab versus BRACE, at a weighted hazard ratio for relapse of 0.11 (P < .001) and with, as Dr. Fong highlighted, separation of the curves at 5 months.

Over a follow-up duration of 3.6 years, there was, however, no significant difference in confirmed disability progression between the two treatments (P = .31), with similar results seen for confirmed disability improvement (P = .92).

Dr. Fong noted the study was limited by an inherent treatment indication bias, affecting the sensitivity analysis and weighing, while assessment of confirmed disability progression and confirmed disability improvement was hampered by the relatively short follow-up period and the lack of data on comorbidities.

He also highlighted the lack of safety data for the study population, as well as the lack of MRI.
 

Muddling the data

Approached for comment, Pavan Bhargava, MBBS, MD, associate professor of neurology, Johns Hopkins Precision Medicine Center of Excellence for Multiple Sclerosis, Baltimore, pointed out the study is based on retrospective data.

“The main question that we normally come up against in clinical practice, once people are older, is: What do you do with their treatment?” he asked.

This, Dr. Bhargava said, was the question that was addressed in the previous de-escalation studies.

The current study “actually answered a completely different question: If you were starting or changing a treatment after 60, which one would be better to choose?” This is a “much rarer scenario,” he said.

The results nevertheless showed what is seen in younger patients; in other words, “a more efficacious treatment is more effective at reducing relapses than a less efficacious treatment, even though overall the number of relapses is quite low,” Dr. Bhargava said.

“The other problem,” he added, is the study included “not just relapsing but also progressive patients, so that kind of muddles the data a little bit.”

Consequently, “it’s hard to really make a definitive conclusion” from the results, Dr. Bhargava concluded.

No funding was declared. Dr. Fong declares relationships with Biogen, National Health and Medical Research Council, Multiple Sclerosis Research Australia, and the Australian and New Zealand Association of Neurologists. Several coauthors also declared financial relationships with industry.

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

MILAN – Ocrelizumab (Ocrevus) effectively prevents relapse in older patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), researchers have shown for the first time, although the extremely low risk for relapse in this population should be taken into account, they say.

The researchers studied about 700 patients with MS aged 60 years and older from an international database, comparing outcomes with the anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody ocrelizumab versus those for interferon/glatiramer acetate (BRACE). They found ocrelizumab significantly reduced the annual rate of relapses, although after adjustments, patients overall faced a relapse rate of less than 0.1 per year. There were also no significant differences in either disability progression or improvement between the two treatments.

“We believe this study is unique in that ocrelizumab demonstrates a very clear differential treatment benefit in this age group,” said study presenter Yi Chao Foong, MD, department of neuroscience, Monash University, Melbourne. “However, this has to be balanced against the fact that overall relapse activity is extremely low in people with MS over the age of 60. We believe that this study adds valuable, real-world data for nuanced benefit versus risk DMT discussions with for older adults with MS.”

The findings were presented at the 9th Joint ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS meeting.
 

Lack of data in older patients

Dr. Fong explained the comparative efficacy of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) has not been demonstrated in older people with MS, as all landmark trials to date have excluded people older than age 60 years. He underlined, however, that the inflammatory aspect of MS reduces with age, when neurodegenerative processes begin to predominate.

“This, combined with increased risk of acute infections in older adults have raised concerns over the benefit ratios of DMTs in this age group,” Dr. Fong said.

This has led to several de-escalation studies in older patients already on treatment for MS, but with “varied results.”

One study, published earlier in 2023, was unable to conclude whether DMT discontinuation was noninferior to continuation in older patients with no recent relapse or new MRI activity.

To investigate further, the Australian team used the MSBase database to study patients with a confirmed MS diagnosis who had started or switched to ocrelizumab or BRACE when older than 60 years of age.

They were also required to have undergone an Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) assessment around the time of the initiation of DMT. In all, 675 patients met the inclusion criteria, of whom 248 started with ocrelizumab and 427 with BRACE.

The treatment groups were well balanced, although baseline EDSS scores were higher in patients given ocrelizumab, at 5.22 versus 3.89 with BRACE (P = .05), and they had a lower relapse rate prior in the year (P = .01) and 2 years (P = .02) prior to baseline.
 

Only relapse rates reduced

With more than 571 patient-years of follow-up, there were eight relapses in patients treated with ocrelizumab, compared with 182 relapses during 2238 patient-years among those given BRACE.

The team then performed propensity matching based on patient age, disease duration, sex, baseline EDSS, prior relapses, and prior DMTs.

They found that, over a median follow-up of 2.47 years for ocrelizumab and 4.48 years for BRACE, there was a lower rate of relapse with ocrelizumab, at a weighted annualized relapse rate of 0.01 versus 0.08 (P < .0001). This, they calculated, equated to an ARR ratio in favor of ocrelizumab of 0.15 (P < .01).

The time to first relapse was also longer for ocrelizumab versus BRACE, at a weighted hazard ratio for relapse of 0.11 (P < .001) and with, as Dr. Fong highlighted, separation of the curves at 5 months.

Over a follow-up duration of 3.6 years, there was, however, no significant difference in confirmed disability progression between the two treatments (P = .31), with similar results seen for confirmed disability improvement (P = .92).

Dr. Fong noted the study was limited by an inherent treatment indication bias, affecting the sensitivity analysis and weighing, while assessment of confirmed disability progression and confirmed disability improvement was hampered by the relatively short follow-up period and the lack of data on comorbidities.

He also highlighted the lack of safety data for the study population, as well as the lack of MRI.
 

Muddling the data

Approached for comment, Pavan Bhargava, MBBS, MD, associate professor of neurology, Johns Hopkins Precision Medicine Center of Excellence for Multiple Sclerosis, Baltimore, pointed out the study is based on retrospective data.

“The main question that we normally come up against in clinical practice, once people are older, is: What do you do with their treatment?” he asked.

This, Dr. Bhargava said, was the question that was addressed in the previous de-escalation studies.

The current study “actually answered a completely different question: If you were starting or changing a treatment after 60, which one would be better to choose?” This is a “much rarer scenario,” he said.

The results nevertheless showed what is seen in younger patients; in other words, “a more efficacious treatment is more effective at reducing relapses than a less efficacious treatment, even though overall the number of relapses is quite low,” Dr. Bhargava said.

“The other problem,” he added, is the study included “not just relapsing but also progressive patients, so that kind of muddles the data a little bit.”

Consequently, “it’s hard to really make a definitive conclusion” from the results, Dr. Bhargava concluded.

No funding was declared. Dr. Fong declares relationships with Biogen, National Health and Medical Research Council, Multiple Sclerosis Research Australia, and the Australian and New Zealand Association of Neurologists. Several coauthors also declared financial relationships with industry.

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