User login
DAPA-HF: Dapagliflozin’s HFrEF efficacy confirmed in nondiabetics
PHILADELPHIA – The primary outcome results from the practice-changing DAPA-HF trial gave clinicians strong evidence that the diabetes drug dapagliflozin was equally effective at reducing cardiovascular death and acute exacerbations in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, whether or not they also had type 2 diabetes. More detailed findings from the 2,605 enrolled patients in DAPA-HF who lacked diabetes (55% of the total study population) have now sealed the deal.
“The relative and absolute reductions in cardiovascular death and hospitalizations or urgent visits for heart failure were substantial, clinically important, and consistent in patients with or without type 2 diabetes,” John McMurray, MD, declared at the American Heart Association scientific sessions as he summarized new trial results that confirmed the initial finding he reported previously.
While the initial report of the DAPA-HF (Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Heart Failure) by the study’s lead investigator, Dr. McMurray, was limited to the finding that the relative risk reduction for the study’s primary endpoint was a highly statistically significant 25% in heart failure patients with diabetes and an equally strongly significant 27% relative cut among patients without diabetes (N Engl J Med. 2019 Sep 19;doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1911303), the new data showed that same consistency across the range of outcomes studied in the trial as well as across the range of glycosylated hemoglobin levels that patients had at study entry.
In an analysis that divided the entire study population of 4,744 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) into tertiles based on their entry blood level of hemoglobin A1c, patients with a normal level at or below 5.6% had a 26% relative reduction in the study’s primary endpoint, essentially the same response as the 29% relative cut in adverse events in the tertile of patients with a glycosylated hemoglobin level of 5.7%-5.9% and the relative 28% relative reduction in events in patients diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and having a hemoglobin A1c of 6.0% or greater, reported Dr. McMurray, professor of cardiology at the University of Glasgow. The results also showed a very benign safety profile in the patients without diabetes, similar to patients with diabetes and to placebo, and with no episodes of major hypoglycemia or diabetic ketoacidosis.
“It’s quite impressive that the result was consistent regardless of the level of hemoglobin A1c,” commented Larry A. Allen, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Colorado in Aurora and designated discussant for the report. Even though the patients without diabetes constituted just over half of the full DAPA-HF enrollment, the comparison of the effect of dapagliflozin in patients with or without diabetes was prespecified in a trial that enrolled a relatively large number of patients into each of the two subgroups by diabetes status. “I think there a good chance dapagliflozin will get an indication” for treating HFrEF patients without diabetes, Dr. Allen suggested in a video interview.
If the DAPA-HF results persuade the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to grant a supplemental indication to dapagliflozin for use in cutting cardiovascular deaths and acute heart failure exacerbations in patients without diabetes, it would pave the way for health insurers to pay for the drug. Right now, even though Dr. Allen and other heart failure physicians have been impressed by the DAPA-HF findings and are eager to add the drug to the list of agents that HFrEF patients routinely receive, he’s been stymied so far by patients’ out-of pocket cost for using dapagliflozin off-label, roughly $500 a month.
“The DAPA-HF results suggest there is strong reason to consider dapagliflozin for patients without diabetes, and for payers to pay for it. I’m not prescribing dapagliflozin to HFrEF patients without diabetes right now; not because of the data, but because of noncoverage. Payers have not yet caught up with the data,” he said, and they likely will continue to not pay for the drug when used by patients without diabetes until a new labeled indication appears for those patients.
The immediate availability of dapagliflozin (Farxiga) and the two other approved members of the sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitor class of drugs, empagliflozin (Jardiance) and canagliflozin (Invokana), to treat patients with HFrEF, and the prospect of soon having dapagliflozin and possibly the other drugs in this class to treat patients with HFrEF but without diabetes also raises issues of drug sequencing in these patients and the overall number of drugs that HFrEF patients must now take to be on optimized medical therapy, Dr. Allen noted.
The already-existing lineup of medications for HFrEF patients includes starting on an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker and adding a beta-blocker, a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, then swapping out the initial renin-angiotensin system inhibitor for sacubitril/valsartan, and then, on top of all this, adding dapagliflozin or another drug in the same class. It raises questions of what is objectively the best way to introduce all these drugs into patients, and how to do it without subjecting patients to “financial toxicity,” Dr. Allen said during his discussion of the trial’s results.
DAPA-HF was sponsored by AstraZeneca, which markets dapagliflozin (Farxiga). The University of Glasgow received payment from AstraZeneca to compensate for the time Dr. McMurray spent running the study. Dr. Allen has been a consultant to ACI Clinical, Boston Scientific, and Janssen.
SOURCE: McMurray JJV. AHA 19, Late-Breaking Science 1.
A labeling change for dapagliflozin that says the drug is approved for use in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and without diabetes is critical so that payers will get on board with this new and important treatment. The evidence for efficacy and safety in patients without diabetes was so strong in the DAPA-HF trial that I don’t think a second trial will be needed for the Food and Drug Administration to add this indication to dapagliflozin’s label.
For patients with type 2 diabetes as well as HFrEF, it’s already full steam ahead to use dapagliflozin or another drug from the class of sodium glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, empagliflozin and canagliflozin. However, so far these drugs are not being widely prescribed by clinicians to patients with HFrEF but without diabetes. We need to build up the familiarity of clinicians with the SGLT2 inhibitor drugs so that primary care physicians will feel comfortable starting HFrEF patients on them. It’s relatively easy to start patients on the drugs in this class because of their good safety and no signal of problems when using them with other HFrEF medications.
The growing list of key drugs to use on patients with HFrEF means that we need to become smarter on how we start patients on these agents. Currently it’s done without evidence for which order of introduction works best. We also need to confirm that all five types of drugs that now appear indicated for HFrEF patients are all truly additive: an angiotensin receptor blocker coupled with the angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril, a beta-blocker, a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, and now an SGLT2 inhibitor. I propose that researchers run studies that systematically stop one of these drugs to see whether the overall benefit to HFrEF patients remains unchanged, thereby identifying an agent that could be dropped from what is a growing list of drug classes, with possibly more classes to follow depending on results from studies now underway.
Christopher M. O’Connor, MD, is a heart failure physician and president of the Inova Heart and Vascular Institute in Falls Church, Va. He has been a consultant to Arena, Bayer, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, Merck, and Windtree Therapeutics. He made these comments in an interview.
A labeling change for dapagliflozin that says the drug is approved for use in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and without diabetes is critical so that payers will get on board with this new and important treatment. The evidence for efficacy and safety in patients without diabetes was so strong in the DAPA-HF trial that I don’t think a second trial will be needed for the Food and Drug Administration to add this indication to dapagliflozin’s label.
For patients with type 2 diabetes as well as HFrEF, it’s already full steam ahead to use dapagliflozin or another drug from the class of sodium glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, empagliflozin and canagliflozin. However, so far these drugs are not being widely prescribed by clinicians to patients with HFrEF but without diabetes. We need to build up the familiarity of clinicians with the SGLT2 inhibitor drugs so that primary care physicians will feel comfortable starting HFrEF patients on them. It’s relatively easy to start patients on the drugs in this class because of their good safety and no signal of problems when using them with other HFrEF medications.
The growing list of key drugs to use on patients with HFrEF means that we need to become smarter on how we start patients on these agents. Currently it’s done without evidence for which order of introduction works best. We also need to confirm that all five types of drugs that now appear indicated for HFrEF patients are all truly additive: an angiotensin receptor blocker coupled with the angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril, a beta-blocker, a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, and now an SGLT2 inhibitor. I propose that researchers run studies that systematically stop one of these drugs to see whether the overall benefit to HFrEF patients remains unchanged, thereby identifying an agent that could be dropped from what is a growing list of drug classes, with possibly more classes to follow depending on results from studies now underway.
Christopher M. O’Connor, MD, is a heart failure physician and president of the Inova Heart and Vascular Institute in Falls Church, Va. He has been a consultant to Arena, Bayer, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, Merck, and Windtree Therapeutics. He made these comments in an interview.
A labeling change for dapagliflozin that says the drug is approved for use in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and without diabetes is critical so that payers will get on board with this new and important treatment. The evidence for efficacy and safety in patients without diabetes was so strong in the DAPA-HF trial that I don’t think a second trial will be needed for the Food and Drug Administration to add this indication to dapagliflozin’s label.
For patients with type 2 diabetes as well as HFrEF, it’s already full steam ahead to use dapagliflozin or another drug from the class of sodium glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, empagliflozin and canagliflozin. However, so far these drugs are not being widely prescribed by clinicians to patients with HFrEF but without diabetes. We need to build up the familiarity of clinicians with the SGLT2 inhibitor drugs so that primary care physicians will feel comfortable starting HFrEF patients on them. It’s relatively easy to start patients on the drugs in this class because of their good safety and no signal of problems when using them with other HFrEF medications.
The growing list of key drugs to use on patients with HFrEF means that we need to become smarter on how we start patients on these agents. Currently it’s done without evidence for which order of introduction works best. We also need to confirm that all five types of drugs that now appear indicated for HFrEF patients are all truly additive: an angiotensin receptor blocker coupled with the angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril, a beta-blocker, a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, and now an SGLT2 inhibitor. I propose that researchers run studies that systematically stop one of these drugs to see whether the overall benefit to HFrEF patients remains unchanged, thereby identifying an agent that could be dropped from what is a growing list of drug classes, with possibly more classes to follow depending on results from studies now underway.
Christopher M. O’Connor, MD, is a heart failure physician and president of the Inova Heart and Vascular Institute in Falls Church, Va. He has been a consultant to Arena, Bayer, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, Merck, and Windtree Therapeutics. He made these comments in an interview.
PHILADELPHIA – The primary outcome results from the practice-changing DAPA-HF trial gave clinicians strong evidence that the diabetes drug dapagliflozin was equally effective at reducing cardiovascular death and acute exacerbations in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, whether or not they also had type 2 diabetes. More detailed findings from the 2,605 enrolled patients in DAPA-HF who lacked diabetes (55% of the total study population) have now sealed the deal.
“The relative and absolute reductions in cardiovascular death and hospitalizations or urgent visits for heart failure were substantial, clinically important, and consistent in patients with or without type 2 diabetes,” John McMurray, MD, declared at the American Heart Association scientific sessions as he summarized new trial results that confirmed the initial finding he reported previously.
While the initial report of the DAPA-HF (Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Heart Failure) by the study’s lead investigator, Dr. McMurray, was limited to the finding that the relative risk reduction for the study’s primary endpoint was a highly statistically significant 25% in heart failure patients with diabetes and an equally strongly significant 27% relative cut among patients without diabetes (N Engl J Med. 2019 Sep 19;doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1911303), the new data showed that same consistency across the range of outcomes studied in the trial as well as across the range of glycosylated hemoglobin levels that patients had at study entry.
In an analysis that divided the entire study population of 4,744 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) into tertiles based on their entry blood level of hemoglobin A1c, patients with a normal level at or below 5.6% had a 26% relative reduction in the study’s primary endpoint, essentially the same response as the 29% relative cut in adverse events in the tertile of patients with a glycosylated hemoglobin level of 5.7%-5.9% and the relative 28% relative reduction in events in patients diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and having a hemoglobin A1c of 6.0% or greater, reported Dr. McMurray, professor of cardiology at the University of Glasgow. The results also showed a very benign safety profile in the patients without diabetes, similar to patients with diabetes and to placebo, and with no episodes of major hypoglycemia or diabetic ketoacidosis.
“It’s quite impressive that the result was consistent regardless of the level of hemoglobin A1c,” commented Larry A. Allen, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Colorado in Aurora and designated discussant for the report. Even though the patients without diabetes constituted just over half of the full DAPA-HF enrollment, the comparison of the effect of dapagliflozin in patients with or without diabetes was prespecified in a trial that enrolled a relatively large number of patients into each of the two subgroups by diabetes status. “I think there a good chance dapagliflozin will get an indication” for treating HFrEF patients without diabetes, Dr. Allen suggested in a video interview.
If the DAPA-HF results persuade the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to grant a supplemental indication to dapagliflozin for use in cutting cardiovascular deaths and acute heart failure exacerbations in patients without diabetes, it would pave the way for health insurers to pay for the drug. Right now, even though Dr. Allen and other heart failure physicians have been impressed by the DAPA-HF findings and are eager to add the drug to the list of agents that HFrEF patients routinely receive, he’s been stymied so far by patients’ out-of pocket cost for using dapagliflozin off-label, roughly $500 a month.
“The DAPA-HF results suggest there is strong reason to consider dapagliflozin for patients without diabetes, and for payers to pay for it. I’m not prescribing dapagliflozin to HFrEF patients without diabetes right now; not because of the data, but because of noncoverage. Payers have not yet caught up with the data,” he said, and they likely will continue to not pay for the drug when used by patients without diabetes until a new labeled indication appears for those patients.
The immediate availability of dapagliflozin (Farxiga) and the two other approved members of the sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitor class of drugs, empagliflozin (Jardiance) and canagliflozin (Invokana), to treat patients with HFrEF, and the prospect of soon having dapagliflozin and possibly the other drugs in this class to treat patients with HFrEF but without diabetes also raises issues of drug sequencing in these patients and the overall number of drugs that HFrEF patients must now take to be on optimized medical therapy, Dr. Allen noted.
The already-existing lineup of medications for HFrEF patients includes starting on an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker and adding a beta-blocker, a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, then swapping out the initial renin-angiotensin system inhibitor for sacubitril/valsartan, and then, on top of all this, adding dapagliflozin or another drug in the same class. It raises questions of what is objectively the best way to introduce all these drugs into patients, and how to do it without subjecting patients to “financial toxicity,” Dr. Allen said during his discussion of the trial’s results.
DAPA-HF was sponsored by AstraZeneca, which markets dapagliflozin (Farxiga). The University of Glasgow received payment from AstraZeneca to compensate for the time Dr. McMurray spent running the study. Dr. Allen has been a consultant to ACI Clinical, Boston Scientific, and Janssen.
SOURCE: McMurray JJV. AHA 19, Late-Breaking Science 1.
PHILADELPHIA – The primary outcome results from the practice-changing DAPA-HF trial gave clinicians strong evidence that the diabetes drug dapagliflozin was equally effective at reducing cardiovascular death and acute exacerbations in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, whether or not they also had type 2 diabetes. More detailed findings from the 2,605 enrolled patients in DAPA-HF who lacked diabetes (55% of the total study population) have now sealed the deal.
“The relative and absolute reductions in cardiovascular death and hospitalizations or urgent visits for heart failure were substantial, clinically important, and consistent in patients with or without type 2 diabetes,” John McMurray, MD, declared at the American Heart Association scientific sessions as he summarized new trial results that confirmed the initial finding he reported previously.
While the initial report of the DAPA-HF (Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Heart Failure) by the study’s lead investigator, Dr. McMurray, was limited to the finding that the relative risk reduction for the study’s primary endpoint was a highly statistically significant 25% in heart failure patients with diabetes and an equally strongly significant 27% relative cut among patients without diabetes (N Engl J Med. 2019 Sep 19;doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1911303), the new data showed that same consistency across the range of outcomes studied in the trial as well as across the range of glycosylated hemoglobin levels that patients had at study entry.
