Video

ORLANDO – Dermatologists and rheumatologists are mistaken if they think interface dermatitis is the sine qua non biopsy finding of dermatomyositis (DM), according to David Fiorentino, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology, rheumatology, and immunology at Stanford (Calif.) University.

Interface dermatitis on skin biopsy is “felt to be almost required by many people to make the diagnosis,” but he and his associates found that it was not present in about a quarter of a cohort of patients with DM. “We don’t want a clinician” to rule out the diagnosis based on its absence on a biopsy, “when its actually quite possible that the patient could have disease,” Dr. Fiorentino said at the International Conference on Cutaneous Lupus Erythematosus.

In general, skin biopsies in DM are tricky. “All of us take them, but we don’t really know how to interpret the information that comes back ... because we don’t really know how often many of [the associated] findings are seen” in DM patients, he noted.

One of the main concerns is to rule out lupus, but interface dermatitis is found in many of its cutaneous forms, as well as in graft-versus-host disease and other diseases.

So what’s a clinician to do? Fortunately, direct immunofluorescence can help. A positive lupus band test helps rule out DM, and the membrane attack complex helps rule it in, both with a good degree of certainty. In a video interview, Dr. Fiorentino explained these tests and how to use them.

Dr. Fiorentino had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

ORLANDO – Dermatologists and rheumatologists are mistaken if they think interface dermatitis is the sine qua non biopsy finding of dermatomyositis (DM), according to David Fiorentino, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology, rheumatology, and immunology at Stanford (Calif.) University.

Interface dermatitis on skin biopsy is “felt to be almost required by many people to make the diagnosis,” but he and his associates found that it was not present in about a quarter of a cohort of patients with DM. “We don’t want a clinician” to rule out the diagnosis based on its absence on a biopsy, “when its actually quite possible that the patient could have disease,” Dr. Fiorentino said at the International Conference on Cutaneous Lupus Erythematosus.

In general, skin biopsies in DM are tricky. “All of us take them, but we don’t really know how to interpret the information that comes back ... because we don’t really know how often many of [the associated] findings are seen” in DM patients, he noted.

One of the main concerns is to rule out lupus, but interface dermatitis is found in many of its cutaneous forms, as well as in graft-versus-host disease and other diseases.

So what’s a clinician to do? Fortunately, direct immunofluorescence can help. A positive lupus band test helps rule out DM, and the membrane attack complex helps rule it in, both with a good degree of certainty. In a video interview, Dr. Fiorentino explained these tests and how to use them.

Dr. Fiorentino had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

ORLANDO – Dermatologists and rheumatologists are mistaken if they think interface dermatitis is the sine qua non biopsy finding of dermatomyositis (DM), according to David Fiorentino, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology, rheumatology, and immunology at Stanford (Calif.) University.

Interface dermatitis on skin biopsy is “felt to be almost required by many people to make the diagnosis,” but he and his associates found that it was not present in about a quarter of a cohort of patients with DM. “We don’t want a clinician” to rule out the diagnosis based on its absence on a biopsy, “when its actually quite possible that the patient could have disease,” Dr. Fiorentino said at the International Conference on Cutaneous Lupus Erythematosus.

In general, skin biopsies in DM are tricky. “All of us take them, but we don’t really know how to interpret the information that comes back ... because we don’t really know how often many of [the associated] findings are seen” in DM patients, he noted.

One of the main concerns is to rule out lupus, but interface dermatitis is found in many of its cutaneous forms, as well as in graft-versus-host disease and other diseases.

So what’s a clinician to do? Fortunately, direct immunofluorescence can help. A positive lupus band test helps rule out DM, and the membrane attack complex helps rule it in, both with a good degree of certainty. In a video interview, Dr. Fiorentino explained these tests and how to use them.

Dr. Fiorentino had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

NASHVILLE, Tenn. – Recent research into comorbidities in multiple sclerosis – including head-scratching findings about lower cancer rates – is shedding light on the links between the disease and other illnesses, according to an epidemiologist specializing in MS.

“People should be mindful that if they look at having a positive impact on those comorbidities, they may have the ability to benefit patients in context of their MS,” Helen Tremlett, PhD, said in a video interview at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers. She is the Canada Research Chair in Neuroepidemiology and Multiple Sclerosis at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver.

In recent years, research into comorbidities in MS has risen dramatically. Dr. Tremlett found that the number of papers per year in PubMed that address MS and comorbidity has risen from roughly 30 in 2007 to about 80 in 2015, although the numbers dipped to about 50 and 60, respectively, in 2016 and 2017.

A 2015 systematic review of research into MS and comorbidities reported that while “findings were inconsistent overall,” studies suggested that “meningiomas and possibly urinary system cancers, inflammatory bowel disease, irritable bowel syndrome, epilepsy, depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, early cataracts, and restless legs syndrome were more common than expected in the MS population.” (Mult Scler. 2015 Mar;21[3]:263-81).

Notably, most cancers are missing from this list. In fact, Dr. Tremlett cowrote a 2012 study that found lower risks of all cancers and several specific types of cancer – breast, lung, colorectal, prostate, and melanoma – in MS patients, compared with age- and gender-matched controls (Brain. 2012 Oct;135[Pt 10]:2973-9).

According to Dr. Tremlett, there are several theories about the apparent lower cancer risk in patients with MS. Perhaps their immune systems are hypervigilant, or maybe MS diagnoses inspire healthier lifestyles.

Researchers have been intrigued by another possibility – that cancer diagnoses are being delayed in patients with MS. Indeed, the 2012 study found that tumor sizes at diagnosis in patients with MS were larger than expected in breast, prostate, lung, and colorectal cancer (P = .04).

“We couldn’t record why that’s the case, but there may be some so-called ‘diagnostic neglect,’ ” she said. “You could imagine a scenario where a typical person with MS goes to see their physician and says, ‘I’m tired. I have fatigue,’ and the physician says, ‘Yes, you have MS, that’s what you should expect.’ Someone in the general population might get additional investigation, get blood work done, and their cancer might be found earlier.”

It’s also possible, she said, that cancer isn’t picked up earlier because it can be difficult to screen people with disabilities. “It’s only recently that physicians can offer the Pap smear to women in a wheelchair.”

On another front, there’s evidence linking comorbidities to worsening MS. A 2018 study coauthored by Dr. Tremlett found that patients with more comorbidities had more disability. Specifically, ischemic heart disease and epilepsy were associated with greater Expanded Disability Status Scale scores (Neurology. 2018 Jan 3. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000004885).

Other research coauthored by Dr. Tremlett has linked comorbidities in MS – specifically, hyperlipidemia, migraine, and three or more comorbidities – to higher risk of MS relapse (Neurology. 2017 Dec 12;89[24]:2455-61).

Dr. Tremlett reported having no relevant disclosures.

NASHVILLE, Tenn. – Recent research into comorbidities in multiple sclerosis – including head-scratching findings about lower cancer rates – is shedding light on the links between the disease and other illnesses, according to an epidemiologist specializing in MS.

“People should be mindful that if they look at having a positive impact on those comorbidities, they may have the ability to benefit patients in context of their MS,” Helen Tremlett, PhD, said in a video interview at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers. She is the Canada Research Chair in Neuroepidemiology and Multiple Sclerosis at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver.

