Jake Remaly

Among athletes with concussion, the effects of the injury on brain physiology may persist when they return to play and 1 year later.

MRI measures from 24 athletes with concussion significantly differed from those of controls at various time points and changed over time, according to a study published in Neurology. “Different aspects of brain physiology have different patterns of long-term recovery,” the researchers wrote.

While guidelines for safe return to play mainly rely on the resolution of symptoms, “the findings in this study indicate that more research is needed ... to better understand optimal recovery time from a biological standpoint,” wrote first author Nathan W. Churchill, PhD, a researcher at St. Michael’s Hospital in Toronto, and colleagues.

The study provides “evidence of incomplete or ongoing recovery” when athletes return to play, which could entail “a potential risk for long-term sequelae, given the evidence of worse outcomes if a second concussion occurs before recovery is complete,” according to the investigators. In addition, the study reinforces that neurobiological recovery varies across individuals and might depend on the initial clinical presentation.

To examine whether concussion-related brain changes dissipate by 1 year after athletes receive medical clearance to return to play, Dr. Churchill and colleagues analyzed MRI data from 24 college athletes with concussion and 122 control athletes without concussion.

Athletes with concussion were scanned within 1 week of the injury, at return to play a median of 27 days after the concussion, and 1 year after return to play. Control athletes were scanned before the start of the season. Participants’ sports included volleyball, hockey, soccer, football, rugby, basketball, lacrosse, and water polo. The participants had a mean age of about 20 years, and about half were women.

Athletes with concussion had elevated mean diffusivity within 1 week of injury, at return to play, and 1 year later, compared with controls. In athletes with concussion, cerebral blood flow was elevated soon after concussion, normal at return to play, and decreased 1 year later, relative to controls. Global functional connectivity increased and white matter fractional anisotropy decreased near the time of injury and at return to play, but these measures did not significantly differ from those of controls at 1 year.

The study did not capture MRI changes between return to play and 1 year later. In addition, MRI changes might be influenced by a lack of training before resuming play, as well as by exertion and subconcussive impacts after returning to play, the authors noted.

The Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Canadian Institute for Military and Veterans Health Research, and Siemens Healthineers Canada supported the study. Siemens makes the MRI equipment used in the study. Dr. Churchill and colleagues had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Churchill NW et al. Neurology. 2019 Oct 16. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000008523.
 

Among athletes with concussion, the effects of the injury on brain physiology may persist when they return to play and 1 year later.

MRI measures from 24 athletes with concussion significantly differed from those of controls at various time points and changed over time, according to a study published in Neurology. “Different aspects of brain physiology have different patterns of long-term recovery,” the researchers wrote.

While guidelines for safe return to play mainly rely on the resolution of symptoms, “the findings in this study indicate that more research is needed ... to better understand optimal recovery time from a biological standpoint,” wrote first author Nathan W. Churchill, PhD, a researcher at St. Michael’s Hospital in Toronto, and colleagues.

The study provides “evidence of incomplete or ongoing recovery” when athletes return to play, which could entail “a potential risk for long-term sequelae, given the evidence of worse outcomes if a second concussion occurs before recovery is complete,” according to the investigators. In addition, the study reinforces that neurobiological recovery varies across individuals and might depend on the initial clinical presentation.

To examine whether concussion-related brain changes dissipate by 1 year after athletes receive medical clearance to return to play, Dr. Churchill and colleagues analyzed MRI data from 24 college athletes with concussion and 122 control athletes without concussion.

Athletes with concussion were scanned within 1 week of the injury, at return to play a median of 27 days after the concussion, and 1 year after return to play. Control athletes were scanned before the start of the season. Participants’ sports included volleyball, hockey, soccer, football, rugby, basketball, lacrosse, and water polo. The participants had a mean age of about 20 years, and about half were women.

Athletes with concussion had elevated mean diffusivity within 1 week of injury, at return to play, and 1 year later, compared with controls. In athletes with concussion, cerebral blood flow was elevated soon after concussion, normal at return to play, and decreased 1 year later, relative to controls. Global functional connectivity increased and white matter fractional anisotropy decreased near the time of injury and at return to play, but these measures did not significantly differ from those of controls at 1 year.

The study did not capture MRI changes between return to play and 1 year later. In addition, MRI changes might be influenced by a lack of training before resuming play, as well as by exertion and subconcussive impacts after returning to play, the authors noted.

The Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Canadian Institute for Military and Veterans Health Research, and Siemens Healthineers Canada supported the study. Siemens makes the MRI equipment used in the study. Dr. Churchill and colleagues had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Churchill NW et al. Neurology. 2019 Oct 16. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000008523.
 

Among athletes with concussion, the effects of the injury on brain physiology may persist when they return to play and 1 year later.

MRI measures from 24 athletes with concussion significantly differed from those of controls at various time points and changed over time, according to a study published in Neurology. “Different aspects of brain physiology have different patterns of long-term recovery,” the researchers wrote.

While guidelines for safe return to play mainly rely on the resolution of symptoms, “the findings in this study indicate that more research is needed ... to better understand optimal recovery time from a biological standpoint,” wrote first author Nathan W. Churchill, PhD, a researcher at St. Michael’s Hospital in Toronto, and colleagues.

The study provides “evidence of incomplete or ongoing recovery” when athletes return to play, which could entail “a potential risk for long-term sequelae, given the evidence of worse outcomes if a second concussion occurs before recovery is complete,” according to the investigators. In addition, the study reinforces that neurobiological recovery varies across individuals and might depend on the initial clinical presentation.

To examine whether concussion-related brain changes dissipate by 1 year after athletes receive medical clearance to return to play, Dr. Churchill and colleagues analyzed MRI data from 24 college athletes with concussion and 122 control athletes without concussion.

Athletes with concussion were scanned within 1 week of the injury, at return to play a median of 27 days after the concussion, and 1 year after return to play. Control athletes were scanned before the start of the season. Participants’ sports included volleyball, hockey, soccer, football, rugby, basketball, lacrosse, and water polo. The participants had a mean age of about 20 years, and about half were women.

Athletes with concussion had elevated mean diffusivity within 1 week of injury, at return to play, and 1 year later, compared with controls. In athletes with concussion, cerebral blood flow was elevated soon after concussion, normal at return to play, and decreased 1 year later, relative to controls. Global functional connectivity increased and white matter fractional anisotropy decreased near the time of injury and at return to play, but these measures did not significantly differ from those of controls at 1 year.

The study did not capture MRI changes between return to play and 1 year later. In addition, MRI changes might be influenced by a lack of training before resuming play, as well as by exertion and subconcussive impacts after returning to play, the authors noted.

The Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Canadian Institute for Military and Veterans Health Research, and Siemens Healthineers Canada supported the study. Siemens makes the MRI equipment used in the study. Dr. Churchill and colleagues had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Churchill NW et al. Neurology. 2019 Oct 16. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000008523.
 

LAS VEGAS – Cannabinoids and stem cells may intrigue patients as potential treatments for osteoarthritis (OA), but evidence does not support their use. Planned clinical trials may clarify whether they benefit patients, said Joel A. Block, MD, professor of rheumatology at Rush University in Chicago.

Jake Remaly/MDedge News

Cannabinoid therapy “is on everybody’s mind, including our patients,” Dr. Block said at the annual Perspectives in Rheumatic Diseases held by Global Academy for Medical Education. “Cannabinoid receptors are widely present in all joint tissues, and endocannabinoids are clearly present in OA joint tissue. There is good evidence that the receptors regulate pain responses and central sensitization in a variety of OA animal models.” Where cannabis is legal, many people use it for chronic noncancer pain. Side effects may include altered perception, dizziness, drowsiness, and gastrointestinal adverse events.

Cannabis in the literature

“Nonetheless, if you do a systematic review of all of the randomized clinical trials of cannabinoids in human rheumatic diseases, what you will find is there is a grand total of four,” he said. The trials included patients with rheumatoid arthritis, OA, and fibromyalgia. An analysis of aggregated data found that cannabinoids improved pain and sleep, but all of the trials had a high risk of bias, poor allocation concealment, and poor blinding, said Dr. Block (Arthritis Care Res [Hoboken]. 2016 May;68[5]:681-8.). “In OA, there is one randomized trial, and it was entirely null,” he said. “There was no positive effect on pain or on function in human OA” (Pain. 2012 Sep;153[9]:1837-46.).

ClinicalTrials.gov lists two planned randomized controlled trials of cannabinoids – one using vaporized cannabis in patients with knee OA, and one using cannabidiol for hand OA and psoriatic arthritis. “Clinical trials are still scarce as of right now, so it will take a while before we have evidence for or against,” said Dr. Block.

Stem cell injections

Intra-articular stem cell injections are widely offered in the United States and abroad, he said. “In every newspaper, wherever I go, I open it up and there are full-page ads on stem cell injections that will cure everything that you want,” he said.

A systematic review of the effect of stem cell injections on structural outcomes and pain-related behaviors in animals found that “for all outcomes, the evidence quality was either low or very low,” Dr. Block said (Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2018 Apr;26[4]:445-61.). “Even in the animal models, it has been very hard to demonstrate any effect at all from just injecting stem cells into the joint.”

Systematic reviews of the evidence in humans have found that the data do not support the use of stem cell injections. The authors of one review concluded, “In the absence of high-level evidence, we do not recommend stem cell therapy” for knee OA (Br J Sports Med. 2017 Aug;51[15]:1125-33.).

For another recent review, researchers screened hundreds of articles and identified 5 trials that met their inclusion criteria. They concluded, “Current evidence does not support the use of intra-articular [mesenchymal stem cells] for improving cartilage repair in knee osteoarthritis” (Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2019 Jul;139[7]:971-80.).

Many clinical trials are planned, however. “Over the next several years, I would expect that we are going to get some real data on whether these are helpful or not,” Dr. Block said.

Meanwhile, some patients spend thousands of dollars to receive stem cell injections, and clinics report average patient satisfaction rates of 82%. “How can they be getting so much relief when there is no evidence that it is helpful? In fact, whatever evidence we have says that it is no better than placebo,” said Dr. Block. “Placebo itself is very potent....People always do what they feel helps them regardless of objective data, because placebo itself is very palliative.”

Dr. Block is a consultant for GlaxoSmithKline, Medivir, and Zynerba Pharmaceuticals. He has received royalties from Agios, Daiichi Sankyo, and Omeros. In addition, he has received grant or research support from AbbVie, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and Kolon TissueGene.

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

[email protected]

LAS VEGAS – Cannabinoids and stem cells may intrigue patients as potential treatments for osteoarthritis (OA), but evidence does not support their use. Planned clinical trials may clarify whether they benefit patients, said Joel A. Block, MD, professor of rheumatology at Rush University in Chicago.

Jake Remaly/MDedge News

Cannabinoid therapy “is on everybody’s mind, including our patients,” Dr. Block said at the annual Perspectives in Rheumatic Diseases held by Global Academy for Medical Education. “Cannabinoid receptors are widely present in all joint tissues, and endocannabinoids are clearly present in OA joint tissue. There is good evidence that the receptors regulate pain responses and central sensitization in a variety of OA animal models.” Where cannabis is legal, many people use it for chronic noncancer pain. Side effects may include altered perception, dizziness, drowsiness, and gastrointestinal adverse events.

Cannabis in the literature

“Nonetheless, if you do a systematic review of all of the randomized clinical trials of cannabinoids in human rheumatic diseases, what you will find is there is a grand total of four,” he said. The trials included patients with rheumatoid arthritis, OA, and fibromyalgia. An analysis of aggregated data found that cannabinoids improved pain and sleep, but all of the trials had a high risk of bias, poor allocation concealment, and poor blinding, said Dr. Block (Arthritis Care Res [Hoboken]. 2016 May;68[5]:681-8.). “In OA, there is one randomized trial, and it was entirely null,” he said. “There was no positive effect on pain or on function in human OA” (Pain. 2012 Sep;153[9]:1837-46.).

ClinicalTrials.gov lists two planned randomized controlled trials of cannabinoids – one using vaporized cannabis in patients with knee OA, and one using cannabidiol for hand OA and psoriatic arthritis. “Clinical trials are still scarce as of right now, so it will take a while before we have evidence for or against,” said Dr. Block.

Stem cell injections

Intra-articular stem cell injections are widely offered in the United States and abroad, he said. “In every newspaper, wherever I go, I open it up and there are full-page ads on stem cell injections that will cure everything that you want,” he said.

A systematic review of the effect of stem cell injections on structural outcomes and pain-related behaviors in animals found that “for all outcomes, the evidence quality was either low or very low,” Dr. Block said (Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2018 Apr;26[4]:445-61.). “Even in the animal models, it has been very hard to demonstrate any effect at all from just injecting stem cells into the joint.”

Systematic reviews of the evidence in humans have found that the data do not support the use of stem cell injections. The authors of one review concluded, “In the absence of high-level evidence, we do not recommend stem cell therapy” for knee OA (Br J Sports Med. 2017 Aug;51[15]:1125-33.).

For another recent review, researchers screened hundreds of articles and identified 5 trials that met their inclusion criteria. They concluded, “Current evidence does not support the use of intra-articular [mesenchymal stem cells] for improving cartilage repair in knee osteoarthritis” (Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2019 Jul;139[7]:971-80.).

