Methotrexate may affect joint erosions but not pain in patients with erosive hand OA

Article Type
Changed
Fri, 11/15/2019 - 14:27

Methotrexate did not significantly improve pain scores in patients with symptomatic erosive osteoarthritis of the hand, but it may have a role in reducing joint damage and increasing bone remodeling, according to results from the small, prospective, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled ADEM trial.

Jeff Craven/MDedge News
Dr. Christian Roux

“Our study failed to show the superiority of methotrexate over placebo on pain evolution, but our results on structural evolution and the presence of inflammatory parameters as predictors of erosive evolution in nonerosive diseases may lead us to discuss the place of methotrexate in early steps of the disease evolution, and underlines the importance of the part played by the interaction between synovitis and subchondral bone in erosive progression,” Christian Roux, MD, PhD, of the department of rheumatology at Côte d’Azur University, Nice, France, said in his presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Dr. Roux and colleagues enrolled 64 patients in the ADEM trial, where patients with symptomatic erosive hand osteoarthritis (EHOA) were randomized to receive 10 mg of methotrexate (MTX) per week or placebo. At 3 months, researchers assessed patients for pain using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score for hand pain, and secondary outcome measures at 12 months included VAS score for hand pain, radiographic progression using Verbruggen-Veys Anatomical Phase Score and Gent University Scoring System, and MRI.


Patients were included in the study if they were between 45 and 85 years old with a VAS pain score greater than 40, had failed classic therapeutics (acetaminophen, topical NSAIDs, and symptomatic slow-acting drugs), and had at least one erosive lesion. At baseline, the MTX and placebo groups were not significantly different with regard to gender (91% vs. 97% female), mean body mass index (24.6 kg/m2 vs. 24.2 kg/m2) and mean age (67.5 years vs. 64.9 years). Radiologic data showed joint loss, erosive, and erosive plus remodeling measurements were also similar between groups at baseline.

The mean VAS score for patients in the MTX group decreased from 65.7 at baseline to 48.2 at 3 months (–17.5; P = .07), compared with a decrease from 63.9 to 55.5 (–8.4; P = .002). At 12 months, VAS scores for patients in the MTX group decreased to 47.5, compared with a decrease in the placebo group to 48.2. However, the between-group differences for VAS scores were not significant at 3 months (P = .2) and at 12 months (P = .6).

“We have different hypotheses on the failure of our study on our main outcome, which was pain,” he said. “The first is a low-dose of methotrexate, and the second may be ... a placebo effect, which is very, very important in osteoarthritis.”

 

 


Dr. Roux noted the results from the ADEM trial were similar to a recent study in which 90 patients with hand OA were randomized to receive etanercept or placebo. At 24 weeks, there was no statistically significant difference between VAS pain in the etanercept group (between group difference, −5.7; 95% confidence interval, −15.9 to 4.5; P = .27) and the placebo groups, and at 1 year (between-group difference, –8.5; 95% CI, −18.6 to 1.6; P = .10), although the results favored patients receiving anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy (Ann Rheum Dis. 2018;77:1757-64. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2018-213202).

With regard to the Verbruggen-Veys score, joint degradation was not significantly higher in the placebo group (29.4%), compared with the MTX group (7.7%), but there was a significantly higher number of erosive joints progressing to a remodeling phase in the MTX group (27.2%), compared with the placebo group (15.2%) at 12 months.

Dr. Roux said two factors are likely predictors of erosive disease based on data in ADEM: the level of interleukin-6 at baseline (odds ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.03-1.06; P less than .0001), and joints with synovitis at baseline (OR, 4.7; 95% CI, 1.25-17.90; P = .02).

“Our study has several limitations, but we like to see our study as a pilot study,” he added, noting that a study analyzing bone turnover in patients with different doses of methotrexate and a longer disease duration is needed.

The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Ferraro S et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019;71(suppl 10), Abstract 1759.

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

Methotrexate did not significantly improve pain scores in patients with symptomatic erosive osteoarthritis of the hand, but it may have a role in reducing joint damage and increasing bone remodeling, according to results from the small, prospective, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled ADEM trial.

Jeff Craven/MDedge News
Dr. Christian Roux

“Our study failed to show the superiority of methotrexate over placebo on pain evolution, but our results on structural evolution and the presence of inflammatory parameters as predictors of erosive evolution in nonerosive diseases may lead us to discuss the place of methotrexate in early steps of the disease evolution, and underlines the importance of the part played by the interaction between synovitis and subchondral bone in erosive progression,” Christian Roux, MD, PhD, of the department of rheumatology at Côte d’Azur University, Nice, France, said in his presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Dr. Roux and colleagues enrolled 64 patients in the ADEM trial, where patients with symptomatic erosive hand osteoarthritis (EHOA) were randomized to receive 10 mg of methotrexate (MTX) per week or placebo. At 3 months, researchers assessed patients for pain using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score for hand pain, and secondary outcome measures at 12 months included VAS score for hand pain, radiographic progression using Verbruggen-Veys Anatomical Phase Score and Gent University Scoring System, and MRI.


Patients were included in the study if they were between 45 and 85 years old with a VAS pain score greater than 40, had failed classic therapeutics (acetaminophen, topical NSAIDs, and symptomatic slow-acting drugs), and had at least one erosive lesion. At baseline, the MTX and placebo groups were not significantly different with regard to gender (91% vs. 97% female), mean body mass index (24.6 kg/m2 vs. 24.2 kg/m2) and mean age (67.5 years vs. 64.9 years). Radiologic data showed joint loss, erosive, and erosive plus remodeling measurements were also similar between groups at baseline.

The mean VAS score for patients in the MTX group decreased from 65.7 at baseline to 48.2 at 3 months (–17.5; P = .07), compared with a decrease from 63.9 to 55.5 (–8.4; P = .002). At 12 months, VAS scores for patients in the MTX group decreased to 47.5, compared with a decrease in the placebo group to 48.2. However, the between-group differences for VAS scores were not significant at 3 months (P = .2) and at 12 months (P = .6).

“We have different hypotheses on the failure of our study on our main outcome, which was pain,” he said. “The first is a low-dose of methotrexate, and the second may be ... a placebo effect, which is very, very important in osteoarthritis.”

 

 


Dr. Roux noted the results from the ADEM trial were similar to a recent study in which 90 patients with hand OA were randomized to receive etanercept or placebo. At 24 weeks, there was no statistically significant difference between VAS pain in the etanercept group (between group difference, −5.7; 95% confidence interval, −15.9 to 4.5; P = .27) and the placebo groups, and at 1 year (between-group difference, –8.5; 95% CI, −18.6 to 1.6; P = .10), although the results favored patients receiving anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy (Ann Rheum Dis. 2018;77:1757-64. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2018-213202).

With regard to the Verbruggen-Veys score, joint degradation was not significantly higher in the placebo group (29.4%), compared with the MTX group (7.7%), but there was a significantly higher number of erosive joints progressing to a remodeling phase in the MTX group (27.2%), compared with the placebo group (15.2%) at 12 months.

Dr. Roux said two factors are likely predictors of erosive disease based on data in ADEM: the level of interleukin-6 at baseline (odds ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.03-1.06; P less than .0001), and joints with synovitis at baseline (OR, 4.7; 95% CI, 1.25-17.90; P = .02).

“Our study has several limitations, but we like to see our study as a pilot study,” he added, noting that a study analyzing bone turnover in patients with different doses of methotrexate and a longer disease duration is needed.

The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Ferraro S et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019;71(suppl 10), Abstract 1759.

Methotrexate did not significantly improve pain scores in patients with symptomatic erosive osteoarthritis of the hand, but it may have a role in reducing joint damage and increasing bone remodeling, according to results from the small, prospective, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled ADEM trial.

Jeff Craven/MDedge News
Dr. Christian Roux

“Our study failed to show the superiority of methotrexate over placebo on pain evolution, but our results on structural evolution and the presence of inflammatory parameters as predictors of erosive evolution in nonerosive diseases may lead us to discuss the place of methotrexate in early steps of the disease evolution, and underlines the importance of the part played by the interaction between synovitis and subchondral bone in erosive progression,” Christian Roux, MD, PhD, of the department of rheumatology at Côte d’Azur University, Nice, France, said in his presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Dr. Roux and colleagues enrolled 64 patients in the ADEM trial, where patients with symptomatic erosive hand osteoarthritis (EHOA) were randomized to receive 10 mg of methotrexate (MTX) per week or placebo. At 3 months, researchers assessed patients for pain using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score for hand pain, and secondary outcome measures at 12 months included VAS score for hand pain, radiographic progression using Verbruggen-Veys Anatomical Phase Score and Gent University Scoring System, and MRI.


Patients were included in the study if they were between 45 and 85 years old with a VAS pain score greater than 40, had failed classic therapeutics (acetaminophen, topical NSAIDs, and symptomatic slow-acting drugs), and had at least one erosive lesion. At baseline, the MTX and placebo groups were not significantly different with regard to gender (91% vs. 97% female), mean body mass index (24.6 kg/m2 vs. 24.2 kg/m2) and mean age (67.5 years vs. 64.9 years). Radiologic data showed joint loss, erosive, and erosive plus remodeling measurements were also similar between groups at baseline.

The mean VAS score for patients in the MTX group decreased from 65.7 at baseline to 48.2 at 3 months (–17.5; P = .07), compared with a decrease from 63.9 to 55.5 (–8.4; P = .002). At 12 months, VAS scores for patients in the MTX group decreased to 47.5, compared with a decrease in the placebo group to 48.2. However, the between-group differences for VAS scores were not significant at 3 months (P = .2) and at 12 months (P = .6).

“We have different hypotheses on the failure of our study on our main outcome, which was pain,” he said. “The first is a low-dose of methotrexate, and the second may be ... a placebo effect, which is very, very important in osteoarthritis.”

 

 


Dr. Roux noted the results from the ADEM trial were similar to a recent study in which 90 patients with hand OA were randomized to receive etanercept or placebo. At 24 weeks, there was no statistically significant difference between VAS pain in the etanercept group (between group difference, −5.7; 95% confidence interval, −15.9 to 4.5; P = .27) and the placebo groups, and at 1 year (between-group difference, –8.5; 95% CI, −18.6 to 1.6; P = .10), although the results favored patients receiving anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy (Ann Rheum Dis. 2018;77:1757-64. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2018-213202).

With regard to the Verbruggen-Veys score, joint degradation was not significantly higher in the placebo group (29.4%), compared with the MTX group (7.7%), but there was a significantly higher number of erosive joints progressing to a remodeling phase in the MTX group (27.2%), compared with the placebo group (15.2%) at 12 months.

Dr. Roux said two factors are likely predictors of erosive disease based on data in ADEM: the level of interleukin-6 at baseline (odds ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.03-1.06; P less than .0001), and joints with synovitis at baseline (OR, 4.7; 95% CI, 1.25-17.90; P = .02).

“Our study has several limitations, but we like to see our study as a pilot study,” he added, noting that a study analyzing bone turnover in patients with different doses of methotrexate and a longer disease duration is needed.

The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Ferraro S et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019;71(suppl 10), Abstract 1759.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Article Source

REPORTING FROM ACR 2019

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

Patients taking TNF inhibitors can safely receive Zostavax

Article Type
Changed
Tue, 02/07/2023 - 16:51

– A group of patients using a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor safely received the live-attenuated varicella vaccine Zostavax without any cases of herpes zoster in the first 6 weeks after vaccination in the blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled Varicella Zoster Vaccine (VERVE) trial .

Dr. Jeffrey Curtis

According to guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, there is a theoretical concern that patients using a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) and other biologic therapies who receive a live-attenuated version of the varicella vaccine (Zostavax) could become infected with varicella from the vaccine. Patients with RA and psoriatic arthritis as well as other autoimmune and inflammatory conditions who are likely to receive TNFi therapy are also at risk for herpes zoster reactivation, Jeffrey Curtis, MD, professor of medicine in the division of clinical immunology and rheumatology of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said in his presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. There also exists a risk for patients receiving low-dose glucocorticoids.

“The challenge, of course, is there’s not a great definition and there certainly is not a well-standardized assay for how immunocompromised someone is, and so that led to the uncertainty in this patient population for this and other live-virus vaccines,” Dr. Curtis said.

Dr. Curtis and colleagues enrolled 627 participants from 33 centers into the VERVE trial. Participants were aged at least 50 years, were taking a TNFi, and had not previously received Zostavax.

Patients in both groups had a mean age of about 63 years and about two-thirds were women. The most common indications for TNFi use in the Zostavax group and the placebo group were RA (59.2% vs. 56.0%, respectively), psoriatic arthritis (24.3% vs. 23.9%), and ankylosing spondylitis (7.2% vs. 8.5%), while the anti-TNF agents used were adalimumab (38.1% vs. 27.4%), infliximab (28.4% vs. 34.2%), etanercept (19.0% vs. 23.5%), golimumab (10.0% vs. 8.1%), and certolizumab pegol (4.5% vs. 6.8%). In addition, some patients in the Zostavax and placebo groups were also taking concomitant therapies with TNFi, such as oral glucocorticoids (9.7% vs. 11.4%).

The researchers randomized participants to receive Zostavax or placebo (saline) and then followed them for 6 weeks, and looked for signs of wild-type or vaccine-strain varicella infection. If participants were suspected to have varicella, they were assessed clinically, underwent polymerase chain reaction testing, and rashes were photographed. At baseline and at 6 weeks, the researchers collected serum and peripheral blood mononuclear cells to determine patient immunity to varicella. After 6 months, participants were unmasked to the treatment arm of the study.



Dr. Curtis and colleagues found no confirmed varicella infection cases at 6 weeks. “To the extent that 0 cases out of 317 vaccinated people is reassuring, there were no cases, so that was exceedingly heartening as a result,” he said.

Out of 20 serious adverse events total in the groups, 15 events occurred before 6 months, including 8 suspected varicella cases in the Zostavax group and 7 in the placebo group. However, there were no positive cases of varicella – either wild type or vaccine type – after polymerase chain reaction tests. Overall, there were 268 adverse events in 195 participants, with 73 events (27.2%) consisting of injection-site reactions. The researchers also found no difference in the rate of disease flares, and found no differences in adverse reactions between groups, apart from a higher rate of injection-site reactions in the varicella group (19.4% vs. 4.2%).

With regard to immunogenicity, the humoral immune response was measured through IgG, which showed an immune response in the varicella group at 6 weeks (geometric mean fold ratio, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.18-1.51), compared with the placebo group (GMFR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.91-1.14); cell-mediated immune response was measured by interferon-gamma, which also showed an immune response in the live-vaccine group (GMFR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.14-1.94), compared with participants who received placebo (GMFR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.87-1.48). In preliminary 1-year data, IgG immune response was elevated in the varicella group (GMFR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.08-1.99), but there was no elevated immune response for interferon-gamma (GMFR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.49-1.25).

“I think the trial is encouraging not only for its result with the live zoster vaccine and TNF-treated patients, but also challenge the notion that, if you need to, a live-virus vaccine may in fact be able to be safely given to people with autoimmune and inflammatory diseases, even those treated with biologics like tumor necrosis factor inhibitors,” Dr. Curtis said.

As patients in VERVE consented to long-term follow-up in health plan claims and EHR data, it will be possible to follow these patients in the future to assess herpes zoster reactivation. Dr. Curtis also noted that a new trial involving the recombinant, adjuvanted zoster vaccine (Shingrix) is currently in development and should begin next year.

The VERVE trial was supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Dr. Curtis reported serving as a current member of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices Herpes Zoster Work Group. He and some of the other authors reported financial relationships with many pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Curtis J et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019;71(suppl 10), Abstract 824.