In recent years, research into comorbidities in MS has risen dramatically. Dr. Tremlett found that the number of papers per year in PubMed that address MS and comorbidity has risen from roughly 30 in 2007 to about 80 in 2015, although the numbers dipped to about 50 and 60, respectively, in 2016 and 2017.

A 2015 systematic review of research into MS and comorbidities reported that while “findings were inconsistent overall,” studies suggested that “meningiomas and possibly urinary system cancers, inflammatory bowel disease, irritable bowel syndrome, epilepsy, depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, early cataracts, and restless legs syndrome were more common than expected in the MS population.” (Mult Scler. 2015 Mar;21[3]:263-81).

Notably, most cancers are missing from this list. In fact, Dr. Tremlett cowrote a 2012 study that found lower risks of all cancers and several specific types of cancer – breast, lung, colorectal, prostate, and melanoma – in MS patients, compared with age- and gender-matched controls (Brain. 2012 Oct;135[Pt 10]:2973-9).

According to Dr. Tremlett, there are several theories about the apparent lower cancer risk in patients with MS. Perhaps their immune systems are hypervigilant, or maybe MS diagnoses inspire healthier lifestyles.

Researchers have been intrigued by another possibility – that cancer diagnoses are being delayed in patients with MS. Indeed, the 2012 study found that tumor sizes at diagnosis in patients with MS were larger than expected in breast, prostate, lung, and colorectal cancer (P = .04).

“We couldn’t record why that’s the case, but there may be some so-called ‘diagnostic neglect,’ ” she said. “You could imagine a scenario where a typical person with MS goes to see their physician and says, ‘I’m tired. I have fatigue,’ and the physician says, ‘Yes, you have MS, that’s what you should expect.’ Someone in the general population might get additional investigation, get blood work done, and their cancer might be found earlier.”

It’s also possible, she said, that cancer isn’t picked up earlier because it can be difficult to screen people with disabilities. “It’s only recently that physicians can offer the Pap smear to women in a wheelchair.”

On another front, there’s evidence linking comorbidities to worsening MS. A 2018 study coauthored by Dr. Tremlett found that patients with more comorbidities had more disability. Specifically, ischemic heart disease and epilepsy were associated with greater Expanded Disability Status Scale scores (Neurology. 2018 Jan 3. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000004885).

Other research coauthored by Dr. Tremlett has linked comorbidities in MS – specifically, hyperlipidemia, migraine, and three or more comorbidities – to higher risk of MS relapse (Neurology. 2017 Dec 12;89[24]:2455-61).

Dr. Tremlett reported having no relevant disclosures.

NASHVILLE, Tenn. – Recent research into comorbidities in multiple sclerosis – including head-scratching findings about lower cancer rates – is shedding light on the links between the disease and other illnesses, according to an epidemiologist specializing in MS.

“People should be mindful that if they look at having a positive impact on those comorbidities, they may have the ability to benefit patients in context of their MS,” Helen Tremlett, PhD, said in a video interview at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers. She is the Canada Research Chair in Neuroepidemiology and Multiple Sclerosis at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver.

In recent years, research into comorbidities in MS has risen dramatically. Dr. Tremlett found that the number of papers per year in PubMed that address MS and comorbidity has risen from roughly 30 in 2007 to about 80 in 2015, although the numbers dipped to about 50 and 60, respectively, in 2016 and 2017.

A 2015 systematic review of research into MS and comorbidities reported that while “findings were inconsistent overall,” studies suggested that “meningiomas and possibly urinary system cancers, inflammatory bowel disease, irritable bowel syndrome, epilepsy, depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, early cataracts, and restless legs syndrome were more common than expected in the MS population.” (Mult Scler. 2015 Mar;21[3]:263-81).

Notably, most cancers are missing from this list. In fact, Dr. Tremlett cowrote a 2012 study that found lower risks of all cancers and several specific types of cancer – breast, lung, colorectal, prostate, and melanoma – in MS patients, compared with age- and gender-matched controls (Brain. 2012 Oct;135[Pt 10]:2973-9).

According to Dr. Tremlett, there are several theories about the apparent lower cancer risk in patients with MS. Perhaps their immune systems are hypervigilant, or maybe MS diagnoses inspire healthier lifestyles.

Researchers have been intrigued by another possibility – that cancer diagnoses are being delayed in patients with MS. Indeed, the 2012 study found that tumor sizes at diagnosis in patients with MS were larger than expected in breast, prostate, lung, and colorectal cancer (P = .04).

“We couldn’t record why that’s the case, but there may be some so-called ‘diagnostic neglect,’ ” she said. “You could imagine a scenario where a typical person with MS goes to see their physician and says, ‘I’m tired. I have fatigue,’ and the physician says, ‘Yes, you have MS, that’s what you should expect.’ Someone in the general population might get additional investigation, get blood work done, and their cancer might be found earlier.”

It’s also possible, she said, that cancer isn’t picked up earlier because it can be difficult to screen people with disabilities. “It’s only recently that physicians can offer the Pap smear to women in a wheelchair.”

On another front, there’s evidence linking comorbidities to worsening MS. A 2018 study coauthored by Dr. Tremlett found that patients with more comorbidities had more disability. Specifically, ischemic heart disease and epilepsy were associated with greater Expanded Disability Status Scale scores (Neurology. 2018 Jan 3. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000004885).

Other research coauthored by Dr. Tremlett has linked comorbidities in MS – specifically, hyperlipidemia, migraine, and three or more comorbidities – to higher risk of MS relapse (Neurology. 2017 Dec 12;89[24]:2455-61).

Dr. Tremlett reported having no relevant disclosures.

NASHVILLE, TENN. – Jeffrey B. English, MD, of the MS Center of Atlanta, knows which quality measures physicians and their patients with multiple sclerosis think are important. After all, he and his colleagues have surveyed them about that very topic.

But he has little time to monitor these measures since he’s too busy with a more overwhelming task: keeping track of unrelated quality measures as required by the federal government.

“When they developed quality measures under the MACRA law, they were not thinking about MS people in general. They were very primary care based,” Dr. English said in an interview at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.

In terms of MS, he said, “no one really knows what the correct outcome measures are.”

Dr. English knows more than most about quality measures preferred by neurologists and patients. At the annual CMSC meeting last year, he presented results from a survey of 11 physicians and 423 patients about the measures of care they consider most important. The patient survey asked about several measures recommended by the American Academy of Neurology plus other measures recommended by the physicians.

The two groups – physicians and patients – agreed on the top four measures: change observed via MRI, change observed via exam, quality of life, and fatigue. However, they disagreed on the ranking within the top four spots.

The least important measures for patients were exercise levels, depression, medication compliance, and relapses.

Dr. English wants to “be able to follow what the patients want me to follow.” However, he hasn’t been able to do so since “25% of my time with patients, in between patients and after hours, is spent trying to comply with outcome measures from the new health care system that are of no benefit to the patient,” he said.

He’s referring to the quality measures that many physicians are tracking to get reimbursed by Medicare and Medicaid.

