Q2. Correct answer: D  
 
Rationale  
Episodic hepatic encephalopathy is usually precipitant-induced in over 80% of cases and includes dehydration, infections, over diuresis, gastrointestinal bleeding, constipation, and the use of narcotics and sedatives. Key is to identify and treat the precipitant. A diagnostic workup to rule out other disorders that can alter brain function and mimic hepatic encephalopathy should also be performed.  
 
Reference  
1. Viltstrup H et al. Hepatic encephalopathy in chronic liver disease: 2014 Practice Guideline by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases and the European Association for the Study of the Liver. Hepatology. 2014;60(2):715-35. 
 
ginews@gastro.org

Q2. Correct answer: D  
 
Rationale  
Episodic hepatic encephalopathy is usually precipitant-induced in over 80% of cases and includes dehydration, infections, over diuresis, gastrointestinal bleeding, constipation, and the use of narcotics and sedatives. Key is to identify and treat the precipitant. A diagnostic workup to rule out other disorders that can alter brain function and mimic hepatic encephalopathy should also be performed.  
 
Reference  
1. Viltstrup H et al. Hepatic encephalopathy in chronic liver disease: 2014 Practice Guideline by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases and the European Association for the Study of the Liver. Hepatology. 2014;60(2):715-35. 
 
ginews@gastro.org

Q2. Correct answer: D  
 
Rationale  
Episodic hepatic encephalopathy is usually precipitant-induced in over 80% of cases and includes dehydration, infections, over diuresis, gastrointestinal bleeding, constipation, and the use of narcotics and sedatives. Key is to identify and treat the precipitant. A diagnostic workup to rule out other disorders that can alter brain function and mimic hepatic encephalopathy should also be performed.  
 
Reference  
1. Viltstrup H et al. Hepatic encephalopathy in chronic liver disease: 2014 Practice Guideline by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases and the European Association for the Study of the Liver. Hepatology. 2014;60(2):715-35. 
 
ginews@gastro.org

Q1. Correct answer: A  
 
Rationale  
In the United States, pigmented stones (black and brown) are less common than cholesterol gallstones. Both types of pigmented stones contain an excess of unconjugated bilirubin and are composed of calcium hydrogen bilirubinate, which is oxidized and polymerized in the hard black stones but unpolymerized in softer brown stones. Black pigmented gallstones are frequently radiopaque and form in sterile bile. Risk factors for black pigmented stones include hemolysis (example, sickle cell disease), cirrhosis, cystic fibrosis, and diseases affecting the ileum (example, Crohn's disease). In contrast, brown stones are more likely to occur in the bile ducts, are radiolucent, and form secondary to biliary stasis (example, biliary stricture) and infection (example, Clonorchis sinensis).  
Obesity, female sex, and hyperlipidemia are risk factors for cholesterol gallstone formation. Octreotide decreases gallbladder motility and long-term use can increase the risk of cholelithiasis.  
 
References  
1. Stinton LM, Myers RP, Shaffer EA. Epidemiology of gallstones. Gastroenterol Clin N Am. 2010;39:157-69.  
2. Vitek L, Carey MC. New pathophysiological concepts underlying pathogenesis of pigment gallstones. Clin Res Hepatol Gastroenterol. 2012;36:122-9.

ginews@gastro.org

Q1. Correct answer: A  
 
Rationale  
In the United States, pigmented stones (black and brown) are less common than cholesterol gallstones. Both types of pigmented stones contain an excess of unconjugated bilirubin and are composed of calcium hydrogen bilirubinate, which is oxidized and polymerized in the hard black stones but unpolymerized in softer brown stones. Black pigmented gallstones are frequently radiopaque and form in sterile bile. Risk factors for black pigmented stones include hemolysis (example, sickle cell disease), cirrhosis, cystic fibrosis, and diseases affecting the ileum (example, Crohn's disease). In contrast, brown stones are more likely to occur in the bile ducts, are radiolucent, and form secondary to biliary stasis (example, biliary stricture) and infection (example, Clonorchis sinensis).  
Obesity, female sex, and hyperlipidemia are risk factors for cholesterol gallstone formation. Octreotide decreases gallbladder motility and long-term use can increase the risk of cholelithiasis.  
 
References  
1. Stinton LM, Myers RP, Shaffer EA. Epidemiology of gallstones. Gastroenterol Clin N Am. 2010;39:157-69.  
2. Vitek L, Carey MC. New pathophysiological concepts underlying pathogenesis of pigment gallstones. Clin Res Hepatol Gastroenterol. 2012;36:122-9.

ginews@gastro.org

Q1. Correct answer: A  
 
Rationale  
In the United States, pigmented stones (black and brown) are less common than cholesterol gallstones. Both types of pigmented stones contain an excess of unconjugated bilirubin and are composed of calcium hydrogen bilirubinate, which is oxidized and polymerized in the hard black stones but unpolymerized in softer brown stones. Black pigmented gallstones are frequently radiopaque and form in sterile bile. Risk factors for black pigmented stones include hemolysis (example, sickle cell disease), cirrhosis, cystic fibrosis, and diseases affecting the ileum (example, Crohn's disease). In contrast, brown stones are more likely to occur in the bile ducts, are radiolucent, and form secondary to biliary stasis (example, biliary stricture) and infection (example, Clonorchis sinensis).  
Obesity, female sex, and hyperlipidemia are risk factors for cholesterol gallstone formation. Octreotide decreases gallbladder motility and long-term use can increase the risk of cholelithiasis.  
 
References  
1. Stinton LM, Myers RP, Shaffer EA. Epidemiology of gallstones. Gastroenterol Clin N Am. 2010;39:157-69.  
2. Vitek L, Carey MC. New pathophysiological concepts underlying pathogenesis of pigment gallstones. Clin Res Hepatol Gastroenterol. 2012;36:122-9.

ginews@gastro.org

Among women with BRCA mutations who underwent risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, the procedure led to a cancer diagnosis in 3%, according to research presented at the virtual annual scientific meeting of the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons.

HRAUN/Getty Images

Of 269 patients, 8 (3%) received a cancer diagnosis. In five cases, the cancer was diagnosed on final pathology, and three had immediate conversion to staging.

The data suggest that gynecologists as well as gynecologic oncologists may perform the procedure, but gynecologists may be less likely to obtain pelvic washings in accordance with guidelines for this indication.

“It may not be necessary for oncologists alone to be performing risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomies given that the overall incidence of cancer is low,” said study author Coralee Toal, MD, of UPMC Magee-Womans Hospital in Pittsburgh. “It is often a diagnosis that is found at the time of pathology, so the initial procedure would not have been changed either way.”

Still, doctors who perform the procedure should follow recommended practices such as obtaining pelvic washings and identifying patients for the procedure within target age ranges, Dr. Toal said.

BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations confer an increased risk of ovarian and breast cancer, but there is no effective form of ovarian cancer screening. Women with a known mutation may have a bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy to reduce the risk of cancer. The recommended age range for the procedure is 35-40 years for women with BRCA1 mutations and 40-45 years for women with BRCA2 mutations.

When the procedure is performed for this indication, various recommendations apply that may differ from those when the procedure is performed under different circumstances.

During risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, the surgeon should thoroughly evaluate the abdominal cavity, obtain pelvic washings for cytology, remove at least 2 cm of the infundibulopelvic ligament, and divide the fallopian tube at the uterine cornua.

To assess the incidence of occult ovarian cancer at the time of risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy and surgeon adherence to recommended practices, Dr. Toal and colleagues performed a retrospective chart review.

They included patients who had a known BRCA mutation and underwent a risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy between July 2007 and September 2018. They excluded patients who had a suspicious adnexal mass before the procedure but not a known diagnosis, as well as patients with another malignancy or genetic syndrome.

The researchers evaluated adherence to recommendations by reviewing operative reports.

In all, they reviewed data from 269 patients. In 220 cases, a gynecologic oncologist performed the procedure, and in 49 cases a gynecologist performed the procedure.

Patients tended to be older than would be expected, said Dr. Toal. Patients with BRCA1 mutations had an average age of 46 years, and patients with BRCA2 mutations had an average age of 49 years.

Patients who received a cancer diagnosis were significantly older on average, compared with the other patients: 58 years versus 48 years.

Pelvic washings were performed during 95% of the procedures performed by a gynecologic oncologist, compared with 63% of the procedures performed by a gynecologist. In addition, patients who had the procedure performed by a gynecologist were significantly older than those who had the procedure performed by a gynecologic oncologist (49 vs. 47 years).

Miles Murphy, MD, president of the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons, asked how doctors should weigh the possibility of risk-reducing oophorectomy at the time of benign hysterectomy in patients without a family history of female cancer.

It could be that genetic testing would be appropriate for some of those patients, Dr. Toal said. It is “important to take a thorough family history to make sure that you are identifying anybody who may benefit from genetic counseling and genetic testing, where you might identify an otherwise not known mutation prior to an otherwise benign or routine surgery,” Dr. Toal said. “Then you would have the opportunity to perform this.”

For patients without known mutations, however, “we do know the benefit of ovaries remaining in situ ... including cardiac health,” she said. “You have to remember that people can die of a broken hip as well. The risk of osteoporosis and those things is not zero and in fact may be much higher than their ovarian cancer risk.”

One of the study authors is a surgeon educator for Covidien and Medtronic.

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Newcomb LK et al. SGS 2020, Abstract 18.

Among women with BRCA mutations who underwent risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, the procedure led to a cancer diagnosis in 3%, according to research presented at the virtual annual scientific meeting of the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons.

HRAUN/Getty Images

Of 269 patients, 8 (3%) received a cancer diagnosis. In five cases, the cancer was diagnosed on final pathology, and three had immediate conversion to staging.

The data suggest that gynecologists as well as gynecologic oncologists may perform the procedure, but gynecologists may be less likely to obtain pelvic washings in accordance with guidelines for this indication.

“It may not be necessary for oncologists alone to be performing risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomies given that the overall incidence of cancer is low,” said study author Coralee Toal, MD, of UPMC Magee-Womans Hospital in Pittsburgh. “It is often a diagnosis that is found at the time of pathology, so the initial procedure would not have been changed either way.”

Still, doctors who perform the procedure should follow recommended practices such as obtaining pelvic washings and identifying patients for the procedure within target age ranges, Dr. Toal said.

BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations confer an increased risk of ovarian and breast cancer, but there is no effective form of ovarian cancer screening. Women with a known mutation may have a bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy to reduce the risk of cancer. The recommended age range for the procedure is 35-40 years for women with BRCA1 mutations and 40-45 years for women with BRCA2 mutations.

When the procedure is performed for this indication, various recommendations apply that may differ from those when the procedure is performed under different circumstances.

During risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, the surgeon should thoroughly evaluate the abdominal cavity, obtain pelvic washings for cytology, remove at least 2 cm of the infundibulopelvic ligament, and divide the fallopian tube at the uterine cornua.

To assess the incidence of occult ovarian cancer at the time of risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy and surgeon adherence to recommended practices, Dr. Toal and colleagues performed a retrospective chart review.

They included patients who had a known BRCA mutation and underwent a risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy between July 2007 and September 2018. They excluded patients who had a suspicious adnexal mass before the procedure but not a known diagnosis, as well as patients with another malignancy or genetic syndrome.

The researchers evaluated adherence to recommendations by reviewing operative reports.

In all, they reviewed data from 269 patients. In 220 cases, a gynecologic oncologist performed the procedure, and in 49 cases a gynecologist performed the procedure.

Patients tended to be older than would be expected, said Dr. Toal. Patients with BRCA1 mutations had an average age of 46 years, and patients with BRCA2 mutations had an average age of 49 years.

Patients who received a cancer diagnosis were significantly older on average, compared with the other patients: 58 years versus 48 years.

Pelvic washings were performed during 95% of the procedures performed by a gynecologic oncologist, compared with 63% of the procedures performed by a gynecologist. In addition, patients who had the procedure performed by a gynecologist were significantly older than those who had the procedure performed by a gynecologic oncologist (49 vs. 47 years).

Miles Murphy, MD, president of the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons, asked how doctors should weigh the possibility of risk-reducing oophorectomy at the time of benign hysterectomy in patients without a family history of female cancer.