Many clinical trials are planned, however. “Over the next several years, I would expect that we are going to get some real data on whether these are helpful or not,” Dr. Block said.

Meanwhile, some patients spend thousands of dollars to receive stem cell injections, and clinics report average patient satisfaction rates of 82%. “How can they be getting so much relief when there is no evidence that it is helpful? In fact, whatever evidence we have says that it is no better than placebo,” said Dr. Block. “Placebo itself is very potent....People always do what they feel helps them regardless of objective data, because placebo itself is very palliative.”

Dr. Block is a consultant for GlaxoSmithKline, Medivir, and Zynerba Pharmaceuticals. He has received royalties from Agios, Daiichi Sankyo, and Omeros. In addition, he has received grant or research support from AbbVie, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and Kolon TissueGene.

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

[email protected]

LAS VEGAS – Cannabinoids and stem cells may intrigue patients as potential treatments for osteoarthritis (OA), but evidence does not support their use. Planned clinical trials may clarify whether they benefit patients, said Joel A. Block, MD, professor of rheumatology at Rush University in Chicago.

Jake Remaly/MDedge News

Cannabinoid therapy “is on everybody’s mind, including our patients,” Dr. Block said at the annual Perspectives in Rheumatic Diseases held by Global Academy for Medical Education. “Cannabinoid receptors are widely present in all joint tissues, and endocannabinoids are clearly present in OA joint tissue. There is good evidence that the receptors regulate pain responses and central sensitization in a variety of OA animal models.” Where cannabis is legal, many people use it for chronic noncancer pain. Side effects may include altered perception, dizziness, drowsiness, and gastrointestinal adverse events.

Cannabis in the literature

“Nonetheless, if you do a systematic review of all of the randomized clinical trials of cannabinoids in human rheumatic diseases, what you will find is there is a grand total of four,” he said. The trials included patients with rheumatoid arthritis, OA, and fibromyalgia. An analysis of aggregated data found that cannabinoids improved pain and sleep, but all of the trials had a high risk of bias, poor allocation concealment, and poor blinding, said Dr. Block (Arthritis Care Res [Hoboken]. 2016 May;68[5]:681-8.). “In OA, there is one randomized trial, and it was entirely null,” he said. “There was no positive effect on pain or on function in human OA” (Pain. 2012 Sep;153[9]:1837-46.).

ClinicalTrials.gov lists two planned randomized controlled trials of cannabinoids – one using vaporized cannabis in patients with knee OA, and one using cannabidiol for hand OA and psoriatic arthritis. “Clinical trials are still scarce as of right now, so it will take a while before we have evidence for or against,” said Dr. Block.

Stem cell injections

Intra-articular stem cell injections are widely offered in the United States and abroad, he said. “In every newspaper, wherever I go, I open it up and there are full-page ads on stem cell injections that will cure everything that you want,” he said.

A systematic review of the effect of stem cell injections on structural outcomes and pain-related behaviors in animals found that “for all outcomes, the evidence quality was either low or very low,” Dr. Block said (Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2018 Apr;26[4]:445-61.). “Even in the animal models, it has been very hard to demonstrate any effect at all from just injecting stem cells into the joint.”

Systematic reviews of the evidence in humans have found that the data do not support the use of stem cell injections. The authors of one review concluded, “In the absence of high-level evidence, we do not recommend stem cell therapy” for knee OA (Br J Sports Med. 2017 Aug;51[15]:1125-33.).

For another recent review, researchers screened hundreds of articles and identified 5 trials that met their inclusion criteria. They concluded, “Current evidence does not support the use of intra-articular [mesenchymal stem cells] for improving cartilage repair in knee osteoarthritis” (Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2019 Jul;139[7]:971-80.).

Many clinical trials are planned, however. “Over the next several years, I would expect that we are going to get some real data on whether these are helpful or not,” Dr. Block said.

Meanwhile, some patients spend thousands of dollars to receive stem cell injections, and clinics report average patient satisfaction rates of 82%. “How can they be getting so much relief when there is no evidence that it is helpful? In fact, whatever evidence we have says that it is no better than placebo,” said Dr. Block. “Placebo itself is very potent....People always do what they feel helps them regardless of objective data, because placebo itself is very palliative.”

Dr. Block is a consultant for GlaxoSmithKline, Medivir, and Zynerba Pharmaceuticals. He has received royalties from Agios, Daiichi Sankyo, and Omeros. In addition, he has received grant or research support from AbbVie, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and Kolon TissueGene.

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

[email protected]

A pilot program that aims to optimize the care of patients with malignant bowel obstruction is associated with longer survival and shorter cumulative hospital length of stay in the first 60 days after a malignant bowel obstruction diagnosis, according to research published in Journal of Oncology Practice.

Yeh Chen Lee, MBBS, of Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto, and colleagues retrospectively compared the outcomes of 106 women with advanced gynecologic cancer who were admitted to the hospital with malignant bowel obstruction before the program was implemented, with those of 63 women who were admitted after the program was implemented.

Patients’ median age at diagnosis of malignant bowel obstruction was 62 years (range, 31-91 years). Primary cancer diagnoses included ovarian cancer (73%), uterine cancer (18%), and cervical cancer (9%), and most patients had stage III-IV disease. Most patients had small-bowel obstruction (78%).

In the 2 years before the program, women had an average cumulative length of stay in the hospital of 22 days within the first 60 days of malignant bowel obstruction diagnosis. In the 2 years after, the average length of stay was 13 days. Furthermore, median overall survival, adjusted for initial cancer stage and lines of chemotherapy, increased by about 5 months, from 99 days before the program to 243 days after the program was implemented.

Patients who were treated during the malignant bowel obstruction program were more likely than were patients in the baseline group to receive chemotherapy (83% vs. 56%) and to receive two or more interventions for malignant bowel obstruction, such as surgery, chemotherapy, or total parenteral nutrition (42% vs. 33%). Complications included bowel perforation (13% in the program group vs. 5% in the baseline group) and fistulizing disease (6% in the program group vs. 12% in the baseline group).

In addition, the program was associated with lower costs.

The pilot program was designed “to provide a systematic framework to coordinate care and consensus decision-making among different specialties relevant to [malignant bowel obstruction] management,” Dr. Lee and colleagues said. It includes outpatient care led by oncology nurses through telephone consultations. “Standardized clinical processes, assessment tools, and documentation in the electronic medical record are incorporated to facilitate seamless transition between in- and outpatient care,” the authors said. “Patient educational materials have been developed to empower patients to recognize and effectively communicate their symptoms.”

It is unclear whether other institutions could implement this program, Dr. Lee and colleagues noted. It also is not possible to determine whether differences in survival relate to earlier recognition of malignant bowel obstruction, more effective management, or other factors.

Dr. Lee was supported by funding from Princess Margaret Cancer Foundation and an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship. Coauthors disclosed financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies and pending patents related to percutaneous procedures and a surgical device.

SOURCE: Lee YC et al. J Oncol Pract. 2019 Sep 24. doi: 10.1200/JOP.18.00793.

A pilot program that aims to optimize the care of patients with malignant bowel obstruction is associated with longer survival and shorter cumulative hospital length of stay in the first 60 days after a malignant bowel obstruction diagnosis, according to research published in Journal of Oncology Practice.

Yeh Chen Lee, MBBS, of Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto, and colleagues retrospectively compared the outcomes of 106 women with advanced gynecologic cancer who were admitted to the hospital with malignant bowel obstruction before the program was implemented, with those of 63 women who were admitted after the program was implemented.

Patients’ median age at diagnosis of malignant bowel obstruction was 62 years (range, 31-91 years). Primary cancer diagnoses included ovarian cancer (73%), uterine cancer (18%), and cervical cancer (9%), and most patients had stage III-IV disease. Most patients had small-bowel obstruction (78%).

In the 2 years before the program, women had an average cumulative length of stay in the hospital of 22 days within the first 60 days of malignant bowel obstruction diagnosis. In the 2 years after, the average length of stay was 13 days. Furthermore, median overall survival, adjusted for initial cancer stage and lines of chemotherapy, increased by about 5 months, from 99 days before the program to 243 days after the program was implemented.

Patients who were treated during the malignant bowel obstruction program were more likely than were patients in the baseline group to receive chemotherapy (83% vs. 56%) and to receive two or more interventions for malignant bowel obstruction, such as surgery, chemotherapy, or total parenteral nutrition (42% vs. 33%). Complications included bowel perforation (13% in the program group vs. 5% in the baseline group) and fistulizing disease (6% in the program group vs. 12% in the baseline group).

In addition, the program was associated with lower costs.

The pilot program was designed “to provide a systematic framework to coordinate care and consensus decision-making among different specialties relevant to [malignant bowel obstruction] management,” Dr. Lee and colleagues said. It includes outpatient care led by oncology nurses through telephone consultations. “Standardized clinical processes, assessment tools, and documentation in the electronic medical record are incorporated to facilitate seamless transition between in- and outpatient care,” the authors said. “Patient educational materials have been developed to empower patients to recognize and effectively communicate their symptoms.”

It is unclear whether other institutions could implement this program, Dr. Lee and colleagues noted. It also is not possible to determine whether differences in survival relate to earlier recognition of malignant bowel obstruction, more effective management, or other factors.

Dr. Lee was supported by funding from Princess Margaret Cancer Foundation and an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship. Coauthors disclosed financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies and pending patents related to percutaneous procedures and a surgical device.

SOURCE: Lee YC et al. J Oncol Pract. 2019 Sep 24. doi: 10.1200/JOP.18.00793.

A pilot program that aims to optimize the care of patients with malignant bowel obstruction is associated with longer survival and shorter cumulative hospital length of stay in the first 60 days after a malignant bowel obstruction diagnosis, according to research published in Journal of Oncology Practice.

Yeh Chen Lee, MBBS, of Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto, and colleagues retrospectively compared the outcomes of 106 women with advanced gynecologic cancer who were admitted to the hospital with malignant bowel obstruction before the program was implemented, with those of 63 women who were admitted after the program was implemented.

Patients’ median age at diagnosis of malignant bowel obstruction was 62 years (range, 31-91 years). Primary cancer diagnoses included ovarian cancer (73%), uterine cancer (18%), and cervical cancer (9%), and most patients had stage III-IV disease. Most patients had small-bowel obstruction (78%).

In the 2 years before the program, women had an average cumulative length of stay in the hospital of 22 days within the first 60 days of malignant bowel obstruction diagnosis. In the 2 years after, the average length of stay was 13 days. Furthermore, median overall survival, adjusted for initial cancer stage and lines of chemotherapy, increased by about 5 months, from 99 days before the program to 243 days after the program was implemented.

Patients who were treated during the malignant bowel obstruction program were more likely than were patients in the baseline group to receive chemotherapy (83% vs. 56%) and to receive two or more interventions for malignant bowel obstruction, such as surgery, chemotherapy, or total parenteral nutrition (42% vs. 33%). Complications included bowel perforation (13% in the program group vs. 5% in the baseline group) and fistulizing disease (6% in the program group vs. 12% in the baseline group).

In addition, the program was associated with lower costs.

The pilot program was designed “to provide a systematic framework to coordinate care and consensus decision-making among different specialties relevant to [malignant bowel obstruction] management,” Dr. Lee and colleagues said. It includes outpatient care led by oncology nurses through telephone consultations. “Standardized clinical processes, assessment tools, and documentation in the electronic medical record are incorporated to facilitate seamless transition between in- and outpatient care,” the authors said. “Patient educational materials have been developed to empower patients to recognize and effectively communicate their symptoms.”

It is unclear whether other institutions could implement this program, Dr. Lee and colleagues noted. It also is not possible to determine whether differences in survival relate to earlier recognition of malignant bowel obstruction, more effective management, or other factors.

Dr. Lee was supported by funding from Princess Margaret Cancer Foundation and an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship. Coauthors disclosed financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies and pending patents related to percutaneous procedures and a surgical device.

SOURCE: Lee YC et al. J Oncol Pract. 2019 Sep 24. doi: 10.1200/JOP.18.00793.

LAS VEGAS – Rheumatoid arthritis that is difficult to treat may occur in about 10% of patients with the disease. The definition of difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis varies among experts, however, and the reasons for refractoriness are often unknown, said Iain McInnes, MD, PhD, professor of experimental medicine and director of the Institute of Infection, Immunity and Inflammation at the University of Glasgow and current president of the European League Against Rheumatism.

There may be an intrinsic refractory disease state, where the disease will manifest despite the use of any existing medications. Patients may have pharmacokinetic refractory disease, which could result from antidrug antibodies. There may be false positives. “It could well be that the patient is sore, but it is not because of the active inflammation,” he said. “It is because of biomechanical disease or pain sensitization. Or it could be that there is osteoarthritis.”

In the end, managing patients with difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis may come down to setting reasonable expectations and addressing practical concerns, such as medication adherence, comorbidities, and adverse drug reactions – “the realpolitik of rheumatological care,” Dr. McInnes said at the annual Perspectives in Rheumatic Diseases held by Global Academy for Medical Education.
 

Defining difficult to treat

In a recently published study, Dr. McInnes and colleagues surveyed rheumatologists about what characterizes difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis (Ann Rheum Dis. 2018 Dec;77[12]:1705-9).