Value-based care posts other challenges for MS physicians, he said, since MS care is especially expensive. Accountable Care Organizations are looking at cost savings in closed systems, he said, and that could spell trouble because patients with MS cost more.

As a 2015 report noted, first-generation disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for MS cost about $60,000, and “costs for these agents have increased annually at rates 5 to 7 times higher than prescription drug inflation. Newer DMTs commonly entered the market with a cost 25%-60% higher than existing DMTs” (Neurology. 2015 May 26;84[21]:2185-92).

“If I’m in an ACO, and I’m taking care of a lot of MS patients, I’ll already lose money for the accountable care system,” Dr. English said. “They may not necessarily want an MS center inside an ACO.”

What can doctors do? “Advocacy efforts are pretty difficult for physicians,” Dr. English said. “Our hope is that the CMSC will be a clearinghouse for doctors who have ideas and efforts and advocacy, and somehow channel that into the actual provision of care. You have people advocating for medications and for research and for patients, but there’s nobody advocating for the actual care that’s going on, the boots-on-the-ground care. That’s where CMSC should play a big role.”

Dr. English disclosed that he has served as a consultant for multiple pharmaceutical companies.

NASHVILLE, TENN. – Jeffrey B. English, MD, of the MS Center of Atlanta, knows which quality measures physicians and their patients with multiple sclerosis think are important. After all, he and his colleagues have surveyed them about that very topic.

But he has little time to monitor these measures since he’s too busy with a more overwhelming task: keeping track of unrelated quality measures as required by the federal government.

“When they developed quality measures under the MACRA law, they were not thinking about MS people in general. They were very primary care based,” Dr. English said in an interview at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.

In terms of MS, he said, “no one really knows what the correct outcome measures are.”

Dr. English knows more than most about quality measures preferred by neurologists and patients. At the annual CMSC meeting last year, he presented results from a survey of 11 physicians and 423 patients about the measures of care they consider most important. The patient survey asked about several measures recommended by the American Academy of Neurology plus other measures recommended by the physicians.

The two groups – physicians and patients – agreed on the top four measures: change observed via MRI, change observed via exam, quality of life, and fatigue. However, they disagreed on the ranking within the top four spots.

The least important measures for patients were exercise levels, depression, medication compliance, and relapses.

Dr. English wants to “be able to follow what the patients want me to follow.” However, he hasn’t been able to do so since “25% of my time with patients, in between patients and after hours, is spent trying to comply with outcome measures from the new health care system that are of no benefit to the patient,” he said.

He’s referring to the quality measures that many physicians are tracking to get reimbursed by Medicare and Medicaid.

Value-based care posts other challenges for MS physicians, he said, since MS care is especially expensive. Accountable Care Organizations are looking at cost savings in closed systems, he said, and that could spell trouble because patients with MS cost more.

As a 2015 report noted, first-generation disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for MS cost about $60,000, and “costs for these agents have increased annually at rates 5 to 7 times higher than prescription drug inflation. Newer DMTs commonly entered the market with a cost 25%-60% higher than existing DMTs” (Neurology. 2015 May 26;84[21]:2185-92).

“If I’m in an ACO, and I’m taking care of a lot of MS patients, I’ll already lose money for the accountable care system,” Dr. English said. “They may not necessarily want an MS center inside an ACO.”

What can doctors do? “Advocacy efforts are pretty difficult for physicians,” Dr. English said. “Our hope is that the CMSC will be a clearinghouse for doctors who have ideas and efforts and advocacy, and somehow channel that into the actual provision of care. You have people advocating for medications and for research and for patients, but there’s nobody advocating for the actual care that’s going on, the boots-on-the-ground care. That’s where CMSC should play a big role.”

Dr. English disclosed that he has served as a consultant for multiple pharmaceutical companies.

NASHVILLE, TENN. – Jeffrey B. English, MD, of the MS Center of Atlanta, knows which quality measures physicians and their patients with multiple sclerosis think are important. After all, he and his colleagues have surveyed them about that very topic.

But he has little time to monitor these measures since he’s too busy with a more overwhelming task: keeping track of unrelated quality measures as required by the federal government.

“When they developed quality measures under the MACRA law, they were not thinking about MS people in general. They were very primary care based,” Dr. English said in an interview at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.

In terms of MS, he said, “no one really knows what the correct outcome measures are.”

Dr. English knows more than most about quality measures preferred by neurologists and patients. At the annual CMSC meeting last year, he presented results from a survey of 11 physicians and 423 patients about the measures of care they consider most important. The patient survey asked about several measures recommended by the American Academy of Neurology plus other measures recommended by the physicians.

The two groups – physicians and patients – agreed on the top four measures: change observed via MRI, change observed via exam, quality of life, and fatigue. However, they disagreed on the ranking within the top four spots.

The least important measures for patients were exercise levels, depression, medication compliance, and relapses.

Dr. English wants to “be able to follow what the patients want me to follow.” However, he hasn’t been able to do so since “25% of my time with patients, in between patients and after hours, is spent trying to comply with outcome measures from the new health care system that are of no benefit to the patient,” he said.

He’s referring to the quality measures that many physicians are tracking to get reimbursed by Medicare and Medicaid.

Value-based care posts other challenges for MS physicians, he said, since MS care is especially expensive. Accountable Care Organizations are looking at cost savings in closed systems, he said, and that could spell trouble because patients with MS cost more.

As a 2015 report noted, first-generation disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for MS cost about $60,000, and “costs for these agents have increased annually at rates 5 to 7 times higher than prescription drug inflation. Newer DMTs commonly entered the market with a cost 25%-60% higher than existing DMTs” (Neurology. 2015 May 26;84[21]:2185-92).

“If I’m in an ACO, and I’m taking care of a lot of MS patients, I’ll already lose money for the accountable care system,” Dr. English said. “They may not necessarily want an MS center inside an ACO.”

What can doctors do? “Advocacy efforts are pretty difficult for physicians,” Dr. English said. “Our hope is that the CMSC will be a clearinghouse for doctors who have ideas and efforts and advocacy, and somehow channel that into the actual provision of care. You have people advocating for medications and for research and for patients, but there’s nobody advocating for the actual care that’s going on, the boots-on-the-ground care. That’s where CMSC should play a big role.”

Dr. English disclosed that he has served as a consultant for multiple pharmaceutical companies.

NASHVILLE, TENN. – A new computer tablet application puts cognitive screening literally in the hands of patients with multiple sclerosis.

The Multiple Sclerosis Performance Test (MSPT), created specifically for iPad, presents patients with four assessments that they can complete in a short time before any clinic visit, according to Stephen M. Rao, PhD, who helped develop the tool. After patients complete the test battery, the program translates their results into adjusted normative data and feeds them directly into the individual electronic medical record. When the clinic visit begins, everything is ready for the physician and patient to review together. The program not only provides a solid baseline assessment, but can also, over time, create a longitudinal profile of a patient’s cognitive status, and help to guide management decisions, Dr. Rao said at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.