In an analysis that divided the entire study population of 4,744 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) into tertiles based on their entry blood level of hemoglobin A1c, patients with a normal level at or below 5.6% had a 26% relative reduction in the study’s primary endpoint, essentially the same response as the 29% relative cut in adverse events in the tertile of patients with a glycosylated hemoglobin level of 5.7%-5.9% and the relative 28% relative reduction in events in patients diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and having a hemoglobin A1c of 6.0% or greater, reported Dr. McMurray, professor of cardiology at the University of Glasgow. The results also showed a very benign safety profile in the patients without diabetes, similar to patients with diabetes and to placebo, and with no episodes of major hypoglycemia or diabetic ketoacidosis.
“It’s quite impressive that the result was consistent regardless of the level of hemoglobin A1c,” commented Larry A. Allen, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Colorado in Aurora and designated discussant for the report. Even though the patients without diabetes constituted just over half of the full DAPA-HF enrollment, the comparison of the effect of dapagliflozin in patients with or without diabetes was prespecified in a trial that enrolled a relatively large number of patients into each of the two subgroups by diabetes status. “I think there a good chance dapagliflozin will get an indication” for treating HFrEF patients without diabetes, Dr. Allen suggested in a video interview.
If the DAPA-HF results persuade the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to grant a supplemental indication to dapagliflozin for use in cutting cardiovascular deaths and acute heart failure exacerbations in patients without diabetes, it would pave the way for health insurers to pay for the drug. Right now, even though Dr. Allen and other heart failure physicians have been impressed by the DAPA-HF findings and are eager to add the drug to the list of agents that HFrEF patients routinely receive, he’s been stymied so far by patients’ out-of pocket cost for using dapagliflozin off-label, roughly $500 a month.
“The DAPA-HF results suggest there is strong reason to consider dapagliflozin for patients without diabetes, and for payers to pay for it. I’m not prescribing dapagliflozin to HFrEF patients without diabetes right now; not because of the data, but because of noncoverage. Payers have not yet caught up with the data,” he said, and they likely will continue to not pay for the drug when used by patients without diabetes until a new labeled indication appears for those patients.
The immediate availability of dapagliflozin (Farxiga) and the two other approved members of the sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitor class of drugs, empagliflozin (Jardiance) and canagliflozin (Invokana), to treat patients with HFrEF, and the prospect of soon having dapagliflozin and possibly the other drugs in this class to treat patients with HFrEF but without diabetes also raises issues of drug sequencing in these patients and the overall number of drugs that HFrEF patients must now take to be on optimized medical therapy, Dr. Allen noted.
The already-existing lineup of medications for HFrEF patients includes starting on an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker and adding a beta-blocker, a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, then swapping out the initial renin-angiotensin system inhibitor for sacubitril/valsartan, and then, on top of all this, adding dapagliflozin or another drug in the same class. It raises questions of what is objectively the best way to introduce all these drugs into patients, and how to do it without subjecting patients to “financial toxicity,” Dr. Allen said during his discussion of the trial’s results.
DAPA-HF was sponsored by AstraZeneca, which markets dapagliflozin (Farxiga). The University of Glasgow received payment from AstraZeneca to compensate for the time Dr. McMurray spent running the study. Dr. Allen has been a consultant to ACI Clinical, Boston Scientific, and Janssen.
SOURCE: McMurray JJV. AHA 19, Late-Breaking Science 1.
REPORTING FROM AHA 2019
Key clinical point: Dapaglifozin produced as much benefit in HFrEF patients without diabetes as it did in those with type 2 diabetes.
Major finding: The relative risk reduction with dapagliflozin was 26% in patients with a hemoglobin A1c of 5.6% or less.
Study details: DAPA-HF is a multicenter, randomized trial involving 4,744 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.
Disclosures: DAPA-HF was sponsored by AstraZeneca, which markets dapagliflozin (Farxiga). The University of Glasgow received payment from AstraZeneca to compensate for the time Dr. McMurray spent running the study. Dr. Allen has been a consultant to ACI Clinical, Boston Scientific, and Janssen.
Source: McMurray JJV et al. AHA 19, Late-Breaking Science 1.
Level of hepatitis B core–related antigen is risk factor for hepatocellular carcinoma
A high level of hepatitis B core–related antigen (HBcrAg) was a complementary risk factor for hepatocellular carcinoma, according to the results of a retrospective cohort study of more than 2,600 noncirrhotic adults with untreated hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection with a median of 16 years of follow-up.
SOURCE: AMERICAN GASTROENTEROLOGICAL ASSOCIATION
“Patients with an intermediate viral load and high levels of HBcrAg had a risk for hepatocellular carcinoma that did not differ significantly from that of patients with a high viral load. [An] HBcrAg of 10 KU/mL may serve as a novel biomarker for the management of patients with intermediate viral load in our clinical practice,” wrote Tai-Chung Tseng, MD, PhD, of National Taiwan University Hospital in Taipei and associates in Gastroenterology.
Deciding whether to start antiviral therapy is controversial for some patients with HBV infection. Typically, monitoring without treatment is recommended for patients who have both low hepatitis B surface antigen levels (less than 1,000 IU/mL) and low levels of HBV DNA (less than 2,000 IU/mL), and early antiviral therapy is recommended for patients who have high levels of HBV DNA (20,000 IU/mL or more). However, there is no clear evidence that early antiviral therapy benefits patients who have intermediate levels of HBV DNA (2,000-19,999 IU/mL) and are negative for hepatitis B e antigen. Biomarkers for risk-stratifying these patients also are lacking, the researchers noted.
Therefore, they studied a cohort of 2,666 adults who had tested positive for hepatitis B surface antigen and were followed at National Taiwan University Hospital from 1985 through 2000. No patient had cirrhosis at baseline. In all, 209 patients developed hepatocellular carcinoma, yielding an incidence rate of 4.91 cases per 1,000 person-years.
Hepatitis B core–related antigen level remained an independent risk factor for hepatocellular carcinoma after accounting for age, sex, serum alanine aminotransferase (ALT) level, FIB-4 index, hepatitis B e antigen status, hepatitis B genotype (B, C, or undetermined), and HBV DNA level. Compared with patients whose HBcrAg level was less than 10 KU, a level of 10-99 KU/mL was associated with a nearly threefold increase in risk for hepatocellular carcinoma (HR, 2.93; 95% CI, 1.67-4.80), and this risk rose even further as HBcrAg levels increased.
In the subgroup of patients who tested negative for hepatitis B e antigen, had an intermediate HBV DNA load (2,000-19,999 IU/mL), and had a normal baseline ALT level (less than 40 U/L), a high HBcrAg level (10 KU/mL or more) was tied to a nearly fivefold greater risk for hepatocellular carcinoma (HR, 4.89; 95% CI, 2.18-10.93). This approximated the risk that is observed with high viral load (20,000 IU/mL), the researchers noted. In contrast, a low HBcrAg level was associated with a risk similar to that of minimal risk carriers (annual incidence rate, 0.10%; 95% CI, 0.04%-0.24%).
“To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to report HBcrAg level as an independent viral biomarker to stratify hepatocellular risks in a large number of patients with intermediate viral load,” the researchers commented. Among the study limitations, 412 patients received antiviral therapy during follow-up. “This is a retrospective cohort study including Asian HBV patients with genotype B or C infection,” the investigators added. “It is unclear whether this finding could be extrapolated to populations with other HBV genotype infections. Nonetheless, we had a sound cohort, as several HBsAg-related clinical findings based on our cohort have already been validated by other prospective cohort studies, implying that our data were unlikely to be biased by the study design.”
Funders included National Taiwan University Hospital, the Ministry of Science and Technology, Executive Yuan in Taiwan, and National Health Research Institutes. The researchers reported having no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Tseng T-C et al. Gastroenterology. 2019 Aug 27. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.08.028.
A high level of hepatitis B core–related antigen (HBcrAg) was a complementary risk factor for hepatocellular carcinoma, according to the results of a retrospective cohort study of more than 2,600 noncirrhotic adults with untreated hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection with a median of 16 years of follow-up.
SOURCE: AMERICAN GASTROENTEROLOGICAL ASSOCIATION
“Patients with an intermediate viral load and high levels of HBcrAg had a risk for hepatocellular carcinoma that did not differ significantly from that of patients with a high viral load. [An] HBcrAg of 10 KU/mL may serve as a novel biomarker for the management of patients with intermediate viral load in our clinical practice,” wrote Tai-Chung Tseng, MD, PhD, of National Taiwan University Hospital in Taipei and associates in Gastroenterology.
Deciding whether to start antiviral therapy is controversial for some patients with HBV infection. Typically, monitoring without treatment is recommended for patients who have both low hepatitis B surface antigen levels (less than 1,000 IU/mL) and low levels of HBV DNA (less than 2,000 IU/mL), and early antiviral therapy is recommended for patients who have high levels of HBV DNA (20,000 IU/mL or more). However, there is no clear evidence that early antiviral therapy benefits patients who have intermediate levels of HBV DNA (2,000-19,999 IU/mL) and are negative for hepatitis B e antigen. Biomarkers for risk-stratifying these patients also are lacking, the researchers noted.
Therefore, they studied a cohort of 2,666 adults who had tested positive for hepatitis B surface antigen and were followed at National Taiwan University Hospital from 1985 through 2000. No patient had cirrhosis at baseline. In all, 209 patients developed hepatocellular carcinoma, yielding an incidence rate of 4.91 cases per 1,000 person-years.
Hepatitis B core–related antigen level remained an independent risk factor for hepatocellular carcinoma after accounting for age, sex, serum alanine aminotransferase (ALT) level, FIB-4 index, hepatitis B e antigen status, hepatitis B genotype (B, C, or undetermined), and HBV DNA level. Compared with patients whose HBcrAg level was less than 10 KU, a level of 10-99 KU/mL was associated with a nearly threefold increase in risk for hepatocellular carcinoma (HR, 2.93; 95% CI, 1.67-4.80), and this risk rose even further as HBcrAg levels increased.
In the subgroup of patients who tested negative for hepatitis B e antigen, had an intermediate HBV DNA load (2,000-19,999 IU/mL), and had a normal baseline ALT level (less than 40 U/L), a high HBcrAg level (10 KU/mL or more) was tied to a nearly fivefold greater risk for hepatocellular carcinoma (HR, 4.89; 95% CI, 2.18-10.93). This approximated the risk that is observed with high viral load (20,000 IU/mL), the researchers noted. In contrast, a low HBcrAg level was associated with a risk similar to that of minimal risk carriers (annual incidence rate, 0.10%; 95% CI, 0.04%-0.24%).
“To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to report HBcrAg level as an independent viral biomarker to stratify hepatocellular risks in a large number of patients with intermediate viral load,” the researchers commented. Among the study limitations, 412 patients received antiviral therapy during follow-up. “This is a retrospective cohort study including Asian HBV patients with genotype B or C infection,” the investigators added. “It is unclear whether this finding could be extrapolated to populations with other HBV genotype infections. Nonetheless, we had a sound cohort, as several HBsAg-related clinical findings based on our cohort have already been validated by other prospective cohort studies, implying that our data were unlikely to be biased by the study design.”
Funders included National Taiwan University Hospital, the Ministry of Science and Technology, Executive Yuan in Taiwan, and National Health Research Institutes. The researchers reported having no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Tseng T-C et al. Gastroenterology. 2019 Aug 27. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.08.028.
A high level of hepatitis B core–related antigen (HBcrAg) was a complementary risk factor for hepatocellular carcinoma, according to the results of a retrospective cohort study of more than 2,600 noncirrhotic adults with untreated hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection with a median of 16 years of follow-up.
SOURCE: AMERICAN GASTROENTEROLOGICAL ASSOCIATION
“Patients with an intermediate viral load and high levels of HBcrAg had a risk for hepatocellular carcinoma that did not differ significantly from that of patients with a high viral load. [An] HBcrAg of 10 KU/mL may serve as a novel biomarker for the management of patients with intermediate viral load in our clinical practice,” wrote Tai-Chung Tseng, MD, PhD, of National Taiwan University Hospital in Taipei and associates in Gastroenterology.
Deciding whether to start antiviral therapy is controversial for some patients with HBV infection. Typically, monitoring without treatment is recommended for patients who have both low hepatitis B surface antigen levels (less than 1,000 IU/mL) and low levels of HBV DNA (less than 2,000 IU/mL), and early antiviral therapy is recommended for patients who have high levels of HBV DNA (20,000 IU/mL or more). However, there is no clear evidence that early antiviral therapy benefits patients who have intermediate levels of HBV DNA (2,000-19,999 IU/mL) and are negative for hepatitis B e antigen. Biomarkers for risk-stratifying these patients also are lacking, the researchers noted.
Therefore, they studied a cohort of 2,666 adults who had tested positive for hepatitis B surface antigen and were followed at National Taiwan University Hospital from 1985 through 2000. No patient had cirrhosis at baseline. In all, 209 patients developed hepatocellular carcinoma, yielding an incidence rate of 4.91 cases per 1,000 person-years.
Hepatitis B core–related antigen level remained an independent risk factor for hepatocellular carcinoma after accounting for age, sex, serum alanine aminotransferase (ALT) level, FIB-4 index, hepatitis B e antigen status, hepatitis B genotype (B, C, or undetermined), and HBV DNA level. Compared with patients whose HBcrAg level was less than 10 KU, a level of 10-99 KU/mL was associated with a nearly threefold increase in risk for hepatocellular carcinoma (HR, 2.93; 95% CI, 1.67-4.80), and this risk rose even further as HBcrAg levels increased.
In the subgroup of patients who tested negative for hepatitis B e antigen, had an intermediate HBV DNA load (2,000-19,999 IU/mL), and had a normal baseline ALT level (less than 40 U/L), a high HBcrAg level (10 KU/mL or more) was tied to a nearly fivefold greater risk for hepatocellular carcinoma (HR, 4.89; 95% CI, 2.18-10.93). This approximated the risk that is observed with high viral load (20,000 IU/mL), the researchers noted. In contrast, a low HBcrAg level was associated with a risk similar to that of minimal risk carriers (annual incidence rate, 0.10%; 95% CI, 0.04%-0.24%).
“To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to report HBcrAg level as an independent viral biomarker to stratify hepatocellular risks in a large number of patients with intermediate viral load,” the researchers commented. Among the study limitations, 412 patients received antiviral therapy during follow-up. “This is a retrospective cohort study including Asian HBV patients with genotype B or C infection,” the investigators added. “It is unclear whether this finding could be extrapolated to populations with other HBV genotype infections. Nonetheless, we had a sound cohort, as several HBsAg-related clinical findings based on our cohort have already been validated by other prospective cohort studies, implying that our data were unlikely to be biased by the study design.”
Funders included National Taiwan University Hospital, the Ministry of Science and Technology, Executive Yuan in Taiwan, and National Health Research Institutes. The researchers reported having no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Tseng T-C et al. Gastroenterology. 2019 Aug 27. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.08.028.
FROM GASTROENTEROLOGY
Flu vaccine cuts infection severity in kids and adults
WASHINGTON –
During recent U.S. flu seasons, children and adults who contracted influenza despite vaccination had significantly fewer severe infections and infection complications, compared with unimmunized people, according to two separate reports from CDC researchers presented at an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.
