The largest trial to date investigating the clinical utility of using genetic testing to detect clopidogrel loss-of-function genotype to guide antiplatelet therapy in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) missed its primary endpoint of a 50% reduction in cardiovascular events at 1 year.

However, the TAILOR-PCI trial did show a 34% reduction in such events at 1 year, as well as a statistically significant 40% reduction in the total number of events per patient receiving genetically guided treatment compared with patients who received standard treatment.

In addition, a post hoc analysis found a significant 79% reduction in the rate of adverse events in the first 3 months of treatment among patients who received genetically guided therapy compared with those who did not.

The study was presented March 28 during the “virtual” American College of Cardiology 2020 Scientific Session (ACC.20)/World Congress of Cardiology.

“Although these results fell short of the effect size that we predicted, they nevertheless provide a signal that offers support for the benefit of genetically guided therapy, with approximately one-third fewer adverse events in the patients who received genetically guided treatment compared with those who did not,” concluded Naveen L. Pereira, MD, professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, and co-principal investigator of the study.

Pereira said the post hoc analysis of the first 3 months of treatment was particularly interesting. “This period immediately after PCI is when patients are at the highest risk for adverse events. We now know that antiplatelet drug therapy is critical during the first 3 months after PCI. Our findings suggest that the lion’s share of the benefit of genetically guided therapy may occur during this high-risk period,” he noted.

However, he added, “Because this wasn’t a preplanned analysis, we can’t draw firm conclusions from it, but it merits further study.”

Asked during an ACC virtual press conference how these results may influence clinical practice, Pereira said he hopes it changes practice toward genotyping.

“We set a very high standard in trying to achieve a 50% reduction in events, but we did see a 34% reduction. I think the probability of the results being true is very high,” he said. “I hope people pay attention to that. I’m not sure what the guidelines will do, but I believe if clopidogrel genetic information is made available to the physician, not changing therapy in a patient who has the loss-of-function gene will now be very difficult.”

Discussant of the trial, Roxana Mehran, MD, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York City, said she thought the results were good enough clinically to justify using genotyping to guide therapy.

“The trial showed an absolute 1.8% reduction and a relative 34% reduction in cardiovascular events, which did not quite meet the P value for significance, and they are supported by a significant reduction in multiple events, and a large difference at 3 months, although these are not primary analyses. So, for me this trial has shown that tailoring antiplatelet therapy by genetic testing is beneficial,” she said.

Another outside commentator, Patrick O’Gara, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, described TAILOR-PCI as a “terrific study.”

“Together with the study presented last year showing genotype-guided clopidogrel treatment was noninferior to ticagrelor/prasugrel in STEMI [non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction] patients, it chips away at the biologic appropriateness of targeting therapies based on genetic risk,” he said.

“I would hate people to focus on the fact the primary endpoint was missed by one hundredth of a percentage point but hope they would rather consider the bigger picture of making this genotype test more available and accessible to inform clinical decision making,” O’Gara added. “It just makes too much sense to ignore this potential.”

The TAILOR-PCI trial enrolled 5302 patients from 40 centers in the United States, Canada, Mexico, and South Korea who had undergone PCI with stenting. They were randomly assigned to genetic testing for the clopidogrel loss-of-function variant or a group that received standard treatment (clopidogrel) without genetic testing.

In the genetic testing group, 35% of patients were found to have the clopidogrel loss-of-function variant and were therefore prescribed ticagrelor, whereas those without the loss-of-function variant received clopidogrel.

After 1 year, the primary endpoint, a composite of cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, definite or probable stent thrombosis, and severe recurrent ischemia, occurred in 35 patients (4%) of the group that received genetically guided treatment, compared with 54 (5.9%) in the conventionally treated group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.43 - 1.02; P = .56).

A prespecified analysis of total events (rather than just analysis of first event per patient) showed a 40% reduction in the genotyped group (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.41 - 0.89; P = .011).

“Multiple adverse events represent a higher burden on the patient, so it is encouraging to see a significant reduction in cumulative events with genetically guided therapy,” Pereira said.

There was no difference in the safety endpoint of TIMI major bleeding or minor bleeding between the two groups: 1.9% in the genetically guided group vs 1.6% in the conventional treatment group.

The results did not differ between various subgroups in the trial, including race or ethnicity. Although Asian patients have a higher occurrence of the clopidogrel loss-of-function gene, the event risk reductions were similar in Asian and white patients in the study.

Pereira said the study may have been underpowered because of recent improvements in care. When the TAILOR-PCI trial was designed in 2012, around 10% to 12% of patients who received a stent could be expected to have a major adverse event, but during the trial, greater use of drug-coated stents and other treatments significantly reduced the expected rate of adverse events and made it more difficult for the trial to reach its goal of a 50% reduction in adverse events with the number of patients enrolled, he explained.

As part of the discussion, Mehran pointed out that more than 80% of the patients in the trial had acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and yet were being sent home on clopidogrel, which she said she found “daunting.”

“This begs the question of whether they were lower-risk patients and not really the hot unstable ACS patients with large thrombus burden where we see higher event rates,” Mehran commented. She also noted the results must be considered in the new era of platelet monotherapy, where aspirin is being withdrawn, and asked whether clopidogrel monotherapy would be considered safe without aspirin on board.

The researchers are planning a cost-effectiveness analysis of genetically guided therapy based on these data, and they are also continuing to follow patients over the longer term.

The TAILOR-PCI study was funded by the Mayo Clinic in collaboration with the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Spartan Bioscience Inc supplied the genetic tests used. Pereira reports no relevant disclosures.

American College of Cardiology 2020 Scientific Session (ACC.20)/World Congress of Cardiology. Abstract 20-LB-20309-ACC. Presented March 28, 2020.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The largest trial to date investigating the clinical utility of using genetic testing to detect clopidogrel loss-of-function genotype to guide antiplatelet therapy in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) missed its primary endpoint of a 50% reduction in cardiovascular events at 1 year.

However, the TAILOR-PCI trial did show a 34% reduction in such events at 1 year, as well as a statistically significant 40% reduction in the total number of events per patient receiving genetically guided treatment compared with patients who received standard treatment.

In addition, a post hoc analysis found a significant 79% reduction in the rate of adverse events in the first 3 months of treatment among patients who received genetically guided therapy compared with those who did not.

The study was presented March 28 during the “virtual” American College of Cardiology 2020 Scientific Session (ACC.20)/World Congress of Cardiology.

“Although these results fell short of the effect size that we predicted, they nevertheless provide a signal that offers support for the benefit of genetically guided therapy, with approximately one-third fewer adverse events in the patients who received genetically guided treatment compared with those who did not,” concluded Naveen L. Pereira, MD, professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, and co-principal investigator of the study.

Pereira said the post hoc analysis of the first 3 months of treatment was particularly interesting. “This period immediately after PCI is when patients are at the highest risk for adverse events. We now know that antiplatelet drug therapy is critical during the first 3 months after PCI. Our findings suggest that the lion’s share of the benefit of genetically guided therapy may occur during this high-risk period,” he noted.

However, he added, “Because this wasn’t a preplanned analysis, we can’t draw firm conclusions from it, but it merits further study.”

Asked during an ACC virtual press conference how these results may influence clinical practice, Pereira said he hopes it changes practice toward genotyping.

“We set a very high standard in trying to achieve a 50% reduction in events, but we did see a 34% reduction. I think the probability of the results being true is very high,” he said. “I hope people pay attention to that. I’m not sure what the guidelines will do, but I believe if clopidogrel genetic information is made available to the physician, not changing therapy in a patient who has the loss-of-function gene will now be very difficult.”

Discussant of the trial, Roxana Mehran, MD, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York City, said she thought the results were good enough clinically to justify using genotyping to guide therapy.

“The trial showed an absolute 1.8% reduction and a relative 34% reduction in cardiovascular events, which did not quite meet the P value for significance, and they are supported by a significant reduction in multiple events, and a large difference at 3 months, although these are not primary analyses. So, for me this trial has shown that tailoring antiplatelet therapy by genetic testing is beneficial,” she said.

Another outside commentator, Patrick O’Gara, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, described TAILOR-PCI as a “terrific study.”

“Together with the study presented last year showing genotype-guided clopidogrel treatment was noninferior to ticagrelor/prasugrel in STEMI [non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction] patients, it chips away at the biologic appropriateness of targeting therapies based on genetic risk,” he said.

“I would hate people to focus on the fact the primary endpoint was missed by one hundredth of a percentage point but hope they would rather consider the bigger picture of making this genotype test more available and accessible to inform clinical decision making,” O’Gara added. “It just makes too much sense to ignore this potential.”

The TAILOR-PCI trial enrolled 5302 patients from 40 centers in the United States, Canada, Mexico, and South Korea who had undergone PCI with stenting. They were randomly assigned to genetic testing for the clopidogrel loss-of-function variant or a group that received standard treatment (clopidogrel) without genetic testing.

In the genetic testing group, 35% of patients were found to have the clopidogrel loss-of-function variant and were therefore prescribed ticagrelor, whereas those without the loss-of-function variant received clopidogrel.

After 1 year, the primary endpoint, a composite of cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, definite or probable stent thrombosis, and severe recurrent ischemia, occurred in 35 patients (4%) of the group that received genetically guided treatment, compared with 54 (5.9%) in the conventionally treated group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.43 - 1.02; P = .56).

A prespecified analysis of total events (rather than just analysis of first event per patient) showed a 40% reduction in the genotyped group (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.41 - 0.89; P = .011).

“Multiple adverse events represent a higher burden on the patient, so it is encouraging to see a significant reduction in cumulative events with genetically guided therapy,” Pereira said.

There was no difference in the safety endpoint of TIMI major bleeding or minor bleeding between the two groups: 1.9% in the genetically guided group vs 1.6% in the conventional treatment group.

The results did not differ between various subgroups in the trial, including race or ethnicity. Although Asian patients have a higher occurrence of the clopidogrel loss-of-function gene, the event risk reductions were similar in Asian and white patients in the study.

Pereira said the study may have been underpowered because of recent improvements in care. When the TAILOR-PCI trial was designed in 2012, around 10% to 12% of patients who received a stent could be expected to have a major adverse event, but during the trial, greater use of drug-coated stents and other treatments significantly reduced the expected rate of adverse events and made it more difficult for the trial to reach its goal of a 50% reduction in adverse events with the number of patients enrolled, he explained.

As part of the discussion, Mehran pointed out that more than 80% of the patients in the trial had acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and yet were being sent home on clopidogrel, which she said she found “daunting.”

“This begs the question of whether they were lower-risk patients and not really the hot unstable ACS patients with large thrombus burden where we see higher event rates,” Mehran commented. She also noted the results must be considered in the new era of platelet monotherapy, where aspirin is being withdrawn, and asked whether clopidogrel monotherapy would be considered safe without aspirin on board.

The researchers are planning a cost-effectiveness analysis of genetically guided therapy based on these data, and they are also continuing to follow patients over the longer term.

The TAILOR-PCI study was funded by the Mayo Clinic in collaboration with the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Spartan Bioscience Inc supplied the genetic tests used. Pereira reports no relevant disclosures.

American College of Cardiology 2020 Scientific Session (ACC.20)/World Congress of Cardiology. Abstract 20-LB-20309-ACC. Presented March 28, 2020.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The largest trial to date investigating the clinical utility of using genetic testing to detect clopidogrel loss-of-function genotype to guide antiplatelet therapy in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) missed its primary endpoint of a 50% reduction in cardiovascular events at 1 year.

However, the TAILOR-PCI trial did show a 34% reduction in such events at 1 year, as well as a statistically significant 40% reduction in the total number of events per patient receiving genetically guided treatment compared with patients who received standard treatment.

In addition, a post hoc analysis found a significant 79% reduction in the rate of adverse events in the first 3 months of treatment among patients who received genetically guided therapy compared with those who did not.

The study was presented March 28 during the “virtual” American College of Cardiology 2020 Scientific Session (ACC.20)/World Congress of Cardiology.

“Although these results fell short of the effect size that we predicted, they nevertheless provide a signal that offers support for the benefit of genetically guided therapy, with approximately one-third fewer adverse events in the patients who received genetically guided treatment compared with those who did not,” concluded Naveen L. Pereira, MD, professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, and co-principal investigator of the study.

Pereira said the post hoc analysis of the first 3 months of treatment was particularly interesting. “This period immediately after PCI is when patients are at the highest risk for adverse events. We now know that antiplatelet drug therapy is critical during the first 3 months after PCI. Our findings suggest that the lion’s share of the benefit of genetically guided therapy may occur during this high-risk period,” he noted.

However, he added, “Because this wasn’t a preplanned analysis, we can’t draw firm conclusions from it, but it merits further study.”

Asked during an ACC virtual press conference how these results may influence clinical practice, Pereira said he hopes it changes practice toward genotyping.

“We set a very high standard in trying to achieve a 50% reduction in events, but we did see a 34% reduction. I think the probability of the results being true is very high,” he said. “I hope people pay attention to that. I’m not sure what the guidelines will do, but I believe if clopidogrel genetic information is made available to the physician, not changing therapy in a patient who has the loss-of-function gene will now be very difficult.”

Discussant of the trial, Roxana Mehran, MD, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York City, said she thought the results were good enough clinically to justify using genotyping to guide therapy.

“The trial showed an absolute 1.8% reduction and a relative 34% reduction in cardiovascular events, which did not quite meet the P value for significance, and they are supported by a significant reduction in multiple events, and a large difference at 3 months, although these are not primary analyses. So, for me this trial has shown that tailoring antiplatelet therapy by genetic testing is beneficial,” she said.

Another outside commentator, Patrick O’Gara, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, described TAILOR-PCI as a “terrific study.”

“Together with the study presented last year showing genotype-guided clopidogrel treatment was noninferior to ticagrelor/prasugrel in STEMI [non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction] patients, it chips away at the biologic appropriateness of targeting therapies based on genetic risk,” he said.

“I would hate people to focus on the fact the primary endpoint was missed by one hundredth of a percentage point but hope they would rather consider the bigger picture of making this genotype test more available and accessible to inform clinical decision making,” O’Gara added. “It just makes too much sense to ignore this potential.”

The TAILOR-PCI trial enrolled 5302 patients from 40 centers in the United States, Canada, Mexico, and South Korea who had undergone PCI with stenting. They were randomly assigned to genetic testing for the clopidogrel loss-of-function variant or a group that received standard treatment (clopidogrel) without genetic testing.

In the genetic testing group, 35% of patients were found to have the clopidogrel loss-of-function variant and were therefore prescribed ticagrelor, whereas those without the loss-of-function variant received clopidogrel.

After 1 year, the primary endpoint, a composite of cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, definite or probable stent thrombosis, and severe recurrent ischemia, occurred in 35 patients (4%) of the group that received genetically guided treatment, compared with 54 (5.9%) in the conventionally treated group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.43 - 1.02; P = .56).

A prespecified analysis of total events (rather than just analysis of first event per patient) showed a 40% reduction in the genotyped group (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.41 - 0.89; P = .011).

“Multiple adverse events represent a higher burden on the patient, so it is encouraging to see a significant reduction in cumulative events with genetically guided therapy,” Pereira said.

There was no difference in the safety endpoint of TIMI major bleeding or minor bleeding between the two groups: 1.9% in the genetically guided group vs 1.6% in the conventional treatment group.

The results did not differ between various subgroups in the trial, including race or ethnicity. Although Asian patients have a higher occurrence of the clopidogrel loss-of-function gene, the event risk reductions were similar in Asian and white patients in the study.

Pereira said the study may have been underpowered because of recent improvements in care. When the TAILOR-PCI trial was designed in 2012, around 10% to 12% of patients who received a stent could be expected to have a major adverse event, but during the trial, greater use of drug-coated stents and other treatments significantly reduced the expected rate of adverse events and made it more difficult for the trial to reach its goal of a 50% reduction in adverse events with the number of patients enrolled, he explained.

As part of the discussion, Mehran pointed out that more than 80% of the patients in the trial had acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and yet were being sent home on clopidogrel, which she said she found “daunting.”

“This begs the question of whether they were lower-risk patients and not really the hot unstable ACS patients with large thrombus burden where we see higher event rates,” Mehran commented. She also noted the results must be considered in the new era of platelet monotherapy, where aspirin is being withdrawn, and asked whether clopidogrel monotherapy would be considered safe without aspirin on board.

The researchers are planning a cost-effectiveness analysis of genetically guided therapy based on these data, and they are also continuing to follow patients over the longer term.

The TAILOR-PCI study was funded by the Mayo Clinic in collaboration with the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Spartan Bioscience Inc supplied the genetic tests used. Pereira reports no relevant disclosures.