“About half of people with MS do have cognitive problems, which, above and beyond the physical problems, can result in major challenges with work, the ability to engage in social activities, and the need for personal assistance,” said Dr. Rao, who is the Ralph and Luci Schey Chair and director of the Schey Center for Cognitive Neuroimaging at the Cleveland Clinic. “But despite that, even comprehensive MS care centers rarely screen for cognitive dysfunction using objective neuropsychological tests.”

Time is the issue for most clinics, he said. Although the paper-and-pencil screening tools out there take only 10 minutes or so, most centers don’t have the luxury of carving out those extra moments or dedicating a staff member to administer the test and handle the data.

The MSPT attempts to sidestep the problem of time and manpower. In Dr. Rao’s center and the other 10 in the United States and Europe that now use the tool, patients simply arrive a bit early for their appointment and complete the three components: a structured patient history; the Neurological Quality of Life assessment; and an electronic adaptation of the MS Functional Composite.

It assesses cognition with a processing speed test based on the Symbol Digit Modalities Test, which has long been validated for MS patients. A contrast sensitivity test assesses visual acuity. A simple manual-dexterity test, in which patients move peg symbols into “holes,” tests upper extremity function, and a video-recorded walking speed test assesses lower extremity function.

The system was validated in 165 patients with MS and 217 healthy controls. It correlated well with the paper-and-pencil Symbol Digits Modalities Test, and correlated more highly than that test with cerebral T2 lesion load (MS Journal. 2017;23:1929-37).

[email protected]

SOURCE: Rao SM et al. CMSC 2018. doi: 10.1177/1352458516688955

NASHVILLE, TENN. – A new computer tablet application puts cognitive screening literally in the hands of patients with multiple sclerosis.

The Multiple Sclerosis Performance Test (MSPT), created specifically for iPad, presents patients with four assessments that they can complete in a short time before any clinic visit, according to Stephen M. Rao, PhD, who helped develop the tool. After patients complete the test battery, the program translates their results into adjusted normative data and feeds them directly into the individual electronic medical record. When the clinic visit begins, everything is ready for the physician and patient to review together. The program not only provides a solid baseline assessment, but can also, over time, create a longitudinal profile of a patient’s cognitive status, and help to guide management decisions, Dr. Rao said at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.

“About half of people with MS do have cognitive problems, which, above and beyond the physical problems, can result in major challenges with work, the ability to engage in social activities, and the need for personal assistance,” said Dr. Rao, who is the Ralph and Luci Schey Chair and director of the Schey Center for Cognitive Neuroimaging at the Cleveland Clinic. “But despite that, even comprehensive MS care centers rarely screen for cognitive dysfunction using objective neuropsychological tests.”

Time is the issue for most clinics, he said. Although the paper-and-pencil screening tools out there take only 10 minutes or so, most centers don’t have the luxury of carving out those extra moments or dedicating a staff member to administer the test and handle the data.

The MSPT attempts to sidestep the problem of time and manpower. In Dr. Rao’s center and the other 10 in the United States and Europe that now use the tool, patients simply arrive a bit early for their appointment and complete the three components: a structured patient history; the Neurological Quality of Life assessment; and an electronic adaptation of the MS Functional Composite.

It assesses cognition with a processing speed test based on the Symbol Digit Modalities Test, which has long been validated for MS patients. A contrast sensitivity test assesses visual acuity. A simple manual-dexterity test, in which patients move peg symbols into “holes,” tests upper extremity function, and a video-recorded walking speed test assesses lower extremity function.

The system was validated in 165 patients with MS and 217 healthy controls. It correlated well with the paper-and-pencil Symbol Digits Modalities Test, and correlated more highly than that test with cerebral T2 lesion load (MS Journal. 2017;23:1929-37).

[email protected]

SOURCE: Rao SM et al. CMSC 2018. doi: 10.1177/1352458516688955

NASHVILLE, TENN. – A new computer tablet application puts cognitive screening literally in the hands of patients with multiple sclerosis.

The Multiple Sclerosis Performance Test (MSPT), created specifically for iPad, presents patients with four assessments that they can complete in a short time before any clinic visit, according to Stephen M. Rao, PhD, who helped develop the tool. After patients complete the test battery, the program translates their results into adjusted normative data and feeds them directly into the individual electronic medical record. When the clinic visit begins, everything is ready for the physician and patient to review together. The program not only provides a solid baseline assessment, but can also, over time, create a longitudinal profile of a patient’s cognitive status, and help to guide management decisions, Dr. Rao said at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.

“About half of people with MS do have cognitive problems, which, above and beyond the physical problems, can result in major challenges with work, the ability to engage in social activities, and the need for personal assistance,” said Dr. Rao, who is the Ralph and Luci Schey Chair and director of the Schey Center for Cognitive Neuroimaging at the Cleveland Clinic. “But despite that, even comprehensive MS care centers rarely screen for cognitive dysfunction using objective neuropsychological tests.”

Time is the issue for most clinics, he said. Although the paper-and-pencil screening tools out there take only 10 minutes or so, most centers don’t have the luxury of carving out those extra moments or dedicating a staff member to administer the test and handle the data.

The MSPT attempts to sidestep the problem of time and manpower. In Dr. Rao’s center and the other 10 in the United States and Europe that now use the tool, patients simply arrive a bit early for their appointment and complete the three components: a structured patient history; the Neurological Quality of Life assessment; and an electronic adaptation of the MS Functional Composite.

It assesses cognition with a processing speed test based on the Symbol Digit Modalities Test, which has long been validated for MS patients. A contrast sensitivity test assesses visual acuity. A simple manual-dexterity test, in which patients move peg symbols into “holes,” tests upper extremity function, and a video-recorded walking speed test assesses lower extremity function.

The system was validated in 165 patients with MS and 217 healthy controls. It correlated well with the paper-and-pencil Symbol Digits Modalities Test, and correlated more highly than that test with cerebral T2 lesion load (MS Journal. 2017;23:1929-37).

[email protected]

SOURCE: Rao SM et al. CMSC 2018. doi: 10.1177/1352458516688955

NEW YORK – Female physicians are at higher risk for burnout compared with their male counterparts, and the reasons and potential solutions for the problem were addressed at a symposium during the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association.

The work environment for women has improved over time, but lingering implicit and unconscious biases are part of the reason for the high burnout rate among women who are physicians, as are some inherent biological differences, according to Cynthia M. Stonnington, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Phoenix.

In this video interview, Dr. Stonnington, symposium chair, discussed potential solutions, including facilitated peer mentorship and group support. She also reviewed recent data on how group support can be of benefit, and noted that “there is power in numbers.

“It is imperative that women ... band together and find a way to support each other,” she said.

Dr. Stonnington reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]

NEW YORK – Female physicians are at higher risk for burnout compared with their male counterparts, and the reasons and potential solutions for the problem were addressed at a symposium during the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association.

The work environment for women has improved over time, but lingering implicit and unconscious biases are part of the reason for the high burnout rate among women who are physicians, as are some inherent biological differences, according to Cynthia M. Stonnington, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Phoenix.

In this video interview, Dr. Stonnington, symposium chair, discussed potential solutions, including facilitated peer mentorship and group support. She also reviewed recent data on how group support can be of benefit, and noted that “there is power in numbers.

“It is imperative that women ... band together and find a way to support each other,” she said.