“There was remarkable variation,” Dr. McInnes said. “Should fatigue be involved? Do the types of drugs that you have failed matter? Should a patient’s need for glucocorticoids be part of the definition? ... We did not really find much of a consensus.”

The presence of cardiovascular disease, extra-articular manifestations, infection, malignancy, diabetes mellitus, and other factors add to the challenge. “These are all very familiar problems that you face in your routine practice, whether you are in rheumatology care primarily or whether you are in family practice,” he said.

Although it is difficult to determine how many patients have refractory rheumatoid arthritis, “the rule of thumb is about 10%,” Dr. McInnes said. Using data from the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register for Rheumatoid Arthritis, researchers estimated that approximately 6% of patients would be refractory to a biologic drug, defined as patients who move on to a third class of biologic therapy (Ann Rheum Dis. 2018 Oct;77[10]:1405-12).

The same study found that, in recent years, patients have cycled through drugs more quickly than they had in the past. Many patients prove difficult to treat within 4 or 5 years, “which is pretty terrifying with a disease whose median age of onset is early 50s, but whose clinics are full of people in their teens, 20s, and 30s,” Dr. McInnes said.

Approaches to treatment

New medications, therapeutic targets, and treatment approaches eventually may help treat or prevent refractory disease. In the meantime, it may be beneficial to “go back to the beginning” when caring for patients with difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis, Dr. McInnes said. “Make absolutely certain that we understand what is going on in that patient. Even just the opportunity to go through the disease course is reassuring for our patients. If nothing else, it tells them that we are listening, paying attention, and we are taking it seriously.”

Physicians may need to recognize the presence of antidrug antibodies. In addition, medication adherence may be a problem. About one-third of patients who are prescribed methotrexate do not take the medication, which may be a difficult topic for them to discuss, he said.

“Detect that inflammation which is there and treat it,” Dr. McInnes said. “And detect that which is not of an inflammatory origin and manage it on its own merits.”

Dr. McInnes is a consultant for AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galvani, GlaxoSmithKline, Leo Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. He has received grant or research support from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Compugen, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB.

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

[email protected]

LAS VEGAS – Rheumatoid arthritis that is difficult to treat may occur in about 10% of patients with the disease. The definition of difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis varies among experts, however, and the reasons for refractoriness are often unknown, said Iain McInnes, MD, PhD, professor of experimental medicine and director of the Institute of Infection, Immunity and Inflammation at the University of Glasgow and current president of the European League Against Rheumatism.

There may be an intrinsic refractory disease state, where the disease will manifest despite the use of any existing medications. Patients may have pharmacokinetic refractory disease, which could result from antidrug antibodies. There may be false positives. “It could well be that the patient is sore, but it is not because of the active inflammation,” he said. “It is because of biomechanical disease or pain sensitization. Or it could be that there is osteoarthritis.”

In the end, managing patients with difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis may come down to setting reasonable expectations and addressing practical concerns, such as medication adherence, comorbidities, and adverse drug reactions – “the realpolitik of rheumatological care,” Dr. McInnes said at the annual Perspectives in Rheumatic Diseases held by Global Academy for Medical Education.
 

Defining difficult to treat

In a recently published study, Dr. McInnes and colleagues surveyed rheumatologists about what characterizes difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis (Ann Rheum Dis. 2018 Dec;77[12]:1705-9).

“There was remarkable variation,” Dr. McInnes said. “Should fatigue be involved? Do the types of drugs that you have failed matter? Should a patient’s need for glucocorticoids be part of the definition? ... We did not really find much of a consensus.”

The presence of cardiovascular disease, extra-articular manifestations, infection, malignancy, diabetes mellitus, and other factors add to the challenge. “These are all very familiar problems that you face in your routine practice, whether you are in rheumatology care primarily or whether you are in family practice,” he said.

Although it is difficult to determine how many patients have refractory rheumatoid arthritis, “the rule of thumb is about 10%,” Dr. McInnes said. Using data from the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register for Rheumatoid Arthritis, researchers estimated that approximately 6% of patients would be refractory to a biologic drug, defined as patients who move on to a third class of biologic therapy (Ann Rheum Dis. 2018 Oct;77[10]:1405-12).

The same study found that, in recent years, patients have cycled through drugs more quickly than they had in the past. Many patients prove difficult to treat within 4 or 5 years, “which is pretty terrifying with a disease whose median age of onset is early 50s, but whose clinics are full of people in their teens, 20s, and 30s,” Dr. McInnes said.

Approaches to treatment

New medications, therapeutic targets, and treatment approaches eventually may help treat or prevent refractory disease. In the meantime, it may be beneficial to “go back to the beginning” when caring for patients with difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis, Dr. McInnes said. “Make absolutely certain that we understand what is going on in that patient. Even just the opportunity to go through the disease course is reassuring for our patients. If nothing else, it tells them that we are listening, paying attention, and we are taking it seriously.”

Physicians may need to recognize the presence of antidrug antibodies. In addition, medication adherence may be a problem. About one-third of patients who are prescribed methotrexate do not take the medication, which may be a difficult topic for them to discuss, he said.

“Detect that inflammation which is there and treat it,” Dr. McInnes said. “And detect that which is not of an inflammatory origin and manage it on its own merits.”

Dr. McInnes is a consultant for AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galvani, GlaxoSmithKline, Leo Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. He has received grant or research support from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Compugen, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB.

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

[email protected]

LAS VEGAS – Rheumatoid arthritis that is difficult to treat may occur in about 10% of patients with the disease. The definition of difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis varies among experts, however, and the reasons for refractoriness are often unknown, said Iain McInnes, MD, PhD, professor of experimental medicine and director of the Institute of Infection, Immunity and Inflammation at the University of Glasgow and current president of the European League Against Rheumatism.

There may be an intrinsic refractory disease state, where the disease will manifest despite the use of any existing medications. Patients may have pharmacokinetic refractory disease, which could result from antidrug antibodies. There may be false positives. “It could well be that the patient is sore, but it is not because of the active inflammation,” he said. “It is because of biomechanical disease or pain sensitization. Or it could be that there is osteoarthritis.”

In the end, managing patients with difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis may come down to setting reasonable expectations and addressing practical concerns, such as medication adherence, comorbidities, and adverse drug reactions – “the realpolitik of rheumatological care,” Dr. McInnes said at the annual Perspectives in Rheumatic Diseases held by Global Academy for Medical Education.
 

Defining difficult to treat

In a recently published study, Dr. McInnes and colleagues surveyed rheumatologists about what characterizes difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis (Ann Rheum Dis. 2018 Dec;77[12]:1705-9).

“There was remarkable variation,” Dr. McInnes said. “Should fatigue be involved? Do the types of drugs that you have failed matter? Should a patient’s need for glucocorticoids be part of the definition? ... We did not really find much of a consensus.”

The presence of cardiovascular disease, extra-articular manifestations, infection, malignancy, diabetes mellitus, and other factors add to the challenge. “These are all very familiar problems that you face in your routine practice, whether you are in rheumatology care primarily or whether you are in family practice,” he said.

Although it is difficult to determine how many patients have refractory rheumatoid arthritis, “the rule of thumb is about 10%,” Dr. McInnes said. Using data from the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register for Rheumatoid Arthritis, researchers estimated that approximately 6% of patients would be refractory to a biologic drug, defined as patients who move on to a third class of biologic therapy (Ann Rheum Dis. 2018 Oct;77[10]:1405-12).

The same study found that, in recent years, patients have cycled through drugs more quickly than they had in the past. Many patients prove difficult to treat within 4 or 5 years, “which is pretty terrifying with a disease whose median age of onset is early 50s, but whose clinics are full of people in their teens, 20s, and 30s,” Dr. McInnes said.

Approaches to treatment

New medications, therapeutic targets, and treatment approaches eventually may help treat or prevent refractory disease. In the meantime, it may be beneficial to “go back to the beginning” when caring for patients with difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis, Dr. McInnes said. “Make absolutely certain that we understand what is going on in that patient. Even just the opportunity to go through the disease course is reassuring for our patients. If nothing else, it tells them that we are listening, paying attention, and we are taking it seriously.”

Physicians may need to recognize the presence of antidrug antibodies. In addition, medication adherence may be a problem. About one-third of patients who are prescribed methotrexate do not take the medication, which may be a difficult topic for them to discuss, he said.

“Detect that inflammation which is there and treat it,” Dr. McInnes said. “And detect that which is not of an inflammatory origin and manage it on its own merits.”

Dr. McInnes is a consultant for AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galvani, GlaxoSmithKline, Leo Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. He has received grant or research support from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Compugen, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB.

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

[email protected]

Las Vegas – A fibromyalgia survey may provide important information about the degree to which patients with rheumatic disease experience centralized pain. This information may guide treatment decisions, said Daniel J. Clauw, MD, professor of anesthesiology, rheumatology, and psychiatry and director of the Chronic Pain and Fatigue Research Center at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor.

Jake Remaly/MDedge News

The questionnaire that Dr. Clauw uses is a patient self-report survey for the assessment of fibromyalgia based on criteria in the 2011 modification of the American College of Rheumatology preliminary diagnostic criteria for fibromyalgia. In it, he asks patients to report where they experience pain throughout the body and symptoms such as fatigue, sleep problems, and memory problems. The survey predicts outcomes of surgery for osteoarthritis better than x-rays, MRI scans, or psychological factors do, he said.

Physicians should ask every patient with chronic pain, including patients with OA, rheumatoid arthritis, or lupus, to complete the survey, Dr. Clauw said at the annual Perspectives in Rheumatic Diseases held by Global Academy for Medical Education. “This score will tell you the degree to which their central nervous system is augmenting or amplifying what is going on in their body,” he said. “And the higher their score is, the more you should treat them like you would someone with fibromyalgia, even if their underlying disease might be an autoimmune disease.”

Physicians should not use a cutoff of 13 points on the fibromyalgia measure to define whether a patient has the disease, as has been done in the past, he said. The threshold is arbitrary, he said. “We should not think about fibromyalgia as ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ We should think of the degree of fibromyalgia that people have.”
 

A poor relationship between pain and imaging

Some patients who have severe knee OA on imaging walk without pain. Other patients have normal x-rays, but severe pain. “There is a terrible relationship between what you see on a knee x-ray or an MRI and whether someone has pain,” Dr. Clauw said. Furthermore, the poor relationship between imaging and pain is common across chronic pain conditions, he said.

This phenomenon may occur because pain manifests in different ways, similar to there being multiple ways to adjust the volume of an electric guitar, he said. How hard the strings are strummed affects the volume. But so does the amplifier setting. “In these centralized pain conditions, the problem is an amplifier problem, not a guitar problem,” he said. “The amplifier, i.e., the central nervous system, is set too high.”

Researchers have found that people who have severe OA of the knee on x-ray but do not experience pain “have a very low amplifier setting,” he said. That is, they are nontender and less sensitive to pain. Most of these patients are men. “On average, men have a much lower amplifier setting than women,” he said. “This is also why ... women have 1.5 to 2 times the rate of any type of chronic pain than men, because on average women have a higher amplifier setting. ... In OA, at any given age, men and women have the exact same percentage of radiographic OA. But if you look at the clinical condition of OA, it is always two-thirds women, one-third men.”
 

Opioid responsiveness

To examine whether fibromyalgia survey results correlate with outcomes after knee and hip arthroplasty, Dr. Clauw and colleagues conducted a prospective, observational cohort study that included approximately 500 people. Patients completed the questionnaire on the day of surgery.

Patients with higher levels of fibromyalgia were less responsive to opioids. “For each 1-point increase in the fibromyalgia score, people needed about one more hydrocodone tablet in the first 24-48 hours to control their pain,” he said (Anesthesiology. 2013 Dec;119[6]:1434-43). In addition, each 1-point increase in the fibromyalgia score made people about 25% less likely to have a 50% improvement in knee pain level after 6 months (Arthritis Rheumatol. 2015 May;67[5]:1386-94). The correlations were independent of psychological factors. In addition, the associations were linear. “There was nothing magical about a fibromyalgia score of 13,” Dr. Clauw said.

Dr. Clauw is a coauthor of a study to be presented at the 2019 American College of Rheumatology/Association of Rheumatology Professionals annual meeting that found pain centralization in patients with RA is associated with poor response to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs).

Prior studies in patients with RA have found that the degree of fibromyalgia is a better predictor of pain and disability than erythrocyte sedimentation rate or the number of swollen joints.
 

Diagnosed cases are the “tip of the iceberg”

Researchers at Dr. Clauw’s institution have identified dozens of patients undergoing knee surgery who met criteria for fibromyalgia but had not received the diagnosis. “This is at the University of Michigan, which is the epicenter for fibromyalgia research. If we are not seeing fibromyalgia superimposed on OA in our patients, no one is seeing it,” he said.

Patients with diagnosed fibromyalgia are “the tip of the iceberg,” he said. “There are far greater numbers of individuals whose primary diagnosis is OA, RA, lupus, ankylosing spondylitis, cancer pain, or sickle cell disease that have the same fundamental problem as fibromyalgia patients. But you do not see it because you label them as having an autoimmune disease or osteoarthritis. And that is at your peril and at their peril. Because treating that individual as if all of their pain and other symptoms are due to a problem out on the periphery will not make that person better.”

