High efficacy, no safety signals for herpes zoster vaccine post-HSCT

Article Type
Changed
Fri, 01/04/2019 - 10:19

 

– A recently approved adjuvanted herpes zoster vaccine)(Shingrix) effectively and safely prevented herpes zoster in a population of patients with multiple myeloma and other hematologic malignancies who received autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

The use of recombinant varicella zoster virus glycoprotein E in combination with an adjuvant system gives immunosuppressed individuals who have received hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) a safe option for prevention of herpes zoster (HZ), said Javier de la Serna, MD, PhD, speaking at the combined annual meetings of the Center for International Blood & Marrow Transplant Research and the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation.

Kari Oakes/Frontline Medical News
Dr. Javier de la Serna
Previously, only a live-attenuated varicella zoster vaccine had been available, making prolonged acyclovir prophylaxis the only safe HZ prevention strategy in this population.

Presenting the findings at a late-breaking abstract session, Dr. de la Serna said that for the 1,721 participants in a placebo-controlled multicenter trial who received both doses of the vaccine, the incidence of HZ for vaccine recipients was 3.0%, compared with 9.4% of placebo recipients, for a vaccine efficacy of 68.2% (95% confidence interval, 55.6-77.5; P less than 0.0001). These results met the study’s primary objective.

 

 


Postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) prevention efficacy – a secondary endpoint – was 89.3% for those receiving the vaccine (HZ/su); the incidence of PHN was 0.5% in the HZ/su study arm, compared with 4.9% for those who received placebo (95% CI, 22.5-99.8). The study also tracked other HZ complications as a secondary endpoint, finding efficacy of 77.8% (95% CI, 19.1–95.0). “The vaccine was highly efficacious in preventing all the secondary outcomes,” said Dr. de la Serna of the Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre, Madrid.

The randomized, observer-blind phase 3 trial was conducted in 28 countries.Adults who received autologous HSCT were randomized 1:1 to receive HZ/su (n = 922) or placebo (n = 924) within 50-70 days of their transplant. Patients were excluded if they were expected to receive more than 6 months of anti–varicella zoster prophylaxis posttransplant, Dr. de la Serna said.

Participants received the first dose of HZ/su at the first study visit, and the second dose 30-60 days later. Patients were seen 1 month after the last vaccine dose, and then again at months 13 and 25, with telephone follow-up between the later visits. All participants were followed for at least 1 year, Dr. de la Serna said.

Episodes of HZ were confirmed by polymerase chain reaction assay, or, when samples were lacking or indeterminate, by agreement of at least three members of an ascertainment committee.

Of the two components of the HZ/su vaccine, glycoprotein E triggers both humoral immunity and activity of varicella zoster–specific CD4+ T cells; the adjuvant system – dubbed ASO1 – boosts immune response. The vaccine was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in October 2017 for use in adults aged 50 years and older.
 

 


In addition to the primary endpoint of vaccine efficacy in prevention of HZ cases during the study period, secondary objectives included monitoring vaccine reactogenicity and safety, and evaluating vaccine efficacy for the prevention of PHN and other complications of HZ.

Tertiary objectives included vaccine efficacy in preventing HZ during the first year posttransplant (vaccine efficacy 84.7%; 95% CI, 32.2-96.6), as well as efficacy in preventing hospitalizations related to HZ (vaccine efficacy 76.2%, 95% CI 61.1-86.0).

An exploratory analysis found vaccine efficacy of 71.8% for participants younger than 50 years (95% CI, 38.8 – 88.3). For patients aged 50 years and older, vaccine efficacy was 67.3% (95% CI, 52.6–77.9).

The safety of HZ/su was determined by analyzing data for all participants, but efficacy data included only those who received the second dose and did not develop HZ within a month of receiving the second vaccine dose.
 

 


In the efficacy group (n = 1,721), patients were mostly (n = 1,296) aged 50 years or older. Most patients (n = 937) received HSCT for multiple myeloma. Overall, participants were about 63% male, and 77% were of Caucasian/European ancestry.

Adverse events, solicited for the first 7 days after injections, were mostly mild and related to the local site pain and inflammation expected with an adjuvanted vaccine; HZ/su recipients also experienced more fatigue and muscle aches than did those receiving placebo. Median duration of symptoms was up to 3 days, with grade 3 events lasting up to 2 days.

Unsolicited and serious adverse events were similar between study arms, with a median safety follow-up period of 29 months. The investigators judged that no deaths were related to the vaccine, and there were no signals for increased rate of relapse or immune-mediated diseases.

The study was funded by GlaxoSmithKline; HZ/su(Shingrix) is marketed by GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. de la Serna reported being on the advisory board or receiving honoraria from multiple pharmaceutical companies.
 

 

SOURCE: de la Serna J et al. 2018 BMT Tandem Meetings, Abstract LBA2.

Meeting/Event
Publications
Topics
Sections
Meeting/Event
Meeting/Event

 

– A recently approved adjuvanted herpes zoster vaccine)(Shingrix) effectively and safely prevented herpes zoster in a population of patients with multiple myeloma and other hematologic malignancies who received autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

The use of recombinant varicella zoster virus glycoprotein E in combination with an adjuvant system gives immunosuppressed individuals who have received hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) a safe option for prevention of herpes zoster (HZ), said Javier de la Serna, MD, PhD, speaking at the combined annual meetings of the Center for International Blood & Marrow Transplant Research and the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation.

Kari Oakes/Frontline Medical News
Dr. Javier de la Serna
Previously, only a live-attenuated varicella zoster vaccine had been available, making prolonged acyclovir prophylaxis the only safe HZ prevention strategy in this population.

Presenting the findings at a late-breaking abstract session, Dr. de la Serna said that for the 1,721 participants in a placebo-controlled multicenter trial who received both doses of the vaccine, the incidence of HZ for vaccine recipients was 3.0%, compared with 9.4% of placebo recipients, for a vaccine efficacy of 68.2% (95% confidence interval, 55.6-77.5; P less than 0.0001). These results met the study’s primary objective.

 

 


Postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) prevention efficacy – a secondary endpoint – was 89.3% for those receiving the vaccine (HZ/su); the incidence of PHN was 0.5% in the HZ/su study arm, compared with 4.9% for those who received placebo (95% CI, 22.5-99.8). The study also tracked other HZ complications as a secondary endpoint, finding efficacy of 77.8% (95% CI, 19.1–95.0). “The vaccine was highly efficacious in preventing all the secondary outcomes,” said Dr. de la Serna of the Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre, Madrid.

The randomized, observer-blind phase 3 trial was conducted in 28 countries.Adults who received autologous HSCT were randomized 1:1 to receive HZ/su (n = 922) or placebo (n = 924) within 50-70 days of their transplant. Patients were excluded if they were expected to receive more than 6 months of anti–varicella zoster prophylaxis posttransplant, Dr. de la Serna said.

Participants received the first dose of HZ/su at the first study visit, and the second dose 30-60 days later. Patients were seen 1 month after the last vaccine dose, and then again at months 13 and 25, with telephone follow-up between the later visits. All participants were followed for at least 1 year, Dr. de la Serna said.

Episodes of HZ were confirmed by polymerase chain reaction assay, or, when samples were lacking or indeterminate, by agreement of at least three members of an ascertainment committee.

Of the two components of the HZ/su vaccine, glycoprotein E triggers both humoral immunity and activity of varicella zoster–specific CD4+ T cells; the adjuvant system – dubbed ASO1 – boosts immune response. The vaccine was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in October 2017 for use in adults aged 50 years and older.
 

 


In addition to the primary endpoint of vaccine efficacy in prevention of HZ cases during the study period, secondary objectives included monitoring vaccine reactogenicity and safety, and evaluating vaccine efficacy for the prevention of PHN and other complications of HZ.

Tertiary objectives included vaccine efficacy in preventing HZ during the first year posttransplant (vaccine efficacy 84.7%; 95% CI, 32.2-96.6), as well as efficacy in preventing hospitalizations related to HZ (vaccine efficacy 76.2%, 95% CI 61.1-86.0).

An exploratory analysis found vaccine efficacy of 71.8% for participants younger than 50 years (95% CI, 38.8 – 88.3). For patients aged 50 years and older, vaccine efficacy was 67.3% (95% CI, 52.6–77.9).

The safety of HZ/su was determined by analyzing data for all participants, but efficacy data included only those who received the second dose and did not develop HZ within a month of receiving the second vaccine dose.
 

 


In the efficacy group (n = 1,721), patients were mostly (n = 1,296) aged 50 years or older. Most patients (n = 937) received HSCT for multiple myeloma. Overall, participants were about 63% male, and 77% were of Caucasian/European ancestry.

Adverse events, solicited for the first 7 days after injections, were mostly mild and related to the local site pain and inflammation expected with an adjuvanted vaccine; HZ/su recipients also experienced more fatigue and muscle aches than did those receiving placebo. Median duration of symptoms was up to 3 days, with grade 3 events lasting up to 2 days.

Unsolicited and serious adverse events were similar between study arms, with a median safety follow-up period of 29 months. The investigators judged that no deaths were related to the vaccine, and there were no signals for increased rate of relapse or immune-mediated diseases.

The study was funded by GlaxoSmithKline; HZ/su(Shingrix) is marketed by GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. de la Serna reported being on the advisory board or receiving honoraria from multiple pharmaceutical companies.
 

 

SOURCE: de la Serna J et al. 2018 BMT Tandem Meetings, Abstract LBA2.

 

– A recently approved adjuvanted herpes zoster vaccine)(Shingrix) effectively and safely prevented herpes zoster in a population of patients with multiple myeloma and other hematologic malignancies who received autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

The use of recombinant varicella zoster virus glycoprotein E in combination with an adjuvant system gives immunosuppressed individuals who have received hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) a safe option for prevention of herpes zoster (HZ), said Javier de la Serna, MD, PhD, speaking at the combined annual meetings of the Center for International Blood & Marrow Transplant Research and the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation.

Kari Oakes/Frontline Medical News
Dr. Javier de la Serna
Previously, only a live-attenuated varicella zoster vaccine had been available, making prolonged acyclovir prophylaxis the only safe HZ prevention strategy in this population.

Presenting the findings at a late-breaking abstract session, Dr. de la Serna said that for the 1,721 participants in a placebo-controlled multicenter trial who received both doses of the vaccine, the incidence of HZ for vaccine recipients was 3.0%, compared with 9.4% of placebo recipients, for a vaccine efficacy of 68.2% (95% confidence interval, 55.6-77.5; P less than 0.0001). These results met the study’s primary objective.

 

 


Postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) prevention efficacy – a secondary endpoint – was 89.3% for those receiving the vaccine (HZ/su); the incidence of PHN was 0.5% in the HZ/su study arm, compared with 4.9% for those who received placebo (95% CI, 22.5-99.8). The study also tracked other HZ complications as a secondary endpoint, finding efficacy of 77.8% (95% CI, 19.1–95.0). “The vaccine was highly efficacious in preventing all the secondary outcomes,” said Dr. de la Serna of the Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre, Madrid.

The randomized, observer-blind phase 3 trial was conducted in 28 countries.Adults who received autologous HSCT were randomized 1:1 to receive HZ/su (n = 922) or placebo (n = 924) within 50-70 days of their transplant. Patients were excluded if they were expected to receive more than 6 months of anti–varicella zoster prophylaxis posttransplant, Dr. de la Serna said.

Participants received the first dose of HZ/su at the first study visit, and the second dose 30-60 days later. Patients were seen 1 month after the last vaccine dose, and then again at months 13 and 25, with telephone follow-up between the later visits. All participants were followed for at least 1 year, Dr. de la Serna said.

Episodes of HZ were confirmed by polymerase chain reaction assay, or, when samples were lacking or indeterminate, by agreement of at least three members of an ascertainment committee.

Of the two components of the HZ/su vaccine, glycoprotein E triggers both humoral immunity and activity of varicella zoster–specific CD4+ T cells; the adjuvant system – dubbed ASO1 – boosts immune response. The vaccine was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in October 2017 for use in adults aged 50 years and older.
 

 


In addition to the primary endpoint of vaccine efficacy in prevention of HZ cases during the study period, secondary objectives included monitoring vaccine reactogenicity and safety, and evaluating vaccine efficacy for the prevention of PHN and other complications of HZ.

Tertiary objectives included vaccine efficacy in preventing HZ during the first year posttransplant (vaccine efficacy 84.7%; 95% CI, 32.2-96.6), as well as efficacy in preventing hospitalizations related to HZ (vaccine efficacy 76.2%, 95% CI 61.1-86.0).

An exploratory analysis found vaccine efficacy of 71.8% for participants younger than 50 years (95% CI, 38.8 – 88.3). For patients aged 50 years and older, vaccine efficacy was 67.3% (95% CI, 52.6–77.9).

The safety of HZ/su was determined by analyzing data for all participants, but efficacy data included only those who received the second dose and did not develop HZ within a month of receiving the second vaccine dose.
 

 


In the efficacy group (n = 1,721), patients were mostly (n = 1,296) aged 50 years or older. Most patients (n = 937) received HSCT for multiple myeloma. Overall, participants were about 63% male, and 77% were of Caucasian/European ancestry.

Adverse events, solicited for the first 7 days after injections, were mostly mild and related to the local site pain and inflammation expected with an adjuvanted vaccine; HZ/su recipients also experienced more fatigue and muscle aches than did those receiving placebo. Median duration of symptoms was up to 3 days, with grade 3 events lasting up to 2 days.

Unsolicited and serious adverse events were similar between study arms, with a median safety follow-up period of 29 months. The investigators judged that no deaths were related to the vaccine, and there were no signals for increased rate of relapse or immune-mediated diseases.

The study was funded by GlaxoSmithKline; HZ/su(Shingrix) is marketed by GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. de la Serna reported being on the advisory board or receiving honoraria from multiple pharmaceutical companies.
 

 

SOURCE: de la Serna J et al. 2018 BMT Tandem Meetings, Abstract LBA2.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Article Source

REPORTING FROM THE 2018 BMT TANDEM MEETINGS

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Vitals

 

Key clinical point: The adjuvanted herpes zoster vaccine met its efficacy endpoint in myeloma patients after transplant.

Major finding: Efficacy was 68.17% for preventing herpes zoster among HSCT recipients.

Study details: A randomized, observer blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 study of 1,846 post-HSCT recipients.

Disclosures: The study was sponsored by GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. de la Serna reported relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies.

Source: de la Serna J et al. 2018 BMT Tandem Meetings, Abstract LBA2.

Disqus Comments
Default

OSA Endotypes and Phenotypes: Toward Personalized OSA Care

Article Type
Changed
Tue, 10/23/2018 - 16:10

 

Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) contributes a major health burden to society due to its high prevalence and substantial neurocognitive and cardiovascular consequences. Estimates suggest that at least 10% of adults in North America are afflicted with OSA, making it probably the most common respiratory disease in the developed world (Peppard et al. Am J Epidemiol. 2013;177[9]:1006). Nasal CPAP is a highly efficacious therapy that has been shown to improve neurocognitive and cardiovascular outcomes. However, CPAP is not always well tolerated. Alternative therapies, such as oral appliances and upper airway surgery, have highly variable efficacy, and evidence of important clinical benefits are uncertain. Therefore, efforts are ongoing to determine optimal alternative strategies for therapy.

Dr. Robert L. Owens

In order to treat any condition optimally, one needs to be able to predict who is at highest risk of developing the condition, then to assess the consequences if left untreated, and finally to be able to predict response to various treatment options. Currently, the OSA field is still in its early stages of our understanding. Clinically, we are often faced with patients who have varying presentations and manifestations, but, for reasons that are unclear. For instance, two individuals with the same body mass index may have very different clinical manifestations, one with severe OSA and one without any OSA. Similarly, two individuals with an apnea hypopnea index of 40 events per hour (ie, severe OSA) may have very different symptoms attributable to OSA, eg, one could be asymptomatic and the other could be debilitated from sleepiness. We and others have been making efforts to determine why these phenomenon occur. At present, the techniques to define mechanisms underlying OSA are labor-intensive, requiring one or two overnight experiments to gather meaningful data. Although we are gathering new insights based on these techniques, efforts are ongoing to simplify these approaches and to make assessment of pathophysiologic characteristics more accessible to the clinician (Orr et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2017 Nov 30. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201707-1357LE. [Epub ahead of print]).

We ultimately believe that a thorough analysis of a sleep recording combined with demographic data and other readily available clinical data (perhaps plasma biomarkers) may yield sufficient information for us to know why OSA is occurring and what interventions might be helpful for an individual patient. Currently, our use of the polysomnogram to derive only an apnea hypopnea index does not take full advantage of the available data. An apnea hypopnea index can be readily obtained from home sleep testing and does not truly provide much insight into why a given individual has OSA, what symptoms are attributable to OSA, and what interventions might be considered for the afflicted individual. By analogy, if the only useful data derived from an ECG were a heart rate, the test would rapidly become obsolete. Along these lines, if the only role for the sleep clinician was to prescribe CPAP to everyone with an AHI greater than 5/h, there would be little need or interest in specialized training. In contrast, we suggest that rich insights regarding pathophysiology and mechanisms should be gathered and may influence clinical management of patients afflicted with OSA. Thus, we encourage more thorough analyses of available data to maximize information gleaned and, ultimately, to optimize clinical outcomes.