Dr. Stonnington reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]

NEW YORK – Female physicians are at higher risk for burnout compared with their male counterparts, and the reasons and potential solutions for the problem were addressed at a symposium during the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association.

The work environment for women has improved over time, but lingering implicit and unconscious biases are part of the reason for the high burnout rate among women who are physicians, as are some inherent biological differences, according to Cynthia M. Stonnington, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Phoenix.

In this video interview, Dr. Stonnington, symposium chair, discussed potential solutions, including facilitated peer mentorship and group support. She also reviewed recent data on how group support can be of benefit, and noted that “there is power in numbers.

“It is imperative that women ... band together and find a way to support each other,” she said.

Dr. Stonnington reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]

SANDESTIN, FLA. – Several drugs approved for other conditions may also have good effect in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus, Michelle Petri, MD, said in an interview at the annual Congress of Clinical Rheumatology.

The molecules target several different disease pathways, said Dr. Petri, director of the Hopkins Lupus Center at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

Ustekinumab (Stelara) has accumulated the most data so far. A phase 2 study presented last fall at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology found that it conferred significant benefits relative to placebo, including a 60% responder rate (29% better than placebo), a significantly lower flare rate, and improvements in musculoskeletal and mucocutaneous disease features. The rate of serious adverse events was acceptable (8.3% vs. 9.5% for placebo).

Baricitinib is also being investigated in SLE, Dr. Petri said. A phase 2 study conducted by Eli Lilly closed late last year and will be reported on June 13 at the European League Against Rheumatism’s opening plenary session (Wallace et al. EULAR 2018 abstract OP0019).

The three-armed, placebo-controlled study comprised 314 patients who were randomized to placebo or one of two baricitinib doses, given orally for 24 weeks. The primary outcome was remission of arthritis and/or rash as measured by the SLE Disease Activity Index 2000 (SLEDAI-2K). Secondary endpoints included responder rate, change from baseline in the SLEDAI-2K, change in the Global Assessment of Disease Activity score, and pharmacokinetic measures.

Dr. Petri disclosed relationships with Amgen, Boston Pharmaceuticals, Bristol-Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Janssen, Novartis, and GlaxoSmithKline.

[email protected]

SANDESTIN, FLA. – Several drugs approved for other conditions may also have good effect in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus, Michelle Petri, MD, said in an interview at the annual Congress of Clinical Rheumatology.

The molecules target several different disease pathways, said Dr. Petri, director of the Hopkins Lupus Center at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

Ustekinumab (Stelara) has accumulated the most data so far. A phase 2 study presented last fall at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology found that it conferred significant benefits relative to placebo, including a 60% responder rate (29% better than placebo), a significantly lower flare rate, and improvements in musculoskeletal and mucocutaneous disease features. The rate of serious adverse events was acceptable (8.3% vs. 9.5% for placebo).

Baricitinib is also being investigated in SLE, Dr. Petri said. A phase 2 study conducted by Eli Lilly closed late last year and will be reported on June 13 at the European League Against Rheumatism’s opening plenary session (Wallace et al. EULAR 2018 abstract OP0019).

The three-armed, placebo-controlled study comprised 314 patients who were randomized to placebo or one of two baricitinib doses, given orally for 24 weeks. The primary outcome was remission of arthritis and/or rash as measured by the SLE Disease Activity Index 2000 (SLEDAI-2K). Secondary endpoints included responder rate, change from baseline in the SLEDAI-2K, change in the Global Assessment of Disease Activity score, and pharmacokinetic measures.

Dr. Petri disclosed relationships with Amgen, Boston Pharmaceuticals, Bristol-Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Janssen, Novartis, and GlaxoSmithKline.

[email protected]

SANDESTIN, FLA. – Several drugs approved for other conditions may also have good effect in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus, Michelle Petri, MD, said in an interview at the annual Congress of Clinical Rheumatology.

The molecules target several different disease pathways, said Dr. Petri, director of the Hopkins Lupus Center at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

Ustekinumab (Stelara) has accumulated the most data so far. A phase 2 study presented last fall at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology found that it conferred significant benefits relative to placebo, including a 60% responder rate (29% better than placebo), a significantly lower flare rate, and improvements in musculoskeletal and mucocutaneous disease features. The rate of serious adverse events was acceptable (8.3% vs. 9.5% for placebo).

Baricitinib is also being investigated in SLE, Dr. Petri said. A phase 2 study conducted by Eli Lilly closed late last year and will be reported on June 13 at the European League Against Rheumatism’s opening plenary session (Wallace et al. EULAR 2018 abstract OP0019).

The three-armed, placebo-controlled study comprised 314 patients who were randomized to placebo or one of two baricitinib doses, given orally for 24 weeks. The primary outcome was remission of arthritis and/or rash as measured by the SLE Disease Activity Index 2000 (SLEDAI-2K). Secondary endpoints included responder rate, change from baseline in the SLEDAI-2K, change in the Global Assessment of Disease Activity score, and pharmacokinetic measures.

Dr. Petri disclosed relationships with Amgen, Boston Pharmaceuticals, Bristol-Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Janssen, Novartis, and GlaxoSmithKline.

[email protected]

NEW YORK – Recent discoveries regarding the relationship between alcohol consumption and neuroinflammation suggest a possible role for adjunctive treatments and supplements in addiction treatment, according to Shram Shukla, MD.

For example, a qualitative review of the literature over the past 2-3 years showed that the “neuroinflammatory process in and of itself drives epigenetic changes, which ultimately upregulate neuroinflammation of the brain,” according to Dr. Shukla of Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Md., who reported the findings in a poster at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association.

In this video interview, he explained that this finding is important because “neuroinflammation leads to neurotoxicity, which leads to neuronal degeneration.”

“As we know, with patients who chronically abuse alcohol, they do have a level of cortical degeneration that we often see on imaging, so there is, perhaps, a role that this may play in that,” he added.

Dr. Shukla said he also found that the neuroinflammatory process, when it drives the epigenetic changes, affects the amygdala, which is known as a “high stress part of the brain.”

“What we found in animal models so far is that if we can impact where that epigenetic change occurs, we can prevent the anxiogenic behaviors we often see in alcohol withdrawal and abstinence; we associate that, in humans, to be the high-stress state we often see in patients when they ... are withdrawing from alcohol.”

This raised questions about whether certain medications and supplements, including vitamin C, pioglitazone, infliximab, and omega-3 fatty acids, could be of benefit, and it was shown that these do affect neuroinflammation and stop neurotoxicity from occurring – and also, in turn, prevent the epigenetic changes, he said.

The take-away is that there may be ways to augment what already is being done (using naltrexone, which works on the reward pathway, for example) to help patients with addiction.

“Now we have something, potentially ... that can do some of the ancillary stuff, working on the withdrawal effects, helping with the behavioral response that we see in patients that are suffering from addiction,” he said.

Dr. Shukla reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Shukla S et al. APA Poster Session 4, Poster 3.

NEW YORK – Recent discoveries regarding the relationship between alcohol consumption and neuroinflammation suggest a possible role for adjunctive treatments and supplements in addiction treatment, according to Shram Shukla, MD.