It could be that genetic testing would be appropriate for some of those patients, Dr. Toal said. It is “important to take a thorough family history to make sure that you are identifying anybody who may benefit from genetic counseling and genetic testing, where you might identify an otherwise not known mutation prior to an otherwise benign or routine surgery,” Dr. Toal said. “Then you would have the opportunity to perform this.”

For patients without known mutations, however, “we do know the benefit of ovaries remaining in situ ... including cardiac health,” she said. “You have to remember that people can die of a broken hip as well. The risk of osteoporosis and those things is not zero and in fact may be much higher than their ovarian cancer risk.”

One of the study authors is a surgeon educator for Covidien and Medtronic.

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Newcomb LK et al. SGS 2020, Abstract 18.

Among women with BRCA mutations who underwent risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, the procedure led to a cancer diagnosis in 3%, according to research presented at the virtual annual scientific meeting of the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons.

HRAUN/Getty Images

Of 269 patients, 8 (3%) received a cancer diagnosis. In five cases, the cancer was diagnosed on final pathology, and three had immediate conversion to staging.

The data suggest that gynecologists as well as gynecologic oncologists may perform the procedure, but gynecologists may be less likely to obtain pelvic washings in accordance with guidelines for this indication.

“It may not be necessary for oncologists alone to be performing risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomies given that the overall incidence of cancer is low,” said study author Coralee Toal, MD, of UPMC Magee-Womans Hospital in Pittsburgh. “It is often a diagnosis that is found at the time of pathology, so the initial procedure would not have been changed either way.”

Still, doctors who perform the procedure should follow recommended practices such as obtaining pelvic washings and identifying patients for the procedure within target age ranges, Dr. Toal said.

BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations confer an increased risk of ovarian and breast cancer, but there is no effective form of ovarian cancer screening. Women with a known mutation may have a bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy to reduce the risk of cancer. The recommended age range for the procedure is 35-40 years for women with BRCA1 mutations and 40-45 years for women with BRCA2 mutations.

When the procedure is performed for this indication, various recommendations apply that may differ from those when the procedure is performed under different circumstances.

During risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, the surgeon should thoroughly evaluate the abdominal cavity, obtain pelvic washings for cytology, remove at least 2 cm of the infundibulopelvic ligament, and divide the fallopian tube at the uterine cornua.

To assess the incidence of occult ovarian cancer at the time of risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy and surgeon adherence to recommended practices, Dr. Toal and colleagues performed a retrospective chart review.

They included patients who had a known BRCA mutation and underwent a risk-reducing bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy between July 2007 and September 2018. They excluded patients who had a suspicious adnexal mass before the procedure but not a known diagnosis, as well as patients with another malignancy or genetic syndrome.

The researchers evaluated adherence to recommendations by reviewing operative reports.

In all, they reviewed data from 269 patients. In 220 cases, a gynecologic oncologist performed the procedure, and in 49 cases a gynecologist performed the procedure.

Patients tended to be older than would be expected, said Dr. Toal. Patients with BRCA1 mutations had an average age of 46 years, and patients with BRCA2 mutations had an average age of 49 years.

Patients who received a cancer diagnosis were significantly older on average, compared with the other patients: 58 years versus 48 years.

Pelvic washings were performed during 95% of the procedures performed by a gynecologic oncologist, compared with 63% of the procedures performed by a gynecologist. In addition, patients who had the procedure performed by a gynecologist were significantly older than those who had the procedure performed by a gynecologic oncologist (49 vs. 47 years).

Miles Murphy, MD, president of the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons, asked how doctors should weigh the possibility of risk-reducing oophorectomy at the time of benign hysterectomy in patients without a family history of female cancer.

It could be that genetic testing would be appropriate for some of those patients, Dr. Toal said. It is “important to take a thorough family history to make sure that you are identifying anybody who may benefit from genetic counseling and genetic testing, where you might identify an otherwise not known mutation prior to an otherwise benign or routine surgery,” Dr. Toal said. “Then you would have the opportunity to perform this.”

For patients without known mutations, however, “we do know the benefit of ovaries remaining in situ ... including cardiac health,” she said. “You have to remember that people can die of a broken hip as well. The risk of osteoporosis and those things is not zero and in fact may be much higher than their ovarian cancer risk.”

One of the study authors is a surgeon educator for Covidien and Medtronic.

jremaly@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Newcomb LK et al. SGS 2020, Abstract 18.

Higher continence rates were seen after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) than after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) in the first large-scale, prospective, multicenter, randomized trial to compare the two surgical approaches.

At 3 months, 54.3% of prostate cancer patients who underwent RARP and 45.6% of those who had LRP were continent after catheter removal (P = .027).

“We did use a very strong definition for continence, meaning no pad or safety pad; patients wearing one pad per day we’re not classified as continent,” said study investigator Jens-Uwe Stolzenburg, MD, PhD, professor and head of urology at the University of Leipzig Hospital in Germany.

Dr. Stolzenburg presented these findings at the European Association of Urology virtual annual congress.

The findings fit with previous research showing higher continence rates with RARP (69%-80%) than with LRP (62%-63%), although those studies did not always find the difference to be statistically significant, and higher quality evidence was needed (J Sex Med. 2011 May;8[5]:1503-12; Eur Urol. 2013 Apr;63[4]:606-14). “Up to now, there are only two randomized studies published in the literature comparing robotic and classical laparoscopic prostatectomy, and my point of view is that there are strong limitations of both studies,” Dr. Stolzenburg said.

“First of all, both studies are based on the single experience of surgeons, so only one surgeon has performed surgery. The second limitation is the limited numbers of patients included,” he observed. One study had 64 patients in each arm, and the other had 60 patients in each arm.
 

Providing higher quality evidence

Dr. Stolzenburg presented results of the LAP-01 study, which was designed to close the knowledge gap and determine if there really was an advantage for RARP over LRP for preserving continence.

The trial was conducted at three academic centers and one public hospital in Germany. The final analysis included 718 patients with prostate cancer referred for prostate surgery. They were randomized, in a ratio of three to one, to undergo RARP (n = 530) or LRP (n = 188), being unaware themselves of which surgery they would be having until the 3-month primary endpoint.

In addition to improved continence over LRP, RARP was associated with significantly better erectile function at 3 months (P = .016), as measured by the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF).

That said, erectile function was still severely affected by both surgical procedures. Total IIEF scores were 6.0 with RARP and 4.7 with LRP, compared with 15.9 and 16.2, respectively, at baseline.

A higher percentage of men who had nerve-sparing procedures reported having an erection suitable for sexual intercourse at 2 months in the RARP group than in the LRP group (17.7% vs. 6.7%, P = .007).

The complication rate was “a little bit higher” in the LRP group than in the RARP group, “but the difference was not statistically significant,” Dr. Stolzenburg said. He added that “the most frequent complication was anastomotic leakage, and most complications overall were low-grade complications in both groups.”
 

Multicenter experience

The potential for prostatectomy to have effects on urinary continence and sexual function are important issues that need to be discussed upfront with patients, observed Alexandre de la Taille, MD, PhD, who was invited to discuss the study.

Current European guidance says “there is no surgical approach – open, laparoscopic, or robotic radical prostatectomy – that has proven superiority in terms of functional or oncological results,” he said. However, the LAP-01 study “found that the continence rate was better when we use a robotic approach compared to a laparoscopic approach.”

Dr. de la Taille, who is professor and chair of the urology service at CHU Mondor in Cretéil, France, also highlighted that this result was achieved with no increase in the morbidity profile or compromise of cancer control.

“My very first impression is that we are missing a little bit, some granularity of the data in terms of one key question, which is volume of surgery,” said the chair of the session Alberto Briganti, MD, PhD, associate professor of urology at Università Vita-Salute San Raffaele, and deputy director of the Urological Research Institute of IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, both in Milan.

“We know that recovery of outcomes is volume-dependent, both in the laparoscopic and robotic setting,” Dr. Briganti added.

“This is really a multicenter study including a lot of surgeons,” Dr. de la Taille countered, agreeing that the volume of surgeries might be something the LAP-01 study investigators could look at in a sub-analysis.

“Of course, some of them have a huge experience in the robotic approach and some of them a lower experience of the robotic approach, but when you put all together, there is a better continence recovery at 3 months when compared to the laparoscopic approach,” Dr. de la Taille said.

Calling the study a “real-life practice study,” he noted that urinary continence at 12 months might be a stronger endpoint, and the difference between the two surgical approaches may become less with time.

“But for the patient, again, daily practice, it’s better to have early urinary continence recovery compared to a late recovery,” Dr. de la Taille said.

This study was funded by the University of Leipzig via a German Cancer Aid grant. All speakers declared no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Stolzenburg J-E. EAU20, Abstract.

Higher continence rates were seen after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) than after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) in the first large-scale, prospective, multicenter, randomized trial to compare the two surgical approaches.

At 3 months, 54.3% of prostate cancer patients who underwent RARP and 45.6% of those who had LRP were continent after catheter removal (P = .027).

“We did use a very strong definition for continence, meaning no pad or safety pad; patients wearing one pad per day we’re not classified as continent,” said study investigator Jens-Uwe Stolzenburg, MD, PhD, professor and head of urology at the University of Leipzig Hospital in Germany.

Dr. Stolzenburg presented these findings at the European Association of Urology virtual annual congress.

The findings fit with previous research showing higher continence rates with RARP (69%-80%) than with LRP (62%-63%), although those studies did not always find the difference to be statistically significant, and higher quality evidence was needed (J Sex Med. 2011 May;8[5]:1503-12; Eur Urol. 2013 Apr;63[4]:606-14). “Up to now, there are only two randomized studies published in the literature comparing robotic and classical laparoscopic prostatectomy, and my point of view is that there are strong limitations of both studies,” Dr. Stolzenburg said.

“First of all, both studies are based on the single experience of surgeons, so only one surgeon has performed surgery. The second limitation is the limited numbers of patients included,” he observed. One study had 64 patients in each arm, and the other had 60 patients in each arm.
 

Providing higher quality evidence

Dr. Stolzenburg presented results of the LAP-01 study, which was designed to close the knowledge gap and determine if there really was an advantage for RARP over LRP for preserving continence.

The trial was conducted at three academic centers and one public hospital in Germany. The final analysis included 718 patients with prostate cancer referred for prostate surgery. They were randomized, in a ratio of three to one, to undergo RARP (n = 530) or LRP (n = 188), being unaware themselves of which surgery they would be having until the 3-month primary endpoint.

In addition to improved continence over LRP, RARP was associated with significantly better erectile function at 3 months (P = .016), as measured by the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF).

That said, erectile function was still severely affected by both surgical procedures. Total IIEF scores were 6.0 with RARP and 4.7 with LRP, compared with 15.9 and 16.2, respectively, at baseline.

A higher percentage of men who had nerve-sparing procedures reported having an erection suitable for sexual intercourse at 2 months in the RARP group than in the LRP group (17.7% vs. 6.7%, P = .007).

The complication rate was “a little bit higher” in the LRP group than in the RARP group, “but the difference was not statistically significant,” Dr. Stolzenburg said. He added that “the most frequent complication was anastomotic leakage, and most complications overall were low-grade complications in both groups.”
 

Multicenter experience

The potential for prostatectomy to have effects on urinary continence and sexual function are important issues that need to be discussed upfront with patients, observed Alexandre de la Taille, MD, PhD, who was invited to discuss the study.

Current European guidance says “there is no surgical approach – open, laparoscopic, or robotic radical prostatectomy – that has proven superiority in terms of functional or oncological results,” he said. However, the LAP-01 study “found that the continence rate was better when we use a robotic approach compared to a laparoscopic approach.”

Dr. de la Taille, who is professor and chair of the urology service at CHU Mondor in Cretéil, France, also highlighted that this result was achieved with no increase in the morbidity profile or compromise of cancer control.

“My very first impression is that we are missing a little bit, some granularity of the data in terms of one key question, which is volume of surgery,” said the chair of the session Alberto Briganti, MD, PhD, associate professor of urology at Università Vita-Salute San Raffaele, and deputy director of the Urological Research Institute of IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, both in Milan.

“We know that recovery of outcomes is volume-dependent, both in the laparoscopic and robotic setting,” Dr. Briganti added.

“This is really a multicenter study including a lot of surgeons,” Dr. de la Taille countered, agreeing that the volume of surgeries might be something the LAP-01 study investigators could look at in a sub-analysis.