 

 


Dr. Naomi Deacon

Recent studies suggest that sleep apnea occurs for varying reasons, a concept that is now thought to be clinically important (Jordan et al. Lancet. 2014;383[9918]:736). We draw a crucial distinction between endotypes (mechanisms underlying disease) and phenotypes (clinical expression of disease). Important endotypes include compromised upper airway anatomy, dysfunction in pharyngeal dilator muscles, unstable ventilatory control (high loop gain), and low arousal threshold (wake up easily), among others. Important phenotypes of sleep apnea are emerging and still evolving to include minimally symptomatic OSA, OSA with daytime sleepiness, and OSA with major cardiometabolic risk, among others. Several important concepts have emerged regarding different OSA endotypes and phenotypes:

1 The mechanism underlying OSA may predict potential response to therapeutic interventions. For instance, the endotype of OSA with unstable ventilatory control (high loop gain) may respond to agents such as oxygen and acetazolamide, which serve to stabilize control of breathing. In patients with anatomical compromise at the level of the velopharynx, uvulopalatopharyngoplasty may be an effective intervention. For patients with multiple pathophysiologic abnormalities, combination therapy may be required to alleviate OSA (Edwards et al. Sleep. 2016;9[11]:1973).

2 Given that OSA has many underlying etiologies, efforts are underway to determine whether individuals with different risk factors for OSA develop their disease based on varying mechanisms. As an example, people with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) may be at increased risk of OSA perhaps on the basis of a low threshold for arousal (Orr et al. JCSM. 2017, 13[1]: 57-63). Another example would be patients with neuromuscular disease who may be at risk of OSA primarily based on impaired pharyngeal dilator muscle function.

 

 

Dr. Atul Malhotra

3 A new concept is emerging whereby endotypes of OSA may actually predict differing OSA phenotypes. In theory, loop gain-driven OSA may have different consequences from OSA driven by compromise of pharyngeal anatomy. To this point, data suggest that OSA in the elderly may not have as many consequences as OSA in younger people matched on severity of illness. OSA in the elderly has lower loop gain than OSA in younger people and is associated with less negative intrathoracic pressure at the time of arousal as compared with younger individuals with OSA (Kobayashi et al. Chest. 2010; 137[6]:1310). As such, the endotype of OSA in the elderly may explain why the clinical consequences are fewer than in the younger OSA counterparts.

4 The mechanism underlying OSA may be important in determining response to clinical interventions, such as nasal CPAP. Patients with a low arousal threshold may be prone to insomnia when placed on CPAP and could theoretically be poorly tolerant of therapy based on disrupted sleep architecture. Such patients may benefit from non-myorelaxant hypnotic therapy to consolidate sleep and improve CPAP adherence. In addition, patients with high loop gain (unstable ventilatory control) may be prone to develop central apneas when placed on CPAP therapy (Stanchina et al. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2015;12[9]:1351). These patients may benefit from newer technologies, eg, auto or adaptive servo ventilation - ASV. High loop gain has also been shown to predict failure of upper airway surgery as a treatment for OSA by several groups (Li et al. JCSM. 2017;13[9]:1029). Such patients should, perhaps, undergo nonsurgical therapies for OSA.

We emphasize that some of the points being made are somewhat speculative and, thus, encourage further basic and clinical research to test our assumptions. Robust, multicenter clinical trials assessing hard outcomes will ultimately be required to change the current standard of care. Nonetheless, we believe that a more thorough understanding of OSA pathogenesis can help guide clinical care today and will be critical to the optimal treatment of afflicted individuals tomorrow.

Dr. Owens is Assistant Clinical Professor of Medicine; Dr. Deacon is a Post-Doctoral Research Scholar; and Dr. Malhotra is Kenneth M. Moser Professor of Medicine and Chief, Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care and Sleep Medicine, University of California San Diego.

Publications
Topics
Sections

 

Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) contributes a major health burden to society due to its high prevalence and substantial neurocognitive and cardiovascular consequences. Estimates suggest that at least 10% of adults in North America are afflicted with OSA, making it probably the most common respiratory disease in the developed world (Peppard et al. Am J Epidemiol. 2013;177[9]:1006). Nasal CPAP is a highly efficacious therapy that has been shown to improve neurocognitive and cardiovascular outcomes. However, CPAP is not always well tolerated. Alternative therapies, such as oral appliances and upper airway surgery, have highly variable efficacy, and evidence of important clinical benefits are uncertain. Therefore, efforts are ongoing to determine optimal alternative strategies for therapy.

Dr. Robert L. Owens

In order to treat any condition optimally, one needs to be able to predict who is at highest risk of developing the condition, then to assess the consequences if left untreated, and finally to be able to predict response to various treatment options. Currently, the OSA field is still in its early stages of our understanding. Clinically, we are often faced with patients who have varying presentations and manifestations, but, for reasons that are unclear. For instance, two individuals with the same body mass index may have very different clinical manifestations, one with severe OSA and one without any OSA. Similarly, two individuals with an apnea hypopnea index of 40 events per hour (ie, severe OSA) may have very different symptoms attributable to OSA, eg, one could be asymptomatic and the other could be debilitated from sleepiness. We and others have been making efforts to determine why these phenomenon occur. At present, the techniques to define mechanisms underlying OSA are labor-intensive, requiring one or two overnight experiments to gather meaningful data. Although we are gathering new insights based on these techniques, efforts are ongoing to simplify these approaches and to make assessment of pathophysiologic characteristics more accessible to the clinician (Orr et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2017 Nov 30. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201707-1357LE. [Epub ahead of print]).

We ultimately believe that a thorough analysis of a sleep recording combined with demographic data and other readily available clinical data (perhaps plasma biomarkers) may yield sufficient information for us to know why OSA is occurring and what interventions might be helpful for an individual patient. Currently, our use of the polysomnogram to derive only an apnea hypopnea index does not take full advantage of the available data. An apnea hypopnea index can be readily obtained from home sleep testing and does not truly provide much insight into why a given individual has OSA, what symptoms are attributable to OSA, and what interventions might be considered for the afflicted individual. By analogy, if the only useful data derived from an ECG were a heart rate, the test would rapidly become obsolete. Along these lines, if the only role for the sleep clinician was to prescribe CPAP to everyone with an AHI greater than 5/h, there would be little need or interest in specialized training. In contrast, we suggest that rich insights regarding pathophysiology and mechanisms should be gathered and may influence clinical management of patients afflicted with OSA. Thus, we encourage more thorough analyses of available data to maximize information gleaned and, ultimately, to optimize clinical outcomes.

 

 


Dr. Naomi Deacon

Recent studies suggest that sleep apnea occurs for varying reasons, a concept that is now thought to be clinically important (Jordan et al. Lancet. 2014;383[9918]:736). We draw a crucial distinction between endotypes (mechanisms underlying disease) and phenotypes (clinical expression of disease). Important endotypes include compromised upper airway anatomy, dysfunction in pharyngeal dilator muscles, unstable ventilatory control (high loop gain), and low arousal threshold (wake up easily), among others. Important phenotypes of sleep apnea are emerging and still evolving to include minimally symptomatic OSA, OSA with daytime sleepiness, and OSA with major cardiometabolic risk, among others. Several important concepts have emerged regarding different OSA endotypes and phenotypes:

1 The mechanism underlying OSA may predict potential response to therapeutic interventions. For instance, the endotype of OSA with unstable ventilatory control (high loop gain) may respond to agents such as oxygen and acetazolamide, which serve to stabilize control of breathing. In patients with anatomical compromise at the level of the velopharynx, uvulopalatopharyngoplasty may be an effective intervention. For patients with multiple pathophysiologic abnormalities, combination therapy may be required to alleviate OSA (Edwards et al. Sleep. 2016;9[11]:1973).

2 Given that OSA has many underlying etiologies, efforts are underway to determine whether individuals with different risk factors for OSA develop their disease based on varying mechanisms. As an example, people with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) may be at increased risk of OSA perhaps on the basis of a low threshold for arousal (Orr et al. JCSM. 2017, 13[1]: 57-63). Another example would be patients with neuromuscular disease who may be at risk of OSA primarily based on impaired pharyngeal dilator muscle function.

 

 

Dr. Atul Malhotra

3 A new concept is emerging whereby endotypes of OSA may actually predict differing OSA phenotypes. In theory, loop gain-driven OSA may have different consequences from OSA driven by compromise of pharyngeal anatomy. To this point, data suggest that OSA in the elderly may not have as many consequences as OSA in younger people matched on severity of illness. OSA in the elderly has lower loop gain than OSA in younger people and is associated with less negative intrathoracic pressure at the time of arousal as compared with younger individuals with OSA (Kobayashi et al. Chest. 2010; 137[6]:1310). As such, the endotype of OSA in the elderly may explain why the clinical consequences are fewer than in the younger OSA counterparts.

4 The mechanism underlying OSA may be important in determining response to clinical interventions, such as nasal CPAP. Patients with a low arousal threshold may be prone to insomnia when placed on CPAP and could theoretically be poorly tolerant of therapy based on disrupted sleep architecture. Such patients may benefit from non-myorelaxant hypnotic therapy to consolidate sleep and improve CPAP adherence. In addition, patients with high loop gain (unstable ventilatory control) may be prone to develop central apneas when placed on CPAP therapy (Stanchina et al. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2015;12[9]:1351). These patients may benefit from newer technologies, eg, auto or adaptive servo ventilation - ASV. High loop gain has also been shown to predict failure of upper airway surgery as a treatment for OSA by several groups (Li et al. JCSM. 2017;13[9]:1029). Such patients should, perhaps, undergo nonsurgical therapies for OSA.

We emphasize that some of the points being made are somewhat speculative and, thus, encourage further basic and clinical research to test our assumptions. Robust, multicenter clinical trials assessing hard outcomes will ultimately be required to change the current standard of care. Nonetheless, we believe that a more thorough understanding of OSA pathogenesis can help guide clinical care today and will be critical to the optimal treatment of afflicted individuals tomorrow.

Dr. Owens is Assistant Clinical Professor of Medicine; Dr. Deacon is a Post-Doctoral Research Scholar; and Dr. Malhotra is Kenneth M. Moser Professor of Medicine and Chief, Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care and Sleep Medicine, University of California San Diego.

 

Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) contributes a major health burden to society due to its high prevalence and substantial neurocognitive and cardiovascular consequences. Estimates suggest that at least 10% of adults in North America are afflicted with OSA, making it probably the most common respiratory disease in the developed world (Peppard et al. Am J Epidemiol. 2013;177[9]:1006). Nasal CPAP is a highly efficacious therapy that has been shown to improve neurocognitive and cardiovascular outcomes. However, CPAP is not always well tolerated. Alternative therapies, such as oral appliances and upper airway surgery, have highly variable efficacy, and evidence of important clinical benefits are uncertain. Therefore, efforts are ongoing to determine optimal alternative strategies for therapy.

Dr. Robert L. Owens

In order to treat any condition optimally, one needs to be able to predict who is at highest risk of developing the condition, then to assess the consequences if left untreated, and finally to be able to predict response to various treatment options. Currently, the OSA field is still in its early stages of our understanding. Clinically, we are often faced with patients who have varying presentations and manifestations, but, for reasons that are unclear. For instance, two individuals with the same body mass index may have very different clinical manifestations, one with severe OSA and one without any OSA. Similarly, two individuals with an apnea hypopnea index of 40 events per hour (ie, severe OSA) may have very different symptoms attributable to OSA, eg, one could be asymptomatic and the other could be debilitated from sleepiness. We and others have been making efforts to determine why these phenomenon occur. At present, the techniques to define mechanisms underlying OSA are labor-intensive, requiring one or two overnight experiments to gather meaningful data. Although we are gathering new insights based on these techniques, efforts are ongoing to simplify these approaches and to make assessment of pathophysiologic characteristics more accessible to the clinician (Orr et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2017 Nov 30. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201707-1357LE. [Epub ahead of print]).

We ultimately believe that a thorough analysis of a sleep recording combined with demographic data and other readily available clinical data (perhaps plasma biomarkers) may yield sufficient information for us to know why OSA is occurring and what interventions might be helpful for an individual patient. Currently, our use of the polysomnogram to derive only an apnea hypopnea index does not take full advantage of the available data. An apnea hypopnea index can be readily obtained from home sleep testing and does not truly provide much insight into why a given individual has OSA, what symptoms are attributable to OSA, and what interventions might be considered for the afflicted individual. By analogy, if the only useful data derived from an ECG were a heart rate, the test would rapidly become obsolete. Along these lines, if the only role for the sleep clinician was to prescribe CPAP to everyone with an AHI greater than 5/h, there would be little need or interest in specialized training. In contrast, we suggest that rich insights regarding pathophysiology and mechanisms should be gathered and may influence clinical management of patients afflicted with OSA. Thus, we encourage more thorough analyses of available data to maximize information gleaned and, ultimately, to optimize clinical outcomes.

 

 


Dr. Naomi Deacon

Recent studies suggest that sleep apnea occurs for varying reasons, a concept that is now thought to be clinically important (Jordan et al. Lancet. 2014;383[9918]:736). We draw a crucial distinction between endotypes (mechanisms underlying disease) and phenotypes (clinical expression of disease). Important endotypes include compromised upper airway anatomy, dysfunction in pharyngeal dilator muscles, unstable ventilatory control (high loop gain), and low arousal threshold (wake up easily), among others. Important phenotypes of sleep apnea are emerging and still evolving to include minimally symptomatic OSA, OSA with daytime sleepiness, and OSA with major cardiometabolic risk, among others. Several important concepts have emerged regarding different OSA endotypes and phenotypes:

1 The mechanism underlying OSA may predict potential response to therapeutic interventions. For instance, the endotype of OSA with unstable ventilatory control (high loop gain) may respond to agents such as oxygen and acetazolamide, which serve to stabilize control of breathing. In patients with anatomical compromise at the level of the velopharynx, uvulopalatopharyngoplasty may be an effective intervention. For patients with multiple pathophysiologic abnormalities, combination therapy may be required to alleviate OSA (Edwards et al. Sleep. 2016;9[11]:1973).

2 Given that OSA has many underlying etiologies, efforts are underway to determine whether individuals with different risk factors for OSA develop their disease based on varying mechanisms. As an example, people with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) may be at increased risk of OSA perhaps on the basis of a low threshold for arousal (Orr et al. JCSM. 2017, 13[1]: 57-63). Another example would be patients with neuromuscular disease who may be at risk of OSA primarily based on impaired pharyngeal dilator muscle function.

 

 

Dr. Atul Malhotra

3 A new concept is emerging whereby endotypes of OSA may actually predict differing OSA phenotypes. In theory, loop gain-driven OSA may have different consequences from OSA driven by compromise of pharyngeal anatomy. To this point, data suggest that OSA in the elderly may not have as many consequences as OSA in younger people matched on severity of illness. OSA in the elderly has lower loop gain than OSA in younger people and is associated with less negative intrathoracic pressure at the time of arousal as compared with younger individuals with OSA (Kobayashi et al. Chest. 2010; 137[6]:1310). As such, the endotype of OSA in the elderly may explain why the clinical consequences are fewer than in the younger OSA counterparts.

4 The mechanism underlying OSA may be important in determining response to clinical interventions, such as nasal CPAP. Patients with a low arousal threshold may be prone to insomnia when placed on CPAP and could theoretically be poorly tolerant of therapy based on disrupted sleep architecture. Such patients may benefit from non-myorelaxant hypnotic therapy to consolidate sleep and improve CPAP adherence. In addition, patients with high loop gain (unstable ventilatory control) may be prone to develop central apneas when placed on CPAP therapy (Stanchina et al. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2015;12[9]:1351). These patients may benefit from newer technologies, eg, auto or adaptive servo ventilation - ASV. High loop gain has also been shown to predict failure of upper airway surgery as a treatment for OSA by several groups (Li et al. JCSM. 2017;13[9]:1029). Such patients should, perhaps, undergo nonsurgical therapies for OSA.

We emphasize that some of the points being made are somewhat speculative and, thus, encourage further basic and clinical research to test our assumptions. Robust, multicenter clinical trials assessing hard outcomes will ultimately be required to change the current standard of care. Nonetheless, we believe that a more thorough understanding of OSA pathogenesis can help guide clinical care today and will be critical to the optimal treatment of afflicted individuals tomorrow.

Dr. Owens is Assistant Clinical Professor of Medicine; Dr. Deacon is a Post-Doctoral Research Scholar; and Dr. Malhotra is Kenneth M. Moser Professor of Medicine and Chief, Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care and Sleep Medicine, University of California San Diego.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Eyebrow Default
Sleep Strategies
Use ProPublica

Dermatology residency match: Is the glut of applications for limited positions corrupting the process?

Article Type
Changed
Tue, 07/21/2020 - 14:42

 

– Whether the glut of applications contending for the roughly 420 dermatology residency positions in recent years may be corrupting the process was the topic of discussion at a session on dermatoethics at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

“I think it is unethical and we need to address it,” Jane M. Grant-Kels, MD, said during the session. “What we are doing through the process of physicians getting into dermatology residency programs is telling them to lie to us and to do well on a single examination,” the United States Medical Licensing Examination.

Mitchel Zoler/Frontline Medical News
Dr. Jane M. Grant-Kels
“That’s not a message I want to give,” added Dr. Grant-Kels, professor of dermatology, pathology, and pediatrics at the University of Connecticut, Farmington.

Lionel G. Bercovitch, MD, is among the dermatologists who acknowledge the unarguable fact that application rates are high but don’t see it as a crisis of credibility.

 

 


“I don’t believe that dermatology match is broken, unethical, or unfair. The match is not perfect, but it’s fair,” contended Dr. Bercovitch, professor of dermatology at Brown University, Providence, R.I. “The problem [of an application glut] is real, but it’s not an ethical issue.”

Dr. Grant-Kels sees it in ethical terms because, in her view, “everyone is gaming the system. It makes applicants liars” when they profess interest in moving to a remote location or planning to practice a certain type of dermatology.

Mitchel Zoler/Frontline Medical News
Dr. Lionel G. Bercovitch
She traces the dilemma to the large number of applications submitted by each candidate as they tried to contend with long odds: Each candidate was vying against about 651 U.S. and foreign physicians for 423 residency slots offered by 121 U.S. dermatology programs in 2017, according to statistics compiled by the National Resident Matching Program. This produced an applications glut: 2017-2018 data from the Association of American Medical Colleges showed an average of about 53 applications from every dermatology residency applicant overall and an average of 69 applications submitted by applicants with U.S. medical degrees.