One of the reports tracked the impact of flu vaccine in children using data that the CDC collected at seven medical centers that participated in the agency’s New Vaccine Surveillance Network, which provided information on children aged 6 months to 17 years who were hospitalized for an acute respiratory illness, including more than 1,700 children during the 2016-2017 flu season and more than 1,900 during the 2017-2018 season. Roughly 10% of these children tested positive for influenza, and the subsequent analysis focused on these cases and compared incidence rates among children who had been vaccinated during the index season and those who had remained unvaccinated.
Combined data from both seasons showed that vaccinated children were 50% less likely to have been hospitalized for an acute influenza infection, compared with unvaccinated kids, a pattern consistently seen both in children aged 6 months to 8 years and in those aged 9-17 years. The pattern of vaccine effectiveness also held regardless of which flu strain caused the infections, reported Angela P. Campbell, MD, a CDC medical officer.
“We saw a nice benefit from vaccination, both in previously healthy children and in those with an underlying medical condition,” a finding that adds to existing evidence of vaccine effectiveness, Dr. Campbell said in a video interview. The results confirmed that flu vaccination does not just prevent infections but also cuts the rate of more severe infections that lead to hospitalization, she explained.
Another CDC study looked at data collected by the agency’s Influenza Hospitalization Surveillance Network from adults at least 18 years old who were hospitalized for a laboratory-confirmed influenza infection during five flu seasons, 2013-2014 through 2017-18. The data, which came from more than 250 acute-care hospitals in 13 states, included more than 43,000 people hospitalized for an identified influenza strain and with a known vaccination history who were not institutionalized and had not received any antiviral treatment.
After propensity-weighted adjustment to create better parity between the vaccinated and unvaccinated patients, the results showed that people 18-64 years old with vaccination had statistically significant decreases in mortality of a relative 36%, need for mechanical ventilation of 34%, pneumonia of 20%, and need for ICU admission of a relative 19%, as well as an 18% drop in average ICU length of stay, Shikha Garg, MD, said at the meeting. The propensity-weighted analysis of data from people at least 65 years old showed statistically significant relative reductions linked with vaccination: 46% reduction in the need for mechanical ventilation, 28% reduction in ICU admissions, and 9% reduction in hospitalized length of stay.
Further analysis of these outcomes by the strains that caused these influenza infections showed that the statistically significant benefits from vaccination were seen only in patients infected with an H1N1 strain. Statistically significant effects on these severe outcomes were not apparent among people infected with the H3N2 or B strains, said Dr. Garg, a medical epidemiologist at the CDC.
“All adults should receive an annual flu vaccination as it can improve outcomes among those who develop influenza despite vaccination,” she concluded.
Results from a third CDC study reported at the meeting examined the importance of two vaccine doses (administered at least 4 weeks apart) given to children aged 6 months to 8 years for the first season they receive flu vaccination, which is the immunization approach for flu recommended by the CDC. The findings from a total of more than 7,500 children immunized during the 2014-2018 seasons showed a clear increment in vaccine protection among kids who received two doses during their first season vaccinated, especially in children who were 2 years old or younger. In that age group, administration of two doses produced vaccine effectiveness of 53% versus a 23% vaccine effectiveness after a single vaccine dose, reported Jessie Chung, a CDC epidemiologist.
WASHINGTON –
During recent U.S. flu seasons, children and adults who contracted influenza despite vaccination had significantly fewer severe infections and infection complications, compared with unimmunized people, according to two separate reports from CDC researchers presented at an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.
One of the reports tracked the impact of flu vaccine in children using data that the CDC collected at seven medical centers that participated in the agency’s New Vaccine Surveillance Network, which provided information on children aged 6 months to 17 years who were hospitalized for an acute respiratory illness, including more than 1,700 children during the 2016-2017 flu season and more than 1,900 during the 2017-2018 season. Roughly 10% of these children tested positive for influenza, and the subsequent analysis focused on these cases and compared incidence rates among children who had been vaccinated during the index season and those who had remained unvaccinated.
Combined data from both seasons showed that vaccinated children were 50% less likely to have been hospitalized for an acute influenza infection, compared with unvaccinated kids, a pattern consistently seen both in children aged 6 months to 8 years and in those aged 9-17 years. The pattern of vaccine effectiveness also held regardless of which flu strain caused the infections, reported Angela P. Campbell, MD, a CDC medical officer.
“We saw a nice benefit from vaccination, both in previously healthy children and in those with an underlying medical condition,” a finding that adds to existing evidence of vaccine effectiveness, Dr. Campbell said in a video interview. The results confirmed that flu vaccination does not just prevent infections but also cuts the rate of more severe infections that lead to hospitalization, she explained.
Another CDC study looked at data collected by the agency’s Influenza Hospitalization Surveillance Network from adults at least 18 years old who were hospitalized for a laboratory-confirmed influenza infection during five flu seasons, 2013-2014 through 2017-18. The data, which came from more than 250 acute-care hospitals in 13 states, included more than 43,000 people hospitalized for an identified influenza strain and with a known vaccination history who were not institutionalized and had not received any antiviral treatment.
After propensity-weighted adjustment to create better parity between the vaccinated and unvaccinated patients, the results showed that people 18-64 years old with vaccination had statistically significant decreases in mortality of a relative 36%, need for mechanical ventilation of 34%, pneumonia of 20%, and need for ICU admission of a relative 19%, as well as an 18% drop in average ICU length of stay, Shikha Garg, MD, said at the meeting. The propensity-weighted analysis of data from people at least 65 years old showed statistically significant relative reductions linked with vaccination: 46% reduction in the need for mechanical ventilation, 28% reduction in ICU admissions, and 9% reduction in hospitalized length of stay.
Further analysis of these outcomes by the strains that caused these influenza infections showed that the statistically significant benefits from vaccination were seen only in patients infected with an H1N1 strain. Statistically significant effects on these severe outcomes were not apparent among people infected with the H3N2 or B strains, said Dr. Garg, a medical epidemiologist at the CDC.
“All adults should receive an annual flu vaccination as it can improve outcomes among those who develop influenza despite vaccination,” she concluded.
Results from a third CDC study reported at the meeting examined the importance of two vaccine doses (administered at least 4 weeks apart) given to children aged 6 months to 8 years for the first season they receive flu vaccination, which is the immunization approach for flu recommended by the CDC. The findings from a total of more than 7,500 children immunized during the 2014-2018 seasons showed a clear increment in vaccine protection among kids who received two doses during their first season vaccinated, especially in children who were 2 years old or younger. In that age group, administration of two doses produced vaccine effectiveness of 53% versus a 23% vaccine effectiveness after a single vaccine dose, reported Jessie Chung, a CDC epidemiologist.
WASHINGTON –
During recent U.S. flu seasons, children and adults who contracted influenza despite vaccination had significantly fewer severe infections and infection complications, compared with unimmunized people, according to two separate reports from CDC researchers presented at an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.
One of the reports tracked the impact of flu vaccine in children using data that the CDC collected at seven medical centers that participated in the agency’s New Vaccine Surveillance Network, which provided information on children aged 6 months to 17 years who were hospitalized for an acute respiratory illness, including more than 1,700 children during the 2016-2017 flu season and more than 1,900 during the 2017-2018 season. Roughly 10% of these children tested positive for influenza, and the subsequent analysis focused on these cases and compared incidence rates among children who had been vaccinated during the index season and those who had remained unvaccinated.
Combined data from both seasons showed that vaccinated children were 50% less likely to have been hospitalized for an acute influenza infection, compared with unvaccinated kids, a pattern consistently seen both in children aged 6 months to 8 years and in those aged 9-17 years. The pattern of vaccine effectiveness also held regardless of which flu strain caused the infections, reported Angela P. Campbell, MD, a CDC medical officer.
“We saw a nice benefit from vaccination, both in previously healthy children and in those with an underlying medical condition,” a finding that adds to existing evidence of vaccine effectiveness, Dr. Campbell said in a video interview. The results confirmed that flu vaccination does not just prevent infections but also cuts the rate of more severe infections that lead to hospitalization, she explained.
Another CDC study looked at data collected by the agency’s Influenza Hospitalization Surveillance Network from adults at least 18 years old who were hospitalized for a laboratory-confirmed influenza infection during five flu seasons, 2013-2014 through 2017-18. The data, which came from more than 250 acute-care hospitals in 13 states, included more than 43,000 people hospitalized for an identified influenza strain and with a known vaccination history who were not institutionalized and had not received any antiviral treatment.
After propensity-weighted adjustment to create better parity between the vaccinated and unvaccinated patients, the results showed that people 18-64 years old with vaccination had statistically significant decreases in mortality of a relative 36%, need for mechanical ventilation of 34%, pneumonia of 20%, and need for ICU admission of a relative 19%, as well as an 18% drop in average ICU length of stay, Shikha Garg, MD, said at the meeting. The propensity-weighted analysis of data from people at least 65 years old showed statistically significant relative reductions linked with vaccination: 46% reduction in the need for mechanical ventilation, 28% reduction in ICU admissions, and 9% reduction in hospitalized length of stay.
Further analysis of these outcomes by the strains that caused these influenza infections showed that the statistically significant benefits from vaccination were seen only in patients infected with an H1N1 strain. Statistically significant effects on these severe outcomes were not apparent among people infected with the H3N2 or B strains, said Dr. Garg, a medical epidemiologist at the CDC.
“All adults should receive an annual flu vaccination as it can improve outcomes among those who develop influenza despite vaccination,” she concluded.
Results from a third CDC study reported at the meeting examined the importance of two vaccine doses (administered at least 4 weeks apart) given to children aged 6 months to 8 years for the first season they receive flu vaccination, which is the immunization approach for flu recommended by the CDC. The findings from a total of more than 7,500 children immunized during the 2014-2018 seasons showed a clear increment in vaccine protection among kids who received two doses during their first season vaccinated, especially in children who were 2 years old or younger. In that age group, administration of two doses produced vaccine effectiveness of 53% versus a 23% vaccine effectiveness after a single vaccine dose, reported Jessie Chung, a CDC epidemiologist.
REPORTING FROM ID WEEK 2019
Cancer overtakes CVD as cause of death in high-income countries
PARIS – Though cardiovascular disease still accounts for 40% of deaths around the world, , according to new data from a global prospective study.
“Cancer deaths are becoming more frequent not because the rates of death from cancer are going up, but because we have decreased the deaths from cardiovascular disease,” said the study’s senior author, Salim Yusuf, MD, at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
A striking pattern emerged when cause of death was stratified by country income level, said fellow investigator Darryl P. Leong, MBBS, in presenting data regarding shifting global mortality patterns. Fully 55% of deaths in high-income nations were caused by cancer, compared with 30% in middle-income countries and 15% in low-income countries. In high-income countries, by contrast, cardiovascular disease (CVD) was the cause of death 23% of the time, while that figure was 42% and 43% for middle- and low-income countries, respectively.
Looking at the data slightly differently, the ratio of cardiovascular deaths to cancer deaths for high-income countries is 0.4; for middle-income countries, the ratio is 1.3, and “One is threefold more likely to die from cardiovascular disease as from cancer” in low-income countries, said Dr. Leong. Although the United States is not included in the PURE study, “recent data shows that some states in the U.S. also have higher cancer mortality than cardiovascular disease. This is a success story,” said Dr. Yusuf, since the shift is largely attributable to decreased mortality from CVD.
Dr. Leong and Dr. Yusuf each presented results from the PURE (Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology) study, which has enrolled a total of 202,000 individuals from 27 countries on every inhabited continent but Australia. Follow-up data are available for 167,000 individuals in 21 countries. Canada, Russia, China, India, Brazil, and Chile are among the most populous national that are included. Their findings were published simultaneously in the Lancet with the congress presentations (2019 Sep 3; doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32008-2 and doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32007-0).
The INTERHEART risk score, an integrated cardiovascular risk score that uses non-laboratory values such as age, smoking status, family history, and comorbidities, was calculated for all participants. “We observed that the highest predicted cardiovascular risk is in high-income countries, and the lowest, in low-income countries,” said Dr. Leong, a cardiologist at McMaster University and the Population Health Research Institute, both in Hamilton, Ont.
Over the study period, 11,307 deaths occurred. Over 9,000 incident cardiovascular events were observed, as were over 5,000 new cancers.
“We have some interesting observations from these data,” said Dr. Leong. “Firstly, there is a gradient in the cardiovascular disease rates, moving from lowest in high-income countries – despite the fact that their INTERHEART risk score was highest – through to highest incident cardiovascular disease in low-income countries, despite their INTERHEART risk score being lowest.” This difference, said Dr. Leong, was driven by higher myocardial infarction rates in low-income countries and higher stroke rates in middle-income countries, when compared to high-income countries.
Once a participant was subject to one of the incident diseases, though, the patterns shifted. For CVD, cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pneumonia, and injury, the likelihood of death within 1 year was highest in low-income countries – markedly higher, in the case of CVD. For all conditions, the one-year case-fatality rate after the occurrence of an incident disease was lowest in high-income countries.
“So we are seeing a new transition,” said Dr. Yusuf, the executive director of the Population Health Research Institute and Distinguished University Professor of Medicine, McMaster University, both in Hamilton, Ont. “The old transition was infectious diseases giving way to noncommunicable diseases. Now we are seeing a transition within noncommunicable diseases: In rich countries, cardiovascular disease is going down, perhaps due to better prevention, but I think even more importantly, due to better treatments.
“I want to hasten to add that the difference in risk between high-, middle-, and low-income countries in cardiovascular disease is not due to risk factors,” he went on. “Risk factors, if anything, are lower in the poor countries, compared to the higher-income countries.”
The shift away from cardiovascular disease mortality toward cancer mortality is also occurring in some countries that are in the upper tier of middle-income nations, including Chile, Argentina, Turkey, and Poland, said Dr. Yusuf, who presented data regarding the relative contributions of risk factors to cardiovascular disease and mortality.
Risk factors for cardiovascular disease in the PURE study were expressed by a measure called the population attributable fraction (PAF) that captures both the hazard ratio for a particular risk factor and the prevalence of the risk factor, explained Dr. Yusuf. “Hypertension, by far, was the biggest risk factor of cardiovascular disease globally,” he added, noting that the PAF for hypertension was over 20%. Hypertension far outstripped the next most significant risk factor, high non-HDL cholesterol, which had a PAF of less than 10%.
“This was a big surprise to us: Household pollution was a big factor,” said Dr. Yusuf, who later added that particulate matter from cooking, particularly with solid fuels such as wood or charcoal, was likely the source of much household air pollution, “a big problem in middle- and low-income countries.”
Tobacco usage is decreasing, as is its contribution to cardiovascular deaths, but other commonly cited culprits for cardiovascular disease were not significant contributors to cardiovascular disease in the PURE population.
“Abdominal obesity, and not BMI” contributes to cardiovascular risk. “BMI is not a good indicator of risk,” said Dr. Yusuf in a video interview. These results were presented separately at the congress.
“Grip strength is important; in fact, it is more important than low physical activity. People have focused on physical activity – how much you do. But strength seems to be more important…We haven’t focused on the importance of strength in the past.”