For example, a qualitative review of the literature over the past 2-3 years showed that the “neuroinflammatory process in and of itself drives epigenetic changes, which ultimately upregulate neuroinflammation of the brain,” according to Dr. Shukla of Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Md., who reported the findings in a poster at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association.

In this video interview, he explained that this finding is important because “neuroinflammation leads to neurotoxicity, which leads to neuronal degeneration.”

“As we know, with patients who chronically abuse alcohol, they do have a level of cortical degeneration that we often see on imaging, so there is, perhaps, a role that this may play in that,” he added.

Dr. Shukla said he also found that the neuroinflammatory process, when it drives the epigenetic changes, affects the amygdala, which is known as a “high stress part of the brain.”

“What we found in animal models so far is that if we can impact where that epigenetic change occurs, we can prevent the anxiogenic behaviors we often see in alcohol withdrawal and abstinence; we associate that, in humans, to be the high-stress state we often see in patients when they ... are withdrawing from alcohol.”

This raised questions about whether certain medications and supplements, including vitamin C, pioglitazone, infliximab, and omega-3 fatty acids, could be of benefit, and it was shown that these do affect neuroinflammation and stop neurotoxicity from occurring – and also, in turn, prevent the epigenetic changes, he said.

The take-away is that there may be ways to augment what already is being done (using naltrexone, which works on the reward pathway, for example) to help patients with addiction.

“Now we have something, potentially ... that can do some of the ancillary stuff, working on the withdrawal effects, helping with the behavioral response that we see in patients that are suffering from addiction,” he said.

Dr. Shukla reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Shukla S et al. APA Poster Session 4, Poster 3.

NEW YORK – Recent discoveries regarding the relationship between alcohol consumption and neuroinflammation suggest a possible role for adjunctive treatments and supplements in addiction treatment, according to Shram Shukla, MD.

For example, a qualitative review of the literature over the past 2-3 years showed that the “neuroinflammatory process in and of itself drives epigenetic changes, which ultimately upregulate neuroinflammation of the brain,” according to Dr. Shukla of Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Md., who reported the findings in a poster at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association.

In this video interview, he explained that this finding is important because “neuroinflammation leads to neurotoxicity, which leads to neuronal degeneration.”

“As we know, with patients who chronically abuse alcohol, they do have a level of cortical degeneration that we often see on imaging, so there is, perhaps, a role that this may play in that,” he added.

Dr. Shukla said he also found that the neuroinflammatory process, when it drives the epigenetic changes, affects the amygdala, which is known as a “high stress part of the brain.”

“What we found in animal models so far is that if we can impact where that epigenetic change occurs, we can prevent the anxiogenic behaviors we often see in alcohol withdrawal and abstinence; we associate that, in humans, to be the high-stress state we often see in patients when they ... are withdrawing from alcohol.”

This raised questions about whether certain medications and supplements, including vitamin C, pioglitazone, infliximab, and omega-3 fatty acids, could be of benefit, and it was shown that these do affect neuroinflammation and stop neurotoxicity from occurring – and also, in turn, prevent the epigenetic changes, he said.

The take-away is that there may be ways to augment what already is being done (using naltrexone, which works on the reward pathway, for example) to help patients with addiction.

“Now we have something, potentially ... that can do some of the ancillary stuff, working on the withdrawal effects, helping with the behavioral response that we see in patients that are suffering from addiction,” he said.

Dr. Shukla reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Shukla S et al. APA Poster Session 4, Poster 3.

BOSTON – Evidence from a twin study points to genes, rather than just adiposity, as the underlying factor in differences in appetite and satiety that have been observed in obesity.

The work adds a new dimension – and some questions – to previous research, which suggested individuals with obesity show heightened brain activation to food cues, especially calorically dense food.

“We thought it was fat mass…but when we controlled for everything that monozygotic pairs have in common, that relationship went away, implicating something that the monozygotic twins have in common, i.e., genetics,” said first author Jennifer Rosenbaum, MD, in a video interview at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Clinical Endocrinologists.

Dr. Rosenbaum, a fellow in the department of metabolism, endocrinology, and nutrition at the University of Washington, Seattle, and her collaborators made use of a statewide twin registry to conduct an extensive investigation of subjective and objective measures of appetite and satiety in the 42 twin pairs.

Twins had a mean age of 31 years; 27 of the twin pairs were monozygotic, Dr. Rosenbaum said. At least one member of each twin pair met criteria for obesity, and participants had a mean body mass index of 32.8 kg/m².

On the study day, participants arrived in fasting state, and had a fixed-calorie breakfast equivalent to 10% of their daily caloric needs. They then underwent dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scanning to determine adiposity, and also filled out a behavioral questionnaire.

Then, participants received the first of two functional MRI scans; during the scan, they were shown images of high calorie foods, low calorie foods, and nonfood objects, completing ratings of how appealing they found each image. After consuming another standardized meal equivalent to 20% of daily caloric needs, the fMRI scan was repeated.

Finally, participants were given access to a buffet meal and allowed to eat as much as they chose; consumption was measured. Before and after each meal and scan, and at various points during the day, the investigators also obtained blood samples and asked participants to rate their hunger on a visual analog scale.

“When compared with how much fat mass they had, there was no relationship between how hungry or full they were when they were fasting, how hungry or full they were with a snack, or when they ate the buffet. It just didn’t matter how much fat mass they had” for subjective reporting of hunger and fullness, said Dr. Rosenbaum.

However, there was a direct correlation between fat mass and amount consumed at the ad libitum buffet. Additionally, the fMRI analysis showed that “the brain activation that we would expect to go down, didn’t seem to go down as much if you had more adiposity,” she said.

As fat mass went up, areas of the brain implicated in appetite and reward showed more activity when participants were presented with the tempting images of high calorie foods, regardless of the calories consumed. These areas include the ventral and dorsal striata, the amygdala, the insula, the ventral tegmental area, and the medial orbitofrontal cortex.

Next, the researchers looked for differences within the monozygotic twin pairs, who essentially share a genome. They compared the brain activation of the twin with the higher fat mass with that of the twin with lower fat mass. Instead of seeing the same correlation between higher adiposity and greater brain activation with tempting stimuli, “Suddenly, we lost that relationship between how many calories they would eat and how their brain activated with the food,” said Dr. Rosenbaum. This is a clue, she said, that genetics, rather than simple adiposity, is driving the different responses to food cues.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Rosenbaum reported no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

BOSTON – Evidence from a twin study points to genes, rather than just adiposity, as the underlying factor in differences in appetite and satiety that have been observed in obesity.

The work adds a new dimension – and some questions – to previous research, which suggested individuals with obesity show heightened brain activation to food cues, especially calorically dense food.

“We thought it was fat mass…but when we controlled for everything that monozygotic pairs have in common, that relationship went away, implicating something that the monozygotic twins have in common, i.e., genetics,” said first author Jennifer Rosenbaum, MD, in a video interview at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Clinical Endocrinologists.

Dr. Rosenbaum, a fellow in the department of metabolism, endocrinology, and nutrition at the University of Washington, Seattle, and her collaborators made use of a statewide twin registry to conduct an extensive investigation of subjective and objective measures of appetite and satiety in the 42 twin pairs.