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

– A group of patients using a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor safely received the live-attenuated varicella vaccine Zostavax without any cases of herpes zoster in the first 6 weeks after vaccination in the blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled Varicella Zoster Vaccine (VERVE) trial .

Dr. Jeffrey Curtis

According to guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, there is a theoretical concern that patients using a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) and other biologic therapies who receive a live-attenuated version of the varicella vaccine (Zostavax) could become infected with varicella from the vaccine. Patients with RA and psoriatic arthritis as well as other autoimmune and inflammatory conditions who are likely to receive TNFi therapy are also at risk for herpes zoster reactivation, Jeffrey Curtis, MD, professor of medicine in the division of clinical immunology and rheumatology of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said in his presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. There also exists a risk for patients receiving low-dose glucocorticoids.

“The challenge, of course, is there’s not a great definition and there certainly is not a well-standardized assay for how immunocompromised someone is, and so that led to the uncertainty in this patient population for this and other live-virus vaccines,” Dr. Curtis said.

Dr. Curtis and colleagues enrolled 627 participants from 33 centers into the VERVE trial. Participants were aged at least 50 years, were taking a TNFi, and had not previously received Zostavax.

Patients in both groups had a mean age of about 63 years and about two-thirds were women. The most common indications for TNFi use in the Zostavax group and the placebo group were RA (59.2% vs. 56.0%, respectively), psoriatic arthritis (24.3% vs. 23.9%), and ankylosing spondylitis (7.2% vs. 8.5%), while the anti-TNF agents used were adalimumab (38.1% vs. 27.4%), infliximab (28.4% vs. 34.2%), etanercept (19.0% vs. 23.5%), golimumab (10.0% vs. 8.1%), and certolizumab pegol (4.5% vs. 6.8%). In addition, some patients in the Zostavax and placebo groups were also taking concomitant therapies with TNFi, such as oral glucocorticoids (9.7% vs. 11.4%).

The researchers randomized participants to receive Zostavax or placebo (saline) and then followed them for 6 weeks, and looked for signs of wild-type or vaccine-strain varicella infection. If participants were suspected to have varicella, they were assessed clinically, underwent polymerase chain reaction testing, and rashes were photographed. At baseline and at 6 weeks, the researchers collected serum and peripheral blood mononuclear cells to determine patient immunity to varicella. After 6 months, participants were unmasked to the treatment arm of the study.



Dr. Curtis and colleagues found no confirmed varicella infection cases at 6 weeks. “To the extent that 0 cases out of 317 vaccinated people is reassuring, there were no cases, so that was exceedingly heartening as a result,” he said.

Out of 20 serious adverse events total in the groups, 15 events occurred before 6 months, including 8 suspected varicella cases in the Zostavax group and 7 in the placebo group. However, there were no positive cases of varicella – either wild type or vaccine type – after polymerase chain reaction tests. Overall, there were 268 adverse events in 195 participants, with 73 events (27.2%) consisting of injection-site reactions. The researchers also found no difference in the rate of disease flares, and found no differences in adverse reactions between groups, apart from a higher rate of injection-site reactions in the varicella group (19.4% vs. 4.2%).

With regard to immunogenicity, the humoral immune response was measured through IgG, which showed an immune response in the varicella group at 6 weeks (geometric mean fold ratio, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.18-1.51), compared with the placebo group (GMFR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.91-1.14); cell-mediated immune response was measured by interferon-gamma, which also showed an immune response in the live-vaccine group (GMFR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.14-1.94), compared with participants who received placebo (GMFR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.87-1.48). In preliminary 1-year data, IgG immune response was elevated in the varicella group (GMFR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.08-1.99), but there was no elevated immune response for interferon-gamma (GMFR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.49-1.25).

“I think the trial is encouraging not only for its result with the live zoster vaccine and TNF-treated patients, but also challenge the notion that, if you need to, a live-virus vaccine may in fact be able to be safely given to people with autoimmune and inflammatory diseases, even those treated with biologics like tumor necrosis factor inhibitors,” Dr. Curtis said.

As patients in VERVE consented to long-term follow-up in health plan claims and EHR data, it will be possible to follow these patients in the future to assess herpes zoster reactivation. Dr. Curtis also noted that a new trial involving the recombinant, adjuvanted zoster vaccine (Shingrix) is currently in development and should begin next year.

The VERVE trial was supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Dr. Curtis reported serving as a current member of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices Herpes Zoster Work Group. He and some of the other authors reported financial relationships with many pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Curtis J et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019;71(suppl 10), Abstract 824.

– A group of patients using a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor safely received the live-attenuated varicella vaccine Zostavax without any cases of herpes zoster in the first 6 weeks after vaccination in the blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled Varicella Zoster Vaccine (VERVE) trial .

Dr. Jeffrey Curtis

According to guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, there is a theoretical concern that patients using a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) and other biologic therapies who receive a live-attenuated version of the varicella vaccine (Zostavax) could become infected with varicella from the vaccine. Patients with RA and psoriatic arthritis as well as other autoimmune and inflammatory conditions who are likely to receive TNFi therapy are also at risk for herpes zoster reactivation, Jeffrey Curtis, MD, professor of medicine in the division of clinical immunology and rheumatology of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said in his presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. There also exists a risk for patients receiving low-dose glucocorticoids.

“The challenge, of course, is there’s not a great definition and there certainly is not a well-standardized assay for how immunocompromised someone is, and so that led to the uncertainty in this patient population for this and other live-virus vaccines,” Dr. Curtis said.

Dr. Curtis and colleagues enrolled 627 participants from 33 centers into the VERVE trial. Participants were aged at least 50 years, were taking a TNFi, and had not previously received Zostavax.

Patients in both groups had a mean age of about 63 years and about two-thirds were women. The most common indications for TNFi use in the Zostavax group and the placebo group were RA (59.2% vs. 56.0%, respectively), psoriatic arthritis (24.3% vs. 23.9%), and ankylosing spondylitis (7.2% vs. 8.5%), while the anti-TNF agents used were adalimumab (38.1% vs. 27.4%), infliximab (28.4% vs. 34.2%), etanercept (19.0% vs. 23.5%), golimumab (10.0% vs. 8.1%), and certolizumab pegol (4.5% vs. 6.8%). In addition, some patients in the Zostavax and placebo groups were also taking concomitant therapies with TNFi, such as oral glucocorticoids (9.7% vs. 11.4%).

The researchers randomized participants to receive Zostavax or placebo (saline) and then followed them for 6 weeks, and looked for signs of wild-type or vaccine-strain varicella infection. If participants were suspected to have varicella, they were assessed clinically, underwent polymerase chain reaction testing, and rashes were photographed. At baseline and at 6 weeks, the researchers collected serum and peripheral blood mononuclear cells to determine patient immunity to varicella. After 6 months, participants were unmasked to the treatment arm of the study.



Dr. Curtis and colleagues found no confirmed varicella infection cases at 6 weeks. “To the extent that 0 cases out of 317 vaccinated people is reassuring, there were no cases, so that was exceedingly heartening as a result,” he said.

Out of 20 serious adverse events total in the groups, 15 events occurred before 6 months, including 8 suspected varicella cases in the Zostavax group and 7 in the placebo group. However, there were no positive cases of varicella – either wild type or vaccine type – after polymerase chain reaction tests. Overall, there were 268 adverse events in 195 participants, with 73 events (27.2%) consisting of injection-site reactions. The researchers also found no difference in the rate of disease flares, and found no differences in adverse reactions between groups, apart from a higher rate of injection-site reactions in the varicella group (19.4% vs. 4.2%).

With regard to immunogenicity, the humoral immune response was measured through IgG, which showed an immune response in the varicella group at 6 weeks (geometric mean fold ratio, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.18-1.51), compared with the placebo group (GMFR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.91-1.14); cell-mediated immune response was measured by interferon-gamma, which also showed an immune response in the live-vaccine group (GMFR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.14-1.94), compared with participants who received placebo (GMFR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.87-1.48). In preliminary 1-year data, IgG immune response was elevated in the varicella group (GMFR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.08-1.99), but there was no elevated immune response for interferon-gamma (GMFR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.49-1.25).

“I think the trial is encouraging not only for its result with the live zoster vaccine and TNF-treated patients, but also challenge the notion that, if you need to, a live-virus vaccine may in fact be able to be safely given to people with autoimmune and inflammatory diseases, even those treated with biologics like tumor necrosis factor inhibitors,” Dr. Curtis said.

As patients in VERVE consented to long-term follow-up in health plan claims and EHR data, it will be possible to follow these patients in the future to assess herpes zoster reactivation. Dr. Curtis also noted that a new trial involving the recombinant, adjuvanted zoster vaccine (Shingrix) is currently in development and should begin next year.

The VERVE trial was supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Dr. Curtis reported serving as a current member of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices Herpes Zoster Work Group. He and some of the other authors reported financial relationships with many pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Curtis J et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019;71(suppl 10), Abstract 824.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Article Source

REPORTING FROM ACR 2019

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

Multidisciplinary care could address fertility preservation in transgender youth

Article Type
Changed
Tue, 01/28/2020 - 10:19

 

– A multidisciplinary approach is needed to care for gender-diverse transgender adolescents interested in fertility preservation, Leena Nahata, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine.

Dr. Leena Nahata

Counseling transgender youth about fertility preservation creates a number of clinical and ethical challenges for pediatric providers, especially in the absence of longitudinal data, said Dr. Nahata, medical director of the fertility and reproductive health program at Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, Ohio. “We’re trying to counsel these youth and their parents about long-term outcomes of hormone therapies. However, despite the lack of data, not treating them also is not a viable option.”

Another concern among transgender individuals, Dr. Nahata said, is a high risk of mental health issues. Approximately one-third of transgender individuals experience depression, and between one-third and one-half have suicidal ideation or attempted suicide.

“It’s important to realize that these risks are not inevitable,” she said. Support from parents, peers, and social groups; engaging with the health care system; and having access to puberty suppression, gender-affirming hormones, and surgery are protective outcomes for mental health concerns. “It’s because of this that so many of us feel obligated to move on with treatments even in a setting of a lack of data.”

According to 2017 guidelines from the Endocrine Society on gender-dysphoric and gender-incongruent persons, patients can begin gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists at Tanner Stage 2 of puberty (J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2017 Nov. doi: 10.1210/jc.2017-01658). Before starting treatment, a mental health provider should confirm gender dysphoria or incongruence, and determine whether the patient has “sufficient mental capacity” to understand the long-term consequences of treatment with gender-affirming hormones such as estrogen and testosterone because the effects are partially irreversible, including a potential loss of fertility. Most pediatric patients will have this ability by 16 years old, but some programs across the country begin treatment between 13.5 years and 14 years of age, said Dr. Nahata. One consideration of beginning GnRH agonists and then moving directly to gender-affirming hormone therapy, there may not be an opportunity to explore fertility preservation.

Dr. Nahata acknowledged the data for the long-term effects of testosterone and estrogen on fertility is “murky,” but despite a lack of data, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine released an ethics statement in 2015 affirming that transgender patients “have the same interests as other persons in having children and in accessing fertility services for fertility preservation and reproduction” and pediatric providers “should offer fertility preservation options to individuals before gender transition” (Fertil Steril. 2015 Sep 9. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.08.021).

There also is mixed evidence that transgender individuals take advantage of fertility preservation services, whether offered or not. Two studies from Belgium that surveyed transgender individuals on parenthood preferences found 54% of adult trans men had a desire for children and that 38% of adult trans men and 51% of adult trans women would consider fertility preservation if it was an option. However, Dr. Nahata said a retrospective study from her own group of 50 adolescent trans males and 23 adolescent trans females found 99% of the cohort was counseled on fertility preservation, but only 3% (2 patients) attempted fertility preservation, and both were trans females (J Adolesc Health. 2017 Jul. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2016.12.012).

Another study examining use of fertility preservation in trans females in the Netherlands by Brik et al. found a much higher use of fertility preservation, with 38% of patients attempting cryopreservation after counseling (J Adolesc Health. 2019 May. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2018.11.008). “It’s unclear whether this is a regional difference or whether things are actually shifting over a short period of time,” said Dr. Nahata.

Attitudes about fertility preservation among gender-diverse transgender youth also impact its use in this patient population. A survey of transgender youth found less than 40% preferred adoption to biological parenthood, but said their feelings might change as time passes. However, more than half wanted more information on their family-building options. For other transgender youth aged 12-19 years, having children was their “lowest life priority,” compared with having friends, their health, and other issues in their lives, said Dr. Nahata.

In a 24-item survey Dr. Nahata and her team administered to 44 trans nonbinary adolescents, the most common reasons for not seeking fertility preservation were feelings of being too young, not wanting to be a parent or have a biological child, not wanting to delay treatment, and not being able to afford the cost of fertility preservation.

“This just speaks to the complexities of counseling in this population, and the importance of having a multidisciplinary team to see these youth and families to do more comprehensive counseling,” she said.

Dr. Nahata reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

 

– A multidisciplinary approach is needed to care for gender-diverse transgender adolescents interested in fertility preservation, Leena Nahata, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine.

Dr. Leena Nahata

Counseling transgender youth about fertility preservation creates a number of clinical and ethical challenges for pediatric providers, especially in the absence of longitudinal data, said Dr. Nahata, medical director of the fertility and reproductive health program at Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, Ohio. “We’re trying to counsel these youth and their parents about long-term outcomes of hormone therapies. However, despite the lack of data, not treating them also is not a viable option.”

Another concern among transgender individuals, Dr. Nahata said, is a high risk of mental health issues. Approximately one-third of transgender individuals experience depression, and between one-third and one-half have suicidal ideation or attempted suicide.

“It’s important to realize that these risks are not inevitable,” she said. Support from parents, peers, and social groups; engaging with the health care system; and having access to puberty suppression, gender-affirming hormones, and surgery are protective outcomes for mental health concerns. “It’s because of this that so many of us feel obligated to move on with treatments even in a setting of a lack of data.”

According to 2017 guidelines from the Endocrine Society on gender-dysphoric and gender-incongruent persons, patients can begin gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists at Tanner Stage 2 of puberty (J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2017 Nov. doi: 10.1210/jc.2017-01658). Before starting treatment, a mental health provider should confirm gender dysphoria or incongruence, and determine whether the patient has “sufficient mental capacity” to understand the long-term consequences of treatment with gender-affirming hormones such as estrogen and testosterone because the effects are partially irreversible, including a potential loss of fertility. Most pediatric patients will have this ability by 16 years old, but some programs across the country begin treatment between 13.5 years and 14 years of age, said Dr. Nahata. One consideration of beginning GnRH agonists and then moving directly to gender-affirming hormone therapy, there may not be an opportunity to explore fertility preservation.

Dr. Nahata acknowledged the data for the long-term effects of testosterone and estrogen on fertility is “murky,” but despite a lack of data, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine released an ethics statement in 2015 affirming that transgender patients “have the same interests as other persons in having children and in accessing fertility services for fertility preservation and reproduction” and pediatric providers “should offer fertility preservation options to individuals before gender transition” (Fertil Steril. 2015 Sep 9. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.08.021).

There also is mixed evidence that transgender individuals take advantage of fertility preservation services, whether offered or not. Two studies from Belgium that surveyed transgender individuals on parenthood preferences found 54% of adult trans men had a desire for children and that 38% of adult trans men and 51% of adult trans women would consider fertility preservation if it was an option. However, Dr. Nahata said a retrospective study from her own group of 50 adolescent trans males and 23 adolescent trans females found 99% of the cohort was counseled on fertility preservation, but only 3% (2 patients) attempted fertility preservation, and both were trans females (J Adolesc Health. 2017 Jul. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2016.12.012).