“Salt doesn’t figure in at all; salt has been exaggerated as a risk factor,” said Dr. Yusuf. “Diet needs to be rethought,” and conventional thinking challenged, he added, noting that consumption of full-fat dairy, nuts, and a moderate amount of meat all were protective among the PURE cohort.
Looking next at factors contributing to mortality in the global PURE population, low educational level had the highest attributable fraction of mortality of any single risk factor, at about 12%. “This has been ignored,” said Dr. Yusuf. “In most epidemiological studies, it’s been used as a covariate, or a stratifier,” rather than addressing low education itself as a risk factor, he said.
Tobacco use, low grip strength, and poor diet all had attributable fractions of just over 10%, said Dr. Yusuf, again noting that it wasn’t fat or meat consumption that made for the riskiest diet.
Overall, metabolic risk factors accounted for the largest fraction of risk of cardiovascular disease in the PURE population, with behavioral risk factors such as alcohol and tobacco use coming next. This held true across all income categories. However, in higher income nations where environmental factors and household air pollution are lower contributors to cardiovascular disease, metabolic and behavioral risk factors contributed more to cardiovascular disease risk.
Global differences in cardiovascular disease rates, stressed Dr. Yusuf, are not primarily attributable to metabolic risk factors. “The [World Health Organization] has focused on risk factors and has not focused on improved health care. Health care matters, and it matters in a big way.”
Adults aged 35-70 were recruited from 4 high-, 12 middle- and 5 low-income countries for PURE, and followed for a median 9.5 years. Cardiovascular disease and other health events salient to the study were documented both through direct contact and administrative record review, said Dr. Leong, and data about cardiovascular events and vital status were known for well over 90% of study participants.
Slightly less than half of participants were male, and over 108,000 participants were from middle income countries.
The PURE study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, the Ontaario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, Astra Zeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi-Aentis, Servier Laboratories, and Glaxo Smith Kline. The study also received additional support in individual participating countries. Dr. Yusuf and Dr. Leon reported that they had no relevant conflicts of interest.
koakes@mdedge.com
PARIS – Though cardiovascular disease still accounts for 40% of deaths around the world, , according to new data from a global prospective study.
“Cancer deaths are becoming more frequent not because the rates of death from cancer are going up, but because we have decreased the deaths from cardiovascular disease,” said the study’s senior author, Salim Yusuf, MD, at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
A striking pattern emerged when cause of death was stratified by country income level, said fellow investigator Darryl P. Leong, MBBS, in presenting data regarding shifting global mortality patterns. Fully 55% of deaths in high-income nations were caused by cancer, compared with 30% in middle-income countries and 15% in low-income countries. In high-income countries, by contrast, cardiovascular disease (CVD) was the cause of death 23% of the time, while that figure was 42% and 43% for middle- and low-income countries, respectively.
Looking at the data slightly differently, the ratio of cardiovascular deaths to cancer deaths for high-income countries is 0.4; for middle-income countries, the ratio is 1.3, and “One is threefold more likely to die from cardiovascular disease as from cancer” in low-income countries, said Dr. Leong. Although the United States is not included in the PURE study, “recent data shows that some states in the U.S. also have higher cancer mortality than cardiovascular disease. This is a success story,” said Dr. Yusuf, since the shift is largely attributable to decreased mortality from CVD.
Dr. Leong and Dr. Yusuf each presented results from the PURE (Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology) study, which has enrolled a total of 202,000 individuals from 27 countries on every inhabited continent but Australia. Follow-up data are available for 167,000 individuals in 21 countries. Canada, Russia, China, India, Brazil, and Chile are among the most populous national that are included. Their findings were published simultaneously in the Lancet with the congress presentations (2019 Sep 3; doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32008-2 and doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32007-0).
The INTERHEART risk score, an integrated cardiovascular risk score that uses non-laboratory values such as age, smoking status, family history, and comorbidities, was calculated for all participants. “We observed that the highest predicted cardiovascular risk is in high-income countries, and the lowest, in low-income countries,” said Dr. Leong, a cardiologist at McMaster University and the Population Health Research Institute, both in Hamilton, Ont.
Over the study period, 11,307 deaths occurred. Over 9,000 incident cardiovascular events were observed, as were over 5,000 new cancers.
“We have some interesting observations from these data,” said Dr. Leong. “Firstly, there is a gradient in the cardiovascular disease rates, moving from lowest in high-income countries – despite the fact that their INTERHEART risk score was highest – through to highest incident cardiovascular disease in low-income countries, despite their INTERHEART risk score being lowest.” This difference, said Dr. Leong, was driven by higher myocardial infarction rates in low-income countries and higher stroke rates in middle-income countries, when compared to high-income countries.
Once a participant was subject to one of the incident diseases, though, the patterns shifted. For CVD, cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pneumonia, and injury, the likelihood of death within 1 year was highest in low-income countries – markedly higher, in the case of CVD. For all conditions, the one-year case-fatality rate after the occurrence of an incident disease was lowest in high-income countries.
“So we are seeing a new transition,” said Dr. Yusuf, the executive director of the Population Health Research Institute and Distinguished University Professor of Medicine, McMaster University, both in Hamilton, Ont. “The old transition was infectious diseases giving way to noncommunicable diseases. Now we are seeing a transition within noncommunicable diseases: In rich countries, cardiovascular disease is going down, perhaps due to better prevention, but I think even more importantly, due to better treatments.
“I want to hasten to add that the difference in risk between high-, middle-, and low-income countries in cardiovascular disease is not due to risk factors,” he went on. “Risk factors, if anything, are lower in the poor countries, compared to the higher-income countries.”
The shift away from cardiovascular disease mortality toward cancer mortality is also occurring in some countries that are in the upper tier of middle-income nations, including Chile, Argentina, Turkey, and Poland, said Dr. Yusuf, who presented data regarding the relative contributions of risk factors to cardiovascular disease and mortality.
Risk factors for cardiovascular disease in the PURE study were expressed by a measure called the population attributable fraction (PAF) that captures both the hazard ratio for a particular risk factor and the prevalence of the risk factor, explained Dr. Yusuf. “Hypertension, by far, was the biggest risk factor of cardiovascular disease globally,” he added, noting that the PAF for hypertension was over 20%. Hypertension far outstripped the next most significant risk factor, high non-HDL cholesterol, which had a PAF of less than 10%.
“This was a big surprise to us: Household pollution was a big factor,” said Dr. Yusuf, who later added that particulate matter from cooking, particularly with solid fuels such as wood or charcoal, was likely the source of much household air pollution, “a big problem in middle- and low-income countries.”
Tobacco usage is decreasing, as is its contribution to cardiovascular deaths, but other commonly cited culprits for cardiovascular disease were not significant contributors to cardiovascular disease in the PURE population.
“Abdominal obesity, and not BMI” contributes to cardiovascular risk. “BMI is not a good indicator of risk,” said Dr. Yusuf in a video interview. These results were presented separately at the congress.
“Grip strength is important; in fact, it is more important than low physical activity. People have focused on physical activity – how much you do. But strength seems to be more important…We haven’t focused on the importance of strength in the past.”
“Salt doesn’t figure in at all; salt has been exaggerated as a risk factor,” said Dr. Yusuf. “Diet needs to be rethought,” and conventional thinking challenged, he added, noting that consumption of full-fat dairy, nuts, and a moderate amount of meat all were protective among the PURE cohort.
Looking next at factors contributing to mortality in the global PURE population, low educational level had the highest attributable fraction of mortality of any single risk factor, at about 12%. “This has been ignored,” said Dr. Yusuf. “In most epidemiological studies, it’s been used as a covariate, or a stratifier,” rather than addressing low education itself as a risk factor, he said.
Tobacco use, low grip strength, and poor diet all had attributable fractions of just over 10%, said Dr. Yusuf, again noting that it wasn’t fat or meat consumption that made for the riskiest diet.
Overall, metabolic risk factors accounted for the largest fraction of risk of cardiovascular disease in the PURE population, with behavioral risk factors such as alcohol and tobacco use coming next. This held true across all income categories. However, in higher income nations where environmental factors and household air pollution are lower contributors to cardiovascular disease, metabolic and behavioral risk factors contributed more to cardiovascular disease risk.
Global differences in cardiovascular disease rates, stressed Dr. Yusuf, are not primarily attributable to metabolic risk factors. “The [World Health Organization] has focused on risk factors and has not focused on improved health care. Health care matters, and it matters in a big way.”
Adults aged 35-70 were recruited from 4 high-, 12 middle- and 5 low-income countries for PURE, and followed for a median 9.5 years. Cardiovascular disease and other health events salient to the study were documented both through direct contact and administrative record review, said Dr. Leong, and data about cardiovascular events and vital status were known for well over 90% of study participants.
Slightly less than half of participants were male, and over 108,000 participants were from middle income countries.
The PURE study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, the Ontaario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, Astra Zeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi-Aentis, Servier Laboratories, and Glaxo Smith Kline. The study also received additional support in individual participating countries. Dr. Yusuf and Dr. Leon reported that they had no relevant conflicts of interest.
koakes@mdedge.com
PARIS – Though cardiovascular disease still accounts for 40% of deaths around the world, , according to new data from a global prospective study.
“Cancer deaths are becoming more frequent not because the rates of death from cancer are going up, but because we have decreased the deaths from cardiovascular disease,” said the study’s senior author, Salim Yusuf, MD, at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
A striking pattern emerged when cause of death was stratified by country income level, said fellow investigator Darryl P. Leong, MBBS, in presenting data regarding shifting global mortality patterns. Fully 55% of deaths in high-income nations were caused by cancer, compared with 30% in middle-income countries and 15% in low-income countries. In high-income countries, by contrast, cardiovascular disease (CVD) was the cause of death 23% of the time, while that figure was 42% and 43% for middle- and low-income countries, respectively.
Looking at the data slightly differently, the ratio of cardiovascular deaths to cancer deaths for high-income countries is 0.4; for middle-income countries, the ratio is 1.3, and “One is threefold more likely to die from cardiovascular disease as from cancer” in low-income countries, said Dr. Leong. Although the United States is not included in the PURE study, “recent data shows that some states in the U.S. also have higher cancer mortality than cardiovascular disease. This is a success story,” said Dr. Yusuf, since the shift is largely attributable to decreased mortality from CVD.
Dr. Leong and Dr. Yusuf each presented results from the PURE (Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology) study, which has enrolled a total of 202,000 individuals from 27 countries on every inhabited continent but Australia. Follow-up data are available for 167,000 individuals in 21 countries. Canada, Russia, China, India, Brazil, and Chile are among the most populous national that are included. Their findings were published simultaneously in the Lancet with the congress presentations (2019 Sep 3; doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32008-2 and doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32007-0).
The INTERHEART risk score, an integrated cardiovascular risk score that uses non-laboratory values such as age, smoking status, family history, and comorbidities, was calculated for all participants. “We observed that the highest predicted cardiovascular risk is in high-income countries, and the lowest, in low-income countries,” said Dr. Leong, a cardiologist at McMaster University and the Population Health Research Institute, both in Hamilton, Ont.
Over the study period, 11,307 deaths occurred. Over 9,000 incident cardiovascular events were observed, as were over 5,000 new cancers.
“We have some interesting observations from these data,” said Dr. Leong. “Firstly, there is a gradient in the cardiovascular disease rates, moving from lowest in high-income countries – despite the fact that their INTERHEART risk score was highest – through to highest incident cardiovascular disease in low-income countries, despite their INTERHEART risk score being lowest.” This difference, said Dr. Leong, was driven by higher myocardial infarction rates in low-income countries and higher stroke rates in middle-income countries, when compared to high-income countries.
Once a participant was subject to one of the incident diseases, though, the patterns shifted. For CVD, cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pneumonia, and injury, the likelihood of death within 1 year was highest in low-income countries – markedly higher, in the case of CVD. For all conditions, the one-year case-fatality rate after the occurrence of an incident disease was lowest in high-income countries.
“So we are seeing a new transition,” said Dr. Yusuf, the executive director of the Population Health Research Institute and Distinguished University Professor of Medicine, McMaster University, both in Hamilton, Ont. “The old transition was infectious diseases giving way to noncommunicable diseases. Now we are seeing a transition within noncommunicable diseases: In rich countries, cardiovascular disease is going down, perhaps due to better prevention, but I think even more importantly, due to better treatments.
“I want to hasten to add that the difference in risk between high-, middle-, and low-income countries in cardiovascular disease is not due to risk factors,” he went on. “Risk factors, if anything, are lower in the poor countries, compared to the higher-income countries.”
The shift away from cardiovascular disease mortality toward cancer mortality is also occurring in some countries that are in the upper tier of middle-income nations, including Chile, Argentina, Turkey, and Poland, said Dr. Yusuf, who presented data regarding the relative contributions of risk factors to cardiovascular disease and mortality.
Risk factors for cardiovascular disease in the PURE study were expressed by a measure called the population attributable fraction (PAF) that captures both the hazard ratio for a particular risk factor and the prevalence of the risk factor, explained Dr. Yusuf. “Hypertension, by far, was the biggest risk factor of cardiovascular disease globally,” he added, noting that the PAF for hypertension was over 20%. Hypertension far outstripped the next most significant risk factor, high non-HDL cholesterol, which had a PAF of less than 10%.
“This was a big surprise to us: Household pollution was a big factor,” said Dr. Yusuf, who later added that particulate matter from cooking, particularly with solid fuels such as wood or charcoal, was likely the source of much household air pollution, “a big problem in middle- and low-income countries.”
Tobacco usage is decreasing, as is its contribution to cardiovascular deaths, but other commonly cited culprits for cardiovascular disease were not significant contributors to cardiovascular disease in the PURE population.
“Abdominal obesity, and not BMI” contributes to cardiovascular risk. “BMI is not a good indicator of risk,” said Dr. Yusuf in a video interview. These results were presented separately at the congress.
“Grip strength is important; in fact, it is more important than low physical activity. People have focused on physical activity – how much you do. But strength seems to be more important…We haven’t focused on the importance of strength in the past.”
“Salt doesn’t figure in at all; salt has been exaggerated as a risk factor,” said Dr. Yusuf. “Diet needs to be rethought,” and conventional thinking challenged, he added, noting that consumption of full-fat dairy, nuts, and a moderate amount of meat all were protective among the PURE cohort.
Looking next at factors contributing to mortality in the global PURE population, low educational level had the highest attributable fraction of mortality of any single risk factor, at about 12%. “This has been ignored,” said Dr. Yusuf. “In most epidemiological studies, it’s been used as a covariate, or a stratifier,” rather than addressing low education itself as a risk factor, he said.
Tobacco use, low grip strength, and poor diet all had attributable fractions of just over 10%, said Dr. Yusuf, again noting that it wasn’t fat or meat consumption that made for the riskiest diet.
Overall, metabolic risk factors accounted for the largest fraction of risk of cardiovascular disease in the PURE population, with behavioral risk factors such as alcohol and tobacco use coming next. This held true across all income categories. However, in higher income nations where environmental factors and household air pollution are lower contributors to cardiovascular disease, metabolic and behavioral risk factors contributed more to cardiovascular disease risk.