American College of Cardiology 2020 Scientific Session (ACC.20)/World Congress of Cardiology. Abstract 20-LB-20309-ACC. Presented March 28, 2020.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, more than a third of U.S. cardiologists report being burned out and 58% of these physicians say they plan on leaving their current job, a new survey shows.

“It is important to recognize the personal and professional repercussions of physician burnout,” lead author Laxmi Mehta, MD, director of preventive cardiology and women’s cardiovascular health at Ohio State University, Columbus, said during an online session of the American College of Cardiology 2020 Scientific Session (ACC.20)/World Congress of Cardiology (WCC).

The new ACC 2019 Well Being Survey was sent to 19,348 ACC members in the fall of 2019 and sought to take a deeper dive into the issue of burnout after the ACC’s most recent Professional Life Survey revealed that one in four U.S. cardiologists were burned out in 2015.

While the number of cardiologists who reported feeling stressed fell from 49.5% in 2015 to 43.9% in 2019, the number of cardiologists who reported being burned out increased by 32% from 26.8% to 35.4%, Mehta said.

Among those currently feeling burned out, 23.9% reported having one or more symptoms of burnout, 9.9% had chronic burnout and work frustrations, and 1.6% were “completely burned out” and at the point where they may need to seek help.

Burned-out cardiologists were more likely than those who felt stressed or no burnout to say they may have made a major medical error in the past 3 months (58.3% vs 33.1% and 8.6%; P ≤ .001).

The Usual Suspects

As previously observed, burnout was highest among mid-career cardiologists with 8 to 21 years in practice vs early-career and late-career cardiologists (45.3% vs 35.4% and 31.5%; P ≤ .001) and in women vs men (45.3% vs 33.5%; P ≤ .001). Of the 2025 ACC members who responded, 362 were women.

Several initiatives are underway by the ACC to increase the diversity of cardiology as a specialty, but attention is also needed for mid-career cardiologists, who may not see the “light at the end of the tunnel,” as they take on more clinical demands and more administrative roles, Mehta observed.

Not surprising, clocking 60 or more hours per week increased the risk for burnout, compared with working 40 to 59 hours per week or fewer than 40 hours per week (41.5% vs 29.5% and 17.9%; P ≤ .001).

Burned-out cardiologists were also more likely than those who felt stressed or no burnout to report working in a hectic work environment (59.5% vs 32.3% and 14.6%; P ≤ .001) and to have plans to leave their current practice setting (58.1% vs 27.9% and 14.0%; P ≤ .001).

Factors that played a significant role in those plans were the desire to spend more time with family, on-call time, excessive work or relative value unit (RVU) targets, electronic health records, and the pressure to maintain high patient satisfaction scores, Mehta noted.

“Is any of this relatable to decreasing numbers of cardiologists in the U.S., or is there work to try and relate actual work force availability to burnout?” asked session moderator B. Hadley Wilson, MD, executive vice chair of the Sanger Heart & Vascular Institute in Charlotte, North Carolina, and a member of ACC’s Board of Trustees, following the presentation.

“It’s hard to decipher all of those exact details, but we do know that the cardiology work force tends to be older, so the mid-careers are going to be pulling on a lot more weight in the next few years, so that is a concern,” Mehta replied.

A big factor, however, is the excessive work hours put in by all cardiologists, especially the increasing amount of time spent with electronic medical records and administrative tasks, which is “taking away the fun we had in cardiology,” she added.

Limitations of the survey include the potential for bias; burnout was self-reported and may vary over time; and the 14% response rate was less than ideal, although the results are consistent with other national surveys, Mehta said.

In the recent Medscape Cardiologist Lifestyle, Happiness & Burnout Report 2020, 29% of respondents reported feeling burnout, 2% depressed, and 15% both burned out and depressed.

The Elephant in the Room

The new findings are “certainly a call to action, but it’s hard to avoid the elephant in the room, which is COVID-19,” said panelist Sandra Lewis, MD, Legacy Good Samaritan Hospital & Medical Center, Portland, Oregon.

“The implications of burnout are really front-and-center with our colleagues, who are working long hours, have hectic work environments, lack of control, and, more than that, a lack of safety of the work situations that we have worked so hard to achieve, as we run out of protective gear, we don’t have masks, as we see our colleagues falling victim to this.”

During her presentation, Mehta highlighted the ACC Clinician Well Being Portal and its COVID-19 Hub, but also several self-care strategies to employ, such as relinquishing control during these uncharted waters, revisiting personal strengths and abilities leveraged in other times of uncertainty, and giving yourself a “brain break” by challenging yourself to chat with a colleague for 30 minutes on topics unrelated to COVID-19 and other workplace stressors.

Wilson said the global pandemic only heightens concerns about burnout among cardiologists, which he likened to a “runaway train.”

“These are not great signals, I think they’re shocking, quite frankly,” Wilson told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.

“ACC is setting up a task force from the board of trustees to get to work right away and see about ways we can turn this around as quickly as possible and be a voice for the clinicians,” he said. “It’s not only cardiologists, it’s everybody on our cardiovascular care team, including nurses, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and even pharmacists. Everybody’s burning out.”

The authors and Wilson report no relevant conflicts of interest.

American College of Cardiology 2020 Scientific Session (ACC.20)/World Congress of Cardiology (WCC). Abstract 403.08. Presented March 28, 2020.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, more than a third of U.S. cardiologists report being burned out and 58% of these physicians say they plan on leaving their current job, a new survey shows.

“It is important to recognize the personal and professional repercussions of physician burnout,” lead author Laxmi Mehta, MD, director of preventive cardiology and women’s cardiovascular health at Ohio State University, Columbus, said during an online session of the American College of Cardiology 2020 Scientific Session (ACC.20)/World Congress of Cardiology (WCC).

The new ACC 2019 Well Being Survey was sent to 19,348 ACC members in the fall of 2019 and sought to take a deeper dive into the issue of burnout after the ACC’s most recent Professional Life Survey revealed that one in four U.S. cardiologists were burned out in 2015.

While the number of cardiologists who reported feeling stressed fell from 49.5% in 2015 to 43.9% in 2019, the number of cardiologists who reported being burned out increased by 32% from 26.8% to 35.4%, Mehta said.

Among those currently feeling burned out, 23.9% reported having one or more symptoms of burnout, 9.9% had chronic burnout and work frustrations, and 1.6% were “completely burned out” and at the point where they may need to seek help.

Burned-out cardiologists were more likely than those who felt stressed or no burnout to say they may have made a major medical error in the past 3 months (58.3% vs 33.1% and 8.6%; P ≤ .001).

The Usual Suspects

As previously observed, burnout was highest among mid-career cardiologists with 8 to 21 years in practice vs early-career and late-career cardiologists (45.3% vs 35.4% and 31.5%; P ≤ .001) and in women vs men (45.3% vs 33.5%; P ≤ .001). Of the 2025 ACC members who responded, 362 were women.

Several initiatives are underway by the ACC to increase the diversity of cardiology as a specialty, but attention is also needed for mid-career cardiologists, who may not see the “light at the end of the tunnel,” as they take on more clinical demands and more administrative roles, Mehta observed.

Not surprising, clocking 60 or more hours per week increased the risk for burnout, compared with working 40 to 59 hours per week or fewer than 40 hours per week (41.5% vs 29.5% and 17.9%; P ≤ .001).

Burned-out cardiologists were also more likely than those who felt stressed or no burnout to report working in a hectic work environment (59.5% vs 32.3% and 14.6%; P ≤ .001) and to have plans to leave their current practice setting (58.1% vs 27.9% and 14.0%; P ≤ .001).

Factors that played a significant role in those plans were the desire to spend more time with family, on-call time, excessive work or relative value unit (RVU) targets, electronic health records, and the pressure to maintain high patient satisfaction scores, Mehta noted.

“Is any of this relatable to decreasing numbers of cardiologists in the U.S., or is there work to try and relate actual work force availability to burnout?” asked session moderator B. Hadley Wilson, MD, executive vice chair of the Sanger Heart & Vascular Institute in Charlotte, North Carolina, and a member of ACC’s Board of Trustees, following the presentation.

“It’s hard to decipher all of those exact details, but we do know that the cardiology work force tends to be older, so the mid-careers are going to be pulling on a lot more weight in the next few years, so that is a concern,” Mehta replied.

A big factor, however, is the excessive work hours put in by all cardiologists, especially the increasing amount of time spent with electronic medical records and administrative tasks, which is “taking away the fun we had in cardiology,” she added.

Limitations of the survey include the potential for bias; burnout was self-reported and may vary over time; and the 14% response rate was less than ideal, although the results are consistent with other national surveys, Mehta said.

In the recent Medscape Cardiologist Lifestyle, Happiness & Burnout Report 2020, 29% of respondents reported feeling burnout, 2% depressed, and 15% both burned out and depressed.

The Elephant in the Room

The new findings are “certainly a call to action, but it’s hard to avoid the elephant in the room, which is COVID-19,” said panelist Sandra Lewis, MD, Legacy Good Samaritan Hospital & Medical Center, Portland, Oregon.

“The implications of burnout are really front-and-center with our colleagues, who are working long hours, have hectic work environments, lack of control, and, more than that, a lack of safety of the work situations that we have worked so hard to achieve, as we run out of protective gear, we don’t have masks, as we see our colleagues falling victim to this.”

During her presentation, Mehta highlighted the ACC Clinician Well Being Portal and its COVID-19 Hub, but also several self-care strategies to employ, such as relinquishing control during these uncharted waters, revisiting personal strengths and abilities leveraged in other times of uncertainty, and giving yourself a “brain break” by challenging yourself to chat with a colleague for 30 minutes on topics unrelated to COVID-19 and other workplace stressors.

Wilson said the global pandemic only heightens concerns about burnout among cardiologists, which he likened to a “runaway train.”

“These are not great signals, I think they’re shocking, quite frankly,” Wilson told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.

“ACC is setting up a task force from the board of trustees to get to work right away and see about ways we can turn this around as quickly as possible and be a voice for the clinicians,” he said. “It’s not only cardiologists, it’s everybody on our cardiovascular care team, including nurses, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and even pharmacists. Everybody’s burning out.”

The authors and Wilson report no relevant conflicts of interest.

American College of Cardiology 2020 Scientific Session (ACC.20)/World Congress of Cardiology (WCC). Abstract 403.08. Presented March 28, 2020.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, more than a third of U.S. cardiologists report being burned out and 58% of these physicians say they plan on leaving their current job, a new survey shows.

“It is important to recognize the personal and professional repercussions of physician burnout,” lead author Laxmi Mehta, MD, director of preventive cardiology and women’s cardiovascular health at Ohio State University, Columbus, said during an online session of the American College of Cardiology 2020 Scientific Session (ACC.20)/World Congress of Cardiology (WCC).

The new ACC 2019 Well Being Survey was sent to 19,348 ACC members in the fall of 2019 and sought to take a deeper dive into the issue of burnout after the ACC’s most recent Professional Life Survey revealed that one in four U.S. cardiologists were burned out in 2015.

While the number of cardiologists who reported feeling stressed fell from 49.5% in 2015 to 43.9% in 2019, the number of cardiologists who reported being burned out increased by 32% from 26.8% to 35.4%, Mehta said.

Among those currently feeling burned out, 23.9% reported having one or more symptoms of burnout, 9.9% had chronic burnout and work frustrations, and 1.6% were “completely burned out” and at the point where they may need to seek help.

Burned-out cardiologists were more likely than those who felt stressed or no burnout to say they may have made a major medical error in the past 3 months (58.3% vs 33.1% and 8.6%; P ≤ .001).

The Usual Suspects

As previously observed, burnout was highest among mid-career cardiologists with 8 to 21 years in practice vs early-career and late-career cardiologists (45.3% vs 35.4% and 31.5%; P ≤ .001) and in women vs men (45.3% vs 33.5%; P ≤ .001). Of the 2025 ACC members who responded, 362 were women.

Several initiatives are underway by the ACC to increase the diversity of cardiology as a specialty, but attention is also needed for mid-career cardiologists, who may not see the “light at the end of the tunnel,” as they take on more clinical demands and more administrative roles, Mehta observed.

Not surprising, clocking 60 or more hours per week increased the risk for burnout, compared with working 40 to 59 hours per week or fewer than 40 hours per week (41.5% vs 29.5% and 17.9%; P ≤ .001).

Burned-out cardiologists were also more likely than those who felt stressed or no burnout to report working in a hectic work environment (59.5% vs 32.3% and 14.6%; P ≤ .001) and to have plans to leave their current practice setting (58.1% vs 27.9% and 14.0%; P ≤ .001).

Factors that played a significant role in those plans were the desire to spend more time with family, on-call time, excessive work or relative value unit (RVU) targets, electronic health records, and the pressure to maintain high patient satisfaction scores, Mehta noted.

“Is any of this relatable to decreasing numbers of cardiologists in the U.S., or is there work to try and relate actual work force availability to burnout?” asked session moderator B. Hadley Wilson, MD, executive vice chair of the Sanger Heart & Vascular Institute in Charlotte, North Carolina, and a member of ACC’s Board of Trustees, following the presentation.

“It’s hard to decipher all of those exact details, but we do know that the cardiology work force tends to be older, so the mid-careers are going to be pulling on a lot more weight in the next few years, so that is a concern,” Mehta replied.

A big factor, however, is the excessive work hours put in by all cardiologists, especially the increasing amount of time spent with electronic medical records and administrative tasks, which is “taking away the fun we had in cardiology,” she added.

Limitations of the survey include the potential for bias; burnout was self-reported and may vary over time; and the 14% response rate was less than ideal, although the results are consistent with other national surveys, Mehta said.

In the recent Medscape Cardiologist Lifestyle, Happiness & Burnout Report 2020, 29% of respondents reported feeling burnout, 2% depressed, and 15% both burned out and depressed.

The Elephant in the Room

The new findings are “certainly a call to action, but it’s hard to avoid the elephant in the room, which is COVID-19,” said panelist Sandra Lewis, MD, Legacy Good Samaritan Hospital & Medical Center, Portland, Oregon.

“The implications of burnout are really front-and-center with our colleagues, who are working long hours, have hectic work environments, lack of control, and, more than that, a lack of safety of the work situations that we have worked so hard to achieve, as we run out of protective gear, we don’t have masks, as we see our colleagues falling victim to this.”

During her presentation, Mehta highlighted the ACC Clinician Well Being Portal and its COVID-19 Hub, but also several self-care strategies to employ, such as relinquishing control during these uncharted waters, revisiting personal strengths and abilities leveraged in other times of uncertainty, and giving yourself a “brain break” by challenging yourself to chat with a colleague for 30 minutes on topics unrelated to COVID-19 and other workplace stressors.

Wilson said the global pandemic only heightens concerns about burnout among cardiologists, which he likened to a “runaway train.”

“These are not great signals, I think they’re shocking, quite frankly,” Wilson told theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology.

“ACC is setting up a task force from the board of trustees to get to work right away and see about ways we can turn this around as quickly as possible and be a voice for the clinicians,” he said. “It’s not only cardiologists, it’s everybody on our cardiovascular care team, including nurses, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and even pharmacists. Everybody’s burning out.”

The authors and Wilson report no relevant conflicts of interest.

American College of Cardiology 2020 Scientific Session (ACC.20)/World Congress of Cardiology (WCC). Abstract 403.08. Presented March 28, 2020.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A powerful genetic predisposition to cardiovascular disease was overcome by low lifetime exposure to LDL cholesterol and systolic blood pressure in a naturalistic study conducted in nearly half a million people, Brian A. Ference, MD, reported at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. The meeting was conducted online after its cancellation because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Frontline Medical News

This novel finding potentially opens the door to primordial cardiovascular prevention, the earliest possible form of primary prevention, in which cardiovascular risk factors are curtailed before they can become established.

“It’s important to note that the trajectories of lifetime risk for cardiovascular disease predicted by a PGS [polygenic risk score] are not fixed. At the same level of a PGS for coronary artery disease, participants with lower lifetime exposure to LDL and systolic blood pressure had a lower trajectory of risk for cardiovascular disease. This finding implies that the trajectory of cardiovascular risk predicted by a PGS can be reduced by lowering LDL and blood pressure,” observed Dr. Ference, professor of translational therapeutics and executive director of the Center for Naturally Randomised Trials at the University of Cambridge (England).

Together with an international team of coinvestigators, he analyzed lifetime cardiovascular risk as predicted by a PGS derived by genomic testing in relation to lifetime LDL and systolic blood pressure levels in 445,566 participants in the UK Biobank. Subjects had a mean age of 57.2 years at enrollment and 65.2 years at last follow-up. The primary study outcome, a first major coronary event (MCE) as defined by a fatal or nonfatal MI or coronary revascularization, occurred in 23,032 subjects.