“Of course, some of them have a huge experience in the robotic approach and some of them a lower experience of the robotic approach, but when you put all together, there is a better continence recovery at 3 months when compared to the laparoscopic approach,” Dr. de la Taille said.

Calling the study a “real-life practice study,” he noted that urinary continence at 12 months might be a stronger endpoint, and the difference between the two surgical approaches may become less with time.

“But for the patient, again, daily practice, it’s better to have early urinary continence recovery compared to a late recovery,” Dr. de la Taille said.

This study was funded by the University of Leipzig via a German Cancer Aid grant. All speakers declared no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Stolzenburg J-E. EAU20, Abstract.

Higher continence rates were seen after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) than after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) in the first large-scale, prospective, multicenter, randomized trial to compare the two surgical approaches.

At 3 months, 54.3% of prostate cancer patients who underwent RARP and 45.6% of those who had LRP were continent after catheter removal (P = .027).

“We did use a very strong definition for continence, meaning no pad or safety pad; patients wearing one pad per day we’re not classified as continent,” said study investigator Jens-Uwe Stolzenburg, MD, PhD, professor and head of urology at the University of Leipzig Hospital in Germany.

Dr. Stolzenburg presented these findings at the European Association of Urology virtual annual congress.

The findings fit with previous research showing higher continence rates with RARP (69%-80%) than with LRP (62%-63%), although those studies did not always find the difference to be statistically significant, and higher quality evidence was needed (J Sex Med. 2011 May;8[5]:1503-12; Eur Urol. 2013 Apr;63[4]:606-14). “Up to now, there are only two randomized studies published in the literature comparing robotic and classical laparoscopic prostatectomy, and my point of view is that there are strong limitations of both studies,” Dr. Stolzenburg said.

“First of all, both studies are based on the single experience of surgeons, so only one surgeon has performed surgery. The second limitation is the limited numbers of patients included,” he observed. One study had 64 patients in each arm, and the other had 60 patients in each arm.
 

Providing higher quality evidence

Dr. Stolzenburg presented results of the LAP-01 study, which was designed to close the knowledge gap and determine if there really was an advantage for RARP over LRP for preserving continence.

The trial was conducted at three academic centers and one public hospital in Germany. The final analysis included 718 patients with prostate cancer referred for prostate surgery. They were randomized, in a ratio of three to one, to undergo RARP (n = 530) or LRP (n = 188), being unaware themselves of which surgery they would be having until the 3-month primary endpoint.

In addition to improved continence over LRP, RARP was associated with significantly better erectile function at 3 months (P = .016), as measured by the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF).

That said, erectile function was still severely affected by both surgical procedures. Total IIEF scores were 6.0 with RARP and 4.7 with LRP, compared with 15.9 and 16.2, respectively, at baseline.

A higher percentage of men who had nerve-sparing procedures reported having an erection suitable for sexual intercourse at 2 months in the RARP group than in the LRP group (17.7% vs. 6.7%, P = .007).

The complication rate was “a little bit higher” in the LRP group than in the RARP group, “but the difference was not statistically significant,” Dr. Stolzenburg said. He added that “the most frequent complication was anastomotic leakage, and most complications overall were low-grade complications in both groups.”
 

Multicenter experience

The potential for prostatectomy to have effects on urinary continence and sexual function are important issues that need to be discussed upfront with patients, observed Alexandre de la Taille, MD, PhD, who was invited to discuss the study.

Current European guidance says “there is no surgical approach – open, laparoscopic, or robotic radical prostatectomy – that has proven superiority in terms of functional or oncological results,” he said. However, the LAP-01 study “found that the continence rate was better when we use a robotic approach compared to a laparoscopic approach.”

Dr. de la Taille, who is professor and chair of the urology service at CHU Mondor in Cretéil, France, also highlighted that this result was achieved with no increase in the morbidity profile or compromise of cancer control.

“My very first impression is that we are missing a little bit, some granularity of the data in terms of one key question, which is volume of surgery,” said the chair of the session Alberto Briganti, MD, PhD, associate professor of urology at Università Vita-Salute San Raffaele, and deputy director of the Urological Research Institute of IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, both in Milan.

“We know that recovery of outcomes is volume-dependent, both in the laparoscopic and robotic setting,” Dr. Briganti added.

“This is really a multicenter study including a lot of surgeons,” Dr. de la Taille countered, agreeing that the volume of surgeries might be something the LAP-01 study investigators could look at in a sub-analysis.

“Of course, some of them have a huge experience in the robotic approach and some of them a lower experience of the robotic approach, but when you put all together, there is a better continence recovery at 3 months when compared to the laparoscopic approach,” Dr. de la Taille said.

Calling the study a “real-life practice study,” he noted that urinary continence at 12 months might be a stronger endpoint, and the difference between the two surgical approaches may become less with time.

“But for the patient, again, daily practice, it’s better to have early urinary continence recovery compared to a late recovery,” Dr. de la Taille said.

This study was funded by the University of Leipzig via a German Cancer Aid grant. All speakers declared no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Stolzenburg J-E. EAU20, Abstract.

Evidence that the heart can take a major hit in patients hospitalized with COVID-19, especially those already with cardiovascular disease (CV) or its risk factors, has been sadly apparent from the pandemic’s earliest days.

Less clear from case studies and small series to date has been whether SARS-CoV-2 directly attacks the heart and whether acute cardiac effects of the illness may lead to some kind of lingering cardiomyopathy.

The field’s grasp of those issues advanced a bit in two new reports published July 27 in JAMA Cardiology that seem to validate concerns the virus can infect the myocardium, without necessarily causing myocarditis and the possibility that some “recovered” patients may be left with persisting myocardial injury and inflammation that potentially could later manifest as heart failure.

Persisting inflammation by cardiac magnetic resonance

A prospective cohort study with 100 patients recovered from a recent bout of the disease showed evidence of ventricular dysfunction, greater ventricular mass, and in 78% of the cohort, signs of myocardial inflammation by cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging. The CMR findings correlated with elevations in troponin T by high-sensitivity assay (hs-TnT).

Two-thirds of the cohort, whose acute COVID-19 severity had “ranged from asymptomatic to minor-to-moderate symptoms,” had recovered at home, whereas the remaining “severely unwell patients” had been hospitalized, wrote the authors, led by Valentina O. Püntmann, MD, PhD, University Hospital Frankfurt (Germany).

None of the patients had a history of heart failure or cardiomyopathy, although some had hypertension, diabetes, or evidence of coronary disease.

“Our findings demonstrate that participants with a relative paucity of preexisting cardiovascular condition and with mostly home-based recovery had frequent cardiac inflammatory involvement, which was similar to the hospitalized subgroup with regards to severity and extent,” the group noted.

“There is a considerable ongoing myocardial inflammation in the heart muscle weeks after recovery from COVID-19 illness. This finding is important because it may herald a considerable burden of heart failure in a few years down the line,” Dr. Püntmann said in an interview.

Early diagnosis would offer “a good chance that early treatment could reduce the relentless course of inflammatory damage or even halt it,” she said.

“The relatively clear onset of COVID-19 illness provides an opportunity, which we often do not have with other conditions, to take a proactive action and to look for heart involvement early, within a few weeks of recovery.”

The study’s CMR evidence of inflammation edema, scarring, and pericardial effusion are among “the major diagnostic criteria for inflammatory and viral myocarditis,” observed Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, from Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, who wasn’t part of either new study.

The findings suggest – consistent with previous evidence – that some patients with recent COVID-19 may be left with ongoing myocardial inflammation, and this study further adds that it could potentially become subacute or even chronic and in some may not be totally reversible, she said in an interview. How long the effects are likely to persist “remains to be determined. We need longer-term outcomes data.”

Viral presence without myocarditis

The accompanying report featured a postmortem analysis of hearts from 39 patients with mostly severe COVID-19 that pointed to a significant SARS-CoV-2 presence and signs that the virus vigorously replicated in the myocardium.

But there was no evidence that the infection led to fulminant myocarditis. Rather, the virus had apparently infiltrated the heart by localizing in interstitial cells or in macrophages that took up in the myocardium without actually entering myocytes, concluded the report’s authors, led by Diana Lindner, PhD, from the University Heart and Vascular Centre, Hamburg (Germany).

The findings suggest “that the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in cardiac tissue does not necessarily cause an inflammatory reaction consistent with clinical myocarditis,” the group wrote.

Previously in the literature, in “cases in which myocardial inflammation was present, there was also evidence of clinical myocarditis, and therefore the current cases underlie a different pathophysiology,” they concluded.

No evidence of the virus was seen in 15 cases, about 61% of the group. In 16 of the remaining 24 hearts, the viral load exceeded 1,000 copies per mcg of RNA, a substantial presence. Those 16 showed increased expression of inflammatory cytokines but no inflammatory cell infiltrates or changes in leukocyte counts, the researchers noted.

“Findings of suggested viral replication in the cases with a very high viral load are showing that we need to do more studies to find out long-term consequences, which we do not know right now,” senior author Dirk Westermann, MD, also from the University Heart and Vascular Centre, Hamburg, said.

Implications for heart failure

The postmortem findings from Dr. Lindner and associates “provide intriguing evidence that COVID-19 is associated with at least some component of myocardial injury, perhaps as the result of direct viral infection of the heart,” wrote Clyde W. Yancy, MD, MSc, from Northwestern University, Chicago, and Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, from the University of California, Los Angeles, in an editorial accompanying both reports.

The CMR study from Dr. Püntmann and colleagues – on the backdrop of earlier COVID-19 observations – suggests the potential for “residual left ventricular dysfunction and ongoing inflammation” in the months following a COVID-19 diagnosis. Both developments may be “of sufficient concern to represent a nidus for new-onset heart failure and other cardiovascular complications,” contend Dr. Yancy and Dr. Fonarow.

“When added to the postmortem pathological findings from Lindner et al, we see the plot thickening and we are inclined to raise a new and very evident concern that cardiomyopathy and heart failure related to COVID-19 may potentially evolve as the natural history of this infection becomes clearer,” they wrote.

Some patients, having recovered from the acute illness, may be left with a chronic inflammatory state that probably puts them at increased risk for future heart failure, agreed Dr. Bozkurt when interviewed. “They could show further decline in cardiac function, and their recovery might take longer than with the usual viral illnesses that we see,” she said.

“There could also be a risk of sudden death. Inflammation sometimes gives rise to sudden death and ventricular arrhythmia, which I would be very worried about, especially if the myocardium is stressed,” Dr. Bozkurt said. “So competitive sports in those patients potentially could be risky.”

COVID-19 cohort vs. matched control subjects

The CMR study from Dr. Püntmann and colleagues prospectively entered 100 patients recently recovered from an acute bout of COVID-19, either at home or at a hospital, who were followed in a registry based at University Hospital Frankfurt. Their median age was 49 years; 47% were female. They were compared with 50 age- and sex-matched control patients and 50 apparently healthy volunteers matched for risk factors, the group noted.

On the same day as the CMR assessment, the recently recovered patients, compared with the healthy control subjects and risk-factor matched control subjects, respectively, showed (P ≤ .001 in each case):

• A reduced left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction: 56% vs. 60% and 61%.
• A higher LV end-diastolic volume index: 86 mL/m² vs. 80 mL/m² and 75 mL/m^2.
• A greater LV mass index: 51 g/m² vs. 47 g/m² and 53 g/m^2.
• A higher hs-TnT level: 5.6 pg/mL vs. 3.2 pg/mL and 3.9 pg/mL.
• A greater prevalence of hs-TnT levels 3 pg/mL or more: 71% vs. 11% and 31%.

At CMR, 78% of the recovered COVID-19 patients showed abnormalities that included raised myocardial native T1 and T2 mapping, which is suggestive of fibrosis and edema from inflammation, compared with the two control groups (P < .001 for all differences), “independent of preexisting conditions, severity and overall course of the acute illness, and the time from the original diagnosis,” the group wrote. Native T1 and T2 mapping correlated significantly with hs-TnT.

“We now have the diagnostic means to detect cardiac inflammation early, and we need make every effort to apply them in every day practice,”Dr. Püntmann said in the interview.

“Using cardiac MRI will allow us to raise our game against COVID-19 and proactively develop efficient cardioprotective treatments,” she said. “Until we have effective means of protecting from the infection, that is vaccination, we must act swiftly and within the means at hand.”

The analysis evokes several other ways patients with COVID-19 might be screened for significant myocardial involvement.