Another study examining use of fertility preservation in trans females in the Netherlands by Brik et al. found a much higher use of fertility preservation, with 38% of patients attempting cryopreservation after counseling (J Adolesc Health. 2019 May. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2018.11.008). “It’s unclear whether this is a regional difference or whether things are actually shifting over a short period of time,” said Dr. Nahata.

Attitudes about fertility preservation among gender-diverse transgender youth also impact its use in this patient population. A survey of transgender youth found less than 40% preferred adoption to biological parenthood, but said their feelings might change as time passes. However, more than half wanted more information on their family-building options. For other transgender youth aged 12-19 years, having children was their “lowest life priority,” compared with having friends, their health, and other issues in their lives, said Dr. Nahata.

In a 24-item survey Dr. Nahata and her team administered to 44 trans nonbinary adolescents, the most common reasons for not seeking fertility preservation were feelings of being too young, not wanting to be a parent or have a biological child, not wanting to delay treatment, and not being able to afford the cost of fertility preservation.

“This just speaks to the complexities of counseling in this population, and the importance of having a multidisciplinary team to see these youth and families to do more comprehensive counseling,” she said.

Dr. Nahata reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

 

– A multidisciplinary approach is needed to care for gender-diverse transgender adolescents interested in fertility preservation, Leena Nahata, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine.

Dr. Leena Nahata

Counseling transgender youth about fertility preservation creates a number of clinical and ethical challenges for pediatric providers, especially in the absence of longitudinal data, said Dr. Nahata, medical director of the fertility and reproductive health program at Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, Ohio. “We’re trying to counsel these youth and their parents about long-term outcomes of hormone therapies. However, despite the lack of data, not treating them also is not a viable option.”

Another concern among transgender individuals, Dr. Nahata said, is a high risk of mental health issues. Approximately one-third of transgender individuals experience depression, and between one-third and one-half have suicidal ideation or attempted suicide.

“It’s important to realize that these risks are not inevitable,” she said. Support from parents, peers, and social groups; engaging with the health care system; and having access to puberty suppression, gender-affirming hormones, and surgery are protective outcomes for mental health concerns. “It’s because of this that so many of us feel obligated to move on with treatments even in a setting of a lack of data.”

According to 2017 guidelines from the Endocrine Society on gender-dysphoric and gender-incongruent persons, patients can begin gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists at Tanner Stage 2 of puberty (J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2017 Nov. doi: 10.1210/jc.2017-01658). Before starting treatment, a mental health provider should confirm gender dysphoria or incongruence, and determine whether the patient has “sufficient mental capacity” to understand the long-term consequences of treatment with gender-affirming hormones such as estrogen and testosterone because the effects are partially irreversible, including a potential loss of fertility. Most pediatric patients will have this ability by 16 years old, but some programs across the country begin treatment between 13.5 years and 14 years of age, said Dr. Nahata. One consideration of beginning GnRH agonists and then moving directly to gender-affirming hormone therapy, there may not be an opportunity to explore fertility preservation.

Dr. Nahata acknowledged the data for the long-term effects of testosterone and estrogen on fertility is “murky,” but despite a lack of data, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine released an ethics statement in 2015 affirming that transgender patients “have the same interests as other persons in having children and in accessing fertility services for fertility preservation and reproduction” and pediatric providers “should offer fertility preservation options to individuals before gender transition” (Fertil Steril. 2015 Sep 9. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.08.021).

There also is mixed evidence that transgender individuals take advantage of fertility preservation services, whether offered or not. Two studies from Belgium that surveyed transgender individuals on parenthood preferences found 54% of adult trans men had a desire for children and that 38% of adult trans men and 51% of adult trans women would consider fertility preservation if it was an option. However, Dr. Nahata said a retrospective study from her own group of 50 adolescent trans males and 23 adolescent trans females found 99% of the cohort was counseled on fertility preservation, but only 3% (2 patients) attempted fertility preservation, and both were trans females (J Adolesc Health. 2017 Jul. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2016.12.012).

Another study examining use of fertility preservation in trans females in the Netherlands by Brik et al. found a much higher use of fertility preservation, with 38% of patients attempting cryopreservation after counseling (J Adolesc Health. 2019 May. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2018.11.008). “It’s unclear whether this is a regional difference or whether things are actually shifting over a short period of time,” said Dr. Nahata.

Attitudes about fertility preservation among gender-diverse transgender youth also impact its use in this patient population. A survey of transgender youth found less than 40% preferred adoption to biological parenthood, but said their feelings might change as time passes. However, more than half wanted more information on their family-building options. For other transgender youth aged 12-19 years, having children was their “lowest life priority,” compared with having friends, their health, and other issues in their lives, said Dr. Nahata.

In a 24-item survey Dr. Nahata and her team administered to 44 trans nonbinary adolescents, the most common reasons for not seeking fertility preservation were feelings of being too young, not wanting to be a parent or have a biological child, not wanting to delay treatment, and not being able to afford the cost of fertility preservation.

“This just speaks to the complexities of counseling in this population, and the importance of having a multidisciplinary team to see these youth and families to do more comprehensive counseling,” she said.

Dr. Nahata reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Article Source

EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM ASRM 2019

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

Bisphosphonates turn 50

Article Type
Changed
Wed, 01/04/2023 - 16:43

– Cumulative evidence over the years has shown that bisphosphonates reduce distant metastases in postmenopausal women with early-stage breast cancer but that effect does not seem to extend to younger, premenopausal women who may experience adverse effects with bisphosphonates, nor has it been replicated in other types of cancer, such as lung or prostate, Robert Coleman MBBS, MD, said in a presentation marking the 50th anniversary of the publication of the first papers describing the then-new class of drugs.

“We have some science – at least in postmenopausal breast cancer – [showing] that we’re really making a difference, but we don’t understand why it’s not working in the other patients or in the other diseases,” said Dr. Coleman of the University of Sheffield (England) at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.
 

Mixed findings in early studies

Early studies showing the metastases-prevention effects of bisphosphonates were with clodronate. In one study, Dr. Coleman said, researchers found that oral clodronate at a dose of 1,600 mg/day as a supplementary treatment to standard treatment for primary, operable breast cancer reduced the risk of bone metastases in a cohort of 1,069 patients with stage 1-3 breast cancer (hazard ratio, 0.692; P = .043) over 5 years (Breast Cancer Res. 2006 Mar 15. doi: 10.1186/bcr1384). Another trial, of 302 patients with breast cancer who received oral clodronate at 1,600 mg/day for 2 years, found that 20.4% of patients who received oral clodronate had died by 8.5 years of follow-up, compared with 40.7% of those who did not receive the intervention (Ann Oncol. 2008;19[12]:2007-11).

However, those results were in conflict with findings from an earlier study in which researchers followed patients with breast cancer who received 1,600 mg/day of oral clodronate or placebo for 3 years. They found a similar number of bone metastases in the clodronate and placebo groups (32% and 29%, respectively), as well as a lower overall disease-free survival rate at 10 years for the clodronate group, compared with the placebo group (45% vs. 58%; Acta Oncol. 2004;43[7]:650-6).“For various other reasons, clodronate did not gain traction as a therapeutic strategy in early-stage breast cancer,” said Dr. Coleman, although emerging evidence showed that other bisphosphonate agents were effective in some patients with breast cancer.

In a 2009 article, Gnant et al. reported that premenopausal patients, who underwent primary surgery for stage 1 or stage 2 breast cancer and received standard goserelin therapy for induced menopause and endocrine therapy (either tamoxifen or anastrozole) in addition to treatment with zoledronic acid, had a disease-free survival rate of 94.0% at a median 47.8 months of follow-up (N Eng J Med. 2009;360:679-91). After a median 94.4 months of follow-up, the investigators reported a lower risk of disease progression (HR, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.99; P = .042) and death (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.43-1.02; P = .064; Ann Oncol. 2015;26[2]:313-20).

In his own group, Dr. Coleman and colleagues recruited patients with early-stage breast cancer in the AZURE trial, a phase 3 study of 3,360 patients who received standard therapy with or without zoledronic acid 4 mg every 3-4 weeks for 6 doses, followed by 8 doses every 3 months then 5 doses every 6 months (N Eng J Med. 2011;365:1396-405). “We saw no effect,” said Dr. Coleman. “[That was] very different from what was shown by [Dr.] Gnant.”

For a subgroup of postmenopausal patients, Dr. Coleman and colleagues found that the adjusted HR for disease-free survival was 0.82 for women who were more than 5 years postmenopausal (95% CI, 0.67-1.00) at the time of breast cancer and bisphosphonate treatment, but women younger than 40 years had worse survival outcomes at 10 years (HR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.09-2.22) and had a significantly higher risk of death from breast cancer (HR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.16-2.40; J Bone Oncol. 2018 Sep 27. doi: 10.1016/j.jbo.2018.09.008).
 

 

 

Trying to reconcile disparate findings

Those findings left his group with a dilemma, said Dr. Coleman. “Do we start again and run trials, and wait another 10 years, or is there a shortcut to [understanding] what’s going on?” he asked.

In a meta-analysis of all trials from the Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group in 2015 examining adjuvant bisphosphonate treatment and placebo in patients with early-stage breast cancer, intent-to-treat analyses did not show significant benefit after therapy, but postmenopausal women (11,767 women in 36 trials) saw a clear benefit in all recurrence (rate ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.78-0.94), bone recurrence (RR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.60-0.86), and breast cancer–related mortality (RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.73-0.93; Lancet. 2015 Jul 23. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736[15]60908-4). The effect seemed to be similar, regardless of bisphosphonate type, with other results seen across trials that used clodronate, zoledronic acid, pamidronate, or ibandronate.

“Although those outcome differences might look quite small for a common disease, that’s a really big effect. Reducing one-sixth of breast cancer deaths at 10 years is the equivalent of saving 10,000 lives across the [European Union], and about half that in the United States,” said Dr. Coleman, noting that guidelines in North America from the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the European Society for Medical Oncology now support adjuvant bisphosphonates in postmenopausal patients with breast cancer.

However, bisphosphonates’ effect on breast cancer does not extend to other cancers, such as non–small cell lung cancer or prostate cancer. In other absorption inhibitors such as denosumab, there also seems to be no benefit for patients with breast cancer, including in postmenopausal patient subgroups, said Dr. Coleman. “In my view, osteoclast inhibition is only part of the story,” he noted.

In the AZURE trial, secondary outcomes examined how the transcription factor MAF interacted with menopausal status and treatment with zoledronic acid. The 79% of patients with tumors that were negative for MAF fluorescence in situ hybridization had improved overall survival (0.69; 95% CI, 0.50-0.94), regardless of menopause status (J Bone Oncol. 2018. doi: 10.1016/j.jbo.2018.09.008). “There’s probably a need to merge the treatment: in this case, the bisphosphonate, the biology of the cancer, and the environment the cancer finds itself in,” noted Dr. Coleman.

“From the cancer perspective, bisphosphonates have transformed the experience for many of our patients with advanced disease, and now we’re working to see great improvements, at least in common diseases such as postmenopausal breast cancer,” he concluded.

Dr. Coleman reports being a paid employee of prIME Oncology (until March 2019); is a consultant for Amgen, Astellas, Boehringer Ingelheim, Scandell, and Biocon; is on the speakers bureau for Amgen and Eisai; holds intellectual property rights for a biomarker being developed by Inbiomotion; and is on the scientific advisory board for Inbiomotion.

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

– Cumulative evidence over the years has shown that bisphosphonates reduce distant metastases in postmenopausal women with early-stage breast cancer but that effect does not seem to extend to younger, premenopausal women who may experience adverse effects with bisphosphonates, nor has it been replicated in other types of cancer, such as lung or prostate, Robert Coleman MBBS, MD, said in a presentation marking the 50th anniversary of the publication of the first papers describing the then-new class of drugs.

“We have some science – at least in postmenopausal breast cancer – [showing] that we’re really making a difference, but we don’t understand why it’s not working in the other patients or in the other diseases,” said Dr. Coleman of the University of Sheffield (England) at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.
 

Mixed findings in early studies

Early studies showing the metastases-prevention effects of bisphosphonates were with clodronate. In one study, Dr. Coleman said, researchers found that oral clodronate at a dose of 1,600 mg/day as a supplementary treatment to standard treatment for primary, operable breast cancer reduced the risk of bone metastases in a cohort of 1,069 patients with stage 1-3 breast cancer (hazard ratio, 0.692; P = .043) over 5 years (Breast Cancer Res. 2006 Mar 15. doi: 10.1186/bcr1384). Another trial, of 302 patients with breast cancer who received oral clodronate at 1,600 mg/day for 2 years, found that 20.4% of patients who received oral clodronate had died by 8.5 years of follow-up, compared with 40.7% of those who did not receive the intervention (Ann Oncol. 2008;19[12]:2007-11).

However, those results were in conflict with findings from an earlier study in which researchers followed patients with breast cancer who received 1,600 mg/day of oral clodronate or placebo for 3 years. They found a similar number of bone metastases in the clodronate and placebo groups (32% and 29%, respectively), as well as a lower overall disease-free survival rate at 10 years for the clodronate group, compared with the placebo group (45% vs. 58%; Acta Oncol. 2004;43[7]:650-6).“For various other reasons, clodronate did not gain traction as a therapeutic strategy in early-stage breast cancer,” said Dr. Coleman, although emerging evidence showed that other bisphosphonate agents were effective in some patients with breast cancer.

In a 2009 article, Gnant et al. reported that premenopausal patients, who underwent primary surgery for stage 1 or stage 2 breast cancer and received standard goserelin therapy for induced menopause and endocrine therapy (either tamoxifen or anastrozole) in addition to treatment with zoledronic acid, had a disease-free survival rate of 94.0% at a median 47.8 months of follow-up (N Eng J Med. 2009;360:679-91). After a median 94.4 months of follow-up, the investigators reported a lower risk of disease progression (HR, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.99; P = .042) and death (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.43-1.02; P = .064; Ann Oncol. 2015;26[2]:313-20).

In his own group, Dr. Coleman and colleagues recruited patients with early-stage breast cancer in the AZURE trial, a phase 3 study of 3,360 patients who received standard therapy with or without zoledronic acid 4 mg every 3-4 weeks for 6 doses, followed by 8 doses every 3 months then 5 doses every 6 months (N Eng J Med. 2011;365:1396-405). “We saw no effect,” said Dr. Coleman. “[That was] very different from what was shown by [Dr.] Gnant.”

For a subgroup of postmenopausal patients, Dr. Coleman and colleagues found that the adjusted HR for disease-free survival was 0.82 for women who were more than 5 years postmenopausal (95% CI, 0.67-1.00) at the time of breast cancer and bisphosphonate treatment, but women younger than 40 years had worse survival outcomes at 10 years (HR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.09-2.22) and had a significantly higher risk of death from breast cancer (HR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.16-2.40; J Bone Oncol. 2018 Sep 27. doi: 10.1016/j.jbo.2018.09.008).
 

 

 

Trying to reconcile disparate findings

Those findings left his group with a dilemma, said Dr. Coleman. “Do we start again and run trials, and wait another 10 years, or is there a shortcut to [understanding] what’s going on?” he asked.

In a meta-analysis of all trials from the Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group in 2015 examining adjuvant bisphosphonate treatment and placebo in patients with early-stage breast cancer, intent-to-treat analyses did not show significant benefit after therapy, but postmenopausal women (11,767 women in 36 trials) saw a clear benefit in all recurrence (rate ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.78-0.94), bone recurrence (RR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.60-0.86), and breast cancer–related mortality (RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.73-0.93; Lancet. 2015 Jul 23. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736[15]60908-4). The effect seemed to be similar, regardless of bisphosphonate type, with other results seen across trials that used clodronate, zoledronic acid, pamidronate, or ibandronate.

