MADRID – More than half of young adults with juvenile idiopathic arthritis have comorbid conditions that impact their daily quality of life.

The issues range from directly disease-related – like uveitis – to more tangentially associated problems, like depression, Kirsten Minden, MD, said at the European Congress of Rheumatology.

utah778/Thinkstock

msullivan@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @Alz_gal

MADRID – More than half of young adults with juvenile idiopathic arthritis have comorbid conditions that impact their daily quality of life.

The issues range from directly disease-related – like uveitis – to more tangentially associated problems, like depression, Kirsten Minden, MD, said at the European Congress of Rheumatology.

utah778/Thinkstock

msullivan@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @Alz_gal

MADRID – More than half of young adults with juvenile idiopathic arthritis have comorbid conditions that impact their daily quality of life.

The issues range from directly disease-related – like uveitis – to more tangentially associated problems, like depression, Kirsten Minden, MD, said at the European Congress of Rheumatology.

utah778/Thinkstock

msullivan@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @Alz_gal

Since publication of initial findings of the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) in 2002, use of systemic menopausal hormone therapy (HT) has declined by some 80% among US women.¹ Against this backdrop, this year’s Menopause Update highlights the “hot off the press” updated position statement on menopausal HT from The North American Menopause Society (NAMS), summarized by Dr. JoAnn V. Pinkerton. Although this guidance is chock full of practical, evidence-based guidance, the take-home message that Dr. Pinkerton and I would like to leave readers of OBG Management with is that for women with bothersome menopausal symptoms aged in their 50s or within 10 years of the onset of menopause who are free of contraindications, use of systemic HT is appropriate.

Related Article:
Dr. Andrew M. Kaunitz on prescribing systemic HT to older women

Although menopausal vasomotor and related symptoms improve as women age, in untreated women, vulvovaginal atrophy (VVA, also known as genitourinary syndrome of menopause, or GSM) tends to progress, causing vaginal dryness and sexual dysfunction, among other symptoms. When symptomatic GSM represents the only indication for treatment, low-dose local vaginal estrogen, ospemifene, or dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA; prasterone) is safe and effective. However, as with systemic HT, specific treatments for GSM are substantially underutilized.² The current package labeling for low-dose vaginal estrogen deters many appropriate candidates from using this safe, effective treatment. In this Update, Dr. JoAnn E. Manson reviews the rationale for updating this labeling as well as recent efforts to accomplish the task.

Read about updated NAMS guidelines on HT

Guidelines on HT have been updated by The North American Menopause Society

The 2017 hormone therapy position statement of The North American Menopause Society [published online ahead of print June 2017]. Menopause.

The North American Menopause Society Hormone Therapy (HT) Position Statement Advisory Panel, composed of more than 20 experts in menopausal women's HT, including clinicians, researchers, and epidemiologists, reviewed the 2012 HT Position Statement, evaluated prior and new literature and used levels of evidence to identify the quality of the evidence and strength of the recommendations and to find consensus for the guidelines. The following information comes from the NAMS 2017 Hormone Therapy Position Statement.³

What are the major findings?

HT is the most effective treatment for vasomotor symptoms (VMS) and GSM and has been shown to prevent bone loss and fracture. Risks of HT may differ for women depending on type, dose, duration, route of administration, and timing of initiation and whether or not a progestogen is needed. Treatment should be individualized using the best available evidence to maximize benefits and minimize risks, with periodic reevaluation about benefits and risks of continuing or discontinuing HT.

For women who are younger than age 60 or within 10 years of menopause and have no contraindication, the clearest benefit of HT is for the treatment of VMS and prevention of bone loss in those at elevated risk.

The clinical guidelines were presented to NAMS audience at the 2016 annual clinical meeting, where NAMS recommended "determining the most appropriate type, dose, formulation, and duration of HT."⁴

When to initiate HT and duration of use

In its now-published 2017 guidelines on HT, NAMS affirms the safety and efficacy of HT for symptomatic menopausal women or those at high risk for bone loss who are under age 60 or within 10 years of menopause. NAMS encourages practitioners to employ shared decision making with their patients to find the appropriate type, dose, formulation, and duration of HT, making individualized decisions based on evidence-based information, the unique health risks of women, and with periodic reassessment.

In the clinical guidelines presented in the 2016 NAMS annual meeting,⁴ key recommendations taken from the 2017 Hormone Therapy Position Statement³ include the following: For women who are aged younger than 60 years or within 10 years of menopause and have no contraindications, the benefit/risk ratio appears favorable for treatment of bothersome VMS and in those at elevated risk for bone loss or fracture.

For women who initiate HT more than 10 years from menopause or after age 60, this benefit/risk ratio appears less favorable because of greater absolute risks of coronary heart disease, stroke, venous thromboembolism, and dementia.

What about extended use of hormone therapy? There is no evidence to support routine discontinuation of HT after age 65. Decisions about longer durations of HT should be individualized and considered for indications such as persistent VMS or bone loss, with shared decision making, documentation, and periodic reevaluation. Longer duration is more favorable for estrogen therapy than for estrogen-progestin therapy, based on the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) randomized controlled trials.⁵

What about only vaginal symptoms? For bothersome GSM not relieved with over-the-counter therapies and without indications for use of systemic HT, low-dose vaginal estrogen therapy or other therapies are recommended and can be continued as long as indicated since there is minimal systemic absorption of estrogen, with serum levels remaining within the normal postmenopausal range.^6,7 For women with estrogen sensitive cancer, oncologists should be included in decision making, particularly for women on aromatase inhibitors.

Considerations for special populations Early menopause. For women with hypoestrogenism, primary ovarian insufficiency, or premature surgical menopause without contraindications, HT is recommended until at least the median age of menopause (52 years), as studies suggest that benefits outweigh the risks for effects on bone, heart, cognition, GSM, sexual function, and mood.⁸

Family history of breast cancer. Observational evidence suggests that use of HT does not further alter the risk for breast cancer in women with a family history of breast cancer. Family history is one risk, among others, that should be assessed when counseling women regarding HT.

Women who are BRCA-positive without breast cancer. For women who are BRCA-positive (higher genetic risk of breast cancer, primarily estrogen-receptor-negative), and have undergone surgical menopause (bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy), the benefits of estrogen to decrease health risks caused by premature loss of estrogen need to be considered on an individual basis.⁹ On the basis of limited observational studies, consider offering systemic HT until the median age of menopause (52 years) with longer use individualized.³

Related Article:
Is menopausal hormone therapy safe when your patient carries a BRCA mutation?

Survivors of endometrial and breast cancer with bothersome VMS. For women with prior estrogen-sensitive cancers, non-HTs should be considered first, particularly those agents studied through randomized controlled trials in this population and found to be effective. If systemic estrogen is considered for persistent symptoms after non-HT or complementary options have been unsuccessful, decisions should be made for compelling reasons and after detailed counseling, with shared decision making and in conjunction with their oncologist.³ 

Bothersome GSM. On the basis of limited observational data, there appears to be minimal to no demonstrated elevation in risk for recurrence of endometrial or breast cancer using low-dose vaginal estrogen,^3,10 but decisions should be made in conjunction with an oncologist.

Related Article:
Focus on treating genital atrophy symptoms
 

The importance of relaying the new guidelines to patients

It is important for clinicians to talk to women about their menopausal symptoms and their options for relief of symptoms or prevention of bone loss. Discussion should take into account age and time from menopause, include evidence-based information^11-13 about benefits and risks of different types of therapy, and employ shared decision making to choose the most appropriate therapy to maximize benefits and minimize risks for the individual woman.

Following the WHI initial release in 2002, both women and providers became fearful of HT and believed media hype and celebrities that compounded bioidentical HT was safer than FDA-approved HTs. However, compounded products lack safety and efficacy data, are not monitored or regulated by the FDA, and have unique risks associated with compounding, including concerns about sterility, impurities, and overdosing or underdosing, which could increase cancer risk.³

Read about modifying low-dose vaginal estrogen’s black box warning

Physicians continue to underwhelmingly prescribe low-dose vaginal estrogen for GSM 

Kingsberg SA, Krychman M, Graham S, Bernick B, Mirkin S. The Women's EMPOWER survey: identifying women's perceptions on vulvar and vaginal atrophy and its treatment. J Sex Med. 2017;14(3):413-424.

GSM is seriously underrecognized and undertreated.^2,8,14 It has a major impact on women's lives--a silent epidemic affecting women's quality of life, sexual health, interpersonal relationships, and even physical health in terms of increased risk of urinary tract infections and urinary symptoms. Unfortunately, patients are reluctant to mention the problem to their clinicians, and they do not clearly recognize it as a medical condition that has available treatment options. Clinicians also rarely receive adequate training in the management of this condition and how to discuss it with their patients. Given busy schedules and time constraints, addressing this topic often falls through the cracks, representing a missed opportunity for helping our patients with safe and effective treatments. In a recent study by Kingsberg and colleagues, an astoundingly low percentageof women with GSM symptoms received treatment. 

Details of the study

The study authors evaluated women's perceptions of GSM and available treatment options. US women aged 45 and older who reported GSM symptoms were surveyed. Of 1,858 women with a median age of 58 (range, 45-90), the study authors found that 50% had never used any treatment; 25% used over-the-counter medications; 18% were former users of GSM treatments; and 7% currently used prescribed GSM therapies.

When GSM was discussed, women were more likely than their clinicians to initiate the conversation. The main reason for women not mentioning their symptoms was the perception that GSM symptoms were a natural and inevitable part of aging. Hormonal products were perceived by women as having several downsides, including risk of systemic absorption, messiness of local creams, and the need to reuse an applicator. Overall, clinicians recommended vaginal estrogen therapy to only 23% and oral HTs to 18% of women.