“Strategies could include checking troponins, not only at admission but maybe at discharge and perhaps even those individuals who are at home and are not necessarily requiring care,” Dr. Bozkurt said.

“Biomarker profiling and screening for ongoing inflammation probably are going to be important components of COVID-19, especially for those with subclinical risk and disease.”

Dr. Westermann proposed that troponin elevations at discharge “might be a good starting point” for selecting COVID-19 patients for functional testing or imaging to screen for cardiac sequelae. Performing such tests routinely now “would be overwhelming given the massive increase in patients we still see today.”

Dr. Püntmann had no disclosures; statements of potential conflict for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Bozkurt has previously disclosed receiving consultant fees or honoraria from Bayer Healthcare, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lantheus Medical Imaging, and Respicardia; serving on a data safety monitoring board for LivaNova USA ; and having unspecified relationships with Abbott Laboratories. Dr. Lindner had no disclosures; Dr. Westermann reported receiving personal fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Novartis, and Medtronic. Dr. Yancy is a deputy editor and Dr. Fonarow a section editor for JAMA Cardiology. Dr. Yancy had no other disclosures. Dr. Fonarow reported receiving personal fees from Abbott Laboratories, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, CHF Solutions, Edwards Lifesciences, Janssen, Medtronic, Merck, and Novartis.

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

Evidence that the heart can take a major hit in patients hospitalized with COVID-19, especially those already with cardiovascular disease (CV) or its risk factors, has been sadly apparent from the pandemic’s earliest days.

Less clear from case studies and small series to date has been whether SARS-CoV-2 directly attacks the heart and whether acute cardiac effects of the illness may lead to some kind of lingering cardiomyopathy.

The field’s grasp of those issues advanced a bit in two new reports published July 27 in JAMA Cardiology that seem to validate concerns the virus can infect the myocardium, without necessarily causing myocarditis and the possibility that some “recovered” patients may be left with persisting myocardial injury and inflammation that potentially could later manifest as heart failure.

Persisting inflammation by cardiac magnetic resonance

A prospective cohort study with 100 patients recovered from a recent bout of the disease showed evidence of ventricular dysfunction, greater ventricular mass, and in 78% of the cohort, signs of myocardial inflammation by cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging. The CMR findings correlated with elevations in troponin T by high-sensitivity assay (hs-TnT).

Two-thirds of the cohort, whose acute COVID-19 severity had “ranged from asymptomatic to minor-to-moderate symptoms,” had recovered at home, whereas the remaining “severely unwell patients” had been hospitalized, wrote the authors, led by Valentina O. Püntmann, MD, PhD, University Hospital Frankfurt (Germany).

None of the patients had a history of heart failure or cardiomyopathy, although some had hypertension, diabetes, or evidence of coronary disease.

“Our findings demonstrate that participants with a relative paucity of preexisting cardiovascular condition and with mostly home-based recovery had frequent cardiac inflammatory involvement, which was similar to the hospitalized subgroup with regards to severity and extent,” the group noted.

“There is a considerable ongoing myocardial inflammation in the heart muscle weeks after recovery from COVID-19 illness. This finding is important because it may herald a considerable burden of heart failure in a few years down the line,” Dr. Püntmann said in an interview.

Early diagnosis would offer “a good chance that early treatment could reduce the relentless course of inflammatory damage or even halt it,” she said.

“The relatively clear onset of COVID-19 illness provides an opportunity, which we often do not have with other conditions, to take a proactive action and to look for heart involvement early, within a few weeks of recovery.”

The study’s CMR evidence of inflammation edema, scarring, and pericardial effusion are among “the major diagnostic criteria for inflammatory and viral myocarditis,” observed Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, from Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, who wasn’t part of either new study.

The findings suggest – consistent with previous evidence – that some patients with recent COVID-19 may be left with ongoing myocardial inflammation, and this study further adds that it could potentially become subacute or even chronic and in some may not be totally reversible, she said in an interview. How long the effects are likely to persist “remains to be determined. We need longer-term outcomes data.”

Viral presence without myocarditis

The accompanying report featured a postmortem analysis of hearts from 39 patients with mostly severe COVID-19 that pointed to a significant SARS-CoV-2 presence and signs that the virus vigorously replicated in the myocardium.

But there was no evidence that the infection led to fulminant myocarditis. Rather, the virus had apparently infiltrated the heart by localizing in interstitial cells or in macrophages that took up in the myocardium without actually entering myocytes, concluded the report’s authors, led by Diana Lindner, PhD, from the University Heart and Vascular Centre, Hamburg (Germany).

The findings suggest “that the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in cardiac tissue does not necessarily cause an inflammatory reaction consistent with clinical myocarditis,” the group wrote.

Previously in the literature, in “cases in which myocardial inflammation was present, there was also evidence of clinical myocarditis, and therefore the current cases underlie a different pathophysiology,” they concluded.

No evidence of the virus was seen in 15 cases, about 61% of the group. In 16 of the remaining 24 hearts, the viral load exceeded 1,000 copies per mcg of RNA, a substantial presence. Those 16 showed increased expression of inflammatory cytokines but no inflammatory cell infiltrates or changes in leukocyte counts, the researchers noted.

“Findings of suggested viral replication in the cases with a very high viral load are showing that we need to do more studies to find out long-term consequences, which we do not know right now,” senior author Dirk Westermann, MD, also from the University Heart and Vascular Centre, Hamburg, said.

Implications for heart failure

The postmortem findings from Dr. Lindner and associates “provide intriguing evidence that COVID-19 is associated with at least some component of myocardial injury, perhaps as the result of direct viral infection of the heart,” wrote Clyde W. Yancy, MD, MSc, from Northwestern University, Chicago, and Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, from the University of California, Los Angeles, in an editorial accompanying both reports.

The CMR study from Dr. Püntmann and colleagues – on the backdrop of earlier COVID-19 observations – suggests the potential for “residual left ventricular dysfunction and ongoing inflammation” in the months following a COVID-19 diagnosis. Both developments may be “of sufficient concern to represent a nidus for new-onset heart failure and other cardiovascular complications,” contend Dr. Yancy and Dr. Fonarow.

“When added to the postmortem pathological findings from Lindner et al, we see the plot thickening and we are inclined to raise a new and very evident concern that cardiomyopathy and heart failure related to COVID-19 may potentially evolve as the natural history of this infection becomes clearer,” they wrote.

Some patients, having recovered from the acute illness, may be left with a chronic inflammatory state that probably puts them at increased risk for future heart failure, agreed Dr. Bozkurt when interviewed. “They could show further decline in cardiac function, and their recovery might take longer than with the usual viral illnesses that we see,” she said.

“There could also be a risk of sudden death. Inflammation sometimes gives rise to sudden death and ventricular arrhythmia, which I would be very worried about, especially if the myocardium is stressed,” Dr. Bozkurt said. “So competitive sports in those patients potentially could be risky.”

COVID-19 cohort vs. matched control subjects

The CMR study from Dr. Püntmann and colleagues prospectively entered 100 patients recently recovered from an acute bout of COVID-19, either at home or at a hospital, who were followed in a registry based at University Hospital Frankfurt. Their median age was 49 years; 47% were female. They were compared with 50 age- and sex-matched control patients and 50 apparently healthy volunteers matched for risk factors, the group noted.

On the same day as the CMR assessment, the recently recovered patients, compared with the healthy control subjects and risk-factor matched control subjects, respectively, showed (P ≤ .001 in each case):

• A reduced left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction: 56% vs. 60% and 61%.
• A higher LV end-diastolic volume index: 86 mL/m² vs. 80 mL/m² and 75 mL/m^2.
• A greater LV mass index: 51 g/m² vs. 47 g/m² and 53 g/m^2.
• A higher hs-TnT level: 5.6 pg/mL vs. 3.2 pg/mL and 3.9 pg/mL.
• A greater prevalence of hs-TnT levels 3 pg/mL or more: 71% vs. 11% and 31%.

At CMR, 78% of the recovered COVID-19 patients showed abnormalities that included raised myocardial native T1 and T2 mapping, which is suggestive of fibrosis and edema from inflammation, compared with the two control groups (P < .001 for all differences), “independent of preexisting conditions, severity and overall course of the acute illness, and the time from the original diagnosis,” the group wrote. Native T1 and T2 mapping correlated significantly with hs-TnT.

“We now have the diagnostic means to detect cardiac inflammation early, and we need make every effort to apply them in every day practice,”Dr. Püntmann said in the interview.

“Using cardiac MRI will allow us to raise our game against COVID-19 and proactively develop efficient cardioprotective treatments,” she said. “Until we have effective means of protecting from the infection, that is vaccination, we must act swiftly and within the means at hand.”

The analysis evokes several other ways patients with COVID-19 might be screened for significant myocardial involvement.

“Strategies could include checking troponins, not only at admission but maybe at discharge and perhaps even those individuals who are at home and are not necessarily requiring care,” Dr. Bozkurt said.

“Biomarker profiling and screening for ongoing inflammation probably are going to be important components of COVID-19, especially for those with subclinical risk and disease.”

Dr. Westermann proposed that troponin elevations at discharge “might be a good starting point” for selecting COVID-19 patients for functional testing or imaging to screen for cardiac sequelae. Performing such tests routinely now “would be overwhelming given the massive increase in patients we still see today.”

Dr. Püntmann had no disclosures; statements of potential conflict for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Bozkurt has previously disclosed receiving consultant fees or honoraria from Bayer Healthcare, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lantheus Medical Imaging, and Respicardia; serving on a data safety monitoring board for LivaNova USA ; and having unspecified relationships with Abbott Laboratories. Dr. Lindner had no disclosures; Dr. Westermann reported receiving personal fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Novartis, and Medtronic. Dr. Yancy is a deputy editor and Dr. Fonarow a section editor for JAMA Cardiology. Dr. Yancy had no other disclosures. Dr. Fonarow reported receiving personal fees from Abbott Laboratories, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, CHF Solutions, Edwards Lifesciences, Janssen, Medtronic, Merck, and Novartis.

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

Evidence that the heart can take a major hit in patients hospitalized with COVID-19, especially those already with cardiovascular disease (CV) or its risk factors, has been sadly apparent from the pandemic’s earliest days.

Less clear from case studies and small series to date has been whether SARS-CoV-2 directly attacks the heart and whether acute cardiac effects of the illness may lead to some kind of lingering cardiomyopathy.

The field’s grasp of those issues advanced a bit in two new reports published July 27 in JAMA Cardiology that seem to validate concerns the virus can infect the myocardium, without necessarily causing myocarditis and the possibility that some “recovered” patients may be left with persisting myocardial injury and inflammation that potentially could later manifest as heart failure.

Persisting inflammation by cardiac magnetic resonance

A prospective cohort study with 100 patients recovered from a recent bout of the disease showed evidence of ventricular dysfunction, greater ventricular mass, and in 78% of the cohort, signs of myocardial inflammation by cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging. The CMR findings correlated with elevations in troponin T by high-sensitivity assay (hs-TnT).

Two-thirds of the cohort, whose acute COVID-19 severity had “ranged from asymptomatic to minor-to-moderate symptoms,” had recovered at home, whereas the remaining “severely unwell patients” had been hospitalized, wrote the authors, led by Valentina O. Püntmann, MD, PhD, University Hospital Frankfurt (Germany).

None of the patients had a history of heart failure or cardiomyopathy, although some had hypertension, diabetes, or evidence of coronary disease.

“Our findings demonstrate that participants with a relative paucity of preexisting cardiovascular condition and with mostly home-based recovery had frequent cardiac inflammatory involvement, which was similar to the hospitalized subgroup with regards to severity and extent,” the group noted.

“There is a considerable ongoing myocardial inflammation in the heart muscle weeks after recovery from COVID-19 illness. This finding is important because it may herald a considerable burden of heart failure in a few years down the line,” Dr. Püntmann said in an interview.

Early diagnosis would offer “a good chance that early treatment could reduce the relentless course of inflammatory damage or even halt it,” she said.

“The relatively clear onset of COVID-19 illness provides an opportunity, which we often do not have with other conditions, to take a proactive action and to look for heart involvement early, within a few weeks of recovery.”

The study’s CMR evidence of inflammation edema, scarring, and pericardial effusion are among “the major diagnostic criteria for inflammatory and viral myocarditis,” observed Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, from Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, who wasn’t part of either new study.