“Although those outcome differences might look quite small for a common disease, that’s a really big effect. Reducing one-sixth of breast cancer deaths at 10 years is the equivalent of saving 10,000 lives across the [European Union], and about half that in the United States,” said Dr. Coleman, noting that guidelines in North America from the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the European Society for Medical Oncology now support adjuvant bisphosphonates in postmenopausal patients with breast cancer.

However, bisphosphonates’ effect on breast cancer does not extend to other cancers, such as non–small cell lung cancer or prostate cancer. In other absorption inhibitors such as denosumab, there also seems to be no benefit for patients with breast cancer, including in postmenopausal patient subgroups, said Dr. Coleman. “In my view, osteoclast inhibition is only part of the story,” he noted.

In the AZURE trial, secondary outcomes examined how the transcription factor MAF interacted with menopausal status and treatment with zoledronic acid. The 79% of patients with tumors that were negative for MAF fluorescence in situ hybridization had improved overall survival (0.69; 95% CI, 0.50-0.94), regardless of menopause status (J Bone Oncol. 2018. doi: 10.1016/j.jbo.2018.09.008). “There’s probably a need to merge the treatment: in this case, the bisphosphonate, the biology of the cancer, and the environment the cancer finds itself in,” noted Dr. Coleman.

“From the cancer perspective, bisphosphonates have transformed the experience for many of our patients with advanced disease, and now we’re working to see great improvements, at least in common diseases such as postmenopausal breast cancer,” he concluded.

Dr. Coleman reports being a paid employee of prIME Oncology (until March 2019); is a consultant for Amgen, Astellas, Boehringer Ingelheim, Scandell, and Biocon; is on the speakers bureau for Amgen and Eisai; holds intellectual property rights for a biomarker being developed by Inbiomotion; and is on the scientific advisory board for Inbiomotion.

– Cumulative evidence over the years has shown that bisphosphonates reduce distant metastases in postmenopausal women with early-stage breast cancer but that effect does not seem to extend to younger, premenopausal women who may experience adverse effects with bisphosphonates, nor has it been replicated in other types of cancer, such as lung or prostate, Robert Coleman MBBS, MD, said in a presentation marking the 50th anniversary of the publication of the first papers describing the then-new class of drugs.

“We have some science – at least in postmenopausal breast cancer – [showing] that we’re really making a difference, but we don’t understand why it’s not working in the other patients or in the other diseases,” said Dr. Coleman of the University of Sheffield (England) at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.
 

Mixed findings in early studies

Early studies showing the metastases-prevention effects of bisphosphonates were with clodronate. In one study, Dr. Coleman said, researchers found that oral clodronate at a dose of 1,600 mg/day as a supplementary treatment to standard treatment for primary, operable breast cancer reduced the risk of bone metastases in a cohort of 1,069 patients with stage 1-3 breast cancer (hazard ratio, 0.692; P = .043) over 5 years (Breast Cancer Res. 2006 Mar 15. doi: 10.1186/bcr1384). Another trial, of 302 patients with breast cancer who received oral clodronate at 1,600 mg/day for 2 years, found that 20.4% of patients who received oral clodronate had died by 8.5 years of follow-up, compared with 40.7% of those who did not receive the intervention (Ann Oncol. 2008;19[12]:2007-11).

However, those results were in conflict with findings from an earlier study in which researchers followed patients with breast cancer who received 1,600 mg/day of oral clodronate or placebo for 3 years. They found a similar number of bone metastases in the clodronate and placebo groups (32% and 29%, respectively), as well as a lower overall disease-free survival rate at 10 years for the clodronate group, compared with the placebo group (45% vs. 58%; Acta Oncol. 2004;43[7]:650-6).“For various other reasons, clodronate did not gain traction as a therapeutic strategy in early-stage breast cancer,” said Dr. Coleman, although emerging evidence showed that other bisphosphonate agents were effective in some patients with breast cancer.

In a 2009 article, Gnant et al. reported that premenopausal patients, who underwent primary surgery for stage 1 or stage 2 breast cancer and received standard goserelin therapy for induced menopause and endocrine therapy (either tamoxifen or anastrozole) in addition to treatment with zoledronic acid, had a disease-free survival rate of 94.0% at a median 47.8 months of follow-up (N Eng J Med. 2009;360:679-91). After a median 94.4 months of follow-up, the investigators reported a lower risk of disease progression (HR, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.99; P = .042) and death (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.43-1.02; P = .064; Ann Oncol. 2015;26[2]:313-20).

In his own group, Dr. Coleman and colleagues recruited patients with early-stage breast cancer in the AZURE trial, a phase 3 study of 3,360 patients who received standard therapy with or without zoledronic acid 4 mg every 3-4 weeks for 6 doses, followed by 8 doses every 3 months then 5 doses every 6 months (N Eng J Med. 2011;365:1396-405). “We saw no effect,” said Dr. Coleman. “[That was] very different from what was shown by [Dr.] Gnant.”

For a subgroup of postmenopausal patients, Dr. Coleman and colleagues found that the adjusted HR for disease-free survival was 0.82 for women who were more than 5 years postmenopausal (95% CI, 0.67-1.00) at the time of breast cancer and bisphosphonate treatment, but women younger than 40 years had worse survival outcomes at 10 years (HR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.09-2.22) and had a significantly higher risk of death from breast cancer (HR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.16-2.40; J Bone Oncol. 2018 Sep 27. doi: 10.1016/j.jbo.2018.09.008).
 

 

 

Trying to reconcile disparate findings

Those findings left his group with a dilemma, said Dr. Coleman. “Do we start again and run trials, and wait another 10 years, or is there a shortcut to [understanding] what’s going on?” he asked.

In a meta-analysis of all trials from the Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group in 2015 examining adjuvant bisphosphonate treatment and placebo in patients with early-stage breast cancer, intent-to-treat analyses did not show significant benefit after therapy, but postmenopausal women (11,767 women in 36 trials) saw a clear benefit in all recurrence (rate ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.78-0.94), bone recurrence (RR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.60-0.86), and breast cancer–related mortality (RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.73-0.93; Lancet. 2015 Jul 23. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736[15]60908-4). The effect seemed to be similar, regardless of bisphosphonate type, with other results seen across trials that used clodronate, zoledronic acid, pamidronate, or ibandronate.

“Although those outcome differences might look quite small for a common disease, that’s a really big effect. Reducing one-sixth of breast cancer deaths at 10 years is the equivalent of saving 10,000 lives across the [European Union], and about half that in the United States,” said Dr. Coleman, noting that guidelines in North America from the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the European Society for Medical Oncology now support adjuvant bisphosphonates in postmenopausal patients with breast cancer.

However, bisphosphonates’ effect on breast cancer does not extend to other cancers, such as non–small cell lung cancer or prostate cancer. In other absorption inhibitors such as denosumab, there also seems to be no benefit for patients with breast cancer, including in postmenopausal patient subgroups, said Dr. Coleman. “In my view, osteoclast inhibition is only part of the story,” he noted.

In the AZURE trial, secondary outcomes examined how the transcription factor MAF interacted with menopausal status and treatment with zoledronic acid. The 79% of patients with tumors that were negative for MAF fluorescence in situ hybridization had improved overall survival (0.69; 95% CI, 0.50-0.94), regardless of menopause status (J Bone Oncol. 2018. doi: 10.1016/j.jbo.2018.09.008). “There’s probably a need to merge the treatment: in this case, the bisphosphonate, the biology of the cancer, and the environment the cancer finds itself in,” noted Dr. Coleman.

“From the cancer perspective, bisphosphonates have transformed the experience for many of our patients with advanced disease, and now we’re working to see great improvements, at least in common diseases such as postmenopausal breast cancer,” he concluded.

Dr. Coleman reports being a paid employee of prIME Oncology (until March 2019); is a consultant for Amgen, Astellas, Boehringer Ingelheim, Scandell, and Biocon; is on the speakers bureau for Amgen and Eisai; holds intellectual property rights for a biomarker being developed by Inbiomotion; and is on the scientific advisory board for Inbiomotion.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Article Source

EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM ASBMR 2019

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

EULAR releases recommendations for management of Sjögren’s syndrome

Article Type
Changed
Fri, 11/08/2019 - 12:33

The European League Against Rheumatism has released its first recommendations for the management of Sjögren’s syndrome with topical and systemic treatments.

Dr. Sara McCoy

First author Manuel Ramos-Casals, MD, PhD, of Hospital Clinic de Barcelona Institut Clinic de Medicina i Dermatologia and colleagues on the multinational, multispecialty EULAR Sjögren Syndrome Task Force Group said the EULAR recommendations “synthesize current thinking” of management for Sjögren’s syndrome, which is complicated by individualized treatment that does not address the systemic disease and for which therapeutic decisions are often made based on expert opinion and personal experience because of a lack of data.

“Sjögren’s syndrome is generally treated through symptom management,” noted Sara McCoy, MD, who is director of the University of Wisconsin Health Sjögren’s Syndrome Clinic and was not involved in the recommendations, which were published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. “Although we have measures to address these symptoms, we do not have any approved therapy that ameliorates the driving cause.”

There is limited high-quality evidence for many of the therapies discussed in the recommendations: In total, 9 randomized controlled trials, 18 prospective studies, and 5 case-control studies were included as evidence in the recommendations, and many involved a small number of patients.

The first overarching recommendation says that patients with Sjögren’s syndrome should be managed at centers of expertise using a multidisciplinary approach, the authors wrote. Two other overarching recommendations focus on how to manage certain patient cases. In cases of dryness, first-line therapy should include topical therapies for symptomatic relief, while clinicians should consider systemic therapies for patients with active systemic disease. All three overarching recommendations had a high level of agreement among task force members.

The task force also offered 12 specific recommendations on disease management, which take an “algorithmic approach” to Sjögren’s syndrome management that is guided by the EULAR Sjögren’s Syndrome Disease Activity Index (ESSDAI), Dr. McCoy said in an interview.

“The EULAR recommendations structure a clear approach to treatment of Sjögren’s manifestations, ranging from oral and ocular sicca management, to treatment of uncommon but severe systemic involvement of Sjögren’s,” she said.

Before treating patients for oral dryness symptoms, clinicians should evaluate salivary function at baseline using unstimulated whole salivary flows. First-line therapeutic approaches for oral dryness can include nonpharmacologic stimulation in cases of mild salivary gland dysfunction, pharmacologic stimulation in cases of moderate dysfunction, and substitution of saliva in cases of severe dysfunction, the authors said.

Ocular dryness should be assessed using ocular staining score followed by ocular surface–disease index, and once identified, it can be managed with artificial tears and ocular gels or ointments as first-line therapy. Topical immunosuppressive-containing drops and autologous serum eye drops are options for more severe or refractory ocular dryness.

Patients who have fatigue or pain associated with Sjögren’s syndrome should have their fatigue or pain scored with the EULAR Sjögren’s Syndrome Patient Reported Index (ESSPRI), and any concomitant disease should also be evaluated. Clinicians should consider acetaminophen and NSAIDs for treatment of acute musculoskeletal pain and other pain-modifying agents, such as hydroxychloroquine in cases of articular pain, despite a lack of evidence showing its efficacy in trials.



For systemic disease, the task force advised matching treatment to the organ(s) involved and using the ESSDAI to evaluate disease severity., They said that “patients presenting with at least moderate activity in one clinical domain, or with a global moderate disease activity score” of 5 or higher can be considered for systemic therapy.

Although many clinicians use glucocorticoids (GCs) for managing Sjögren’s syndrome, there is no evidence of the treatment’s efficacy in systemic disease. The task force recommended using glucocorticoids such as methylprednisolone at the minimum dose and withdrawing use “as soon as possible” in patients with inactive disease. “Based on the potential development of chronic damage in patients with uncontrolled systemic disease, some patients may require long-term therapy with GCs, especially those with severe organ impairments,” Dr. Ramos-Casals and colleagues wrote. “In these patients, the addition of immunosuppressive agents as GC-sparing agents is justified, always weighing the potential benefits and risks.” Because of a lack of head-to-head studies of different immunosuppressive agents, the task force did not recommend one particular agent over another.

One recommendation that contained a high level of evidence was for the use of B-cell targeted therapies for patients with severe, refractory systemic disease. Efficacy of rituximab was mixed in studies totaling more than 400 patients, but generally showed a positive outcome in at least one of the following areas: global response, organ-specific response, ESSDAI reduction, and prednisone reduction. The task force recommended that rituximab “may be considered” in “patients with severe, refractory systemic disease” and may be best for those with symptoms linked to cryoglobulinemic-associated vasculitis, with the potential of using belimumab (Benlysta) as rescue therapy. While systemic organ-specific therapeutic approaches vary, the general rule should be to treat with GCs first, followed by immunosuppressive agents and biologics as second-line therapy in cases refractory to GCs, either sequentially or in combination, the authors said.

For patients with B-cell lymphoma, clinicians should use individualized treatment based on the World Health Organization 2016 histologic subtype and the stage of the disease. While some clinicians employ a “watchful waiting” approach to treating low-grade hematologic neoplasia, “the decision to treat low-grade lymphomas or not must be discussed in a multidisciplinary committee, taking into account the fact that they are linked to the disease activity and are the ultimate stage of autoimmune B-cell activation,” the authors wrote.

The task force also defined a number of future research agenda goals for Sjögren’s syndrome treatment management, including developing personalized therapeutic approaches, finding predictors of biological response to agents used in treatment, and identifying biomarkers of poor outcomes.

In addition, EULAR acknowledged some research gaps exist in the guidelines for particular symptoms of Sjögren’s syndrome, such as in the case of fatigue. “The EULAR recommendations mention the common association of fatigue with Sjögren’s syndrome, though acknowledge that fatigue is more commonly seen in the same demographic cohort as Sjögren’s,” Dr. McCoy said. “Aside from exercise, there remains little available to address this common and burdensome symptom amongst Sjögren’s patients. Overall, this is a pertinent gap in knowledge in our Sjögren’s patients.”

The Sjögren’s syndrome recommendations were funded by EULAR. Many task force members reported relationships with industry in the form of advisory board and speaker’s bureau memberships, consultancies, and grants. Dr. McCoy reported serving on a data monitoring committee for Bristol-Myers Squibb unrelated to the data in the EULAR recommendations.

SOURCE: Ramos-Casals M et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2019 Oct 31. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-216114

Publications
Topics
Sections

The European League Against Rheumatism has released its first recommendations for the management of Sjögren’s syndrome with topical and systemic treatments.

Dr. Sara McCoy

First author Manuel Ramos-Casals, MD, PhD, of Hospital Clinic de Barcelona Institut Clinic de Medicina i Dermatologia and colleagues on the multinational, multispecialty EULAR Sjögren Syndrome Task Force Group said the EULAR recommendations “synthesize current thinking” of management for Sjögren’s syndrome, which is complicated by individualized treatment that does not address the systemic disease and for which therapeutic decisions are often made based on expert opinion and personal experience because of a lack of data.

“Sjögren’s syndrome is generally treated through symptom management,” noted Sara McCoy, MD, who is director of the University of Wisconsin Health Sjögren’s Syndrome Clinic and was not involved in the recommendations, which were published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. “Although we have measures to address these symptoms, we do not have any approved therapy that ameliorates the driving cause.”

There is limited high-quality evidence for many of the therapies discussed in the recommendations: In total, 9 randomized controlled trials, 18 prospective studies, and 5 case-control studies were included as evidence in the recommendations, and many involved a small number of patients.