Global differences in cardiovascular disease rates, stressed Dr. Yusuf, are not primarily attributable to metabolic risk factors. “The [World Health Organization] has focused on risk factors and has not focused on improved health care. Health care matters, and it matters in a big way.”
Adults aged 35-70 were recruited from 4 high-, 12 middle- and 5 low-income countries for PURE, and followed for a median 9.5 years. Cardiovascular disease and other health events salient to the study were documented both through direct contact and administrative record review, said Dr. Leong, and data about cardiovascular events and vital status were known for well over 90% of study participants.
Slightly less than half of participants were male, and over 108,000 participants were from middle income countries.
The PURE study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, the Ontaario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, Astra Zeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi-Aentis, Servier Laboratories, and Glaxo Smith Kline. The study also received additional support in individual participating countries. Dr. Yusuf and Dr. Leon reported that they had no relevant conflicts of interest.
koakes@mdedge.com
REPORTING FROM ESC CONGRESS 2019
New borderline personality disorder intervention less intensive, works for most
SAN DIEGO – A relatively new treatment approach called good psychiatric management (GPM) is available for patients with borderline personality disorder.
It’s a solid option for “environments where people may not have many resources and might not be able to deliver treatments that are more resource intensive, like dialectical behavioral therapy,” the standard intervention, said James Jenkins, MD, a psychiatrist affiliated with Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, in a video interview at the annual Psych Congress.
“GPM is a treatment, not a psychotherapy, that’s maybe a little bit more easily adaptable to a variety of different contexts and situations,” he said.
It’s an atheoretical, pragmatic approach that focuses on helping people establish a life outside of therapy. Clinicians actively engage with patients, encouraging them to start working and building successful relationships with other people. The model emphasizes the value of educating people about the condition and giving them hope. Typically, patients participate in GPM once each week (Curr Opin Psychol. 2018 Jun;21:127-31).
For most people, it works just as well as dialectical behavioral therapy, and when it doesn’t, patients can transition to that or another more intensive approach. Training is less intensive and sometimes free. GPM is offered at McLean Hospital in Boston, where the intervention originated. McLean also is Dr. Jenkins’s former institution.
Dr. Jenkins reported that he had no disclosures.
SAN DIEGO – A relatively new treatment approach called good psychiatric management (GPM) is available for patients with borderline personality disorder.
It’s a solid option for “environments where people may not have many resources and might not be able to deliver treatments that are more resource intensive, like dialectical behavioral therapy,” the standard intervention, said James Jenkins, MD, a psychiatrist affiliated with Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, in a video interview at the annual Psych Congress.
“GPM is a treatment, not a psychotherapy, that’s maybe a little bit more easily adaptable to a variety of different contexts and situations,” he said.
It’s an atheoretical, pragmatic approach that focuses on helping people establish a life outside of therapy. Clinicians actively engage with patients, encouraging them to start working and building successful relationships with other people. The model emphasizes the value of educating people about the condition and giving them hope. Typically, patients participate in GPM once each week (Curr Opin Psychol. 2018 Jun;21:127-31).
For most people, it works just as well as dialectical behavioral therapy, and when it doesn’t, patients can transition to that or another more intensive approach. Training is less intensive and sometimes free. GPM is offered at McLean Hospital in Boston, where the intervention originated. McLean also is Dr. Jenkins’s former institution.
Dr. Jenkins reported that he had no disclosures.
SAN DIEGO – A relatively new treatment approach called good psychiatric management (GPM) is available for patients with borderline personality disorder.
It’s a solid option for “environments where people may not have many resources and might not be able to deliver treatments that are more resource intensive, like dialectical behavioral therapy,” the standard intervention, said James Jenkins, MD, a psychiatrist affiliated with Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, in a video interview at the annual Psych Congress.
“GPM is a treatment, not a psychotherapy, that’s maybe a little bit more easily adaptable to a variety of different contexts and situations,” he said.
It’s an atheoretical, pragmatic approach that focuses on helping people establish a life outside of therapy. Clinicians actively engage with patients, encouraging them to start working and building successful relationships with other people. The model emphasizes the value of educating people about the condition and giving them hope. Typically, patients participate in GPM once each week (Curr Opin Psychol. 2018 Jun;21:127-31).
For most people, it works just as well as dialectical behavioral therapy, and when it doesn’t, patients can transition to that or another more intensive approach. Training is less intensive and sometimes free. GPM is offered at McLean Hospital in Boston, where the intervention originated. McLean also is Dr. Jenkins’s former institution.
Dr. Jenkins reported that he had no disclosures.
REPORTING FROM PSYCH CONGRESS 2019
Oral beta-lactams provide noninferior postdischarge pyelonephritis treatment
WASHINGTON – Patients hospitalized for pyelonephritis and discharged after receiving intravenous antibiotic treatment who then received step-down treatment with an oral beta-lactam had 30-day outcomes that were noninferior to patients who received an oral fluoroquinolone or trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole as their discharge regimen, in a retrospective study of 211 patients managed at either of two U.S. hospitals.
This was the largest comparison reported on oral beta-lactam drugs for postdischarge treatment of pyelonephritis relative to the standard oral agents, fluoroquinolones and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (Bactrim), Athena Hobbs, PharmD, said at an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases. The superiority of an oral fluoroquinolone or trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole and inferiority of oral beta-lactam drugs were cited in 2010 guidelines for managing pyelonephritis from the Infectious Diseases Society of America (Clin Infect Dis. 2011 March 1;52 [5]: e103-20).
Although limited as a nonrandomized, retrospective comparison, the finding of at least similar efficacy by beta-lactam agents “opens new treatment options” that avoid issues with drug resistance and adverse effects from treatment with fluoroquinolones or trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, Dr. Hobbs said in a video interview. Beta-lactams have already been embraced for this indication by some hospitalists, demonstrated by their use of beta-lactam antibiotics for 122 (58%) of the 211 patients included in the study. Among the 89 patients discharged on a non–beta-lactam, 69 (78%) had fluoroquinolone treatment and the remaining 20 patients went home taking trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole. The new finding “confirms that we are not doing harm to patients,” with this existing practice of mostly prescribing an oral beta-lactam drug, noted Dr. Hobbs, an infectious diseases pharmacy specialist at Baptist Memorial Hospital in Memphis.
The study included patients aged 18-89 years hospitalized during 2014-2017 for a primary diagnosis of pyelonephritis at Baptist or at a second Hospital in Austin, Tex. The study excluded patients in intensive care, with a urologic abnormality, pregnant women, and patients treated with an intravenous antibiotic other than a beta-lactam for more than 24 hours. The most commonly used intravenous drugs were cefazolin and ceftriaxone. The enrolled patients averaged just over 40 years old, and more than 90% were women.
The study’s primary outcome was the 30-day rate of either hospital readmission or an ED visit for pyelonephritis or a urinary tract infection. This occurred in 4.9% of the patients discharged on an oral course of a beta-lactam drug, and in 5.6% of those discharged on either a fluoroquinolone or trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, a difference that was not statistically significant and that met the prespecified criteria for noninferiority, Dr. Hobbs reported. The most commonly prescribed oral beta-lactam was cefuroxime in about half the patients, followed by cephalexin or cefadroxil in about a quarter of patients, and amoxicillin with clavulanate in 19%. The two arms of the study also showed no significant difference in infection recurrences during 90-day follow-up.
The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Hobbs had no relevant disclosures.
WASHINGTON – Patients hospitalized for pyelonephritis and discharged after receiving intravenous antibiotic treatment who then received step-down treatment with an oral beta-lactam had 30-day outcomes that were noninferior to patients who received an oral fluoroquinolone or trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole as their discharge regimen, in a retrospective study of 211 patients managed at either of two U.S. hospitals.
This was the largest comparison reported on oral beta-lactam drugs for postdischarge treatment of pyelonephritis relative to the standard oral agents, fluoroquinolones and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (Bactrim), Athena Hobbs, PharmD, said at an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases. The superiority of an oral fluoroquinolone or trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole and inferiority of oral beta-lactam drugs were cited in 2010 guidelines for managing pyelonephritis from the Infectious Diseases Society of America (Clin Infect Dis. 2011 March 1;52 [5]: e103-20).
Although limited as a nonrandomized, retrospective comparison, the finding of at least similar efficacy by beta-lactam agents “opens new treatment options” that avoid issues with drug resistance and adverse effects from treatment with fluoroquinolones or trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, Dr. Hobbs said in a video interview. Beta-lactams have already been embraced for this indication by some hospitalists, demonstrated by their use of beta-lactam antibiotics for 122 (58%) of the 211 patients included in the study. Among the 89 patients discharged on a non–beta-lactam, 69 (78%) had fluoroquinolone treatment and the remaining 20 patients went home taking trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole. The new finding “confirms that we are not doing harm to patients,” with this existing practice of mostly prescribing an oral beta-lactam drug, noted Dr. Hobbs, an infectious diseases pharmacy specialist at Baptist Memorial Hospital in Memphis.
The study included patients aged 18-89 years hospitalized during 2014-2017 for a primary diagnosis of pyelonephritis at Baptist or at a second Hospital in Austin, Tex. The study excluded patients in intensive care, with a urologic abnormality, pregnant women, and patients treated with an intravenous antibiotic other than a beta-lactam for more than 24 hours. The most commonly used intravenous drugs were cefazolin and ceftriaxone. The enrolled patients averaged just over 40 years old, and more than 90% were women.
The study’s primary outcome was the 30-day rate of either hospital readmission or an ED visit for pyelonephritis or a urinary tract infection. This occurred in 4.9% of the patients discharged on an oral course of a beta-lactam drug, and in 5.6% of those discharged on either a fluoroquinolone or trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, a difference that was not statistically significant and that met the prespecified criteria for noninferiority, Dr. Hobbs reported. The most commonly prescribed oral beta-lactam was cefuroxime in about half the patients, followed by cephalexin or cefadroxil in about a quarter of patients, and amoxicillin with clavulanate in 19%. The two arms of the study also showed no significant difference in infection recurrences during 90-day follow-up.
The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Hobbs had no relevant disclosures.
WASHINGTON – Patients hospitalized for pyelonephritis and discharged after receiving intravenous antibiotic treatment who then received step-down treatment with an oral beta-lactam had 30-day outcomes that were noninferior to patients who received an oral fluoroquinolone or trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole as their discharge regimen, in a retrospective study of 211 patients managed at either of two U.S. hospitals.
This was the largest comparison reported on oral beta-lactam drugs for postdischarge treatment of pyelonephritis relative to the standard oral agents, fluoroquinolones and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (Bactrim), Athena Hobbs, PharmD, said at an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases. The superiority of an oral fluoroquinolone or trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole and inferiority of oral beta-lactam drugs were cited in 2010 guidelines for managing pyelonephritis from the Infectious Diseases Society of America (Clin Infect Dis. 2011 March 1;52 [5]: e103-20).
Although limited as a nonrandomized, retrospective comparison, the finding of at least similar efficacy by beta-lactam agents “opens new treatment options” that avoid issues with drug resistance and adverse effects from treatment with fluoroquinolones or trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, Dr. Hobbs said in a video interview. Beta-lactams have already been embraced for this indication by some hospitalists, demonstrated by their use of beta-lactam antibiotics for 122 (58%) of the 211 patients included in the study. Among the 89 patients discharged on a non–beta-lactam, 69 (78%) had fluoroquinolone treatment and the remaining 20 patients went home taking trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole. The new finding “confirms that we are not doing harm to patients,” with this existing practice of mostly prescribing an oral beta-lactam drug, noted Dr. Hobbs, an infectious diseases pharmacy specialist at Baptist Memorial Hospital in Memphis.
The study included patients aged 18-89 years hospitalized during 2014-2017 for a primary diagnosis of pyelonephritis at Baptist or at a second Hospital in Austin, Tex. The study excluded patients in intensive care, with a urologic abnormality, pregnant women, and patients treated with an intravenous antibiotic other than a beta-lactam for more than 24 hours. The most commonly used intravenous drugs were cefazolin and ceftriaxone. The enrolled patients averaged just over 40 years old, and more than 90% were women.
The study’s primary outcome was the 30-day rate of either hospital readmission or an ED visit for pyelonephritis or a urinary tract infection. This occurred in 4.9% of the patients discharged on an oral course of a beta-lactam drug, and in 5.6% of those discharged on either a fluoroquinolone or trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, a difference that was not statistically significant and that met the prespecified criteria for noninferiority, Dr. Hobbs reported. The most commonly prescribed oral beta-lactam was cefuroxime in about half the patients, followed by cephalexin or cefadroxil in about a quarter of patients, and amoxicillin with clavulanate in 19%. The two arms of the study also showed no significant difference in infection recurrences during 90-day follow-up.
The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Hobbs had no relevant disclosures.
REPORTING FROM IDWEEK 2019
How to use lofexidine for quick opioid withdrawal
SAN DIEGO – Lofexidine (Lucemyra), the new kid on the block in the United States for opioid withdrawal, can help patients get through the process in a few days, instead of a week or more, according to Thomas Kosten, MD, a psychiatry professor and director of the division of addictions at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.
Lofexidine relieves symptom withdrawal and has significant advantages over clonidine, a similar drug, including easier dosing and no orthostatic hypertension.
In a video interview at the annual Psych Congress, Dr. Kosten went into the nuts and bolts of how to use lofexidine with buprenorphine and naltrexone – plus benzodiazepines when needed – to help people safely go through withdrawal and in just a few days.
Once chronic pain patients are off opioids, the next question is what to do for their pain. In a presentation before the interview, Dr. Kosten said he favors tricyclic antidepressants, especially desipramine because it has the fewest side effects. The effect size with tricyclic antidepressants is larger than with gabapentin and other options. They take a few weeks to kick in, however, so he’s thinking about a unique approach: using ketamine – either infusions or the new nasal spray esketamine (Spravato) – to tide people over in the meantime. It’s becoming well known that ketamine works amazingly fast for depression and suicidality, and there is emerging support that it might do the same for chronic pain. Dr. Kosten is a consultant for US Worldmeds, maker of lofexidine.
SAN DIEGO – Lofexidine (Lucemyra), the new kid on the block in the United States for opioid withdrawal, can help patients get through the process in a few days, instead of a week or more, according to Thomas Kosten, MD, a psychiatry professor and director of the division of addictions at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.
Lofexidine relieves symptom withdrawal and has significant advantages over clonidine, a similar drug, including easier dosing and no orthostatic hypertension.
In a video interview at the annual Psych Congress, Dr. Kosten went into the nuts and bolts of how to use lofexidine with buprenorphine and naltrexone – plus benzodiazepines when needed – to help people safely go through withdrawal and in just a few days.
Once chronic pain patients are off opioids, the next question is what to do for their pain. In a presentation before the interview, Dr. Kosten said he favors tricyclic antidepressants, especially desipramine because it has the fewest side effects. The effect size with tricyclic antidepressants is larger than with gabapentin and other options. They take a few weeks to kick in, however, so he’s thinking about a unique approach: using ketamine – either infusions or the new nasal spray esketamine (Spravato) – to tide people over in the meantime. It’s becoming well known that ketamine works amazingly fast for depression and suicidality, and there is emerging support that it might do the same for chronic pain. Dr. Kosten is a consultant for US Worldmeds, maker of lofexidine.