The investigators found a stepwise increase in MCE risk across increasing quintiles of genetic risk as reflected in the PGS, such that participants in the top PGS quintile were at 2.8-fold greater risk of an MCE than those in the first quintile. The risk was essentially the same in men and women.

A key finding was that, at any level of lifetime MCE risk as defined by PGS, the actual event rate varied 10-fold depending upon lifetime exposure to LDL cholesterol and systolic blood pressure (SBP). For example, men in the top PGS quintile with high lifetime SBP and LDL cholesterol had a 93% lifetime MCE risk, but that MCE risk plummeted to 8% in those in the top quintile but with low lifetime SBP and LDL cholesterol.

Small differences in those two cardiovascular risk factors over the course of many decades had a big impact. For example, it took only a 10-mg/dL lower lifetime exposure to LDL cholesterol and a 2–mm Hg lower SBP to blunt the trajectory of lifetime risk for MCE in individuals in the middle quintile of PGS to the more favorable trajectory of those in the lowest PGS quintile. Conversely, with a 10-mg/dL increase in LDL cholesterol and 2–mm Hg greater SBP over the course of a lifetime, the trajectory of risk for people in the middle quintile of PGS became essentially superimposable upon the trajectory associated with the highest PGS quintile, the cardiologist explained.

“Participants with low lifetime exposure to LDL and blood pressure had a low lifetime risk of cardiovascular disease at all levels of PGS for coronary disease. This implies that LDL and blood pressure, which are modifiable, may be more powerful determinants of lifetime risk than polygenic predisposition,” Dr. Ference declared.

Discussant Vera Bittner, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Alabama, Birmingham, said that for her this study carried a heartening take-home message: “The polygenic risk score can stratify the population into different risk groups and, at the same time, lifetime exposure to LDL and blood pressure significantly modifies the risk, suggesting that genetics is not destiny, and we may be able to intervene.”

“To be able to know what your cardiovascular risk is from an early age and to plan therapies to prevent cardiovascular disease would be incredible,” agreed session chair B. Hadley Wilson, MD, of the Sanger Heart and Vascular Institute in Charlotte, N.C.

Sekar Kathiresan, MD, said the study introduces the PGS as a new risk factor for coronary artery disease. Focusing efforts to achieve lifelong low exposure to LDL cholesterol and blood pressure in those individuals in the top 10%-20% in PGS should provide a great absolute reduction in MCE risk.

“It potentially can give you a 30- or 40-year head start in understanding who’s at risk because the factor can be measured as early as birth,” observed Dr. Kathiresan, a cardiologist who is director of the Center for Genomic Medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

“It’s also very inexpensive: You get the information once, bank it, and use it throughout life,” noted Paul M. Ridker, MD, director of the Center for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

“A genome-wide scan will give us information not just on cardiovascular risk, but on cancer risk, on risk of kidney disease, and on the risk of a host of other issues. It’s a very different way of thinking about risk presentation across a whole variety of endpoints,” Dr. Ridker added.

Dr. Ference reported receiving fees and/or research grants from Merck, Amgen, Regeneron, Sanofi, Novartis, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, NovoNordisk, The Medicines Company, Mylan, Daiichi Sankyo, Silence Therapeutics, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, dalCOR, CiVi Pharma, KrKa Pharmaceuticals, Medtronic, and Celera.

bjancin@mdedge.com

A powerful genetic predisposition to cardiovascular disease was overcome by low lifetime exposure to LDL cholesterol and systolic blood pressure in a naturalistic study conducted in nearly half a million people, Brian A. Ference, MD, reported at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. The meeting was conducted online after its cancellation because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Frontline Medical News

This novel finding potentially opens the door to primordial cardiovascular prevention, the earliest possible form of primary prevention, in which cardiovascular risk factors are curtailed before they can become established.

“It’s important to note that the trajectories of lifetime risk for cardiovascular disease predicted by a PGS [polygenic risk score] are not fixed. At the same level of a PGS for coronary artery disease, participants with lower lifetime exposure to LDL and systolic blood pressure had a lower trajectory of risk for cardiovascular disease. This finding implies that the trajectory of cardiovascular risk predicted by a PGS can be reduced by lowering LDL and blood pressure,” observed Dr. Ference, professor of translational therapeutics and executive director of the Center for Naturally Randomised Trials at the University of Cambridge (England).

Together with an international team of coinvestigators, he analyzed lifetime cardiovascular risk as predicted by a PGS derived by genomic testing in relation to lifetime LDL and systolic blood pressure levels in 445,566 participants in the UK Biobank. Subjects had a mean age of 57.2 years at enrollment and 65.2 years at last follow-up. The primary study outcome, a first major coronary event (MCE) as defined by a fatal or nonfatal MI or coronary revascularization, occurred in 23,032 subjects.

The investigators found a stepwise increase in MCE risk across increasing quintiles of genetic risk as reflected in the PGS, such that participants in the top PGS quintile were at 2.8-fold greater risk of an MCE than those in the first quintile. The risk was essentially the same in men and women.

A key finding was that, at any level of lifetime MCE risk as defined by PGS, the actual event rate varied 10-fold depending upon lifetime exposure to LDL cholesterol and systolic blood pressure (SBP). For example, men in the top PGS quintile with high lifetime SBP and LDL cholesterol had a 93% lifetime MCE risk, but that MCE risk plummeted to 8% in those in the top quintile but with low lifetime SBP and LDL cholesterol.

Small differences in those two cardiovascular risk factors over the course of many decades had a big impact. For example, it took only a 10-mg/dL lower lifetime exposure to LDL cholesterol and a 2–mm Hg lower SBP to blunt the trajectory of lifetime risk for MCE in individuals in the middle quintile of PGS to the more favorable trajectory of those in the lowest PGS quintile. Conversely, with a 10-mg/dL increase in LDL cholesterol and 2–mm Hg greater SBP over the course of a lifetime, the trajectory of risk for people in the middle quintile of PGS became essentially superimposable upon the trajectory associated with the highest PGS quintile, the cardiologist explained.

“Participants with low lifetime exposure to LDL and blood pressure had a low lifetime risk of cardiovascular disease at all levels of PGS for coronary disease. This implies that LDL and blood pressure, which are modifiable, may be more powerful determinants of lifetime risk than polygenic predisposition,” Dr. Ference declared.

Discussant Vera Bittner, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Alabama, Birmingham, said that for her this study carried a heartening take-home message: “The polygenic risk score can stratify the population into different risk groups and, at the same time, lifetime exposure to LDL and blood pressure significantly modifies the risk, suggesting that genetics is not destiny, and we may be able to intervene.”

“To be able to know what your cardiovascular risk is from an early age and to plan therapies to prevent cardiovascular disease would be incredible,” agreed session chair B. Hadley Wilson, MD, of the Sanger Heart and Vascular Institute in Charlotte, N.C.

Sekar Kathiresan, MD, said the study introduces the PGS as a new risk factor for coronary artery disease. Focusing efforts to achieve lifelong low exposure to LDL cholesterol and blood pressure in those individuals in the top 10%-20% in PGS should provide a great absolute reduction in MCE risk.

“It potentially can give you a 30- or 40-year head start in understanding who’s at risk because the factor can be measured as early as birth,” observed Dr. Kathiresan, a cardiologist who is director of the Center for Genomic Medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

“It’s also very inexpensive: You get the information once, bank it, and use it throughout life,” noted Paul M. Ridker, MD, director of the Center for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

“A genome-wide scan will give us information not just on cardiovascular risk, but on cancer risk, on risk of kidney disease, and on the risk of a host of other issues. It’s a very different way of thinking about risk presentation across a whole variety of endpoints,” Dr. Ridker added.

Dr. Ference reported receiving fees and/or research grants from Merck, Amgen, Regeneron, Sanofi, Novartis, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, NovoNordisk, The Medicines Company, Mylan, Daiichi Sankyo, Silence Therapeutics, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, dalCOR, CiVi Pharma, KrKa Pharmaceuticals, Medtronic, and Celera.

bjancin@mdedge.com

A powerful genetic predisposition to cardiovascular disease was overcome by low lifetime exposure to LDL cholesterol and systolic blood pressure in a naturalistic study conducted in nearly half a million people, Brian A. Ference, MD, reported at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. The meeting was conducted online after its cancellation because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Frontline Medical News

This novel finding potentially opens the door to primordial cardiovascular prevention, the earliest possible form of primary prevention, in which cardiovascular risk factors are curtailed before they can become established.

“It’s important to note that the trajectories of lifetime risk for cardiovascular disease predicted by a PGS [polygenic risk score] are not fixed. At the same level of a PGS for coronary artery disease, participants with lower lifetime exposure to LDL and systolic blood pressure had a lower trajectory of risk for cardiovascular disease. This finding implies that the trajectory of cardiovascular risk predicted by a PGS can be reduced by lowering LDL and blood pressure,” observed Dr. Ference, professor of translational therapeutics and executive director of the Center for Naturally Randomised Trials at the University of Cambridge (England).

Together with an international team of coinvestigators, he analyzed lifetime cardiovascular risk as predicted by a PGS derived by genomic testing in relation to lifetime LDL and systolic blood pressure levels in 445,566 participants in the UK Biobank. Subjects had a mean age of 57.2 years at enrollment and 65.2 years at last follow-up. The primary study outcome, a first major coronary event (MCE) as defined by a fatal or nonfatal MI or coronary revascularization, occurred in 23,032 subjects.

The investigators found a stepwise increase in MCE risk across increasing quintiles of genetic risk as reflected in the PGS, such that participants in the top PGS quintile were at 2.8-fold greater risk of an MCE than those in the first quintile. The risk was essentially the same in men and women.

A key finding was that, at any level of lifetime MCE risk as defined by PGS, the actual event rate varied 10-fold depending upon lifetime exposure to LDL cholesterol and systolic blood pressure (SBP). For example, men in the top PGS quintile with high lifetime SBP and LDL cholesterol had a 93% lifetime MCE risk, but that MCE risk plummeted to 8% in those in the top quintile but with low lifetime SBP and LDL cholesterol.

Small differences in those two cardiovascular risk factors over the course of many decades had a big impact. For example, it took only a 10-mg/dL lower lifetime exposure to LDL cholesterol and a 2–mm Hg lower SBP to blunt the trajectory of lifetime risk for MCE in individuals in the middle quintile of PGS to the more favorable trajectory of those in the lowest PGS quintile. Conversely, with a 10-mg/dL increase in LDL cholesterol and 2–mm Hg greater SBP over the course of a lifetime, the trajectory of risk for people in the middle quintile of PGS became essentially superimposable upon the trajectory associated with the highest PGS quintile, the cardiologist explained.

“Participants with low lifetime exposure to LDL and blood pressure had a low lifetime risk of cardiovascular disease at all levels of PGS for coronary disease. This implies that LDL and blood pressure, which are modifiable, may be more powerful determinants of lifetime risk than polygenic predisposition,” Dr. Ference declared.

Discussant Vera Bittner, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Alabama, Birmingham, said that for her this study carried a heartening take-home message: “The polygenic risk score can stratify the population into different risk groups and, at the same time, lifetime exposure to LDL and blood pressure significantly modifies the risk, suggesting that genetics is not destiny, and we may be able to intervene.”

“To be able to know what your cardiovascular risk is from an early age and to plan therapies to prevent cardiovascular disease would be incredible,” agreed session chair B. Hadley Wilson, MD, of the Sanger Heart and Vascular Institute in Charlotte, N.C.

Sekar Kathiresan, MD, said the study introduces the PGS as a new risk factor for coronary artery disease. Focusing efforts to achieve lifelong low exposure to LDL cholesterol and blood pressure in those individuals in the top 10%-20% in PGS should provide a great absolute reduction in MCE risk.

“It potentially can give you a 30- or 40-year head start in understanding who’s at risk because the factor can be measured as early as birth,” observed Dr. Kathiresan, a cardiologist who is director of the Center for Genomic Medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

“It’s also very inexpensive: You get the information once, bank it, and use it throughout life,” noted Paul M. Ridker, MD, director of the Center for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

“A genome-wide scan will give us information not just on cardiovascular risk, but on cancer risk, on risk of kidney disease, and on the risk of a host of other issues. It’s a very different way of thinking about risk presentation across a whole variety of endpoints,” Dr. Ridker added.

Dr. Ference reported receiving fees and/or research grants from Merck, Amgen, Regeneron, Sanofi, Novartis, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, NovoNordisk, The Medicines Company, Mylan, Daiichi Sankyo, Silence Therapeutics, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, dalCOR, CiVi Pharma, KrKa Pharmaceuticals, Medtronic, and Celera.

bjancin@mdedge.com

A combined antithrombotic regimen of rivaroxaban plus aspirin was safe and effective for reducing ischemic events in patients with symptomatic peripheral artery disease who had just undergone peripheral artery revascularization in VOYAGER PAD, a multicenter randomized trial with nearly 6,600 patients.

The study and its results were a groundbreaking advance for this patient population, who until now have had no evidence-based treatment available, Mark P. Bonaca, MD, said on March 28 at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. The meeting was conducted online after its cancellation because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The study design excluded a small percentage of patients (about 2%) because of their very high bleeding-risk history. Among the treated patients, in those who received a combination of 2.5 mg rivaroxaban twice daily plus 100 mg of aspirin daily, bleeding events were more common, compared with control patients who received aspirin alone. But the patients who received both drugs showed no excess of fatal bleeds or intracranial hemorrhages, and the rate of ischemic events prevented by rivaroxaban plus aspirin exceeded the excess rate of bleeds by three- to sixfold, depending on how bleeding episodes were defined, noted Dr. Bonaca, executive director of CPC Clinical Research and CPC Community Health, an academic research organization affiliated with the University of Colorado at Denver in Aurora.

“This was a much anticipated and important trial. Those of us who treat patients with lower-limb peripheral artery disease have not had much evidence on how to treat these patients, particularly those who have just undergone revascularization. This trial gives us the evidence,” commented Mark A. Creager, MD, professor of medicine and director of the Heart and Vascular Center at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon, N.H. “The bleeding risk [from adding rivaroxaban treatment] was substantially less than the benefit from preventing major adverse limb events and major adverse cardiovascular events,” producing a “favorable balance” of benefit, compared with risk, Dr. Creager said in an interview. “In the right patients, the benefit greatly outweighed the risk.”

“This was an incredible trial that will advance care,” commented Joshua A. Beckman, MD, professor of medicine and director of Vascular Medicine at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn. “The treatment was beneficial for patients across a range of symptom severity, from claudication to critical limb ischemia,” and the results expand the range of patients proven to benefit from the rivaroxaban plus aspirin combination from the types of patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) enrolled in the COMPASS trial. That pivotal trial showed similar benefit from the dual-antithrombotic regimen, but in patients who had both coronary artery disease as well as atherosclerotic disease in at least one additional vascular bed, such as lower-limb arteries (N Engl J Med. 2017 Oct 5;377[14]:1319-30). In addition to “bringing acute limb ischemia to the cardiovascular community,” the results also identified a very useful time point in the clinical presentation of these patients for starting a combined rivaroxaban plus aspirin regimen: when patients are hospitalized for their revascularization procedure, said Dr. Beckman, a designated discussant for the report.

Among the 6,564 patients randomized in the study, about two-thirds underwent endovascular revascularization within 10 days before starting their study treatment, and the remaining third had undergone surgical revascularization. The study focused on patients “with symptomatic PAD but without known coronary artery disease,” noted Dr. Bonaca.

VOYAGER PAD trial

The VOYAGER PAD (Vascular Outcomes Study of Acetylsalicylic Acid Along With Rivaroxaban in Endovascular Or Surgical Limb Revascularization for Peripheral Artery Disease) trial enrolled patients during 2015-2018 at 534 sites in 34 countries. The study’s primary endpoint was a composite of acute limb ischemia, major amputation for vascular causes, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, or death from cardiovascular causes, and was reduced during a median follow-up of 28 months from 19.9% with aspirin alone to 17.3% on the combined regimen, a 2.6% absolute difference and a 15% relative risk reduction that was statistically significant, an endpoint primarily driven by a reduction in acute limb ischemia. The primary safety endpoint was the rate of TIMI (Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction) major bleeds, which was 0.8% higher in the patients who received the anticoagulant, a 43% relative increase that just missed statistical significance. But that result demonstrated the small but important increased risk for bleeding events that the dual regimen produced in these patients, Dr. Bonaca said. Simultaneously with his report the findings also appeared in an article published online (N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 28. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2000052).

Dr. Bonaca cautioned that one limitation of his report on the primary outcome of VOYAGER PAD is that the results of an important subgroup analysis won’t be known until a second report during the ACC online sessions on March 29, which will examine the impact that treatment with the antiplatelet drug clopidogrel had on both the efficacy and safety outcomes. Half of the enrolled patients received clopidogrel at the discretion of their treating physicians; addition or exclusion of concurrent clopidogrel treatment was outside of the study’s design. “Is efficacy the same with or without clopidogrel, and what is the bleeding cost,” especially in patients who receive three antithrombotic drugs? “It will be very important to understand,” Dr. Bonaca said.