The results of the study are consistent with results of earlier surveys of menopausal women. Although the survey included nearly 2,000 women, it has the potential for selection biases inherent to most Internet-based surveys. In addition, the respondents tended to be white and have higher socieconomic status, with limited representation from other groups.

Calls for the current boxed warning to be revised

GSM is highly prevalent among postmenopausal women; the condition has adverse effects on quality of life and sexual health.^2,8,14 Safe and effective treatments are available but are underutilized.^1,8,15,16 A current boxed warning appears on low-dose vaginal estrogen--class labeling that appears on all medications in the class of estrogen or HT, regardless of dose or route of administration. These warnings are based on findings from the WHI and other studies of systemic estrogen or estrogen plus progestin, which demonstrated a complex pattern of risks and benefits of HT (including increased risk of venous thrombosis or pulmonary embolism, stroke, and breast cancer [with estrogen plus progestin]).

These findings, however, do not appear to be relevant to low-dose vaginal estrogen, given minimal if any systemic absorption and much lower blood levels of hormones than found with systemic HT. Blood levels of estradiol with low-dose vaginal estrogen remain in the normal postmenopausal range, compared to several-fold elevations in hormone levels with systemic HT.^8,15,16 Additionally, observational studies of low-dose vaginal estrogen, as well as short-term randomized clinical trials, show no evidence of an increased risk of venous thromboembolic events, heart disease, stroke, breast cancer, or dementia--the listed possible adverse effects in the boxed warning. The current warning is based on extrapolating findings from systemic HT, which is inappropriate and not evidence-based for low-dose vaginal estrogen.¹⁵

The inappropriate boxed warning contributes to the problem of undertreatment of GSM in women by discouraging clinicians from prescribing the medication and dissuading patients from taking it even after purchase. Testimonials from many clinicians caring for these women have underscored that women will fill their prescription, but after seeing the boxed warning will often become alarmed and decide not to take the medication. Clinicians reported that patients often say at their next appointment: "No, I never took it. I got very scared when I saw the boxed warning." As a result, clinicians often have to spend a great deal of time explaining the limitations of, and lack of evidence for, the boxed warning on low-dose vaginal estrogen.

Related Article:
2016 Update on menopause
 

Recommended label revisions

A modified label, without a boxed warning, would be safer for women because the key messages would not be obscured by the large amount of irrelevant information. Our Working Group recommended that the label explain that the listed risks were found in studies of systemic HT and their relevance to low-dose vaginal estrogen is unknown. The Group also recommended that warning text should be added in bold font to advise  patients to seek medical attention if they have vaginal bleeding or spotting while taking the medication. In addition, patients who have a history of breast cancer or other hormone-sensitive cancer should discuss the use of the medication with their oncologist.   

Status update on efforts to revise label. A citizen's petition was filed in the Spring of 2016, with signatures from more than 600 clinicians and patients and representatives of medical and professional organizations endorsing a more appropriate evidence-based label for low-dose vaginal estrogen. The FDA is continuing to review and deliberate on these issues but has not yet made a final decision.  

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

Since publication of initial findings of the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) in 2002, use of systemic menopausal hormone therapy (HT) has declined by some 80% among US women.¹ Against this backdrop, this year’s Menopause Update highlights the “hot off the press” updated position statement on menopausal HT from The North American Menopause Society (NAMS), summarized by Dr. JoAnn V. Pinkerton. Although this guidance is chock full of practical, evidence-based guidance, the take-home message that Dr. Pinkerton and I would like to leave readers of OBG Management with is that for women with bothersome menopausal symptoms aged in their 50s or within 10 years of the onset of menopause who are free of contraindications, use of systemic HT is appropriate.

Related Article:
Dr. Andrew M. Kaunitz on prescribing systemic HT to older women

Although menopausal vasomotor and related symptoms improve as women age, in untreated women, vulvovaginal atrophy (VVA, also known as genitourinary syndrome of menopause, or GSM) tends to progress, causing vaginal dryness and sexual dysfunction, among other symptoms. When symptomatic GSM represents the only indication for treatment, low-dose local vaginal estrogen, ospemifene, or dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA; prasterone) is safe and effective. However, as with systemic HT, specific treatments for GSM are substantially underutilized.² The current package labeling for low-dose vaginal estrogen deters many appropriate candidates from using this safe, effective treatment. In this Update, Dr. JoAnn E. Manson reviews the rationale for updating this labeling as well as recent efforts to accomplish the task.

Read about updated NAMS guidelines on HT

Guidelines on HT have been updated by The North American Menopause Society

The 2017 hormone therapy position statement of The North American Menopause Society [published online ahead of print June 2017]. Menopause.

The North American Menopause Society Hormone Therapy (HT) Position Statement Advisory Panel, composed of more than 20 experts in menopausal women's HT, including clinicians, researchers, and epidemiologists, reviewed the 2012 HT Position Statement, evaluated prior and new literature and used levels of evidence to identify the quality of the evidence and strength of the recommendations and to find consensus for the guidelines. The following information comes from the NAMS 2017 Hormone Therapy Position Statement.³

What are the major findings?

HT is the most effective treatment for vasomotor symptoms (VMS) and GSM and has been shown to prevent bone loss and fracture. Risks of HT may differ for women depending on type, dose, duration, route of administration, and timing of initiation and whether or not a progestogen is needed. Treatment should be individualized using the best available evidence to maximize benefits and minimize risks, with periodic reevaluation about benefits and risks of continuing or discontinuing HT.

For women who are younger than age 60 or within 10 years of menopause and have no contraindication, the clearest benefit of HT is for the treatment of VMS and prevention of bone loss in those at elevated risk.

The clinical guidelines were presented to NAMS audience at the 2016 annual clinical meeting, where NAMS recommended "determining the most appropriate type, dose, formulation, and duration of HT."⁴

When to initiate HT and duration of use

In its now-published 2017 guidelines on HT, NAMS affirms the safety and efficacy of HT for symptomatic menopausal women or those at high risk for bone loss who are under age 60 or within 10 years of menopause. NAMS encourages practitioners to employ shared decision making with their patients to find the appropriate type, dose, formulation, and duration of HT, making individualized decisions based on evidence-based information, the unique health risks of women, and with periodic reassessment.

In the clinical guidelines presented in the 2016 NAMS annual meeting,⁴ key recommendations taken from the 2017 Hormone Therapy Position Statement³ include the following: For women who are aged younger than 60 years or within 10 years of menopause and have no contraindications, the benefit/risk ratio appears favorable for treatment of bothersome VMS and in those at elevated risk for bone loss or fracture.

For women who initiate HT more than 10 years from menopause or after age 60, this benefit/risk ratio appears less favorable because of greater absolute risks of coronary heart disease, stroke, venous thromboembolism, and dementia.

What about extended use of hormone therapy? There is no evidence to support routine discontinuation of HT after age 65. Decisions about longer durations of HT should be individualized and considered for indications such as persistent VMS or bone loss, with shared decision making, documentation, and periodic reevaluation. Longer duration is more favorable for estrogen therapy than for estrogen-progestin therapy, based on the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) randomized controlled trials.⁵

What about only vaginal symptoms? For bothersome GSM not relieved with over-the-counter therapies and without indications for use of systemic HT, low-dose vaginal estrogen therapy or other therapies are recommended and can be continued as long as indicated since there is minimal systemic absorption of estrogen, with serum levels remaining within the normal postmenopausal range.^6,7 For women with estrogen sensitive cancer, oncologists should be included in decision making, particularly for women on aromatase inhibitors.

Considerations for special populations Early menopause. For women with hypoestrogenism, primary ovarian insufficiency, or premature surgical menopause without contraindications, HT is recommended until at least the median age of menopause (52 years), as studies suggest that benefits outweigh the risks for effects on bone, heart, cognition, GSM, sexual function, and mood.⁸

Family history of breast cancer. Observational evidence suggests that use of HT does not further alter the risk for breast cancer in women with a family history of breast cancer. Family history is one risk, among others, that should be assessed when counseling women regarding HT.

Women who are BRCA-positive without breast cancer. For women who are BRCA-positive (higher genetic risk of breast cancer, primarily estrogen-receptor-negative), and have undergone surgical menopause (bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy), the benefits of estrogen to decrease health risks caused by premature loss of estrogen need to be considered on an individual basis.⁹ On the basis of limited observational studies, consider offering systemic HT until the median age of menopause (52 years) with longer use individualized.³

Related Article:
Is menopausal hormone therapy safe when your patient carries a BRCA mutation?

Survivors of endometrial and breast cancer with bothersome VMS. For women with prior estrogen-sensitive cancers, non-HTs should be considered first, particularly those agents studied through randomized controlled trials in this population and found to be effective. If systemic estrogen is considered for persistent symptoms after non-HT or complementary options have been unsuccessful, decisions should be made for compelling reasons and after detailed counseling, with shared decision making and in conjunction with their oncologist.³ 

Bothersome GSM. On the basis of limited observational data, there appears to be minimal to no demonstrated elevation in risk for recurrence of endometrial or breast cancer using low-dose vaginal estrogen,^3,10 but decisions should be made in conjunction with an oncologist.