SAN DIEGO – Lofexidine (Lucemyra), the new kid on the block in the United States for opioid withdrawal, can help patients get through the process in a few days, instead of a week or more, according to Thomas Kosten, MD, a psychiatry professor and director of the division of addictions at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.
Lofexidine relieves symptom withdrawal and has significant advantages over clonidine, a similar drug, including easier dosing and no orthostatic hypertension.
In a video interview at the annual Psych Congress, Dr. Kosten went into the nuts and bolts of how to use lofexidine with buprenorphine and naltrexone – plus benzodiazepines when needed – to help people safely go through withdrawal and in just a few days.
Once chronic pain patients are off opioids, the next question is what to do for their pain. In a presentation before the interview, Dr. Kosten said he favors tricyclic antidepressants, especially desipramine because it has the fewest side effects. The effect size with tricyclic antidepressants is larger than with gabapentin and other options. They take a few weeks to kick in, however, so he’s thinking about a unique approach: using ketamine – either infusions or the new nasal spray esketamine (Spravato) – to tide people over in the meantime. It’s becoming well known that ketamine works amazingly fast for depression and suicidality, and there is emerging support that it might do the same for chronic pain. Dr. Kosten is a consultant for US Worldmeds, maker of lofexidine.
REPORTING FROM PSYCH CONGRESS 2019
Clip closure reduced bleeding after large lesion resection
Use of clip closure significantly reduced delayed bleeding in patients who underwent resections for large colorectal lesions, based on data from 235 individuals.
Source: American Gastroenterological Association
“Closure of a mucosal defect with clips after resection has long been considered to reduce the risk of bleeding,” but evidence to support this practice is limited, wrote Eduardo Albéniz, MD, of the Public University of Navarra (Spain), and colleagues.
In a study published in Gastroenterology, the researchers identified 235 consecutive patients who had resections of large nonpedunculated colorectal lesions from May 2016 to June 2018. Patients had an average or high risk of delayed bleeding and were randomized to receive scar closure with either 11-mm through-the-scope clips (119 patients) or no clip (116 patients).
Delayed bleeding occurred in 14 control patients (12.1%), compared with 6 clip patients (5%), for a risk reduction of 7%. The clip group included 68 cases (57%) of complete closure and 33 cases (28%) with partial closure, as well as 18 cases of failure to close (15%); only 1 case of delayed bleeding occurred in the clip group after completion of clip closure. On average, six clips were needed for complete closure.
None of the patients who experienced delayed bleeding required surgical or angiographic intervention, although 15 of the 20 patients with bleeding underwent additional endoscopy. Other adverse events included immediate bleeding in 21 clip patients and 18 controls that was managed with snare soft-tip coagulation. No deaths were reported in connection with the study.
Demographics were similar between the two groups, but the subset of patients with complete closure included more individuals aged 75 years and older and more cases with smaller polyps, compared with other subgroups, the researchers noted.
The study findings were limited by several factors, including the difficulty in predicting delayed bleeding, the potential for selection bias given the timing of patient randomization, the lack of information about polyps that were excluded from treatment, and the difficulty in completely closing the mucosal defects, the researchers noted. However, the results suggest that complete clip closure, despite its challenges, “displays a clear trend to reduce delayed bleeding risk,” and is worth an attempt.
The study was supported by the Spanish Society of Digestive Endoscopy. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. MicroTech (Nanjing, China) contributed the clips used in the study.
SOURCE: Albéniz E et al. Gastroenterology. 2019 Jul 27. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.07.037.
With the advent of routine submucosal lifting prior to endoscopic mucosal resection, perforation now occurs less commonly; however, delayed bleeding following resection remains problematic given the aging population and increasing use of antithrombotic agents. In this study, clip closure resulted in a decrease in post-polypectomy bleeding in patients deemed to be at high risk (at least 8%) for delayed bleeding.
The protective benefit of clip closure was seen almost exclusively in patients who had complete closure of the defect, which was achieved in only 57% of procedures. Clinical efficacy is largely driven by endoscopist skill level and the ability to achieve complete closure. Notably, defects that were successfully clipped were smaller in size, had better accessibility, and were technically easier. Defining such procedural factors a priori is important and may influence whether one should attempt clip closure if complete clip closure is unlikely. Interestingly, the bleeding rate was higher in the control group in lesions proximal to the transverse colon, where clip closure is likely to be most beneficial and cost effective, based on emerging data. It’s worth noting that the clips used in this study were relatively small (11 mm), and not currently available in the United States, although most endoscopic clips function similarly.
Studies such as this provide evidenced-based medicine to endoscopic practice. Hemostatic clips were introduced nearly 20 years ago without evidence for their effectiveness. Future studies are needed, such as those that compare electrocautery-based resection of high-risk polyps with standard clips to over-the-scope clips, and those that compare electrocautery-based resection to cold snare resection.
Todd H. Baron, MD, is a gastroenterologist based at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. He is a speaker and consultant for Olympus, Boston Scientific, and Cook Endoscopy.
With the advent of routine submucosal lifting prior to endoscopic mucosal resection, perforation now occurs less commonly; however, delayed bleeding following resection remains problematic given the aging population and increasing use of antithrombotic agents. In this study, clip closure resulted in a decrease in post-polypectomy bleeding in patients deemed to be at high risk (at least 8%) for delayed bleeding.
The protective benefit of clip closure was seen almost exclusively in patients who had complete closure of the defect, which was achieved in only 57% of procedures. Clinical efficacy is largely driven by endoscopist skill level and the ability to achieve complete closure. Notably, defects that were successfully clipped were smaller in size, had better accessibility, and were technically easier. Defining such procedural factors a priori is important and may influence whether one should attempt clip closure if complete clip closure is unlikely. Interestingly, the bleeding rate was higher in the control group in lesions proximal to the transverse colon, where clip closure is likely to be most beneficial and cost effective, based on emerging data. It’s worth noting that the clips used in this study were relatively small (11 mm), and not currently available in the United States, although most endoscopic clips function similarly.
Studies such as this provide evidenced-based medicine to endoscopic practice. Hemostatic clips were introduced nearly 20 years ago without evidence for their effectiveness. Future studies are needed, such as those that compare electrocautery-based resection of high-risk polyps with standard clips to over-the-scope clips, and those that compare electrocautery-based resection to cold snare resection.
Todd H. Baron, MD, is a gastroenterologist based at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. He is a speaker and consultant for Olympus, Boston Scientific, and Cook Endoscopy.
With the advent of routine submucosal lifting prior to endoscopic mucosal resection, perforation now occurs less commonly; however, delayed bleeding following resection remains problematic given the aging population and increasing use of antithrombotic agents. In this study, clip closure resulted in a decrease in post-polypectomy bleeding in patients deemed to be at high risk (at least 8%) for delayed bleeding.
The protective benefit of clip closure was seen almost exclusively in patients who had complete closure of the defect, which was achieved in only 57% of procedures. Clinical efficacy is largely driven by endoscopist skill level and the ability to achieve complete closure. Notably, defects that were successfully clipped were smaller in size, had better accessibility, and were technically easier. Defining such procedural factors a priori is important and may influence whether one should attempt clip closure if complete clip closure is unlikely. Interestingly, the bleeding rate was higher in the control group in lesions proximal to the transverse colon, where clip closure is likely to be most beneficial and cost effective, based on emerging data. It’s worth noting that the clips used in this study were relatively small (11 mm), and not currently available in the United States, although most endoscopic clips function similarly.
Studies such as this provide evidenced-based medicine to endoscopic practice. Hemostatic clips were introduced nearly 20 years ago without evidence for their effectiveness. Future studies are needed, such as those that compare electrocautery-based resection of high-risk polyps with standard clips to over-the-scope clips, and those that compare electrocautery-based resection to cold snare resection.
Todd H. Baron, MD, is a gastroenterologist based at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. He is a speaker and consultant for Olympus, Boston Scientific, and Cook Endoscopy.
Use of clip closure significantly reduced delayed bleeding in patients who underwent resections for large colorectal lesions, based on data from 235 individuals.
Source: American Gastroenterological Association
“Closure of a mucosal defect with clips after resection has long been considered to reduce the risk of bleeding,” but evidence to support this practice is limited, wrote Eduardo Albéniz, MD, of the Public University of Navarra (Spain), and colleagues.
In a study published in Gastroenterology, the researchers identified 235 consecutive patients who had resections of large nonpedunculated colorectal lesions from May 2016 to June 2018. Patients had an average or high risk of delayed bleeding and were randomized to receive scar closure with either 11-mm through-the-scope clips (119 patients) or no clip (116 patients).
Delayed bleeding occurred in 14 control patients (12.1%), compared with 6 clip patients (5%), for a risk reduction of 7%. The clip group included 68 cases (57%) of complete closure and 33 cases (28%) with partial closure, as well as 18 cases of failure to close (15%); only 1 case of delayed bleeding occurred in the clip group after completion of clip closure. On average, six clips were needed for complete closure.
None of the patients who experienced delayed bleeding required surgical or angiographic intervention, although 15 of the 20 patients with bleeding underwent additional endoscopy. Other adverse events included immediate bleeding in 21 clip patients and 18 controls that was managed with snare soft-tip coagulation. No deaths were reported in connection with the study.
Demographics were similar between the two groups, but the subset of patients with complete closure included more individuals aged 75 years and older and more cases with smaller polyps, compared with other subgroups, the researchers noted.
The study findings were limited by several factors, including the difficulty in predicting delayed bleeding, the potential for selection bias given the timing of patient randomization, the lack of information about polyps that were excluded from treatment, and the difficulty in completely closing the mucosal defects, the researchers noted. However, the results suggest that complete clip closure, despite its challenges, “displays a clear trend to reduce delayed bleeding risk,” and is worth an attempt.
The study was supported by the Spanish Society of Digestive Endoscopy. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. MicroTech (Nanjing, China) contributed the clips used in the study.
SOURCE: Albéniz E et al. Gastroenterology. 2019 Jul 27. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.07.037.
Use of clip closure significantly reduced delayed bleeding in patients who underwent resections for large colorectal lesions, based on data from 235 individuals.
Source: American Gastroenterological Association
“Closure of a mucosal defect with clips after resection has long been considered to reduce the risk of bleeding,” but evidence to support this practice is limited, wrote Eduardo Albéniz, MD, of the Public University of Navarra (Spain), and colleagues.
In a study published in Gastroenterology, the researchers identified 235 consecutive patients who had resections of large nonpedunculated colorectal lesions from May 2016 to June 2018. Patients had an average or high risk of delayed bleeding and were randomized to receive scar closure with either 11-mm through-the-scope clips (119 patients) or no clip (116 patients).
Delayed bleeding occurred in 14 control patients (12.1%), compared with 6 clip patients (5%), for a risk reduction of 7%. The clip group included 68 cases (57%) of complete closure and 33 cases (28%) with partial closure, as well as 18 cases of failure to close (15%); only 1 case of delayed bleeding occurred in the clip group after completion of clip closure. On average, six clips were needed for complete closure.
None of the patients who experienced delayed bleeding required surgical or angiographic intervention, although 15 of the 20 patients with bleeding underwent additional endoscopy. Other adverse events included immediate bleeding in 21 clip patients and 18 controls that was managed with snare soft-tip coagulation. No deaths were reported in connection with the study.
Demographics were similar between the two groups, but the subset of patients with complete closure included more individuals aged 75 years and older and more cases with smaller polyps, compared with other subgroups, the researchers noted.
The study findings were limited by several factors, including the difficulty in predicting delayed bleeding, the potential for selection bias given the timing of patient randomization, the lack of information about polyps that were excluded from treatment, and the difficulty in completely closing the mucosal defects, the researchers noted. However, the results suggest that complete clip closure, despite its challenges, “displays a clear trend to reduce delayed bleeding risk,” and is worth an attempt.
The study was supported by the Spanish Society of Digestive Endoscopy. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. MicroTech (Nanjing, China) contributed the clips used in the study.
SOURCE: Albéniz E et al. Gastroenterology. 2019 Jul 27. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.07.037.
FROM GASTROENTEROLOGY
Beta-blockers effective, safe for HFrEF with renal dysfunction
PARIS – Beta-blocking drugs were as effective for improving survival in patients with moderately severe renal dysfunction as they were in patients with normal renal function in a meta-analysis of more than 13,000 patients, a finding that seemed to solidify the role for this drug class for essentially all similar heart failure patients, regardless of their renal function.
This evidence could reshape usual care because “renal impairment is often considered a barrier in clinical practice” for starting a beta-blocker drug in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), Dipak Kotecha, MBChB, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
“We have shown with sufficient sample size that beta-blockers are effective in reducing mortality in patient with HFrEF and in sinus rhythm, even in those with an eGFR [estimated glomerular filtration rate] of 30-44 mL/min per 1.73 m2,” said Dr. Kotecha, a cardiologist at the University of Birmingham (England). “The results suggest that renal impairment should not obstruct the prescription and maintenance of beta-blockers in patients with HFrEF.”
“This important study was a novel attempt to look at [HFrEF] patients with renal insufficiency to see whether they received the same benefit from beta-blockers as other patients, and they did. So renal insufficiency is not a reason to withhold beta-blockers” from these patients, commented Mariell Jessup, MD, a heart failure physician and chief science and medical officer for the American Heart Association in Dallas. “The onus is on clinicians to find a reason not to give a beta-blocker to a patient with HFrEF because they are generally well tolerated and they can have enormous benefit, as we saw in this study,” she said in a video interview.
The analysis run by Dr. Kotecha and associates used data collected in 11 of the pivotal randomized, controlled trial run for beta-blockers during the 1990s and early 2000s, with each study comparing bucindolol, bisoprolol, carvedilol, metoprolol XL, or nebivolol against placebo. The studies collectively enrolled 18,637 patients, which the investigators whittled down in their analysis to 17,433 after excluding patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction below 50% or who were undocumented. The subgroup with HFrEF included 13,861 patient in sinus rhythm at entry, 2,879 with atrial fibrillation, and 693 with an unknown atrial status. The main analysis ran in the 13,861 patients with HFrEF and in sinus rhythm; 14% of this cohort had an eGFR of 30-44 mL/min per 1.73 m2 and 27% had an eGFR of 45-59 mL/min per 1.73 m2. The median age of all patients in the main analysis was 65 years, 23% were women, and their median left ventricular ejection fraction was 27%.
During follow-up of about 3 years, the impact of beta-blocker treatment on survival, compared with placebo, was “substantial” for all strata of patients by renal function, except for those with eGFRs below 30 mL/min per 1.73 m2. (Survival was similar regardless of beta-blocker treatment in the small number of patients with severe renal dysfunction.) The number needed to treat to prevent 1 death in patients with an eGFR of 30-44 mL/min per 1.73 m2 was 21, the same as among patients with an eGFR of 90 mL/min per 1.73 m2 or more, Dr. Kotecha said.