The “extremely competitive” process leads a majority of applicants to “shot gun” their filings to many programs such that dermatology residency programs are “deluged” with applications, Dr. Grant-Kels said. Data from the Association of American Medical Colleges for 2017 showed an average of just over 500 applications received by each U.S. dermatology residency program.

 

 


As a result, residency programs feel forced to apply blind filters that generally cull out more than a third of the applications received. Dr. Grant-Kels decried the need for programs to impose arbitrary barriers to entering dermatology based on a score from a single examination or other criteria like membership in Alpha Omega Alpha or current location.

“Blanket screening methods run the risk of excluding genuinely interested and qualified candidates who do not fall above a threshold. This violates the principal of nonmaleficence,” she said. “Screens are unfair.”

[polldaddy:{"method":"iframe","type":"survey","src":"//newspolls2017.polldaddy.com/s/dermatology-residency-match?iframe=1"}]

Dr. Grant-Kels proposed a pair of potential remedies: putting a cap on the number of applications someone can make and – a more realistic approach – mentors’ giving guidance to prospective applicants.

“It’s a problem that kids are applying to dermatology programs who have no business applying, who really don’t have a chance,” she said.

 

 


Dr. Bercovitch noted that most dermatology residency programs are too small and that, while the number of residency slots has been rising, it has not kept pace with increasing demand from physicians seeking residency slots. He saw no ethical reason for physicians to feel they should rein in the number of applications they file, and he said the only obligations for residency programs are to strictly adhere to the Match rules and both federal and state civil rights and labor laws and to be nondiscriminatory and avoid nepotism and conflicts of interest. Because programs cannot seriously consider nor interview several hundred applicants each year, some type of filtering is needed, and no filter is fair or perfect, he conceded.

“Filters are inherently unfair” to certain applicants, “but how else to effectively screen” hundreds of applications, Dr. Bercovitch asked.

“We need to talk about this. It’s not a good system. If we don’t talk about it, it will never change,” Dr. Grant-Kels said.

Dr. Grant-Kels and Dr. Bercovitch had no disclosures.

Meeting/Event
Publications
Topics
Sections
Meeting/Event
Meeting/Event

 

– Whether the glut of applications contending for the roughly 420 dermatology residency positions in recent years may be corrupting the process was the topic of discussion at a session on dermatoethics at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

“I think it is unethical and we need to address it,” Jane M. Grant-Kels, MD, said during the session. “What we are doing through the process of physicians getting into dermatology residency programs is telling them to lie to us and to do well on a single examination,” the United States Medical Licensing Examination.

Mitchel Zoler/Frontline Medical News
Dr. Jane M. Grant-Kels
“That’s not a message I want to give,” added Dr. Grant-Kels, professor of dermatology, pathology, and pediatrics at the University of Connecticut, Farmington.

Lionel G. Bercovitch, MD, is among the dermatologists who acknowledge the unarguable fact that application rates are high but don’t see it as a crisis of credibility.

 

 


“I don’t believe that dermatology match is broken, unethical, or unfair. The match is not perfect, but it’s fair,” contended Dr. Bercovitch, professor of dermatology at Brown University, Providence, R.I. “The problem [of an application glut] is real, but it’s not an ethical issue.”

Dr. Grant-Kels sees it in ethical terms because, in her view, “everyone is gaming the system. It makes applicants liars” when they profess interest in moving to a remote location or planning to practice a certain type of dermatology.

Mitchel Zoler/Frontline Medical News
Dr. Lionel G. Bercovitch
She traces the dilemma to the large number of applications submitted by each candidate as they tried to contend with long odds: Each candidate was vying against about 651 U.S. and foreign physicians for 423 residency slots offered by 121 U.S. dermatology programs in 2017, according to statistics compiled by the National Resident Matching Program. This produced an applications glut: 2017-2018 data from the Association of American Medical Colleges showed an average of about 53 applications from every dermatology residency applicant overall and an average of 69 applications submitted by applicants with U.S. medical degrees.

The “extremely competitive” process leads a majority of applicants to “shot gun” their filings to many programs such that dermatology residency programs are “deluged” with applications, Dr. Grant-Kels said. Data from the Association of American Medical Colleges for 2017 showed an average of just over 500 applications received by each U.S. dermatology residency program.

 

 


As a result, residency programs feel forced to apply blind filters that generally cull out more than a third of the applications received. Dr. Grant-Kels decried the need for programs to impose arbitrary barriers to entering dermatology based on a score from a single examination or other criteria like membership in Alpha Omega Alpha or current location.

“Blanket screening methods run the risk of excluding genuinely interested and qualified candidates who do not fall above a threshold. This violates the principal of nonmaleficence,” she said. “Screens are unfair.”

[polldaddy:{"method":"iframe","type":"survey","src":"//newspolls2017.polldaddy.com/s/dermatology-residency-match?iframe=1"}]

Dr. Grant-Kels proposed a pair of potential remedies: putting a cap on the number of applications someone can make and – a more realistic approach – mentors’ giving guidance to prospective applicants.

“It’s a problem that kids are applying to dermatology programs who have no business applying, who really don’t have a chance,” she said.

 

 


Dr. Bercovitch noted that most dermatology residency programs are too small and that, while the number of residency slots has been rising, it has not kept pace with increasing demand from physicians seeking residency slots. He saw no ethical reason for physicians to feel they should rein in the number of applications they file, and he said the only obligations for residency programs are to strictly adhere to the Match rules and both federal and state civil rights and labor laws and to be nondiscriminatory and avoid nepotism and conflicts of interest. Because programs cannot seriously consider nor interview several hundred applicants each year, some type of filtering is needed, and no filter is fair or perfect, he conceded.

“Filters are inherently unfair” to certain applicants, “but how else to effectively screen” hundreds of applications, Dr. Bercovitch asked.

“We need to talk about this. It’s not a good system. If we don’t talk about it, it will never change,” Dr. Grant-Kels said.

Dr. Grant-Kels and Dr. Bercovitch had no disclosures.

 

– Whether the glut of applications contending for the roughly 420 dermatology residency positions in recent years may be corrupting the process was the topic of discussion at a session on dermatoethics at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

“I think it is unethical and we need to address it,” Jane M. Grant-Kels, MD, said during the session. “What we are doing through the process of physicians getting into dermatology residency programs is telling them to lie to us and to do well on a single examination,” the United States Medical Licensing Examination.

Mitchel Zoler/Frontline Medical News
Dr. Jane M. Grant-Kels
“That’s not a message I want to give,” added Dr. Grant-Kels, professor of dermatology, pathology, and pediatrics at the University of Connecticut, Farmington.

Lionel G. Bercovitch, MD, is among the dermatologists who acknowledge the unarguable fact that application rates are high but don’t see it as a crisis of credibility.

 

 


“I don’t believe that dermatology match is broken, unethical, or unfair. The match is not perfect, but it’s fair,” contended Dr. Bercovitch, professor of dermatology at Brown University, Providence, R.I. “The problem [of an application glut] is real, but it’s not an ethical issue.”

Dr. Grant-Kels sees it in ethical terms because, in her view, “everyone is gaming the system. It makes applicants liars” when they profess interest in moving to a remote location or planning to practice a certain type of dermatology.

Mitchel Zoler/Frontline Medical News
Dr. Lionel G. Bercovitch
She traces the dilemma to the large number of applications submitted by each candidate as they tried to contend with long odds: Each candidate was vying against about 651 U.S. and foreign physicians for 423 residency slots offered by 121 U.S. dermatology programs in 2017, according to statistics compiled by the National Resident Matching Program. This produced an applications glut: 2017-2018 data from the Association of American Medical Colleges showed an average of about 53 applications from every dermatology residency applicant overall and an average of 69 applications submitted by applicants with U.S. medical degrees.

The “extremely competitive” process leads a majority of applicants to “shot gun” their filings to many programs such that dermatology residency programs are “deluged” with applications, Dr. Grant-Kels said. Data from the Association of American Medical Colleges for 2017 showed an average of just over 500 applications received by each U.S. dermatology residency program.

 

 


As a result, residency programs feel forced to apply blind filters that generally cull out more than a third of the applications received. Dr. Grant-Kels decried the need for programs to impose arbitrary barriers to entering dermatology based on a score from a single examination or other criteria like membership in Alpha Omega Alpha or current location.

“Blanket screening methods run the risk of excluding genuinely interested and qualified candidates who do not fall above a threshold. This violates the principal of nonmaleficence,” she said. “Screens are unfair.”

[polldaddy:{"method":"iframe","type":"survey","src":"//newspolls2017.polldaddy.com/s/dermatology-residency-match?iframe=1"}]

Dr. Grant-Kels proposed a pair of potential remedies: putting a cap on the number of applications someone can make and – a more realistic approach – mentors’ giving guidance to prospective applicants.

“It’s a problem that kids are applying to dermatology programs who have no business applying, who really don’t have a chance,” she said.

 

 


Dr. Bercovitch noted that most dermatology residency programs are too small and that, while the number of residency slots has been rising, it has not kept pace with increasing demand from physicians seeking residency slots. He saw no ethical reason for physicians to feel they should rein in the number of applications they file, and he said the only obligations for residency programs are to strictly adhere to the Match rules and both federal and state civil rights and labor laws and to be nondiscriminatory and avoid nepotism and conflicts of interest. Because programs cannot seriously consider nor interview several hundred applicants each year, some type of filtering is needed, and no filter is fair or perfect, he conceded.

“Filters are inherently unfair” to certain applicants, “but how else to effectively screen” hundreds of applications, Dr. Bercovitch asked.

“We need to talk about this. It’s not a good system. If we don’t talk about it, it will never change,” Dr. Grant-Kels said.

Dr. Grant-Kels and Dr. Bercovitch had no disclosures.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Article Source

EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM AAD 18

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica

ACP recommends new ideal hemoglobin A1c range for type 2 diabetes

Article Type
Changed
Tue, 05/03/2022 - 15:20

 

Physicians should aim for hemoglobin A1c levels between 7% and 8% in patients with type 2 diabetes, according to recommendations by the American College of Physicians.

But the guidance drew strong condemnation from diabetes and endocrinology organizations, which warned the higher target range could do more harm than good.

Evidence presented in the ACP statement shows the intensive therapy commonly used to reach the previous target of 6.5%-7% is likely either to increase risk of adverse cardiovascular and hypoglycemic events or have the same risk as less intensive therapy.

“Treatment with drugs targeted to 7%, in contrast to 8%, does not prevent heart attacks or strokes,” said Jack Ende, MD, president of the ACP. “But it does result in substantial harm, including low blood sugar, increased medication burden, and increased cost.”

The ACP recommends clinicians should talk with patients about creating personalized treatment plans based on the risks and benefits of different drugs, what the patients prefers, life expectancy, and cost of care.

 

 

Previous guidelines on reaching HbA1c had been developed to reduce micro- and macrovascular complications; however, evidence that lowering levels also would lower events was not substantial enough to prove correct, as results were limited to reductions in less serious complications, according to Dr. Ende.
Dr. Jack Ende


Physicians whose patients have HbA1c levels less than 6.5% are advised to deintensify patients’ pharmacologic therapy by reducing the dosage, or taking a medication out completely.

New guidelines were based on evaluation of four drug-therapy trials, which encompassed long- and short-term effects of intensive pharmacological therapy compared with more moderate treatment.
 

 

In the Veterans Affairs Diabetes Trial, patients given intensive treatment found no reduction in major cardiovascular, microvascular events, or death in a 5.6-year follow-up. The intensive group did show fewer cardiovascular events after a longer period of time – 12 years – but this difference was small (8.6 events per 1,000 patient-years), according to the investigators.

Because of these long-term improvements, which were found across almost all studies evaluated, the ACP also recommends treatment of symptoms related to hyperglycemia instead of HbA1c for patients with lower life expectancy, including those older than 80 years, those in nursing homes, and those with chronic conditions such as cancer or dementia.

“Setting stringent targets in these populations is not an optimal approach, and clinicians should instead focus on treating to reduce symptoms from both disease and treatment,” wrote Amir Qaseem, MD, PhD, vice president, Clinical Policy and Center for Evidence Reviews, ACP, and fellow investigators. “The ACP guidance statement in persons with a life expectancy less than 10 years is based on the small death or cardiovascular benefit of lower HbA1c targets through at least 10 years, which should be balanced with treatment harms.”

The policy implications of these recommendations address physician performance evaluations, which the ACP recommends should not have a target HbA1c level below 8%, nor any target level for patients with limited life expectancies.

But many diabetes organizations aren't embracing the new target levels. 

The ACP's recommendations could keep many diabetes patients from achieving all the benefits from long-term intensive glucose control, warned the Endocrine Society, the American Diabetes Association, the American Association for Clinical Endocrinologists, and the American Association of Diabetes Educators in a joint statement. And the ACP's recommendations overlook the positive impact that newer diabetes drugs have shown on morbidity and mortality in high-risk type 2 diabetes patients.

 

 

Coauthor Michael J. Barry, MD, reported receiving grants from the nonprofit Healthwise, outside of this statement.

All other authors reported no relevant financial disclosures.

Publications
Topics
Sections

 

Physicians should aim for hemoglobin A1c levels between 7% and 8% in patients with type 2 diabetes, according to recommendations by the American College of Physicians.

But the guidance drew strong condemnation from diabetes and endocrinology organizations, which warned the higher target range could do more harm than good.

Evidence presented in the ACP statement shows the intensive therapy commonly used to reach the previous target of 6.5%-7% is likely either to increase risk of adverse cardiovascular and hypoglycemic events or have the same risk as less intensive therapy.

“Treatment with drugs targeted to 7%, in contrast to 8%, does not prevent heart attacks or strokes,” said Jack Ende, MD, president of the ACP. “But it does result in substantial harm, including low blood sugar, increased medication burden, and increased cost.”

The ACP recommends clinicians should talk with patients about creating personalized treatment plans based on the risks and benefits of different drugs, what the patients prefers, life expectancy, and cost of care.

 

 

Previous guidelines on reaching HbA1c had been developed to reduce micro- and macrovascular complications; however, evidence that lowering levels also would lower events was not substantial enough to prove correct, as results were limited to reductions in less serious complications, according to Dr. Ende.
Dr. Jack Ende


Physicians whose patients have HbA1c levels less than 6.5% are advised to deintensify patients’ pharmacologic therapy by reducing the dosage, or taking a medication out completely.

New guidelines were based on evaluation of four drug-therapy trials, which encompassed long- and short-term effects of intensive pharmacological therapy compared with more moderate treatment.
 

 

In the Veterans Affairs Diabetes Trial, patients given intensive treatment found no reduction in major cardiovascular, microvascular events, or death in a 5.6-year follow-up. The intensive group did show fewer cardiovascular events after a longer period of time – 12 years – but this difference was small (8.6 events per 1,000 patient-years), according to the investigators.

Because of these long-term improvements, which were found across almost all studies evaluated, the ACP also recommends treatment of symptoms related to hyperglycemia instead of HbA1c for patients with lower life expectancy, including those older than 80 years, those in nursing homes, and those with chronic conditions such as cancer or dementia.

“Setting stringent targets in these populations is not an optimal approach, and clinicians should instead focus on treating to reduce symptoms from both disease and treatment,” wrote Amir Qaseem, MD, PhD, vice president, Clinical Policy and Center for Evidence Reviews, ACP, and fellow investigators. “The ACP guidance statement in persons with a life expectancy less than 10 years is based on the small death or cardiovascular benefit of lower HbA1c targets through at least 10 years, which should be balanced with treatment harms.”

The policy implications of these recommendations address physician performance evaluations, which the ACP recommends should not have a target HbA1c level below 8%, nor any target level for patients with limited life expectancies.

But many diabetes organizations aren't embracing the new target levels. 

The ACP's recommendations could keep many diabetes patients from achieving all the benefits from long-term intensive glucose control, warned the Endocrine Society, the American Diabetes Association, the American Association for Clinical Endocrinologists, and the American Association of Diabetes Educators in a joint statement. And the ACP's recommendations overlook the positive impact that newer diabetes drugs have shown on morbidity and mortality in high-risk type 2 diabetes patients.

 

 

Coauthor Michael J. Barry, MD, reported receiving grants from the nonprofit Healthwise, outside of this statement.

All other authors reported no relevant financial disclosures.

 

Physicians should aim for hemoglobin A1c levels between 7% and 8% in patients with type 2 diabetes, according to recommendations by the American College of Physicians.

But the guidance drew strong condemnation from diabetes and endocrinology organizations, which warned the higher target range could do more harm than good.

Evidence presented in the ACP statement shows the intensive therapy commonly used to reach the previous target of 6.5%-7% is likely either to increase risk of adverse cardiovascular and hypoglycemic events or have the same risk as less intensive therapy.

“Treatment with drugs targeted to 7%, in contrast to 8%, does not prevent heart attacks or strokes,” said Jack Ende, MD, president of the ACP. “But it does result in substantial harm, including low blood sugar, increased medication burden, and increased cost.”

The ACP recommends clinicians should talk with patients about creating personalized treatment plans based on the risks and benefits of different drugs, what the patients prefers, life expectancy, and cost of care.

 

 

Previous guidelines on reaching HbA1c had been developed to reduce micro- and macrovascular complications; however, evidence that lowering levels also would lower events was not substantial enough to prove correct, as results were limited to reductions in less serious complications, according to Dr. Ende.
Dr. Jack Ende


Physicians whose patients have HbA1c levels less than 6.5% are advised to deintensify patients’ pharmacologic therapy by reducing the dosage, or taking a medication out completely.

New guidelines were based on evaluation of four drug-therapy trials, which encompassed long- and short-term effects of intensive pharmacological therapy compared with more moderate treatment.
 

 

In the Veterans Affairs Diabetes Trial, patients given intensive treatment found no reduction in major cardiovascular, microvascular events, or death in a 5.6-year follow-up. The intensive group did show fewer cardiovascular events after a longer period of time – 12 years – but this difference was small (8.6 events per 1,000 patient-years), according to the investigators.