Related Article:
Focus on treating genital atrophy symptoms
 

The importance of relaying the new guidelines to patients

It is important for clinicians to talk to women about their menopausal symptoms and their options for relief of symptoms or prevention of bone loss. Discussion should take into account age and time from menopause, include evidence-based information^11-13 about benefits and risks of different types of therapy, and employ shared decision making to choose the most appropriate therapy to maximize benefits and minimize risks for the individual woman.

Following the WHI initial release in 2002, both women and providers became fearful of HT and believed media hype and celebrities that compounded bioidentical HT was safer than FDA-approved HTs. However, compounded products lack safety and efficacy data, are not monitored or regulated by the FDA, and have unique risks associated with compounding, including concerns about sterility, impurities, and overdosing or underdosing, which could increase cancer risk.³

Read about modifying low-dose vaginal estrogen’s black box warning

Physicians continue to underwhelmingly prescribe low-dose vaginal estrogen for GSM 

Kingsberg SA, Krychman M, Graham S, Bernick B, Mirkin S. The Women's EMPOWER survey: identifying women's perceptions on vulvar and vaginal atrophy and its treatment. J Sex Med. 2017;14(3):413-424.

GSM is seriously underrecognized and undertreated.^2,8,14 It has a major impact on women's lives--a silent epidemic affecting women's quality of life, sexual health, interpersonal relationships, and even physical health in terms of increased risk of urinary tract infections and urinary symptoms. Unfortunately, patients are reluctant to mention the problem to their clinicians, and they do not clearly recognize it as a medical condition that has available treatment options. Clinicians also rarely receive adequate training in the management of this condition and how to discuss it with their patients. Given busy schedules and time constraints, addressing this topic often falls through the cracks, representing a missed opportunity for helping our patients with safe and effective treatments. In a recent study by Kingsberg and colleagues, an astoundingly low percentageof women with GSM symptoms received treatment. 

Details of the study

The study authors evaluated women's perceptions of GSM and available treatment options. US women aged 45 and older who reported GSM symptoms were surveyed. Of 1,858 women with a median age of 58 (range, 45-90), the study authors found that 50% had never used any treatment; 25% used over-the-counter medications; 18% were former users of GSM treatments; and 7% currently used prescribed GSM therapies.

When GSM was discussed, women were more likely than their clinicians to initiate the conversation. The main reason for women not mentioning their symptoms was the perception that GSM symptoms were a natural and inevitable part of aging. Hormonal products were perceived by women as having several downsides, including risk of systemic absorption, messiness of local creams, and the need to reuse an applicator. Overall, clinicians recommended vaginal estrogen therapy to only 23% and oral HTs to 18% of women.

The results of the study are consistent with results of earlier surveys of menopausal women. Although the survey included nearly 2,000 women, it has the potential for selection biases inherent to most Internet-based surveys. In addition, the respondents tended to be white and have higher socieconomic status, with limited representation from other groups.

Calls for the current boxed warning to be revised

GSM is highly prevalent among postmenopausal women; the condition has adverse effects on quality of life and sexual health.^2,8,14 Safe and effective treatments are available but are underutilized.^1,8,15,16 A current boxed warning appears on low-dose vaginal estrogen--class labeling that appears on all medications in the class of estrogen or HT, regardless of dose or route of administration. These warnings are based on findings from the WHI and other studies of systemic estrogen or estrogen plus progestin, which demonstrated a complex pattern of risks and benefits of HT (including increased risk of venous thrombosis or pulmonary embolism, stroke, and breast cancer [with estrogen plus progestin]).

These findings, however, do not appear to be relevant to low-dose vaginal estrogen, given minimal if any systemic absorption and much lower blood levels of hormones than found with systemic HT. Blood levels of estradiol with low-dose vaginal estrogen remain in the normal postmenopausal range, compared to several-fold elevations in hormone levels with systemic HT.^8,15,16 Additionally, observational studies of low-dose vaginal estrogen, as well as short-term randomized clinical trials, show no evidence of an increased risk of venous thromboembolic events, heart disease, stroke, breast cancer, or dementia--the listed possible adverse effects in the boxed warning. The current warning is based on extrapolating findings from systemic HT, which is inappropriate and not evidence-based for low-dose vaginal estrogen.¹⁵

The inappropriate boxed warning contributes to the problem of undertreatment of GSM in women by discouraging clinicians from prescribing the medication and dissuading patients from taking it even after purchase. Testimonials from many clinicians caring for these women have underscored that women will fill their prescription, but after seeing the boxed warning will often become alarmed and decide not to take the medication. Clinicians reported that patients often say at their next appointment: "No, I never took it. I got very scared when I saw the boxed warning." As a result, clinicians often have to spend a great deal of time explaining the limitations of, and lack of evidence for, the boxed warning on low-dose vaginal estrogen.

Related Article:
2016 Update on menopause
 

Recommended label revisions

A modified label, without a boxed warning, would be safer for women because the key messages would not be obscured by the large amount of irrelevant information. Our Working Group recommended that the label explain that the listed risks were found in studies of systemic HT and their relevance to low-dose vaginal estrogen is unknown. The Group also recommended that warning text should be added in bold font to advise  patients to seek medical attention if they have vaginal bleeding or spotting while taking the medication. In addition, patients who have a history of breast cancer or other hormone-sensitive cancer should discuss the use of the medication with their oncologist.   

Status update on efforts to revise label. A citizen's petition was filed in the Spring of 2016, with signatures from more than 600 clinicians and patients and representatives of medical and professional organizations endorsing a more appropriate evidence-based label for low-dose vaginal estrogen. The FDA is continuing to review and deliberate on these issues but has not yet made a final decision.  

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

Since publication of initial findings of the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) in 2002, use of systemic menopausal hormone therapy (HT) has declined by some 80% among US women.¹ Against this backdrop, this year’s Menopause Update highlights the “hot off the press” updated position statement on menopausal HT from The North American Menopause Society (NAMS), summarized by Dr. JoAnn V. Pinkerton. Although this guidance is chock full of practical, evidence-based guidance, the take-home message that Dr. Pinkerton and I would like to leave readers of OBG Management with is that for women with bothersome menopausal symptoms aged in their 50s or within 10 years of the onset of menopause who are free of contraindications, use of systemic HT is appropriate.

Related Article:
Dr. Andrew M. Kaunitz on prescribing systemic HT to older women

Although menopausal vasomotor and related symptoms improve as women age, in untreated women, vulvovaginal atrophy (VVA, also known as genitourinary syndrome of menopause, or GSM) tends to progress, causing vaginal dryness and sexual dysfunction, among other symptoms. When symptomatic GSM represents the only indication for treatment, low-dose local vaginal estrogen, ospemifene, or dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA; prasterone) is safe and effective. However, as with systemic HT, specific treatments for GSM are substantially underutilized.² The current package labeling for low-dose vaginal estrogen deters many appropriate candidates from using this safe, effective treatment. In this Update, Dr. JoAnn E. Manson reviews the rationale for updating this labeling as well as recent efforts to accomplish the task.

Read about updated NAMS guidelines on HT

Guidelines on HT have been updated by The North American Menopause Society

The 2017 hormone therapy position statement of The North American Menopause Society [published online ahead of print June 2017]. Menopause.

The North American Menopause Society Hormone Therapy (HT) Position Statement Advisory Panel, composed of more than 20 experts in menopausal women's HT, including clinicians, researchers, and epidemiologists, reviewed the 2012 HT Position Statement, evaluated prior and new literature and used levels of evidence to identify the quality of the evidence and strength of the recommendations and to find consensus for the guidelines. The following information comes from the NAMS 2017 Hormone Therapy Position Statement.³

What are the major findings?

HT is the most effective treatment for vasomotor symptoms (VMS) and GSM and has been shown to prevent bone loss and fracture. Risks of HT may differ for women depending on type, dose, duration, route of administration, and timing of initiation and whether or not a progestogen is needed. Treatment should be individualized using the best available evidence to maximize benefits and minimize risks, with periodic reevaluation about benefits and risks of continuing or discontinuing HT.

For women who are younger than age 60 or within 10 years of menopause and have no contraindication, the clearest benefit of HT is for the treatment of VMS and prevention of bone loss in those at elevated risk.

The clinical guidelines were presented to NAMS audience at the 2016 annual clinical meeting, where NAMS recommended "determining the most appropriate type, dose, formulation, and duration of HT."⁴

When to initiate HT and duration of use

In its now-published 2017 guidelines on HT, NAMS affirms the safety and efficacy of HT for symptomatic menopausal women or those at high risk for bone loss who are under age 60 or within 10 years of menopause. NAMS encourages practitioners to employ shared decision making with their patients to find the appropriate type, dose, formulation, and duration of HT, making individualized decisions based on evidence-based information, the unique health risks of women, and with periodic reassessment.

In the clinical guidelines presented in the 2016 NAMS annual meeting,⁴ key recommendations taken from the 2017 Hormone Therapy Position Statement³ include the following: For women who are aged younger than 60 years or within 10 years of menopause and have no contraindications, the benefit/risk ratio appears favorable for treatment of bothersome VMS and in those at elevated risk for bone loss or fracture.

For women who initiate HT more than 10 years from menopause or after age 60, this benefit/risk ratio appears less favorable because of greater absolute risks of coronary heart disease, stroke, venous thromboembolism, and dementia.

What about extended use of hormone therapy? There is no evidence to support routine discontinuation of HT after age 65. Decisions about longer durations of HT should be individualized and considered for indications such as persistent VMS or bone loss, with shared decision making, documentation, and periodic reevaluation. Longer duration is more favorable for estrogen therapy than for estrogen-progestin therapy, based on the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) randomized controlled trials.⁵

What about only vaginal symptoms? For bothersome GSM not relieved with over-the-counter therapies and without indications for use of systemic HT, low-dose vaginal estrogen therapy or other therapies are recommended and can be continued as long as indicated since there is minimal systemic absorption of estrogen, with serum levels remaining within the normal postmenopausal range.^6,7 For women with estrogen sensitive cancer, oncologists should be included in decision making, particularly for women on aromatase inhibitors.