Patients with high levels of centralized pain may be less responsive to peripherally directed therapies such as surgery or injections, Dr. Clauw said. Pharmacologic options for patients with centralized pain include gabapentinoids (e.g., pregabalin and gabapentin), serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (e.g., duloxetine and milnacipran), and tricyclic compounds (e.g., amitriptyline and cyclobenzaprine), he said. “Opioids are going to be quite unlikely to help these individuals,” he said. “In fact, it is likely that opioids will make this kind of pain worse.”

Dr. Clauw is a consultant for Aptinyx, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Intec Pharma, Pfizer, Samumed, Theravance, Tonix, and Zynerba Pharma. He has received grant or research support from Aptinyx and Pfizer and is an expert witness.

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

[email protected]

Las Vegas – A fibromyalgia survey may provide important information about the degree to which patients with rheumatic disease experience centralized pain. This information may guide treatment decisions, said Daniel J. Clauw, MD, professor of anesthesiology, rheumatology, and psychiatry and director of the Chronic Pain and Fatigue Research Center at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor.

Jake Remaly/MDedge News

The questionnaire that Dr. Clauw uses is a patient self-report survey for the assessment of fibromyalgia based on criteria in the 2011 modification of the American College of Rheumatology preliminary diagnostic criteria for fibromyalgia. In it, he asks patients to report where they experience pain throughout the body and symptoms such as fatigue, sleep problems, and memory problems. The survey predicts outcomes of surgery for osteoarthritis better than x-rays, MRI scans, or psychological factors do, he said.

Physicians should ask every patient with chronic pain, including patients with OA, rheumatoid arthritis, or lupus, to complete the survey, Dr. Clauw said at the annual Perspectives in Rheumatic Diseases held by Global Academy for Medical Education. “This score will tell you the degree to which their central nervous system is augmenting or amplifying what is going on in their body,” he said. “And the higher their score is, the more you should treat them like you would someone with fibromyalgia, even if their underlying disease might be an autoimmune disease.”

Physicians should not use a cutoff of 13 points on the fibromyalgia measure to define whether a patient has the disease, as has been done in the past, he said. The threshold is arbitrary, he said. “We should not think about fibromyalgia as ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ We should think of the degree of fibromyalgia that people have.”
 

A poor relationship between pain and imaging

Some patients who have severe knee OA on imaging walk without pain. Other patients have normal x-rays, but severe pain. “There is a terrible relationship between what you see on a knee x-ray or an MRI and whether someone has pain,” Dr. Clauw said. Furthermore, the poor relationship between imaging and pain is common across chronic pain conditions, he said.

This phenomenon may occur because pain manifests in different ways, similar to there being multiple ways to adjust the volume of an electric guitar, he said. How hard the strings are strummed affects the volume. But so does the amplifier setting. “In these centralized pain conditions, the problem is an amplifier problem, not a guitar problem,” he said. “The amplifier, i.e., the central nervous system, is set too high.”

Researchers have found that people who have severe OA of the knee on x-ray but do not experience pain “have a very low amplifier setting,” he said. That is, they are nontender and less sensitive to pain. Most of these patients are men. “On average, men have a much lower amplifier setting than women,” he said. “This is also why ... women have 1.5 to 2 times the rate of any type of chronic pain than men, because on average women have a higher amplifier setting. ... In OA, at any given age, men and women have the exact same percentage of radiographic OA. But if you look at the clinical condition of OA, it is always two-thirds women, one-third men.”
 

Opioid responsiveness

To examine whether fibromyalgia survey results correlate with outcomes after knee and hip arthroplasty, Dr. Clauw and colleagues conducted a prospective, observational cohort study that included approximately 500 people. Patients completed the questionnaire on the day of surgery.

Patients with higher levels of fibromyalgia were less responsive to opioids. “For each 1-point increase in the fibromyalgia score, people needed about one more hydrocodone tablet in the first 24-48 hours to control their pain,” he said (Anesthesiology. 2013 Dec;119[6]:1434-43). In addition, each 1-point increase in the fibromyalgia score made people about 25% less likely to have a 50% improvement in knee pain level after 6 months (Arthritis Rheumatol. 2015 May;67[5]:1386-94). The correlations were independent of psychological factors. In addition, the associations were linear. “There was nothing magical about a fibromyalgia score of 13,” Dr. Clauw said.

Dr. Clauw is a coauthor of a study to be presented at the 2019 American College of Rheumatology/Association of Rheumatology Professionals annual meeting that found pain centralization in patients with RA is associated with poor response to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs).

Prior studies in patients with RA have found that the degree of fibromyalgia is a better predictor of pain and disability than erythrocyte sedimentation rate or the number of swollen joints.
 

Diagnosed cases are the “tip of the iceberg”

Researchers at Dr. Clauw’s institution have identified dozens of patients undergoing knee surgery who met criteria for fibromyalgia but had not received the diagnosis. “This is at the University of Michigan, which is the epicenter for fibromyalgia research. If we are not seeing fibromyalgia superimposed on OA in our patients, no one is seeing it,” he said.

Patients with diagnosed fibromyalgia are “the tip of the iceberg,” he said. “There are far greater numbers of individuals whose primary diagnosis is OA, RA, lupus, ankylosing spondylitis, cancer pain, or sickle cell disease that have the same fundamental problem as fibromyalgia patients. But you do not see it because you label them as having an autoimmune disease or osteoarthritis. And that is at your peril and at their peril. Because treating that individual as if all of their pain and other symptoms are due to a problem out on the periphery will not make that person better.”

Patients with high levels of centralized pain may be less responsive to peripherally directed therapies such as surgery or injections, Dr. Clauw said. Pharmacologic options for patients with centralized pain include gabapentinoids (e.g., pregabalin and gabapentin), serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (e.g., duloxetine and milnacipran), and tricyclic compounds (e.g., amitriptyline and cyclobenzaprine), he said. “Opioids are going to be quite unlikely to help these individuals,” he said. “In fact, it is likely that opioids will make this kind of pain worse.”

Dr. Clauw is a consultant for Aptinyx, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Intec Pharma, Pfizer, Samumed, Theravance, Tonix, and Zynerba Pharma. He has received grant or research support from Aptinyx and Pfizer and is an expert witness.

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

[email protected]

Las Vegas – A fibromyalgia survey may provide important information about the degree to which patients with rheumatic disease experience centralized pain. This information may guide treatment decisions, said Daniel J. Clauw, MD, professor of anesthesiology, rheumatology, and psychiatry and director of the Chronic Pain and Fatigue Research Center at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor.

Jake Remaly/MDedge News

The questionnaire that Dr. Clauw uses is a patient self-report survey for the assessment of fibromyalgia based on criteria in the 2011 modification of the American College of Rheumatology preliminary diagnostic criteria for fibromyalgia. In it, he asks patients to report where they experience pain throughout the body and symptoms such as fatigue, sleep problems, and memory problems. The survey predicts outcomes of surgery for osteoarthritis better than x-rays, MRI scans, or psychological factors do, he said.

Physicians should ask every patient with chronic pain, including patients with OA, rheumatoid arthritis, or lupus, to complete the survey, Dr. Clauw said at the annual Perspectives in Rheumatic Diseases held by Global Academy for Medical Education. “This score will tell you the degree to which their central nervous system is augmenting or amplifying what is going on in their body,” he said. “And the higher their score is, the more you should treat them like you would someone with fibromyalgia, even if their underlying disease might be an autoimmune disease.”

Physicians should not use a cutoff of 13 points on the fibromyalgia measure to define whether a patient has the disease, as has been done in the past, he said. The threshold is arbitrary, he said. “We should not think about fibromyalgia as ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ We should think of the degree of fibromyalgia that people have.”
 

A poor relationship between pain and imaging

Some patients who have severe knee OA on imaging walk without pain. Other patients have normal x-rays, but severe pain. “There is a terrible relationship between what you see on a knee x-ray or an MRI and whether someone has pain,” Dr. Clauw said. Furthermore, the poor relationship between imaging and pain is common across chronic pain conditions, he said.

This phenomenon may occur because pain manifests in different ways, similar to there being multiple ways to adjust the volume of an electric guitar, he said. How hard the strings are strummed affects the volume. But so does the amplifier setting. “In these centralized pain conditions, the problem is an amplifier problem, not a guitar problem,” he said. “The amplifier, i.e., the central nervous system, is set too high.”

Researchers have found that people who have severe OA of the knee on x-ray but do not experience pain “have a very low amplifier setting,” he said. That is, they are nontender and less sensitive to pain. Most of these patients are men. “On average, men have a much lower amplifier setting than women,” he said. “This is also why ... women have 1.5 to 2 times the rate of any type of chronic pain than men, because on average women have a higher amplifier setting. ... In OA, at any given age, men and women have the exact same percentage of radiographic OA. But if you look at the clinical condition of OA, it is always two-thirds women, one-third men.”
 

Opioid responsiveness

To examine whether fibromyalgia survey results correlate with outcomes after knee and hip arthroplasty, Dr. Clauw and colleagues conducted a prospective, observational cohort study that included approximately 500 people. Patients completed the questionnaire on the day of surgery.

Patients with higher levels of fibromyalgia were less responsive to opioids. “For each 1-point increase in the fibromyalgia score, people needed about one more hydrocodone tablet in the first 24-48 hours to control their pain,” he said (Anesthesiology. 2013 Dec;119[6]:1434-43). In addition, each 1-point increase in the fibromyalgia score made people about 25% less likely to have a 50% improvement in knee pain level after 6 months (Arthritis Rheumatol. 2015 May;67[5]:1386-94). The correlations were independent of psychological factors. In addition, the associations were linear. “There was nothing magical about a fibromyalgia score of 13,” Dr. Clauw said.

Dr. Clauw is a coauthor of a study to be presented at the 2019 American College of Rheumatology/Association of Rheumatology Professionals annual meeting that found pain centralization in patients with RA is associated with poor response to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs).

Prior studies in patients with RA have found that the degree of fibromyalgia is a better predictor of pain and disability than erythrocyte sedimentation rate or the number of swollen joints.
 

Diagnosed cases are the “tip of the iceberg”

Researchers at Dr. Clauw’s institution have identified dozens of patients undergoing knee surgery who met criteria for fibromyalgia but had not received the diagnosis. “This is at the University of Michigan, which is the epicenter for fibromyalgia research. If we are not seeing fibromyalgia superimposed on OA in our patients, no one is seeing it,” he said.

Patients with diagnosed fibromyalgia are “the tip of the iceberg,” he said. “There are far greater numbers of individuals whose primary diagnosis is OA, RA, lupus, ankylosing spondylitis, cancer pain, or sickle cell disease that have the same fundamental problem as fibromyalgia patients. But you do not see it because you label them as having an autoimmune disease or osteoarthritis. And that is at your peril and at their peril. Because treating that individual as if all of their pain and other symptoms are due to a problem out on the periphery will not make that person better.”

Patients with high levels of centralized pain may be less responsive to peripherally directed therapies such as surgery or injections, Dr. Clauw said. Pharmacologic options for patients with centralized pain include gabapentinoids (e.g., pregabalin and gabapentin), serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (e.g., duloxetine and milnacipran), and tricyclic compounds (e.g., amitriptyline and cyclobenzaprine), he said. “Opioids are going to be quite unlikely to help these individuals,” he said. “In fact, it is likely that opioids will make this kind of pain worse.”

Dr. Clauw is a consultant for Aptinyx, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Intec Pharma, Pfizer, Samumed, Theravance, Tonix, and Zynerba Pharma. He has received grant or research support from Aptinyx and Pfizer and is an expert witness.

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

[email protected]

Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) may influence the relationship between alcohol consumption and dementia risk, a study of more than 3,000 adults suggests. In addition, alcohol dose and the frequency of alcohol intake correlate with cognitive decline and the risk of dementia, according to the study, which was published in JAMA Network Open.

Thinkstockphotos.com

“The associations of self-reported alcohol consumption with dementia risk and cognitive decline were more consistently adverse among individuals with MCI than those with normal cognition,” reported Manja Koch, PhD, a researcher in the department of nutrition at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston and colleagues. “This was particularly true for the subset of individuals [with MCI] who drank more than 14.0 servings per week, whose rate of cognitive decline and risk of dementia were the highest of any subgroup.”

Among older adults with normal cognition, the results generally were consistent with those of a recent meta-analysis that found a U-shaped relationship between drinking and dementia, the researchers said (Eur J Epidemiol. 2017 Jan;32[1]:31-42.).

“Our results did not show significant associations and clearly do not suffice to suggest a clinical benefit from even limited alcohol use,” said Dr. Koch and colleagues. “Nonetheless, our findings provide some reassurance that alcohol consumed within recommended limits was not associated with an increased risk of dementia among older adults with normal baseline cognition.”

GEMS data

To study whether alcohol consumption is associated with the risk of dementia and cognitive decline in older adults with and without MCI, the investigators analyzed data from the Ginkgo Evaluation of Memory Study (GEMS). GEMS was a randomized controlled trial conducted between 2000 and 2008 that found no overall association between ginkgo biloba and dementia prevention. During the trial, participants completed the Modified Mini-Mental State Examination, the Clinical Dementia Rating scale, and the cognitive portion of the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale.