Because of these long-term improvements, which were found across almost all studies evaluated, the ACP also recommends treatment of symptoms related to hyperglycemia instead of HbA1c for patients with lower life expectancy, including those older than 80 years, those in nursing homes, and those with chronic conditions such as cancer or dementia.

“Setting stringent targets in these populations is not an optimal approach, and clinicians should instead focus on treating to reduce symptoms from both disease and treatment,” wrote Amir Qaseem, MD, PhD, vice president, Clinical Policy and Center for Evidence Reviews, ACP, and fellow investigators. “The ACP guidance statement in persons with a life expectancy less than 10 years is based on the small death or cardiovascular benefit of lower HbA1c targets through at least 10 years, which should be balanced with treatment harms.”

The policy implications of these recommendations address physician performance evaluations, which the ACP recommends should not have a target HbA1c level below 8%, nor any target level for patients with limited life expectancies.

But many diabetes organizations aren't embracing the new target levels. 

The ACP's recommendations could keep many diabetes patients from achieving all the benefits from long-term intensive glucose control, warned the Endocrine Society, the American Diabetes Association, the American Association for Clinical Endocrinologists, and the American Association of Diabetes Educators in a joint statement. And the ACP's recommendations overlook the positive impact that newer diabetes drugs have shown on morbidity and mortality in high-risk type 2 diabetes patients.

 

 

Coauthor Michael J. Barry, MD, reported receiving grants from the nonprofit Healthwise, outside of this statement.

All other authors reported no relevant financial disclosures.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Click for Credit Status
Ready
Sections
Article Source

FROM ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default

Haloperidol does not prevent delirium in ICU patients

Nondrug options may be the key
Article Type
Changed
Mon, 01/07/2019 - 13:07

 

Prophylactic haloperidol did not prevent delirium or improve survival in a placebo-controlled trial of 1,789 critically ill adults at 21 ICUs in the Netherlands.

Haloperidol is used routinely in ICUs to both treat and prevent delirium, which strikes up to half of ICU patients and is associated with prolonged mechanical ventilation, longer ICU and hospital stays, and increased mortality. Results of past studies have been mixed, with some showing a benefit for haloperidol in the ICU and others not.

“These findings do not support the use of prophylactic haloperidol in critically ill adults,” said the authors of a new study, led by Mark van den Boogaard, PhD, of Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (JAMA. 2018 Feb 20;319[7]:680-90).

The subjects were all expected to be in the ICU for at least 2 days, and were not delirious at baseline. The patients were randomly assigned to receive one of two treatments or a placebo three times daily, with 350 receiving 1 mg of haloperidol; 732 receiving 2 mg of haloperidol; and 707 receiving a 0.9% sodium chloride placebo. The 1-mg haloperidol arm was stopped early because of futility.

XiXinXing/ThinkStock
The ICUs also used nonpharmacologic interventions to prevent delirium, including early mobilization and noise reduction.

There was no statistically significant difference in survival at the primary endpoint of 28 days following entrance into the study. At that point, 83.3% of the patients who received 2-mg does of haloperidol and 82.7% of the of the subjects who received the placebo were alive (absolute difference 0.6%, 95% confidence interval –3.4% to 4.6%).

 

 


Prophylactic haloperidol had no effect on reducing the incidence of delirium, which was diagnosed in 33.3% of haloperidol subjects and 33.0% of placebo patients. Likewise, there were no significant differences between the groups in the number of delirium-free and coma-free days, duration of mechanical ventilation, and ICU and hospital length of stay. The number of reported adverse events with treatment also did not differ significantly between the groups: 0.3% in the 2-mg haloperidol group versus 0.1% in the placebo arm.

The duration of prophylactic therapy was a median of 2 days, but a subgroup analysis in patients treated for more than 2 days also did not show any benefits with haloperidol.

“The study population included severely ill ICU adults whose brains may have been too seriously affected for haloperidol to exert a prophylactic effect, since in non-ICU adults, prophylactic haloperidol may have beneficial effects. But the subgroup of patients with a low severity of illness score also demonstrated no beneficial effects,” the investigators said.

Subjects were a mean of 66.6 years old; 61.4% were men. Most of the ICU admissions were urgent and for medical or surgical reasons.

This study was supported by ZonMw, the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development. Dr. van den Boogaard had no disclosures. One author reported grants and consultant and speaker fees from Pfizer, Merck, Astellas, and Gilead, among others.

SOURCE: van den Boogaard M, et al. JAMA. 2018 Feb 20;319(7):680-90.

Body

 

The study has demonstrated that in critically ill patients currently receiving best-practice nonpharmacological interventions to prevent delirium, the addition of haloperidol does not improve survival nor reduce the incidence of delirium or the harms associated with delirium. The findings challenge the current model that the addition of psychoactive medication to patients who are already receiving multiple interventions may be beneficial. Prophylactic haloperidol is not the solution for the complex problem of delirium in critically ill patients. It may be that no single pharmacological intervention can provide a solution.

Future research is warranted into nonpharmacological interventions. They generally involve either doing less for patients (avoiding excessive sedation, benzodiazepines, nocturnal noise, and stimulation) or ensuring the continued provision of relatively simple therapies (mobilization, maintaining a day-night schedule, and noise reduction). Although some of these interventions may require planning and cooperation of a multidisciplinary team, a strength of ICU care in general, other interventions may be as simple as providing earplugs and eye patches to improve sleep.

Anthony Delaney, MD, PhD, is associate professor of intensive care medicine at the University of Sydney. Naomi Hammond, PhD, is a research fellow and senior lecturer at the University of New South Wales, Sydney. Edward Litton, MD, PhD, is an intensive care specialist in Perth, Australia. They made their comments in a JAMA editorial, and had no disclosures ( JAMA. 2018 Feb 20;319[7]:659-60 ).

Publications
Topics
Sections
Body

 

The study has demonstrated that in critically ill patients currently receiving best-practice nonpharmacological interventions to prevent delirium, the addition of haloperidol does not improve survival nor reduce the incidence of delirium or the harms associated with delirium. The findings challenge the current model that the addition of psychoactive medication to patients who are already receiving multiple interventions may be beneficial. Prophylactic haloperidol is not the solution for the complex problem of delirium in critically ill patients. It may be that no single pharmacological intervention can provide a solution.

Future research is warranted into nonpharmacological interventions. They generally involve either doing less for patients (avoiding excessive sedation, benzodiazepines, nocturnal noise, and stimulation) or ensuring the continued provision of relatively simple therapies (mobilization, maintaining a day-night schedule, and noise reduction). Although some of these interventions may require planning and cooperation of a multidisciplinary team, a strength of ICU care in general, other interventions may be as simple as providing earplugs and eye patches to improve sleep.

Anthony Delaney, MD, PhD, is associate professor of intensive care medicine at the University of Sydney. Naomi Hammond, PhD, is a research fellow and senior lecturer at the University of New South Wales, Sydney. Edward Litton, MD, PhD, is an intensive care specialist in Perth, Australia. They made their comments in a JAMA editorial, and had no disclosures ( JAMA. 2018 Feb 20;319[7]:659-60 ).

Body

 

The study has demonstrated that in critically ill patients currently receiving best-practice nonpharmacological interventions to prevent delirium, the addition of haloperidol does not improve survival nor reduce the incidence of delirium or the harms associated with delirium. The findings challenge the current model that the addition of psychoactive medication to patients who are already receiving multiple interventions may be beneficial. Prophylactic haloperidol is not the solution for the complex problem of delirium in critically ill patients. It may be that no single pharmacological intervention can provide a solution.

Future research is warranted into nonpharmacological interventions. They generally involve either doing less for patients (avoiding excessive sedation, benzodiazepines, nocturnal noise, and stimulation) or ensuring the continued provision of relatively simple therapies (mobilization, maintaining a day-night schedule, and noise reduction). Although some of these interventions may require planning and cooperation of a multidisciplinary team, a strength of ICU care in general, other interventions may be as simple as providing earplugs and eye patches to improve sleep.

Anthony Delaney, MD, PhD, is associate professor of intensive care medicine at the University of Sydney. Naomi Hammond, PhD, is a research fellow and senior lecturer at the University of New South Wales, Sydney. Edward Litton, MD, PhD, is an intensive care specialist in Perth, Australia. They made their comments in a JAMA editorial, and had no disclosures ( JAMA. 2018 Feb 20;319[7]:659-60 ).

Title
Nondrug options may be the key
Nondrug options may be the key

 

Prophylactic haloperidol did not prevent delirium or improve survival in a placebo-controlled trial of 1,789 critically ill adults at 21 ICUs in the Netherlands.

Haloperidol is used routinely in ICUs to both treat and prevent delirium, which strikes up to half of ICU patients and is associated with prolonged mechanical ventilation, longer ICU and hospital stays, and increased mortality. Results of past studies have been mixed, with some showing a benefit for haloperidol in the ICU and others not.

“These findings do not support the use of prophylactic haloperidol in critically ill adults,” said the authors of a new study, led by Mark van den Boogaard, PhD, of Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (JAMA. 2018 Feb 20;319[7]:680-90).

The subjects were all expected to be in the ICU for at least 2 days, and were not delirious at baseline. The patients were randomly assigned to receive one of two treatments or a placebo three times daily, with 350 receiving 1 mg of haloperidol; 732 receiving 2 mg of haloperidol; and 707 receiving a 0.9% sodium chloride placebo. The 1-mg haloperidol arm was stopped early because of futility.

XiXinXing/ThinkStock
The ICUs also used nonpharmacologic interventions to prevent delirium, including early mobilization and noise reduction.

There was no statistically significant difference in survival at the primary endpoint of 28 days following entrance into the study. At that point, 83.3% of the patients who received 2-mg does of haloperidol and 82.7% of the of the subjects who received the placebo were alive (absolute difference 0.6%, 95% confidence interval –3.4% to 4.6%).

 

 


Prophylactic haloperidol had no effect on reducing the incidence of delirium, which was diagnosed in 33.3% of haloperidol subjects and 33.0% of placebo patients. Likewise, there were no significant differences between the groups in the number of delirium-free and coma-free days, duration of mechanical ventilation, and ICU and hospital length of stay. The number of reported adverse events with treatment also did not differ significantly between the groups: 0.3% in the 2-mg haloperidol group versus 0.1% in the placebo arm.

The duration of prophylactic therapy was a median of 2 days, but a subgroup analysis in patients treated for more than 2 days also did not show any benefits with haloperidol.

“The study population included severely ill ICU adults whose brains may have been too seriously affected for haloperidol to exert a prophylactic effect, since in non-ICU adults, prophylactic haloperidol may have beneficial effects. But the subgroup of patients with a low severity of illness score also demonstrated no beneficial effects,” the investigators said.

Subjects were a mean of 66.6 years old; 61.4% were men. Most of the ICU admissions were urgent and for medical or surgical reasons.

This study was supported by ZonMw, the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development. Dr. van den Boogaard had no disclosures. One author reported grants and consultant and speaker fees from Pfizer, Merck, Astellas, and Gilead, among others.

SOURCE: van den Boogaard M, et al. JAMA. 2018 Feb 20;319(7):680-90.

 

Prophylactic haloperidol did not prevent delirium or improve survival in a placebo-controlled trial of 1,789 critically ill adults at 21 ICUs in the Netherlands.

Haloperidol is used routinely in ICUs to both treat and prevent delirium, which strikes up to half of ICU patients and is associated with prolonged mechanical ventilation, longer ICU and hospital stays, and increased mortality. Results of past studies have been mixed, with some showing a benefit for haloperidol in the ICU and others not.

“These findings do not support the use of prophylactic haloperidol in critically ill adults,” said the authors of a new study, led by Mark van den Boogaard, PhD, of Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (JAMA. 2018 Feb 20;319[7]:680-90).

The subjects were all expected to be in the ICU for at least 2 days, and were not delirious at baseline. The patients were randomly assigned to receive one of two treatments or a placebo three times daily, with 350 receiving 1 mg of haloperidol; 732 receiving 2 mg of haloperidol; and 707 receiving a 0.9% sodium chloride placebo. The 1-mg haloperidol arm was stopped early because of futility.

XiXinXing/ThinkStock
The ICUs also used nonpharmacologic interventions to prevent delirium, including early mobilization and noise reduction.

There was no statistically significant difference in survival at the primary endpoint of 28 days following entrance into the study. At that point, 83.3% of the patients who received 2-mg does of haloperidol and 82.7% of the of the subjects who received the placebo were alive (absolute difference 0.6%, 95% confidence interval –3.4% to 4.6%).

 

 


Prophylactic haloperidol had no effect on reducing the incidence of delirium, which was diagnosed in 33.3% of haloperidol subjects and 33.0% of placebo patients. Likewise, there were no significant differences between the groups in the number of delirium-free and coma-free days, duration of mechanical ventilation, and ICU and hospital length of stay. The number of reported adverse events with treatment also did not differ significantly between the groups: 0.3% in the 2-mg haloperidol group versus 0.1% in the placebo arm.

The duration of prophylactic therapy was a median of 2 days, but a subgroup analysis in patients treated for more than 2 days also did not show any benefits with haloperidol.

“The study population included severely ill ICU adults whose brains may have been too seriously affected for haloperidol to exert a prophylactic effect, since in non-ICU adults, prophylactic haloperidol may have beneficial effects. But the subgroup of patients with a low severity of illness score also demonstrated no beneficial effects,” the investigators said.

Subjects were a mean of 66.6 years old; 61.4% were men. Most of the ICU admissions were urgent and for medical or surgical reasons.

This study was supported by ZonMw, the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development. Dr. van den Boogaard had no disclosures. One author reported grants and consultant and speaker fees from Pfizer, Merck, Astellas, and Gilead, among others.

SOURCE: van den Boogaard M, et al. JAMA. 2018 Feb 20;319(7):680-90.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Click for Credit Status
Ready
Sections
Article Source

FROM JAMA

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Vitals

 

Key clinical point: Prophylactic haloperidol did not prevent delirium or improve survival in a large, placebo-controlled trial at 21 ICUs in the Netherlands.

Major finding: Delirium was diagnosed in 33.3% of haloperidol subjects versus 33.0% of placebo patients.

Study details: The trial enrolled 1,789 critically ill adults.

Disclosures: This work was supported by ZonMw, the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development. The lead investigator had no disclosures.

Source: van den Boogaard M et al. JAMA. 2018 Feb 20;319(7):680-90.

Disqus Comments
Default

DNA repair gene mutations predict response to anti–PD-1/PD-L1 in urothelial cancer

Article Type
Changed
Fri, 01/04/2019 - 14:13

 

Alterations in DNA damage response and repair genes may be useful biomarkers for response to immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with urothelial carcinoma, investigators contend.

Among 60 patients with urothelial carcinoma in prospective trials of antibodies directed against the immune checkpoint inhibitor programmed cell death protein-1 and its ligand (PD-1/PD-L1), 28 (47%) had a damage response and repair (DDR) gene of any kind, and 15 (25%) had DDR mutations that are thought to be deleterious. Patients with any DDR mutations were more likely to have a clinical response to anti–PD-1/PD-L1 therapy, especially patients with likely deleterious mutations, reported Jonathan E. Rosenberg, MD and colleagues from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.

Dr. Jonathan E. Rosenberg
In addition to higher objective response rates, patients with DDR gene alterations had longer progression-free survival (PFS) and better overall survival (OS) than did patients with wild-type DDR genes, they noted in a study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

“This study shows that patients with DDR gene alterations are more likely to experience objective responses, longer PFS, and improved OS than patients with wild-type DDR genes. Whether the association is predictive or prognostic should be investigated further in larger data sets from randomized studies that have led to the FDA [Food and Drug Administration] approval of several anti–PD-1/PD-L1 agents,” they wrote.

 

 


Previous studies have shown that in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma treated with platinum-based chemotherapy, alterations in DDR genes are associated with elevations in mutational load, increases in tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, and improved survival, the investigators noted.

To see whether DDR gene alterations were also associated with better outcomes with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors, the investigators examined tumor genomes and survival data from patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma who were enrolled in prospective clinical trials of anti–PD-1/PD-L1 monotherapy. The agents used in the trials were atezolizumab(Tecentriq) and nivolumab(Opdivo).

The investigators correlated the presence of DDR gene alterations with best objective responses according to RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) version 1.1.

They found that the presence of any DDR gene alteration was associated with higher response rates, compared with wild-type DDR (67.9% vs. 18.8%; P less than .001).
 

 


Additionally, patients whose tumors contained known or likely deleterious DDR mutations were significantly more likely to respond than were patients with either mutations of uncertain significance or wild-type DDR (overall response rate 80%, 54%, and 19%, respectively; P less than .001).

Patients with deleterious DDR alterations had significantly better PFS than patients without detectable alterations (hazard ratio, 0.20; P less than .001); DDR mutations of unknown significance trended toward better PFS (HR, 0.44), but was not statistically significant.

Median OS was not reached for patients with deleterious DDR gene mutations, with 71.5% alive at 12 months, compared with a median of 23 months for patients with alterations of unknown significance, and 9.3 months for patients with wild-type DDR.

In multivariable analysis, independent predictors for worse OS included hemoglobin levels below 10 g/dL and visceral metastases. In contrast, any versus no detectable DDR gene alterations was associated with better OS (HR, 0.27; P = .001).
 

 


The investigators are planning a prospective evaluation of the potential association between DDR alterations and outcomes in a phase 2 study of atezolizumab with or without bevacizumab(Avastin) in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma.

“Additional investigation is warranted to evaluate the mechanisms that link DDR alterations beyond MMR [DNA mismatch repair], [mutational] and neoantigen load, and immunotherapy response. If validated in other studies, DDR alterations may represent a useful predictive biomarker of response to anti–PD-1/PD-L1 in urothelial carcinoma,” they concluded.