“Until now, we had no idea of what was the best antithrombotic strategy for patients after a successful peripheral vascular intervention.” VOYAGER PAD was “an unprecedented vascular study that addressed an unmet patient need,” commented Roxana Mehran, MD, a designated discussant for the study and professor of medicine and director of Interventional Cardiovascular Research at Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York.

VOYAGER PAD was sponsored by Bayer and Janssen, the companies that market rivaroxaban (Xarelto). The institution that Dr. Bonaca directs has received research funding from Bayer and Janssen, and also from Amgen, Aralez, AstraZeneca, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi. Dr. Creager had no disclosures. Dr. Beckman has served as a data safety monitor for Bayer and for Novartis, and has been a consultant to Amgen, AstraZeneca, JanOne and Sanofi. Dr. Mehran has received research funding from Bayer and has been a consultant to Janssen, and she has also received research funding or been a consultant to several other companies.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Bonaca MP et al. ACC 20, Abstract 402-10.

A combined antithrombotic regimen of rivaroxaban plus aspirin was safe and effective for reducing ischemic events in patients with symptomatic peripheral artery disease who had just undergone peripheral artery revascularization in VOYAGER PAD, a multicenter randomized trial with nearly 6,600 patients.

The study and its results were a groundbreaking advance for this patient population, who until now have had no evidence-based treatment available, Mark P. Bonaca, MD, said on March 28 at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. The meeting was conducted online after its cancellation because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The study design excluded a small percentage of patients (about 2%) because of their very high bleeding-risk history. Among the treated patients, in those who received a combination of 2.5 mg rivaroxaban twice daily plus 100 mg of aspirin daily, bleeding events were more common, compared with control patients who received aspirin alone. But the patients who received both drugs showed no excess of fatal bleeds or intracranial hemorrhages, and the rate of ischemic events prevented by rivaroxaban plus aspirin exceeded the excess rate of bleeds by three- to sixfold, depending on how bleeding episodes were defined, noted Dr. Bonaca, executive director of CPC Clinical Research and CPC Community Health, an academic research organization affiliated with the University of Colorado at Denver in Aurora.

“This was a much anticipated and important trial. Those of us who treat patients with lower-limb peripheral artery disease have not had much evidence on how to treat these patients, particularly those who have just undergone revascularization. This trial gives us the evidence,” commented Mark A. Creager, MD, professor of medicine and director of the Heart and Vascular Center at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon, N.H. “The bleeding risk [from adding rivaroxaban treatment] was substantially less than the benefit from preventing major adverse limb events and major adverse cardiovascular events,” producing a “favorable balance” of benefit, compared with risk, Dr. Creager said in an interview. “In the right patients, the benefit greatly outweighed the risk.”

“This was an incredible trial that will advance care,” commented Joshua A. Beckman, MD, professor of medicine and director of Vascular Medicine at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn. “The treatment was beneficial for patients across a range of symptom severity, from claudication to critical limb ischemia,” and the results expand the range of patients proven to benefit from the rivaroxaban plus aspirin combination from the types of patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) enrolled in the COMPASS trial. That pivotal trial showed similar benefit from the dual-antithrombotic regimen, but in patients who had both coronary artery disease as well as atherosclerotic disease in at least one additional vascular bed, such as lower-limb arteries (N Engl J Med. 2017 Oct 5;377[14]:1319-30). In addition to “bringing acute limb ischemia to the cardiovascular community,” the results also identified a very useful time point in the clinical presentation of these patients for starting a combined rivaroxaban plus aspirin regimen: when patients are hospitalized for their revascularization procedure, said Dr. Beckman, a designated discussant for the report.

Among the 6,564 patients randomized in the study, about two-thirds underwent endovascular revascularization within 10 days before starting their study treatment, and the remaining third had undergone surgical revascularization. The study focused on patients “with symptomatic PAD but without known coronary artery disease,” noted Dr. Bonaca.

VOYAGER PAD trial

The VOYAGER PAD (Vascular Outcomes Study of Acetylsalicylic Acid Along With Rivaroxaban in Endovascular Or Surgical Limb Revascularization for Peripheral Artery Disease) trial enrolled patients during 2015-2018 at 534 sites in 34 countries. The study’s primary endpoint was a composite of acute limb ischemia, major amputation for vascular causes, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, or death from cardiovascular causes, and was reduced during a median follow-up of 28 months from 19.9% with aspirin alone to 17.3% on the combined regimen, a 2.6% absolute difference and a 15% relative risk reduction that was statistically significant, an endpoint primarily driven by a reduction in acute limb ischemia. The primary safety endpoint was the rate of TIMI (Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction) major bleeds, which was 0.8% higher in the patients who received the anticoagulant, a 43% relative increase that just missed statistical significance. But that result demonstrated the small but important increased risk for bleeding events that the dual regimen produced in these patients, Dr. Bonaca said. Simultaneously with his report the findings also appeared in an article published online (N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 28. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2000052).

Dr. Bonaca cautioned that one limitation of his report on the primary outcome of VOYAGER PAD is that the results of an important subgroup analysis won’t be known until a second report during the ACC online sessions on March 29, which will examine the impact that treatment with the antiplatelet drug clopidogrel had on both the efficacy and safety outcomes. Half of the enrolled patients received clopidogrel at the discretion of their treating physicians; addition or exclusion of concurrent clopidogrel treatment was outside of the study’s design. “Is efficacy the same with or without clopidogrel, and what is the bleeding cost,” especially in patients who receive three antithrombotic drugs? “It will be very important to understand,” Dr. Bonaca said.

“Until now, we had no idea of what was the best antithrombotic strategy for patients after a successful peripheral vascular intervention.” VOYAGER PAD was “an unprecedented vascular study that addressed an unmet patient need,” commented Roxana Mehran, MD, a designated discussant for the study and professor of medicine and director of Interventional Cardiovascular Research at Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York.

VOYAGER PAD was sponsored by Bayer and Janssen, the companies that market rivaroxaban (Xarelto). The institution that Dr. Bonaca directs has received research funding from Bayer and Janssen, and also from Amgen, Aralez, AstraZeneca, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi. Dr. Creager had no disclosures. Dr. Beckman has served as a data safety monitor for Bayer and for Novartis, and has been a consultant to Amgen, AstraZeneca, JanOne and Sanofi. Dr. Mehran has received research funding from Bayer and has been a consultant to Janssen, and she has also received research funding or been a consultant to several other companies.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Bonaca MP et al. ACC 20, Abstract 402-10.

A combined antithrombotic regimen of rivaroxaban plus aspirin was safe and effective for reducing ischemic events in patients with symptomatic peripheral artery disease who had just undergone peripheral artery revascularization in VOYAGER PAD, a multicenter randomized trial with nearly 6,600 patients.

The study and its results were a groundbreaking advance for this patient population, who until now have had no evidence-based treatment available, Mark P. Bonaca, MD, said on March 28 at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. The meeting was conducted online after its cancellation because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The study design excluded a small percentage of patients (about 2%) because of their very high bleeding-risk history. Among the treated patients, in those who received a combination of 2.5 mg rivaroxaban twice daily plus 100 mg of aspirin daily, bleeding events were more common, compared with control patients who received aspirin alone. But the patients who received both drugs showed no excess of fatal bleeds or intracranial hemorrhages, and the rate of ischemic events prevented by rivaroxaban plus aspirin exceeded the excess rate of bleeds by three- to sixfold, depending on how bleeding episodes were defined, noted Dr. Bonaca, executive director of CPC Clinical Research and CPC Community Health, an academic research organization affiliated with the University of Colorado at Denver in Aurora.

“This was a much anticipated and important trial. Those of us who treat patients with lower-limb peripheral artery disease have not had much evidence on how to treat these patients, particularly those who have just undergone revascularization. This trial gives us the evidence,” commented Mark A. Creager, MD, professor of medicine and director of the Heart and Vascular Center at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon, N.H. “The bleeding risk [from adding rivaroxaban treatment] was substantially less than the benefit from preventing major adverse limb events and major adverse cardiovascular events,” producing a “favorable balance” of benefit, compared with risk, Dr. Creager said in an interview. “In the right patients, the benefit greatly outweighed the risk.”

“This was an incredible trial that will advance care,” commented Joshua A. Beckman, MD, professor of medicine and director of Vascular Medicine at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn. “The treatment was beneficial for patients across a range of symptom severity, from claudication to critical limb ischemia,” and the results expand the range of patients proven to benefit from the rivaroxaban plus aspirin combination from the types of patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) enrolled in the COMPASS trial. That pivotal trial showed similar benefit from the dual-antithrombotic regimen, but in patients who had both coronary artery disease as well as atherosclerotic disease in at least one additional vascular bed, such as lower-limb arteries (N Engl J Med. 2017 Oct 5;377[14]:1319-30). In addition to “bringing acute limb ischemia to the cardiovascular community,” the results also identified a very useful time point in the clinical presentation of these patients for starting a combined rivaroxaban plus aspirin regimen: when patients are hospitalized for their revascularization procedure, said Dr. Beckman, a designated discussant for the report.

Among the 6,564 patients randomized in the study, about two-thirds underwent endovascular revascularization within 10 days before starting their study treatment, and the remaining third had undergone surgical revascularization. The study focused on patients “with symptomatic PAD but without known coronary artery disease,” noted Dr. Bonaca.

VOYAGER PAD trial

The VOYAGER PAD (Vascular Outcomes Study of Acetylsalicylic Acid Along With Rivaroxaban in Endovascular Or Surgical Limb Revascularization for Peripheral Artery Disease) trial enrolled patients during 2015-2018 at 534 sites in 34 countries. The study’s primary endpoint was a composite of acute limb ischemia, major amputation for vascular causes, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, or death from cardiovascular causes, and was reduced during a median follow-up of 28 months from 19.9% with aspirin alone to 17.3% on the combined regimen, a 2.6% absolute difference and a 15% relative risk reduction that was statistically significant, an endpoint primarily driven by a reduction in acute limb ischemia. The primary safety endpoint was the rate of TIMI (Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction) major bleeds, which was 0.8% higher in the patients who received the anticoagulant, a 43% relative increase that just missed statistical significance. But that result demonstrated the small but important increased risk for bleeding events that the dual regimen produced in these patients, Dr. Bonaca said. Simultaneously with his report the findings also appeared in an article published online (N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 28. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2000052).

Dr. Bonaca cautioned that one limitation of his report on the primary outcome of VOYAGER PAD is that the results of an important subgroup analysis won’t be known until a second report during the ACC online sessions on March 29, which will examine the impact that treatment with the antiplatelet drug clopidogrel had on both the efficacy and safety outcomes. Half of the enrolled patients received clopidogrel at the discretion of their treating physicians; addition or exclusion of concurrent clopidogrel treatment was outside of the study’s design. “Is efficacy the same with or without clopidogrel, and what is the bleeding cost,” especially in patients who receive three antithrombotic drugs? “It will be very important to understand,” Dr. Bonaca said.

“Until now, we had no idea of what was the best antithrombotic strategy for patients after a successful peripheral vascular intervention.” VOYAGER PAD was “an unprecedented vascular study that addressed an unmet patient need,” commented Roxana Mehran, MD, a designated discussant for the study and professor of medicine and director of Interventional Cardiovascular Research at Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York.

VOYAGER PAD was sponsored by Bayer and Janssen, the companies that market rivaroxaban (Xarelto). The institution that Dr. Bonaca directs has received research funding from Bayer and Janssen, and also from Amgen, Aralez, AstraZeneca, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi. Dr. Creager had no disclosures. Dr. Beckman has served as a data safety monitor for Bayer and for Novartis, and has been a consultant to Amgen, AstraZeneca, JanOne and Sanofi. Dr. Mehran has received research funding from Bayer and has been a consultant to Janssen, and she has also received research funding or been a consultant to several other companies.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Bonaca MP et al. ACC 20, Abstract 402-10.

Ramping up health system capacity for the coming surge of U.S. COVID-19 cases requires a commitment to boosting safety, capacity, and communication, according to a physician leader and a health workforce expert.

Polly Pittman, PhD, is hearing a lot of concern among health care workers that it’s difficult to find definitive and accurate information about how best to protect themselves and their families, she said during a webinar by the Alliance for Health Policy titled Health System Capacity: Protecting Frontline Health Workers. “The knowledge base is evolving very quickly,” said Dr. Pittman, Fitzhugh Mullan Professor of Health Workforce Equity at the Milken Institute School of Public Health, George Washington University, Washington.

He noted that Permanente is “working hand in glove with state authorities throughout the country.” Efforts include establishing alternative sites for assessment and testing, as well as opening up closed hospitals and working with the National Guard and the Department of Defense to prepare mobile hospital units that can be deployed in areas with peak infection rates. “Having all of those options available to us is critically important,” he said.

To mitigate potential provider shortages, Dr. Pittman said, “All members of the care team could potentially do more” than their current licenses allow. Expanding the scope of practice for pharmacists, clinical laboratory staff, licensed practical nurses, and medical assistants can help with efficient care delivery.

Other measures include expedited licensing for near-graduates and nonpracticing foreign medical graduates, as well as relicensing for retired health care personnel and those who are not currently working directly with patients, she said.

Getting these things done “requires leadership on behalf of the licensing bodies,” as well as coordination with state regulatory authorities, Dr. Pittman pointed out.

Dr. Parodi called for state and federal governments to implement emergency declarations that suspend some existing health codes to achieve repurposing of staff. Getting these measures in place now will allow facilities “to be able to provide that in-time training now before the surge occurs. ... We are actively developing plans knowing that there’s going to be a need for more critical care.”

The game plan at Permanente, he said, is to repurpose critical care physicians to provide consultations to multiple hospitalists who are providing the bulk of frontline care. At the same time, they plan to repurpose other specialists to backfill the hospitalists, and to repurpose family medicine physicians to supplement staff in emergency departments and other frontline intake areas.

All the organizational measures being taken won’t be in vain if they increase preparedness for the long battle ahead, he said. “We need to double down on the work. ... We need to continue social distancing, and we’ve got to ramp up testing. Until we do that we have to hold the line on basic public health measures.”

Dr. Parodi is employed by Permanente. The panelists reported no disclosures relevant to the presentation, which was sponsored by the Alliance for Health Policy, the Commonwealth Fund, and the National Institute for Health Care Management Foundation.

koakes@mdedge.com

Ramping up health system capacity for the coming surge of U.S. COVID-19 cases requires a commitment to boosting safety, capacity, and communication, according to a physician leader and a health workforce expert.

Polly Pittman, PhD, is hearing a lot of concern among health care workers that it’s difficult to find definitive and accurate information about how best to protect themselves and their families, she said during a webinar by the Alliance for Health Policy titled Health System Capacity: Protecting Frontline Health Workers. “The knowledge base is evolving very quickly,” said Dr. Pittman, Fitzhugh Mullan Professor of Health Workforce Equity at the Milken Institute School of Public Health, George Washington University, Washington.

He noted that Permanente is “working hand in glove with state authorities throughout the country.” Efforts include establishing alternative sites for assessment and testing, as well as opening up closed hospitals and working with the National Guard and the Department of Defense to prepare mobile hospital units that can be deployed in areas with peak infection rates. “Having all of those options available to us is critically important,” he said.

To mitigate potential provider shortages, Dr. Pittman said, “All members of the care team could potentially do more” than their current licenses allow. Expanding the scope of practice for pharmacists, clinical laboratory staff, licensed practical nurses, and medical assistants can help with efficient care delivery.

Other measures include expedited licensing for near-graduates and nonpracticing foreign medical graduates, as well as relicensing for retired health care personnel and those who are not currently working directly with patients, she said.

Getting these things done “requires leadership on behalf of the licensing bodies,” as well as coordination with state regulatory authorities, Dr. Pittman pointed out.

Dr. Parodi called for state and federal governments to implement emergency declarations that suspend some existing health codes to achieve repurposing of staff. Getting these measures in place now will allow facilities “to be able to provide that in-time training now before the surge occurs. ... We are actively developing plans knowing that there’s going to be a need for more critical care.”

The game plan at Permanente, he said, is to repurpose critical care physicians to provide consultations to multiple hospitalists who are providing the bulk of frontline care. At the same time, they plan to repurpose other specialists to backfill the hospitalists, and to repurpose family medicine physicians to supplement staff in emergency departments and other frontline intake areas.

All the organizational measures being taken won’t be in vain if they increase preparedness for the long battle ahead, he said. “We need to double down on the work. ... We need to continue social distancing, and we’ve got to ramp up testing. Until we do that we have to hold the line on basic public health measures.”