The first overarching recommendation says that patients with Sjögren’s syndrome should be managed at centers of expertise using a multidisciplinary approach, the authors wrote. Two other overarching recommendations focus on how to manage certain patient cases. In cases of dryness, first-line therapy should include topical therapies for symptomatic relief, while clinicians should consider systemic therapies for patients with active systemic disease. All three overarching recommendations had a high level of agreement among task force members.

The task force also offered 12 specific recommendations on disease management, which take an “algorithmic approach” to Sjögren’s syndrome management that is guided by the EULAR Sjögren’s Syndrome Disease Activity Index (ESSDAI), Dr. McCoy said in an interview.

“The EULAR recommendations structure a clear approach to treatment of Sjögren’s manifestations, ranging from oral and ocular sicca management, to treatment of uncommon but severe systemic involvement of Sjögren’s,” she said.

Before treating patients for oral dryness symptoms, clinicians should evaluate salivary function at baseline using unstimulated whole salivary flows. First-line therapeutic approaches for oral dryness can include nonpharmacologic stimulation in cases of mild salivary gland dysfunction, pharmacologic stimulation in cases of moderate dysfunction, and substitution of saliva in cases of severe dysfunction, the authors said.

Ocular dryness should be assessed using ocular staining score followed by ocular surface–disease index, and once identified, it can be managed with artificial tears and ocular gels or ointments as first-line therapy. Topical immunosuppressive-containing drops and autologous serum eye drops are options for more severe or refractory ocular dryness.

Patients who have fatigue or pain associated with Sjögren’s syndrome should have their fatigue or pain scored with the EULAR Sjögren’s Syndrome Patient Reported Index (ESSPRI), and any concomitant disease should also be evaluated. Clinicians should consider acetaminophen and NSAIDs for treatment of acute musculoskeletal pain and other pain-modifying agents, such as hydroxychloroquine in cases of articular pain, despite a lack of evidence showing its efficacy in trials.



For systemic disease, the task force advised matching treatment to the organ(s) involved and using the ESSDAI to evaluate disease severity., They said that “patients presenting with at least moderate activity in one clinical domain, or with a global moderate disease activity score” of 5 or higher can be considered for systemic therapy.

Although many clinicians use glucocorticoids (GCs) for managing Sjögren’s syndrome, there is no evidence of the treatment’s efficacy in systemic disease. The task force recommended using glucocorticoids such as methylprednisolone at the minimum dose and withdrawing use “as soon as possible” in patients with inactive disease. “Based on the potential development of chronic damage in patients with uncontrolled systemic disease, some patients may require long-term therapy with GCs, especially those with severe organ impairments,” Dr. Ramos-Casals and colleagues wrote. “In these patients, the addition of immunosuppressive agents as GC-sparing agents is justified, always weighing the potential benefits and risks.” Because of a lack of head-to-head studies of different immunosuppressive agents, the task force did not recommend one particular agent over another.

One recommendation that contained a high level of evidence was for the use of B-cell targeted therapies for patients with severe, refractory systemic disease. Efficacy of rituximab was mixed in studies totaling more than 400 patients, but generally showed a positive outcome in at least one of the following areas: global response, organ-specific response, ESSDAI reduction, and prednisone reduction. The task force recommended that rituximab “may be considered” in “patients with severe, refractory systemic disease” and may be best for those with symptoms linked to cryoglobulinemic-associated vasculitis, with the potential of using belimumab (Benlysta) as rescue therapy. While systemic organ-specific therapeutic approaches vary, the general rule should be to treat with GCs first, followed by immunosuppressive agents and biologics as second-line therapy in cases refractory to GCs, either sequentially or in combination, the authors said.

For patients with B-cell lymphoma, clinicians should use individualized treatment based on the World Health Organization 2016 histologic subtype and the stage of the disease. While some clinicians employ a “watchful waiting” approach to treating low-grade hematologic neoplasia, “the decision to treat low-grade lymphomas or not must be discussed in a multidisciplinary committee, taking into account the fact that they are linked to the disease activity and are the ultimate stage of autoimmune B-cell activation,” the authors wrote.

The task force also defined a number of future research agenda goals for Sjögren’s syndrome treatment management, including developing personalized therapeutic approaches, finding predictors of biological response to agents used in treatment, and identifying biomarkers of poor outcomes.

In addition, EULAR acknowledged some research gaps exist in the guidelines for particular symptoms of Sjögren’s syndrome, such as in the case of fatigue. “The EULAR recommendations mention the common association of fatigue with Sjögren’s syndrome, though acknowledge that fatigue is more commonly seen in the same demographic cohort as Sjögren’s,” Dr. McCoy said. “Aside from exercise, there remains little available to address this common and burdensome symptom amongst Sjögren’s patients. Overall, this is a pertinent gap in knowledge in our Sjögren’s patients.”

The Sjögren’s syndrome recommendations were funded by EULAR. Many task force members reported relationships with industry in the form of advisory board and speaker’s bureau memberships, consultancies, and grants. Dr. McCoy reported serving on a data monitoring committee for Bristol-Myers Squibb unrelated to the data in the EULAR recommendations.

SOURCE: Ramos-Casals M et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2019 Oct 31. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-216114

The European League Against Rheumatism has released its first recommendations for the management of Sjögren’s syndrome with topical and systemic treatments.

Dr. Sara McCoy

First author Manuel Ramos-Casals, MD, PhD, of Hospital Clinic de Barcelona Institut Clinic de Medicina i Dermatologia and colleagues on the multinational, multispecialty EULAR Sjögren Syndrome Task Force Group said the EULAR recommendations “synthesize current thinking” of management for Sjögren’s syndrome, which is complicated by individualized treatment that does not address the systemic disease and for which therapeutic decisions are often made based on expert opinion and personal experience because of a lack of data.

“Sjögren’s syndrome is generally treated through symptom management,” noted Sara McCoy, MD, who is director of the University of Wisconsin Health Sjögren’s Syndrome Clinic and was not involved in the recommendations, which were published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. “Although we have measures to address these symptoms, we do not have any approved therapy that ameliorates the driving cause.”

There is limited high-quality evidence for many of the therapies discussed in the recommendations: In total, 9 randomized controlled trials, 18 prospective studies, and 5 case-control studies were included as evidence in the recommendations, and many involved a small number of patients.

The first overarching recommendation says that patients with Sjögren’s syndrome should be managed at centers of expertise using a multidisciplinary approach, the authors wrote. Two other overarching recommendations focus on how to manage certain patient cases. In cases of dryness, first-line therapy should include topical therapies for symptomatic relief, while clinicians should consider systemic therapies for patients with active systemic disease. All three overarching recommendations had a high level of agreement among task force members.

The task force also offered 12 specific recommendations on disease management, which take an “algorithmic approach” to Sjögren’s syndrome management that is guided by the EULAR Sjögren’s Syndrome Disease Activity Index (ESSDAI), Dr. McCoy said in an interview.

“The EULAR recommendations structure a clear approach to treatment of Sjögren’s manifestations, ranging from oral and ocular sicca management, to treatment of uncommon but severe systemic involvement of Sjögren’s,” she said.

Before treating patients for oral dryness symptoms, clinicians should evaluate salivary function at baseline using unstimulated whole salivary flows. First-line therapeutic approaches for oral dryness can include nonpharmacologic stimulation in cases of mild salivary gland dysfunction, pharmacologic stimulation in cases of moderate dysfunction, and substitution of saliva in cases of severe dysfunction, the authors said.

Ocular dryness should be assessed using ocular staining score followed by ocular surface–disease index, and once identified, it can be managed with artificial tears and ocular gels or ointments as first-line therapy. Topical immunosuppressive-containing drops and autologous serum eye drops are options for more severe or refractory ocular dryness.

Patients who have fatigue or pain associated with Sjögren’s syndrome should have their fatigue or pain scored with the EULAR Sjögren’s Syndrome Patient Reported Index (ESSPRI), and any concomitant disease should also be evaluated. Clinicians should consider acetaminophen and NSAIDs for treatment of acute musculoskeletal pain and other pain-modifying agents, such as hydroxychloroquine in cases of articular pain, despite a lack of evidence showing its efficacy in trials.



For systemic disease, the task force advised matching treatment to the organ(s) involved and using the ESSDAI to evaluate disease severity., They said that “patients presenting with at least moderate activity in one clinical domain, or with a global moderate disease activity score” of 5 or higher can be considered for systemic therapy.

Although many clinicians use glucocorticoids (GCs) for managing Sjögren’s syndrome, there is no evidence of the treatment’s efficacy in systemic disease. The task force recommended using glucocorticoids such as methylprednisolone at the minimum dose and withdrawing use “as soon as possible” in patients with inactive disease. “Based on the potential development of chronic damage in patients with uncontrolled systemic disease, some patients may require long-term therapy with GCs, especially those with severe organ impairments,” Dr. Ramos-Casals and colleagues wrote. “In these patients, the addition of immunosuppressive agents as GC-sparing agents is justified, always weighing the potential benefits and risks.” Because of a lack of head-to-head studies of different immunosuppressive agents, the task force did not recommend one particular agent over another.

One recommendation that contained a high level of evidence was for the use of B-cell targeted therapies for patients with severe, refractory systemic disease. Efficacy of rituximab was mixed in studies totaling more than 400 patients, but generally showed a positive outcome in at least one of the following areas: global response, organ-specific response, ESSDAI reduction, and prednisone reduction. The task force recommended that rituximab “may be considered” in “patients with severe, refractory systemic disease” and may be best for those with symptoms linked to cryoglobulinemic-associated vasculitis, with the potential of using belimumab (Benlysta) as rescue therapy. While systemic organ-specific therapeutic approaches vary, the general rule should be to treat with GCs first, followed by immunosuppressive agents and biologics as second-line therapy in cases refractory to GCs, either sequentially or in combination, the authors said.

For patients with B-cell lymphoma, clinicians should use individualized treatment based on the World Health Organization 2016 histologic subtype and the stage of the disease. While some clinicians employ a “watchful waiting” approach to treating low-grade hematologic neoplasia, “the decision to treat low-grade lymphomas or not must be discussed in a multidisciplinary committee, taking into account the fact that they are linked to the disease activity and are the ultimate stage of autoimmune B-cell activation,” the authors wrote.

The task force also defined a number of future research agenda goals for Sjögren’s syndrome treatment management, including developing personalized therapeutic approaches, finding predictors of biological response to agents used in treatment, and identifying biomarkers of poor outcomes.

In addition, EULAR acknowledged some research gaps exist in the guidelines for particular symptoms of Sjögren’s syndrome, such as in the case of fatigue. “The EULAR recommendations mention the common association of fatigue with Sjögren’s syndrome, though acknowledge that fatigue is more commonly seen in the same demographic cohort as Sjögren’s,” Dr. McCoy said. “Aside from exercise, there remains little available to address this common and burdensome symptom amongst Sjögren’s patients. Overall, this is a pertinent gap in knowledge in our Sjögren’s patients.”

The Sjögren’s syndrome recommendations were funded by EULAR. Many task force members reported relationships with industry in the form of advisory board and speaker’s bureau memberships, consultancies, and grants. Dr. McCoy reported serving on a data monitoring committee for Bristol-Myers Squibb unrelated to the data in the EULAR recommendations.

SOURCE: Ramos-Casals M et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2019 Oct 31. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-216114

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

FROM ANNALS OF THE RHEUMATIC DISEASES

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

Probiotics with Lactobacillus reduce loss in spine BMD for postmenopausal women

Article Type
Changed
Mon, 11/18/2019 - 14:07
Display Headline
Probiotics with Lactobacillus reduce loss in spine BMD for postmenopausal women

 

Postmenopausal women who received a probiotic treatment of three Lactobacillus strains had significantly less lumbar spine bone loss, compared with women in a placebo group, according to recent research published in The Lancet Rheumatology.

CharlieAJA/Thinkstock

“The menopausal and early postmenopausal lumbar spine bone loss is substantial in women, and by using a prevention therapy with bacteria naturally occurring in the human gut microbiota we observed a close to complete protection against lumbar spine bone loss in healthy postmenopausal women,” Per-Anders Jansson, MD, chief physician at the University of Gothenburg (Sweden), and colleagues wrote in their study.

Dr. Jansson and colleagues performed a double-blind trial at four centers in Sweden in which 249 postmenopausal women were randomized during April-November 2016 to receive probiotics consisting of three Lactobacillus strains or placebo once per day for 12 months. Participants were healthy women, neither underweight nor overweight, and were postmenopausal, which was defined as being 2-12 years or less from last menstruation. The Lactobacillus strains, L. paracasei 8700:2 (DSM 13434), L. plantarum Heal 9 (DSM 15312), and L. plantarum Heal 19 (DSM 15313), were equally represented in a capsule at a dose of 1 x 1010 colony-forming unit per capsule. The researchers measured the lumbar spine bone mineral density (LS-BMD) at baseline and at 12 months, and also evaluated the safety profile of participants in both the probiotic and placebo groups.

Overall, 234 participants (94%) had data available for analysis at the end of the study. There was a significant reduction in LS-BMD loss for participants who received the probiotic treatment, compared with women in the control group (mean difference, 0.71%; 95% confidence interval, 0.06%-1.35%), while there was a significant loss in LS-BMD for participants in the placebo group (percentage change, –0.72%; 95% CI, –1.22% to –0.22%) compared with loss in the probiotic group (percentage change, –0.01%; 95% CI, –0.50% to 0.48%). Using analysis of covariance, the researchers found the probiotic group had reduced LS-BMD loss after adjustment for factors such as study site, age at baseline, BMD at baseline, and number of years from menopause (mean difference, 7.44 mg/cm2; 95% CI, 0.38 to 14.50).

In a subgroup analysis of women above and below the median time since menopause at baseline (6 years), participants in the probiotic group who were below the median time saw a significant protective effect of Lactobacillus treatment (mean difference, 1.08%; 95% CI, 0.20%-1.96%), compared with women above the median time (mean difference, 0.31%; 95% CI, –0.62% to 1.23%).

Researchers also examined the effects of probiotic treatment on total hip and femoral neck BMD as secondary endpoints. Lactobacillus treatment did not appear to affect total hip (–1.01%; 95% CI, –1.65% to –0.37%) or trochanter BMD (–1.13%; 95% CI, –2.27% to 0.20%), but femoral neck BMD was reduced in the probiotic group (–1.34%; 95% CI, –2.09% to –0.58%), compared with the placebo group (–0.88%; 95% CI, –1.64% to –0.13%).

Limitations of the study included examining only one dose of Lactobacillus treatment and no analysis of the effect of short-chain fatty acids on LS-BMD. The researchers noted that “recent studies have shown that short-chain fatty acids, which are generated by fermentation of complex carbohydrates by the gut microbiota, are important regulators of both bone formation and resorption.”

The researchers also acknowledged that the LS-BMD effect size for the probiotic treatment over the 12 months was a lower magnitude, compared with first-line treatments for osteoporosis in postmenopausal women using bisphosphonates. “Further long-term studies should be done to evaluate if the bone-protective effect becomes more pronounced with prolonged treatment with the Lactobacillus strains used in the present study,” they said.

In a related editorial, Shivani Sahni, PhD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and Connie M. Weaver, PhD, of Purdue University, West Lafayette, Ind., reiterated that the effect size of probiotics is “of far less magnitude” than such treatments as bisphosphonates and expressed concern about the reduction of femoral neck BMD in the probiotic group, which was not explained in the study (Lancet Rheumatol. 2019 Nov;1[3]:e135-e137. doi: 10.1016/S2665-9913(19)30073-6). There is a need to learn the optimum dose of probiotics as well as which Lactobacillus strains should be used in future studies, as the strains chosen by Jansson et al. were based on results in mice.