Considerations for special populations Early menopause. For women with hypoestrogenism, primary ovarian insufficiency, or premature surgical menopause without contraindications, HT is recommended until at least the median age of menopause (52 years), as studies suggest that benefits outweigh the risks for effects on bone, heart, cognition, GSM, sexual function, and mood.⁸

Family history of breast cancer. Observational evidence suggests that use of HT does not further alter the risk for breast cancer in women with a family history of breast cancer. Family history is one risk, among others, that should be assessed when counseling women regarding HT.

Women who are BRCA-positive without breast cancer. For women who are BRCA-positive (higher genetic risk of breast cancer, primarily estrogen-receptor-negative), and have undergone surgical menopause (bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy), the benefits of estrogen to decrease health risks caused by premature loss of estrogen need to be considered on an individual basis.⁹ On the basis of limited observational studies, consider offering systemic HT until the median age of menopause (52 years) with longer use individualized.³

Related Article:
Is menopausal hormone therapy safe when your patient carries a BRCA mutation?

Survivors of endometrial and breast cancer with bothersome VMS. For women with prior estrogen-sensitive cancers, non-HTs should be considered first, particularly those agents studied through randomized controlled trials in this population and found to be effective. If systemic estrogen is considered for persistent symptoms after non-HT or complementary options have been unsuccessful, decisions should be made for compelling reasons and after detailed counseling, with shared decision making and in conjunction with their oncologist.³ 

Bothersome GSM. On the basis of limited observational data, there appears to be minimal to no demonstrated elevation in risk for recurrence of endometrial or breast cancer using low-dose vaginal estrogen,^3,10 but decisions should be made in conjunction with an oncologist.

Related Article:
Focus on treating genital atrophy symptoms
 

The importance of relaying the new guidelines to patients

It is important for clinicians to talk to women about their menopausal symptoms and their options for relief of symptoms or prevention of bone loss. Discussion should take into account age and time from menopause, include evidence-based information^11-13 about benefits and risks of different types of therapy, and employ shared decision making to choose the most appropriate therapy to maximize benefits and minimize risks for the individual woman.

Following the WHI initial release in 2002, both women and providers became fearful of HT and believed media hype and celebrities that compounded bioidentical HT was safer than FDA-approved HTs. However, compounded products lack safety and efficacy data, are not monitored or regulated by the FDA, and have unique risks associated with compounding, including concerns about sterility, impurities, and overdosing or underdosing, which could increase cancer risk.³

Read about modifying low-dose vaginal estrogen’s black box warning

Physicians continue to underwhelmingly prescribe low-dose vaginal estrogen for GSM 

Kingsberg SA, Krychman M, Graham S, Bernick B, Mirkin S. The Women's EMPOWER survey: identifying women's perceptions on vulvar and vaginal atrophy and its treatment. J Sex Med. 2017;14(3):413-424.

GSM is seriously underrecognized and undertreated.^2,8,14 It has a major impact on women's lives--a silent epidemic affecting women's quality of life, sexual health, interpersonal relationships, and even physical health in terms of increased risk of urinary tract infections and urinary symptoms. Unfortunately, patients are reluctant to mention the problem to their clinicians, and they do not clearly recognize it as a medical condition that has available treatment options. Clinicians also rarely receive adequate training in the management of this condition and how to discuss it with their patients. Given busy schedules and time constraints, addressing this topic often falls through the cracks, representing a missed opportunity for helping our patients with safe and effective treatments. In a recent study by Kingsberg and colleagues, an astoundingly low percentageof women with GSM symptoms received treatment. 

Details of the study

The study authors evaluated women's perceptions of GSM and available treatment options. US women aged 45 and older who reported GSM symptoms were surveyed. Of 1,858 women with a median age of 58 (range, 45-90), the study authors found that 50% had never used any treatment; 25% used over-the-counter medications; 18% were former users of GSM treatments; and 7% currently used prescribed GSM therapies.

When GSM was discussed, women were more likely than their clinicians to initiate the conversation. The main reason for women not mentioning their symptoms was the perception that GSM symptoms were a natural and inevitable part of aging. Hormonal products were perceived by women as having several downsides, including risk of systemic absorption, messiness of local creams, and the need to reuse an applicator. Overall, clinicians recommended vaginal estrogen therapy to only 23% and oral HTs to 18% of women.

The results of the study are consistent with results of earlier surveys of menopausal women. Although the survey included nearly 2,000 women, it has the potential for selection biases inherent to most Internet-based surveys. In addition, the respondents tended to be white and have higher socieconomic status, with limited representation from other groups.

Calls for the current boxed warning to be revised

GSM is highly prevalent among postmenopausal women; the condition has adverse effects on quality of life and sexual health.^2,8,14 Safe and effective treatments are available but are underutilized.^1,8,15,16 A current boxed warning appears on low-dose vaginal estrogen--class labeling that appears on all medications in the class of estrogen or HT, regardless of dose or route of administration. These warnings are based on findings from the WHI and other studies of systemic estrogen or estrogen plus progestin, which demonstrated a complex pattern of risks and benefits of HT (including increased risk of venous thrombosis or pulmonary embolism, stroke, and breast cancer [with estrogen plus progestin]).

These findings, however, do not appear to be relevant to low-dose vaginal estrogen, given minimal if any systemic absorption and much lower blood levels of hormones than found with systemic HT. Blood levels of estradiol with low-dose vaginal estrogen remain in the normal postmenopausal range, compared to several-fold elevations in hormone levels with systemic HT.^8,15,16 Additionally, observational studies of low-dose vaginal estrogen, as well as short-term randomized clinical trials, show no evidence of an increased risk of venous thromboembolic events, heart disease, stroke, breast cancer, or dementia--the listed possible adverse effects in the boxed warning. The current warning is based on extrapolating findings from systemic HT, which is inappropriate and not evidence-based for low-dose vaginal estrogen.¹⁵

The inappropriate boxed warning contributes to the problem of undertreatment of GSM in women by discouraging clinicians from prescribing the medication and dissuading patients from taking it even after purchase. Testimonials from many clinicians caring for these women have underscored that women will fill their prescription, but after seeing the boxed warning will often become alarmed and decide not to take the medication. Clinicians reported that patients often say at their next appointment: "No, I never took it. I got very scared when I saw the boxed warning." As a result, clinicians often have to spend a great deal of time explaining the limitations of, and lack of evidence for, the boxed warning on low-dose vaginal estrogen.

Related Article:
2016 Update on menopause
 

Recommended label revisions

A modified label, without a boxed warning, would be safer for women because the key messages would not be obscured by the large amount of irrelevant information. Our Working Group recommended that the label explain that the listed risks were found in studies of systemic HT and their relevance to low-dose vaginal estrogen is unknown. The Group also recommended that warning text should be added in bold font to advise  patients to seek medical attention if they have vaginal bleeding or spotting while taking the medication. In addition, patients who have a history of breast cancer or other hormone-sensitive cancer should discuss the use of the medication with their oncologist.   

Status update on efforts to revise label. A citizen's petition was filed in the Spring of 2016, with signatures from more than 600 clinicians and patients and representatives of medical and professional organizations endorsing a more appropriate evidence-based label for low-dose vaginal estrogen. The FDA is continuing to review and deliberate on these issues but has not yet made a final decision.  

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

MADRID – The anti-IL-23 antibody ustekinumab cleared enthesitis significantly better than did TNF-blockade in a small, open-label trial of patients with psoriatic arthritis

After 6 months on the drug, 71% of those taking the antibody achieved a score of 0 on the Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada (SPARCC) scale, representing a complete absence of enthesitis, Elizabeth Araujo, MD, said at the European Congress of Rheumatology. Just 38% of those on TNF-inhibitors achieved that score.

msullivan@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @Alz_gal

MADRID – The anti-IL-23 antibody ustekinumab cleared enthesitis significantly better than did TNF-blockade in a small, open-label trial of patients with psoriatic arthritis

After 6 months on the drug, 71% of those taking the antibody achieved a score of 0 on the Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada (SPARCC) scale, representing a complete absence of enthesitis, Elizabeth Araujo, MD, said at the European Congress of Rheumatology. Just 38% of those on TNF-inhibitors achieved that score.

msullivan@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @Alz_gal

MADRID – The anti-IL-23 antibody ustekinumab cleared enthesitis significantly better than did TNF-blockade in a small, open-label trial of patients with psoriatic arthritis

After 6 months on the drug, 71% of those taking the antibody achieved a score of 0 on the Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada (SPARCC) scale, representing a complete absence of enthesitis, Elizabeth Araujo, MD, said at the European Congress of Rheumatology. Just 38% of those on TNF-inhibitors achieved that score.

msullivan@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @Alz_gal

MADRID – Guselkumab, an IL-23 blocker that has proved its mettle in psoriasis, also posted excellent results in an early-phase psoriatic arthritis trial.

The fully human monoclonal antibody, which is being developed by Janssen, targets the p19 subunit of interleukin-23, Atul Deodhar, MD, said at the European Congress of Rheumatology. The 52-week phase 2a study randomized 149 patients to 100 mg guselkumab or placebo given subcutaneously at baseline and week 4, then every 8 weeks, for 24 weeks. Patients who didn’t respond adequately in either arm could begin using ustekinumab. After 24 weeks, everyone remaining in the placebo group switched to guselkumab, and patients in both arms continued open-label treatment until 52 weeks.