Dr. Parodi is employed by Permanente. The panelists reported no disclosures relevant to the presentation, which was sponsored by the Alliance for Health Policy, the Commonwealth Fund, and the National Institute for Health Care Management Foundation.

koakes@mdedge.com

Ramping up health system capacity for the coming surge of U.S. COVID-19 cases requires a commitment to boosting safety, capacity, and communication, according to a physician leader and a health workforce expert.

Polly Pittman, PhD, is hearing a lot of concern among health care workers that it’s difficult to find definitive and accurate information about how best to protect themselves and their families, she said during a webinar by the Alliance for Health Policy titled Health System Capacity: Protecting Frontline Health Workers. “The knowledge base is evolving very quickly,” said Dr. Pittman, Fitzhugh Mullan Professor of Health Workforce Equity at the Milken Institute School of Public Health, George Washington University, Washington.

He noted that Permanente is “working hand in glove with state authorities throughout the country.” Efforts include establishing alternative sites for assessment and testing, as well as opening up closed hospitals and working with the National Guard and the Department of Defense to prepare mobile hospital units that can be deployed in areas with peak infection rates. “Having all of those options available to us is critically important,” he said.

To mitigate potential provider shortages, Dr. Pittman said, “All members of the care team could potentially do more” than their current licenses allow. Expanding the scope of practice for pharmacists, clinical laboratory staff, licensed practical nurses, and medical assistants can help with efficient care delivery.

Other measures include expedited licensing for near-graduates and nonpracticing foreign medical graduates, as well as relicensing for retired health care personnel and those who are not currently working directly with patients, she said.

Getting these things done “requires leadership on behalf of the licensing bodies,” as well as coordination with state regulatory authorities, Dr. Pittman pointed out.

Dr. Parodi called for state and federal governments to implement emergency declarations that suspend some existing health codes to achieve repurposing of staff. Getting these measures in place now will allow facilities “to be able to provide that in-time training now before the surge occurs. ... We are actively developing plans knowing that there’s going to be a need for more critical care.”

The game plan at Permanente, he said, is to repurpose critical care physicians to provide consultations to multiple hospitalists who are providing the bulk of frontline care. At the same time, they plan to repurpose other specialists to backfill the hospitalists, and to repurpose family medicine physicians to supplement staff in emergency departments and other frontline intake areas.

All the organizational measures being taken won’t be in vain if they increase preparedness for the long battle ahead, he said. “We need to double down on the work. ... We need to continue social distancing, and we’ve got to ramp up testing. Until we do that we have to hold the line on basic public health measures.”

Dr. Parodi is employed by Permanente. The panelists reported no disclosures relevant to the presentation, which was sponsored by the Alliance for Health Policy, the Commonwealth Fund, and the National Institute for Health Care Management Foundation.

koakes@mdedge.com

LAHAINA, HAWAII – General dermatologists can have a high degree of confidence in treating patients with stage I mycosis fungoides without bringing in a medical oncologist, Trilokraj Tejasvi, MBBS, said at the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar provided by Global Academy for Medical Education/Skin Disease Education Foundation.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

This approach is in the best interest of patients with stage I mycosis fungoides, the skin-limited, patch/plaque form of the disease that generally responds well to skin-directed therapies without needing to resort to the medical oncologist’s arsenal of toxic treatments.

“For many medical oncologists, a lymphoma is a lymphoma. The first thing they give is CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone), and all the variants of CHOP,” cautioned Dr. Tejasvi, a dermatologist who is director of the cutaneous lymphoma program at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and chief of the dermatology service at the Ann Arbor Veteran Affairs Hospital.

Stage IA mycosis fungoides is defined under the TNMB (tumor, node, metastasis, blood) classification as patches and/or plaques covering less than 10% of body surface area along with negative nodes, no metastases, and no or low burden of disease in the blood. Stage IB differs only in that it features 10% or greater body surface area involvement. The extent of body surface area involvement can be estimated by hands-on measurement in which the area of one of the patient’s hands – palm plus fingers – is considered equivalent to 1% of that individual’s total body surface area.

The first question patients newly diagnosed with a cutaneous T-cell lymphoma ask concerns their prognosis. For those with stage IA or IB mycosis fungoides, the news is very good, as highlighted in a retrospective study of nearly 1,400 patients with mycosis fungoides, 71% of whom presented with patch/plaque stage disease (J Clin Oncol. 2010 Nov 1;28[31]:4730-9).

The median overall survival was 35.5 years in patients with stage IA disease and 21.5 years in those with stage IB disease.

“I tell patients with stage IA disease that whether we treat it or not will not change the course of their life,” Dr. Tejasvri said.

His message to patients with stage IB disease is that, because of their 38% risk of disease progression, he wants to see them in follow-up annually for the rest of their life.

Stage IIA disease – that is, patches and/or plaques with lymph node involvement with no effacement – is a tipping point at which serious consideration should be given to possible referral to a specialized multidisciplinary lymphoma center, in his view. That’s because the 10-year overall survival rate is only 52%.

Topical therapies

Topical corticosteroids remain the time-honored first-line skin-directed treatment. The mechanism of benefit involves induction of apoptosis and inhibition of lymphocyte binding. In one prospective study, clobetasol propionate achieved a 94% overall response rate in patients with stage IA or B disease, with minimal toxicity.

Alternatives include topical 5% imiquimod (Aldara), with an overall response rate of 80% and complete response rate of 45% in a 20-patient study. A newer formulation of mechlorethamine gel (Valchlor), is reported to have a 59% overall response rate and a sustained response in 86% of initial responders. For refractory skin lesions, 1% bexarotene gel (Targretin) is an option, with overall response rates of 44%-63% reported in prospective trials.

“I like it if the patient’s insurance covers it. Otherwise, it’s like buying a Prius: it’s $30,000 for a 45-g tube, which is insane,” Dr. Tejasvi commented.

Narrow-band UVB phototherapy is an effective modality for thin plaques and patches, as is PUVA for thicker ones. Dr. Tejasvi typically treats with topical steroids and/or phototherapy for at least 3 months before tapering.

When to suspect mycosis fungoides

“Mycosis fungoides is a great masquerader,” the dermatologist observed. For that reason, it deserves to be included in the differential diagnosis of an atypical psoriasiform or eczematoid rash, any new-onset rash in an elderly patient, or a rash with fever, night sweats, and unintended weight loss in a patient of any age. Generalized erythema with severe itching is another red flag.

“This pruritus is so severe that the only other condition which in my clinical practice would match it is Norwegian scabies,” according to Dr. Tejasvi.

Polychromatic patches or plaques in skin of color warrant further investigation as possible mycosis fungoides, he added.

Dr. Tejasvi reported having no financial conflicts of interest regarding his presentation.

SDEF/Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

bjancin@mdedge.com

LAHAINA, HAWAII – General dermatologists can have a high degree of confidence in treating patients with stage I mycosis fungoides without bringing in a medical oncologist, Trilokraj Tejasvi, MBBS, said at the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar provided by Global Academy for Medical Education/Skin Disease Education Foundation.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

This approach is in the best interest of patients with stage I mycosis fungoides, the skin-limited, patch/plaque form of the disease that generally responds well to skin-directed therapies without needing to resort to the medical oncologist’s arsenal of toxic treatments.

“For many medical oncologists, a lymphoma is a lymphoma. The first thing they give is CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone), and all the variants of CHOP,” cautioned Dr. Tejasvi, a dermatologist who is director of the cutaneous lymphoma program at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and chief of the dermatology service at the Ann Arbor Veteran Affairs Hospital.

Stage IA mycosis fungoides is defined under the TNMB (tumor, node, metastasis, blood) classification as patches and/or plaques covering less than 10% of body surface area along with negative nodes, no metastases, and no or low burden of disease in the blood. Stage IB differs only in that it features 10% or greater body surface area involvement. The extent of body surface area involvement can be estimated by hands-on measurement in which the area of one of the patient’s hands – palm plus fingers – is considered equivalent to 1% of that individual’s total body surface area.

The first question patients newly diagnosed with a cutaneous T-cell lymphoma ask concerns their prognosis. For those with stage IA or IB mycosis fungoides, the news is very good, as highlighted in a retrospective study of nearly 1,400 patients with mycosis fungoides, 71% of whom presented with patch/plaque stage disease (J Clin Oncol. 2010 Nov 1;28[31]:4730-9).

The median overall survival was 35.5 years in patients with stage IA disease and 21.5 years in those with stage IB disease.

“I tell patients with stage IA disease that whether we treat it or not will not change the course of their life,” Dr. Tejasvri said.

His message to patients with stage IB disease is that, because of their 38% risk of disease progression, he wants to see them in follow-up annually for the rest of their life.

Stage IIA disease – that is, patches and/or plaques with lymph node involvement with no effacement – is a tipping point at which serious consideration should be given to possible referral to a specialized multidisciplinary lymphoma center, in his view. That’s because the 10-year overall survival rate is only 52%.

Topical therapies

Topical corticosteroids remain the time-honored first-line skin-directed treatment. The mechanism of benefit involves induction of apoptosis and inhibition of lymphocyte binding. In one prospective study, clobetasol propionate achieved a 94% overall response rate in patients with stage IA or B disease, with minimal toxicity.

Alternatives include topical 5% imiquimod (Aldara), with an overall response rate of 80% and complete response rate of 45% in a 20-patient study. A newer formulation of mechlorethamine gel (Valchlor), is reported to have a 59% overall response rate and a sustained response in 86% of initial responders. For refractory skin lesions, 1% bexarotene gel (Targretin) is an option, with overall response rates of 44%-63% reported in prospective trials.

“I like it if the patient’s insurance covers it. Otherwise, it’s like buying a Prius: it’s $30,000 for a 45-g tube, which is insane,” Dr. Tejasvi commented.

Narrow-band UVB phototherapy is an effective modality for thin plaques and patches, as is PUVA for thicker ones. Dr. Tejasvi typically treats with topical steroids and/or phototherapy for at least 3 months before tapering.

When to suspect mycosis fungoides

“Mycosis fungoides is a great masquerader,” the dermatologist observed. For that reason, it deserves to be included in the differential diagnosis of an atypical psoriasiform or eczematoid rash, any new-onset rash in an elderly patient, or a rash with fever, night sweats, and unintended weight loss in a patient of any age. Generalized erythema with severe itching is another red flag.

“This pruritus is so severe that the only other condition which in my clinical practice would match it is Norwegian scabies,” according to Dr. Tejasvi.

Polychromatic patches or plaques in skin of color warrant further investigation as possible mycosis fungoides, he added.

Dr. Tejasvi reported having no financial conflicts of interest regarding his presentation.

SDEF/Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

bjancin@mdedge.com

LAHAINA, HAWAII – General dermatologists can have a high degree of confidence in treating patients with stage I mycosis fungoides without bringing in a medical oncologist, Trilokraj Tejasvi, MBBS, said at the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar provided by Global Academy for Medical Education/Skin Disease Education Foundation.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

This approach is in the best interest of patients with stage I mycosis fungoides, the skin-limited, patch/plaque form of the disease that generally responds well to skin-directed therapies without needing to resort to the medical oncologist’s arsenal of toxic treatments.

“For many medical oncologists, a lymphoma is a lymphoma. The first thing they give is CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone), and all the variants of CHOP,” cautioned Dr. Tejasvi, a dermatologist who is director of the cutaneous lymphoma program at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and chief of the dermatology service at the Ann Arbor Veteran Affairs Hospital.

Stage IA mycosis fungoides is defined under the TNMB (tumor, node, metastasis, blood) classification as patches and/or plaques covering less than 10% of body surface area along with negative nodes, no metastases, and no or low burden of disease in the blood. Stage IB differs only in that it features 10% or greater body surface area involvement. The extent of body surface area involvement can be estimated by hands-on measurement in which the area of one of the patient’s hands – palm plus fingers – is considered equivalent to 1% of that individual’s total body surface area.

The first question patients newly diagnosed with a cutaneous T-cell lymphoma ask concerns their prognosis. For those with stage IA or IB mycosis fungoides, the news is very good, as highlighted in a retrospective study of nearly 1,400 patients with mycosis fungoides, 71% of whom presented with patch/plaque stage disease (J Clin Oncol. 2010 Nov 1;28[31]:4730-9).

The median overall survival was 35.5 years in patients with stage IA disease and 21.5 years in those with stage IB disease.

“I tell patients with stage IA disease that whether we treat it or not will not change the course of their life,” Dr. Tejasvri said.

His message to patients with stage IB disease is that, because of their 38% risk of disease progression, he wants to see them in follow-up annually for the rest of their life.

Stage IIA disease – that is, patches and/or plaques with lymph node involvement with no effacement – is a tipping point at which serious consideration should be given to possible referral to a specialized multidisciplinary lymphoma center, in his view. That’s because the 10-year overall survival rate is only 52%.

Topical therapies

Topical corticosteroids remain the time-honored first-line skin-directed treatment. The mechanism of benefit involves induction of apoptosis and inhibition of lymphocyte binding. In one prospective study, clobetasol propionate achieved a 94% overall response rate in patients with stage IA or B disease, with minimal toxicity.

Alternatives include topical 5% imiquimod (Aldara), with an overall response rate of 80% and complete response rate of 45% in a 20-patient study. A newer formulation of mechlorethamine gel (Valchlor), is reported to have a 59% overall response rate and a sustained response in 86% of initial responders. For refractory skin lesions, 1% bexarotene gel (Targretin) is an option, with overall response rates of 44%-63% reported in prospective trials.

“I like it if the patient’s insurance covers it. Otherwise, it’s like buying a Prius: it’s $30,000 for a 45-g tube, which is insane,” Dr. Tejasvi commented.

Narrow-band UVB phototherapy is an effective modality for thin plaques and patches, as is PUVA for thicker ones. Dr. Tejasvi typically treats with topical steroids and/or phototherapy for at least 3 months before tapering.

When to suspect mycosis fungoides

“Mycosis fungoides is a great masquerader,” the dermatologist observed. For that reason, it deserves to be included in the differential diagnosis of an atypical psoriasiform or eczematoid rash, any new-onset rash in an elderly patient, or a rash with fever, night sweats, and unintended weight loss in a patient of any age. Generalized erythema with severe itching is another red flag.

“This pruritus is so severe that the only other condition which in my clinical practice would match it is Norwegian scabies,” according to Dr. Tejasvi.

Polychromatic patches or plaques in skin of color warrant further investigation as possible mycosis fungoides, he added.

Dr. Tejasvi reported having no financial conflicts of interest regarding his presentation.

SDEF/Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

bjancin@mdedge.com

If you haven’t already found out that activity is a critical component in the physical and mental health of your patients, or if you’re trying to convince an influential person or group it deserves their attention and investment, I suggest you chase down this clinical report from the American Academy of Pediatrics. Representing the AAP’s Council on Sports Medicine and Fitness and Section on Obesity, the authors quite thoroughly make the case that anyone concerned about the health of this nation and its children should make promotion of physical activity a top priority.

I suspect that, like many of the position papers that come from the AAP, this clinical report is another example of preaching to the choir. However, I understand that the academy also hopes to convince a broader audience of nonphysician decision makers by laying out all of the evidence they can muster.

With their voluminous supporting evidence on the table, the authors move on to getting those of us in clinical practice to make our approach to this more systematic – including the addition of a Physical Activity Vital Sign (PAVS) in our patients’ health records. And here is where the authors begin to drift into the hazy dream world of unreality. They admit that “pediatricians will need efficient workflows to incorporate physical activity assessment, counseling and referral in the clinical visit.” Although there is no pediatrician more convinced of the importance of physical activity, I would find it very difficult to include a detailed assessment of my patients’ daily activity in their charts in the manner that the council members envision. Clunky EHRs, limited support staff, and a crowd of advocates already clamoring for my attention on their favorite health issue (nutrition, gun safety, parental depression, dental health to name just a few) all make creating an “efficient workflow” difficult on a good day and impossible on many days.

But, as I have said, I am a strong advocate of physical activity. So here’s a more nuanced suggestion based on a combination of my practical experience and the council’s recommendations.

If you provide good continuity of care to the families in your practice and have been asking good “getting to know you” questions at each visit, you probably already know which of your patients are sufficiently active. You don’t need to ask them how many hours a week they are doing something active. You should be able to just check a box that says “active.”

For patients that you haven’t seen before or suspect are too sedentary from looking at their biometrics and listening to their complaints you need only ask “What do you and your family like to do for fun?” The simple follow-up question of how many hours are spent watching TV, looking at smart phones or tablets, and playing video games in each day completes the survey. You don’t need to chart the depressing details because, as we know, relying on patient or parental recall is unlikely to provide the actual numbers. Just simply check the box that says “not active enough.” What you do with this crude assessment activity is another story and will be the topic for the next Letters from Maine.