In the meantime, patients might be better off choosing dietary interventions with proven bone protection and no documented negative effects on the hip, such as prebiotics like soluble corn fiber and dried prunes, in tandem with drug therapies, Dr. Sahni and Dr. Weaver said.

“Although Jansson and colleagues’ results are important, more work is needed before such probiotics are ready for consumers,” they concluded.

This study was funded by Probi, which employs two of the study’s authors. Three authors reported being coinventors of a patent involving the effects of probiotics in osteoporosis treatment, and one author is listed as an inventor on a pending patent application on probiotic compositions and uses. Dr. Sahni reported receiving grants from Dairy Management. Dr. Weaver reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Jansson P-A et al. Lancet Rheumatol. 2019 Nov;1(3):e154-e162. doi: 10.1016/S2665-9913(19)30068-2

Publications
Topics
Sections

 

Postmenopausal women who received a probiotic treatment of three Lactobacillus strains had significantly less lumbar spine bone loss, compared with women in a placebo group, according to recent research published in The Lancet Rheumatology.

CharlieAJA/Thinkstock

“The menopausal and early postmenopausal lumbar spine bone loss is substantial in women, and by using a prevention therapy with bacteria naturally occurring in the human gut microbiota we observed a close to complete protection against lumbar spine bone loss in healthy postmenopausal women,” Per-Anders Jansson, MD, chief physician at the University of Gothenburg (Sweden), and colleagues wrote in their study.

Dr. Jansson and colleagues performed a double-blind trial at four centers in Sweden in which 249 postmenopausal women were randomized during April-November 2016 to receive probiotics consisting of three Lactobacillus strains or placebo once per day for 12 months. Participants were healthy women, neither underweight nor overweight, and were postmenopausal, which was defined as being 2-12 years or less from last menstruation. The Lactobacillus strains, L. paracasei 8700:2 (DSM 13434), L. plantarum Heal 9 (DSM 15312), and L. plantarum Heal 19 (DSM 15313), were equally represented in a capsule at a dose of 1 x 1010 colony-forming unit per capsule. The researchers measured the lumbar spine bone mineral density (LS-BMD) at baseline and at 12 months, and also evaluated the safety profile of participants in both the probiotic and placebo groups.

Overall, 234 participants (94%) had data available for analysis at the end of the study. There was a significant reduction in LS-BMD loss for participants who received the probiotic treatment, compared with women in the control group (mean difference, 0.71%; 95% confidence interval, 0.06%-1.35%), while there was a significant loss in LS-BMD for participants in the placebo group (percentage change, –0.72%; 95% CI, –1.22% to –0.22%) compared with loss in the probiotic group (percentage change, –0.01%; 95% CI, –0.50% to 0.48%). Using analysis of covariance, the researchers found the probiotic group had reduced LS-BMD loss after adjustment for factors such as study site, age at baseline, BMD at baseline, and number of years from menopause (mean difference, 7.44 mg/cm2; 95% CI, 0.38 to 14.50).

In a subgroup analysis of women above and below the median time since menopause at baseline (6 years), participants in the probiotic group who were below the median time saw a significant protective effect of Lactobacillus treatment (mean difference, 1.08%; 95% CI, 0.20%-1.96%), compared with women above the median time (mean difference, 0.31%; 95% CI, –0.62% to 1.23%).

Researchers also examined the effects of probiotic treatment on total hip and femoral neck BMD as secondary endpoints. Lactobacillus treatment did not appear to affect total hip (–1.01%; 95% CI, –1.65% to –0.37%) or trochanter BMD (–1.13%; 95% CI, –2.27% to 0.20%), but femoral neck BMD was reduced in the probiotic group (–1.34%; 95% CI, –2.09% to –0.58%), compared with the placebo group (–0.88%; 95% CI, –1.64% to –0.13%).

Limitations of the study included examining only one dose of Lactobacillus treatment and no analysis of the effect of short-chain fatty acids on LS-BMD. The researchers noted that “recent studies have shown that short-chain fatty acids, which are generated by fermentation of complex carbohydrates by the gut microbiota, are important regulators of both bone formation and resorption.”

The researchers also acknowledged that the LS-BMD effect size for the probiotic treatment over the 12 months was a lower magnitude, compared with first-line treatments for osteoporosis in postmenopausal women using bisphosphonates. “Further long-term studies should be done to evaluate if the bone-protective effect becomes more pronounced with prolonged treatment with the Lactobacillus strains used in the present study,” they said.

In a related editorial, Shivani Sahni, PhD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and Connie M. Weaver, PhD, of Purdue University, West Lafayette, Ind., reiterated that the effect size of probiotics is “of far less magnitude” than such treatments as bisphosphonates and expressed concern about the reduction of femoral neck BMD in the probiotic group, which was not explained in the study (Lancet Rheumatol. 2019 Nov;1[3]:e135-e137. doi: 10.1016/S2665-9913(19)30073-6). There is a need to learn the optimum dose of probiotics as well as which Lactobacillus strains should be used in future studies, as the strains chosen by Jansson et al. were based on results in mice.

In the meantime, patients might be better off choosing dietary interventions with proven bone protection and no documented negative effects on the hip, such as prebiotics like soluble corn fiber and dried prunes, in tandem with drug therapies, Dr. Sahni and Dr. Weaver said.

“Although Jansson and colleagues’ results are important, more work is needed before such probiotics are ready for consumers,” they concluded.

This study was funded by Probi, which employs two of the study’s authors. Three authors reported being coinventors of a patent involving the effects of probiotics in osteoporosis treatment, and one author is listed as an inventor on a pending patent application on probiotic compositions and uses. Dr. Sahni reported receiving grants from Dairy Management. Dr. Weaver reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Jansson P-A et al. Lancet Rheumatol. 2019 Nov;1(3):e154-e162. doi: 10.1016/S2665-9913(19)30068-2

 

Postmenopausal women who received a probiotic treatment of three Lactobacillus strains had significantly less lumbar spine bone loss, compared with women in a placebo group, according to recent research published in The Lancet Rheumatology.

CharlieAJA/Thinkstock

“The menopausal and early postmenopausal lumbar spine bone loss is substantial in women, and by using a prevention therapy with bacteria naturally occurring in the human gut microbiota we observed a close to complete protection against lumbar spine bone loss in healthy postmenopausal women,” Per-Anders Jansson, MD, chief physician at the University of Gothenburg (Sweden), and colleagues wrote in their study.

Dr. Jansson and colleagues performed a double-blind trial at four centers in Sweden in which 249 postmenopausal women were randomized during April-November 2016 to receive probiotics consisting of three Lactobacillus strains or placebo once per day for 12 months. Participants were healthy women, neither underweight nor overweight, and were postmenopausal, which was defined as being 2-12 years or less from last menstruation. The Lactobacillus strains, L. paracasei 8700:2 (DSM 13434), L. plantarum Heal 9 (DSM 15312), and L. plantarum Heal 19 (DSM 15313), were equally represented in a capsule at a dose of 1 x 1010 colony-forming unit per capsule. The researchers measured the lumbar spine bone mineral density (LS-BMD) at baseline and at 12 months, and also evaluated the safety profile of participants in both the probiotic and placebo groups.

Overall, 234 participants (94%) had data available for analysis at the end of the study. There was a significant reduction in LS-BMD loss for participants who received the probiotic treatment, compared with women in the control group (mean difference, 0.71%; 95% confidence interval, 0.06%-1.35%), while there was a significant loss in LS-BMD for participants in the placebo group (percentage change, –0.72%; 95% CI, –1.22% to –0.22%) compared with loss in the probiotic group (percentage change, –0.01%; 95% CI, –0.50% to 0.48%). Using analysis of covariance, the researchers found the probiotic group had reduced LS-BMD loss after adjustment for factors such as study site, age at baseline, BMD at baseline, and number of years from menopause (mean difference, 7.44 mg/cm2; 95% CI, 0.38 to 14.50).

In a subgroup analysis of women above and below the median time since menopause at baseline (6 years), participants in the probiotic group who were below the median time saw a significant protective effect of Lactobacillus treatment (mean difference, 1.08%; 95% CI, 0.20%-1.96%), compared with women above the median time (mean difference, 0.31%; 95% CI, –0.62% to 1.23%).

Researchers also examined the effects of probiotic treatment on total hip and femoral neck BMD as secondary endpoints. Lactobacillus treatment did not appear to affect total hip (–1.01%; 95% CI, –1.65% to –0.37%) or trochanter BMD (–1.13%; 95% CI, –2.27% to 0.20%), but femoral neck BMD was reduced in the probiotic group (–1.34%; 95% CI, –2.09% to –0.58%), compared with the placebo group (–0.88%; 95% CI, –1.64% to –0.13%).

Limitations of the study included examining only one dose of Lactobacillus treatment and no analysis of the effect of short-chain fatty acids on LS-BMD. The researchers noted that “recent studies have shown that short-chain fatty acids, which are generated by fermentation of complex carbohydrates by the gut microbiota, are important regulators of both bone formation and resorption.”

The researchers also acknowledged that the LS-BMD effect size for the probiotic treatment over the 12 months was a lower magnitude, compared with first-line treatments for osteoporosis in postmenopausal women using bisphosphonates. “Further long-term studies should be done to evaluate if the bone-protective effect becomes more pronounced with prolonged treatment with the Lactobacillus strains used in the present study,” they said.

In a related editorial, Shivani Sahni, PhD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and Connie M. Weaver, PhD, of Purdue University, West Lafayette, Ind., reiterated that the effect size of probiotics is “of far less magnitude” than such treatments as bisphosphonates and expressed concern about the reduction of femoral neck BMD in the probiotic group, which was not explained in the study (Lancet Rheumatol. 2019 Nov;1[3]:e135-e137. doi: 10.1016/S2665-9913(19)30073-6). There is a need to learn the optimum dose of probiotics as well as which Lactobacillus strains should be used in future studies, as the strains chosen by Jansson et al. were based on results in mice.

In the meantime, patients might be better off choosing dietary interventions with proven bone protection and no documented negative effects on the hip, such as prebiotics like soluble corn fiber and dried prunes, in tandem with drug therapies, Dr. Sahni and Dr. Weaver said.

“Although Jansson and colleagues’ results are important, more work is needed before such probiotics are ready for consumers,” they concluded.

This study was funded by Probi, which employs two of the study’s authors. Three authors reported being coinventors of a patent involving the effects of probiotics in osteoporosis treatment, and one author is listed as an inventor on a pending patent application on probiotic compositions and uses. Dr. Sahni reported receiving grants from Dairy Management. Dr. Weaver reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Jansson P-A et al. Lancet Rheumatol. 2019 Nov;1(3):e154-e162. doi: 10.1016/S2665-9913(19)30068-2

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Probiotics with Lactobacillus reduce loss in spine BMD for postmenopausal women
Display Headline
Probiotics with Lactobacillus reduce loss in spine BMD for postmenopausal women
Click for Credit Status
Ready
Sections
Article Source

FROM THE LANCET RHEUMATOLOGY

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

CBT and antidepressants have similar costs for major depressive disorder

Article Type
Changed
Mon, 11/11/2019 - 20:30

 

Neither cognitive behavioral therapy nor second-generation antidepressant medications was more cost effective than the other for treating patients with major depressive disorder, according to a recent study published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Michail_Petrov-96/Thinkstock

“In the absence of clear superiority of either treatment, shared decision making incorporating patient preferences is critical,” Eric L. Ross, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and colleagues wrote in their study.

Dr. Ross and colleagues created a decision-analytic model for adults with major depressive disorder in the United States using age and gender data from the Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR*D) trial, and simulated a cohort consisting of 62.2% women with a mean age of 40.7 years. Patients underwent cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) or received a second-generation antidepressant (SGA) as first-line therapy, and the model calculated risks and benefits of each therapy as well as likelihood of remission and response using data from meta-analyses.

The researchers calculated the average quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) of both treatments at 1 years and 5 years. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was set at $100,000 or less per QALY for cost effectiveness, and the results were adjusted to 2014 U.S. dollars. Researchers also calculated the net monetary benefit of each treatment based on health and economic outcomes.

At 1 year, Dr. Ross and colleagues found quality-adjusted survival in patients who received CBT increased by 3 days (QALY, 0.008; 95% confidence interval, 0.013-0.025) compared with SGA, but there was a higher mean cost to the health care sector ($900; 95% CI, $500-$1,400) and to society ($1,500; 95% CI, $500-$2,500). CBT was not cost effective at 1 year, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios in the health care sector of $119,000 per QALY and $186,000 per QALY to society, but the net monetary benefit confidence intervals in the health care sector ($2,400-$1,600) and in society ($3,400-$1,600) appear to show some cost effectiveness for CBT at 1 year, the researchers said.

Compared with SGA, there was an increase of 20 quality-adjusted life days in patients who received CBT at 5 years (QALY, 0.055; 95% CI, 0.044-0.160), and the cost for CBT treatment was reduced by $2,000. While CBT appeared to be cost saving in the base-case analysis, the researchers said there was some uncertainty in the cost effectiveness of CBT when they calculated the incremental net monetary benefit of CBT for the health care sector ($8,100-$21,700) and to society ($10,400-$25,300). In a sensitivity analysis, preference for SGA as a first-line therapy at 1 year was between 64% and 77%, while CBT became more preferred between 1.5 and 2 years, and had between a 73% and 87% preference range at 5 years.

In a related editorial, Mark Sinyor, MD, of Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre in Toronto, said that although more longitudinal data are needed comparing outcomes in patients with major depressive disorder undergoing treatment with psychotherapy or medication, clinicians should act on what the current evidence shows about the effectiveness of CBT and SGA.

“It is increasingly evident that differences in effectiveness between CBT and SGAs are not substantial and that CBT has some advantages, including potentially lower long-term costs. These must be balanced with the advantages of SGAs, such as potentially more rapid action as well as efficacy across the full [major depressive disorder] severity spectrum,” he said.

Dr. Sinyor also called for CBT and SGA to be made available to all patients with major depressive disorder.

“Antidepressants for [major depressive disorder] are widely accessible in developed countries and that is important for our patients. If we are serious about providing evidence-based care, CBT must become equally available,” he said.

Neil Skolnik, MD, professor of family and community medicine at Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, and an associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Jefferson Health, echoed the sentiment that CBT should be offered alongside antidepressants for treatment of major depressive disorder.

Dr. Neil Skolnik

“CBT works as well or better than antidepressant medication, and since people learn skills that they can continue to use, it often has a long-lasting effect. In my experience, for people for whom CBT works – that is, for people who are seeing a therapist who use CBT as their technique and who are willing to put in the work it takes – CBT can be life changing,” he said in an interview. “So, I am not surprised, but I am happy to see the results of this study showing that CBT is cost effective.”

Dr. Skolnik emphasized that not every therapist offers CBT, so health care providers should be aware of the type of therapy they are referring their patients for and monitor that therapy when possible.

“We should talk to our patients, present them with options, and then decide together with our patients which approach is best for them,” Dr. Skolnik added. “Medications work, and for many this is a good choice. CBT works, and for many this is a good choice. For some patients, using both CBT and medications is the optimal choice. Both are about equally cost effective. We should discuss the options with our patients and decide the path forward together.”

This study was funded by grants from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development and the National Institute of Mental Health. Dr. Ross reported receiving a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health. Two coauthors reported receiving grants from the Department of Veterans Affairs. Dr. Sinyor and Dr. Skolnik reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Ross EL et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019. doi: 10.7326/M18-1480.

Publications
Topics
Sections

 

Neither cognitive behavioral therapy nor second-generation antidepressant medications was more cost effective than the other for treating patients with major depressive disorder, according to a recent study published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Michail_Petrov-96/Thinkstock

“In the absence of clear superiority of either treatment, shared decision making incorporating patient preferences is critical,” Eric L. Ross, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and colleagues wrote in their study.