Dr. Deodhar of the Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, reported 24-week outcomes. A full year of data will be presented at the American College of Rheumatology meeting in San Diego in November.

Guselkumab aced the study’s primary endpoint – ACR 20 response by week 24 (58% vs. 18% with the placebo, P less than .001). Improvement developed rapidly, with a significant separation between the groups by week 4 (21% vs. 0%; P less than .001). It also succeeded on the secondary endpoints of ACR 50 response (34% vs. 10%) and ACR 70 (14% vs. 2%). The antibody also significantly outperformed placebo on the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI), 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), and Minimal Disease Activity score. Skin clearance was strikingly good, Dr. Deodhar said: 39% achieved complete clearance, with a Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score of 100; 66% achieved a PASI of 90; and 79% acheived a PASI of 75.

Guselkumab also significantly improved enthesitis – a symptom that can be terribly troubling for patients with psoriatic arthritis. Enthesitis was present in 106 at baseline. By 24 weeks, it had resolved in 56.6% of those taking the antibody and 29% of those taking the placebo (P = .012.).

A phase III trial in psoriatic arthritis will be forthcoming, Dr. Deodhar said.

Dr. Deodhar has received research funding and is a consultant for Janssen and other pharmaceutical companies.

msullivan@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @alz_gal

MADRID – Guselkumab, an IL-23 blocker that has proved its mettle in psoriasis, also posted excellent results in an early-phase psoriatic arthritis trial.

The fully human monoclonal antibody, which is being developed by Janssen, targets the p19 subunit of interleukin-23, Atul Deodhar, MD, said at the European Congress of Rheumatology. The 52-week phase 2a study randomized 149 patients to 100 mg guselkumab or placebo given subcutaneously at baseline and week 4, then every 8 weeks, for 24 weeks. Patients who didn’t respond adequately in either arm could begin using ustekinumab. After 24 weeks, everyone remaining in the placebo group switched to guselkumab, and patients in both arms continued open-label treatment until 52 weeks.

Dr. Deodhar of the Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, reported 24-week outcomes. A full year of data will be presented at the American College of Rheumatology meeting in San Diego in November.

Guselkumab aced the study’s primary endpoint – ACR 20 response by week 24 (58% vs. 18% with the placebo, P less than .001). Improvement developed rapidly, with a significant separation between the groups by week 4 (21% vs. 0%; P less than .001). It also succeeded on the secondary endpoints of ACR 50 response (34% vs. 10%) and ACR 70 (14% vs. 2%). The antibody also significantly outperformed placebo on the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI), 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), and Minimal Disease Activity score. Skin clearance was strikingly good, Dr. Deodhar said: 39% achieved complete clearance, with a Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score of 100; 66% achieved a PASI of 90; and 79% acheived a PASI of 75.

Guselkumab also significantly improved enthesitis – a symptom that can be terribly troubling for patients with psoriatic arthritis. Enthesitis was present in 106 at baseline. By 24 weeks, it had resolved in 56.6% of those taking the antibody and 29% of those taking the placebo (P = .012.).

A phase III trial in psoriatic arthritis will be forthcoming, Dr. Deodhar said.

Dr. Deodhar has received research funding and is a consultant for Janssen and other pharmaceutical companies.

msullivan@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @alz_gal

MADRID – Guselkumab, an IL-23 blocker that has proved its mettle in psoriasis, also posted excellent results in an early-phase psoriatic arthritis trial.

The fully human monoclonal antibody, which is being developed by Janssen, targets the p19 subunit of interleukin-23, Atul Deodhar, MD, said at the European Congress of Rheumatology. The 52-week phase 2a study randomized 149 patients to 100 mg guselkumab or placebo given subcutaneously at baseline and week 4, then every 8 weeks, for 24 weeks. Patients who didn’t respond adequately in either arm could begin using ustekinumab. After 24 weeks, everyone remaining in the placebo group switched to guselkumab, and patients in both arms continued open-label treatment until 52 weeks.

Dr. Deodhar of the Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, reported 24-week outcomes. A full year of data will be presented at the American College of Rheumatology meeting in San Diego in November.

Guselkumab aced the study’s primary endpoint – ACR 20 response by week 24 (58% vs. 18% with the placebo, P less than .001). Improvement developed rapidly, with a significant separation between the groups by week 4 (21% vs. 0%; P less than .001). It also succeeded on the secondary endpoints of ACR 50 response (34% vs. 10%) and ACR 70 (14% vs. 2%). The antibody also significantly outperformed placebo on the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI), 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), and Minimal Disease Activity score. Skin clearance was strikingly good, Dr. Deodhar said: 39% achieved complete clearance, with a Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score of 100; 66% achieved a PASI of 90; and 79% acheived a PASI of 75.

Guselkumab also significantly improved enthesitis – a symptom that can be terribly troubling for patients with psoriatic arthritis. Enthesitis was present in 106 at baseline. By 24 weeks, it had resolved in 56.6% of those taking the antibody and 29% of those taking the placebo (P = .012.).

A phase III trial in psoriatic arthritis will be forthcoming, Dr. Deodhar said.

Dr. Deodhar has received research funding and is a consultant for Janssen and other pharmaceutical companies.

msullivan@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @alz_gal

The incidence of primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) in rural parts of the midwestern United States has remained stable over the last 2 decades, allowing better prognosis and improved survival rates.

In a population-based cohort study, Rajan Kanth, MD, and his associates researched 79 incident PBC cases observed in the Marshfield Epidemiologic Study Area (MESA) of 24 zip codes in central and northern Wisconsin between 1992 and 2011. The overall age- and sex-standardized PBC incidence rate was 4.9 cases per 100,000 person-years. The annual incidence rate of PBC increased; however, it was not significant (P = .114) during the 20-year study time frame. In women, PBC ranged from a low of 6.9 cases per 100,000 person-years in 1992-1996 to a high of 11.3 cases per 100,000 person-years in 2002-2006. The sex-specific comparisons were not significant at any time during the 5-year period.

After a mean follow-up of 7.3 years, 23 (29%) patients with PBC died. The estimated 10-year survival of PBC cases in MESA was 76%.

Researchers noted the MESA source population grew over the 20-year study time frame, going from a low of 364,722 MESA person-years in 1992-1996 to a high of 409,670 person-years in 2007-2011. The proportion of men and women in MESA were consistent throughout the study, but there was a general population aging trend with a 29% increase in the number of individuals aged 40-69 years in 2007-2011 relative to 1992-1996.

“The overall incidence of PBC in a Midwestern population of the United States has remained relatively stable over the last two decades,” researchers concluded. “Results suggest that the overall incidence of PBC in the United States is not rising quickly, and that patients with PBC have generally improved prognosis and survival.”

Find the full study in Clinical Medicine & Research (2017. doi: 10.3121/cmr.2017.1351).

llaubach@frontlinemedcom.com

The incidence of primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) in rural parts of the midwestern United States has remained stable over the last 2 decades, allowing better prognosis and improved survival rates.

In a population-based cohort study, Rajan Kanth, MD, and his associates researched 79 incident PBC cases observed in the Marshfield Epidemiologic Study Area (MESA) of 24 zip codes in central and northern Wisconsin between 1992 and 2011. The overall age- and sex-standardized PBC incidence rate was 4.9 cases per 100,000 person-years. The annual incidence rate of PBC increased; however, it was not significant (P = .114) during the 20-year study time frame. In women, PBC ranged from a low of 6.9 cases per 100,000 person-years in 1992-1996 to a high of 11.3 cases per 100,000 person-years in 2002-2006. The sex-specific comparisons were not significant at any time during the 5-year period.

After a mean follow-up of 7.3 years, 23 (29%) patients with PBC died. The estimated 10-year survival of PBC cases in MESA was 76%.

Researchers noted the MESA source population grew over the 20-year study time frame, going from a low of 364,722 MESA person-years in 1992-1996 to a high of 409,670 person-years in 2007-2011. The proportion of men and women in MESA were consistent throughout the study, but there was a general population aging trend with a 29% increase in the number of individuals aged 40-69 years in 2007-2011 relative to 1992-1996.

“The overall incidence of PBC in a Midwestern population of the United States has remained relatively stable over the last two decades,” researchers concluded. “Results suggest that the overall incidence of PBC in the United States is not rising quickly, and that patients with PBC have generally improved prognosis and survival.”

Find the full study in Clinical Medicine & Research (2017. doi: 10.3121/cmr.2017.1351).

llaubach@frontlinemedcom.com

The incidence of primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) in rural parts of the midwestern United States has remained stable over the last 2 decades, allowing better prognosis and improved survival rates.

In a population-based cohort study, Rajan Kanth, MD, and his associates researched 79 incident PBC cases observed in the Marshfield Epidemiologic Study Area (MESA) of 24 zip codes in central and northern Wisconsin between 1992 and 2011. The overall age- and sex-standardized PBC incidence rate was 4.9 cases per 100,000 person-years. The annual incidence rate of PBC increased; however, it was not significant (P = .114) during the 20-year study time frame. In women, PBC ranged from a low of 6.9 cases per 100,000 person-years in 1992-1996 to a high of 11.3 cases per 100,000 person-years in 2002-2006. The sex-specific comparisons were not significant at any time during the 5-year period.

After a mean follow-up of 7.3 years, 23 (29%) patients with PBC died. The estimated 10-year survival of PBC cases in MESA was 76%.