Twins had a mean age of 31 years; 27 of the twin pairs were monozygotic, Dr. Rosenbaum said. At least one member of each twin pair met criteria for obesity, and participants had a mean body mass index of 32.8 kg/m².

On the study day, participants arrived in fasting state, and had a fixed-calorie breakfast equivalent to 10% of their daily caloric needs. They then underwent dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scanning to determine adiposity, and also filled out a behavioral questionnaire.

Then, participants received the first of two functional MRI scans; during the scan, they were shown images of high calorie foods, low calorie foods, and nonfood objects, completing ratings of how appealing they found each image. After consuming another standardized meal equivalent to 20% of daily caloric needs, the fMRI scan was repeated.

Finally, participants were given access to a buffet meal and allowed to eat as much as they chose; consumption was measured. Before and after each meal and scan, and at various points during the day, the investigators also obtained blood samples and asked participants to rate their hunger on a visual analog scale.

“When compared with how much fat mass they had, there was no relationship between how hungry or full they were when they were fasting, how hungry or full they were with a snack, or when they ate the buffet. It just didn’t matter how much fat mass they had” for subjective reporting of hunger and fullness, said Dr. Rosenbaum.

However, there was a direct correlation between fat mass and amount consumed at the ad libitum buffet. Additionally, the fMRI analysis showed that “the brain activation that we would expect to go down, didn’t seem to go down as much if you had more adiposity,” she said.

As fat mass went up, areas of the brain implicated in appetite and reward showed more activity when participants were presented with the tempting images of high calorie foods, regardless of the calories consumed. These areas include the ventral and dorsal striata, the amygdala, the insula, the ventral tegmental area, and the medial orbitofrontal cortex.

Next, the researchers looked for differences within the monozygotic twin pairs, who essentially share a genome. They compared the brain activation of the twin with the higher fat mass with that of the twin with lower fat mass. Instead of seeing the same correlation between higher adiposity and greater brain activation with tempting stimuli, “Suddenly, we lost that relationship between how many calories they would eat and how their brain activated with the food,” said Dr. Rosenbaum. This is a clue, she said, that genetics, rather than simple adiposity, is driving the different responses to food cues.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Rosenbaum reported no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

BOSTON – Evidence from a twin study points to genes, rather than just adiposity, as the underlying factor in differences in appetite and satiety that have been observed in obesity.

The work adds a new dimension – and some questions – to previous research, which suggested individuals with obesity show heightened brain activation to food cues, especially calorically dense food.

“We thought it was fat mass…but when we controlled for everything that monozygotic pairs have in common, that relationship went away, implicating something that the monozygotic twins have in common, i.e., genetics,” said first author Jennifer Rosenbaum, MD, in a video interview at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Clinical Endocrinologists.

Dr. Rosenbaum, a fellow in the department of metabolism, endocrinology, and nutrition at the University of Washington, Seattle, and her collaborators made use of a statewide twin registry to conduct an extensive investigation of subjective and objective measures of appetite and satiety in the 42 twin pairs.

Twins had a mean age of 31 years; 27 of the twin pairs were monozygotic, Dr. Rosenbaum said. At least one member of each twin pair met criteria for obesity, and participants had a mean body mass index of 32.8 kg/m².

On the study day, participants arrived in fasting state, and had a fixed-calorie breakfast equivalent to 10% of their daily caloric needs. They then underwent dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scanning to determine adiposity, and also filled out a behavioral questionnaire.

Then, participants received the first of two functional MRI scans; during the scan, they were shown images of high calorie foods, low calorie foods, and nonfood objects, completing ratings of how appealing they found each image. After consuming another standardized meal equivalent to 20% of daily caloric needs, the fMRI scan was repeated.

Finally, participants were given access to a buffet meal and allowed to eat as much as they chose; consumption was measured. Before and after each meal and scan, and at various points during the day, the investigators also obtained blood samples and asked participants to rate their hunger on a visual analog scale.

“When compared with how much fat mass they had, there was no relationship between how hungry or full they were when they were fasting, how hungry or full they were with a snack, or when they ate the buffet. It just didn’t matter how much fat mass they had” for subjective reporting of hunger and fullness, said Dr. Rosenbaum.

However, there was a direct correlation between fat mass and amount consumed at the ad libitum buffet. Additionally, the fMRI analysis showed that “the brain activation that we would expect to go down, didn’t seem to go down as much if you had more adiposity,” she said.

As fat mass went up, areas of the brain implicated in appetite and reward showed more activity when participants were presented with the tempting images of high calorie foods, regardless of the calories consumed. These areas include the ventral and dorsal striata, the amygdala, the insula, the ventral tegmental area, and the medial orbitofrontal cortex.

Next, the researchers looked for differences within the monozygotic twin pairs, who essentially share a genome. They compared the brain activation of the twin with the higher fat mass with that of the twin with lower fat mass. Instead of seeing the same correlation between higher adiposity and greater brain activation with tempting stimuli, “Suddenly, we lost that relationship between how many calories they would eat and how their brain activated with the food,” said Dr. Rosenbaum. This is a clue, she said, that genetics, rather than simple adiposity, is driving the different responses to food cues.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Rosenbaum reported no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

BOSTON – Results from two recent trials suggest that cardiologists may have a new way to improve outcomes in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction if they also have atrial fibrillation: Cut the patient’s atrial fibrillation burden with catheter ablation.

This seemingly off-target approach to improving survival, avoiding heart failure hospitalizations, and possibly reducing other adverse events first gained attention with results from the CASTLE-AF (Catheter Ablation vs. Standard Conventional Treatment in Patients With LV Dysfunction and AF) randomized trial, first reported in 2017. The study showed in 363 patients that atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) led to a statistically significant 38% relative reduction in the primary endpoint of mortality or heart failure hospitalization during a median 38 months of follow-up (N Engl J Med. 2018 Feb 1;378[5]:417-27).

This groundbreaking finding then received some degree of confirmation when Douglas L. Packer, MD, reported primary results from CABANA (Catheter Ablation vs Anti-arrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation Trial) at the annual scientific sessions of the Heart Rhythm Society. CABANA compared upfront ablation against first-line medical management of AF in 2,203 patients. While the primary endpoint of the cumulative rate of all-cause death, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, or cardiac arrest over a median follow-up of just over 4 years was neutral, with no statistically significant difference between the two treatment arms, a subgroup analysis showed a tantalizing suggestion of benefit in the 337 enrolled patients with a history of congestive heart failure (15% of the total study group).

In this subgroup, treatment with ablation cut the primary endpoint by 39% relative to those treated upfront with medical management, an effect that came close to statistical significance. In addition, Dr. Packer took special note of the per-protocol analysis, which censored out the crossover patients who constituted roughly a fifth of all enrolled patients. In the subgroup analysis using the per-protocol data, ablation was linked with a statistically significant 49% relative reduction in the primary endpoint among patients with a history of heart failure.

The patients for whom there may be the quickest shift to upfront ablation to treat AF based on the CABANA results will be those with heart failure and others with high underlying risk, Dr. Packer predicted at the meeting.