The findings suggest – consistent with previous evidence – that some patients with recent COVID-19 may be left with ongoing myocardial inflammation, and this study further adds that it could potentially become subacute or even chronic and in some may not be totally reversible, she said in an interview. How long the effects are likely to persist “remains to be determined. We need longer-term outcomes data.”

Viral presence without myocarditis

The accompanying report featured a postmortem analysis of hearts from 39 patients with mostly severe COVID-19 that pointed to a significant SARS-CoV-2 presence and signs that the virus vigorously replicated in the myocardium.

But there was no evidence that the infection led to fulminant myocarditis. Rather, the virus had apparently infiltrated the heart by localizing in interstitial cells or in macrophages that took up in the myocardium without actually entering myocytes, concluded the report’s authors, led by Diana Lindner, PhD, from the University Heart and Vascular Centre, Hamburg (Germany).

The findings suggest “that the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in cardiac tissue does not necessarily cause an inflammatory reaction consistent with clinical myocarditis,” the group wrote.

Previously in the literature, in “cases in which myocardial inflammation was present, there was also evidence of clinical myocarditis, and therefore the current cases underlie a different pathophysiology,” they concluded.

No evidence of the virus was seen in 15 cases, about 61% of the group. In 16 of the remaining 24 hearts, the viral load exceeded 1,000 copies per mcg of RNA, a substantial presence. Those 16 showed increased expression of inflammatory cytokines but no inflammatory cell infiltrates or changes in leukocyte counts, the researchers noted.

“Findings of suggested viral replication in the cases with a very high viral load are showing that we need to do more studies to find out long-term consequences, which we do not know right now,” senior author Dirk Westermann, MD, also from the University Heart and Vascular Centre, Hamburg, said.

Implications for heart failure

The postmortem findings from Dr. Lindner and associates “provide intriguing evidence that COVID-19 is associated with at least some component of myocardial injury, perhaps as the result of direct viral infection of the heart,” wrote Clyde W. Yancy, MD, MSc, from Northwestern University, Chicago, and Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, from the University of California, Los Angeles, in an editorial accompanying both reports.

The CMR study from Dr. Püntmann and colleagues – on the backdrop of earlier COVID-19 observations – suggests the potential for “residual left ventricular dysfunction and ongoing inflammation” in the months following a COVID-19 diagnosis. Both developments may be “of sufficient concern to represent a nidus for new-onset heart failure and other cardiovascular complications,” contend Dr. Yancy and Dr. Fonarow.

“When added to the postmortem pathological findings from Lindner et al, we see the plot thickening and we are inclined to raise a new and very evident concern that cardiomyopathy and heart failure related to COVID-19 may potentially evolve as the natural history of this infection becomes clearer,” they wrote.

Some patients, having recovered from the acute illness, may be left with a chronic inflammatory state that probably puts them at increased risk for future heart failure, agreed Dr. Bozkurt when interviewed. “They could show further decline in cardiac function, and their recovery might take longer than with the usual viral illnesses that we see,” she said.

“There could also be a risk of sudden death. Inflammation sometimes gives rise to sudden death and ventricular arrhythmia, which I would be very worried about, especially if the myocardium is stressed,” Dr. Bozkurt said. “So competitive sports in those patients potentially could be risky.”

COVID-19 cohort vs. matched control subjects

The CMR study from Dr. Püntmann and colleagues prospectively entered 100 patients recently recovered from an acute bout of COVID-19, either at home or at a hospital, who were followed in a registry based at University Hospital Frankfurt. Their median age was 49 years; 47% were female. They were compared with 50 age- and sex-matched control patients and 50 apparently healthy volunteers matched for risk factors, the group noted.

On the same day as the CMR assessment, the recently recovered patients, compared with the healthy control subjects and risk-factor matched control subjects, respectively, showed (P ≤ .001 in each case):

• A reduced left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction: 56% vs. 60% and 61%.
• A higher LV end-diastolic volume index: 86 mL/m² vs. 80 mL/m² and 75 mL/m^2.
• A greater LV mass index: 51 g/m² vs. 47 g/m² and 53 g/m^2.
• A higher hs-TnT level: 5.6 pg/mL vs. 3.2 pg/mL and 3.9 pg/mL.
• A greater prevalence of hs-TnT levels 3 pg/mL or more: 71% vs. 11% and 31%.

At CMR, 78% of the recovered COVID-19 patients showed abnormalities that included raised myocardial native T1 and T2 mapping, which is suggestive of fibrosis and edema from inflammation, compared with the two control groups (P < .001 for all differences), “independent of preexisting conditions, severity and overall course of the acute illness, and the time from the original diagnosis,” the group wrote. Native T1 and T2 mapping correlated significantly with hs-TnT.

“We now have the diagnostic means to detect cardiac inflammation early, and we need make every effort to apply them in every day practice,”Dr. Püntmann said in the interview.

“Using cardiac MRI will allow us to raise our game against COVID-19 and proactively develop efficient cardioprotective treatments,” she said. “Until we have effective means of protecting from the infection, that is vaccination, we must act swiftly and within the means at hand.”

The analysis evokes several other ways patients with COVID-19 might be screened for significant myocardial involvement.

“Strategies could include checking troponins, not only at admission but maybe at discharge and perhaps even those individuals who are at home and are not necessarily requiring care,” Dr. Bozkurt said.

“Biomarker profiling and screening for ongoing inflammation probably are going to be important components of COVID-19, especially for those with subclinical risk and disease.”

Dr. Westermann proposed that troponin elevations at discharge “might be a good starting point” for selecting COVID-19 patients for functional testing or imaging to screen for cardiac sequelae. Performing such tests routinely now “would be overwhelming given the massive increase in patients we still see today.”

Dr. Püntmann had no disclosures; statements of potential conflict for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Bozkurt has previously disclosed receiving consultant fees or honoraria from Bayer Healthcare, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lantheus Medical Imaging, and Respicardia; serving on a data safety monitoring board for LivaNova USA ; and having unspecified relationships with Abbott Laboratories. Dr. Lindner had no disclosures; Dr. Westermann reported receiving personal fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Novartis, and Medtronic. Dr. Yancy is a deputy editor and Dr. Fonarow a section editor for JAMA Cardiology. Dr. Yancy had no other disclosures. Dr. Fonarow reported receiving personal fees from Abbott Laboratories, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, CHF Solutions, Edwards Lifesciences, Janssen, Medtronic, Merck, and Novartis.

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

Although female genital mutilation or cutting (FGM/C) is outlawed in much of the world, it still occurs for cultural reasons despite having no medical benefit, according to a clinical report from the American Academy of Pediatrics.

FGM/C is mainly performed on children and adolescents, but most of the research and teaching to date has addressed the impact of FGM/C on women of childbearing age and management during pregnancy and post partum, wrote Janine Young, MD, of the University of Colorado Denver in Aurora and colleagues. They are members of the AAP section on global health, committee on medical liability and risk management, or the committee on bioethics.

“This work seeks to educate pediatric health care providers on the occurrence of FGM/C, and the broader applications to the patients/population it impacts as well as the intersecting issues of diagnosis, complications, treatment, counseling needs, and the ethical and legal implications,” M. Susan Jay, MD, of the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, said in an interview.

However, challenges in implementing the recommendations “relate to the complexity of the issue and also the need for greater education of primary providers,” Dr. Jay said. “The overall message for providers, I believe, is a greater understanding of the practice [of FGM/C] as most providers have limited knowledge of this practice in the United States.”

“I believe the case-based presentations allow for a better understanding of how best to approach patients and families,” she added.

Kelly Curran, MD, of the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, said, “I think one of largest barriers to implementing the strategies [from] this report is the limited knowledge of FGM/C by most clinicians.”

“In general, many pediatricians are uncomfortable with genital examinations,” she said in an interview. “I suspect most feel uncomfortable with identifying FGM/C versus other genital pathology and may not have ready access to FGM/C experts. Additionally, having these difficult conversations with families about this sensitive topic may be challenging,” said Dr. Curran. “Fortunately, this report is incredibly comprehensive, providing extensive background into FGM/C, effectively using diagrams and pictures, and explaining the legal and ethical issues that arise in the care of these patients.”

“Ultimately, I think there will need to be more education within medical training and further research into FGM/C,” Dr. Curran added. “Clinicians should be knowledgeable about FGM/C, including prevalence, identification, health complications, and treatment, as well as legal and ethical implications.” However, “in addition to knowledge, clinicians must be able to navigate counseling patients and their families around this culturally sensitive topic.”

The report is thorough and well written, yet “there still remains significant gaps in knowledge about FGM/C in children and adolescents,” she said. “I think future research into prevalence, along with the health effects of FGM/C, including its impact on mental and sexual health, in the pediatric population will be essential.”

The study received no outside funding. Coauthor Christa Johnson-Agbakwu, MD, disclosed a grant relationship with Arizona State University from the 2018 copyright of “Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting (FGM/C): A Visual Reference and Learning Tool for Health Care Professionals.” The other researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Jay and Dr. Curran had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose. They are members of the Pediatric News editorial advisory board.

SOURCE: Young J et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Jul 27. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-1012.

Although female genital mutilation or cutting (FGM/C) is outlawed in much of the world, it still occurs for cultural reasons despite having no medical benefit, according to a clinical report from the American Academy of Pediatrics.

FGM/C is mainly performed on children and adolescents, but most of the research and teaching to date has addressed the impact of FGM/C on women of childbearing age and management during pregnancy and post partum, wrote Janine Young, MD, of the University of Colorado Denver in Aurora and colleagues. They are members of the AAP section on global health, committee on medical liability and risk management, or the committee on bioethics.

“This work seeks to educate pediatric health care providers on the occurrence of FGM/C, and the broader applications to the patients/population it impacts as well as the intersecting issues of diagnosis, complications, treatment, counseling needs, and the ethical and legal implications,” M. Susan Jay, MD, of the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, said in an interview.

However, challenges in implementing the recommendations “relate to the complexity of the issue and also the need for greater education of primary providers,” Dr. Jay said. “The overall message for providers, I believe, is a greater understanding of the practice [of FGM/C] as most providers have limited knowledge of this practice in the United States.”

“I believe the case-based presentations allow for a better understanding of how best to approach patients and families,” she added.

Kelly Curran, MD, of the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, said, “I think one of largest barriers to implementing the strategies [from] this report is the limited knowledge of FGM/C by most clinicians.”

“In general, many pediatricians are uncomfortable with genital examinations,” she said in an interview. “I suspect most feel uncomfortable with identifying FGM/C versus other genital pathology and may not have ready access to FGM/C experts. Additionally, having these difficult conversations with families about this sensitive topic may be challenging,” said Dr. Curran. “Fortunately, this report is incredibly comprehensive, providing extensive background into FGM/C, effectively using diagrams and pictures, and explaining the legal and ethical issues that arise in the care of these patients.”

“Ultimately, I think there will need to be more education within medical training and further research into FGM/C,” Dr. Curran added. “Clinicians should be knowledgeable about FGM/C, including prevalence, identification, health complications, and treatment, as well as legal and ethical implications.” However, “in addition to knowledge, clinicians must be able to navigate counseling patients and their families around this culturally sensitive topic.”

The report is thorough and well written, yet “there still remains significant gaps in knowledge about FGM/C in children and adolescents,” she said. “I think future research into prevalence, along with the health effects of FGM/C, including its impact on mental and sexual health, in the pediatric population will be essential.”

The study received no outside funding. Coauthor Christa Johnson-Agbakwu, MD, disclosed a grant relationship with Arizona State University from the 2018 copyright of “Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting (FGM/C): A Visual Reference and Learning Tool for Health Care Professionals.” The other researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Jay and Dr. Curran had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose. They are members of the Pediatric News editorial advisory board.

SOURCE: Young J et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Jul 27. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-1012.

Although female genital mutilation or cutting (FGM/C) is outlawed in much of the world, it still occurs for cultural reasons despite having no medical benefit, according to a clinical report from the American Academy of Pediatrics.

FGM/C is mainly performed on children and adolescents, but most of the research and teaching to date has addressed the impact of FGM/C on women of childbearing age and management during pregnancy and post partum, wrote Janine Young, MD, of the University of Colorado Denver in Aurora and colleagues. They are members of the AAP section on global health, committee on medical liability and risk management, or the committee on bioethics.