The study was funded by Roche, Genentech, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and a National Cancer Institute Cancer Center support grant. Dr. Rosenberg disclosed stock or other ownership with Merck and Illumina, and consulting/advisory roles and travel support from Roche, Genentech, Bayer, and others. Multiple coauthors reported similar relationships.

SOURCE: Rosenberg JE et al. J Clin Oncol. 2018 Feb 28. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.75.7740.

Publications
Topics
Sections

 

Alterations in DNA damage response and repair genes may be useful biomarkers for response to immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with urothelial carcinoma, investigators contend.

Among 60 patients with urothelial carcinoma in prospective trials of antibodies directed against the immune checkpoint inhibitor programmed cell death protein-1 and its ligand (PD-1/PD-L1), 28 (47%) had a damage response and repair (DDR) gene of any kind, and 15 (25%) had DDR mutations that are thought to be deleterious. Patients with any DDR mutations were more likely to have a clinical response to anti–PD-1/PD-L1 therapy, especially patients with likely deleterious mutations, reported Jonathan E. Rosenberg, MD and colleagues from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.

Dr. Jonathan E. Rosenberg
In addition to higher objective response rates, patients with DDR gene alterations had longer progression-free survival (PFS) and better overall survival (OS) than did patients with wild-type DDR genes, they noted in a study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

“This study shows that patients with DDR gene alterations are more likely to experience objective responses, longer PFS, and improved OS than patients with wild-type DDR genes. Whether the association is predictive or prognostic should be investigated further in larger data sets from randomized studies that have led to the FDA [Food and Drug Administration] approval of several anti–PD-1/PD-L1 agents,” they wrote.

 

 


Previous studies have shown that in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma treated with platinum-based chemotherapy, alterations in DDR genes are associated with elevations in mutational load, increases in tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, and improved survival, the investigators noted.

To see whether DDR gene alterations were also associated with better outcomes with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors, the investigators examined tumor genomes and survival data from patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma who were enrolled in prospective clinical trials of anti–PD-1/PD-L1 monotherapy. The agents used in the trials were atezolizumab(Tecentriq) and nivolumab(Opdivo).

The investigators correlated the presence of DDR gene alterations with best objective responses according to RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) version 1.1.

They found that the presence of any DDR gene alteration was associated with higher response rates, compared with wild-type DDR (67.9% vs. 18.8%; P less than .001).
 

 


Additionally, patients whose tumors contained known or likely deleterious DDR mutations were significantly more likely to respond than were patients with either mutations of uncertain significance or wild-type DDR (overall response rate 80%, 54%, and 19%, respectively; P less than .001).

Patients with deleterious DDR alterations had significantly better PFS than patients without detectable alterations (hazard ratio, 0.20; P less than .001); DDR mutations of unknown significance trended toward better PFS (HR, 0.44), but was not statistically significant.

Median OS was not reached for patients with deleterious DDR gene mutations, with 71.5% alive at 12 months, compared with a median of 23 months for patients with alterations of unknown significance, and 9.3 months for patients with wild-type DDR.

In multivariable analysis, independent predictors for worse OS included hemoglobin levels below 10 g/dL and visceral metastases. In contrast, any versus no detectable DDR gene alterations was associated with better OS (HR, 0.27; P = .001).
 

 


The investigators are planning a prospective evaluation of the potential association between DDR alterations and outcomes in a phase 2 study of atezolizumab with or without bevacizumab(Avastin) in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma.

“Additional investigation is warranted to evaluate the mechanisms that link DDR alterations beyond MMR [DNA mismatch repair], [mutational] and neoantigen load, and immunotherapy response. If validated in other studies, DDR alterations may represent a useful predictive biomarker of response to anti–PD-1/PD-L1 in urothelial carcinoma,” they concluded.

The study was funded by Roche, Genentech, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and a National Cancer Institute Cancer Center support grant. Dr. Rosenberg disclosed stock or other ownership with Merck and Illumina, and consulting/advisory roles and travel support from Roche, Genentech, Bayer, and others. Multiple coauthors reported similar relationships.

SOURCE: Rosenberg JE et al. J Clin Oncol. 2018 Feb 28. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.75.7740.

 

Alterations in DNA damage response and repair genes may be useful biomarkers for response to immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with urothelial carcinoma, investigators contend.

Among 60 patients with urothelial carcinoma in prospective trials of antibodies directed against the immune checkpoint inhibitor programmed cell death protein-1 and its ligand (PD-1/PD-L1), 28 (47%) had a damage response and repair (DDR) gene of any kind, and 15 (25%) had DDR mutations that are thought to be deleterious. Patients with any DDR mutations were more likely to have a clinical response to anti–PD-1/PD-L1 therapy, especially patients with likely deleterious mutations, reported Jonathan E. Rosenberg, MD and colleagues from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.

Dr. Jonathan E. Rosenberg
In addition to higher objective response rates, patients with DDR gene alterations had longer progression-free survival (PFS) and better overall survival (OS) than did patients with wild-type DDR genes, they noted in a study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

“This study shows that patients with DDR gene alterations are more likely to experience objective responses, longer PFS, and improved OS than patients with wild-type DDR genes. Whether the association is predictive or prognostic should be investigated further in larger data sets from randomized studies that have led to the FDA [Food and Drug Administration] approval of several anti–PD-1/PD-L1 agents,” they wrote.

 

 


Previous studies have shown that in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma treated with platinum-based chemotherapy, alterations in DDR genes are associated with elevations in mutational load, increases in tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, and improved survival, the investigators noted.

To see whether DDR gene alterations were also associated with better outcomes with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors, the investigators examined tumor genomes and survival data from patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma who were enrolled in prospective clinical trials of anti–PD-1/PD-L1 monotherapy. The agents used in the trials were atezolizumab(Tecentriq) and nivolumab(Opdivo).

The investigators correlated the presence of DDR gene alterations with best objective responses according to RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) version 1.1.

They found that the presence of any DDR gene alteration was associated with higher response rates, compared with wild-type DDR (67.9% vs. 18.8%; P less than .001).
 

 


Additionally, patients whose tumors contained known or likely deleterious DDR mutations were significantly more likely to respond than were patients with either mutations of uncertain significance or wild-type DDR (overall response rate 80%, 54%, and 19%, respectively; P less than .001).

Patients with deleterious DDR alterations had significantly better PFS than patients without detectable alterations (hazard ratio, 0.20; P less than .001); DDR mutations of unknown significance trended toward better PFS (HR, 0.44), but was not statistically significant.

Median OS was not reached for patients with deleterious DDR gene mutations, with 71.5% alive at 12 months, compared with a median of 23 months for patients with alterations of unknown significance, and 9.3 months for patients with wild-type DDR.

In multivariable analysis, independent predictors for worse OS included hemoglobin levels below 10 g/dL and visceral metastases. In contrast, any versus no detectable DDR gene alterations was associated with better OS (HR, 0.27; P = .001).
 

 


The investigators are planning a prospective evaluation of the potential association between DDR alterations and outcomes in a phase 2 study of atezolizumab with or without bevacizumab(Avastin) in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma.

“Additional investigation is warranted to evaluate the mechanisms that link DDR alterations beyond MMR [DNA mismatch repair], [mutational] and neoantigen load, and immunotherapy response. If validated in other studies, DDR alterations may represent a useful predictive biomarker of response to anti–PD-1/PD-L1 in urothelial carcinoma,” they concluded.

The study was funded by Roche, Genentech, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and a National Cancer Institute Cancer Center support grant. Dr. Rosenberg disclosed stock or other ownership with Merck and Illumina, and consulting/advisory roles and travel support from Roche, Genentech, Bayer, and others. Multiple coauthors reported similar relationships.

SOURCE: Rosenberg JE et al. J Clin Oncol. 2018 Feb 28. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.75.7740.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Article Source

FROM THE JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Vitals

 

Key clinical point: DNA damage response and repair gene alterations may be biomarkers for response to immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma.

Major finding: Any DDR gene alteration was associated with higher response rates, compared with wild-type DDR (67.9% vs. 18.8%; P less than .001).

Data source: Retrospective study of 60 patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma enrolled in phase 3 trials of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors.

Disclosures: The study was funded by Roche, Genentech, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and a National Cancer Institute Cancer Center support grant. Dr. Rosenberg disclosed stock or other ownership with Merck and Illumina, and consulting/advisory roles and travel support from Roche, Genentech, Bayer, and others. Multiple coauthors reported similar relationships.

Source: Rosenberg JE et al. J Clin Oncol. 2018 Feb 28. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.75.7740.

Disqus Comments
Default

Psoriatic arthritis treatment: “We’re not doing so well”

Article Type
Changed
Tue, 02/07/2023 - 16:55

 

– Two recent Scandinavian studies highlight the considerable room for improvement that exists in psoriatic arthritis outcomes, according to speakers at the 2018 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

“We’re not doing so well. I think that in general, if you think of the treatments that we have and the treat-to-target approach, psoriatic arthritis lags behind rheumatoid arthritis, maybe by a decade,” declared Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, program director for the symposium and professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego.

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News
Dr. Arthur Kavanaugh
He was a coauthor of a Norwegian cross-sectional study of 141 psoriatic arthritis patients assessed during 2013-2014 by investigators who used an array of disease activity measures. Among the findings: The group’s median Disease Activity index for PSoriatic Arthritis (DAPSA) score was 14.5, the Disease Activity Score for 28 joints using erythrocyte sedimentation rate was 3.2, and – most tellingly – only 22.9% of them fulfilled the criteria for minimal disease activity (MDA), which requires very low or no activity in five of seven domains of psoriatic arthritis. Moreover, 42 patients weren’t on any disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs whatsoever (J Rheumatol. 2017 Apr;44[4]:431-6).

“If you say that MDA is remission, a 23% remission rate is not good enough. And there are some people who are not on treatment. So I think we’re still seeing a lag in psoriatic arthritis. We’re not treating it as aggressively as we are rheumatoid arthritis,” said Dr. Kavanaugh, director of the Center for Innovative Therapy in the university’s division of rheumatology, allergy, and immunology.

 

 


“This study was a surprise,” he continued. “I think it’s like rheumatoid arthritis was years ago. If you asked docs how they were doing, they would say, ‘My patients are doing great!’ But then you go to the office and measure the patients and it’s like, ‘Well, not so much.’ ”

Another speaker, Eric M. Ruderman, MD, concurred.

Dr. Eric M. Ruderman
“If you say 23% of your rheumatoid arthritis patients are in remission, you’d have to say, ‘I’m not doing a very good job,’ because we’re getting 50%-60% rates of remission these days if you really push medications. And we have good drugs for psoriatic arthritis, too, but I don’t think we’re pushing as hard,” said Dr. Ruderman, professor of medicine and associate chief for clinical affairs in the division of rheumatology at Northwestern University in Chicago.

That being said, it’s also clear that rheumatologists aren’t doing as well in managing psoriatic arthritis as dermatologists are with psoriasis, where skin clearance or almost-clear rates unimaginable just a few years ago are now routinely attainable, he added.

“In dermatology they’re getting better and better and better and better with each successive new cytokine target. We’re not. The ACR responses with risankizumab [an investigational anti-interleukin-23 p19 inhibitor] are very much like we saw with the tumor necrosis factor inhibitors. The interleukin-12/23 inhibitor responses are very much like we’ve seen with the interleukin-17 inhibitors. So each successive improvement in getting skin disease under control hasn’t really gotten us very much further with joint disease. I don’t know that we’ve cracked that yet,” Dr. Ruderman said.
 

 



Another recent Scandinavian psoriatic arthritis study that particularly impressed Dr. Kavanaugh was a Danish nationwide cohort registry study that shed new light upon the burdens imposed by the disease in terms of societal costs, comorbid conditions, and disability. The subjects were 10,525 Danes with psoriatic arthritis and nearly 21,000 matched general population controls evaluated during the period from 5 years prior to diagnosis of psoriatic arthritis through 10 years after.

The costs were impressive: an average of 10,641 euros more per year per psoriatic arthritis patient, compared with controls, during the 10-year period following diagnosis, with most of the difference attributed to higher health care costs and forgone earnings due to unemployment, early retirement, or receipt of a disability pension.

At the time of their diagnosis, psoriatic arthritis patients had a significantly higher burden of comorbid conditions than did controls, including a 1.7-fold higher likelihood of cardiovascular disease, a 1.73-fold increase in risk for pulmonary disease, a 2.03-fold greater likelihood of infectious diseases, and a 1.94-fold increased risk of hematologic disorders.

Five years prior to diagnosis of psoriatic arthritis, affected individuals were 1.36-fold more likely than were controls to be on a disability pension. At diagnosis, they were 1.6-fold more likely. Ten years after diagnosis of psoriatic arthritis, they were 2.69-fold more likely to be on a disability pension. Indeed, by that point, 21.8% of Danish psoriatic arthritis patients were on disability (Ann Rheum Dis. 2017 Sep;76([9]:1495-1501).

 

 


Health care costs began rising steeply at least 3 years prior to diagnosis of psoriatic arthritis, as well.

“We need to do better with our psoriatic arthritis patients. I think this beautiful study is a call to attention for us to make sure that we’re identifying people with psoriatic arthritis as early as we can,” Dr. Kavanaugh said.

As for the treat-to-target approach that has become so widespread in the management of rheumatoid arthritis, it has gained a toehold in the treatment of psoriatic arthritis. Dr. Kavanaugh was a member of an international task force that recently published treat-to-target recommendations for psoriatic arthritis and axial spondyloarthritis (Ann Rheum Dis. 2018 Jan;77[1]:3-17).

The recommendation for defining the target in psoriatic arthritis was to use the DAPSA or MDA. However, this was a controversial recommendation because of the dearth of evidence. It passed with 51.6% of the task force votes and a level of agreement of 7.9 on a 0-10 scale.

Despite the demonstrable room for improvement in psoriatic arthritis treatment outcomes, better times are likely to be coming for affected patients. A record-breaking number of publications on psoriatic arthritis was published in 2017, and three additional drugs received marketing approval for the disease.

Dr. Kavanaugh and Dr. Ruderman reported serving as consultants to and receiving research grants from numerous pharmaceutical companies.
 

 

Meeting/Event
Publications
Topics
Sections
Meeting/Event
Meeting/Event

 

– Two recent Scandinavian studies highlight the considerable room for improvement that exists in psoriatic arthritis outcomes, according to speakers at the 2018 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

“We’re not doing so well. I think that in general, if you think of the treatments that we have and the treat-to-target approach, psoriatic arthritis lags behind rheumatoid arthritis, maybe by a decade,” declared Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, program director for the symposium and professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego.

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News
Dr. Arthur Kavanaugh
He was a coauthor of a Norwegian cross-sectional study of 141 psoriatic arthritis patients assessed during 2013-2014 by investigators who used an array of disease activity measures. Among the findings: The group’s median Disease Activity index for PSoriatic Arthritis (DAPSA) score was 14.5, the Disease Activity Score for 28 joints using erythrocyte sedimentation rate was 3.2, and – most tellingly – only 22.9% of them fulfilled the criteria for minimal disease activity (MDA), which requires very low or no activity in five of seven domains of psoriatic arthritis. Moreover, 42 patients weren’t on any disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs whatsoever (J Rheumatol. 2017 Apr;44[4]:431-6).

“If you say that MDA is remission, a 23% remission rate is not good enough. And there are some people who are not on treatment. So I think we’re still seeing a lag in psoriatic arthritis. We’re not treating it as aggressively as we are rheumatoid arthritis,” said Dr. Kavanaugh, director of the Center for Innovative Therapy in the university’s division of rheumatology, allergy, and immunology.

 

 


“This study was a surprise,” he continued. “I think it’s like rheumatoid arthritis was years ago. If you asked docs how they were doing, they would say, ‘My patients are doing great!’ But then you go to the office and measure the patients and it’s like, ‘Well, not so much.’ ”

Another speaker, Eric M. Ruderman, MD, concurred.

Dr. Eric M. Ruderman
“If you say 23% of your rheumatoid arthritis patients are in remission, you’d have to say, ‘I’m not doing a very good job,’ because we’re getting 50%-60% rates of remission these days if you really push medications. And we have good drugs for psoriatic arthritis, too, but I don’t think we’re pushing as hard,” said Dr. Ruderman, professor of medicine and associate chief for clinical affairs in the division of rheumatology at Northwestern University in Chicago.

That being said, it’s also clear that rheumatologists aren’t doing as well in managing psoriatic arthritis as dermatologists are with psoriasis, where skin clearance or almost-clear rates unimaginable just a few years ago are now routinely attainable, he added.

“In dermatology they’re getting better and better and better and better with each successive new cytokine target. We’re not. The ACR responses with risankizumab [an investigational anti-interleukin-23 p19 inhibitor] are very much like we saw with the tumor necrosis factor inhibitors. The interleukin-12/23 inhibitor responses are very much like we’ve seen with the interleukin-17 inhibitors. So each successive improvement in getting skin disease under control hasn’t really gotten us very much further with joint disease. I don’t know that we’ve cracked that yet,” Dr. Ruderman said.
 

 



Another recent Scandinavian psoriatic arthritis study that particularly impressed Dr. Kavanaugh was a Danish nationwide cohort registry study that shed new light upon the burdens imposed by the disease in terms of societal costs, comorbid conditions, and disability. The subjects were 10,525 Danes with psoriatic arthritis and nearly 21,000 matched general population controls evaluated during the period from 5 years prior to diagnosis of psoriatic arthritis through 10 years after.

The costs were impressive: an average of 10,641 euros more per year per psoriatic arthritis patient, compared with controls, during the 10-year period following diagnosis, with most of the difference attributed to higher health care costs and forgone earnings due to unemployment, early retirement, or receipt of a disability pension.

At the time of their diagnosis, psoriatic arthritis patients had a significantly higher burden of comorbid conditions than did controls, including a 1.7-fold higher likelihood of cardiovascular disease, a 1.73-fold increase in risk for pulmonary disease, a 2.03-fold greater likelihood of infectious diseases, and a 1.94-fold increased risk of hematologic disorders.