Dr. Ross and colleagues created a decision-analytic model for adults with major depressive disorder in the United States using age and gender data from the Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR*D) trial, and simulated a cohort consisting of 62.2% women with a mean age of 40.7 years. Patients underwent cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) or received a second-generation antidepressant (SGA) as first-line therapy, and the model calculated risks and benefits of each therapy as well as likelihood of remission and response using data from meta-analyses.

The researchers calculated the average quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) of both treatments at 1 years and 5 years. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was set at $100,000 or less per QALY for cost effectiveness, and the results were adjusted to 2014 U.S. dollars. Researchers also calculated the net monetary benefit of each treatment based on health and economic outcomes.

At 1 year, Dr. Ross and colleagues found quality-adjusted survival in patients who received CBT increased by 3 days (QALY, 0.008; 95% confidence interval, 0.013-0.025) compared with SGA, but there was a higher mean cost to the health care sector ($900; 95% CI, $500-$1,400) and to society ($1,500; 95% CI, $500-$2,500). CBT was not cost effective at 1 year, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios in the health care sector of $119,000 per QALY and $186,000 per QALY to society, but the net monetary benefit confidence intervals in the health care sector ($2,400-$1,600) and in society ($3,400-$1,600) appear to show some cost effectiveness for CBT at 1 year, the researchers said.

Compared with SGA, there was an increase of 20 quality-adjusted life days in patients who received CBT at 5 years (QALY, 0.055; 95% CI, 0.044-0.160), and the cost for CBT treatment was reduced by $2,000. While CBT appeared to be cost saving in the base-case analysis, the researchers said there was some uncertainty in the cost effectiveness of CBT when they calculated the incremental net monetary benefit of CBT for the health care sector ($8,100-$21,700) and to society ($10,400-$25,300). In a sensitivity analysis, preference for SGA as a first-line therapy at 1 year was between 64% and 77%, while CBT became more preferred between 1.5 and 2 years, and had between a 73% and 87% preference range at 5 years.

In a related editorial, Mark Sinyor, MD, of Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre in Toronto, said that although more longitudinal data are needed comparing outcomes in patients with major depressive disorder undergoing treatment with psychotherapy or medication, clinicians should act on what the current evidence shows about the effectiveness of CBT and SGA.

“It is increasingly evident that differences in effectiveness between CBT and SGAs are not substantial and that CBT has some advantages, including potentially lower long-term costs. These must be balanced with the advantages of SGAs, such as potentially more rapid action as well as efficacy across the full [major depressive disorder] severity spectrum,” he said.

Dr. Sinyor also called for CBT and SGA to be made available to all patients with major depressive disorder.

“Antidepressants for [major depressive disorder] are widely accessible in developed countries and that is important for our patients. If we are serious about providing evidence-based care, CBT must become equally available,” he said.

Neil Skolnik, MD, professor of family and community medicine at Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, and an associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Jefferson Health, echoed the sentiment that CBT should be offered alongside antidepressants for treatment of major depressive disorder.

Dr. Neil Skolnik

“CBT works as well or better than antidepressant medication, and since people learn skills that they can continue to use, it often has a long-lasting effect. In my experience, for people for whom CBT works – that is, for people who are seeing a therapist who use CBT as their technique and who are willing to put in the work it takes – CBT can be life changing,” he said in an interview. “So, I am not surprised, but I am happy to see the results of this study showing that CBT is cost effective.”

Dr. Skolnik emphasized that not every therapist offers CBT, so health care providers should be aware of the type of therapy they are referring their patients for and monitor that therapy when possible.

“We should talk to our patients, present them with options, and then decide together with our patients which approach is best for them,” Dr. Skolnik added. “Medications work, and for many this is a good choice. CBT works, and for many this is a good choice. For some patients, using both CBT and medications is the optimal choice. Both are about equally cost effective. We should discuss the options with our patients and decide the path forward together.”

This study was funded by grants from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development and the National Institute of Mental Health. Dr. Ross reported receiving a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health. Two coauthors reported receiving grants from the Department of Veterans Affairs. Dr. Sinyor and Dr. Skolnik reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Ross EL et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019. doi: 10.7326/M18-1480.

 

Neither cognitive behavioral therapy nor second-generation antidepressant medications was more cost effective than the other for treating patients with major depressive disorder, according to a recent study published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Michail_Petrov-96/Thinkstock

“In the absence of clear superiority of either treatment, shared decision making incorporating patient preferences is critical,” Eric L. Ross, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and colleagues wrote in their study.

Dr. Ross and colleagues created a decision-analytic model for adults with major depressive disorder in the United States using age and gender data from the Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR*D) trial, and simulated a cohort consisting of 62.2% women with a mean age of 40.7 years. Patients underwent cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) or received a second-generation antidepressant (SGA) as first-line therapy, and the model calculated risks and benefits of each therapy as well as likelihood of remission and response using data from meta-analyses.

The researchers calculated the average quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) of both treatments at 1 years and 5 years. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was set at $100,000 or less per QALY for cost effectiveness, and the results were adjusted to 2014 U.S. dollars. Researchers also calculated the net monetary benefit of each treatment based on health and economic outcomes.

At 1 year, Dr. Ross and colleagues found quality-adjusted survival in patients who received CBT increased by 3 days (QALY, 0.008; 95% confidence interval, 0.013-0.025) compared with SGA, but there was a higher mean cost to the health care sector ($900; 95% CI, $500-$1,400) and to society ($1,500; 95% CI, $500-$2,500). CBT was not cost effective at 1 year, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios in the health care sector of $119,000 per QALY and $186,000 per QALY to society, but the net monetary benefit confidence intervals in the health care sector ($2,400-$1,600) and in society ($3,400-$1,600) appear to show some cost effectiveness for CBT at 1 year, the researchers said.

Compared with SGA, there was an increase of 20 quality-adjusted life days in patients who received CBT at 5 years (QALY, 0.055; 95% CI, 0.044-0.160), and the cost for CBT treatment was reduced by $2,000. While CBT appeared to be cost saving in the base-case analysis, the researchers said there was some uncertainty in the cost effectiveness of CBT when they calculated the incremental net monetary benefit of CBT for the health care sector ($8,100-$21,700) and to society ($10,400-$25,300). In a sensitivity analysis, preference for SGA as a first-line therapy at 1 year was between 64% and 77%, while CBT became more preferred between 1.5 and 2 years, and had between a 73% and 87% preference range at 5 years.

In a related editorial, Mark Sinyor, MD, of Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre in Toronto, said that although more longitudinal data are needed comparing outcomes in patients with major depressive disorder undergoing treatment with psychotherapy or medication, clinicians should act on what the current evidence shows about the effectiveness of CBT and SGA.

“It is increasingly evident that differences in effectiveness between CBT and SGAs are not substantial and that CBT has some advantages, including potentially lower long-term costs. These must be balanced with the advantages of SGAs, such as potentially more rapid action as well as efficacy across the full [major depressive disorder] severity spectrum,” he said.

Dr. Sinyor also called for CBT and SGA to be made available to all patients with major depressive disorder.

“Antidepressants for [major depressive disorder] are widely accessible in developed countries and that is important for our patients. If we are serious about providing evidence-based care, CBT must become equally available,” he said.

Neil Skolnik, MD, professor of family and community medicine at Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, and an associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Jefferson Health, echoed the sentiment that CBT should be offered alongside antidepressants for treatment of major depressive disorder.

Dr. Neil Skolnik

“CBT works as well or better than antidepressant medication, and since people learn skills that they can continue to use, it often has a long-lasting effect. In my experience, for people for whom CBT works – that is, for people who are seeing a therapist who use CBT as their technique and who are willing to put in the work it takes – CBT can be life changing,” he said in an interview. “So, I am not surprised, but I am happy to see the results of this study showing that CBT is cost effective.”

Dr. Skolnik emphasized that not every therapist offers CBT, so health care providers should be aware of the type of therapy they are referring their patients for and monitor that therapy when possible.

“We should talk to our patients, present them with options, and then decide together with our patients which approach is best for them,” Dr. Skolnik added. “Medications work, and for many this is a good choice. CBT works, and for many this is a good choice. For some patients, using both CBT and medications is the optimal choice. Both are about equally cost effective. We should discuss the options with our patients and decide the path forward together.”

This study was funded by grants from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development and the National Institute of Mental Health. Dr. Ross reported receiving a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health. Two coauthors reported receiving grants from the Department of Veterans Affairs. Dr. Sinyor and Dr. Skolnik reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Ross EL et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019. doi: 10.7326/M18-1480.

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

FROM ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
CME ID
211230
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.

Evidence lacking for using cannabinoids to treat mental disorders

Cannabinoids should undergo rigorous safety, efficacy testing
Article Type
Changed
Tue, 10/29/2019 - 10:38

Systematic review and meta-analysis concluded more ‘high-quality studies’ needed

Scant evidence exists to recommend medical cannabinoids and derivatives such as tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol to patients with depressive disorders, anxiety, or other mental disorders, suggested research in a recent systematic review and meta-analysis published in The Lancet Psychiatry.

In their review, Nicola Black, PhD, Emily Stockings, PhD,and colleagues performed a search of the MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and identified 83 studies between January 1980 and April 2018 in which adult patients were treated with a medical cannabinoid for primary or secondary depression, anxiety, ADHD, Tourette syndrome, PTSD, or psychosis.

The researchers examined symptom changes, symptom remission, and the safety of medicinal cannabinoids in each study. Overall, there were 3,067 participants across the 83 studies, including 42 trials for depression, 31 trials for anxiety, 11 for psychosis, 8 for Tourette syndrome, 3 for ADHD, and 12 trials for PTSD. Of those, 23 were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for depression (2,551 participants), 17 were RCTs for anxiety (605 participants), and six were RCTs for psychosis (281 participants). In addition, one RCT was for Tourette syndrome (36 participants), one RCT was for ADHD (30 participants), and one RCT was for PTSD (10 participants), reported Dr. Black and Dr. Stockings, both of the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre (NDARC) at the University of New South Wales in Sydney and colleagues.

In patients with anxiety in seven RCTs (252 participants), there was a “very low” evidence assessed by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach that pharmaceutical tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) with and without cannabidiol (CBD) in standardized mean differences in symptoms (SMD, –0.25; 95% confidence interval, –0.49 to –0.01); however, researchers noted that most patients in this study had other medical conditions, such as noncancer pain and multiple sclerosis, which might have affected results. Patients with psychosis in one study (24 participants) had significantly worse outcomes after use of pharmaceutical THC with and without CBD (SMD, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.10-0.62).

In 10 studies (1,495 participants), a pooled analysis across all mental disorders showed pharmaceutical THC with and without CBD did not improve the primary outcome and was associated with significantly increased adverse events, compared with placebo (odds ratio, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.20-3.29). It led to study withdrawal from adverse events (OR, 2.78; 95% CI, 1.59-4.86) in 11 studies (1,621 participants), compared with placebo. While there were not many RCTs that examined adverse events after use of pharmaceutical CBD or medicinal cannabis, the studies that did examine the association did not find an increased risk of adverse events or adverse events leading to study withdrawal, compared with placebo.

“Our findings have important implications in countries where cannabis and cannabinoids are being made available for medical use,” one of the authors, Louisa Degenhardt, PhD, said in a press release. “There is a notable absence of high-quality evidence to properly assess the effectiveness and safety of medicinal cannabinoids, compared with placebo, and until evidence from randomized, controlled trials is available, clinical guidelines cannot be drawn up around their use in mental health disorders.”

“In countries where medicinal cannabinoids are already legal, doctors and patients must be aware of the limitations of existing evidence and the risks of cannabinoids,” said Dr. Degenhardt, who also is with NDARC. “These must be weighed when considering use to treat symptoms of common mental health disorders. Those who decide to proceed should be carefully monitored for positive and negative mental health effects of using medicinal cannabinoids.”

Among the limitations cited by investigators were the small amount of medical data. More “high-quality studies” are needed, they wrote.

The study was supported in part by funding from the Health Products Regulation Group, research fellowship grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council, and a grant from the National Institutes of Health National Institute on Drug Abuse. Two authors reported serving as investigators for studies funded by Indivior, Reckitt Benckiser, Mundipharma, and Seqirus; another also reported being an investigator for studies funded by Indivior. The remaining authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Black N et al. Lancet Psychiatry. 2019. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0355(19)30401-8.

Body

 

The results from Black et al. demonstrate that use of cannabinoids is unsupported for treating ADHD, PTSD, Tourette syndrome, psychosis, and depressive and anxiety disorders and symptoms, especially given that other approved medications for these conditions already exist, Deepak D’Souza, MBBS, MD, wrote in a related editorial.

“In light of the paucity of evidence, the absence of good quality evidence for efficacy, and the known risk of cannabinoids, their use as treatments for psychiatric disorders cannot be justified at present,” said Dr. D’Souza.

In addition, the conditions examined in the systematic review by Dr. Black, Dr. Stockings, and colleagues are distinct, and it is unclear how cannabinoids could treat these various conditions unless cannabinoids’ effects are similar to those of benzodiazepines, Dr. D’Souza noted. Another issue is that information on safety and efficacy of cannabinoids is also unknown, and factors such as optimal dosing, treatment duration, and tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) to cannabidiol (CBD) ratio must also be established to begin trials. Finally, cannabinoids are also subject to tolerance issues with long-term exposure and would need to be considered for use with chronic psychiatric disorders.

“With cannabinoids, it seems that the cart (use) is before the horse (evidence),” Dr. D’Souza concluded. “If cannabinoids are to be used in the treatment of psychiatric disorders, they should first be tested in randomized controlled trials and subjected to the same regulatory approval process as other prescription medications.”
 

Dr. D’Souza is affiliated with the department of psychiatry at Yale University in New Haven, Conn. He reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health, Veterans Health Administration Office of Research and Development, Heffter Foundation, Wallace Foundation, and Takeda. He also reported serving on the physicians advisory board of the medical marijuana program for the state of Connecticut.

Publications
Topics
Sections

Systematic review and meta-analysis concluded more ‘high-quality studies’ needed

Systematic review and meta-analysis concluded more ‘high-quality studies’ needed

Body

 

The results from Black et al. demonstrate that use of cannabinoids is unsupported for treating ADHD, PTSD, Tourette syndrome, psychosis, and depressive and anxiety disorders and symptoms, especially given that other approved medications for these conditions already exist, Deepak D’Souza, MBBS, MD, wrote in a related editorial.

“In light of the paucity of evidence, the absence of good quality evidence for efficacy, and the known risk of cannabinoids, their use as treatments for psychiatric disorders cannot be justified at present,” said Dr. D’Souza.

In addition, the conditions examined in the systematic review by Dr. Black, Dr. Stockings, and colleagues are distinct, and it is unclear how cannabinoids could treat these various conditions unless cannabinoids’ effects are similar to those of benzodiazepines, Dr. D’Souza noted. Another issue is that information on safety and efficacy of cannabinoids is also unknown, and factors such as optimal dosing, treatment duration, and tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) to cannabidiol (CBD) ratio must also be established to begin trials. Finally, cannabinoids are also subject to tolerance issues with long-term exposure and would need to be considered for use with chronic psychiatric disorders.

“With cannabinoids, it seems that the cart (use) is before the horse (evidence),” Dr. D’Souza concluded. “If cannabinoids are to be used in the treatment of psychiatric disorders, they should first be tested in randomized controlled trials and subjected to the same regulatory approval process as other prescription medications.”
 

Dr. D’Souza is affiliated with the department of psychiatry at Yale University in New Haven, Conn. He reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health, Veterans Health Administration Office of Research and Development, Heffter Foundation, Wallace Foundation, and Takeda. He also reported serving on the physicians advisory board of the medical marijuana program for the state of Connecticut.