In the present study, the investigators analyzed data from 3,021 participants aged 72 years and older who were free of dementia at baseline and had provided information about their alcohol intake. Their median age was 78 years, and 46.2% were female. Fifty-eight percent consumed alcohol, including 45% of the participants with MCI at baseline.

During follow-up, 512 cases of dementia occurred. Among the 473 participants with MCI at baseline, the adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for dementia was 1.72 for those who consumed more than 14 drinks per week, compared with light drinkers who consumed less than 1 drink per week. For participants who consumed between 7 and 14 drinks per week, the adjusted HR for dementia was 0.63 among those without MCI and 0.93 among those with MCI, relative to light drinkers who consumed less than 1 drink per week.

Among adults with normal cognition at baseline, daily low-quantity drinking was associated with lower dementia risk, compared with infrequent higher-quantity drinking (HR, 0.45).
 

Trial excluded adults with excessive alcohol use

Limitations of the study include a lack of data about any changes in alcohol consumption over time. In addition, the original trial excluded people with a known history of excessive alcohol use. Furthermore, it is possible that the “long preclinical phase of dementia” and other health issues affect drinking behavior, the authors said. “At present, our findings cannot be directly translated into clinical recommendations,” the authors said. Nevertheless, the results “suggest that, while caring for older adults, physicians should carefully assess the full dimensions of drinking behavior and cognition when providing guidance to patients about alcohol consumption,” they said.

The study was supported by grants from the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine; the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; the Office of Dietary Supplements of the National Institute on Aging; the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the University of Pittsburgh Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center; the Roena Kulynych Center for Memory and Cognition Research; and Wake Forest University School of Medicine. In addition, the researchers used plasma samples from the National Cell Repository for Alzheimer’s Disease, which receives support from the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Koch had no conflicts of interest. Coauthors disclosed university and government grants and personal fees from pharmaceutical companies outside the study. One author was an employee of Genentech at the time of publication, but Genentech did not contribute to the study.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Koch M et al. JAMA Network Open. 2019 Sep 27. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.10319.

Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) may influence the relationship between alcohol consumption and dementia risk, a study of more than 3,000 adults suggests. In addition, alcohol dose and the frequency of alcohol intake correlate with cognitive decline and the risk of dementia, according to the study, which was published in JAMA Network Open.

Thinkstockphotos.com

“The associations of self-reported alcohol consumption with dementia risk and cognitive decline were more consistently adverse among individuals with MCI than those with normal cognition,” reported Manja Koch, PhD, a researcher in the department of nutrition at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston and colleagues. “This was particularly true for the subset of individuals [with MCI] who drank more than 14.0 servings per week, whose rate of cognitive decline and risk of dementia were the highest of any subgroup.”

Among older adults with normal cognition, the results generally were consistent with those of a recent meta-analysis that found a U-shaped relationship between drinking and dementia, the researchers said (Eur J Epidemiol. 2017 Jan;32[1]:31-42.).

“Our results did not show significant associations and clearly do not suffice to suggest a clinical benefit from even limited alcohol use,” said Dr. Koch and colleagues. “Nonetheless, our findings provide some reassurance that alcohol consumed within recommended limits was not associated with an increased risk of dementia among older adults with normal baseline cognition.”

GEMS data

To study whether alcohol consumption is associated with the risk of dementia and cognitive decline in older adults with and without MCI, the investigators analyzed data from the Ginkgo Evaluation of Memory Study (GEMS). GEMS was a randomized controlled trial conducted between 2000 and 2008 that found no overall association between ginkgo biloba and dementia prevention. During the trial, participants completed the Modified Mini-Mental State Examination, the Clinical Dementia Rating scale, and the cognitive portion of the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale.

In the present study, the investigators analyzed data from 3,021 participants aged 72 years and older who were free of dementia at baseline and had provided information about their alcohol intake. Their median age was 78 years, and 46.2% were female. Fifty-eight percent consumed alcohol, including 45% of the participants with MCI at baseline.

During follow-up, 512 cases of dementia occurred. Among the 473 participants with MCI at baseline, the adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for dementia was 1.72 for those who consumed more than 14 drinks per week, compared with light drinkers who consumed less than 1 drink per week. For participants who consumed between 7 and 14 drinks per week, the adjusted HR for dementia was 0.63 among those without MCI and 0.93 among those with MCI, relative to light drinkers who consumed less than 1 drink per week.

Among adults with normal cognition at baseline, daily low-quantity drinking was associated with lower dementia risk, compared with infrequent higher-quantity drinking (HR, 0.45).
 

Trial excluded adults with excessive alcohol use

Limitations of the study include a lack of data about any changes in alcohol consumption over time. In addition, the original trial excluded people with a known history of excessive alcohol use. Furthermore, it is possible that the “long preclinical phase of dementia” and other health issues affect drinking behavior, the authors said. “At present, our findings cannot be directly translated into clinical recommendations,” the authors said. Nevertheless, the results “suggest that, while caring for older adults, physicians should carefully assess the full dimensions of drinking behavior and cognition when providing guidance to patients about alcohol consumption,” they said.

The study was supported by grants from the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine; the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; the Office of Dietary Supplements of the National Institute on Aging; the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the University of Pittsburgh Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center; the Roena Kulynych Center for Memory and Cognition Research; and Wake Forest University School of Medicine. In addition, the researchers used plasma samples from the National Cell Repository for Alzheimer’s Disease, which receives support from the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Koch had no conflicts of interest. Coauthors disclosed university and government grants and personal fees from pharmaceutical companies outside the study. One author was an employee of Genentech at the time of publication, but Genentech did not contribute to the study.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Koch M et al. JAMA Network Open. 2019 Sep 27. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.10319.

Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) may influence the relationship between alcohol consumption and dementia risk, a study of more than 3,000 adults suggests. In addition, alcohol dose and the frequency of alcohol intake correlate with cognitive decline and the risk of dementia, according to the study, which was published in JAMA Network Open.

Thinkstockphotos.com

“The associations of self-reported alcohol consumption with dementia risk and cognitive decline were more consistently adverse among individuals with MCI than those with normal cognition,” reported Manja Koch, PhD, a researcher in the department of nutrition at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston and colleagues. “This was particularly true for the subset of individuals [with MCI] who drank more than 14.0 servings per week, whose rate of cognitive decline and risk of dementia were the highest of any subgroup.”

Among older adults with normal cognition, the results generally were consistent with those of a recent meta-analysis that found a U-shaped relationship between drinking and dementia, the researchers said (Eur J Epidemiol. 2017 Jan;32[1]:31-42.).

“Our results did not show significant associations and clearly do not suffice to suggest a clinical benefit from even limited alcohol use,” said Dr. Koch and colleagues. “Nonetheless, our findings provide some reassurance that alcohol consumed within recommended limits was not associated with an increased risk of dementia among older adults with normal baseline cognition.”

GEMS data

To study whether alcohol consumption is associated with the risk of dementia and cognitive decline in older adults with and without MCI, the investigators analyzed data from the Ginkgo Evaluation of Memory Study (GEMS). GEMS was a randomized controlled trial conducted between 2000 and 2008 that found no overall association between ginkgo biloba and dementia prevention. During the trial, participants completed the Modified Mini-Mental State Examination, the Clinical Dementia Rating scale, and the cognitive portion of the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale.

In the present study, the investigators analyzed data from 3,021 participants aged 72 years and older who were free of dementia at baseline and had provided information about their alcohol intake. Their median age was 78 years, and 46.2% were female. Fifty-eight percent consumed alcohol, including 45% of the participants with MCI at baseline.

During follow-up, 512 cases of dementia occurred. Among the 473 participants with MCI at baseline, the adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for dementia was 1.72 for those who consumed more than 14 drinks per week, compared with light drinkers who consumed less than 1 drink per week. For participants who consumed between 7 and 14 drinks per week, the adjusted HR for dementia was 0.63 among those without MCI and 0.93 among those with MCI, relative to light drinkers who consumed less than 1 drink per week.

Among adults with normal cognition at baseline, daily low-quantity drinking was associated with lower dementia risk, compared with infrequent higher-quantity drinking (HR, 0.45).
 

Trial excluded adults with excessive alcohol use

Limitations of the study include a lack of data about any changes in alcohol consumption over time. In addition, the original trial excluded people with a known history of excessive alcohol use. Furthermore, it is possible that the “long preclinical phase of dementia” and other health issues affect drinking behavior, the authors said. “At present, our findings cannot be directly translated into clinical recommendations,” the authors said. Nevertheless, the results “suggest that, while caring for older adults, physicians should carefully assess the full dimensions of drinking behavior and cognition when providing guidance to patients about alcohol consumption,” they said.

The study was supported by grants from the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine; the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; the Office of Dietary Supplements of the National Institute on Aging; the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the University of Pittsburgh Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center; the Roena Kulynych Center for Memory and Cognition Research; and Wake Forest University School of Medicine. In addition, the researchers used plasma samples from the National Cell Repository for Alzheimer’s Disease, which receives support from the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Koch had no conflicts of interest. Coauthors disclosed university and government grants and personal fees from pharmaceutical companies outside the study. One author was an employee of Genentech at the time of publication, but Genentech did not contribute to the study.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Koch M et al. JAMA Network Open. 2019 Sep 27. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.10319.

Most children who develop alopecia areata before age 4 years have mild disease with less than 50% hair loss, and present between ages 2 and 4, according to a retrospective chart review of 125 children.

Almost 90% of the children presented between aged 2 and 4 years, compared with 11.9% between ages 1 and 2 years, and 1.6% aged under 1 year, “in keeping with the existing literature,” the study authors reported in Pediatric Dermatology. “A high percentage of patients continued to have mild, patchy alopecia at their follow‐up visits,” they added.

Epidemiologic studies of children with alopecia areata are few and have not focused on the youngest patients, said Sneha Rangu, of the section of dermatology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, and coauthors. They performed a retrospective chart review of 125 patients, who initially presented at the hospital with alopecia areata between Jan. 1, 2016, and June 1, 2018, when they were younger than 4 years. Patients who received systemic therapy or topical JAK inhibitors for alopecia were excluded. Severity was measured with the Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) score, to monitor progression of hair loss, analyzing scores at the initial presentation, at 3-6 months, at 1 year, and at 2 or more years.

Almost 70% were female, which the authors said was similar to other studies that have found alopecia areata is more prevalent in females; and 86.6% were between ages 2 and 4 years when they first presented. The initial diagnosis was alopecia areata in 72.0%, alopecia totalis in 8.8%, and alopecia universalis in 19.2%. Of the 41 boys, 39% had alopecia totalis or alopecia universalis, as did 22% of the girls, which suggested that boys presenting under aged 4 years were more likely to have more severe disease, or that “guardians of boys are more likely to present for therapy when disease is more severe,” the authors wrote.

About 40% of the children presented with a history of atopic dermatitis, and 4% had an autoimmune disease (vitiligo, celiac disease, or type 1 diabetes). Twenty-eight percent of patients had a family history of alopecia areata, 27.2% had a family history of other autoimmune diseases, and 32% had a family history of hypothyroidism.

At the first visit, 57.6% had patch‐stage alopecia and SALT scores in the mild range (0%‐24% hair loss), which was present in a high proportion of these patients at follow-up: 49.4% at 3-6 months, 39.5% at 1 year, and 42.9% at two or more years.

At the first visit, 28% had high SALT scores (50%-100% hair loss), increasing to 36% at 3-6 months, 41.8% at 1 year, and 46.4% at 2 or more years. They calculated that for those with more than 50% hair loss at the initial presentation, the likelihood of being in a high category of hair loss, as measured by increasing SALT scores, was significantly higher at 1 year (odds ratio, 1.85, P =.033) and at 2 or more years (OR, 2.29, P = .038).

“While there is a likelihood of increasing disease severity, those with higher severity at initial presentation are likely to stay severe after one or 2 years,” the authors noted.

They concluded that their results add to the understanding of the epidemiology of alopecia areata in children “and perhaps can provide clinicians and families with a better sense of prognosis for progression in the youngest patients presenting with alopecia areata.”

They said the retrospective design and small sample size were among the study’s limitations. They had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Rangu S et al. Pediatr Dermatol. 2019 Aug 29. doi: 10.1111/pde.13990.

Most children who develop alopecia areata before age 4 years have mild disease with less than 50% hair loss, and present between ages 2 and 4, according to a retrospective chart review of 125 children.

Almost 90% of the children presented between aged 2 and 4 years, compared with 11.9% between ages 1 and 2 years, and 1.6% aged under 1 year, “in keeping with the existing literature,” the study authors reported in Pediatric Dermatology. “A high percentage of patients continued to have mild, patchy alopecia at their follow‐up visits,” they added.

Epidemiologic studies of children with alopecia areata are few and have not focused on the youngest patients, said Sneha Rangu, of the section of dermatology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, and coauthors. They performed a retrospective chart review of 125 patients, who initially presented at the hospital with alopecia areata between Jan. 1, 2016, and June 1, 2018, when they were younger than 4 years. Patients who received systemic therapy or topical JAK inhibitors for alopecia were excluded. Severity was measured with the Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) score, to monitor progression of hair loss, analyzing scores at the initial presentation, at 3-6 months, at 1 year, and at 2 or more years.