Five years prior to diagnosis of psoriatic arthritis, affected individuals were 1.36-fold more likely than were controls to be on a disability pension. At diagnosis, they were 1.6-fold more likely. Ten years after diagnosis of psoriatic arthritis, they were 2.69-fold more likely to be on a disability pension. Indeed, by that point, 21.8% of Danish psoriatic arthritis patients were on disability (Ann Rheum Dis. 2017 Sep;76([9]:1495-1501).

 

 


Health care costs began rising steeply at least 3 years prior to diagnosis of psoriatic arthritis, as well.

“We need to do better with our psoriatic arthritis patients. I think this beautiful study is a call to attention for us to make sure that we’re identifying people with psoriatic arthritis as early as we can,” Dr. Kavanaugh said.

As for the treat-to-target approach that has become so widespread in the management of rheumatoid arthritis, it has gained a toehold in the treatment of psoriatic arthritis. Dr. Kavanaugh was a member of an international task force that recently published treat-to-target recommendations for psoriatic arthritis and axial spondyloarthritis (Ann Rheum Dis. 2018 Jan;77[1]:3-17).

The recommendation for defining the target in psoriatic arthritis was to use the DAPSA or MDA. However, this was a controversial recommendation because of the dearth of evidence. It passed with 51.6% of the task force votes and a level of agreement of 7.9 on a 0-10 scale.

Despite the demonstrable room for improvement in psoriatic arthritis treatment outcomes, better times are likely to be coming for affected patients. A record-breaking number of publications on psoriatic arthritis was published in 2017, and three additional drugs received marketing approval for the disease.

Dr. Kavanaugh and Dr. Ruderman reported serving as consultants to and receiving research grants from numerous pharmaceutical companies.
 

 

 

– Two recent Scandinavian studies highlight the considerable room for improvement that exists in psoriatic arthritis outcomes, according to speakers at the 2018 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

“We’re not doing so well. I think that in general, if you think of the treatments that we have and the treat-to-target approach, psoriatic arthritis lags behind rheumatoid arthritis, maybe by a decade,” declared Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, program director for the symposium and professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego.

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News
Dr. Arthur Kavanaugh
He was a coauthor of a Norwegian cross-sectional study of 141 psoriatic arthritis patients assessed during 2013-2014 by investigators who used an array of disease activity measures. Among the findings: The group’s median Disease Activity index for PSoriatic Arthritis (DAPSA) score was 14.5, the Disease Activity Score for 28 joints using erythrocyte sedimentation rate was 3.2, and – most tellingly – only 22.9% of them fulfilled the criteria for minimal disease activity (MDA), which requires very low or no activity in five of seven domains of psoriatic arthritis. Moreover, 42 patients weren’t on any disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs whatsoever (J Rheumatol. 2017 Apr;44[4]:431-6).

“If you say that MDA is remission, a 23% remission rate is not good enough. And there are some people who are not on treatment. So I think we’re still seeing a lag in psoriatic arthritis. We’re not treating it as aggressively as we are rheumatoid arthritis,” said Dr. Kavanaugh, director of the Center for Innovative Therapy in the university’s division of rheumatology, allergy, and immunology.

 

 


“This study was a surprise,” he continued. “I think it’s like rheumatoid arthritis was years ago. If you asked docs how they were doing, they would say, ‘My patients are doing great!’ But then you go to the office and measure the patients and it’s like, ‘Well, not so much.’ ”

Another speaker, Eric M. Ruderman, MD, concurred.

Dr. Eric M. Ruderman
“If you say 23% of your rheumatoid arthritis patients are in remission, you’d have to say, ‘I’m not doing a very good job,’ because we’re getting 50%-60% rates of remission these days if you really push medications. And we have good drugs for psoriatic arthritis, too, but I don’t think we’re pushing as hard,” said Dr. Ruderman, professor of medicine and associate chief for clinical affairs in the division of rheumatology at Northwestern University in Chicago.

That being said, it’s also clear that rheumatologists aren’t doing as well in managing psoriatic arthritis as dermatologists are with psoriasis, where skin clearance or almost-clear rates unimaginable just a few years ago are now routinely attainable, he added.

“In dermatology they’re getting better and better and better and better with each successive new cytokine target. We’re not. The ACR responses with risankizumab [an investigational anti-interleukin-23 p19 inhibitor] are very much like we saw with the tumor necrosis factor inhibitors. The interleukin-12/23 inhibitor responses are very much like we’ve seen with the interleukin-17 inhibitors. So each successive improvement in getting skin disease under control hasn’t really gotten us very much further with joint disease. I don’t know that we’ve cracked that yet,” Dr. Ruderman said.
 

 



Another recent Scandinavian psoriatic arthritis study that particularly impressed Dr. Kavanaugh was a Danish nationwide cohort registry study that shed new light upon the burdens imposed by the disease in terms of societal costs, comorbid conditions, and disability. The subjects were 10,525 Danes with psoriatic arthritis and nearly 21,000 matched general population controls evaluated during the period from 5 years prior to diagnosis of psoriatic arthritis through 10 years after.

The costs were impressive: an average of 10,641 euros more per year per psoriatic arthritis patient, compared with controls, during the 10-year period following diagnosis, with most of the difference attributed to higher health care costs and forgone earnings due to unemployment, early retirement, or receipt of a disability pension.

At the time of their diagnosis, psoriatic arthritis patients had a significantly higher burden of comorbid conditions than did controls, including a 1.7-fold higher likelihood of cardiovascular disease, a 1.73-fold increase in risk for pulmonary disease, a 2.03-fold greater likelihood of infectious diseases, and a 1.94-fold increased risk of hematologic disorders.

Five years prior to diagnosis of psoriatic arthritis, affected individuals were 1.36-fold more likely than were controls to be on a disability pension. At diagnosis, they were 1.6-fold more likely. Ten years after diagnosis of psoriatic arthritis, they were 2.69-fold more likely to be on a disability pension. Indeed, by that point, 21.8% of Danish psoriatic arthritis patients were on disability (Ann Rheum Dis. 2017 Sep;76([9]:1495-1501).

 

 


Health care costs began rising steeply at least 3 years prior to diagnosis of psoriatic arthritis, as well.

“We need to do better with our psoriatic arthritis patients. I think this beautiful study is a call to attention for us to make sure that we’re identifying people with psoriatic arthritis as early as we can,” Dr. Kavanaugh said.

As for the treat-to-target approach that has become so widespread in the management of rheumatoid arthritis, it has gained a toehold in the treatment of psoriatic arthritis. Dr. Kavanaugh was a member of an international task force that recently published treat-to-target recommendations for psoriatic arthritis and axial spondyloarthritis (Ann Rheum Dis. 2018 Jan;77[1]:3-17).

The recommendation for defining the target in psoriatic arthritis was to use the DAPSA or MDA. However, this was a controversial recommendation because of the dearth of evidence. It passed with 51.6% of the task force votes and a level of agreement of 7.9 on a 0-10 scale.

Despite the demonstrable room for improvement in psoriatic arthritis treatment outcomes, better times are likely to be coming for affected patients. A record-breaking number of publications on psoriatic arthritis was published in 2017, and three additional drugs received marketing approval for the disease.

Dr. Kavanaugh and Dr. Ruderman reported serving as consultants to and receiving research grants from numerous pharmaceutical companies.
 

 

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Click for Credit Status
Ready
Sections
Article Source

EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM RWCS 2018

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.

States strive to curb costs for a crucial – but exorbitant – hemophilia treatment

Article Type
Changed
Fri, 01/18/2019 - 17:27

 

The child is well-known in the halls in which state bureaucrats oversee health care for millions of Californians – not by name, but by a number: $21 million.

His medications alone cost state taxpayers that much in a single year, not including other health care. The boy, whose identity has not been released, was California’s most expensive Medicaid patient in recent years. His case was singled out in a tweet last year by the state’s top health care official to highlight the public insurance program’s extraordinary obligations as a backstop for low-income patients.

How on earth can a single child’s treatment cost that much? The answer: He has hemophilia and needs large quantities of a pricey drug – known as clotting factor – that makes blood coagulate.

Hemophilia drugs are among the most costly drugs in the nation, and taxpayers are footing the bill for many patients on Medicaid who could never afford them on their own. Officials in California and other states are doing what they can to manage the costs, but it’s a daunting task that highlights the complexity and secrecy of prescription drug pricing.

 

 

Kaiser Health News is examining how America has become a “Medicaid Nation” – where tens of millions of poor and disabled people now rely on the support of the federal and state insurance program. Hemophilia is one those diseases that helps explain its burgeoning cost.

Medications for hemophilia are crucial to patients – overwhelmingly male – with the rare genetic condition that prevents clotting and puts them at great risk of bleeding to death, even from a minor injury. There is no question the drugs prolong and save lives, and state officials are not arguing that they should be withheld.

“It’s a highly vulnerable population,” said Ken Kizer, a veteran federal and state health administrator who formerly oversaw Medi-Cal, California’s version of Medicaid. “If anyone has seen a hemophiliac in crisis, you’re not going to say no.”

But drugmakers profit handsomely, competing vigorously for the limited number of patients.

The U.S. hemophilia market, which serves about 20,000 patients, is worth $4.6 billion a year, according to AllianceBernstein, a research and investment firm.
 

 

“There are millions being made out there on these kids – it’s a huge business,” said Doris Quon, MD, medical director of the Orthopaedic Hemophilia Treatment Center at the University of California, Los Angeles.

Contributing to the costs is the fact that there is no cure for hemophilia and no cheaper substitute for blood factor. Factor may be prescribed at high doses for a lifetime, even more so when a patient has an injury or complications.

Nationwide, a third of adults and children living with hemophilia are covered by Medicaid. And the Medicaid program’s three most expensive drugs per prescription are for hemophilia, according to an analysis by the Kaiser Family Foundation. (California Healthline is produced by Kaiser Health News, an editorially independent publication of the foundation.)

In 2015 alone, Medicaid paid about $353 million for prescriptions of Advate, the most commonly prescribed blood-clotting medication for hemophilia – a 273% increase from 2011.

Generally speaking, the price of hemophilia drugs rise as rival drugs hit the market. But, in addition, doctors are prescribing ever more clotting factor for prevention of joint-damaging bleeds and for improved long-term health. The increase in the cost of Advate, for example, was nearly all attributed to increased use.

Tab for 145 kids: $195 million

The California boy whose drugs cost $21 million in a single year was an extreme case, and the circumstances of his care have not been disclosed because of confidentiality protections. Still, medications to treat hemophilia on average annual cost more than $270,000 per patient, according to a 2015 Express Scripts report, and they can easily soar past $1 million annually.

In contrast to more common diseases like hepatitis C, hemophilia treatment is not a state “budget buster” per se: about 4,000 patients live in California. About 1,100 of them are covered by Medi-Cal or two other government-funded programs for chronically ill children in California, according to Jennifer Kent, director of the state Department of Health Care Services and author of last year’s tweet. But the amount of money spent per person dwarfs that spent on people with other serious diseases.

One Stanford University study of 34,000 California kids with severe chronic diseases found that the tiny portion of children who needed blood factor accounted for 41% of the state’s outpatient drug spending on this entire patient population. About $195 million was spent on just 145 kids over a 3-year period, although some of that money came back to the state in rebates from drug companies – a portion of the cost that Medicaid can recoup after purchase.

Caitlin Carroll, director of public affairs for PhRMA, the pharmaceutical industry lobbying group, said high development costs and the complicated and lengthy manufacturing process play a role in how hemophilia drugs are priced. She added that federally mandated rebates significantly reduce the cost of blood factor. They amount to 17% of the average manufacturer price per unit.

Manufacturers also note that some newer and more expensive hemophilia drugs last longer and do not need to be administered as frequently, so they can prove less costly to payers overall.

Even so, some patients require a monumental investment to survive.
 

 

 

‘Extremely fortunate’

Colleen Tuite’s son Kevin, a 7-year-old, has severe hemophilia with a complication known as an inhibitor – an antibody that makes his regular blood-factor infusions less effective. Inhibitors can dramatically increase the cost of care, because massive doses of blood factor or expensive, specialized blood products known as bypassing agents may be needed.

Ms. Tuite and her husband initially were Kevin’s foster parents, then adopted the boy as a toddler. Because he has been a foster child, Kevin qualifies for Medi-Cal until he is 26.

The Monrovia, Calif., family also has private health insurance, which pays for about half of Kevin’s medical bills. These can run upward of $200,000 per month, Ms. Tuite said.

“We definitely would not have been able to adopt him without the help of Medi-Cal,” Ms. Tuite said. “We’ve been extremely fortunate.”

With the support of drug manufacturers and hemophilia advocacy groups, patients and their families have significant political clout. Some experts say they also have a moral claim on public resources: In the early days of the AIDS epidemic, thousands of the nation’s hemophilia patients died after they contracted HIV through transfusions before the virus was eliminated from the blood supply.

State health officials say the costs of hemophilia are hard to anticipate and control, even with rebates.

“We do a really aggressive job of collecting rebates on our pharmacy costs,” said Ms. Kent, California’s top Medicaid official. “But there’s just not any way around blood factor. It is just a very, very expensive product. It’s nonnegotiable for people that require it.”

In 2016, California’s Medicaid program paid at least $205 million for medications used to treat hemophilia, according to a Kaiser Health News analysis of federal Medicaid data. That figure doesn’t account for the federal rebates.

States can negotiate “supplemental” rebates with drugmakers for individual medications – but those must be kept secret under federal and some state laws. Such secrecy is becoming increasingly controversial as states continue to confront spiraling drug prices.

 

 

Limited options for states

In 2016, Pfizer sued Texas’ state health agency for giving data on the drug company’s supplemental Medicaid rebates to state lawmakers who requested it. The drugmaker alleged that releasing the confidential information would undermine the company’s competitiveness and give away trade secrets, and warned that the discounts it gave Texas could disappear.

In early October, a judge ruled that lawmakers should be able to obtain some of that data, noting dryly that “in Pfizer’s view, legislators are not necessary to carry out the state’s Medicaid program.”

Instead of seeking additional rebates from manufacturers for blood factor, some states, including Washington and Oregon, have chosen to require patients to get their blood factor from federally designated Hemophilia Treatment Centers only. That allows state Medicaid programs to take advantage of a federal drug-discount program known as “340B.”

However, officials in California said they studied that option and determined it wouldn’t save them any more money than the rebates they negotiate with drugmakers.

Whatever their approach, state health officials say they are struggling against forces they are nearly powerless to change.

“There aren’t a lot of options available to Medicaid programs in terms of controlling costs, because we don’t set the initial costs,” said Deborah Weston, pharmacy program manager for Oregon’s Medicaid program.
 

Kaiser Health News data correspondent Sydney Lupkin contributed to this report. KHN’s coverage of these topics is supported by Laura and John Arnold Foundation and Heising-Simons Foundation. This story was produced by Kaiser Health News, which publishes California Healthline, a service of the California Health Care Foundation. Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of the Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Publications
Topics
Sections

 

The child is well-known in the halls in which state bureaucrats oversee health care for millions of Californians – not by name, but by a number: $21 million.

His medications alone cost state taxpayers that much in a single year, not including other health care. The boy, whose identity has not been released, was California’s most expensive Medicaid patient in recent years. His case was singled out in a tweet last year by the state’s top health care official to highlight the public insurance program’s extraordinary obligations as a backstop for low-income patients.

How on earth can a single child’s treatment cost that much? The answer: He has hemophilia and needs large quantities of a pricey drug – known as clotting factor – that makes blood coagulate.

Hemophilia drugs are among the most costly drugs in the nation, and taxpayers are footing the bill for many patients on Medicaid who could never afford them on their own. Officials in California and other states are doing what they can to manage the costs, but it’s a daunting task that highlights the complexity and secrecy of prescription drug pricing.

 

 

Kaiser Health News is examining how America has become a “Medicaid Nation” – where tens of millions of poor and disabled people now rely on the support of the federal and state insurance program. Hemophilia is one those diseases that helps explain its burgeoning cost.

Medications for hemophilia are crucial to patients – overwhelmingly male – with the rare genetic condition that prevents clotting and puts them at great risk of bleeding to death, even from a minor injury. There is no question the drugs prolong and save lives, and state officials are not arguing that they should be withheld.

“It’s a highly vulnerable population,” said Ken Kizer, a veteran federal and state health administrator who formerly oversaw Medi-Cal, California’s version of Medicaid. “If anyone has seen a hemophiliac in crisis, you’re not going to say no.”

But drugmakers profit handsomely, competing vigorously for the limited number of patients.

The U.S. hemophilia market, which serves about 20,000 patients, is worth $4.6 billion a year, according to AllianceBernstein, a research and investment firm.
 

 

“There are millions being made out there on these kids – it’s a huge business,” said Doris Quon, MD, medical director of the Orthopaedic Hemophilia Treatment Center at the University of California, Los Angeles.

Contributing to the costs is the fact that there is no cure for hemophilia and no cheaper substitute for blood factor. Factor may be prescribed at high doses for a lifetime, even more so when a patient has an injury or complications.

Nationwide, a third of adults and children living with hemophilia are covered by Medicaid. And the Medicaid program’s three most expensive drugs per prescription are for hemophilia, according to an analysis by the Kaiser Family Foundation. (California Healthline is produced by Kaiser Health News, an editorially independent publication of the foundation.)

In 2015 alone, Medicaid paid about $353 million for prescriptions of Advate, the most commonly prescribed blood-clotting medication for hemophilia – a 273% increase from 2011.

Generally speaking, the price of hemophilia drugs rise as rival drugs hit the market. But, in addition, doctors are prescribing ever more clotting factor for prevention of joint-damaging bleeds and for improved long-term health. The increase in the cost of Advate, for example, was nearly all attributed to increased use.