Researchers noted the MESA source population grew over the 20-year study time frame, going from a low of 364,722 MESA person-years in 1992-1996 to a high of 409,670 person-years in 2007-2011. The proportion of men and women in MESA were consistent throughout the study, but there was a general population aging trend with a 29% increase in the number of individuals aged 40-69 years in 2007-2011 relative to 1992-1996.

“The overall incidence of PBC in a Midwestern population of the United States has remained relatively stable over the last two decades,” researchers concluded. “Results suggest that the overall incidence of PBC in the United States is not rising quickly, and that patients with PBC have generally improved prognosis and survival.”

Find the full study in Clinical Medicine & Research (2017. doi: 10.3121/cmr.2017.1351).

llaubach@frontlinemedcom.com

Two reports from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services show declines in the number of consumers who are activating the health insurance purchased via an Affordable Care Act exchange, a development Trump administration officials say underlines the failure of the ACA.

designer491/Thinkstock

gtwachtman@frontlinemedcom.com

Two reports from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services show declines in the number of consumers who are activating the health insurance purchased via an Affordable Care Act exchange, a development Trump administration officials say underlines the failure of the ACA.

designer491/Thinkstock

gtwachtman@frontlinemedcom.com

Two reports from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services show declines in the number of consumers who are activating the health insurance purchased via an Affordable Care Act exchange, a development Trump administration officials say underlines the failure of the ACA.

designer491/Thinkstock

gtwachtman@frontlinemedcom.com

Photo © ASCO/David Eulitt 2017

CHICAGO—Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells combined with ibrutinib enhance T-cell function and can induce complete remission (CR) in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), researchers report.

Many CLL patients receive ibrutinib treatment, which is well tolerated, but few patients achieve CR.

Immunotherapy with anti-CD19 CAR T cells has induced CR in 25% - 45% of patients with CLL, Saar Gill, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, told Hematology Times, and these CRs tend to be durable.

So investigators conducted a pilot trial in 10 patients to test whether combining anti-CD19 CAR T cells with ibrutinib would enhance the CR rate.

Dr Gill reported the findings of the pilot trial at the ASCO 2017 Annual Meeting (abstract 7509).

The patients must have failed at least 1 regimen before ibrutinib, unless they had del(17)(p13.1) or a TP53 mutation.

T cells were lentivirally transduced to express a CAR that included humanized anti-CD19.

Patients were lymphodepleted 1 week before infusion, and ibrutinib was continued throughout the trial.

After a median follow-up of 6 months, 8 of the 9 evaluable patients show absence of CLL in the bone marrow by flow cytometry or minimal residual disease (MRD) negative, and all remain in marrow CR at last follow-up, Dr Gill said.

Radiologic responses are less clear-cut and may require longer follow-up.

“All but 1 patient achieved MRD with deep sequencing. We have deep response in the bone marrow,” Dr Gill said. He also noted that the treatment was well tolerated.

Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) developed in 9 patients: grade 1 in 2 patients, grade 2 in 6 patients, and grade 3 in 1 patient. One patient developed grade 4 tumor lysis syndrome. Treatment of CRS with the IL-6 receptor antagonist tocilizumab was not required.

There was modest residual splenomegaly in 3 of 5 patients, and adenopathy resolved in 4 of 6 patients, with progression in 1 patient.

Ibrutinib reduced CRS apparently by blocking cytokine production by T cells, said Dr Gill, adding, “The combination led to improved efficacy without increased toxicity.”

Ibrutinib may make CAR T-cell therapy more feasible.

Patients who receive ibrutinib for 6 months have a better T-cell response.

“This opens up future discussions of bringing CAR T-cell therapy earlier into CLL treatment,” said Dr Gill.

He envisions patients receiving ibrutinib for 6 months, which would allow time to manufacture T cells, and then have a T-cell infusion.

“Once patients achieve MRD, then we can discuss the possibility of stopping ibrutinib therapy,” he said.

“Most patients remain on ibrutinib, but longer follow-up may show whether remissions are sustained off ibrutinib.”

The researchers have ongoing plans to treat 25 patients with CTL19 plus ibrutinib in a continuation of this trial.

Dr Gill said longer follow-up will reveal the durability of these results “and could support evaluation of a first-line combination approach in an attempt to obviate the need for chronic therapy.” 

Photo © ASCO/David Eulitt 2017

CHICAGO—Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells combined with ibrutinib enhance T-cell function and can induce complete remission (CR) in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), researchers report.

Many CLL patients receive ibrutinib treatment, which is well tolerated, but few patients achieve CR.

Immunotherapy with anti-CD19 CAR T cells has induced CR in 25% - 45% of patients with CLL, Saar Gill, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, told Hematology Times, and these CRs tend to be durable.

So investigators conducted a pilot trial in 10 patients to test whether combining anti-CD19 CAR T cells with ibrutinib would enhance the CR rate.

Dr Gill reported the findings of the pilot trial at the ASCO 2017 Annual Meeting (abstract 7509).

The patients must have failed at least 1 regimen before ibrutinib, unless they had del(17)(p13.1) or a TP53 mutation.

T cells were lentivirally transduced to express a CAR that included humanized anti-CD19.

Patients were lymphodepleted 1 week before infusion, and ibrutinib was continued throughout the trial.

After a median follow-up of 6 months, 8 of the 9 evaluable patients show absence of CLL in the bone marrow by flow cytometry or minimal residual disease (MRD) negative, and all remain in marrow CR at last follow-up, Dr Gill said.

Radiologic responses are less clear-cut and may require longer follow-up.

“All but 1 patient achieved MRD with deep sequencing. We have deep response in the bone marrow,” Dr Gill said. He also noted that the treatment was well tolerated.

Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) developed in 9 patients: grade 1 in 2 patients, grade 2 in 6 patients, and grade 3 in 1 patient. One patient developed grade 4 tumor lysis syndrome. Treatment of CRS with the IL-6 receptor antagonist tocilizumab was not required.

There was modest residual splenomegaly in 3 of 5 patients, and adenopathy resolved in 4 of 6 patients, with progression in 1 patient.

Ibrutinib reduced CRS apparently by blocking cytokine production by T cells, said Dr Gill, adding, “The combination led to improved efficacy without increased toxicity.”

Ibrutinib may make CAR T-cell therapy more feasible.

Patients who receive ibrutinib for 6 months have a better T-cell response.

“This opens up future discussions of bringing CAR T-cell therapy earlier into CLL treatment,” said Dr Gill.

He envisions patients receiving ibrutinib for 6 months, which would allow time to manufacture T cells, and then have a T-cell infusion.

“Once patients achieve MRD, then we can discuss the possibility of stopping ibrutinib therapy,” he said.

“Most patients remain on ibrutinib, but longer follow-up may show whether remissions are sustained off ibrutinib.”

The researchers have ongoing plans to treat 25 patients with CTL19 plus ibrutinib in a continuation of this trial.

Dr Gill said longer follow-up will reveal the durability of these results “and could support evaluation of a first-line combination approach in an attempt to obviate the need for chronic therapy.” 

Photo © ASCO/David Eulitt 2017

CHICAGO—Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells combined with ibrutinib enhance T-cell function and can induce complete remission (CR) in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), researchers report.

Many CLL patients receive ibrutinib treatment, which is well tolerated, but few patients achieve CR.

Immunotherapy with anti-CD19 CAR T cells has induced CR in 25% - 45% of patients with CLL, Saar Gill, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, told Hematology Times, and these CRs tend to be durable.

So investigators conducted a pilot trial in 10 patients to test whether combining anti-CD19 CAR T cells with ibrutinib would enhance the CR rate.

Dr Gill reported the findings of the pilot trial at the ASCO 2017 Annual Meeting (abstract 7509).

The patients must have failed at least 1 regimen before ibrutinib, unless they had del(17)(p13.1) or a TP53 mutation.

T cells were lentivirally transduced to express a CAR that included humanized anti-CD19.

Patients were lymphodepleted 1 week before infusion, and ibrutinib was continued throughout the trial.

After a median follow-up of 6 months, 8 of the 9 evaluable patients show absence of CLL in the bone marrow by flow cytometry or minimal residual disease (MRD) negative, and all remain in marrow CR at last follow-up, Dr Gill said.

Radiologic responses are less clear-cut and may require longer follow-up.

“All but 1 patient achieved MRD with deep sequencing. We have deep response in the bone marrow,” Dr Gill said. He also noted that the treatment was well tolerated.

Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) developed in 9 patients: grade 1 in 2 patients, grade 2 in 6 patients, and grade 3 in 1 patient. One patient developed grade 4 tumor lysis syndrome. Treatment of CRS with the IL-6 receptor antagonist tocilizumab was not required.

There was modest residual splenomegaly in 3 of 5 patients, and adenopathy resolved in 4 of 6 patients, with progression in 1 patient.

Ibrutinib reduced CRS apparently by blocking cytokine production by T cells, said Dr Gill, adding, “The combination led to improved efficacy without increased toxicity.”

Ibrutinib may make CAR T-cell therapy more feasible.

Patients who receive ibrutinib for 6 months have a better T-cell response.

“This opens up future discussions of bringing CAR T-cell therapy earlier into CLL treatment,” said Dr Gill.

He envisions patients receiving ibrutinib for 6 months, which would allow time to manufacture T cells, and then have a T-cell infusion.

“Once patients achieve MRD, then we can discuss the possibility of stopping ibrutinib therapy,” he said.

“Most patients remain on ibrutinib, but longer follow-up may show whether remissions are sustained off ibrutinib.”