Almost 70% were female, which the authors said was similar to other studies that have found alopecia areata is more prevalent in females; and 86.6% were between ages 2 and 4 years when they first presented. The initial diagnosis was alopecia areata in 72.0%, alopecia totalis in 8.8%, and alopecia universalis in 19.2%. Of the 41 boys, 39% had alopecia totalis or alopecia universalis, as did 22% of the girls, which suggested that boys presenting under aged 4 years were more likely to have more severe disease, or that “guardians of boys are more likely to present for therapy when disease is more severe,” the authors wrote.

About 40% of the children presented with a history of atopic dermatitis, and 4% had an autoimmune disease (vitiligo, celiac disease, or type 1 diabetes). Twenty-eight percent of patients had a family history of alopecia areata, 27.2% had a family history of other autoimmune diseases, and 32% had a family history of hypothyroidism.

At the first visit, 57.6% had patch‐stage alopecia and SALT scores in the mild range (0%‐24% hair loss), which was present in a high proportion of these patients at follow-up: 49.4% at 3-6 months, 39.5% at 1 year, and 42.9% at two or more years.

At the first visit, 28% had high SALT scores (50%-100% hair loss), increasing to 36% at 3-6 months, 41.8% at 1 year, and 46.4% at 2 or more years. They calculated that for those with more than 50% hair loss at the initial presentation, the likelihood of being in a high category of hair loss, as measured by increasing SALT scores, was significantly higher at 1 year (odds ratio, 1.85, P =.033) and at 2 or more years (OR, 2.29, P = .038).

“While there is a likelihood of increasing disease severity, those with higher severity at initial presentation are likely to stay severe after one or 2 years,” the authors noted.

They concluded that their results add to the understanding of the epidemiology of alopecia areata in children “and perhaps can provide clinicians and families with a better sense of prognosis for progression in the youngest patients presenting with alopecia areata.”

They said the retrospective design and small sample size were among the study’s limitations. They had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Rangu S et al. Pediatr Dermatol. 2019 Aug 29. doi: 10.1111/pde.13990.

Most children who develop alopecia areata before age 4 years have mild disease with less than 50% hair loss, and present between ages 2 and 4, according to a retrospective chart review of 125 children.

Almost 90% of the children presented between aged 2 and 4 years, compared with 11.9% between ages 1 and 2 years, and 1.6% aged under 1 year, “in keeping with the existing literature,” the study authors reported in Pediatric Dermatology. “A high percentage of patients continued to have mild, patchy alopecia at their follow‐up visits,” they added.

Epidemiologic studies of children with alopecia areata are few and have not focused on the youngest patients, said Sneha Rangu, of the section of dermatology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, and coauthors. They performed a retrospective chart review of 125 patients, who initially presented at the hospital with alopecia areata between Jan. 1, 2016, and June 1, 2018, when they were younger than 4 years. Patients who received systemic therapy or topical JAK inhibitors for alopecia were excluded. Severity was measured with the Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) score, to monitor progression of hair loss, analyzing scores at the initial presentation, at 3-6 months, at 1 year, and at 2 or more years.

Almost 70% were female, which the authors said was similar to other studies that have found alopecia areata is more prevalent in females; and 86.6% were between ages 2 and 4 years when they first presented. The initial diagnosis was alopecia areata in 72.0%, alopecia totalis in 8.8%, and alopecia universalis in 19.2%. Of the 41 boys, 39% had alopecia totalis or alopecia universalis, as did 22% of the girls, which suggested that boys presenting under aged 4 years were more likely to have more severe disease, or that “guardians of boys are more likely to present for therapy when disease is more severe,” the authors wrote.

About 40% of the children presented with a history of atopic dermatitis, and 4% had an autoimmune disease (vitiligo, celiac disease, or type 1 diabetes). Twenty-eight percent of patients had a family history of alopecia areata, 27.2% had a family history of other autoimmune diseases, and 32% had a family history of hypothyroidism.

At the first visit, 57.6% had patch‐stage alopecia and SALT scores in the mild range (0%‐24% hair loss), which was present in a high proportion of these patients at follow-up: 49.4% at 3-6 months, 39.5% at 1 year, and 42.9% at two or more years.

At the first visit, 28% had high SALT scores (50%-100% hair loss), increasing to 36% at 3-6 months, 41.8% at 1 year, and 46.4% at 2 or more years. They calculated that for those with more than 50% hair loss at the initial presentation, the likelihood of being in a high category of hair loss, as measured by increasing SALT scores, was significantly higher at 1 year (odds ratio, 1.85, P =.033) and at 2 or more years (OR, 2.29, P = .038).

“While there is a likelihood of increasing disease severity, those with higher severity at initial presentation are likely to stay severe after one or 2 years,” the authors noted.

They concluded that their results add to the understanding of the epidemiology of alopecia areata in children “and perhaps can provide clinicians and families with a better sense of prognosis for progression in the youngest patients presenting with alopecia areata.”

They said the retrospective design and small sample size were among the study’s limitations. They had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Rangu S et al. Pediatr Dermatol. 2019 Aug 29. doi: 10.1111/pde.13990.

Noninvasive vagus nerve stimulation may reduce the intensity of vertigo and headache in patients with acute vestibular migraine attacks, according to a small, open-label study published online Sept. 25 in Neurology.

The retrospective, single-center study included data from 18 patients who had vestibular migraine and received acute treatment with a handheld stimulation device. The device used in the study, GammaCore, is approved for the treatment of migraine. There are no approved treatments for vestibular migraine.

“There’s a huge need for effective treatments for vestibular migraine attacks,” first author Shin C. Beh, MD, said in a news release. “People with vestibular migraine do not always have headaches, and when they do, they are often less severe than in typical migraine, so the pain-relieving drugs used for typical migraine often are not effective. People can take drugs that suppress the vertigo or the nausea, but those drugs cause drowsiness and make it hard for people to go about their usual activities.” Dr. Beh is an assistant professor of neurology and neurotherapeutics at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas.

The patients had an average age of about 46 years, and 16 were women. A total of 14 patients received treatment during an acute vestibular migraine attack, and 4 received treatment while they had bothersome interictal dizziness consistent with persistent perceptual postural dizziness.

After stimulation, vertigo improved in 13 of the 14 people with vestibular migraine attacks. In two of these patients, vertigo resolved completely, and five had at least a 50% improvement in vertigo symptoms. On a 0-10 scale, patients’ mean vertigo rating decreased from 5.2 before stimulation to 3.1 after stimulation.

Of five patients with vestibular migraine attacks who had headache, all experienced a reduction in headache pain. Mean headache severity decreased from 6 before stimulation to 2.4 after stimulation.

None of the four patients with interictal dizziness experienced a reduction in dizziness after stimulation.

Patients place the device against the neck to receive electrical stimulation, and patients received stimulation for 2 minutes on each side of the neck.

Participants reported a mild pulling sensation of the neck muscles during the stimulation but did not report pain or other side effects.

“Vestibular migraine is the most common neurologic cause of vertigo and can greatly interfere with a person’s daily life,” Dr. Beh said. “If these results can be confirmed with larger studies, not only could there finally be a treatment for vestibular migraine, such a treatment would also be easy to use.”

A randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled study is needed to further assess the use of noninvasive vagus nerve stimulation in treating vestibular migraine, the authors said.

The study had no targeted funding, and Dr. Beh had no relevant disclosures. Coauthor Deborah I. Friedman, MD, professor of neurology and neurotherapeutics and ophthalmology at UT Southwestern Medical Center, disclosed serving on advisory boards or speaking for pharmaceutical and medical device companies. Dr. Friedman is on the editorial advisory board of Neurology Reviews.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Beh SC et al. Neurology. 2019 Sep 25. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000008388.

Noninvasive vagus nerve stimulation may reduce the intensity of vertigo and headache in patients with acute vestibular migraine attacks, according to a small, open-label study published online Sept. 25 in Neurology.

The retrospective, single-center study included data from 18 patients who had vestibular migraine and received acute treatment with a handheld stimulation device. The device used in the study, GammaCore, is approved for the treatment of migraine. There are no approved treatments for vestibular migraine.

“There’s a huge need for effective treatments for vestibular migraine attacks,” first author Shin C. Beh, MD, said in a news release. “People with vestibular migraine do not always have headaches, and when they do, they are often less severe than in typical migraine, so the pain-relieving drugs used for typical migraine often are not effective. People can take drugs that suppress the vertigo or the nausea, but those drugs cause drowsiness and make it hard for people to go about their usual activities.” Dr. Beh is an assistant professor of neurology and neurotherapeutics at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas.

The patients had an average age of about 46 years, and 16 were women. A total of 14 patients received treatment during an acute vestibular migraine attack, and 4 received treatment while they had bothersome interictal dizziness consistent with persistent perceptual postural dizziness.

After stimulation, vertigo improved in 13 of the 14 people with vestibular migraine attacks. In two of these patients, vertigo resolved completely, and five had at least a 50% improvement in vertigo symptoms. On a 0-10 scale, patients’ mean vertigo rating decreased from 5.2 before stimulation to 3.1 after stimulation.

Of five patients with vestibular migraine attacks who had headache, all experienced a reduction in headache pain. Mean headache severity decreased from 6 before stimulation to 2.4 after stimulation.

None of the four patients with interictal dizziness experienced a reduction in dizziness after stimulation.

Patients place the device against the neck to receive electrical stimulation, and patients received stimulation for 2 minutes on each side of the neck.

Participants reported a mild pulling sensation of the neck muscles during the stimulation but did not report pain or other side effects.

“Vestibular migraine is the most common neurologic cause of vertigo and can greatly interfere with a person’s daily life,” Dr. Beh said. “If these results can be confirmed with larger studies, not only could there finally be a treatment for vestibular migraine, such a treatment would also be easy to use.”

A randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled study is needed to further assess the use of noninvasive vagus nerve stimulation in treating vestibular migraine, the authors said.

The study had no targeted funding, and Dr. Beh had no relevant disclosures. Coauthor Deborah I. Friedman, MD, professor of neurology and neurotherapeutics and ophthalmology at UT Southwestern Medical Center, disclosed serving on advisory boards or speaking for pharmaceutical and medical device companies. Dr. Friedman is on the editorial advisory board of Neurology Reviews.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Beh SC et al. Neurology. 2019 Sep 25. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000008388.

Noninvasive vagus nerve stimulation may reduce the intensity of vertigo and headache in patients with acute vestibular migraine attacks, according to a small, open-label study published online Sept. 25 in Neurology.

The retrospective, single-center study included data from 18 patients who had vestibular migraine and received acute treatment with a handheld stimulation device. The device used in the study, GammaCore, is approved for the treatment of migraine. There are no approved treatments for vestibular migraine.

“There’s a huge need for effective treatments for vestibular migraine attacks,” first author Shin C. Beh, MD, said in a news release. “People with vestibular migraine do not always have headaches, and when they do, they are often less severe than in typical migraine, so the pain-relieving drugs used for typical migraine often are not effective. People can take drugs that suppress the vertigo or the nausea, but those drugs cause drowsiness and make it hard for people to go about their usual activities.” Dr. Beh is an assistant professor of neurology and neurotherapeutics at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas.

The patients had an average age of about 46 years, and 16 were women. A total of 14 patients received treatment during an acute vestibular migraine attack, and 4 received treatment while they had bothersome interictal dizziness consistent with persistent perceptual postural dizziness.

After stimulation, vertigo improved in 13 of the 14 people with vestibular migraine attacks. In two of these patients, vertigo resolved completely, and five had at least a 50% improvement in vertigo symptoms. On a 0-10 scale, patients’ mean vertigo rating decreased from 5.2 before stimulation to 3.1 after stimulation.

Of five patients with vestibular migraine attacks who had headache, all experienced a reduction in headache pain. Mean headache severity decreased from 6 before stimulation to 2.4 after stimulation.

None of the four patients with interictal dizziness experienced a reduction in dizziness after stimulation.

Patients place the device against the neck to receive electrical stimulation, and patients received stimulation for 2 minutes on each side of the neck.

Participants reported a mild pulling sensation of the neck muscles during the stimulation but did not report pain or other side effects.

“Vestibular migraine is the most common neurologic cause of vertigo and can greatly interfere with a person’s daily life,” Dr. Beh said. “If these results can be confirmed with larger studies, not only could there finally be a treatment for vestibular migraine, such a treatment would also be easy to use.”

A randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled study is needed to further assess the use of noninvasive vagus nerve stimulation in treating vestibular migraine, the authors said.

The study had no targeted funding, and Dr. Beh had no relevant disclosures. Coauthor Deborah I. Friedman, MD, professor of neurology and neurotherapeutics and ophthalmology at UT Southwestern Medical Center, disclosed serving on advisory boards or speaking for pharmaceutical and medical device companies. Dr. Friedman is on the editorial advisory board of Neurology Reviews.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Beh SC et al. Neurology. 2019 Sep 25. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000008388.

A daily polypill regimen improved cardiovascular risk factors in a socioeconomically vulnerable minority population, in a randomized controlled trial.

©rasslava/thinkstockphotos.com

Patients at a federally qualified community health center in Alabama who received treatment with a combination pill for 1 year had greater reductions in systolic blood pressure and LDL cholesterol than did patients who received usual care, according to results published online on Sept. 19 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“The simplicity and low cost of the polypill regimen make this approach attractive” when barriers such as lack of income, underinsurance, and difficulty attending clinic visits are common, said first author Daniel Muñoz, MD, of Vanderbilt University in Nashville, and coinvestigators. The investigators obtained the pills at a cost of $26 per month per participant.
 