“This work seeks to educate pediatric health care providers on the occurrence of FGM/C, and the broader applications to the patients/population it impacts as well as the intersecting issues of diagnosis, complications, treatment, counseling needs, and the ethical and legal implications,” M. Susan Jay, MD, of the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, said in an interview.

However, challenges in implementing the recommendations “relate to the complexity of the issue and also the need for greater education of primary providers,” Dr. Jay said. “The overall message for providers, I believe, is a greater understanding of the practice [of FGM/C] as most providers have limited knowledge of this practice in the United States.”

“I believe the case-based presentations allow for a better understanding of how best to approach patients and families,” she added.

Kelly Curran, MD, of the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, said, “I think one of largest barriers to implementing the strategies [from] this report is the limited knowledge of FGM/C by most clinicians.”

“In general, many pediatricians are uncomfortable with genital examinations,” she said in an interview. “I suspect most feel uncomfortable with identifying FGM/C versus other genital pathology and may not have ready access to FGM/C experts. Additionally, having these difficult conversations with families about this sensitive topic may be challenging,” said Dr. Curran. “Fortunately, this report is incredibly comprehensive, providing extensive background into FGM/C, effectively using diagrams and pictures, and explaining the legal and ethical issues that arise in the care of these patients.”

“Ultimately, I think there will need to be more education within medical training and further research into FGM/C,” Dr. Curran added. “Clinicians should be knowledgeable about FGM/C, including prevalence, identification, health complications, and treatment, as well as legal and ethical implications.” However, “in addition to knowledge, clinicians must be able to navigate counseling patients and their families around this culturally sensitive topic.”

The report is thorough and well written, yet “there still remains significant gaps in knowledge about FGM/C in children and adolescents,” she said. “I think future research into prevalence, along with the health effects of FGM/C, including its impact on mental and sexual health, in the pediatric population will be essential.”

The study received no outside funding. Coauthor Christa Johnson-Agbakwu, MD, disclosed a grant relationship with Arizona State University from the 2018 copyright of “Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting (FGM/C): A Visual Reference and Learning Tool for Health Care Professionals.” The other researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Jay and Dr. Curran had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose. They are members of the Pediatric News editorial advisory board.

SOURCE: Young J et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Jul 27. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-1012.

A study has shown a strong link between sleeping disturbances and depression in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

magicmine/Getty Images

Adults with clinically stable COPD who reported sleep problems were significantly more likely to report depression or anxiety, poor self-efficacy, and poor health-related quality of life, compared with those not reporting sleep problems, according to the findings from a study of 245 patients.

Sleep problems are common in patients with COPD and have been associated with poor COPD-related outcomes, wrote Sang Hee Lee, MD, of Wonkwang University Sanbon Hospital, Gunpo-si, South Korea, and colleagues.

“However, there is a lack of research on factors associated with sleep disturbance in patients with COPD,” they wrote.

In a prospective, multicenter, cross-sectional study published in the Clinical Respiratory Journal, the researchers enrolled 245 adults with COPD who completed the COPD and Asthma Impact Scale (CASIS) to determine sleep impairment. The CASIS was developed to measure sleep-related problems associated with respiratory disease, and scored on a scale of 1-100, with higher scores indicating greater sleep impairment. The average CASIS score was 40.9. The average age of the patients was 67 years, and 92% were men.

Patients’ health-related quality of life, anxiety/depression, and self-efficacy were assessed using the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), and the COPD Self-Efficacy Scale (CSES). The average scores on these measures were 36.0 for the SGRQ; 48.1 and 50.6, respectively, for the physical and mental components of the SF-36; 3.8 and 6.4, respectively, for the HADS-A and HADS-D measures of anxiety and depression; and 3.3 on the CSES.

Worse sleep in these patients was associated with worse scores on measures of mood. In a multivariate analysis, higher scores on all four measures of health-related quality of life were significantly associated with higher CASIS scores (P = .006 for SGRQ; P = .037 for SF-36, P < .001 for HADS, and P = .010 for CSES).

Although the CASIS did not allow for measurement of symptom severity and did not include many items related to breathing problems, the test “shows good internal consistency, test-retest reproducibility, and construct validity according to previous studies,” the researchers wrote. “The CASIS may be a good tool for evaluating sleep disturbances in COPD patients, and further study is needed,” they added.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the cross-sectional study design, lack of data on obstructive sleep apnea, and lack of information on specific treatments such as at-home oxygen use or high-dose steroid use, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the use of a disease-specific sleep measure, and the study is the first known to include self-efficacy in relation to sleep quality in COPD patients, they reported.

The results highlight the association between depression, poor quality of life, and self-efficacy in relation to poor sleep, and suggest that “Sleep quality could be improved by enhancing HRQL and self-efficacy,” the researchers said. “Screening for mood disorder in patients with COPD is also needed,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the Basic Science Research Program of the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Lee SH et al. Clin Respir J. 2020 Jul 24. doi: 10.1111/crj.13235.

A study has shown a strong link between sleeping disturbances and depression in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

magicmine/Getty Images

Adults with clinically stable COPD who reported sleep problems were significantly more likely to report depression or anxiety, poor self-efficacy, and poor health-related quality of life, compared with those not reporting sleep problems, according to the findings from a study of 245 patients.

Sleep problems are common in patients with COPD and have been associated with poor COPD-related outcomes, wrote Sang Hee Lee, MD, of Wonkwang University Sanbon Hospital, Gunpo-si, South Korea, and colleagues.

“However, there is a lack of research on factors associated with sleep disturbance in patients with COPD,” they wrote.

In a prospective, multicenter, cross-sectional study published in the Clinical Respiratory Journal, the researchers enrolled 245 adults with COPD who completed the COPD and Asthma Impact Scale (CASIS) to determine sleep impairment. The CASIS was developed to measure sleep-related problems associated with respiratory disease, and scored on a scale of 1-100, with higher scores indicating greater sleep impairment. The average CASIS score was 40.9. The average age of the patients was 67 years, and 92% were men.

Patients’ health-related quality of life, anxiety/depression, and self-efficacy were assessed using the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), and the COPD Self-Efficacy Scale (CSES). The average scores on these measures were 36.0 for the SGRQ; 48.1 and 50.6, respectively, for the physical and mental components of the SF-36; 3.8 and 6.4, respectively, for the HADS-A and HADS-D measures of anxiety and depression; and 3.3 on the CSES.

Worse sleep in these patients was associated with worse scores on measures of mood. In a multivariate analysis, higher scores on all four measures of health-related quality of life were significantly associated with higher CASIS scores (P = .006 for SGRQ; P = .037 for SF-36, P < .001 for HADS, and P = .010 for CSES).

Although the CASIS did not allow for measurement of symptom severity and did not include many items related to breathing problems, the test “shows good internal consistency, test-retest reproducibility, and construct validity according to previous studies,” the researchers wrote. “The CASIS may be a good tool for evaluating sleep disturbances in COPD patients, and further study is needed,” they added.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the cross-sectional study design, lack of data on obstructive sleep apnea, and lack of information on specific treatments such as at-home oxygen use or high-dose steroid use, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the use of a disease-specific sleep measure, and the study is the first known to include self-efficacy in relation to sleep quality in COPD patients, they reported.

The results highlight the association between depression, poor quality of life, and self-efficacy in relation to poor sleep, and suggest that “Sleep quality could be improved by enhancing HRQL and self-efficacy,” the researchers said. “Screening for mood disorder in patients with COPD is also needed,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the Basic Science Research Program of the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Lee SH et al. Clin Respir J. 2020 Jul 24. doi: 10.1111/crj.13235.

A study has shown a strong link between sleeping disturbances and depression in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

magicmine/Getty Images

Adults with clinically stable COPD who reported sleep problems were significantly more likely to report depression or anxiety, poor self-efficacy, and poor health-related quality of life, compared with those not reporting sleep problems, according to the findings from a study of 245 patients.

Sleep problems are common in patients with COPD and have been associated with poor COPD-related outcomes, wrote Sang Hee Lee, MD, of Wonkwang University Sanbon Hospital, Gunpo-si, South Korea, and colleagues.

“However, there is a lack of research on factors associated with sleep disturbance in patients with COPD,” they wrote.

In a prospective, multicenter, cross-sectional study published in the Clinical Respiratory Journal, the researchers enrolled 245 adults with COPD who completed the COPD and Asthma Impact Scale (CASIS) to determine sleep impairment. The CASIS was developed to measure sleep-related problems associated with respiratory disease, and scored on a scale of 1-100, with higher scores indicating greater sleep impairment. The average CASIS score was 40.9. The average age of the patients was 67 years, and 92% were men.

Patients’ health-related quality of life, anxiety/depression, and self-efficacy were assessed using the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), and the COPD Self-Efficacy Scale (CSES). The average scores on these measures were 36.0 for the SGRQ; 48.1 and 50.6, respectively, for the physical and mental components of the SF-36; 3.8 and 6.4, respectively, for the HADS-A and HADS-D measures of anxiety and depression; and 3.3 on the CSES.

Worse sleep in these patients was associated with worse scores on measures of mood. In a multivariate analysis, higher scores on all four measures of health-related quality of life were significantly associated with higher CASIS scores (P = .006 for SGRQ; P = .037 for SF-36, P < .001 for HADS, and P = .010 for CSES).

Although the CASIS did not allow for measurement of symptom severity and did not include many items related to breathing problems, the test “shows good internal consistency, test-retest reproducibility, and construct validity according to previous studies,” the researchers wrote. “The CASIS may be a good tool for evaluating sleep disturbances in COPD patients, and further study is needed,” they added.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the cross-sectional study design, lack of data on obstructive sleep apnea, and lack of information on specific treatments such as at-home oxygen use or high-dose steroid use, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the use of a disease-specific sleep measure, and the study is the first known to include self-efficacy in relation to sleep quality in COPD patients, they reported.

The results highlight the association between depression, poor quality of life, and self-efficacy in relation to poor sleep, and suggest that “Sleep quality could be improved by enhancing HRQL and self-efficacy,” the researchers said. “Screening for mood disorder in patients with COPD is also needed,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the Basic Science Research Program of the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Lee SH et al. Clin Respir J. 2020 Jul 24. doi: 10.1111/crj.13235.

By the time physicians turn 65 years old, more than 75% of those in low-risk specialties such as pediatric dermatology have been named in a lawsuit, compared with 99% of those in high-risk specialties such as obstetrics and gynecology, according to Ilona J. Frieden, MD.

“We all know there’s a possibility that we could get named in a lawsuit,” she said during the virtual annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology. “It could happen to any of us. Lawsuits are not uncommon, but few of us have received any kind of training for how to handle them.”

Based on her experience being named in a malpractice/wrongful death lawsuit, Dr. Frieden, who has had a nearly 4-decade career as a pediatric dermatologist at the University of California, San Francisco, offered the following tips for clinicians facing practice-related litigation:

First, immediately inform the risk management representatives at your institution or your malpractice insurance carrier. “Tell them about the situation and arrange to talk to a lawyer,” she advised.

Second, prepare to confront a range of emotions. “Depending on the circumstances, [that could be] fear, anger, dread, and defensiveness,” said Dr. Frieden, professor of dermatology and pediatrics, at UCSF. “What surprised me was this sort of physical sensation. I felt like I had been kicked in the stomach. In retrospect, this is not such a surprising finding. It really is an assault on your professional identity, so it made sense to me as I thought about this.”

Third, slow yourself down. The litigation process typically takes 2-5 years, “so this is a marathon; this is not a sprint,” she said. “While you are waiting you will be told, ‘Don’t discuss this case with anyone.’ While this may be true for the specific details of the case, it isn’t true about what you are feeling and how this affects you. You can and you should talk to a trusted friend, to a spouse, or even to a therapist so that you can process what you’re going through and not feel alone.”

Fourth, try to focus on the patients that you help. Having a patient in your pediatric dermatology practice die “is a rare event,” she said. “Try to not let such an event define you in terms of your professional identity. Meanwhile [remember that] you’re helping lots and lots of people.”

Fifth, be humble, both for yourself and the experts you might turn to for advice when you’re facing a complex case. “Though I have decades of experience, I find myself feeling more willing rather than less willing to ask for help,” Dr. Frieden said. “Also, the culture has changed. We email colleagues all the time to say, ‘This doesn’t make sense. Can you please tell me what your thoughts are?’ ”

She closed her remarks by noting that physicians “put ourselves in harm’s way in the process of trying to do the best we can for patients. That is something we have to accept.” She reported having no financial disclosures.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

By the time physicians turn 65 years old, more than 75% of those in low-risk specialties such as pediatric dermatology have been named in a lawsuit, compared with 99% of those in high-risk specialties such as obstetrics and gynecology, according to Ilona J. Frieden, MD.