The researchers have ongoing plans to treat 25 patients with CTL19 plus ibrutinib in a continuation of this trial.

Dr Gill said longer follow-up will reveal the durability of these results “and could support evaluation of a first-line combination approach in an attempt to obviate the need for chronic therapy.” 

The European Association for the Study of the Liver has published a new guideline for the diagnosis, treatment, and management of primary biliary cholangitis.

PBC is likely in patients with persistent cholestatic symptoms or who have pruritis and fatigue. A diagnosis of PBC can be made if a patient has elevated alkaline phosphatase and antimitochondrial antibody, although elevated antimitochondrial antibody alone is not enough to diagnose PBC. Liver biopsy is not recommended, and liver imaging is not necessary to prove PBC but can be used to eliminate extrahepatic causes of cholestasis.

Pruritis, fatigue, and sicca complex are the most common symptoms of PBC and can significantly effect quality of life. Pruritis can be treated with cholestyramine or rifampicin. Clinicians should seek out and treat associated and alternate causes of fatigue and advise patients on strategies to avoid compounding fatigue problems. Sicca complex should be treated appropriately and, if patients develop refractory symptoms, referred to a specialist.

Complications of liver disease caused by PBC include osteoporosis, fat-soluble vitamin substitution, hyperlipidemia, varices, hepatocellular carcinoma, and need for liver transplant, though the need for liver transplant in PBC patient has decreased over time.

“Treatment guidelines facilitate a holistic life-long approach to the management of patients with PBC, and care pathways should be developed locally to capture the needs of patients. These can be subject to independent quality evaluation,” EASL concluded.

Find the full clinical guideline in the Journal of Hepatology (2017. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2017.03.022).

lfranki@frontlinemedcom.com

The European Association for the Study of the Liver has published a new guideline for the diagnosis, treatment, and management of primary biliary cholangitis.

PBC is likely in patients with persistent cholestatic symptoms or who have pruritis and fatigue. A diagnosis of PBC can be made if a patient has elevated alkaline phosphatase and antimitochondrial antibody, although elevated antimitochondrial antibody alone is not enough to diagnose PBC. Liver biopsy is not recommended, and liver imaging is not necessary to prove PBC but can be used to eliminate extrahepatic causes of cholestasis.

Pruritis, fatigue, and sicca complex are the most common symptoms of PBC and can significantly effect quality of life. Pruritis can be treated with cholestyramine or rifampicin. Clinicians should seek out and treat associated and alternate causes of fatigue and advise patients on strategies to avoid compounding fatigue problems. Sicca complex should be treated appropriately and, if patients develop refractory symptoms, referred to a specialist.

Complications of liver disease caused by PBC include osteoporosis, fat-soluble vitamin substitution, hyperlipidemia, varices, hepatocellular carcinoma, and need for liver transplant, though the need for liver transplant in PBC patient has decreased over time.

“Treatment guidelines facilitate a holistic life-long approach to the management of patients with PBC, and care pathways should be developed locally to capture the needs of patients. These can be subject to independent quality evaluation,” EASL concluded.

Find the full clinical guideline in the Journal of Hepatology (2017. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2017.03.022).

lfranki@frontlinemedcom.com

The European Association for the Study of the Liver has published a new guideline for the diagnosis, treatment, and management of primary biliary cholangitis.

PBC is likely in patients with persistent cholestatic symptoms or who have pruritis and fatigue. A diagnosis of PBC can be made if a patient has elevated alkaline phosphatase and antimitochondrial antibody, although elevated antimitochondrial antibody alone is not enough to diagnose PBC. Liver biopsy is not recommended, and liver imaging is not necessary to prove PBC but can be used to eliminate extrahepatic causes of cholestasis.

Pruritis, fatigue, and sicca complex are the most common symptoms of PBC and can significantly effect quality of life. Pruritis can be treated with cholestyramine or rifampicin. Clinicians should seek out and treat associated and alternate causes of fatigue and advise patients on strategies to avoid compounding fatigue problems. Sicca complex should be treated appropriately and, if patients develop refractory symptoms, referred to a specialist.

Complications of liver disease caused by PBC include osteoporosis, fat-soluble vitamin substitution, hyperlipidemia, varices, hepatocellular carcinoma, and need for liver transplant, though the need for liver transplant in PBC patient has decreased over time.

“Treatment guidelines facilitate a holistic life-long approach to the management of patients with PBC, and care pathways should be developed locally to capture the needs of patients. These can be subject to independent quality evaluation,” EASL concluded.

Find the full clinical guideline in the Journal of Hepatology (2017. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2017.03.022).

lfranki@frontlinemedcom.com

CHICAGO – Nine weeks of treatment with trastuzumab resulted in comparable disease-free and overall survival to that seen with the standard 12 months of trastuzumab – with about one-third of the rate of severe cardiac toxicity – in patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer in the Italian phase III multicenter Short-HER study.

The 5-year disease-free survival rate in 626 patients who received 9 weeks of trastuzumab was 87.5%, compared with 85.4% in 627 patients who received 1 year of trastuzumab therapy (hazard ratio, 1.15), Pier F. Conte, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The upper limit of the 90% confidence interval (0.91-1.46) crossed the noninferiority margin set at 1.29 for this frequentist analysis, Dr. Conte of the University of Padova, Italy, said, noting that a subgroup analysis showed that patients with stage III disease and those with four or more positive lymph nodes – who together represented about 15% of the study population – had a disease-free survival advantage with longer treatment (HR, 2.30 and 2.25, respectively), and an interaction test was statistically significant.

However, a preplanned Bayesian analysis showed a 78% probability that the shorter treatment is not inferior to longer treatment for disease-free survival, he said.

The secondary endpoint of overall survival was also similar in the two groups (95.1% vs. 95.0%; HR, 1.06).

As for the secondary endpoint of cardiac events, the rate was 5.1% with shorter treatment vs. 14.4% with longer treatment. Grade 2 cardiac events occurred in 11.2% vs. 3.5% of patients in the treatment arms, respectively, and the grade 3 cardiac vents occurred in 2.7% vs. 1.1%, respectively. The rate of grade 4 events was 0.5% in both groups.

The overall difference between the groups with respect to cardiac events was highly statistically significant in favor of shorter treatment (HR, 0.32), Dr. Conte said.

Multiple studies have demonstrated the superiority of combining trastuzumab and adjuvant chemotherapy for HER2+ early breast cancer, and, following the release of some of those findings at the ASCO annual meeting in 2005, the agent was granted accelerated approval for this indication, Dr. Conte said.

“It was, however, clear that there were a number of reasons to believe that further investigation was appropriate on the optimal duration of trastuzumab duration,” he said, explaining that the same magnitude of benefit was reported by the small FinHER study with 9 weeks of trastuzumab and that clinical data suggest synergism of trastuzumab with chemotherapy.

“Finally, in the real world, there are patients at lower risk of relapse (more node-negative, more small tumors) and at higher risk of cardiac toxicity because of age or comorbidities,” he said. “So, the hypotheses behind the Short-HER [study] was that a shorter duration of trastuzumab administered concomitantly with chemotherapy might produce comparable efficacy with significantly lower toxicities and, of course, costs.”

Short-HER study subjects, who had a mean age of 55 years, had either HER2-positive, node-positive, or high-risk node-negative disease and were randomized to receive either the shorter treatment, including three courses of docetaxel given three times weekly plus trastuzumab given weekly for 9 doses, followed by three courses of 5-fluorouracil/epirubicin/cyclophosphamide, or standard 12-month treatment with four courses of anthracycline-based chemotherapy followed by four courses of docetaxel in combination with trastuzumab given three times weekly, followed by 14 additional courses of trastuzumab given three times weekly (for a total of 18 3-times-weekly doses). Radiation therapy was administered when indicated after chemotherapy, and hormonal therapy was started after completion of chemotherapy in patients with hormone-receptor–positive tumors.

Based on the frequentist analysis, noninferiority of the shorter treatment approach cannot be claimed, but, according to the preplanned Bayesian analysis, noninferiority is likely, Dr. Conte said.

“One year of trastuzumab is still standard. The Short-Her trial, however, reinforces the hypothesis that treatment deescalation retains efficacy with less toxicity. A shorter treatment might be an option for patients at low risk of relapse and/or higher risk of cardiac toxicity,” he said. “Moreover, these results might facilitate trastuzumab to patients in low/middle income countries.”

Individual patient meta-analysis with other trials testing different durations of trastuzumab administration is ongoing, he noted.

The Short-HER study was funded by the Italian Drug Agency, and drugs and insurance coverage were supplied by the National Health System. The study was sponsored by the University of Modena & Regio Emilia and the University of Padova. Dr. Conte has served on the speakers’ bureau for AstraZeneca, Lilly, Novartis, and Roche/Genentech and has received research funding and/or travel or other expenses from AstraZeneca, Celgene, and Novartis.

sworcester@frontlinemedcom.com

CHICAGO – Nine weeks of treatment with trastuzumab resulted in comparable disease-free and overall survival to that seen with the standard 12 months of trastuzumab – with about one-third of the rate of severe cardiac toxicity – in patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer in the Italian phase III multicenter Short-HER study.

The 5-year disease-free survival rate in 626 patients who received 9 weeks of trastuzumab was 87.5%, compared with 85.4% in 627 patients who received 1 year of trastuzumab therapy (hazard ratio, 1.15), Pier F. Conte, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The upper limit of the 90% confidence interval (0.91-1.46) crossed the noninferiority margin set at 1.29 for this frequentist analysis, Dr. Conte of the University of Padova, Italy, said, noting that a subgroup analysis showed that patients with stage III disease and those with four or more positive lymph nodes – who together represented about 15% of the study population – had a disease-free survival advantage with longer treatment (HR, 2.30 and 2.25, respectively), and an interaction test was statistically significant.