People with low socioeconomic status and those who are nonwhite have high cardiovascular mortality, and the southeastern United States and rural areas have disproportionately high levels of cardiovascular disease burden, according to the investigators. The rates at which people with low socioeconomic status receive treatment for hypertension and hypercholesterolemia – leading cardiovascular disease risk factors – “are strikingly low,” Dr. Muñoz and colleagues said.

To assess the effectiveness of a polypill-based strategy in an underserved population with low socioeconomic status, the researchers conducted the randomized trial.

They enrolled 303 adults without cardiovascular disease, and 148 of the patients were randomized to receive the polypill, which contained generic versions of atorvastatin (10 mg), amlodipine (2.5 mg), losartan (25 mg), and hydrochlorothiazide (12.5 mg). The remaining 155 patients received usual care. All participants scheduled 2-month and 12-month follow-up visits.

The participants had an average age of 56 years, 60% were women, and more than 95% were black. More than 70% had an annual household income of less than $15,000. Baseline characteristics of the treatment groups did not significantly differ.

At baseline, the average BP was 140/83 mm Hg, and the average LDL cholesterol level was 113 mg/dL.

In all, 91% of the participants completed the 12-month trial visit. Average systolic BP decreased by 9 mm Hg in the group that received the polypill, compared with 2 mm Hg in the group that received usual care. Average LDL cholesterol level decreased by 15 mg/dL in the polypill group, versus 4 mg/dL in the usual-care group.

Changes in other medications

Clinicians discontinued or reduced doses of other antihypertensive or lipid-lowering medications in 44% of the patients in the polypill group and none in the usual-care group. Clinicians escalated therapy in 2% of the participants in the polypill group and in 10% of the usual-care group.

Side effects in participants who received the polypill included a 1% incidence of myalgias and a 1% incidence of hypotension or light-headedness. Liver function test results were normal.

Five serious adverse events that occurred during the trial – two in the polypill group and three in the usual-care group – were judged to be unrelated to the trial by a data and safety monitoring board.

The authors noted that limitations of the trial include its open-label design and that it was conducted at a single center.

“It is important to emphasize that use of the polypill does not preclude individualized, add-on therapies for residual elevations in blood-pressure or cholesterol levels, as judged by a patient’s physician,” said Dr. Muñoz and colleagues. “We recognize that a ‘one size fits all’ approach to cardiovascular disease prevention runs counter to current trends in precision medicine, in which clinical, genomic, and lifestyle factors are used for the development of individualized treatment strategies. Although the precision approach has clear virtues, a broader approach may benefit patients who face barriers to accessing the full advantages of precision medicine.”

The study was supported by grants from the American Heart Association Strategically Focused Prevention Research Network and the National Institutes of Health. One author disclosed personal fees from Novartis outside the study.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Muñoz D et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Sep 18;381(12):1114-23. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1815359.

A daily polypill regimen improved cardiovascular risk factors in a socioeconomically vulnerable minority population, in a randomized controlled trial.

©rasslava/thinkstockphotos.com

Patients at a federally qualified community health center in Alabama who received treatment with a combination pill for 1 year had greater reductions in systolic blood pressure and LDL cholesterol than did patients who received usual care, according to results published online on Sept. 19 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“The simplicity and low cost of the polypill regimen make this approach attractive” when barriers such as lack of income, underinsurance, and difficulty attending clinic visits are common, said first author Daniel Muñoz, MD, of Vanderbilt University in Nashville, and coinvestigators. The investigators obtained the pills at a cost of $26 per month per participant.
 

People with low socioeconomic status and those who are nonwhite have high cardiovascular mortality, and the southeastern United States and rural areas have disproportionately high levels of cardiovascular disease burden, according to the investigators. The rates at which people with low socioeconomic status receive treatment for hypertension and hypercholesterolemia – leading cardiovascular disease risk factors – “are strikingly low,” Dr. Muñoz and colleagues said.

To assess the effectiveness of a polypill-based strategy in an underserved population with low socioeconomic status, the researchers conducted the randomized trial.

They enrolled 303 adults without cardiovascular disease, and 148 of the patients were randomized to receive the polypill, which contained generic versions of atorvastatin (10 mg), amlodipine (2.5 mg), losartan (25 mg), and hydrochlorothiazide (12.5 mg). The remaining 155 patients received usual care. All participants scheduled 2-month and 12-month follow-up visits.

The participants had an average age of 56 years, 60% were women, and more than 95% were black. More than 70% had an annual household income of less than $15,000. Baseline characteristics of the treatment groups did not significantly differ.

At baseline, the average BP was 140/83 mm Hg, and the average LDL cholesterol level was 113 mg/dL.

In all, 91% of the participants completed the 12-month trial visit. Average systolic BP decreased by 9 mm Hg in the group that received the polypill, compared with 2 mm Hg in the group that received usual care. Average LDL cholesterol level decreased by 15 mg/dL in the polypill group, versus 4 mg/dL in the usual-care group.

Changes in other medications

Clinicians discontinued or reduced doses of other antihypertensive or lipid-lowering medications in 44% of the patients in the polypill group and none in the usual-care group. Clinicians escalated therapy in 2% of the participants in the polypill group and in 10% of the usual-care group.

Side effects in participants who received the polypill included a 1% incidence of myalgias and a 1% incidence of hypotension or light-headedness. Liver function test results were normal.

Five serious adverse events that occurred during the trial – two in the polypill group and three in the usual-care group – were judged to be unrelated to the trial by a data and safety monitoring board.

The authors noted that limitations of the trial include its open-label design and that it was conducted at a single center.

“It is important to emphasize that use of the polypill does not preclude individualized, add-on therapies for residual elevations in blood-pressure or cholesterol levels, as judged by a patient’s physician,” said Dr. Muñoz and colleagues. “We recognize that a ‘one size fits all’ approach to cardiovascular disease prevention runs counter to current trends in precision medicine, in which clinical, genomic, and lifestyle factors are used for the development of individualized treatment strategies. Although the precision approach has clear virtues, a broader approach may benefit patients who face barriers to accessing the full advantages of precision medicine.”

The study was supported by grants from the American Heart Association Strategically Focused Prevention Research Network and the National Institutes of Health. One author disclosed personal fees from Novartis outside the study.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Muñoz D et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Sep 18;381(12):1114-23. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1815359.

A daily polypill regimen improved cardiovascular risk factors in a socioeconomically vulnerable minority population, in a randomized controlled trial.

©rasslava/thinkstockphotos.com

Patients at a federally qualified community health center in Alabama who received treatment with a combination pill for 1 year had greater reductions in systolic blood pressure and LDL cholesterol than did patients who received usual care, according to results published online on Sept. 19 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“The simplicity and low cost of the polypill regimen make this approach attractive” when barriers such as lack of income, underinsurance, and difficulty attending clinic visits are common, said first author Daniel Muñoz, MD, of Vanderbilt University in Nashville, and coinvestigators. The investigators obtained the pills at a cost of $26 per month per participant.
 

People with low socioeconomic status and those who are nonwhite have high cardiovascular mortality, and the southeastern United States and rural areas have disproportionately high levels of cardiovascular disease burden, according to the investigators. The rates at which people with low socioeconomic status receive treatment for hypertension and hypercholesterolemia – leading cardiovascular disease risk factors – “are strikingly low,” Dr. Muñoz and colleagues said.

To assess the effectiveness of a polypill-based strategy in an underserved population with low socioeconomic status, the researchers conducted the randomized trial.

They enrolled 303 adults without cardiovascular disease, and 148 of the patients were randomized to receive the polypill, which contained generic versions of atorvastatin (10 mg), amlodipine (2.5 mg), losartan (25 mg), and hydrochlorothiazide (12.5 mg). The remaining 155 patients received usual care. All participants scheduled 2-month and 12-month follow-up visits.

The participants had an average age of 56 years, 60% were women, and more than 95% were black. More than 70% had an annual household income of less than $15,000. Baseline characteristics of the treatment groups did not significantly differ.

At baseline, the average BP was 140/83 mm Hg, and the average LDL cholesterol level was 113 mg/dL.

In all, 91% of the participants completed the 12-month trial visit. Average systolic BP decreased by 9 mm Hg in the group that received the polypill, compared with 2 mm Hg in the group that received usual care. Average LDL cholesterol level decreased by 15 mg/dL in the polypill group, versus 4 mg/dL in the usual-care group.

Changes in other medications

Clinicians discontinued or reduced doses of other antihypertensive or lipid-lowering medications in 44% of the patients in the polypill group and none in the usual-care group. Clinicians escalated therapy in 2% of the participants in the polypill group and in 10% of the usual-care group.

Side effects in participants who received the polypill included a 1% incidence of myalgias and a 1% incidence of hypotension or light-headedness. Liver function test results were normal.

Five serious adverse events that occurred during the trial – two in the polypill group and three in the usual-care group – were judged to be unrelated to the trial by a data and safety monitoring board.

The authors noted that limitations of the trial include its open-label design and that it was conducted at a single center.

“It is important to emphasize that use of the polypill does not preclude individualized, add-on therapies for residual elevations in blood-pressure or cholesterol levels, as judged by a patient’s physician,” said Dr. Muñoz and colleagues. “We recognize that a ‘one size fits all’ approach to cardiovascular disease prevention runs counter to current trends in precision medicine, in which clinical, genomic, and lifestyle factors are used for the development of individualized treatment strategies. Although the precision approach has clear virtues, a broader approach may benefit patients who face barriers to accessing the full advantages of precision medicine.”

The study was supported by grants from the American Heart Association Strategically Focused Prevention Research Network and the National Institutes of Health. One author disclosed personal fees from Novartis outside the study.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Muñoz D et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Sep 18;381(12):1114-23. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1815359.

Transvaginal mesh hysteropexy for symptomatic uterovaginal prolapse may not significantly reduce treatment failure after 3 years, compared with vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension, according to randomized trial results.

Nevertheless, “the point estimate favored hysteropexy,” the study authors wrote in JAMA. The 36-month cumulative treatment failure outcomes – defined as retreatment of prolapse, prolapse beyond the hymen, or prolapse symptoms – were 33% for patients who underwent hysteropexy, compared with 42% for patients who underwent hysterectomy. In addition, mean operative time was 45 minutes less for patients who underwent hysteropexy.

The publication follows the Food and Drug Administration’s ruling in April 2019 that manufacturers must cease marketing transvaginal mesh kits for repair of anterior or apical compartment prolapse. The investigators plan to continue evaluating patient outcomes to 5 years, and they noted that longer follow-up may lead to different conclusions.

From a class II device to class III

Surgical repair of uterovaginal prolapse is common. Although vaginal hysterectomy is the procedure of choice for many surgeons, “uterine-sparing suspension techniques ... are increasing in usage,” wrote Charles W. Nager, MD, chair and professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at the University of California, San Diego, and coauthors. However, few high-quality, long-term studies have compared apical transvaginal mesh with native tissue procedures.

The FDA first approved a mesh device for transvaginal repair of prolapse in 2002. In 2008, the agency notified clinicians and patients about an increase in adverse event reports related to vaginal mesh. It later advised that mesh for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse does not conclusively improve clinical outcomes and that serious adverse events are not rare.

In 2016, the FDA reclassified surgical mesh to repair pelvic organ prolapse transvaginally as high risk, citing safety concerns such as severe pelvic pain and organ perforation. And in April 2019, the FDA ordered companies to stop selling transvaginal mesh intended for pelvic organ prolapse repair. “Even though these products can no longer be used in patients moving forward, [manufacturers] are required to continue follow-up” of patients in post–market surveillance studies, the FDA said in a statement.

An FDA panel had concluded that 3-year outcomes for prolapse repair with mesh should be better than the outcomes for repair with native tissue, and that the procedures should have comparable safety profiles.
 

The SUPeR trial

To compare the efficacy and adverse events of vaginal hysterectomy with suture apical suspension and transvaginal mesh hysteropexy, Dr. Nager and colleagues conducted the Study of Uterine Prolapse Procedures Randomized (SUPeR) trial.

Researchers enrolled 183 postmenopausal women with symptomatic uterovaginal prolapse undergoing surgical intervention at nine sites between April 2013 and February 2015. Investigators randomized 93 women to undergo vaginal mesh hysteropexy and 90 to undergo vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension. Hysteropexy used the UpholdLITE transvaginal mesh support system (Boston Scientific). Uterosacral ligament suspension required one permanent and one delayed absorbable suture on each side. The primary analysis included data from 175 patients.

Compared with hysterectomy, hysteropexy resulted in an adjusted hazard ratio of treatment failure of 0.62 after 3 years, which was not statistically significant (P = .06). The 95% confidence interval of 0.38-1.02 “was wide and only slightly crossed the null value,” the researchers said. “The remaining uncertainty is too great” to establish or rule out the benefit of vaginal mesh hysteropexy.

Mean operative time was about 45 minutes shorter in the hysteropexy group versus the hysterectomy group (111.5 minutes vs. 156.7 minutes). Adverse events in the hysteropexy versus hysterectomy groups included mesh exposure (8% vs. 0%), ureteral kinking managed intraoperatively (0% vs. 7%), excessive granulation tissue after 12 weeks (1% vs. 11%), and suture exposure after 12 weeks (3% vs. 21%).