“We all know there’s a possibility that we could get named in a lawsuit,” she said during the virtual annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology. “It could happen to any of us. Lawsuits are not uncommon, but few of us have received any kind of training for how to handle them.”

Based on her experience being named in a malpractice/wrongful death lawsuit, Dr. Frieden, who has had a nearly 4-decade career as a pediatric dermatologist at the University of California, San Francisco, offered the following tips for clinicians facing practice-related litigation:

First, immediately inform the risk management representatives at your institution or your malpractice insurance carrier. “Tell them about the situation and arrange to talk to a lawyer,” she advised.

Second, prepare to confront a range of emotions. “Depending on the circumstances, [that could be] fear, anger, dread, and defensiveness,” said Dr. Frieden, professor of dermatology and pediatrics, at UCSF. “What surprised me was this sort of physical sensation. I felt like I had been kicked in the stomach. In retrospect, this is not such a surprising finding. It really is an assault on your professional identity, so it made sense to me as I thought about this.”

Third, slow yourself down. The litigation process typically takes 2-5 years, “so this is a marathon; this is not a sprint,” she said. “While you are waiting you will be told, ‘Don’t discuss this case with anyone.’ While this may be true for the specific details of the case, it isn’t true about what you are feeling and how this affects you. You can and you should talk to a trusted friend, to a spouse, or even to a therapist so that you can process what you’re going through and not feel alone.”

Fourth, try to focus on the patients that you help. Having a patient in your pediatric dermatology practice die “is a rare event,” she said. “Try to not let such an event define you in terms of your professional identity. Meanwhile [remember that] you’re helping lots and lots of people.”

Fifth, be humble, both for yourself and the experts you might turn to for advice when you’re facing a complex case. “Though I have decades of experience, I find myself feeling more willing rather than less willing to ask for help,” Dr. Frieden said. “Also, the culture has changed. We email colleagues all the time to say, ‘This doesn’t make sense. Can you please tell me what your thoughts are?’ ”

She closed her remarks by noting that physicians “put ourselves in harm’s way in the process of trying to do the best we can for patients. That is something we have to accept.” She reported having no financial disclosures.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

By the time physicians turn 65 years old, more than 75% of those in low-risk specialties such as pediatric dermatology have been named in a lawsuit, compared with 99% of those in high-risk specialties such as obstetrics and gynecology, according to Ilona J. Frieden, MD.

“We all know there’s a possibility that we could get named in a lawsuit,” she said during the virtual annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology. “It could happen to any of us. Lawsuits are not uncommon, but few of us have received any kind of training for how to handle them.”

Based on her experience being named in a malpractice/wrongful death lawsuit, Dr. Frieden, who has had a nearly 4-decade career as a pediatric dermatologist at the University of California, San Francisco, offered the following tips for clinicians facing practice-related litigation:

First, immediately inform the risk management representatives at your institution or your malpractice insurance carrier. “Tell them about the situation and arrange to talk to a lawyer,” she advised.

Second, prepare to confront a range of emotions. “Depending on the circumstances, [that could be] fear, anger, dread, and defensiveness,” said Dr. Frieden, professor of dermatology and pediatrics, at UCSF. “What surprised me was this sort of physical sensation. I felt like I had been kicked in the stomach. In retrospect, this is not such a surprising finding. It really is an assault on your professional identity, so it made sense to me as I thought about this.”

Third, slow yourself down. The litigation process typically takes 2-5 years, “so this is a marathon; this is not a sprint,” she said. “While you are waiting you will be told, ‘Don’t discuss this case with anyone.’ While this may be true for the specific details of the case, it isn’t true about what you are feeling and how this affects you. You can and you should talk to a trusted friend, to a spouse, or even to a therapist so that you can process what you’re going through and not feel alone.”

Fourth, try to focus on the patients that you help. Having a patient in your pediatric dermatology practice die “is a rare event,” she said. “Try to not let such an event define you in terms of your professional identity. Meanwhile [remember that] you’re helping lots and lots of people.”

Fifth, be humble, both for yourself and the experts you might turn to for advice when you’re facing a complex case. “Though I have decades of experience, I find myself feeling more willing rather than less willing to ask for help,” Dr. Frieden said. “Also, the culture has changed. We email colleagues all the time to say, ‘This doesn’t make sense. Can you please tell me what your thoughts are?’ ”

She closed her remarks by noting that physicians “put ourselves in harm’s way in the process of trying to do the best we can for patients. That is something we have to accept.” She reported having no financial disclosures.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

A 10-year follow-up analysis based on one of cardiology’s most influential trials has shed further light on one of its key issues: how to sharpen selection of patients most likely to benefit from a primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD).

In a new report from SCD-HeFT, the survival advantage in patients with heart failure seen 5 years after receiving ICDs, compared with a non-ICD control group, narrowed a bit but remained significant after an additional 5 years. But not all patients with devices shared in that long-term ICD benefit. Patients with either ischemic disease or nonischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM) with devices showed a similar mortality risk reduction in the trial’s previously reported 5-year outcomes. That advantage, compared with non-ICD control patients, persisted throughout the subsequent 5 years for ischemic patients but tapered to nil for those with NICM.

The NICM patients “had what appears to be some accrual of benefit maybe out to about 6 years, and then the curves appear to come together where there’s no apparent further benefit after 6 years,” Jeanne E. Poole, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview.

In both the 10-year analysis and the earlier results, ICD survival gains went preferentially to patients who enrolled with New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class II symptoms. Patients who entered in NYHA class III “didn’t appear to have any benefit whatsoever” in either period, Dr. Poole said.

“The simple message is that the same groups of patients that benefited strongly from the ICD in the original SCD-HeFT – the NYHA class 2 patients and those with ischemic cardiomyopathy – were really the ones who benefited the greatest over the long term,” she said.

Dr. Poole is lead author on the SCD-HeFT 10-year analysis, which was published in the July 28 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Why the ICD survival effect disappeared midway in patients with NICM “is hard to sort out,” she said. Many in the control group were offered such devices after the trial concluded. Among those, it’s possible that disproportionately more control patients with NICM, compared with patients with ischemic disease, were fitted with ICDs that were also cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) devices, Dr. Poole and her colleagues speculated. That could have shifted their late outcomes to be more in line with patients who had received ICDs when the trial started.

Or “it is possible that the intermediate-term benefit of ICD therapy in NICM is overwhelmed by nonarrhythmic death in extended follow-up” given that ICDs prolong survival only by preventing arrhythmic death, noted an editorial accompanying the new SCD-HeFT publication.

Another possibility: Because NICM is a heterogeneous disorder with many potential causes, perhaps “the absence of long-term mortality benefit among SCD-HeFT participants with NICM was due to an unintended but preferential enrollment of subtypes at relatively lower risk for arrhythmic death in the longer term,” proposed Eric C. Stecker, MD, MPH, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and coauthors in their editorial.

“What are the take-away messages from the current analysis by Poole et al?” they asked. “These findings strongly support the clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of ICD therapy for the majority of patients with severe but mildly symptomatic ischemic cardiomyopathy who do not have an excessive comorbidity burden.”

But “the implications for patients with NICM are less clear,” they wrote. “Given evidence for intermediate-term benefit and the limitations inherent to assessing longer-term benefit, we do not believe it is appropriate to walk back guideline recommendations regarding ICD implantation for NICM patients.”

The findings in nonischemic patients invite comparison with the randomized DANISH trial, which entered only patients with NICM and, over more than 5 years, saw no primary-prevention ICD advantage for the end point of all-cause mortality.

But patients who received ICDs showed a reduction in arrhythmic death, a secondary end point. And mortality in the trial showed a significant interaction with patient age; survival went up sharply with ICDs for those younger than 60 years.

Also in DANISH, “the ICD treatment effect appears to vary over time, with an earlier phase showing possible survival benefit and a later phase showing attenuation of that benefit,” similar to what was seen long-term in SCD-HeFT, in which the interaction between mortality and time since implantation was significant at P = .0015, observe Dr. Poole and colleagues.

However, Dr. Poole cautioned when interviewed, patient management in DANISH, conducted exclusively in Denmark, may not have been representative of the rest of the world, complicating comparisons with other studies. For example, nearly 60% of all patients in DANISH had defibrillating CRT devices. Virtually everyone was on ACE inhibitors or angiotensin-receptor blockers, and almost 60% were taking aldosterone inhibitors.

“DANISH is an unusually high bar and probably does not reflect all patients with heart failure, and certainly does not reflect patients in the United States in terms of those high levels of guideline-directed medical therapy,” Dr. Poole said. The message from DANISH, she said, seems to be that patients with NICM who are definitely on goal-directed heart failure medications with CRT devices “probably don’t have a meaningful benefit from an ICD, on total mortality, because their sudden death rates are simply so low.”

SCD-HeFT had originally assigned 2,521 patients with heart failure of NYHA class II or III and an left ventricular ejection fraction of less than 35% to receive an ICD, amiodarone without an ICD, or an amiodarone placebo and no ICD; patients in the latter cohorts made up the non-ICD control group.

Those who received an ICD, compared with the non-ICD control patients, showed a 23% drop in all-cause mortality over a median of 45.5 months ending on October 31, 2003, Dr. Poole and colleagues noted in their current report. The trial’s primary results were unveiled 2005.

The current analysis, based on data collected in 2010 and 2011, followed the 1,855 patients alive at the trial’s official conclusion and combined outcomes before and after that time for a median follow-up of 11 years, Dr. Poole and colleagues reported.

In the ICD group, the overall hazard ratio for mortality by intention-to-treat was 0.87 (95% confidence interval, 0.76-0.98; P = .028), compared with the non-ICD control group.

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

A 10-year follow-up analysis based on one of cardiology’s most influential trials has shed further light on one of its key issues: how to sharpen selection of patients most likely to benefit from a primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD).

In a new report from SCD-HeFT, the survival advantage in patients with heart failure seen 5 years after receiving ICDs, compared with a non-ICD control group, narrowed a bit but remained significant after an additional 5 years. But not all patients with devices shared in that long-term ICD benefit. Patients with either ischemic disease or nonischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM) with devices showed a similar mortality risk reduction in the trial’s previously reported 5-year outcomes. That advantage, compared with non-ICD control patients, persisted throughout the subsequent 5 years for ischemic patients but tapered to nil for those with NICM.

The NICM patients “had what appears to be some accrual of benefit maybe out to about 6 years, and then the curves appear to come together where there’s no apparent further benefit after 6 years,” Jeanne E. Poole, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview.

In both the 10-year analysis and the earlier results, ICD survival gains went preferentially to patients who enrolled with New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class II symptoms. Patients who entered in NYHA class III “didn’t appear to have any benefit whatsoever” in either period, Dr. Poole said.

“The simple message is that the same groups of patients that benefited strongly from the ICD in the original SCD-HeFT – the NYHA class 2 patients and those with ischemic cardiomyopathy – were really the ones who benefited the greatest over the long term,” she said.

Dr. Poole is lead author on the SCD-HeFT 10-year analysis, which was published in the July 28 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Why the ICD survival effect disappeared midway in patients with NICM “is hard to sort out,” she said. Many in the control group were offered such devices after the trial concluded. Among those, it’s possible that disproportionately more control patients with NICM, compared with patients with ischemic disease, were fitted with ICDs that were also cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) devices, Dr. Poole and her colleagues speculated. That could have shifted their late outcomes to be more in line with patients who had received ICDs when the trial started.

Or “it is possible that the intermediate-term benefit of ICD therapy in NICM is overwhelmed by nonarrhythmic death in extended follow-up” given that ICDs prolong survival only by preventing arrhythmic death, noted an editorial accompanying the new SCD-HeFT publication.

Another possibility: Because NICM is a heterogeneous disorder with many potential causes, perhaps “the absence of long-term mortality benefit among SCD-HeFT participants with NICM was due to an unintended but preferential enrollment of subtypes at relatively lower risk for arrhythmic death in the longer term,” proposed Eric C. Stecker, MD, MPH, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and coauthors in their editorial.