This clinical report from the AAP is an excellent and exhaustive discussion of the importance of physical activity, but I hope that it doesn’t spark further cluttering of our already challenged EHR systems. Most of us don’t have the time to be data collectors and quantifiers. Let’s leave that to the clinical researchers. We already know activity is important and that most of our sedentary families aren’t going to be impressed by more science. Our challenge is to get them moving.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

If you haven’t already found out that activity is a critical component in the physical and mental health of your patients, or if you’re trying to convince an influential person or group it deserves their attention and investment, I suggest you chase down this clinical report from the American Academy of Pediatrics. Representing the AAP’s Council on Sports Medicine and Fitness and Section on Obesity, the authors quite thoroughly make the case that anyone concerned about the health of this nation and its children should make promotion of physical activity a top priority.

I suspect that, like many of the position papers that come from the AAP, this clinical report is another example of preaching to the choir. However, I understand that the academy also hopes to convince a broader audience of nonphysician decision makers by laying out all of the evidence they can muster.

With their voluminous supporting evidence on the table, the authors move on to getting those of us in clinical practice to make our approach to this more systematic – including the addition of a Physical Activity Vital Sign (PAVS) in our patients’ health records. And here is where the authors begin to drift into the hazy dream world of unreality. They admit that “pediatricians will need efficient workflows to incorporate physical activity assessment, counseling and referral in the clinical visit.” Although there is no pediatrician more convinced of the importance of physical activity, I would find it very difficult to include a detailed assessment of my patients’ daily activity in their charts in the manner that the council members envision. Clunky EHRs, limited support staff, and a crowd of advocates already clamoring for my attention on their favorite health issue (nutrition, gun safety, parental depression, dental health to name just a few) all make creating an “efficient workflow” difficult on a good day and impossible on many days.

But, as I have said, I am a strong advocate of physical activity. So here’s a more nuanced suggestion based on a combination of my practical experience and the council’s recommendations.

If you provide good continuity of care to the families in your practice and have been asking good “getting to know you” questions at each visit, you probably already know which of your patients are sufficiently active. You don’t need to ask them how many hours a week they are doing something active. You should be able to just check a box that says “active.”

For patients that you haven’t seen before or suspect are too sedentary from looking at their biometrics and listening to their complaints you need only ask “What do you and your family like to do for fun?” The simple follow-up question of how many hours are spent watching TV, looking at smart phones or tablets, and playing video games in each day completes the survey. You don’t need to chart the depressing details because, as we know, relying on patient or parental recall is unlikely to provide the actual numbers. Just simply check the box that says “not active enough.” What you do with this crude assessment activity is another story and will be the topic for the next Letters from Maine.

This clinical report from the AAP is an excellent and exhaustive discussion of the importance of physical activity, but I hope that it doesn’t spark further cluttering of our already challenged EHR systems. Most of us don’t have the time to be data collectors and quantifiers. Let’s leave that to the clinical researchers. We already know activity is important and that most of our sedentary families aren’t going to be impressed by more science. Our challenge is to get them moving.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

If you haven’t already found out that activity is a critical component in the physical and mental health of your patients, or if you’re trying to convince an influential person or group it deserves their attention and investment, I suggest you chase down this clinical report from the American Academy of Pediatrics. Representing the AAP’s Council on Sports Medicine and Fitness and Section on Obesity, the authors quite thoroughly make the case that anyone concerned about the health of this nation and its children should make promotion of physical activity a top priority.

I suspect that, like many of the position papers that come from the AAP, this clinical report is another example of preaching to the choir. However, I understand that the academy also hopes to convince a broader audience of nonphysician decision makers by laying out all of the evidence they can muster.

With their voluminous supporting evidence on the table, the authors move on to getting those of us in clinical practice to make our approach to this more systematic – including the addition of a Physical Activity Vital Sign (PAVS) in our patients’ health records. And here is where the authors begin to drift into the hazy dream world of unreality. They admit that “pediatricians will need efficient workflows to incorporate physical activity assessment, counseling and referral in the clinical visit.” Although there is no pediatrician more convinced of the importance of physical activity, I would find it very difficult to include a detailed assessment of my patients’ daily activity in their charts in the manner that the council members envision. Clunky EHRs, limited support staff, and a crowd of advocates already clamoring for my attention on their favorite health issue (nutrition, gun safety, parental depression, dental health to name just a few) all make creating an “efficient workflow” difficult on a good day and impossible on many days.

But, as I have said, I am a strong advocate of physical activity. So here’s a more nuanced suggestion based on a combination of my practical experience and the council’s recommendations.

If you provide good continuity of care to the families in your practice and have been asking good “getting to know you” questions at each visit, you probably already know which of your patients are sufficiently active. You don’t need to ask them how many hours a week they are doing something active. You should be able to just check a box that says “active.”

For patients that you haven’t seen before or suspect are too sedentary from looking at their biometrics and listening to their complaints you need only ask “What do you and your family like to do for fun?” The simple follow-up question of how many hours are spent watching TV, looking at smart phones or tablets, and playing video games in each day completes the survey. You don’t need to chart the depressing details because, as we know, relying on patient or parental recall is unlikely to provide the actual numbers. Just simply check the box that says “not active enough.” What you do with this crude assessment activity is another story and will be the topic for the next Letters from Maine.

This clinical report from the AAP is an excellent and exhaustive discussion of the importance of physical activity, but I hope that it doesn’t spark further cluttering of our already challenged EHR systems. Most of us don’t have the time to be data collectors and quantifiers. Let’s leave that to the clinical researchers. We already know activity is important and that most of our sedentary families aren’t going to be impressed by more science. Our challenge is to get them moving.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

As the proportion of patients infected with COVID-19 continues to rise in the United States, the Food and Drug Administration is facilitating access to COVID-19 convalescent plasma for use in patients with serious or immediately life-threatening COVID-19 infections.

While clinical trials are underway to evaluate the safety and efficacy of administering convalescent plasma to patients with COVID-19, the FDA is granting clinicians permission for use of investigational convalescent plasma under single-patient emergency Investigational New Drug Applications (INDs), since no known cure exists and a vaccine is more than 1 year away from becoming available.

This allows the use of an investigational drug for the treatment of an individual patient by a licensed physician upon FDA authorization. This does not include the use of COVID-19 convalescent plasma for the prevention of infection, according to a statement issued by the agency on March 24.

“It is possible that convalescent plasma that contains antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) might be effective against the infection,” the FDA statement reads. “Use of convalescent plasma has been studied in outbreaks of other respiratory infections, including the 2009-2010 H1N1 influenza virus pandemic, 2003 SARS-CoV-1 epidemic, and the 2012 MERS-CoV epidemic. Although promising, convalescent plasma has not been shown to be effective in every disease studied.”

“I think the FDA got caught initially a little flat-footed when it came to the development of COVID-19 tests, but they’re quickly catching up,” Peter J. Pitts, who was the FDA’s associate commissioner from 2002 to 2004, said in an interview. “I think that the attitude now is, ‘If it’s safe, let’s create a pathway to see how these things work in the real world.’ I think that’s going to be as true for treatments to lessen the symptoms and shorten the duration of the disease, as well as convalescent plasma as a potential alternative to a yet-to-be-developed vaccine.”

At the University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Terry B. Gernsheimer, MD, and her colleagues are recruiting recovered COVID-19 patients to donate plasma for seriously ill patients affected with the virus. “The thought of using convalescent plasma makes total sense, because it’s immediately available, and it’s something that we can try to give people,” said Dr. Gernsheimer, a hematologist who is professor of medicine at the medical school. “It’s been used in China, and reports should be coming out shortly about their experience with this.”

In a case series that appeared in JAMA on March 27 (doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.4783), Chinese researchers led by Chenguang Shen, PhD, reported findings from five critically ill COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome who received a transfusion with convalescent plasma at Shenzhen Third People’s Hospital 10 and 22 days after hospital admission. The patients ranged in age from 36 to 73 years, three were men, and all were receiving mechanical ventilation at the time of treatment.

Dr. Shen and colleagues reported that viral loads decreased and became negative within 12 days following the transfusion. Three of the patients were discharged from the hospital after a length of stay that ranged from 51 to 55 days, and two remain in stable condition at 37 days after the transfusion. The researchers pointed out that all patients received antiviral agents, including interferon and lopinavir/ritonavir, during and following convalescent plasma treatment, “which also may have contributed to the viral clearance observed.”

Under the FDA policy on emergency IND use, COVID-19 convalescent plasma must only be collected from recovered individuals if they are eligible to donate blood, required testing must be performed, and the donation must be found suitable.

Potential donors “are going to be screened the way all blood donors are screened,” Dr. Gernsheimer said. “It’s not going to be any less safe than any unit of plasma that’s on the shelf that comes from our volunteer donors. There are always transfusion reactions that we have to worry about, [and] there are potentially unknown pathogens that we don’t yet know about that we are not yet testing for. It’s the regular risk we see with any unit of plasma.”

She added that COVID-19 survivors appear to start increasing their titer of the antibody around day 28. “We’ll be looking for recovered individuals who have had a documented infection, and whose symptoms started about 28 days before we collect,” she said.

The FDA advises clinicians to address several considerations for donor eligibility, including prior diagnosis of COVID-19 documented by a laboratory test; complete resolution of symptoms at least 14 days prior to donation; female donors negative for HLA antibodies or male donors, and negative results for COVID-19 either from one or more nasopharyngeal swab specimens or by a molecular diagnostic test from blood. [A partial list of available tests can be accessed on the FDA website.] The agency also advises that donors have defined SARS-CoV-2–neutralizing antibody titers, if testing can be conducted (optimally greater than 1:320).

Patients eligible to receive COVID-19 convalescent plasma must have a severe or immediately life-threatening infection with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. The agency defines severe disease as dyspnea, respiratory frequency of 30 per minute or greater, blood oxygen saturation of 93% or less, partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen ratio of less than 300, and/or lung infiltrates of greater than 50% within 24-48 hours. Life-threatening disease is defined as respiratory failure, septic shock, and/or multiple organ dysfunction or failure. Patients must provide informed consent.

The potential risks of receiving COVID-19 convalescent plasma remain unknown, according to Dr. Gernsheimer. “What some people have thought about is, could there be such an inflammatory response with the virus that we would initially see these patients get worse?” she said. “My understanding is that has not occurred in China yet, but we don’t have all those data. But we always worry if we have something that’s going to cause inflammation around an infection, for example, that could initially make it more difficult to breathe if it’s a lung infection. So far, my understanding is that has not been seen.”

For COVID-19 convalescent plasma authorization requests that require a response within 4-8 hours, requesting clinicians may complete form 3296 and submit it by email to CBER_eIND_Covid-19@FDA.HHS.gov.

For COVID-19 convalescent plasma authorization requests that require a response in less than 4 hours, or if the clinician is unable to complete and submit form 3926 because of extenuating circumstances, verbal authorization can be sought by calling the FDA’s Office of Emergency Operations at 1-866-300-4374.

The FDA is working with the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and other government partners to develop protocols for use by multiple investigators in order to coordinate the collection and use of COVID-19 convalescent plasma.

“It’s crucial that data be captured for every patient so that we really understand what safety and effectiveness looks like on as close to a real-world level as we can, as quickly as we can,” said Mr. Pitts, who is president and cofounder of the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest, and who also does consulting work for the FDA. “I understand that health care professionals are overworked and overburdened right now. I applaud them for their heroic work. But that doesn’t mean that we can shirk off collecting the data. When I was at the FDA, I helped address the SARS epidemic. The agency attitude at that point was, ‘Let’s get things that just might work through the process, as long as the cure isn’t going to be worse than the disease.’ I think that’s the attitude that’s leading the charge today.”

dbrunk@mdedge.com

As the proportion of patients infected with COVID-19 continues to rise in the United States, the Food and Drug Administration is facilitating access to COVID-19 convalescent plasma for use in patients with serious or immediately life-threatening COVID-19 infections.

While clinical trials are underway to evaluate the safety and efficacy of administering convalescent plasma to patients with COVID-19, the FDA is granting clinicians permission for use of investigational convalescent plasma under single-patient emergency Investigational New Drug Applications (INDs), since no known cure exists and a vaccine is more than 1 year away from becoming available.

This allows the use of an investigational drug for the treatment of an individual patient by a licensed physician upon FDA authorization. This does not include the use of COVID-19 convalescent plasma for the prevention of infection, according to a statement issued by the agency on March 24.

“It is possible that convalescent plasma that contains antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) might be effective against the infection,” the FDA statement reads. “Use of convalescent plasma has been studied in outbreaks of other respiratory infections, including the 2009-2010 H1N1 influenza virus pandemic, 2003 SARS-CoV-1 epidemic, and the 2012 MERS-CoV epidemic. Although promising, convalescent plasma has not been shown to be effective in every disease studied.”

“I think the FDA got caught initially a little flat-footed when it came to the development of COVID-19 tests, but they’re quickly catching up,” Peter J. Pitts, who was the FDA’s associate commissioner from 2002 to 2004, said in an interview. “I think that the attitude now is, ‘If it’s safe, let’s create a pathway to see how these things work in the real world.’ I think that’s going to be as true for treatments to lessen the symptoms and shorten the duration of the disease, as well as convalescent plasma as a potential alternative to a yet-to-be-developed vaccine.”

At the University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Terry B. Gernsheimer, MD, and her colleagues are recruiting recovered COVID-19 patients to donate plasma for seriously ill patients affected with the virus. “The thought of using convalescent plasma makes total sense, because it’s immediately available, and it’s something that we can try to give people,” said Dr. Gernsheimer, a hematologist who is professor of medicine at the medical school. “It’s been used in China, and reports should be coming out shortly about their experience with this.”

In a case series that appeared in JAMA on March 27 (doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.4783), Chinese researchers led by Chenguang Shen, PhD, reported findings from five critically ill COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome who received a transfusion with convalescent plasma at Shenzhen Third People’s Hospital 10 and 22 days after hospital admission. The patients ranged in age from 36 to 73 years, three were men, and all were receiving mechanical ventilation at the time of treatment.

Dr. Shen and colleagues reported that viral loads decreased and became negative within 12 days following the transfusion. Three of the patients were discharged from the hospital after a length of stay that ranged from 51 to 55 days, and two remain in stable condition at 37 days after the transfusion. The researchers pointed out that all patients received antiviral agents, including interferon and lopinavir/ritonavir, during and following convalescent plasma treatment, “which also may have contributed to the viral clearance observed.”

Under the FDA policy on emergency IND use, COVID-19 convalescent plasma must only be collected from recovered individuals if they are eligible to donate blood, required testing must be performed, and the donation must be found suitable.

Potential donors “are going to be screened the way all blood donors are screened,” Dr. Gernsheimer said. “It’s not going to be any less safe than any unit of plasma that’s on the shelf that comes from our volunteer donors. There are always transfusion reactions that we have to worry about, [and] there are potentially unknown pathogens that we don’t yet know about that we are not yet testing for. It’s the regular risk we see with any unit of plasma.”

She added that COVID-19 survivors appear to start increasing their titer of the antibody around day 28. “We’ll be looking for recovered individuals who have had a documented infection, and whose symptoms started about 28 days before we collect,” she said.

The FDA advises clinicians to address several considerations for donor eligibility, including prior diagnosis of COVID-19 documented by a laboratory test; complete resolution of symptoms at least 14 days prior to donation; female donors negative for HLA antibodies or male donors, and negative results for COVID-19 either from one or more nasopharyngeal swab specimens or by a molecular diagnostic test from blood. [A partial list of available tests can be accessed on the FDA website.] The agency also advises that donors have defined SARS-CoV-2–neutralizing antibody titers, if testing can be conducted (optimally greater than 1:320).

Patients eligible to receive COVID-19 convalescent plasma must have a severe or immediately life-threatening infection with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. The agency defines severe disease as dyspnea, respiratory frequency of 30 per minute or greater, blood oxygen saturation of 93% or less, partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen ratio of less than 300, and/or lung infiltrates of greater than 50% within 24-48 hours. Life-threatening disease is defined as respiratory failure, septic shock, and/or multiple organ dysfunction or failure. Patients must provide informed consent.

The potential risks of receiving COVID-19 convalescent plasma remain unknown, according to Dr. Gernsheimer. “What some people have thought about is, could there be such an inflammatory response with the virus that we would initially see these patients get worse?” she said. “My understanding is that has not occurred in China yet, but we don’t have all those data. But we always worry if we have something that’s going to cause inflammation around an infection, for example, that could initially make it more difficult to breathe if it’s a lung infection. So far, my understanding is that has not been seen.”

For COVID-19 convalescent plasma authorization requests that require a response within 4-8 hours, requesting clinicians may complete form 3296 and submit it by email to CBER_eIND_Covid-19@FDA.HHS.gov.