“The CASTLE-AF results were interesting, but in fewer than 400 patients. Now we’ve basically seen the same thing” in CABANA, said Dr. Packer, professor and a cardiac electrophysiologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

Notably however, the results Dr. Packer reported on the heart failure subgroup did not include any information on how many of these were patients who had HFrEF or heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and how the apparent benefit from AF ablation affected each of these two heart failure types. In addition, the reported CABANA results did not have an endpoint result that completely matched the mortality and heart failure hospitalization composite endpoint used in CASTLE-AF. The closest endpoint that Dr. Packer reported from CABANA was a composite of mortality and cardiovascular hospitalization that showed, for the entire CABANA cohort, a statistically significant 17% relative reduction with ablation in the intention-to-treat analysis. Dr. Packer gave no data on how this outcome shook out in the subgroup of heart failure patients.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

[email protected]

BOSTON – Results from two recent trials suggest that cardiologists may have a new way to improve outcomes in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction if they also have atrial fibrillation: Cut the patient’s atrial fibrillation burden with catheter ablation.

This seemingly off-target approach to improving survival, avoiding heart failure hospitalizations, and possibly reducing other adverse events first gained attention with results from the CASTLE-AF (Catheter Ablation vs. Standard Conventional Treatment in Patients With LV Dysfunction and AF) randomized trial, first reported in 2017. The study showed in 363 patients that atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) led to a statistically significant 38% relative reduction in the primary endpoint of mortality or heart failure hospitalization during a median 38 months of follow-up (N Engl J Med. 2018 Feb 1;378[5]:417-27).

This groundbreaking finding then received some degree of confirmation when Douglas L. Packer, MD, reported primary results from CABANA (Catheter Ablation vs Anti-arrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation Trial) at the annual scientific sessions of the Heart Rhythm Society. CABANA compared upfront ablation against first-line medical management of AF in 2,203 patients. While the primary endpoint of the cumulative rate of all-cause death, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, or cardiac arrest over a median follow-up of just over 4 years was neutral, with no statistically significant difference between the two treatment arms, a subgroup analysis showed a tantalizing suggestion of benefit in the 337 enrolled patients with a history of congestive heart failure (15% of the total study group).

In this subgroup, treatment with ablation cut the primary endpoint by 39% relative to those treated upfront with medical management, an effect that came close to statistical significance. In addition, Dr. Packer took special note of the per-protocol analysis, which censored out the crossover patients who constituted roughly a fifth of all enrolled patients. In the subgroup analysis using the per-protocol data, ablation was linked with a statistically significant 49% relative reduction in the primary endpoint among patients with a history of heart failure.

The patients for whom there may be the quickest shift to upfront ablation to treat AF based on the CABANA results will be those with heart failure and others with high underlying risk, Dr. Packer predicted at the meeting.

“The CASTLE-AF results were interesting, but in fewer than 400 patients. Now we’ve basically seen the same thing” in CABANA, said Dr. Packer, professor and a cardiac electrophysiologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

Notably however, the results Dr. Packer reported on the heart failure subgroup did not include any information on how many of these were patients who had HFrEF or heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and how the apparent benefit from AF ablation affected each of these two heart failure types. In addition, the reported CABANA results did not have an endpoint result that completely matched the mortality and heart failure hospitalization composite endpoint used in CASTLE-AF. The closest endpoint that Dr. Packer reported from CABANA was a composite of mortality and cardiovascular hospitalization that showed, for the entire CABANA cohort, a statistically significant 17% relative reduction with ablation in the intention-to-treat analysis. Dr. Packer gave no data on how this outcome shook out in the subgroup of heart failure patients.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

[email protected]

BOSTON – Results from two recent trials suggest that cardiologists may have a new way to improve outcomes in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction if they also have atrial fibrillation: Cut the patient’s atrial fibrillation burden with catheter ablation.

This seemingly off-target approach to improving survival, avoiding heart failure hospitalizations, and possibly reducing other adverse events first gained attention with results from the CASTLE-AF (Catheter Ablation vs. Standard Conventional Treatment in Patients With LV Dysfunction and AF) randomized trial, first reported in 2017. The study showed in 363 patients that atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) led to a statistically significant 38% relative reduction in the primary endpoint of mortality or heart failure hospitalization during a median 38 months of follow-up (N Engl J Med. 2018 Feb 1;378[5]:417-27).

This groundbreaking finding then received some degree of confirmation when Douglas L. Packer, MD, reported primary results from CABANA (Catheter Ablation vs Anti-arrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation Trial) at the annual scientific sessions of the Heart Rhythm Society. CABANA compared upfront ablation against first-line medical management of AF in 2,203 patients. While the primary endpoint of the cumulative rate of all-cause death, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, or cardiac arrest over a median follow-up of just over 4 years was neutral, with no statistically significant difference between the two treatment arms, a subgroup analysis showed a tantalizing suggestion of benefit in the 337 enrolled patients with a history of congestive heart failure (15% of the total study group).

In this subgroup, treatment with ablation cut the primary endpoint by 39% relative to those treated upfront with medical management, an effect that came close to statistical significance. In addition, Dr. Packer took special note of the per-protocol analysis, which censored out the crossover patients who constituted roughly a fifth of all enrolled patients. In the subgroup analysis using the per-protocol data, ablation was linked with a statistically significant 49% relative reduction in the primary endpoint among patients with a history of heart failure.

The patients for whom there may be the quickest shift to upfront ablation to treat AF based on the CABANA results will be those with heart failure and others with high underlying risk, Dr. Packer predicted at the meeting.

“The CASTLE-AF results were interesting, but in fewer than 400 patients. Now we’ve basically seen the same thing” in CABANA, said Dr. Packer, professor and a cardiac electrophysiologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

Notably however, the results Dr. Packer reported on the heart failure subgroup did not include any information on how many of these were patients who had HFrEF or heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and how the apparent benefit from AF ablation affected each of these two heart failure types. In addition, the reported CABANA results did not have an endpoint result that completely matched the mortality and heart failure hospitalization composite endpoint used in CASTLE-AF. The closest endpoint that Dr. Packer reported from CABANA was a composite of mortality and cardiovascular hospitalization that showed, for the entire CABANA cohort, a statistically significant 17% relative reduction with ablation in the intention-to-treat analysis. Dr. Packer gave no data on how this outcome shook out in the subgroup of heart failure patients.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

[email protected]

Vidyard Video

Visit the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons online: sgsonline.org

Additional videos from SGS are available here, including these recent offerings:

• Basic technique of vaginal hysterectomy
• Uterosacral ligament colpopexy: The way we do it
• Surgical anatomy and steps of the uterosacral ligament colpopexy

Vidyard Video

Visit the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons online: sgsonline.org

Additional videos from SGS are available here, including these recent offerings:

• Basic technique of vaginal hysterectomy
• Uterosacral ligament colpopexy: The way we do it
• Surgical anatomy and steps of the uterosacral ligament colpopexy

Vidyard Video

Visit the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons online: sgsonline.org

Additional videos from SGS are available here, including these recent offerings:

• Basic technique of vaginal hysterectomy
• Uterosacral ligament colpopexy: The way we do it
• Surgical anatomy and steps of the uterosacral ligament colpopexy