However, a preplanned Bayesian analysis showed a 78% probability that the shorter treatment is not inferior to longer treatment for disease-free survival, he said.

The secondary endpoint of overall survival was also similar in the two groups (95.1% vs. 95.0%; HR, 1.06).

As for the secondary endpoint of cardiac events, the rate was 5.1% with shorter treatment vs. 14.4% with longer treatment. Grade 2 cardiac events occurred in 11.2% vs. 3.5% of patients in the treatment arms, respectively, and the grade 3 cardiac vents occurred in 2.7% vs. 1.1%, respectively. The rate of grade 4 events was 0.5% in both groups.

The overall difference between the groups with respect to cardiac events was highly statistically significant in favor of shorter treatment (HR, 0.32), Dr. Conte said.

Multiple studies have demonstrated the superiority of combining trastuzumab and adjuvant chemotherapy for HER2+ early breast cancer, and, following the release of some of those findings at the ASCO annual meeting in 2005, the agent was granted accelerated approval for this indication, Dr. Conte said.

“It was, however, clear that there were a number of reasons to believe that further investigation was appropriate on the optimal duration of trastuzumab duration,” he said, explaining that the same magnitude of benefit was reported by the small FinHER study with 9 weeks of trastuzumab and that clinical data suggest synergism of trastuzumab with chemotherapy.

“Finally, in the real world, there are patients at lower risk of relapse (more node-negative, more small tumors) and at higher risk of cardiac toxicity because of age or comorbidities,” he said. “So, the hypotheses behind the Short-HER [study] was that a shorter duration of trastuzumab administered concomitantly with chemotherapy might produce comparable efficacy with significantly lower toxicities and, of course, costs.”

Short-HER study subjects, who had a mean age of 55 years, had either HER2-positive, node-positive, or high-risk node-negative disease and were randomized to receive either the shorter treatment, including three courses of docetaxel given three times weekly plus trastuzumab given weekly for 9 doses, followed by three courses of 5-fluorouracil/epirubicin/cyclophosphamide, or standard 12-month treatment with four courses of anthracycline-based chemotherapy followed by four courses of docetaxel in combination with trastuzumab given three times weekly, followed by 14 additional courses of trastuzumab given three times weekly (for a total of 18 3-times-weekly doses). Radiation therapy was administered when indicated after chemotherapy, and hormonal therapy was started after completion of chemotherapy in patients with hormone-receptor–positive tumors.

Based on the frequentist analysis, noninferiority of the shorter treatment approach cannot be claimed, but, according to the preplanned Bayesian analysis, noninferiority is likely, Dr. Conte said.

“One year of trastuzumab is still standard. The Short-Her trial, however, reinforces the hypothesis that treatment deescalation retains efficacy with less toxicity. A shorter treatment might be an option for patients at low risk of relapse and/or higher risk of cardiac toxicity,” he said. “Moreover, these results might facilitate trastuzumab to patients in low/middle income countries.”

Individual patient meta-analysis with other trials testing different durations of trastuzumab administration is ongoing, he noted.

The Short-HER study was funded by the Italian Drug Agency, and drugs and insurance coverage were supplied by the National Health System. The study was sponsored by the University of Modena & Regio Emilia and the University of Padova. Dr. Conte has served on the speakers’ bureau for AstraZeneca, Lilly, Novartis, and Roche/Genentech and has received research funding and/or travel or other expenses from AstraZeneca, Celgene, and Novartis.

sworcester@frontlinemedcom.com

CHICAGO – Nine weeks of treatment with trastuzumab resulted in comparable disease-free and overall survival to that seen with the standard 12 months of trastuzumab – with about one-third of the rate of severe cardiac toxicity – in patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer in the Italian phase III multicenter Short-HER study.

The 5-year disease-free survival rate in 626 patients who received 9 weeks of trastuzumab was 87.5%, compared with 85.4% in 627 patients who received 1 year of trastuzumab therapy (hazard ratio, 1.15), Pier F. Conte, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The upper limit of the 90% confidence interval (0.91-1.46) crossed the noninferiority margin set at 1.29 for this frequentist analysis, Dr. Conte of the University of Padova, Italy, said, noting that a subgroup analysis showed that patients with stage III disease and those with four or more positive lymph nodes – who together represented about 15% of the study population – had a disease-free survival advantage with longer treatment (HR, 2.30 and 2.25, respectively), and an interaction test was statistically significant.

However, a preplanned Bayesian analysis showed a 78% probability that the shorter treatment is not inferior to longer treatment for disease-free survival, he said.

The secondary endpoint of overall survival was also similar in the two groups (95.1% vs. 95.0%; HR, 1.06).

As for the secondary endpoint of cardiac events, the rate was 5.1% with shorter treatment vs. 14.4% with longer treatment. Grade 2 cardiac events occurred in 11.2% vs. 3.5% of patients in the treatment arms, respectively, and the grade 3 cardiac vents occurred in 2.7% vs. 1.1%, respectively. The rate of grade 4 events was 0.5% in both groups.

The overall difference between the groups with respect to cardiac events was highly statistically significant in favor of shorter treatment (HR, 0.32), Dr. Conte said.

Multiple studies have demonstrated the superiority of combining trastuzumab and adjuvant chemotherapy for HER2+ early breast cancer, and, following the release of some of those findings at the ASCO annual meeting in 2005, the agent was granted accelerated approval for this indication, Dr. Conte said.

“It was, however, clear that there were a number of reasons to believe that further investigation was appropriate on the optimal duration of trastuzumab duration,” he said, explaining that the same magnitude of benefit was reported by the small FinHER study with 9 weeks of trastuzumab and that clinical data suggest synergism of trastuzumab with chemotherapy.

“Finally, in the real world, there are patients at lower risk of relapse (more node-negative, more small tumors) and at higher risk of cardiac toxicity because of age or comorbidities,” he said. “So, the hypotheses behind the Short-HER [study] was that a shorter duration of trastuzumab administered concomitantly with chemotherapy might produce comparable efficacy with significantly lower toxicities and, of course, costs.”

Short-HER study subjects, who had a mean age of 55 years, had either HER2-positive, node-positive, or high-risk node-negative disease and were randomized to receive either the shorter treatment, including three courses of docetaxel given three times weekly plus trastuzumab given weekly for 9 doses, followed by three courses of 5-fluorouracil/epirubicin/cyclophosphamide, or standard 12-month treatment with four courses of anthracycline-based chemotherapy followed by four courses of docetaxel in combination with trastuzumab given three times weekly, followed by 14 additional courses of trastuzumab given three times weekly (for a total of 18 3-times-weekly doses). Radiation therapy was administered when indicated after chemotherapy, and hormonal therapy was started after completion of chemotherapy in patients with hormone-receptor–positive tumors.

Based on the frequentist analysis, noninferiority of the shorter treatment approach cannot be claimed, but, according to the preplanned Bayesian analysis, noninferiority is likely, Dr. Conte said.

“One year of trastuzumab is still standard. The Short-Her trial, however, reinforces the hypothesis that treatment deescalation retains efficacy with less toxicity. A shorter treatment might be an option for patients at low risk of relapse and/or higher risk of cardiac toxicity,” he said. “Moreover, these results might facilitate trastuzumab to patients in low/middle income countries.”

Individual patient meta-analysis with other trials testing different durations of trastuzumab administration is ongoing, he noted.

The Short-HER study was funded by the Italian Drug Agency, and drugs and insurance coverage were supplied by the National Health System. The study was sponsored by the University of Modena & Regio Emilia and the University of Padova. Dr. Conte has served on the speakers’ bureau for AstraZeneca, Lilly, Novartis, and Roche/Genentech and has received research funding and/or travel or other expenses from AstraZeneca, Celgene, and Novartis.

sworcester@frontlinemedcom.com

MADRID – Giving nebulized hypertonic saline (NHS) to infants who present to pediatric emergency departments with a first episode of moderate to severe acute bronchiolitis did not reduce their hospitalization rate in the randomized, multicenter, double-blind GUERANDE trial.

Moreover, mild adverse events – mainly worsening cough – were significantly more frequent in the NHS recipients than in controls given nebulized normal saline, Christele Gras-le Guen, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases.

©iStock/Thinkstock.com

bjancin@frontlinemedcom.com

MADRID – Giving nebulized hypertonic saline (NHS) to infants who present to pediatric emergency departments with a first episode of moderate to severe acute bronchiolitis did not reduce their hospitalization rate in the randomized, multicenter, double-blind GUERANDE trial.

Moreover, mild adverse events – mainly worsening cough – were significantly more frequent in the NHS recipients than in controls given nebulized normal saline, Christele Gras-le Guen, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases.

©iStock/Thinkstock.com

bjancin@frontlinemedcom.com

MADRID – Giving nebulized hypertonic saline (NHS) to infants who present to pediatric emergency departments with a first episode of moderate to severe acute bronchiolitis did not reduce their hospitalization rate in the randomized, multicenter, double-blind GUERANDE trial.

Moreover, mild adverse events – mainly worsening cough – were significantly more frequent in the NHS recipients than in controls given nebulized normal saline, Christele Gras-le Guen, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the European Society for Paediatric Infectious Diseases.

©iStock/Thinkstock.com

bjancin@frontlinemedcom.com