Among the subgroup of patients with atrial fibrillation, beta-blockers appeared to exert no survival benefit, compared with placebo. The investigators did not assess the survival benefits exerted by any individual beta-blocker, compared with the others, and Dr. Kotecha stressed that “my belief is that this is a class effect” and is roughly similar across all the beta-blockers used in the studies.
The analysis also showed good safety and tolerability of the beta-blockers in patients with renal dysfunction. The incidence of adverse events leading to treatment termination was very similar in the beta-blocker and placebo arms, and more than three-quarters of patients in each of the two subgroups with renal dysfunction were maintained on more than 50% of their target beta-blocker dosage.
Dr. Kotecha has been an advisor to Bayer, a speaker on behalf of Atricure, and has received research funding from GlaxoSmithKline and Menarini. Dr. Jessup had no disclosures.
This analysis of individual patient data is very important and extends our knowledge. The results confirm that beta-blocker treatment reduces mortality in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and in sinus rhythm who also have moderately severe renal dysfunction with an estimated glomerular filtration rate as low as 30-44 mL/min per 1.73 m2. This is good news for patients with HFrEF and kidney disease. Clinicians often use comorbidities as a reason not to prescribe or up-titrate beta-blockers. These results show that beta-blockers can be used at guideline-directed dosages, even in patients with renal dysfunction. The findings highlight the importance of not looking for excuses to not treat patients with a beta-blocker. Do not worry about renal function.
Theresa A. McDonagh, MD, professor of cardiology at King’s College, London, made these comments as designated discussant for Dr. Kotecha’s report. She had no disclosures.
This analysis of individual patient data is very important and extends our knowledge. The results confirm that beta-blocker treatment reduces mortality in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and in sinus rhythm who also have moderately severe renal dysfunction with an estimated glomerular filtration rate as low as 30-44 mL/min per 1.73 m2. This is good news for patients with HFrEF and kidney disease. Clinicians often use comorbidities as a reason not to prescribe or up-titrate beta-blockers. These results show that beta-blockers can be used at guideline-directed dosages, even in patients with renal dysfunction. The findings highlight the importance of not looking for excuses to not treat patients with a beta-blocker. Do not worry about renal function.
Theresa A. McDonagh, MD, professor of cardiology at King’s College, London, made these comments as designated discussant for Dr. Kotecha’s report. She had no disclosures.
This analysis of individual patient data is very important and extends our knowledge. The results confirm that beta-blocker treatment reduces mortality in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and in sinus rhythm who also have moderately severe renal dysfunction with an estimated glomerular filtration rate as low as 30-44 mL/min per 1.73 m2. This is good news for patients with HFrEF and kidney disease. Clinicians often use comorbidities as a reason not to prescribe or up-titrate beta-blockers. These results show that beta-blockers can be used at guideline-directed dosages, even in patients with renal dysfunction. The findings highlight the importance of not looking for excuses to not treat patients with a beta-blocker. Do not worry about renal function.
Theresa A. McDonagh, MD, professor of cardiology at King’s College, London, made these comments as designated discussant for Dr. Kotecha’s report. She had no disclosures.
PARIS – Beta-blocking drugs were as effective for improving survival in patients with moderately severe renal dysfunction as they were in patients with normal renal function in a meta-analysis of more than 13,000 patients, a finding that seemed to solidify the role for this drug class for essentially all similar heart failure patients, regardless of their renal function.
This evidence could reshape usual care because “renal impairment is often considered a barrier in clinical practice” for starting a beta-blocker drug in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), Dipak Kotecha, MBChB, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
“We have shown with sufficient sample size that beta-blockers are effective in reducing mortality in patient with HFrEF and in sinus rhythm, even in those with an eGFR [estimated glomerular filtration rate] of 30-44 mL/min per 1.73 m2,” said Dr. Kotecha, a cardiologist at the University of Birmingham (England). “The results suggest that renal impairment should not obstruct the prescription and maintenance of beta-blockers in patients with HFrEF.”
“This important study was a novel attempt to look at [HFrEF] patients with renal insufficiency to see whether they received the same benefit from beta-blockers as other patients, and they did. So renal insufficiency is not a reason to withhold beta-blockers” from these patients, commented Mariell Jessup, MD, a heart failure physician and chief science and medical officer for the American Heart Association in Dallas. “The onus is on clinicians to find a reason not to give a beta-blocker to a patient with HFrEF because they are generally well tolerated and they can have enormous benefit, as we saw in this study,” she said in a video interview.
The analysis run by Dr. Kotecha and associates used data collected in 11 of the pivotal randomized, controlled trial run for beta-blockers during the 1990s and early 2000s, with each study comparing bucindolol, bisoprolol, carvedilol, metoprolol XL, or nebivolol against placebo. The studies collectively enrolled 18,637 patients, which the investigators whittled down in their analysis to 17,433 after excluding patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction below 50% or who were undocumented. The subgroup with HFrEF included 13,861 patient in sinus rhythm at entry, 2,879 with atrial fibrillation, and 693 with an unknown atrial status. The main analysis ran in the 13,861 patients with HFrEF and in sinus rhythm; 14% of this cohort had an eGFR of 30-44 mL/min per 1.73 m2 and 27% had an eGFR of 45-59 mL/min per 1.73 m2. The median age of all patients in the main analysis was 65 years, 23% were women, and their median left ventricular ejection fraction was 27%.
During follow-up of about 3 years, the impact of beta-blocker treatment on survival, compared with placebo, was “substantial” for all strata of patients by renal function, except for those with eGFRs below 30 mL/min per 1.73 m2. (Survival was similar regardless of beta-blocker treatment in the small number of patients with severe renal dysfunction.) The number needed to treat to prevent 1 death in patients with an eGFR of 30-44 mL/min per 1.73 m2 was 21, the same as among patients with an eGFR of 90 mL/min per 1.73 m2 or more, Dr. Kotecha said.
Among the subgroup of patients with atrial fibrillation, beta-blockers appeared to exert no survival benefit, compared with placebo. The investigators did not assess the survival benefits exerted by any individual beta-blocker, compared with the others, and Dr. Kotecha stressed that “my belief is that this is a class effect” and is roughly similar across all the beta-blockers used in the studies.
The analysis also showed good safety and tolerability of the beta-blockers in patients with renal dysfunction. The incidence of adverse events leading to treatment termination was very similar in the beta-blocker and placebo arms, and more than three-quarters of patients in each of the two subgroups with renal dysfunction were maintained on more than 50% of their target beta-blocker dosage.
Dr. Kotecha has been an advisor to Bayer, a speaker on behalf of Atricure, and has received research funding from GlaxoSmithKline and Menarini. Dr. Jessup had no disclosures.
PARIS – Beta-blocking drugs were as effective for improving survival in patients with moderately severe renal dysfunction as they were in patients with normal renal function in a meta-analysis of more than 13,000 patients, a finding that seemed to solidify the role for this drug class for essentially all similar heart failure patients, regardless of their renal function.
This evidence could reshape usual care because “renal impairment is often considered a barrier in clinical practice” for starting a beta-blocker drug in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), Dipak Kotecha, MBChB, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
“We have shown with sufficient sample size that beta-blockers are effective in reducing mortality in patient with HFrEF and in sinus rhythm, even in those with an eGFR [estimated glomerular filtration rate] of 30-44 mL/min per 1.73 m2,” said Dr. Kotecha, a cardiologist at the University of Birmingham (England). “The results suggest that renal impairment should not obstruct the prescription and maintenance of beta-blockers in patients with HFrEF.”
“This important study was a novel attempt to look at [HFrEF] patients with renal insufficiency to see whether they received the same benefit from beta-blockers as other patients, and they did. So renal insufficiency is not a reason to withhold beta-blockers” from these patients, commented Mariell Jessup, MD, a heart failure physician and chief science and medical officer for the American Heart Association in Dallas. “The onus is on clinicians to find a reason not to give a beta-blocker to a patient with HFrEF because they are generally well tolerated and they can have enormous benefit, as we saw in this study,” she said in a video interview.
The analysis run by Dr. Kotecha and associates used data collected in 11 of the pivotal randomized, controlled trial run for beta-blockers during the 1990s and early 2000s, with each study comparing bucindolol, bisoprolol, carvedilol, metoprolol XL, or nebivolol against placebo. The studies collectively enrolled 18,637 patients, which the investigators whittled down in their analysis to 17,433 after excluding patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction below 50% or who were undocumented. The subgroup with HFrEF included 13,861 patient in sinus rhythm at entry, 2,879 with atrial fibrillation, and 693 with an unknown atrial status. The main analysis ran in the 13,861 patients with HFrEF and in sinus rhythm; 14% of this cohort had an eGFR of 30-44 mL/min per 1.73 m2 and 27% had an eGFR of 45-59 mL/min per 1.73 m2. The median age of all patients in the main analysis was 65 years, 23% were women, and their median left ventricular ejection fraction was 27%.
During follow-up of about 3 years, the impact of beta-blocker treatment on survival, compared with placebo, was “substantial” for all strata of patients by renal function, except for those with eGFRs below 30 mL/min per 1.73 m2. (Survival was similar regardless of beta-blocker treatment in the small number of patients with severe renal dysfunction.) The number needed to treat to prevent 1 death in patients with an eGFR of 30-44 mL/min per 1.73 m2 was 21, the same as among patients with an eGFR of 90 mL/min per 1.73 m2 or more, Dr. Kotecha said.
Among the subgroup of patients with atrial fibrillation, beta-blockers appeared to exert no survival benefit, compared with placebo. The investigators did not assess the survival benefits exerted by any individual beta-blocker, compared with the others, and Dr. Kotecha stressed that “my belief is that this is a class effect” and is roughly similar across all the beta-blockers used in the studies.
The analysis also showed good safety and tolerability of the beta-blockers in patients with renal dysfunction. The incidence of adverse events leading to treatment termination was very similar in the beta-blocker and placebo arms, and more than three-quarters of patients in each of the two subgroups with renal dysfunction were maintained on more than 50% of their target beta-blocker dosage.
Dr. Kotecha has been an advisor to Bayer, a speaker on behalf of Atricure, and has received research funding from GlaxoSmithKline and Menarini. Dr. Jessup had no disclosures.
REPORTING FROM THE ESC CONGRESS 2019
Could home care replace inpatient HSCT?
Can receiving all posttransplant care at home benefit patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT)? Researchers are conducting phase 2 trials to find out.
Nelson Chao, MD, and colleagues at Duke University in Durham, N.C., completed a phase 1 trial that suggested post-HSCT care at home was feasible and safe (Blood. 2017;130:745).
Now, the team is conducting phase 2 trials – NCT01725022 and NCT02218151 – comparing patients who receive all posttransplant care at home with patients treated in the hospital or in the outpatient setting with daily visits to the clinic.
The main goal is to determine if allogeneic HSCT recipients treated at home can maintain their normal microbiome and, as a result, have a lower risk of graft-versus-host disease (GVHD). The researchers are also looking at other outcomes such as quality of life, treatment-related morbidities and mortality, and the cost of care for both allogeneic and autologous transplant recipients.
To be eligible for home care after HSCT, a patient must live within a 90-minute driving distance of Duke and have a caregiver available at home. The patient’s home must pass an inspection, showing it to be free of sources for potential infection, such as mold or pets that sleep in the patient’s bed.
When the time comes for treatment, the patient receives conditioning at the hospital but can return home the day before or the day of transplant. After discharge, the patient is visited by a nurse practitioner or physician assistant each morning for a physical examination and blood draw.
In the afternoon, the patient is visited by a clinic nurse who brings any necessary supplies or treatments, such as blood products or intravenous antibiotics. The patient also has daily video calls with an attending physician and can be admitted to the hospital for any events that cannot be managed in the home setting.
Patients can have visitors and spend time away from home, but precautions are necessary. Friends or family who are sick should not be allowed to visit, and patients should avoid crowds when they go out.
Initial findings
The Duke team has treated 41 HSCT recipients at home so far. Dr. Chao said it’s still too early to draw any conclusions about differences in outcomes between home care and inpatient/outpatient HSCT.
However, a preliminary analysis of costs suggests home care is cheaper than inpatient HSCT. The researchers found that, for the first several transplants, at day 60, the cost of home care was roughly half that of inpatient HSCT.
In addition, patients seem to be happy with posttransplant care at home.
“The patients love being at home, in their own environment, with their families,” Dr. Chao said. “Almost every single patient [in the phase 1 trial] said that he or she liked it much better. There was one patient in the phase 1 that felt a little isolated, and I can see why because we say, ‘You can stay home, but don’t have a whole lot of people in.’ ”
One patient’s experience
Beth Vanderkin said it was “a blessing” to receive care at home after undergoing HSCT at Duke.
Ms. Vanderkin was diagnosed with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma in 2014. After two chemotherapy regimens failed to shrink the tumor in her chest, she underwent radiotherapy and responded well. When a PET scan revealed the tumor had gone completely, she proceeded to transplant.
She received a haploidentical HSCT using cells donated by her eldest daughter, Hannah Eichhorst. Ms. Vanderkin received the transplant in the hospital, and for 2 weeks after that, she made daily visits to the transplant clinic.
After those 2 weeks, Ms. Vanderkin continued her treatment at home. Like other patients eligible for home care, Ms. Vanderkin lived close to Duke, had a caregiver available, and had passed a home inspection. The Duke team shipped the needed medical supplies to her house and arranged twice-daily visits from nurses and daily video calls with a doctor.
Ms. Vanderkin said receiving care at home was “a game changer.” She derived comfort from recovering in her own environment, could spend more time with her family, and didn’t have to miss special events. While receiving care at home, Ms. Vanderkin attended the homecoming event where her son, Josiah, was part of the court. Wearing a face mask and carrying a portable pump in her purse, Ms. Vanderkin joined other mothers in escorting their children onto the football field.
“I got to escort my son out onto the field, and he was crowned king that night,” Ms. Vanderkin said. “I didn’t do a lot of things [while receiving care at home], but there were things I didn’t have to miss because I was at home and not in the hospital.”
Ms. Vanderkin said home care was also beneficial for her husband, who was her caregiver. Thomas Vanderkin was able to work from home while caring for his wife, and the daily nurses’ visits allowed him to run errands without having to leave Ms. Vanderkin alone.
Since her experience with home care, Ms. Vanderkin has spent many more days in the hospital and clinic. She experienced a relapse after the transplant and went on to receive more chemotherapy as well as ipilimumab. She responded to that treatment and has now been cancer-free for 3 years.
The ipilimumab did cause side effects, including intestinal problems that resulted in the need for parenteral nutrition. This side effect was made more bearable, Ms. Vanderkin said, because she was able to receive the parenteral nutrition at home. She and her husband were comfortable with additional home care because of their positive experience with posttransplant care.
“I think we’re conditioned to think that, to receive the best care, we have to be sitting in a hospital room or a clinic, but I think there’s a lot of things we can probably do at home,” Ms. Vanderkin said. “And we might fare a lot better as patients if we’re in an environment that we feel comfortable in.”
Experience at other centers
The team at Duke is not the first to study HSCT care at home. In fact, researchers in Sweden have been studying posttransplant home care since 1998.