Tab for 145 kids: $195 million

The California boy whose drugs cost $21 million in a single year was an extreme case, and the circumstances of his care have not been disclosed because of confidentiality protections. Still, medications to treat hemophilia on average annual cost more than $270,000 per patient, according to a 2015 Express Scripts report, and they can easily soar past $1 million annually.

In contrast to more common diseases like hepatitis C, hemophilia treatment is not a state “budget buster” per se: about 4,000 patients live in California. About 1,100 of them are covered by Medi-Cal or two other government-funded programs for chronically ill children in California, according to Jennifer Kent, director of the state Department of Health Care Services and author of last year’s tweet. But the amount of money spent per person dwarfs that spent on people with other serious diseases.

One Stanford University study of 34,000 California kids with severe chronic diseases found that the tiny portion of children who needed blood factor accounted for 41% of the state’s outpatient drug spending on this entire patient population. About $195 million was spent on just 145 kids over a 3-year period, although some of that money came back to the state in rebates from drug companies – a portion of the cost that Medicaid can recoup after purchase.

Caitlin Carroll, director of public affairs for PhRMA, the pharmaceutical industry lobbying group, said high development costs and the complicated and lengthy manufacturing process play a role in how hemophilia drugs are priced. She added that federally mandated rebates significantly reduce the cost of blood factor. They amount to 17% of the average manufacturer price per unit.

Manufacturers also note that some newer and more expensive hemophilia drugs last longer and do not need to be administered as frequently, so they can prove less costly to payers overall.

Even so, some patients require a monumental investment to survive.
 

 

 

‘Extremely fortunate’

Colleen Tuite’s son Kevin, a 7-year-old, has severe hemophilia with a complication known as an inhibitor – an antibody that makes his regular blood-factor infusions less effective. Inhibitors can dramatically increase the cost of care, because massive doses of blood factor or expensive, specialized blood products known as bypassing agents may be needed.

Ms. Tuite and her husband initially were Kevin’s foster parents, then adopted the boy as a toddler. Because he has been a foster child, Kevin qualifies for Medi-Cal until he is 26.

The Monrovia, Calif., family also has private health insurance, which pays for about half of Kevin’s medical bills. These can run upward of $200,000 per month, Ms. Tuite said.

“We definitely would not have been able to adopt him without the help of Medi-Cal,” Ms. Tuite said. “We’ve been extremely fortunate.”

With the support of drug manufacturers and hemophilia advocacy groups, patients and their families have significant political clout. Some experts say they also have a moral claim on public resources: In the early days of the AIDS epidemic, thousands of the nation’s hemophilia patients died after they contracted HIV through transfusions before the virus was eliminated from the blood supply.

State health officials say the costs of hemophilia are hard to anticipate and control, even with rebates.

“We do a really aggressive job of collecting rebates on our pharmacy costs,” said Ms. Kent, California’s top Medicaid official. “But there’s just not any way around blood factor. It is just a very, very expensive product. It’s nonnegotiable for people that require it.”

In 2016, California’s Medicaid program paid at least $205 million for medications used to treat hemophilia, according to a Kaiser Health News analysis of federal Medicaid data. That figure doesn’t account for the federal rebates.

States can negotiate “supplemental” rebates with drugmakers for individual medications – but those must be kept secret under federal and some state laws. Such secrecy is becoming increasingly controversial as states continue to confront spiraling drug prices.

 

 

Limited options for states

In 2016, Pfizer sued Texas’ state health agency for giving data on the drug company’s supplemental Medicaid rebates to state lawmakers who requested it. The drugmaker alleged that releasing the confidential information would undermine the company’s competitiveness and give away trade secrets, and warned that the discounts it gave Texas could disappear.

In early October, a judge ruled that lawmakers should be able to obtain some of that data, noting dryly that “in Pfizer’s view, legislators are not necessary to carry out the state’s Medicaid program.”

Instead of seeking additional rebates from manufacturers for blood factor, some states, including Washington and Oregon, have chosen to require patients to get their blood factor from federally designated Hemophilia Treatment Centers only. That allows state Medicaid programs to take advantage of a federal drug-discount program known as “340B.”

However, officials in California said they studied that option and determined it wouldn’t save them any more money than the rebates they negotiate with drugmakers.

Whatever their approach, state health officials say they are struggling against forces they are nearly powerless to change.

“There aren’t a lot of options available to Medicaid programs in terms of controlling costs, because we don’t set the initial costs,” said Deborah Weston, pharmacy program manager for Oregon’s Medicaid program.
 

Kaiser Health News data correspondent Sydney Lupkin contributed to this report. KHN’s coverage of these topics is supported by Laura and John Arnold Foundation and Heising-Simons Foundation. This story was produced by Kaiser Health News, which publishes California Healthline, a service of the California Health Care Foundation. Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of the Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

 

The child is well-known in the halls in which state bureaucrats oversee health care for millions of Californians – not by name, but by a number: $21 million.

His medications alone cost state taxpayers that much in a single year, not including other health care. The boy, whose identity has not been released, was California’s most expensive Medicaid patient in recent years. His case was singled out in a tweet last year by the state’s top health care official to highlight the public insurance program’s extraordinary obligations as a backstop for low-income patients.

How on earth can a single child’s treatment cost that much? The answer: He has hemophilia and needs large quantities of a pricey drug – known as clotting factor – that makes blood coagulate.

Hemophilia drugs are among the most costly drugs in the nation, and taxpayers are footing the bill for many patients on Medicaid who could never afford them on their own. Officials in California and other states are doing what they can to manage the costs, but it’s a daunting task that highlights the complexity and secrecy of prescription drug pricing.

 

 

Kaiser Health News is examining how America has become a “Medicaid Nation” – where tens of millions of poor and disabled people now rely on the support of the federal and state insurance program. Hemophilia is one those diseases that helps explain its burgeoning cost.

Medications for hemophilia are crucial to patients – overwhelmingly male – with the rare genetic condition that prevents clotting and puts them at great risk of bleeding to death, even from a minor injury. There is no question the drugs prolong and save lives, and state officials are not arguing that they should be withheld.

“It’s a highly vulnerable population,” said Ken Kizer, a veteran federal and state health administrator who formerly oversaw Medi-Cal, California’s version of Medicaid. “If anyone has seen a hemophiliac in crisis, you’re not going to say no.”

But drugmakers profit handsomely, competing vigorously for the limited number of patients.

The U.S. hemophilia market, which serves about 20,000 patients, is worth $4.6 billion a year, according to AllianceBernstein, a research and investment firm.
 

 

“There are millions being made out there on these kids – it’s a huge business,” said Doris Quon, MD, medical director of the Orthopaedic Hemophilia Treatment Center at the University of California, Los Angeles.

Contributing to the costs is the fact that there is no cure for hemophilia and no cheaper substitute for blood factor. Factor may be prescribed at high doses for a lifetime, even more so when a patient has an injury or complications.

Nationwide, a third of adults and children living with hemophilia are covered by Medicaid. And the Medicaid program’s three most expensive drugs per prescription are for hemophilia, according to an analysis by the Kaiser Family Foundation. (California Healthline is produced by Kaiser Health News, an editorially independent publication of the foundation.)

In 2015 alone, Medicaid paid about $353 million for prescriptions of Advate, the most commonly prescribed blood-clotting medication for hemophilia – a 273% increase from 2011.

Generally speaking, the price of hemophilia drugs rise as rival drugs hit the market. But, in addition, doctors are prescribing ever more clotting factor for prevention of joint-damaging bleeds and for improved long-term health. The increase in the cost of Advate, for example, was nearly all attributed to increased use.

Tab for 145 kids: $195 million

The California boy whose drugs cost $21 million in a single year was an extreme case, and the circumstances of his care have not been disclosed because of confidentiality protections. Still, medications to treat hemophilia on average annual cost more than $270,000 per patient, according to a 2015 Express Scripts report, and they can easily soar past $1 million annually.

In contrast to more common diseases like hepatitis C, hemophilia treatment is not a state “budget buster” per se: about 4,000 patients live in California. About 1,100 of them are covered by Medi-Cal or two other government-funded programs for chronically ill children in California, according to Jennifer Kent, director of the state Department of Health Care Services and author of last year’s tweet. But the amount of money spent per person dwarfs that spent on people with other serious diseases.

One Stanford University study of 34,000 California kids with severe chronic diseases found that the tiny portion of children who needed blood factor accounted for 41% of the state’s outpatient drug spending on this entire patient population. About $195 million was spent on just 145 kids over a 3-year period, although some of that money came back to the state in rebates from drug companies – a portion of the cost that Medicaid can recoup after purchase.

Caitlin Carroll, director of public affairs for PhRMA, the pharmaceutical industry lobbying group, said high development costs and the complicated and lengthy manufacturing process play a role in how hemophilia drugs are priced. She added that federally mandated rebates significantly reduce the cost of blood factor. They amount to 17% of the average manufacturer price per unit.

Manufacturers also note that some newer and more expensive hemophilia drugs last longer and do not need to be administered as frequently, so they can prove less costly to payers overall.

Even so, some patients require a monumental investment to survive.
 

 

 

‘Extremely fortunate’

Colleen Tuite’s son Kevin, a 7-year-old, has severe hemophilia with a complication known as an inhibitor – an antibody that makes his regular blood-factor infusions less effective. Inhibitors can dramatically increase the cost of care, because massive doses of blood factor or expensive, specialized blood products known as bypassing agents may be needed.

Ms. Tuite and her husband initially were Kevin’s foster parents, then adopted the boy as a toddler. Because he has been a foster child, Kevin qualifies for Medi-Cal until he is 26.

The Monrovia, Calif., family also has private health insurance, which pays for about half of Kevin’s medical bills. These can run upward of $200,000 per month, Ms. Tuite said.

“We definitely would not have been able to adopt him without the help of Medi-Cal,” Ms. Tuite said. “We’ve been extremely fortunate.”

With the support of drug manufacturers and hemophilia advocacy groups, patients and their families have significant political clout. Some experts say they also have a moral claim on public resources: In the early days of the AIDS epidemic, thousands of the nation’s hemophilia patients died after they contracted HIV through transfusions before the virus was eliminated from the blood supply.

State health officials say the costs of hemophilia are hard to anticipate and control, even with rebates.

“We do a really aggressive job of collecting rebates on our pharmacy costs,” said Ms. Kent, California’s top Medicaid official. “But there’s just not any way around blood factor. It is just a very, very expensive product. It’s nonnegotiable for people that require it.”

In 2016, California’s Medicaid program paid at least $205 million for medications used to treat hemophilia, according to a Kaiser Health News analysis of federal Medicaid data. That figure doesn’t account for the federal rebates.

States can negotiate “supplemental” rebates with drugmakers for individual medications – but those must be kept secret under federal and some state laws. Such secrecy is becoming increasingly controversial as states continue to confront spiraling drug prices.

 

 

Limited options for states

In 2016, Pfizer sued Texas’ state health agency for giving data on the drug company’s supplemental Medicaid rebates to state lawmakers who requested it. The drugmaker alleged that releasing the confidential information would undermine the company’s competitiveness and give away trade secrets, and warned that the discounts it gave Texas could disappear.

In early October, a judge ruled that lawmakers should be able to obtain some of that data, noting dryly that “in Pfizer’s view, legislators are not necessary to carry out the state’s Medicaid program.”

Instead of seeking additional rebates from manufacturers for blood factor, some states, including Washington and Oregon, have chosen to require patients to get their blood factor from federally designated Hemophilia Treatment Centers only. That allows state Medicaid programs to take advantage of a federal drug-discount program known as “340B.”

However, officials in California said they studied that option and determined it wouldn’t save them any more money than the rebates they negotiate with drugmakers.

Whatever their approach, state health officials say they are struggling against forces they are nearly powerless to change.

“There aren’t a lot of options available to Medicaid programs in terms of controlling costs, because we don’t set the initial costs,” said Deborah Weston, pharmacy program manager for Oregon’s Medicaid program.
 

Kaiser Health News data correspondent Sydney Lupkin contributed to this report. KHN’s coverage of these topics is supported by Laura and John Arnold Foundation and Heising-Simons Foundation. This story was produced by Kaiser Health News, which publishes California Healthline, a service of the California Health Care Foundation. Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of the Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default

HCT-CI score may predict mortality for nonmalignant disease

Article Type
Changed
Fri, 01/04/2019 - 10:19

 

– Scores of 3 or higher on the Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation Comorbidity Index (HCT-CI) are associated with an increased risk of posttransplant mortality in certain patients undergoing allogeneic HCT for nonmalignant disease, according to findings from a review of more than 4,000 patients.

The exception was in patients undergoing HCT for hemoglobinopathies, Larisa Broglie, MD, reported at the combined annual meetings of the Center for International Blood & Marrow Transplant Research and the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation.

The findings of the study, which is the largest to date to validate the usefulness of the HCT-CI for risk assessment in HCT patients with nonmalignant disease, have important implications for patient counseling and decision making, said Dr. Broglie of the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

Of 4,083 children and adults who underwent a first allogeneic HCT for a nonmalignant disease between 2007 and 2014 and who had sufficient follow-up (median, 39 months), 61% had an HCT-CI score of 0, 20% had a score of 1-2, and 19% had a score of 3 or higher.

 

 

After adjustment for age, disease, donor, graft source, recipient cytomegalovirus status, and performance status, scores of 3 or greater were associated with an overall increased hazard ratio for poor survival (HRs of 1.33 for scores of 3-4 and 2.31 for scores of 5 or greater, vs. 1.0 and 1.127 for scores of 0 or 1-2, respectively), she said.

Patients with an HCT-CI score of 0 had estimated 2-year overall survival of 82.7%, compared with 80.3% for scores 1-2, 74.0% for scores 3-4, and 55.8% for scores of 5 or greater.

Patients included in this study were identified from the Center for International Blood & Marrow Transplant Research database. They ranged in age from under 1 year to 77 years but most were young; the median age was 9 years and 78% of patients were under age 20.

HCT was performed for acquired aplastic anemia in 33% of patients, immune deficiencies in 19%, hemoglobinopathies in 16%, bone marrow failure in 12%, histiocytic disorders in 11%, metabolic disease in 9%, or autoimmune disease in less than 1%, she said, noting that the most frequent comorbidities seen within the entire cohort were moderate pulmonary disease, hepatic disease, and infection requiring ongoing treatment.

The effect of HCT-CI score on survival was present regardless of conditioning intensity and graft-versus-host disease prophylaxis, but scores predicted mortality risk differently based on underlying disease, and different comorbidities predominated in each disease category, she said, explaining that this was apparent when patients were stratified by the seven represented nonmalignant disease categories to account for disease heterogeneity.
 

 

For example, HCT-CI score predicted mortality risk in patients with aplastic anemia (HRs of 1.00, 1.19, and 2.06 for scores of 0, 1-2, and 3 or greater, respectively), and in patients with immune deficiency (HRs of 1.00, 1.37, and 1.87 for scores of 0, 1-2, and 3 or greater, respectively), and the distribution of comorbidities in patients in these two disease categories was similar to that of the overall cohort.

However, HCT-CI score did not predict mortality risk in those undergoing HCT for hemoglobinopathies (HRs of 1.00, 0.46, and 0.59 for scores of 0, 1-2, and 3 or greater, respectively), Dr. Broglie said, noting that these patients had overall high survival rates regardless of HCT-CI scores, and they had comorbidities that differed from the overall cohort.

HCT is a curative treatment strategy for many patients with nonmalignant diseases but transplant-related mortality remains a concern, she said. While HCT-CI has been shown to be useful for discriminating the risks of nonrelapse and overall survival among patients with hematologic malignancies who undergo allogeneic HCT, its usefulness in patients undergoing HCT for nonmalignant diseases has been less clear.

The distinction is important, as patients with nonmalignant diseases have different pretransplant exposures and may have comorbidities specific to their underlying disease. Furthermore, transplantation approaches – including conditioning regimens and intensities – differ, she said.
 

 

“And the HCT-CI was developed to predict risk of nonrelapse mortality, but relapse in nonmalignant diseases can often be difficult to define,” she added.

The current findings demonstrate the value of the HCT-CI in nonmalignant diseases, and “offer the potential to intervene with transplantation prior to the onset of comorbidities, or with efforts to prevent comorbidities prior to transplantation,” she said, concluding that “future efforts could focus on further refining pretransplant risk assessment for patients with nonmalignant diseases, especially for patients with hemoglobinopathies and HCT-CI scores of less than 3.”

Dr. Broglie reported having no financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Broglie L et al. Abstract 16.

Meeting/Event
Publications
Topics
Sections
Meeting/Event
Meeting/Event
Related Articles

 

– Scores of 3 or higher on the Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation Comorbidity Index (HCT-CI) are associated with an increased risk of posttransplant mortality in certain patients undergoing allogeneic HCT for nonmalignant disease, according to findings from a review of more than 4,000 patients.

The exception was in patients undergoing HCT for hemoglobinopathies, Larisa Broglie, MD, reported at the combined annual meetings of the Center for International Blood & Marrow Transplant Research and the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation.

The findings of the study, which is the largest to date to validate the usefulness of the HCT-CI for risk assessment in HCT patients with nonmalignant disease, have important implications for patient counseling and decision making, said Dr. Broglie of the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

Of 4,083 children and adults who underwent a first allogeneic HCT for a nonmalignant disease between 2007 and 2014 and who had sufficient follow-up (median, 39 months), 61% had an HCT-CI score of 0, 20% had a score of 1-2, and 19% had a score of 3 or higher.

 

 

After adjustment for age, disease, donor, graft source, recipient cytomegalovirus status, and performance status, scores of 3 or greater were associated with an overall increased hazard ratio for poor survival (HRs of 1.33 for scores of 3-4 and 2.31 for scores of 5 or greater, vs. 1.0 and 1.127 for scores of 0 or 1-2, respectively), she said.