For COVID-19 convalescent plasma authorization requests that require a response in less than 4 hours, or if the clinician is unable to complete and submit form 3926 because of extenuating circumstances, verbal authorization can be sought by calling the FDA’s Office of Emergency Operations at 1-866-300-4374.

The FDA is working with the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and other government partners to develop protocols for use by multiple investigators in order to coordinate the collection and use of COVID-19 convalescent plasma.

“It’s crucial that data be captured for every patient so that we really understand what safety and effectiveness looks like on as close to a real-world level as we can, as quickly as we can,” said Mr. Pitts, who is president and cofounder of the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest, and who also does consulting work for the FDA. “I understand that health care professionals are overworked and overburdened right now. I applaud them for their heroic work. But that doesn’t mean that we can shirk off collecting the data. When I was at the FDA, I helped address the SARS epidemic. The agency attitude at that point was, ‘Let’s get things that just might work through the process, as long as the cure isn’t going to be worse than the disease.’ I think that’s the attitude that’s leading the charge today.”

dbrunk@mdedge.com

As the proportion of patients infected with COVID-19 continues to rise in the United States, the Food and Drug Administration is facilitating access to COVID-19 convalescent plasma for use in patients with serious or immediately life-threatening COVID-19 infections.

While clinical trials are underway to evaluate the safety and efficacy of administering convalescent plasma to patients with COVID-19, the FDA is granting clinicians permission for use of investigational convalescent plasma under single-patient emergency Investigational New Drug Applications (INDs), since no known cure exists and a vaccine is more than 1 year away from becoming available.

This allows the use of an investigational drug for the treatment of an individual patient by a licensed physician upon FDA authorization. This does not include the use of COVID-19 convalescent plasma for the prevention of infection, according to a statement issued by the agency on March 24.

“It is possible that convalescent plasma that contains antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) might be effective against the infection,” the FDA statement reads. “Use of convalescent plasma has been studied in outbreaks of other respiratory infections, including the 2009-2010 H1N1 influenza virus pandemic, 2003 SARS-CoV-1 epidemic, and the 2012 MERS-CoV epidemic. Although promising, convalescent plasma has not been shown to be effective in every disease studied.”

“I think the FDA got caught initially a little flat-footed when it came to the development of COVID-19 tests, but they’re quickly catching up,” Peter J. Pitts, who was the FDA’s associate commissioner from 2002 to 2004, said in an interview. “I think that the attitude now is, ‘If it’s safe, let’s create a pathway to see how these things work in the real world.’ I think that’s going to be as true for treatments to lessen the symptoms and shorten the duration of the disease, as well as convalescent plasma as a potential alternative to a yet-to-be-developed vaccine.”

At the University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Terry B. Gernsheimer, MD, and her colleagues are recruiting recovered COVID-19 patients to donate plasma for seriously ill patients affected with the virus. “The thought of using convalescent plasma makes total sense, because it’s immediately available, and it’s something that we can try to give people,” said Dr. Gernsheimer, a hematologist who is professor of medicine at the medical school. “It’s been used in China, and reports should be coming out shortly about their experience with this.”

In a case series that appeared in JAMA on March 27 (doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.4783), Chinese researchers led by Chenguang Shen, PhD, reported findings from five critically ill COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome who received a transfusion with convalescent plasma at Shenzhen Third People’s Hospital 10 and 22 days after hospital admission. The patients ranged in age from 36 to 73 years, three were men, and all were receiving mechanical ventilation at the time of treatment.

Dr. Shen and colleagues reported that viral loads decreased and became negative within 12 days following the transfusion. Three of the patients were discharged from the hospital after a length of stay that ranged from 51 to 55 days, and two remain in stable condition at 37 days after the transfusion. The researchers pointed out that all patients received antiviral agents, including interferon and lopinavir/ritonavir, during and following convalescent plasma treatment, “which also may have contributed to the viral clearance observed.”

Under the FDA policy on emergency IND use, COVID-19 convalescent plasma must only be collected from recovered individuals if they are eligible to donate blood, required testing must be performed, and the donation must be found suitable.

Potential donors “are going to be screened the way all blood donors are screened,” Dr. Gernsheimer said. “It’s not going to be any less safe than any unit of plasma that’s on the shelf that comes from our volunteer donors. There are always transfusion reactions that we have to worry about, [and] there are potentially unknown pathogens that we don’t yet know about that we are not yet testing for. It’s the regular risk we see with any unit of plasma.”

She added that COVID-19 survivors appear to start increasing their titer of the antibody around day 28. “We’ll be looking for recovered individuals who have had a documented infection, and whose symptoms started about 28 days before we collect,” she said.

The FDA advises clinicians to address several considerations for donor eligibility, including prior diagnosis of COVID-19 documented by a laboratory test; complete resolution of symptoms at least 14 days prior to donation; female donors negative for HLA antibodies or male donors, and negative results for COVID-19 either from one or more nasopharyngeal swab specimens or by a molecular diagnostic test from blood. [A partial list of available tests can be accessed on the FDA website.] The agency also advises that donors have defined SARS-CoV-2–neutralizing antibody titers, if testing can be conducted (optimally greater than 1:320).

Patients eligible to receive COVID-19 convalescent plasma must have a severe or immediately life-threatening infection with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. The agency defines severe disease as dyspnea, respiratory frequency of 30 per minute or greater, blood oxygen saturation of 93% or less, partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen ratio of less than 300, and/or lung infiltrates of greater than 50% within 24-48 hours. Life-threatening disease is defined as respiratory failure, septic shock, and/or multiple organ dysfunction or failure. Patients must provide informed consent.

The potential risks of receiving COVID-19 convalescent plasma remain unknown, according to Dr. Gernsheimer. “What some people have thought about is, could there be such an inflammatory response with the virus that we would initially see these patients get worse?” she said. “My understanding is that has not occurred in China yet, but we don’t have all those data. But we always worry if we have something that’s going to cause inflammation around an infection, for example, that could initially make it more difficult to breathe if it’s a lung infection. So far, my understanding is that has not been seen.”

For COVID-19 convalescent plasma authorization requests that require a response within 4-8 hours, requesting clinicians may complete form 3296 and submit it by email to CBER_eIND_Covid-19@FDA.HHS.gov.

For COVID-19 convalescent plasma authorization requests that require a response in less than 4 hours, or if the clinician is unable to complete and submit form 3926 because of extenuating circumstances, verbal authorization can be sought by calling the FDA’s Office of Emergency Operations at 1-866-300-4374.

The FDA is working with the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and other government partners to develop protocols for use by multiple investigators in order to coordinate the collection and use of COVID-19 convalescent plasma.

“It’s crucial that data be captured for every patient so that we really understand what safety and effectiveness looks like on as close to a real-world level as we can, as quickly as we can,” said Mr. Pitts, who is president and cofounder of the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest, and who also does consulting work for the FDA. “I understand that health care professionals are overworked and overburdened right now. I applaud them for their heroic work. But that doesn’t mean that we can shirk off collecting the data. When I was at the FDA, I helped address the SARS epidemic. The agency attitude at that point was, ‘Let’s get things that just might work through the process, as long as the cure isn’t going to be worse than the disease.’ I think that’s the attitude that’s leading the charge today.”

dbrunk@mdedge.com

Intense radiotherapy aimed at all metastases in men with prostate cancer with limited metastases (up to three) has been shown to slow progression of the disease.

Patients with oligometastatic disease who received stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) had a significant threefold decrease in disease progression at 6 months compared with patients who were randomly assigned to observation alone.

“Local control for SABR-treated lesions was excellent, and the adverse effects associated with SABR were mild and did not appear to affect quality of life,” say the investigators, led by Ryan Phillips, MD, PhD, from the Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center in Baltimore.

“Although the approach is controversial, many men are interested in avoiding the unpleasant adverse effects and potential health risks of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for as long as is reasonable,” they write.

These results come from outcomes of the Observation vs Stereotactic Ablative Radiation for Oligometastatic Prostate Cancer (ORIOLE) phase 2 trial and were published online March 26 in JAMA Oncology.

An intriguing finding from the study was evidence that SABR may evoke an immune response.

“We observed enhanced differential clonotype expansion, clusters of similar expanded T-cell receptors, and a clinical benefit to greater baseline clonality seen only in participants treated with SABR,” said senior author Phuoc T. Tran, MD, PhD, from the department of radiation oncology and molecular radiation sciences at Johns Hopkins.

“This the only data I’m aware of that really shows that radiation in isolation can cause a systemic immune response,” Tran told Medscape Medical News. 

Previous studies suggesting an immune response with radiation have been confounded by coadministration of radiation and chemotherapy, he said.
 

Drive the Disease to ‘Near Extinction’

SABR appears to “alter the natural history of prostate oligometastatic disease by removing or greatly affecting signals that promote further development of micrometastatic disease,” write the authors of accompanying editorial.

This hypothesis is consistent with the oligometastatic paradigm, which postulates that this is a transient phase that offers “a window of opportunity for cancer cure if equilibrium-phase lesions are ablated before polymetastatic escape occurs,” write Carlo Greco, MD, and Zvi Fuks, MD, both from the Champalimaud Centre for the Unknown, Lisbon, Portugal; Fuks is also affiliated with Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.

“Taken together, these observations support the hypothesis that all detectable oligometastatic lesions should be systematically ablated, if feasible, in an effort to maximize oligometastatic cancer cure,” Greco and Fuks comment.

However, there is no clear consensus on what constitutes oligometastatic disease, they point out, and they warn that “a numerical-based decision to withhold lesion ablation may represent a strategic error, potentially reducing the benefit of metastasis-directed therapy (MDT) in the treatment of oligometastatic cancer.”

“We speculate that, if clinically and technically feasible, there should be no restriction to MDT at first oligometastatic presentation and as sequential lesions appear, regardless of lesion numbers, because each lesion may potentially constitute a generator of evolving metastatogenic clonogens,” they add.

Multiple rounds of MDT theoretically could “drive the disease to near extinction” and prevent the development of polymetastatic disease, they contend.

Study Details

For their study, Phillips and colleagues enrolled 54 men with recurrent hormone-sensitive prostate cancer with one, two, or three metastases detectable on conventional imaging who had not received ADT within 6 months of enrollment, or for a total of 3 or more years.

The patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive either SABR, with dose and fractionation based on the size and location of each lesion, or to observation. The median age in each group was 68 years. 

Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-targeted PET-CT, a relatively new technique that is more accurate than conventional imaging, was performed during treatment planning and at day 180 of follow-up for patients assigned to SABR, but the investigators were blinded to the results to prevent bias in target-lesion selection.

The primary endpoint of progression at 6 months was measured by prostate-specific antigen increase, radiographic evidence, symptomatic progression, ADT initiation for any reason, or death.

This primary endpoint occurred in 7 of 36 men (19%) who were treated with SABR, compared with 11 of 18 (61%) who underwent observation (P = .005).

Median progression-free survival (PFS) was not reached in the SABR group vs. 5.8 months in the observation group, translating into a hazard ratio of 0.30 (P = .002).

Of the 36 men treated with SABR, 16 had baseline PET-avid lesions that, because of investigator blinding, were not included in the treatment fields.

Among all SABR-treated patients, the rate of progression at 6 months among men for whom all lesions were treated was 5%, compared with 38% for men with any lesions outside the treatment field (P = .03). The median PFS for patients with no untreated lesions was not reached, vs. 11.8 months for men in whom PET-avid lesions were missed (HR, 0.26; P = .006).

Oligometastatic vs. Polymetastatic

In an interview with Medscape Medical News, Tran noted that using PSMA PET-CT for imaging appears to be very important for identifying those patients with numerous or disseminated (polymetastatic) lesions, compared with those patients with limited disease who are most likely to benefit from SABR. He emphasized, however, that the PSMA PET-CT findings were an exploratory endpoint that required further validation.

Another secondary, exploratory endpoint of the study was the use of a circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analysis by the CAPP-Seq (cancer personalized profiling by deep sequencing) method.

“We show, in a discovery fashion, that certain mutations in the circulation seem to distinguish patients who would benefit from SABR vs those who would not,” he said.

The study was supported by the Nesbitt-McMaster Foundation, Ronald Rose and Joan Lazar, the Movember Foundation and Prostate Cancer Foundation, and the National Cancer Institute. Phillips reported receiving consulting fees and honoraria from RefleXion Medical outside the submitted work. Tran holds a licensed patent related to ablative radiotherapy compounds and methods (Natsar Pharmaceuticals). Several other authors reported financial disclosures. The full list can be found with the original article. Editorialists Greco and Fuks reported serving as cofounders of and owning stock in Ceramedix Holding, LLC.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Intense radiotherapy aimed at all metastases in men with prostate cancer with limited metastases (up to three) has been shown to slow progression of the disease.

Patients with oligometastatic disease who received stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) had a significant threefold decrease in disease progression at 6 months compared with patients who were randomly assigned to observation alone.

“Local control for SABR-treated lesions was excellent, and the adverse effects associated with SABR were mild and did not appear to affect quality of life,” say the investigators, led by Ryan Phillips, MD, PhD, from the Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center in Baltimore.

“Although the approach is controversial, many men are interested in avoiding the unpleasant adverse effects and potential health risks of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for as long as is reasonable,” they write.

These results come from outcomes of the Observation vs Stereotactic Ablative Radiation for Oligometastatic Prostate Cancer (ORIOLE) phase 2 trial and were published online March 26 in JAMA Oncology.

An intriguing finding from the study was evidence that SABR may evoke an immune response.

“We observed enhanced differential clonotype expansion, clusters of similar expanded T-cell receptors, and a clinical benefit to greater baseline clonality seen only in participants treated with SABR,” said senior author Phuoc T. Tran, MD, PhD, from the department of radiation oncology and molecular radiation sciences at Johns Hopkins.

“This the only data I’m aware of that really shows that radiation in isolation can cause a systemic immune response,” Tran told Medscape Medical News. 

Previous studies suggesting an immune response with radiation have been confounded by coadministration of radiation and chemotherapy, he said.
 

Drive the Disease to ‘Near Extinction’

SABR appears to “alter the natural history of prostate oligometastatic disease by removing or greatly affecting signals that promote further development of micrometastatic disease,” write the authors of accompanying editorial.

This hypothesis is consistent with the oligometastatic paradigm, which postulates that this is a transient phase that offers “a window of opportunity for cancer cure if equilibrium-phase lesions are ablated before polymetastatic escape occurs,” write Carlo Greco, MD, and Zvi Fuks, MD, both from the Champalimaud Centre for the Unknown, Lisbon, Portugal; Fuks is also affiliated with Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.

“Taken together, these observations support the hypothesis that all detectable oligometastatic lesions should be systematically ablated, if feasible, in an effort to maximize oligometastatic cancer cure,” Greco and Fuks comment.

However, there is no clear consensus on what constitutes oligometastatic disease, they point out, and they warn that “a numerical-based decision to withhold lesion ablation may represent a strategic error, potentially reducing the benefit of metastasis-directed therapy (MDT) in the treatment of oligometastatic cancer.”

“We speculate that, if clinically and technically feasible, there should be no restriction to MDT at first oligometastatic presentation and as sequential lesions appear, regardless of lesion numbers, because each lesion may potentially constitute a generator of evolving metastatogenic clonogens,” they add.

Multiple rounds of MDT theoretically could “drive the disease to near extinction” and prevent the development of polymetastatic disease, they contend.

Study Details

For their study, Phillips and colleagues enrolled 54 men with recurrent hormone-sensitive prostate cancer with one, two, or three metastases detectable on conventional imaging who had not received ADT within 6 months of enrollment, or for a total of 3 or more years.

The patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive either SABR, with dose and fractionation based on the size and location of each lesion, or to observation. The median age in each group was 68 years. 

Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-targeted PET-CT, a relatively new technique that is more accurate than conventional imaging, was performed during treatment planning and at day 180 of follow-up for patients assigned to SABR, but the investigators were blinded to the results to prevent bias in target-lesion selection.

The primary endpoint of progression at 6 months was measured by prostate-specific antigen increase, radiographic evidence, symptomatic progression, ADT initiation for any reason, or death.

This primary endpoint occurred in 7 of 36 men (19%) who were treated with SABR, compared with 11 of 18 (61%) who underwent observation (P = .005).

Median progression-free survival (PFS) was not reached in the SABR group vs. 5.8 months in the observation group, translating into a hazard ratio of 0.30 (P = .002).

Of the 36 men treated with SABR, 16 had baseline PET-avid lesions that, because of investigator blinding, were not included in the treatment fields.

Among all SABR-treated patients, the rate of progression at 6 months among men for whom all lesions were treated was 5%, compared with 38% for men with any lesions outside the treatment field (P = .03). The median PFS for patients with no untreated lesions was not reached, vs. 11.8 months for men in whom PET-avid lesions were missed (HR, 0.26; P = .006).