A pilot trial the group published in 2000 suggested that home care was safe and, in some ways, superior to inpatient HSCT (Bone Marrow Transplant. 2000 Nov;26[10]:1057-60). Patients treated at home had a lower rate of bacteremia, fewer days of total parenteral nutrition, fewer erythrocyte transfusions, and fewer days on antibiotics and analgesics. Rates of fever, engraftment time, and acute GVHD were similar between the inpatient and home-care groups.
A study published by the same researchers in 2002 showed that patients who received home care had lower rates of grade 2-4 acute GVHD and transplant-related mortality compared to inpatients (Blood. 2002 Dec 15;100[13]:4317-24). Two-year overall survival was superior with home care as well.
On the other hand, a study the group published in 2013 showed no significant differences in 5-year survival, transplant-related mortality, relapse, or chronic GVHD between inpatients and those who received care at home (Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2013. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2012.11.5189).
The phase 2 trials at Duke should provide more insight into patient outcomes, but results probably won’t be available for 2 more years, Dr. Chao said.
In the meantime, other U.S. researchers are studying home care as well. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center is conducting a pilot study to determine if HSCT care at home is feasible (NCT02671448).
Dr. Chao said home care should be possible for other centers, particularly those that already perform outpatient HSCT.
“Having the outpatient infrastructure to support these patients is a big step,” he said. “And I think we were able to do that mainly because we do most of our transplants in the outpatient setting already. So that jump to the home is a little less compared to a center that does no outpatient transplants.”
He added, “There’s a certain amount of inertia to overcome and a certain amount of apprehension from the caregivers initially because [patients aren’t] sitting in your unit all the time, but I don’t see this as a huge barrier.”
In fact, Dr. Chao said, if results with home care are favorable, it could potentially replace inpatient HSCT for certain patients.
Dr. Chao’s research is supported by Duke University, and he reported having no relevant financial disclosures.
Can receiving all posttransplant care at home benefit patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT)? Researchers are conducting phase 2 trials to find out.
Nelson Chao, MD, and colleagues at Duke University in Durham, N.C., completed a phase 1 trial that suggested post-HSCT care at home was feasible and safe (Blood. 2017;130:745).
Now, the team is conducting phase 2 trials – NCT01725022 and NCT02218151 – comparing patients who receive all posttransplant care at home with patients treated in the hospital or in the outpatient setting with daily visits to the clinic.
The main goal is to determine if allogeneic HSCT recipients treated at home can maintain their normal microbiome and, as a result, have a lower risk of graft-versus-host disease (GVHD). The researchers are also looking at other outcomes such as quality of life, treatment-related morbidities and mortality, and the cost of care for both allogeneic and autologous transplant recipients.
To be eligible for home care after HSCT, a patient must live within a 90-minute driving distance of Duke and have a caregiver available at home. The patient’s home must pass an inspection, showing it to be free of sources for potential infection, such as mold or pets that sleep in the patient’s bed.
When the time comes for treatment, the patient receives conditioning at the hospital but can return home the day before or the day of transplant. After discharge, the patient is visited by a nurse practitioner or physician assistant each morning for a physical examination and blood draw.
In the afternoon, the patient is visited by a clinic nurse who brings any necessary supplies or treatments, such as blood products or intravenous antibiotics. The patient also has daily video calls with an attending physician and can be admitted to the hospital for any events that cannot be managed in the home setting.
Patients can have visitors and spend time away from home, but precautions are necessary. Friends or family who are sick should not be allowed to visit, and patients should avoid crowds when they go out.
Initial findings
The Duke team has treated 41 HSCT recipients at home so far. Dr. Chao said it’s still too early to draw any conclusions about differences in outcomes between home care and inpatient/outpatient HSCT.
However, a preliminary analysis of costs suggests home care is cheaper than inpatient HSCT. The researchers found that, for the first several transplants, at day 60, the cost of home care was roughly half that of inpatient HSCT.
In addition, patients seem to be happy with posttransplant care at home.
“The patients love being at home, in their own environment, with their families,” Dr. Chao said. “Almost every single patient [in the phase 1 trial] said that he or she liked it much better. There was one patient in the phase 1 that felt a little isolated, and I can see why because we say, ‘You can stay home, but don’t have a whole lot of people in.’ ”
One patient’s experience
Beth Vanderkin said it was “a blessing” to receive care at home after undergoing HSCT at Duke.
Ms. Vanderkin was diagnosed with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma in 2014. After two chemotherapy regimens failed to shrink the tumor in her chest, she underwent radiotherapy and responded well. When a PET scan revealed the tumor had gone completely, she proceeded to transplant.
She received a haploidentical HSCT using cells donated by her eldest daughter, Hannah Eichhorst. Ms. Vanderkin received the transplant in the hospital, and for 2 weeks after that, she made daily visits to the transplant clinic.
After those 2 weeks, Ms. Vanderkin continued her treatment at home. Like other patients eligible for home care, Ms. Vanderkin lived close to Duke, had a caregiver available, and had passed a home inspection. The Duke team shipped the needed medical supplies to her house and arranged twice-daily visits from nurses and daily video calls with a doctor.
Ms. Vanderkin said receiving care at home was “a game changer.” She derived comfort from recovering in her own environment, could spend more time with her family, and didn’t have to miss special events. While receiving care at home, Ms. Vanderkin attended the homecoming event where her son, Josiah, was part of the court. Wearing a face mask and carrying a portable pump in her purse, Ms. Vanderkin joined other mothers in escorting their children onto the football field.
“I got to escort my son out onto the field, and he was crowned king that night,” Ms. Vanderkin said. “I didn’t do a lot of things [while receiving care at home], but there were things I didn’t have to miss because I was at home and not in the hospital.”
Ms. Vanderkin said home care was also beneficial for her husband, who was her caregiver. Thomas Vanderkin was able to work from home while caring for his wife, and the daily nurses’ visits allowed him to run errands without having to leave Ms. Vanderkin alone.
Since her experience with home care, Ms. Vanderkin has spent many more days in the hospital and clinic. She experienced a relapse after the transplant and went on to receive more chemotherapy as well as ipilimumab. She responded to that treatment and has now been cancer-free for 3 years.
The ipilimumab did cause side effects, including intestinal problems that resulted in the need for parenteral nutrition. This side effect was made more bearable, Ms. Vanderkin said, because she was able to receive the parenteral nutrition at home. She and her husband were comfortable with additional home care because of their positive experience with posttransplant care.
“I think we’re conditioned to think that, to receive the best care, we have to be sitting in a hospital room or a clinic, but I think there’s a lot of things we can probably do at home,” Ms. Vanderkin said. “And we might fare a lot better as patients if we’re in an environment that we feel comfortable in.”
Experience at other centers
The team at Duke is not the first to study HSCT care at home. In fact, researchers in Sweden have been studying posttransplant home care since 1998.
A pilot trial the group published in 2000 suggested that home care was safe and, in some ways, superior to inpatient HSCT (Bone Marrow Transplant. 2000 Nov;26[10]:1057-60). Patients treated at home had a lower rate of bacteremia, fewer days of total parenteral nutrition, fewer erythrocyte transfusions, and fewer days on antibiotics and analgesics. Rates of fever, engraftment time, and acute GVHD were similar between the inpatient and home-care groups.
A study published by the same researchers in 2002 showed that patients who received home care had lower rates of grade 2-4 acute GVHD and transplant-related mortality compared to inpatients (Blood. 2002 Dec 15;100[13]:4317-24). Two-year overall survival was superior with home care as well.
On the other hand, a study the group published in 2013 showed no significant differences in 5-year survival, transplant-related mortality, relapse, or chronic GVHD between inpatients and those who received care at home (Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2013. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2012.11.5189).
The phase 2 trials at Duke should provide more insight into patient outcomes, but results probably won’t be available for 2 more years, Dr. Chao said.
In the meantime, other U.S. researchers are studying home care as well. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center is conducting a pilot study to determine if HSCT care at home is feasible (NCT02671448).
Dr. Chao said home care should be possible for other centers, particularly those that already perform outpatient HSCT.
“Having the outpatient infrastructure to support these patients is a big step,” he said. “And I think we were able to do that mainly because we do most of our transplants in the outpatient setting already. So that jump to the home is a little less compared to a center that does no outpatient transplants.”
He added, “There’s a certain amount of inertia to overcome and a certain amount of apprehension from the caregivers initially because [patients aren’t] sitting in your unit all the time, but I don’t see this as a huge barrier.”
In fact, Dr. Chao said, if results with home care are favorable, it could potentially replace inpatient HSCT for certain patients.
Dr. Chao’s research is supported by Duke University, and he reported having no relevant financial disclosures.
Can receiving all posttransplant care at home benefit patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT)? Researchers are conducting phase 2 trials to find out.
Nelson Chao, MD, and colleagues at Duke University in Durham, N.C., completed a phase 1 trial that suggested post-HSCT care at home was feasible and safe (Blood. 2017;130:745).
Now, the team is conducting phase 2 trials – NCT01725022 and NCT02218151 – comparing patients who receive all posttransplant care at home with patients treated in the hospital or in the outpatient setting with daily visits to the clinic.
The main goal is to determine if allogeneic HSCT recipients treated at home can maintain their normal microbiome and, as a result, have a lower risk of graft-versus-host disease (GVHD). The researchers are also looking at other outcomes such as quality of life, treatment-related morbidities and mortality, and the cost of care for both allogeneic and autologous transplant recipients.
To be eligible for home care after HSCT, a patient must live within a 90-minute driving distance of Duke and have a caregiver available at home. The patient’s home must pass an inspection, showing it to be free of sources for potential infection, such as mold or pets that sleep in the patient’s bed.
When the time comes for treatment, the patient receives conditioning at the hospital but can return home the day before or the day of transplant. After discharge, the patient is visited by a nurse practitioner or physician assistant each morning for a physical examination and blood draw.
In the afternoon, the patient is visited by a clinic nurse who brings any necessary supplies or treatments, such as blood products or intravenous antibiotics. The patient also has daily video calls with an attending physician and can be admitted to the hospital for any events that cannot be managed in the home setting.
Patients can have visitors and spend time away from home, but precautions are necessary. Friends or family who are sick should not be allowed to visit, and patients should avoid crowds when they go out.
Initial findings
The Duke team has treated 41 HSCT recipients at home so far. Dr. Chao said it’s still too early to draw any conclusions about differences in outcomes between home care and inpatient/outpatient HSCT.
However, a preliminary analysis of costs suggests home care is cheaper than inpatient HSCT. The researchers found that, for the first several transplants, at day 60, the cost of home care was roughly half that of inpatient HSCT.
In addition, patients seem to be happy with posttransplant care at home.
“The patients love being at home, in their own environment, with their families,” Dr. Chao said. “Almost every single patient [in the phase 1 trial] said that he or she liked it much better. There was one patient in the phase 1 that felt a little isolated, and I can see why because we say, ‘You can stay home, but don’t have a whole lot of people in.’ ”
One patient’s experience
Beth Vanderkin said it was “a blessing” to receive care at home after undergoing HSCT at Duke.
Ms. Vanderkin was diagnosed with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma in 2014. After two chemotherapy regimens failed to shrink the tumor in her chest, she underwent radiotherapy and responded well. When a PET scan revealed the tumor had gone completely, she proceeded to transplant.
She received a haploidentical HSCT using cells donated by her eldest daughter, Hannah Eichhorst. Ms. Vanderkin received the transplant in the hospital, and for 2 weeks after that, she made daily visits to the transplant clinic.
After those 2 weeks, Ms. Vanderkin continued her treatment at home. Like other patients eligible for home care, Ms. Vanderkin lived close to Duke, had a caregiver available, and had passed a home inspection. The Duke team shipped the needed medical supplies to her house and arranged twice-daily visits from nurses and daily video calls with a doctor.
Ms. Vanderkin said receiving care at home was “a game changer.” She derived comfort from recovering in her own environment, could spend more time with her family, and didn’t have to miss special events. While receiving care at home, Ms. Vanderkin attended the homecoming event where her son, Josiah, was part of the court. Wearing a face mask and carrying a portable pump in her purse, Ms. Vanderkin joined other mothers in escorting their children onto the football field.
“I got to escort my son out onto the field, and he was crowned king that night,” Ms. Vanderkin said. “I didn’t do a lot of things [while receiving care at home], but there were things I didn’t have to miss because I was at home and not in the hospital.”
Ms. Vanderkin said home care was also beneficial for her husband, who was her caregiver. Thomas Vanderkin was able to work from home while caring for his wife, and the daily nurses’ visits allowed him to run errands without having to leave Ms. Vanderkin alone.
Since her experience with home care, Ms. Vanderkin has spent many more days in the hospital and clinic. She experienced a relapse after the transplant and went on to receive more chemotherapy as well as ipilimumab. She responded to that treatment and has now been cancer-free for 3 years.
The ipilimumab did cause side effects, including intestinal problems that resulted in the need for parenteral nutrition. This side effect was made more bearable, Ms. Vanderkin said, because she was able to receive the parenteral nutrition at home. She and her husband were comfortable with additional home care because of their positive experience with posttransplant care.
“I think we’re conditioned to think that, to receive the best care, we have to be sitting in a hospital room or a clinic, but I think there’s a lot of things we can probably do at home,” Ms. Vanderkin said. “And we might fare a lot better as patients if we’re in an environment that we feel comfortable in.”
Experience at other centers
The team at Duke is not the first to study HSCT care at home. In fact, researchers in Sweden have been studying posttransplant home care since 1998.
A pilot trial the group published in 2000 suggested that home care was safe and, in some ways, superior to inpatient HSCT (Bone Marrow Transplant. 2000 Nov;26[10]:1057-60). Patients treated at home had a lower rate of bacteremia, fewer days of total parenteral nutrition, fewer erythrocyte transfusions, and fewer days on antibiotics and analgesics. Rates of fever, engraftment time, and acute GVHD were similar between the inpatient and home-care groups.
A study published by the same researchers in 2002 showed that patients who received home care had lower rates of grade 2-4 acute GVHD and transplant-related mortality compared to inpatients (Blood. 2002 Dec 15;100[13]:4317-24). Two-year overall survival was superior with home care as well.
On the other hand, a study the group published in 2013 showed no significant differences in 5-year survival, transplant-related mortality, relapse, or chronic GVHD between inpatients and those who received care at home (Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2013. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2012.11.5189).
The phase 2 trials at Duke should provide more insight into patient outcomes, but results probably won’t be available for 2 more years, Dr. Chao said.
In the meantime, other U.S. researchers are studying home care as well. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center is conducting a pilot study to determine if HSCT care at home is feasible (NCT02671448).
Dr. Chao said home care should be possible for other centers, particularly those that already perform outpatient HSCT.
“Having the outpatient infrastructure to support these patients is a big step,” he said. “And I think we were able to do that mainly because we do most of our transplants in the outpatient setting already. So that jump to the home is a little less compared to a center that does no outpatient transplants.”
He added, “There’s a certain amount of inertia to overcome and a certain amount of apprehension from the caregivers initially because [patients aren’t] sitting in your unit all the time, but I don’t see this as a huge barrier.”
In fact, Dr. Chao said, if results with home care are favorable, it could potentially replace inpatient HSCT for certain patients.
Dr. Chao’s research is supported by Duke University, and he reported having no relevant financial disclosures.