“What are the take-away messages from the current analysis by Poole et al?” they asked. “These findings strongly support the clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of ICD therapy for the majority of patients with severe but mildly symptomatic ischemic cardiomyopathy who do not have an excessive comorbidity burden.”

But “the implications for patients with NICM are less clear,” they wrote. “Given evidence for intermediate-term benefit and the limitations inherent to assessing longer-term benefit, we do not believe it is appropriate to walk back guideline recommendations regarding ICD implantation for NICM patients.”

The findings in nonischemic patients invite comparison with the randomized DANISH trial, which entered only patients with NICM and, over more than 5 years, saw no primary-prevention ICD advantage for the end point of all-cause mortality.

But patients who received ICDs showed a reduction in arrhythmic death, a secondary end point. And mortality in the trial showed a significant interaction with patient age; survival went up sharply with ICDs for those younger than 60 years.

Also in DANISH, “the ICD treatment effect appears to vary over time, with an earlier phase showing possible survival benefit and a later phase showing attenuation of that benefit,” similar to what was seen long-term in SCD-HeFT, in which the interaction between mortality and time since implantation was significant at P = .0015, observe Dr. Poole and colleagues.

However, Dr. Poole cautioned when interviewed, patient management in DANISH, conducted exclusively in Denmark, may not have been representative of the rest of the world, complicating comparisons with other studies. For example, nearly 60% of all patients in DANISH had defibrillating CRT devices. Virtually everyone was on ACE inhibitors or angiotensin-receptor blockers, and almost 60% were taking aldosterone inhibitors.

“DANISH is an unusually high bar and probably does not reflect all patients with heart failure, and certainly does not reflect patients in the United States in terms of those high levels of guideline-directed medical therapy,” Dr. Poole said. The message from DANISH, she said, seems to be that patients with NICM who are definitely on goal-directed heart failure medications with CRT devices “probably don’t have a meaningful benefit from an ICD, on total mortality, because their sudden death rates are simply so low.”

SCD-HeFT had originally assigned 2,521 patients with heart failure of NYHA class II or III and an left ventricular ejection fraction of less than 35% to receive an ICD, amiodarone without an ICD, or an amiodarone placebo and no ICD; patients in the latter cohorts made up the non-ICD control group.

Those who received an ICD, compared with the non-ICD control patients, showed a 23% drop in all-cause mortality over a median of 45.5 months ending on October 31, 2003, Dr. Poole and colleagues noted in their current report. The trial’s primary results were unveiled 2005.

The current analysis, based on data collected in 2010 and 2011, followed the 1,855 patients alive at the trial’s official conclusion and combined outcomes before and after that time for a median follow-up of 11 years, Dr. Poole and colleagues reported.

In the ICD group, the overall hazard ratio for mortality by intention-to-treat was 0.87 (95% confidence interval, 0.76-0.98; P = .028), compared with the non-ICD control group.

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

A 10-year follow-up analysis based on one of cardiology’s most influential trials has shed further light on one of its key issues: how to sharpen selection of patients most likely to benefit from a primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD).

In a new report from SCD-HeFT, the survival advantage in patients with heart failure seen 5 years after receiving ICDs, compared with a non-ICD control group, narrowed a bit but remained significant after an additional 5 years. But not all patients with devices shared in that long-term ICD benefit. Patients with either ischemic disease or nonischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM) with devices showed a similar mortality risk reduction in the trial’s previously reported 5-year outcomes. That advantage, compared with non-ICD control patients, persisted throughout the subsequent 5 years for ischemic patients but tapered to nil for those with NICM.

The NICM patients “had what appears to be some accrual of benefit maybe out to about 6 years, and then the curves appear to come together where there’s no apparent further benefit after 6 years,” Jeanne E. Poole, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview.

In both the 10-year analysis and the earlier results, ICD survival gains went preferentially to patients who enrolled with New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class II symptoms. Patients who entered in NYHA class III “didn’t appear to have any benefit whatsoever” in either period, Dr. Poole said.

“The simple message is that the same groups of patients that benefited strongly from the ICD in the original SCD-HeFT – the NYHA class 2 patients and those with ischemic cardiomyopathy – were really the ones who benefited the greatest over the long term,” she said.

Dr. Poole is lead author on the SCD-HeFT 10-year analysis, which was published in the July 28 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Why the ICD survival effect disappeared midway in patients with NICM “is hard to sort out,” she said. Many in the control group were offered such devices after the trial concluded. Among those, it’s possible that disproportionately more control patients with NICM, compared with patients with ischemic disease, were fitted with ICDs that were also cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) devices, Dr. Poole and her colleagues speculated. That could have shifted their late outcomes to be more in line with patients who had received ICDs when the trial started.

Or “it is possible that the intermediate-term benefit of ICD therapy in NICM is overwhelmed by nonarrhythmic death in extended follow-up” given that ICDs prolong survival only by preventing arrhythmic death, noted an editorial accompanying the new SCD-HeFT publication.

Another possibility: Because NICM is a heterogeneous disorder with many potential causes, perhaps “the absence of long-term mortality benefit among SCD-HeFT participants with NICM was due to an unintended but preferential enrollment of subtypes at relatively lower risk for arrhythmic death in the longer term,” proposed Eric C. Stecker, MD, MPH, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and coauthors in their editorial.

“What are the take-away messages from the current analysis by Poole et al?” they asked. “These findings strongly support the clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of ICD therapy for the majority of patients with severe but mildly symptomatic ischemic cardiomyopathy who do not have an excessive comorbidity burden.”

But “the implications for patients with NICM are less clear,” they wrote. “Given evidence for intermediate-term benefit and the limitations inherent to assessing longer-term benefit, we do not believe it is appropriate to walk back guideline recommendations regarding ICD implantation for NICM patients.”

The findings in nonischemic patients invite comparison with the randomized DANISH trial, which entered only patients with NICM and, over more than 5 years, saw no primary-prevention ICD advantage for the end point of all-cause mortality.

But patients who received ICDs showed a reduction in arrhythmic death, a secondary end point. And mortality in the trial showed a significant interaction with patient age; survival went up sharply with ICDs for those younger than 60 years.

Also in DANISH, “the ICD treatment effect appears to vary over time, with an earlier phase showing possible survival benefit and a later phase showing attenuation of that benefit,” similar to what was seen long-term in SCD-HeFT, in which the interaction between mortality and time since implantation was significant at P = .0015, observe Dr. Poole and colleagues.

However, Dr. Poole cautioned when interviewed, patient management in DANISH, conducted exclusively in Denmark, may not have been representative of the rest of the world, complicating comparisons with other studies. For example, nearly 60% of all patients in DANISH had defibrillating CRT devices. Virtually everyone was on ACE inhibitors or angiotensin-receptor blockers, and almost 60% were taking aldosterone inhibitors.

“DANISH is an unusually high bar and probably does not reflect all patients with heart failure, and certainly does not reflect patients in the United States in terms of those high levels of guideline-directed medical therapy,” Dr. Poole said. The message from DANISH, she said, seems to be that patients with NICM who are definitely on goal-directed heart failure medications with CRT devices “probably don’t have a meaningful benefit from an ICD, on total mortality, because their sudden death rates are simply so low.”

SCD-HeFT had originally assigned 2,521 patients with heart failure of NYHA class II or III and an left ventricular ejection fraction of less than 35% to receive an ICD, amiodarone without an ICD, or an amiodarone placebo and no ICD; patients in the latter cohorts made up the non-ICD control group.

Those who received an ICD, compared with the non-ICD control patients, showed a 23% drop in all-cause mortality over a median of 45.5 months ending on October 31, 2003, Dr. Poole and colleagues noted in their current report. The trial’s primary results were unveiled 2005.

The current analysis, based on data collected in 2010 and 2011, followed the 1,855 patients alive at the trial’s official conclusion and combined outcomes before and after that time for a median follow-up of 11 years, Dr. Poole and colleagues reported.

In the ICD group, the overall hazard ratio for mortality by intention-to-treat was 0.87 (95% confidence interval, 0.76-0.98; P = .028), compared with the non-ICD control group.

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

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the triple-therapy combination of atezolizumab (Tecentriq) plus cobimetinib (Cotellic) and vemurafenib (Zelboraf) for the treatment of BRAF V600 mutation-positive advanced melanoma, according to a press statement from Genentech, which owns all three drugs.

This is the first melanoma indication for the PD-L1 inhibitor atezolizumab; the other two drugs, cobimetinib and vemurafenib, are a MEK- plus BRAF-inhibitor combination previously approved for BRAF-mutated melanoma.

The new approval is based on safety and efficacy results from the randomized, phase 3 IMspire150 study from patients with previously untreated BRAF V600 mutation-positive metastatic or unresectable locally advanced melanoma.

Progression-free survival (PFS), the primary endpoint, was improved by 4.5 months with the triple therapy compared to the doublet.

The addition of atezolizumab to cobimetinib and vemurafenib led to a longer median PFS of 15.1 months, compared to 10.6 months with placebo plus cobimetinib and vemurafenib (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.63 – 0.97; P = .025).

The most common adverse reactions (rate ≥ 20%) in patients who received the triple combination were rash (75%), musculoskeletal pain (62%), fatigue (51%), hepatotoxicity (50%), pyrexia (49%), nausea (30%), pruritus (26%), edema (26%), stomatitis (23%), hypothyroidism (22%), and photosensitivity reaction (21%).

The review was conducted under Project Orbis, an initiative of the FDA Oncology Center of Excellence that facilitates concurrent submission and review of oncology products among international partners.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the triple-therapy combination of atezolizumab (Tecentriq) plus cobimetinib (Cotellic) and vemurafenib (Zelboraf) for the treatment of BRAF V600 mutation-positive advanced melanoma, according to a press statement from Genentech, which owns all three drugs.

This is the first melanoma indication for the PD-L1 inhibitor atezolizumab; the other two drugs, cobimetinib and vemurafenib, are a MEK- plus BRAF-inhibitor combination previously approved for BRAF-mutated melanoma.

The new approval is based on safety and efficacy results from the randomized, phase 3 IMspire150 study from patients with previously untreated BRAF V600 mutation-positive metastatic or unresectable locally advanced melanoma.

Progression-free survival (PFS), the primary endpoint, was improved by 4.5 months with the triple therapy compared to the doublet.

The addition of atezolizumab to cobimetinib and vemurafenib led to a longer median PFS of 15.1 months, compared to 10.6 months with placebo plus cobimetinib and vemurafenib (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.63 – 0.97; P = .025).

The most common adverse reactions (rate ≥ 20%) in patients who received the triple combination were rash (75%), musculoskeletal pain (62%), fatigue (51%), hepatotoxicity (50%), pyrexia (49%), nausea (30%), pruritus (26%), edema (26%), stomatitis (23%), hypothyroidism (22%), and photosensitivity reaction (21%).

The review was conducted under Project Orbis, an initiative of the FDA Oncology Center of Excellence that facilitates concurrent submission and review of oncology products among international partners.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the triple-therapy combination of atezolizumab (Tecentriq) plus cobimetinib (Cotellic) and vemurafenib (Zelboraf) for the treatment of BRAF V600 mutation-positive advanced melanoma, according to a press statement from Genentech, which owns all three drugs.

This is the first melanoma indication for the PD-L1 inhibitor atezolizumab; the other two drugs, cobimetinib and vemurafenib, are a MEK- plus BRAF-inhibitor combination previously approved for BRAF-mutated melanoma.

The new approval is based on safety and efficacy results from the randomized, phase 3 IMspire150 study from patients with previously untreated BRAF V600 mutation-positive metastatic or unresectable locally advanced melanoma.

Progression-free survival (PFS), the primary endpoint, was improved by 4.5 months with the triple therapy compared to the doublet.

The addition of atezolizumab to cobimetinib and vemurafenib led to a longer median PFS of 15.1 months, compared to 10.6 months with placebo plus cobimetinib and vemurafenib (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.63 – 0.97; P = .025).

The most common adverse reactions (rate ≥ 20%) in patients who received the triple combination were rash (75%), musculoskeletal pain (62%), fatigue (51%), hepatotoxicity (50%), pyrexia (49%), nausea (30%), pruritus (26%), edema (26%), stomatitis (23%), hypothyroidism (22%), and photosensitivity reaction (21%).

The review was conducted under Project Orbis, an initiative of the FDA Oncology Center of Excellence that facilitates concurrent submission and review of oncology products among international partners.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.