Oligometastatic vs. Polymetastatic

In an interview with Medscape Medical News, Tran noted that using PSMA PET-CT for imaging appears to be very important for identifying those patients with numerous or disseminated (polymetastatic) lesions, compared with those patients with limited disease who are most likely to benefit from SABR. He emphasized, however, that the PSMA PET-CT findings were an exploratory endpoint that required further validation.

Another secondary, exploratory endpoint of the study was the use of a circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analysis by the CAPP-Seq (cancer personalized profiling by deep sequencing) method.

“We show, in a discovery fashion, that certain mutations in the circulation seem to distinguish patients who would benefit from SABR vs those who would not,” he said.

The study was supported by the Nesbitt-McMaster Foundation, Ronald Rose and Joan Lazar, the Movember Foundation and Prostate Cancer Foundation, and the National Cancer Institute. Phillips reported receiving consulting fees and honoraria from RefleXion Medical outside the submitted work. Tran holds a licensed patent related to ablative radiotherapy compounds and methods (Natsar Pharmaceuticals). Several other authors reported financial disclosures. The full list can be found with the original article. Editorialists Greco and Fuks reported serving as cofounders of and owning stock in Ceramedix Holding, LLC.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Intense radiotherapy aimed at all metastases in men with prostate cancer with limited metastases (up to three) has been shown to slow progression of the disease.

Patients with oligometastatic disease who received stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) had a significant threefold decrease in disease progression at 6 months compared with patients who were randomly assigned to observation alone.

“Local control for SABR-treated lesions was excellent, and the adverse effects associated with SABR were mild and did not appear to affect quality of life,” say the investigators, led by Ryan Phillips, MD, PhD, from the Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center in Baltimore.

“Although the approach is controversial, many men are interested in avoiding the unpleasant adverse effects and potential health risks of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for as long as is reasonable,” they write.

These results come from outcomes of the Observation vs Stereotactic Ablative Radiation for Oligometastatic Prostate Cancer (ORIOLE) phase 2 trial and were published online March 26 in JAMA Oncology.

An intriguing finding from the study was evidence that SABR may evoke an immune response.

“We observed enhanced differential clonotype expansion, clusters of similar expanded T-cell receptors, and a clinical benefit to greater baseline clonality seen only in participants treated with SABR,” said senior author Phuoc T. Tran, MD, PhD, from the department of radiation oncology and molecular radiation sciences at Johns Hopkins.

“This the only data I’m aware of that really shows that radiation in isolation can cause a systemic immune response,” Tran told Medscape Medical News. 

Previous studies suggesting an immune response with radiation have been confounded by coadministration of radiation and chemotherapy, he said.
 

Drive the Disease to ‘Near Extinction’

SABR appears to “alter the natural history of prostate oligometastatic disease by removing or greatly affecting signals that promote further development of micrometastatic disease,” write the authors of accompanying editorial.

This hypothesis is consistent with the oligometastatic paradigm, which postulates that this is a transient phase that offers “a window of opportunity for cancer cure if equilibrium-phase lesions are ablated before polymetastatic escape occurs,” write Carlo Greco, MD, and Zvi Fuks, MD, both from the Champalimaud Centre for the Unknown, Lisbon, Portugal; Fuks is also affiliated with Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.

“Taken together, these observations support the hypothesis that all detectable oligometastatic lesions should be systematically ablated, if feasible, in an effort to maximize oligometastatic cancer cure,” Greco and Fuks comment.

However, there is no clear consensus on what constitutes oligometastatic disease, they point out, and they warn that “a numerical-based decision to withhold lesion ablation may represent a strategic error, potentially reducing the benefit of metastasis-directed therapy (MDT) in the treatment of oligometastatic cancer.”

“We speculate that, if clinically and technically feasible, there should be no restriction to MDT at first oligometastatic presentation and as sequential lesions appear, regardless of lesion numbers, because each lesion may potentially constitute a generator of evolving metastatogenic clonogens,” they add.

Multiple rounds of MDT theoretically could “drive the disease to near extinction” and prevent the development of polymetastatic disease, they contend.

Study Details

For their study, Phillips and colleagues enrolled 54 men with recurrent hormone-sensitive prostate cancer with one, two, or three metastases detectable on conventional imaging who had not received ADT within 6 months of enrollment, or for a total of 3 or more years.

The patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive either SABR, with dose and fractionation based on the size and location of each lesion, or to observation. The median age in each group was 68 years. 

Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-targeted PET-CT, a relatively new technique that is more accurate than conventional imaging, was performed during treatment planning and at day 180 of follow-up for patients assigned to SABR, but the investigators were blinded to the results to prevent bias in target-lesion selection.

The primary endpoint of progression at 6 months was measured by prostate-specific antigen increase, radiographic evidence, symptomatic progression, ADT initiation for any reason, or death.

This primary endpoint occurred in 7 of 36 men (19%) who were treated with SABR, compared with 11 of 18 (61%) who underwent observation (P = .005).

Median progression-free survival (PFS) was not reached in the SABR group vs. 5.8 months in the observation group, translating into a hazard ratio of 0.30 (P = .002).

Of the 36 men treated with SABR, 16 had baseline PET-avid lesions that, because of investigator blinding, were not included in the treatment fields.

Among all SABR-treated patients, the rate of progression at 6 months among men for whom all lesions were treated was 5%, compared with 38% for men with any lesions outside the treatment field (P = .03). The median PFS for patients with no untreated lesions was not reached, vs. 11.8 months for men in whom PET-avid lesions were missed (HR, 0.26; P = .006).

Oligometastatic vs. Polymetastatic

In an interview with Medscape Medical News, Tran noted that using PSMA PET-CT for imaging appears to be very important for identifying those patients with numerous or disseminated (polymetastatic) lesions, compared with those patients with limited disease who are most likely to benefit from SABR. He emphasized, however, that the PSMA PET-CT findings were an exploratory endpoint that required further validation.

Another secondary, exploratory endpoint of the study was the use of a circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analysis by the CAPP-Seq (cancer personalized profiling by deep sequencing) method.

“We show, in a discovery fashion, that certain mutations in the circulation seem to distinguish patients who would benefit from SABR vs those who would not,” he said.

The study was supported by the Nesbitt-McMaster Foundation, Ronald Rose and Joan Lazar, the Movember Foundation and Prostate Cancer Foundation, and the National Cancer Institute. Phillips reported receiving consulting fees and honoraria from RefleXion Medical outside the submitted work. Tran holds a licensed patent related to ablative radiotherapy compounds and methods (Natsar Pharmaceuticals). Several other authors reported financial disclosures. The full list can be found with the original article. Editorialists Greco and Fuks reported serving as cofounders of and owning stock in Ceramedix Holding, LLC.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In this edition of “Applying research to practice,” I highlight a study suggesting olaparib is helpful in patients BRCA mutations experiencing multiple relapses of ovarian cancer.

SOLO3 was the first phase 3 trial comparing the oral PARP inhibitor olaparib (OLA; 300 mg twice daily) with physician’s choice of intravenous single-agent chemotherapy (TPC) in relapsed high-grade serous or endometroid ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer (J Clin Oncol. 2020 Feb 19. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.02745).

The trial involved 266 BRCA-mutated patients who had received two (approximately 50%) or more lines of platinum-based TPC. All patients were required to be completely platinum sensitive (progression beyond 12 months from last platinum exposure) or partially platinum sensitive (progression within 6-12 months).

Women were randomized to receive either OLA or nonplatinum TPC (pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, paclitaxel, gemcitabine, or topotecan). After an amendment to the study in 2017, the primary endpoint was objective response rate, determined by blinded independent central review, with a variety of secondary endpoints.

Among 223 patients with measurable disease, the objective response rate was 72.2% with OLA and 51.4% with TPC (odds ratio, 2.53; P = .002). Across all patients, the median progression-free survival was significantly better with OLA (13.4 months) than with TPC (9.2 months; P = .013). Overall survival data were immature.

The superiority of OLA for the primary endpoint was maintained in multiple subgroups of patients, including those who had received only two prior lines of therapy (OR, 3.44) and those who had three or more prior lines (OR, 2.21). Time to first subsequent therapy (HR, 0.48) and time to treatment discontinuation or death (HR, 0.17) were significantly longer for OLA than for TPC.

Adverse events were consistent with the established safety profiles of OLA and chemotherapy. The most common grade 3 or higher adverse events were anemia (21.3%) with OLA and neutropenia (15.8%) and hand-foot syndrome (11.8%) with TPC.

However, median treatment durations were substantially and consistently longer for OLA than for TPC, and there were fewer treatment discontinuations because of toxicity for OLA than for TPC. At the time of data cutoff, 43 patients in the OLA group and 1 patient in the TPC cohort remained on treatment.
 

How these results influence practice

The results of the SOLO3 trial are clear: Treatment with OLA is a reasonable alternative to nonplatinum-containing chemotherapy for women with BRCA mutations and platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer. OLA is a “chemotherapy-free” option for these patients in the second- and later-line settings.

Less clear are the following:

• How many patients with BRCA mutations will not have already received a PARP inhibitor in the frontline maintenance setting in the future? SOLO3 required modification in the accrual target and endpoint because of challenges in patient recruitment from the entry of PARP inhibitors into routine clinical practice.
• Would OLA be superior to a carboplatin doublet rather than a nonplatinum single agent in patients with two prior relapses of platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer? Standard practice would be for patients in the second-line setting to receive a platinum doublet.
• Is extending the platinum-free interval a worthwhile objective, or would some patients prefer a finite interval of a platinum doublet over an indefinite period of treatment with OLA?

All phase 3 clinical trials have limitations since they require years to complete and the applicability of the results are challenged by intercurrent advances in treatment options and diagnostic tests.

However, overall, the results of SOLO3 are impressive and should influence clinical practice for the subset of relapsed ovarian cancer patients who would have qualified to participate in it. OLA represents an important treatment advance for a group of patients who are trying to string together remission after remission, with limited negative impact on quality of life.



Dr. Lyss was an oncologist and researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

In this edition of “Applying research to practice,” I highlight a study suggesting olaparib is helpful in patients BRCA mutations experiencing multiple relapses of ovarian cancer.

SOLO3 was the first phase 3 trial comparing the oral PARP inhibitor olaparib (OLA; 300 mg twice daily) with physician’s choice of intravenous single-agent chemotherapy (TPC) in relapsed high-grade serous or endometroid ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer (J Clin Oncol. 2020 Feb 19. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.02745).

The trial involved 266 BRCA-mutated patients who had received two (approximately 50%) or more lines of platinum-based TPC. All patients were required to be completely platinum sensitive (progression beyond 12 months from last platinum exposure) or partially platinum sensitive (progression within 6-12 months).

Women were randomized to receive either OLA or nonplatinum TPC (pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, paclitaxel, gemcitabine, or topotecan). After an amendment to the study in 2017, the primary endpoint was objective response rate, determined by blinded independent central review, with a variety of secondary endpoints.

Among 223 patients with measurable disease, the objective response rate was 72.2% with OLA and 51.4% with TPC (odds ratio, 2.53; P = .002). Across all patients, the median progression-free survival was significantly better with OLA (13.4 months) than with TPC (9.2 months; P = .013). Overall survival data were immature.

The superiority of OLA for the primary endpoint was maintained in multiple subgroups of patients, including those who had received only two prior lines of therapy (OR, 3.44) and those who had three or more prior lines (OR, 2.21). Time to first subsequent therapy (HR, 0.48) and time to treatment discontinuation or death (HR, 0.17) were significantly longer for OLA than for TPC.

Adverse events were consistent with the established safety profiles of OLA and chemotherapy. The most common grade 3 or higher adverse events were anemia (21.3%) with OLA and neutropenia (15.8%) and hand-foot syndrome (11.8%) with TPC.

However, median treatment durations were substantially and consistently longer for OLA than for TPC, and there were fewer treatment discontinuations because of toxicity for OLA than for TPC. At the time of data cutoff, 43 patients in the OLA group and 1 patient in the TPC cohort remained on treatment.
 

How these results influence practice

The results of the SOLO3 trial are clear: Treatment with OLA is a reasonable alternative to nonplatinum-containing chemotherapy for women with BRCA mutations and platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer. OLA is a “chemotherapy-free” option for these patients in the second- and later-line settings.

Less clear are the following:

• How many patients with BRCA mutations will not have already received a PARP inhibitor in the frontline maintenance setting in the future? SOLO3 required modification in the accrual target and endpoint because of challenges in patient recruitment from the entry of PARP inhibitors into routine clinical practice.
• Would OLA be superior to a carboplatin doublet rather than a nonplatinum single agent in patients with two prior relapses of platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer? Standard practice would be for patients in the second-line setting to receive a platinum doublet.
• Is extending the platinum-free interval a worthwhile objective, or would some patients prefer a finite interval of a platinum doublet over an indefinite period of treatment with OLA?

All phase 3 clinical trials have limitations since they require years to complete and the applicability of the results are challenged by intercurrent advances in treatment options and diagnostic tests.

However, overall, the results of SOLO3 are impressive and should influence clinical practice for the subset of relapsed ovarian cancer patients who would have qualified to participate in it. OLA represents an important treatment advance for a group of patients who are trying to string together remission after remission, with limited negative impact on quality of life.



Dr. Lyss was an oncologist and researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.

In this edition of “Applying research to practice,” I highlight a study suggesting olaparib is helpful in patients BRCA mutations experiencing multiple relapses of ovarian cancer.

SOLO3 was the first phase 3 trial comparing the oral PARP inhibitor olaparib (OLA; 300 mg twice daily) with physician’s choice of intravenous single-agent chemotherapy (TPC) in relapsed high-grade serous or endometroid ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer (J Clin Oncol. 2020 Feb 19. doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.02745).

The trial involved 266 BRCA-mutated patients who had received two (approximately 50%) or more lines of platinum-based TPC. All patients were required to be completely platinum sensitive (progression beyond 12 months from last platinum exposure) or partially platinum sensitive (progression within 6-12 months).

Women were randomized to receive either OLA or nonplatinum TPC (pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, paclitaxel, gemcitabine, or topotecan). After an amendment to the study in 2017, the primary endpoint was objective response rate, determined by blinded independent central review, with a variety of secondary endpoints.

Among 223 patients with measurable disease, the objective response rate was 72.2% with OLA and 51.4% with TPC (odds ratio, 2.53; P = .002). Across all patients, the median progression-free survival was significantly better with OLA (13.4 months) than with TPC (9.2 months; P = .013). Overall survival data were immature.

The superiority of OLA for the primary endpoint was maintained in multiple subgroups of patients, including those who had received only two prior lines of therapy (OR, 3.44) and those who had three or more prior lines (OR, 2.21). Time to first subsequent therapy (HR, 0.48) and time to treatment discontinuation or death (HR, 0.17) were significantly longer for OLA than for TPC.

Adverse events were consistent with the established safety profiles of OLA and chemotherapy. The most common grade 3 or higher adverse events were anemia (21.3%) with OLA and neutropenia (15.8%) and hand-foot syndrome (11.8%) with TPC.

However, median treatment durations were substantially and consistently longer for OLA than for TPC, and there were fewer treatment discontinuations because of toxicity for OLA than for TPC. At the time of data cutoff, 43 patients in the OLA group and 1 patient in the TPC cohort remained on treatment.
 

How these results influence practice

The results of the SOLO3 trial are clear: Treatment with OLA is a reasonable alternative to nonplatinum-containing chemotherapy for women with BRCA mutations and platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer. OLA is a “chemotherapy-free” option for these patients in the second- and later-line settings.

Less clear are the following:

• How many patients with BRCA mutations will not have already received a PARP inhibitor in the frontline maintenance setting in the future? SOLO3 required modification in the accrual target and endpoint because of challenges in patient recruitment from the entry of PARP inhibitors into routine clinical practice.
• Would OLA be superior to a carboplatin doublet rather than a nonplatinum single agent in patients with two prior relapses of platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer? Standard practice would be for patients in the second-line setting to receive a platinum doublet.
• Is extending the platinum-free interval a worthwhile objective, or would some patients prefer a finite interval of a platinum doublet over an indefinite period of treatment with OLA?

All phase 3 clinical trials have limitations since they require years to complete and the applicability of the results are challenged by intercurrent advances in treatment options and diagnostic tests.

However, overall, the results of SOLO3 are impressive and should influence clinical practice for the subset of relapsed ovarian cancer patients who would have qualified to participate in it. OLA represents an important treatment advance for a group of patients who are trying to string together remission after remission, with limited negative impact on quality of life.



Dr. Lyss was an oncologist and researcher for more than 35 years before his recent retirement. His clinical and research interests were focused on breast and lung cancers, as well as expanding clinical trial access to medically underserved populations. He is based in St. Louis. He has no conflicts of interest.