“Both groups reported improvements in sexual function, and dyspareunia and pain and de novo dyspareunia rates were low,” Dr. Nager and colleagues wrote. “All other complications with long-term sequelae were not different between groups.”

“Patients in the current study are being followed up for 60 months and the results and conclusions at 36 months could change with extended follow-up,” they added.

A role for mesh?

“The report ... by Nager and colleagues is particularly timely and important,” Cynthia A. Brincat, MD, PhD, wrote in an accompanying editorial. Dr. Brincat is affiliated with the division of female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery at Rush Medical College, Chicago.

Although the mesh exposures, granulation tissue, or suture exposures during the trial did not require reoperation, “management of these adverse events was not described,” the editorialist noted. “Clinically important differences could exist between the management of these reported adverse events.”

Based on the findings, gynecologic surgeons “will need to reconsider several important questions regarding the repair of pelvic organ prolapse. For instance, is hysterectomy a necessary component for the repair? What is the role of mesh, and can its use reduce the use of otherwise unnecessary procedures (i.e., hysterectomy) without increasing risk to patients?” she wrote. Other questions center on what constitutes operative failure and how surgeons should augment prolapse repair.

“This study also provides a potential new and well-defined role for the use of mesh in pelvic prolapse surgery, with no significant difference, and perhaps some benefit (i.e., no hysterectomy), compared with a native tissue repair,” Dr. Brincat wrote. “The study also provides useful information for shared decision-making discussions between patients and gynecologic surgeons with respect to selection of procedures and use of mesh for treatment of women with symptomatic uterovaginal prolapse undergoing vaginal surgery.”

The trial was funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the National Institutes of Health Office of Research on Women’s Health. Boston Scientific provided support through an unrestricted grant. One author reported stock ownership in a medical device company, and others reported grants from medical device companies outside the submitted work. Dr. Brincat reported no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCES: Nager CW et al. JAMA. 2019 Sep 17;322(11):1054-65; Brincat CA. JAMA. 2019 Sep 17;322(11):1047-8.

Transvaginal mesh hysteropexy for symptomatic uterovaginal prolapse may not significantly reduce treatment failure after 3 years, compared with vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension, according to randomized trial results.

Nevertheless, “the point estimate favored hysteropexy,” the study authors wrote in JAMA. The 36-month cumulative treatment failure outcomes – defined as retreatment of prolapse, prolapse beyond the hymen, or prolapse symptoms – were 33% for patients who underwent hysteropexy, compared with 42% for patients who underwent hysterectomy. In addition, mean operative time was 45 minutes less for patients who underwent hysteropexy.

The publication follows the Food and Drug Administration’s ruling in April 2019 that manufacturers must cease marketing transvaginal mesh kits for repair of anterior or apical compartment prolapse. The investigators plan to continue evaluating patient outcomes to 5 years, and they noted that longer follow-up may lead to different conclusions.

From a class II device to class III

Surgical repair of uterovaginal prolapse is common. Although vaginal hysterectomy is the procedure of choice for many surgeons, “uterine-sparing suspension techniques ... are increasing in usage,” wrote Charles W. Nager, MD, chair and professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at the University of California, San Diego, and coauthors. However, few high-quality, long-term studies have compared apical transvaginal mesh with native tissue procedures.

The FDA first approved a mesh device for transvaginal repair of prolapse in 2002. In 2008, the agency notified clinicians and patients about an increase in adverse event reports related to vaginal mesh. It later advised that mesh for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse does not conclusively improve clinical outcomes and that serious adverse events are not rare.

In 2016, the FDA reclassified surgical mesh to repair pelvic organ prolapse transvaginally as high risk, citing safety concerns such as severe pelvic pain and organ perforation. And in April 2019, the FDA ordered companies to stop selling transvaginal mesh intended for pelvic organ prolapse repair. “Even though these products can no longer be used in patients moving forward, [manufacturers] are required to continue follow-up” of patients in post–market surveillance studies, the FDA said in a statement.

An FDA panel had concluded that 3-year outcomes for prolapse repair with mesh should be better than the outcomes for repair with native tissue, and that the procedures should have comparable safety profiles.
 

The SUPeR trial

To compare the efficacy and adverse events of vaginal hysterectomy with suture apical suspension and transvaginal mesh hysteropexy, Dr. Nager and colleagues conducted the Study of Uterine Prolapse Procedures Randomized (SUPeR) trial.

Researchers enrolled 183 postmenopausal women with symptomatic uterovaginal prolapse undergoing surgical intervention at nine sites between April 2013 and February 2015. Investigators randomized 93 women to undergo vaginal mesh hysteropexy and 90 to undergo vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension. Hysteropexy used the UpholdLITE transvaginal mesh support system (Boston Scientific). Uterosacral ligament suspension required one permanent and one delayed absorbable suture on each side. The primary analysis included data from 175 patients.

Compared with hysterectomy, hysteropexy resulted in an adjusted hazard ratio of treatment failure of 0.62 after 3 years, which was not statistically significant (P = .06). The 95% confidence interval of 0.38-1.02 “was wide and only slightly crossed the null value,” the researchers said. “The remaining uncertainty is too great” to establish or rule out the benefit of vaginal mesh hysteropexy.

Mean operative time was about 45 minutes shorter in the hysteropexy group versus the hysterectomy group (111.5 minutes vs. 156.7 minutes). Adverse events in the hysteropexy versus hysterectomy groups included mesh exposure (8% vs. 0%), ureteral kinking managed intraoperatively (0% vs. 7%), excessive granulation tissue after 12 weeks (1% vs. 11%), and suture exposure after 12 weeks (3% vs. 21%).

“Both groups reported improvements in sexual function, and dyspareunia and pain and de novo dyspareunia rates were low,” Dr. Nager and colleagues wrote. “All other complications with long-term sequelae were not different between groups.”

“Patients in the current study are being followed up for 60 months and the results and conclusions at 36 months could change with extended follow-up,” they added.

A role for mesh?

“The report ... by Nager and colleagues is particularly timely and important,” Cynthia A. Brincat, MD, PhD, wrote in an accompanying editorial. Dr. Brincat is affiliated with the division of female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery at Rush Medical College, Chicago.

Although the mesh exposures, granulation tissue, or suture exposures during the trial did not require reoperation, “management of these adverse events was not described,” the editorialist noted. “Clinically important differences could exist between the management of these reported adverse events.”

Based on the findings, gynecologic surgeons “will need to reconsider several important questions regarding the repair of pelvic organ prolapse. For instance, is hysterectomy a necessary component for the repair? What is the role of mesh, and can its use reduce the use of otherwise unnecessary procedures (i.e., hysterectomy) without increasing risk to patients?” she wrote. Other questions center on what constitutes operative failure and how surgeons should augment prolapse repair.

“This study also provides a potential new and well-defined role for the use of mesh in pelvic prolapse surgery, with no significant difference, and perhaps some benefit (i.e., no hysterectomy), compared with a native tissue repair,” Dr. Brincat wrote. “The study also provides useful information for shared decision-making discussions between patients and gynecologic surgeons with respect to selection of procedures and use of mesh for treatment of women with symptomatic uterovaginal prolapse undergoing vaginal surgery.”

The trial was funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the National Institutes of Health Office of Research on Women’s Health. Boston Scientific provided support through an unrestricted grant. One author reported stock ownership in a medical device company, and others reported grants from medical device companies outside the submitted work. Dr. Brincat reported no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCES: Nager CW et al. JAMA. 2019 Sep 17;322(11):1054-65; Brincat CA. JAMA. 2019 Sep 17;322(11):1047-8.

Transvaginal mesh hysteropexy for symptomatic uterovaginal prolapse may not significantly reduce treatment failure after 3 years, compared with vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension, according to randomized trial results.

Nevertheless, “the point estimate favored hysteropexy,” the study authors wrote in JAMA. The 36-month cumulative treatment failure outcomes – defined as retreatment of prolapse, prolapse beyond the hymen, or prolapse symptoms – were 33% for patients who underwent hysteropexy, compared with 42% for patients who underwent hysterectomy. In addition, mean operative time was 45 minutes less for patients who underwent hysteropexy.

The publication follows the Food and Drug Administration’s ruling in April 2019 that manufacturers must cease marketing transvaginal mesh kits for repair of anterior or apical compartment prolapse. The investigators plan to continue evaluating patient outcomes to 5 years, and they noted that longer follow-up may lead to different conclusions.

From a class II device to class III

Surgical repair of uterovaginal prolapse is common. Although vaginal hysterectomy is the procedure of choice for many surgeons, “uterine-sparing suspension techniques ... are increasing in usage,” wrote Charles W. Nager, MD, chair and professor of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at the University of California, San Diego, and coauthors. However, few high-quality, long-term studies have compared apical transvaginal mesh with native tissue procedures.

The FDA first approved a mesh device for transvaginal repair of prolapse in 2002. In 2008, the agency notified clinicians and patients about an increase in adverse event reports related to vaginal mesh. It later advised that mesh for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse does not conclusively improve clinical outcomes and that serious adverse events are not rare.

In 2016, the FDA reclassified surgical mesh to repair pelvic organ prolapse transvaginally as high risk, citing safety concerns such as severe pelvic pain and organ perforation. And in April 2019, the FDA ordered companies to stop selling transvaginal mesh intended for pelvic organ prolapse repair. “Even though these products can no longer be used in patients moving forward, [manufacturers] are required to continue follow-up” of patients in post–market surveillance studies, the FDA said in a statement.

An FDA panel had concluded that 3-year outcomes for prolapse repair with mesh should be better than the outcomes for repair with native tissue, and that the procedures should have comparable safety profiles.
 

The SUPeR trial

To compare the efficacy and adverse events of vaginal hysterectomy with suture apical suspension and transvaginal mesh hysteropexy, Dr. Nager and colleagues conducted the Study of Uterine Prolapse Procedures Randomized (SUPeR) trial.

Researchers enrolled 183 postmenopausal women with symptomatic uterovaginal prolapse undergoing surgical intervention at nine sites between April 2013 and February 2015. Investigators randomized 93 women to undergo vaginal mesh hysteropexy and 90 to undergo vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension. Hysteropexy used the UpholdLITE transvaginal mesh support system (Boston Scientific). Uterosacral ligament suspension required one permanent and one delayed absorbable suture on each side. The primary analysis included data from 175 patients.

Compared with hysterectomy, hysteropexy resulted in an adjusted hazard ratio of treatment failure of 0.62 after 3 years, which was not statistically significant (P = .06). The 95% confidence interval of 0.38-1.02 “was wide and only slightly crossed the null value,” the researchers said. “The remaining uncertainty is too great” to establish or rule out the benefit of vaginal mesh hysteropexy.

Mean operative time was about 45 minutes shorter in the hysteropexy group versus the hysterectomy group (111.5 minutes vs. 156.7 minutes). Adverse events in the hysteropexy versus hysterectomy groups included mesh exposure (8% vs. 0%), ureteral kinking managed intraoperatively (0% vs. 7%), excessive granulation tissue after 12 weeks (1% vs. 11%), and suture exposure after 12 weeks (3% vs. 21%).

“Both groups reported improvements in sexual function, and dyspareunia and pain and de novo dyspareunia rates were low,” Dr. Nager and colleagues wrote. “All other complications with long-term sequelae were not different between groups.”

“Patients in the current study are being followed up for 60 months and the results and conclusions at 36 months could change with extended follow-up,” they added.

A role for mesh?

“The report ... by Nager and colleagues is particularly timely and important,” Cynthia A. Brincat, MD, PhD, wrote in an accompanying editorial. Dr. Brincat is affiliated with the division of female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery at Rush Medical College, Chicago.

Although the mesh exposures, granulation tissue, or suture exposures during the trial did not require reoperation, “management of these adverse events was not described,” the editorialist noted. “Clinically important differences could exist between the management of these reported adverse events.”

Based on the findings, gynecologic surgeons “will need to reconsider several important questions regarding the repair of pelvic organ prolapse. For instance, is hysterectomy a necessary component for the repair? What is the role of mesh, and can its use reduce the use of otherwise unnecessary procedures (i.e., hysterectomy) without increasing risk to patients?” she wrote. Other questions center on what constitutes operative failure and how surgeons should augment prolapse repair.

“This study also provides a potential new and well-defined role for the use of mesh in pelvic prolapse surgery, with no significant difference, and perhaps some benefit (i.e., no hysterectomy), compared with a native tissue repair,” Dr. Brincat wrote. “The study also provides useful information for shared decision-making discussions between patients and gynecologic surgeons with respect to selection of procedures and use of mesh for treatment of women with symptomatic uterovaginal prolapse undergoing vaginal surgery.”

The trial was funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the National Institutes of Health Office of Research on Women’s Health. Boston Scientific provided support through an unrestricted grant. One author reported stock ownership in a medical device company, and others reported grants from medical device companies outside the submitted work. Dr. Brincat reported no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCES: Nager CW et al. JAMA. 2019 Sep 17;322(11):1054-65; Brincat CA. JAMA. 2019 Sep 17;322(11):1047-8.