Patients with an HCT-CI score of 0 had estimated 2-year overall survival of 82.7%, compared with 80.3% for scores 1-2, 74.0% for scores 3-4, and 55.8% for scores of 5 or greater.

Patients included in this study were identified from the Center for International Blood & Marrow Transplant Research database. They ranged in age from under 1 year to 77 years but most were young; the median age was 9 years and 78% of patients were under age 20.

HCT was performed for acquired aplastic anemia in 33% of patients, immune deficiencies in 19%, hemoglobinopathies in 16%, bone marrow failure in 12%, histiocytic disorders in 11%, metabolic disease in 9%, or autoimmune disease in less than 1%, she said, noting that the most frequent comorbidities seen within the entire cohort were moderate pulmonary disease, hepatic disease, and infection requiring ongoing treatment.

The effect of HCT-CI score on survival was present regardless of conditioning intensity and graft-versus-host disease prophylaxis, but scores predicted mortality risk differently based on underlying disease, and different comorbidities predominated in each disease category, she said, explaining that this was apparent when patients were stratified by the seven represented nonmalignant disease categories to account for disease heterogeneity.
 

 

For example, HCT-CI score predicted mortality risk in patients with aplastic anemia (HRs of 1.00, 1.19, and 2.06 for scores of 0, 1-2, and 3 or greater, respectively), and in patients with immune deficiency (HRs of 1.00, 1.37, and 1.87 for scores of 0, 1-2, and 3 or greater, respectively), and the distribution of comorbidities in patients in these two disease categories was similar to that of the overall cohort.

However, HCT-CI score did not predict mortality risk in those undergoing HCT for hemoglobinopathies (HRs of 1.00, 0.46, and 0.59 for scores of 0, 1-2, and 3 or greater, respectively), Dr. Broglie said, noting that these patients had overall high survival rates regardless of HCT-CI scores, and they had comorbidities that differed from the overall cohort.

HCT is a curative treatment strategy for many patients with nonmalignant diseases but transplant-related mortality remains a concern, she said. While HCT-CI has been shown to be useful for discriminating the risks of nonrelapse and overall survival among patients with hematologic malignancies who undergo allogeneic HCT, its usefulness in patients undergoing HCT for nonmalignant diseases has been less clear.

The distinction is important, as patients with nonmalignant diseases have different pretransplant exposures and may have comorbidities specific to their underlying disease. Furthermore, transplantation approaches – including conditioning regimens and intensities – differ, she said.
 

 

“And the HCT-CI was developed to predict risk of nonrelapse mortality, but relapse in nonmalignant diseases can often be difficult to define,” she added.

The current findings demonstrate the value of the HCT-CI in nonmalignant diseases, and “offer the potential to intervene with transplantation prior to the onset of comorbidities, or with efforts to prevent comorbidities prior to transplantation,” she said, concluding that “future efforts could focus on further refining pretransplant risk assessment for patients with nonmalignant diseases, especially for patients with hemoglobinopathies and HCT-CI scores of less than 3.”

Dr. Broglie reported having no financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Broglie L et al. Abstract 16.

 

– Scores of 3 or higher on the Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation Comorbidity Index (HCT-CI) are associated with an increased risk of posttransplant mortality in certain patients undergoing allogeneic HCT for nonmalignant disease, according to findings from a review of more than 4,000 patients.

The exception was in patients undergoing HCT for hemoglobinopathies, Larisa Broglie, MD, reported at the combined annual meetings of the Center for International Blood & Marrow Transplant Research and the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation.

The findings of the study, which is the largest to date to validate the usefulness of the HCT-CI for risk assessment in HCT patients with nonmalignant disease, have important implications for patient counseling and decision making, said Dr. Broglie of the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

Of 4,083 children and adults who underwent a first allogeneic HCT for a nonmalignant disease between 2007 and 2014 and who had sufficient follow-up (median, 39 months), 61% had an HCT-CI score of 0, 20% had a score of 1-2, and 19% had a score of 3 or higher.

 

 

After adjustment for age, disease, donor, graft source, recipient cytomegalovirus status, and performance status, scores of 3 or greater were associated with an overall increased hazard ratio for poor survival (HRs of 1.33 for scores of 3-4 and 2.31 for scores of 5 or greater, vs. 1.0 and 1.127 for scores of 0 or 1-2, respectively), she said.

Patients with an HCT-CI score of 0 had estimated 2-year overall survival of 82.7%, compared with 80.3% for scores 1-2, 74.0% for scores 3-4, and 55.8% for scores of 5 or greater.

Patients included in this study were identified from the Center for International Blood & Marrow Transplant Research database. They ranged in age from under 1 year to 77 years but most were young; the median age was 9 years and 78% of patients were under age 20.

HCT was performed for acquired aplastic anemia in 33% of patients, immune deficiencies in 19%, hemoglobinopathies in 16%, bone marrow failure in 12%, histiocytic disorders in 11%, metabolic disease in 9%, or autoimmune disease in less than 1%, she said, noting that the most frequent comorbidities seen within the entire cohort were moderate pulmonary disease, hepatic disease, and infection requiring ongoing treatment.

The effect of HCT-CI score on survival was present regardless of conditioning intensity and graft-versus-host disease prophylaxis, but scores predicted mortality risk differently based on underlying disease, and different comorbidities predominated in each disease category, she said, explaining that this was apparent when patients were stratified by the seven represented nonmalignant disease categories to account for disease heterogeneity.
 

 

For example, HCT-CI score predicted mortality risk in patients with aplastic anemia (HRs of 1.00, 1.19, and 2.06 for scores of 0, 1-2, and 3 or greater, respectively), and in patients with immune deficiency (HRs of 1.00, 1.37, and 1.87 for scores of 0, 1-2, and 3 or greater, respectively), and the distribution of comorbidities in patients in these two disease categories was similar to that of the overall cohort.

However, HCT-CI score did not predict mortality risk in those undergoing HCT for hemoglobinopathies (HRs of 1.00, 0.46, and 0.59 for scores of 0, 1-2, and 3 or greater, respectively), Dr. Broglie said, noting that these patients had overall high survival rates regardless of HCT-CI scores, and they had comorbidities that differed from the overall cohort.

HCT is a curative treatment strategy for many patients with nonmalignant diseases but transplant-related mortality remains a concern, she said. While HCT-CI has been shown to be useful for discriminating the risks of nonrelapse and overall survival among patients with hematologic malignancies who undergo allogeneic HCT, its usefulness in patients undergoing HCT for nonmalignant diseases has been less clear.

The distinction is important, as patients with nonmalignant diseases have different pretransplant exposures and may have comorbidities specific to their underlying disease. Furthermore, transplantation approaches – including conditioning regimens and intensities – differ, she said.
 

 

“And the HCT-CI was developed to predict risk of nonrelapse mortality, but relapse in nonmalignant diseases can often be difficult to define,” she added.

The current findings demonstrate the value of the HCT-CI in nonmalignant diseases, and “offer the potential to intervene with transplantation prior to the onset of comorbidities, or with efforts to prevent comorbidities prior to transplantation,” she said, concluding that “future efforts could focus on further refining pretransplant risk assessment for patients with nonmalignant diseases, especially for patients with hemoglobinopathies and HCT-CI scores of less than 3.”

Dr. Broglie reported having no financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Broglie L et al. Abstract 16.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Article Source

REPORTING FROM THE 2018 BMT TANDEM MEETINGS

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Vitals

 

Key clinical point: HCT-CI scores of 3+ may predict mortality after transplant for nonmalignant disease.

Major finding: Hazard ratios for poor survival were 1.33 for scores of 3-4 and 2.31 for scores of 5 or greater, compared with 1.0 and 1.127 for scores of 0 or 1-2, respectively.

Study details: A review of 4,083 patients from the CIBMTR database.

Disclosures: Dr. Broglie reported having no financial disclosures.

Source: Broglie L et al. Abstract 16.

Disqus Comments
Default

ALT-70 score outperformed thermal imaging for cellulitis diagnosis

Article Type
Changed
Tue, 07/21/2020 - 14:18

 

– A simple scoring system surpassed thermal imaging for diagnosing lower extremity cellulitis in a head-to-head, single-center comparison in 67 patients.

The ALT-70 score – which tallies points for asymmetry, leukocytosis, tachycardia, and age of at least 70 years – produced a positive predictive value for lower-extremity cellulitis (LEC) of 80.4% and a negative predictive value of 90.9%, compared with values of 75.5% and 57.1%, respectively, for thermal imaging when researchers applied both methods to 67 patients, said David G. Li, a clinical research fellow in the department of dermatology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, where the study was conducted.

Mitchel Zoler
David Li
“We recommend ALT-70 for routine practice to reduce misdiagnosis of lower-extremity cellulitis,” said Mr. Li.

The senior author of Mr. Li’s report, Arash Mostaghimi, MD, director of the inpatient consultation service, department of dermatology at Brigham and Women’s, was also lead investigator for the team of dermatology researchers – from his center and from Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston – who recently devised the ALT-70 scoring system for diagnosing LEC (J Amer Acad Dermatol. 2017 April;76[4]:618-25.e2).

 

 


The four-item survey can generate a score of 0-7, with a score of 0-2 suggesting need for additional monitoring, a score of 3-4 initiating a dermatology consult, and a score of 5-7 triggering immediate treatment for cellulitis, Mr. Li said. The 2017 review of ALT-70 showed that among 259 patients, those with a score of 0-2 had an 83% likelihood of having pseudocellulitis, while patients with a score of 5-7 had an 82% likelihood of having true cellulitis.

Brigham and Women's Hospital
Dr. Arash Mostaghimi
Thermal imaging of the lower extremity, which identifies cellulitis by a higher skin temperature compared with unaffected areas on the limb, has also recently gained currency as a way to objectively diagnose cellulitis (J Invest Dermatol. 2018 March;138[3]:520-6).

The current study enrolled 67 patients who had a presumptive diagnosis of LEC while in the emergency department or inpatient wards during a 7-month period. In addition to undergoing blinded assessment by both thermal imaging and by ALT-70 scoring, all patients also underwent blinded assessment by a board-certified dermatologist, who provided the definitive diagnosis. The attending dermatologists determined that 46 of the patients had true LEC and 21 patients did not.

The calculated sensitivity of ALT-70 was 97.8%, compared with 87.0% for thermal imaging. Specificity was 47.6% for ALT-70 and 38.1% for thermal imaging, Mr. Li reported at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

 

 


He also presented an analysis of the results when he combined both methods, with a positive on both assessments required to produce a positive LEC diagnosis. This resulted in a positive predictive value of 86.7%, slightly higher than the 80.4% from ALT-70 alone, but the combination produced a negative predictive value of 68.2%, substantially less than the 90.9% rate with ALT-70 alone. This demonstrated the “marginal benefit” from combining the two methods, he said.

In a receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, in which the area under the curve (c-statistic) reflects a diagnostic test’s validity, ALT-70 produced a c-statistic of 0.85, thermal imaging had a c-statistic of 0.63, and when combined, the c-statistic was 0.88.

Mr. Li called for validation of the findings using larger and different patient populations.

He had no reported disclosures.

SOURCE: Li DG et al. AAD 18, Abstract 6744.

Meeting/Event
Publications
Topics
Sections
Meeting/Event
Meeting/Event

 

– A simple scoring system surpassed thermal imaging for diagnosing lower extremity cellulitis in a head-to-head, single-center comparison in 67 patients.

The ALT-70 score – which tallies points for asymmetry, leukocytosis, tachycardia, and age of at least 70 years – produced a positive predictive value for lower-extremity cellulitis (LEC) of 80.4% and a negative predictive value of 90.9%, compared with values of 75.5% and 57.1%, respectively, for thermal imaging when researchers applied both methods to 67 patients, said David G. Li, a clinical research fellow in the department of dermatology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, where the study was conducted.

Mitchel Zoler
David Li
“We recommend ALT-70 for routine practice to reduce misdiagnosis of lower-extremity cellulitis,” said Mr. Li.

The senior author of Mr. Li’s report, Arash Mostaghimi, MD, director of the inpatient consultation service, department of dermatology at Brigham and Women’s, was also lead investigator for the team of dermatology researchers – from his center and from Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston – who recently devised the ALT-70 scoring system for diagnosing LEC (J Amer Acad Dermatol. 2017 April;76[4]:618-25.e2).

 

 


The four-item survey can generate a score of 0-7, with a score of 0-2 suggesting need for additional monitoring, a score of 3-4 initiating a dermatology consult, and a score of 5-7 triggering immediate treatment for cellulitis, Mr. Li said. The 2017 review of ALT-70 showed that among 259 patients, those with a score of 0-2 had an 83% likelihood of having pseudocellulitis, while patients with a score of 5-7 had an 82% likelihood of having true cellulitis.

Brigham and Women's Hospital
Dr. Arash Mostaghimi
Thermal imaging of the lower extremity, which identifies cellulitis by a higher skin temperature compared with unaffected areas on the limb, has also recently gained currency as a way to objectively diagnose cellulitis (J Invest Dermatol. 2018 March;138[3]:520-6).

The current study enrolled 67 patients who had a presumptive diagnosis of LEC while in the emergency department or inpatient wards during a 7-month period. In addition to undergoing blinded assessment by both thermal imaging and by ALT-70 scoring, all patients also underwent blinded assessment by a board-certified dermatologist, who provided the definitive diagnosis. The attending dermatologists determined that 46 of the patients had true LEC and 21 patients did not.

The calculated sensitivity of ALT-70 was 97.8%, compared with 87.0% for thermal imaging. Specificity was 47.6% for ALT-70 and 38.1% for thermal imaging, Mr. Li reported at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

 

 


He also presented an analysis of the results when he combined both methods, with a positive on both assessments required to produce a positive LEC diagnosis. This resulted in a positive predictive value of 86.7%, slightly higher than the 80.4% from ALT-70 alone, but the combination produced a negative predictive value of 68.2%, substantially less than the 90.9% rate with ALT-70 alone. This demonstrated the “marginal benefit” from combining the two methods, he said.

In a receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, in which the area under the curve (c-statistic) reflects a diagnostic test’s validity, ALT-70 produced a c-statistic of 0.85, thermal imaging had a c-statistic of 0.63, and when combined, the c-statistic was 0.88.

Mr. Li called for validation of the findings using larger and different patient populations.

He had no reported disclosures.

SOURCE: Li DG et al. AAD 18, Abstract 6744.

 

– A simple scoring system surpassed thermal imaging for diagnosing lower extremity cellulitis in a head-to-head, single-center comparison in 67 patients.

The ALT-70 score – which tallies points for asymmetry, leukocytosis, tachycardia, and age of at least 70 years – produced a positive predictive value for lower-extremity cellulitis (LEC) of 80.4% and a negative predictive value of 90.9%, compared with values of 75.5% and 57.1%, respectively, for thermal imaging when researchers applied both methods to 67 patients, said David G. Li, a clinical research fellow in the department of dermatology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, where the study was conducted.

Mitchel Zoler
David Li
“We recommend ALT-70 for routine practice to reduce misdiagnosis of lower-extremity cellulitis,” said Mr. Li.

The senior author of Mr. Li’s report, Arash Mostaghimi, MD, director of the inpatient consultation service, department of dermatology at Brigham and Women’s, was also lead investigator for the team of dermatology researchers – from his center and from Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston – who recently devised the ALT-70 scoring system for diagnosing LEC (J Amer Acad Dermatol. 2017 April;76[4]:618-25.e2).

 

 


The four-item survey can generate a score of 0-7, with a score of 0-2 suggesting need for additional monitoring, a score of 3-4 initiating a dermatology consult, and a score of 5-7 triggering immediate treatment for cellulitis, Mr. Li said. The 2017 review of ALT-70 showed that among 259 patients, those with a score of 0-2 had an 83% likelihood of having pseudocellulitis, while patients with a score of 5-7 had an 82% likelihood of having true cellulitis.

Brigham and Women's Hospital
Dr. Arash Mostaghimi
Thermal imaging of the lower extremity, which identifies cellulitis by a higher skin temperature compared with unaffected areas on the limb, has also recently gained currency as a way to objectively diagnose cellulitis (J Invest Dermatol. 2018 March;138[3]:520-6).

The current study enrolled 67 patients who had a presumptive diagnosis of LEC while in the emergency department or inpatient wards during a 7-month period. In addition to undergoing blinded assessment by both thermal imaging and by ALT-70 scoring, all patients also underwent blinded assessment by a board-certified dermatologist, who provided the definitive diagnosis. The attending dermatologists determined that 46 of the patients had true LEC and 21 patients did not.

The calculated sensitivity of ALT-70 was 97.8%, compared with 87.0% for thermal imaging. Specificity was 47.6% for ALT-70 and 38.1% for thermal imaging, Mr. Li reported at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

 

 


He also presented an analysis of the results when he combined both methods, with a positive on both assessments required to produce a positive LEC diagnosis. This resulted in a positive predictive value of 86.7%, slightly higher than the 80.4% from ALT-70 alone, but the combination produced a negative predictive value of 68.2%, substantially less than the 90.9% rate with ALT-70 alone. This demonstrated the “marginal benefit” from combining the two methods, he said.

In a receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, in which the area under the curve (c-statistic) reflects a diagnostic test’s validity, ALT-70 produced a c-statistic of 0.85, thermal imaging had a c-statistic of 0.63, and when combined, the c-statistic was 0.88.

Mr. Li called for validation of the findings using larger and different patient populations.

He had no reported disclosures.

SOURCE: Li DG et al. AAD 18, Abstract 6744.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Article Source

REPORTING FROM AAD 18

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Vitals

 

Key clinical point: The ALT-70 score surpassed thermal imaging for diagnosing lower-extremity cellulitis.

Major finding: Positive and negative predictive values were 80.4% and 90.9% for ALT-70 and 75.5% and 57.1% for thermal imaging.

Study details: A single-center study with 67 patients.

Disclosures: Mr. Li had no disclosures.

Source: Li DG et al. AAD 18, Abstract 6744.

Disqus Comments
Default