Body

 

The results from Black et al. demonstrate that use of cannabinoids is unsupported for treating ADHD, PTSD, Tourette syndrome, psychosis, and depressive and anxiety disorders and symptoms, especially given that other approved medications for these conditions already exist, Deepak D’Souza, MBBS, MD, wrote in a related editorial.

“In light of the paucity of evidence, the absence of good quality evidence for efficacy, and the known risk of cannabinoids, their use as treatments for psychiatric disorders cannot be justified at present,” said Dr. D’Souza.

In addition, the conditions examined in the systematic review by Dr. Black, Dr. Stockings, and colleagues are distinct, and it is unclear how cannabinoids could treat these various conditions unless cannabinoids’ effects are similar to those of benzodiazepines, Dr. D’Souza noted. Another issue is that information on safety and efficacy of cannabinoids is also unknown, and factors such as optimal dosing, treatment duration, and tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) to cannabidiol (CBD) ratio must also be established to begin trials. Finally, cannabinoids are also subject to tolerance issues with long-term exposure and would need to be considered for use with chronic psychiatric disorders.

“With cannabinoids, it seems that the cart (use) is before the horse (evidence),” Dr. D’Souza concluded. “If cannabinoids are to be used in the treatment of psychiatric disorders, they should first be tested in randomized controlled trials and subjected to the same regulatory approval process as other prescription medications.”
 

Dr. D’Souza is affiliated with the department of psychiatry at Yale University in New Haven, Conn. He reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health, Veterans Health Administration Office of Research and Development, Heffter Foundation, Wallace Foundation, and Takeda. He also reported serving on the physicians advisory board of the medical marijuana program for the state of Connecticut.

Title
Cannabinoids should undergo rigorous safety, efficacy testing
Cannabinoids should undergo rigorous safety, efficacy testing

Scant evidence exists to recommend medical cannabinoids and derivatives such as tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol to patients with depressive disorders, anxiety, or other mental disorders, suggested research in a recent systematic review and meta-analysis published in The Lancet Psychiatry.

In their review, Nicola Black, PhD, Emily Stockings, PhD,and colleagues performed a search of the MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and identified 83 studies between January 1980 and April 2018 in which adult patients were treated with a medical cannabinoid for primary or secondary depression, anxiety, ADHD, Tourette syndrome, PTSD, or psychosis.

The researchers examined symptom changes, symptom remission, and the safety of medicinal cannabinoids in each study. Overall, there were 3,067 participants across the 83 studies, including 42 trials for depression, 31 trials for anxiety, 11 for psychosis, 8 for Tourette syndrome, 3 for ADHD, and 12 trials for PTSD. Of those, 23 were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for depression (2,551 participants), 17 were RCTs for anxiety (605 participants), and six were RCTs for psychosis (281 participants). In addition, one RCT was for Tourette syndrome (36 participants), one RCT was for ADHD (30 participants), and one RCT was for PTSD (10 participants), reported Dr. Black and Dr. Stockings, both of the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre (NDARC) at the University of New South Wales in Sydney and colleagues.

In patients with anxiety in seven RCTs (252 participants), there was a “very low” evidence assessed by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach that pharmaceutical tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) with and without cannabidiol (CBD) in standardized mean differences in symptoms (SMD, –0.25; 95% confidence interval, –0.49 to –0.01); however, researchers noted that most patients in this study had other medical conditions, such as noncancer pain and multiple sclerosis, which might have affected results. Patients with psychosis in one study (24 participants) had significantly worse outcomes after use of pharmaceutical THC with and without CBD (SMD, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.10-0.62).

In 10 studies (1,495 participants), a pooled analysis across all mental disorders showed pharmaceutical THC with and without CBD did not improve the primary outcome and was associated with significantly increased adverse events, compared with placebo (odds ratio, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.20-3.29). It led to study withdrawal from adverse events (OR, 2.78; 95% CI, 1.59-4.86) in 11 studies (1,621 participants), compared with placebo. While there were not many RCTs that examined adverse events after use of pharmaceutical CBD or medicinal cannabis, the studies that did examine the association did not find an increased risk of adverse events or adverse events leading to study withdrawal, compared with placebo.

“Our findings have important implications in countries where cannabis and cannabinoids are being made available for medical use,” one of the authors, Louisa Degenhardt, PhD, said in a press release. “There is a notable absence of high-quality evidence to properly assess the effectiveness and safety of medicinal cannabinoids, compared with placebo, and until evidence from randomized, controlled trials is available, clinical guidelines cannot be drawn up around their use in mental health disorders.”

“In countries where medicinal cannabinoids are already legal, doctors and patients must be aware of the limitations of existing evidence and the risks of cannabinoids,” said Dr. Degenhardt, who also is with NDARC. “These must be weighed when considering use to treat symptoms of common mental health disorders. Those who decide to proceed should be carefully monitored for positive and negative mental health effects of using medicinal cannabinoids.”

Among the limitations cited by investigators were the small amount of medical data. More “high-quality studies” are needed, they wrote.

The study was supported in part by funding from the Health Products Regulation Group, research fellowship grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council, and a grant from the National Institutes of Health National Institute on Drug Abuse. Two authors reported serving as investigators for studies funded by Indivior, Reckitt Benckiser, Mundipharma, and Seqirus; another also reported being an investigator for studies funded by Indivior. The remaining authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Black N et al. Lancet Psychiatry. 2019. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0355(19)30401-8.

Scant evidence exists to recommend medical cannabinoids and derivatives such as tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol to patients with depressive disorders, anxiety, or other mental disorders, suggested research in a recent systematic review and meta-analysis published in The Lancet Psychiatry.

In their review, Nicola Black, PhD, Emily Stockings, PhD,and colleagues performed a search of the MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and identified 83 studies between January 1980 and April 2018 in which adult patients were treated with a medical cannabinoid for primary or secondary depression, anxiety, ADHD, Tourette syndrome, PTSD, or psychosis.

The researchers examined symptom changes, symptom remission, and the safety of medicinal cannabinoids in each study. Overall, there were 3,067 participants across the 83 studies, including 42 trials for depression, 31 trials for anxiety, 11 for psychosis, 8 for Tourette syndrome, 3 for ADHD, and 12 trials for PTSD. Of those, 23 were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for depression (2,551 participants), 17 were RCTs for anxiety (605 participants), and six were RCTs for psychosis (281 participants). In addition, one RCT was for Tourette syndrome (36 participants), one RCT was for ADHD (30 participants), and one RCT was for PTSD (10 participants), reported Dr. Black and Dr. Stockings, both of the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre (NDARC) at the University of New South Wales in Sydney and colleagues.

In patients with anxiety in seven RCTs (252 participants), there was a “very low” evidence assessed by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach that pharmaceutical tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) with and without cannabidiol (CBD) in standardized mean differences in symptoms (SMD, –0.25; 95% confidence interval, –0.49 to –0.01); however, researchers noted that most patients in this study had other medical conditions, such as noncancer pain and multiple sclerosis, which might have affected results. Patients with psychosis in one study (24 participants) had significantly worse outcomes after use of pharmaceutical THC with and without CBD (SMD, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.10-0.62).

In 10 studies (1,495 participants), a pooled analysis across all mental disorders showed pharmaceutical THC with and without CBD did not improve the primary outcome and was associated with significantly increased adverse events, compared with placebo (odds ratio, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.20-3.29). It led to study withdrawal from adverse events (OR, 2.78; 95% CI, 1.59-4.86) in 11 studies (1,621 participants), compared with placebo. While there were not many RCTs that examined adverse events after use of pharmaceutical CBD or medicinal cannabis, the studies that did examine the association did not find an increased risk of adverse events or adverse events leading to study withdrawal, compared with placebo.

“Our findings have important implications in countries where cannabis and cannabinoids are being made available for medical use,” one of the authors, Louisa Degenhardt, PhD, said in a press release. “There is a notable absence of high-quality evidence to properly assess the effectiveness and safety of medicinal cannabinoids, compared with placebo, and until evidence from randomized, controlled trials is available, clinical guidelines cannot be drawn up around their use in mental health disorders.”

“In countries where medicinal cannabinoids are already legal, doctors and patients must be aware of the limitations of existing evidence and the risks of cannabinoids,” said Dr. Degenhardt, who also is with NDARC. “These must be weighed when considering use to treat symptoms of common mental health disorders. Those who decide to proceed should be carefully monitored for positive and negative mental health effects of using medicinal cannabinoids.”

Among the limitations cited by investigators were the small amount of medical data. More “high-quality studies” are needed, they wrote.

The study was supported in part by funding from the Health Products Regulation Group, research fellowship grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council, and a grant from the National Institutes of Health National Institute on Drug Abuse. Two authors reported serving as investigators for studies funded by Indivior, Reckitt Benckiser, Mundipharma, and Seqirus; another also reported being an investigator for studies funded by Indivior. The remaining authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Black N et al. Lancet Psychiatry. 2019. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0355(19)30401-8.

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

FROM THE LANCET PSYCHIATRY

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

 

Key clinical point: There is a low level of evidence to recommend use of medical cannabinoids or derivatives for the treatment of primary or secondary mental disorders.

Major finding: A pooled analysis across all mental disorders showed pharmaceutical tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) with and without cannabidiol (CBD) did not improve the primary outcome, and it was associated with significantly increased adverse events, compared with placebo (odds ratio, 1.99; 95% confidence interval, 1.20-3.29), and it led to study withdrawal because of adverse events (OR, 2.78; 95% CI, 1.59-4.86) in 11 studies (1,621 participants), compared with placebo.

Study details: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 83 trials with 3,067 participants who received medical cannabinoids or derivatives for treatment of primary or secondary mental disorders between January 1980 and April 2018.

Disclosures: Black N et al. Lancet Psychiatry. 2019 Oct 28. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366(19)30401-8.

Source: This study was supported in part by funding from the Health Products Regulation Group, research fellowship grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council, and a grant from the National Institutes of Health National Institute on Drug Abuse. Two authors reported being investigators for studies funded by Indivior, Reckitt Benckiser, Mundipharma, and Seqirus; another author also reported being an investigator for studies funded by Indivior. The remaining authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.

Severe hypoglycemia, poor glycemic control fuels fracture risk in older diabetic patients

Article Type
Changed
Tue, 05/03/2022 - 15:12

Patients with type 2 diabetes and poor glycemic control or severe hypoglycemia may be at greater risk for fracture, according to recent research from a Japanese cohort of older men and postmenopausal women.

“The impacts of severe hypoglycemia and poor glycemic control on fractures appeared to be independent,” noted Yuji Komorita, MD, PhD, of the department of medicine and clinical science, Graduate School of Medical Sciences at Kyushu University, and colleagues. “This study suggests that the glycemic target to prevent fractures may be HbA1c <75 mmol/mol, which is far higher than that used to prevent microvascular complications, and higher than that for older adults with type 2 diabetes.”

Dr. Komorita and colleagues performed a prospective analysis of fracture incidence for 2,755 men and 1,951 postmenopausal women with type 2 diabetes in the Fukuoka Diabetes Registry who were mean 66 years old between April 2008 and October 2010. At the start of the study, the researchers assessed patient diabetes duration, previous fracture history, physical activity, alcohol and smoking status, whether patients were treated for diabetic retinopathy with laser photocoagulation, and their history of coronary artery disease or stroke. Patients were followed for a median 5.3 years, during which fractures were assessed through an annual self-administered questionnaire, with the results stratified by glycemic control and hypoglycemia.

Overall, there were 249 men and 413 women who experienced fractures during the study period, with a follow-up rate of 97.6%. In a multivariate analysis, patients with a higher risk of fracture included those with two or more episodes of severe hypoglycemia (hazard ratio, 2.25; 95% confidence interval, 1.57-3.22) and one episode of severe hypoglycemia (HR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.11-2.20). In patients without severe hypoglycemic episodes, there was an increased risk of fracture in those with baseline hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) level of 53 to less than 64 mmol/mol (7% to less than 8%; HR, 1.14; 0.94-1.39), 64 to less than 75 mmol/mol (8% to less than 9%; HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.86-1.43), and at least 75 mmol/mol (at least 9%; HR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.06-1.98).

Compared with postmenopausal women, the unadjusted risk of fracture was higher in men with multiple severe hypoglycemic episodes (HR, 3.46; 95% CI, 2.05-5.85) and one episode of hypoglycemia (HR, 2.81; 95% CI, 1.74-4.56). These higher risks in older men persisted after adjustment for age, multivariate factors, and HbA1c.

“The association between severe hypoglycemia, poor glycemic control, and fracture risk at any anatomic site seems to be stronger in men than in postmenopausal women, although the interaction between men and postmenopausal women for fracture risk was not significant,” the researchers said. “The higher incidence rate of fractures in postmenopausal women, compared with men, was attributed to drastic changes in sex hormones after menopause, which may reduce the apparent impacts of hyperglycemia and severe hypoglycemia on postmenopausal women.”

Researchers said they did not consider potential external factors for fracture incidence, nor did they measure incident falls or other markers of bone health, such as bone mineral density and 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels. They also noted among the limitations of the study the self-reported nature of fracture reporting, and the lack of generalizability of the results.

This study was funded in part by grants from The Japan Society for the Promotion of Science KAKENHI from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan; the Junior Scientist Development Grant supported by the Japan Diabetes Society; and the Lilly Research Grant Program for Bone & Mineral Research. The authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Komorita Y et al. Diabet Med. 2019 Sep 25. doi: 10.1111/dme.14142.

Publications
Topics
Sections

Patients with type 2 diabetes and poor glycemic control or severe hypoglycemia may be at greater risk for fracture, according to recent research from a Japanese cohort of older men and postmenopausal women.

“The impacts of severe hypoglycemia and poor glycemic control on fractures appeared to be independent,” noted Yuji Komorita, MD, PhD, of the department of medicine and clinical science, Graduate School of Medical Sciences at Kyushu University, and colleagues. “This study suggests that the glycemic target to prevent fractures may be HbA1c <75 mmol/mol, which is far higher than that used to prevent microvascular complications, and higher than that for older adults with type 2 diabetes.”

Dr. Komorita and colleagues performed a prospective analysis of fracture incidence for 2,755 men and 1,951 postmenopausal women with type 2 diabetes in the Fukuoka Diabetes Registry who were mean 66 years old between April 2008 and October 2010. At the start of the study, the researchers assessed patient diabetes duration, previous fracture history, physical activity, alcohol and smoking status, whether patients were treated for diabetic retinopathy with laser photocoagulation, and their history of coronary artery disease or stroke. Patients were followed for a median 5.3 years, during which fractures were assessed through an annual self-administered questionnaire, with the results stratified by glycemic control and hypoglycemia.

Overall, there were 249 men and 413 women who experienced fractures during the study period, with a follow-up rate of 97.6%. In a multivariate analysis, patients with a higher risk of fracture included those with two or more episodes of severe hypoglycemia (hazard ratio, 2.25; 95% confidence interval, 1.57-3.22) and one episode of severe hypoglycemia (HR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.11-2.20). In patients without severe hypoglycemic episodes, there was an increased risk of fracture in those with baseline hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) level of 53 to less than 64 mmol/mol (7% to less than 8%; HR, 1.14; 0.94-1.39), 64 to less than 75 mmol/mol (8% to less than 9%; HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.86-1.43), and at least 75 mmol/mol (at least 9%; HR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.06-1.98).

Compared with postmenopausal women, the unadjusted risk of fracture was higher in men with multiple severe hypoglycemic episodes (HR, 3.46; 95% CI, 2.05-5.85) and one episode of hypoglycemia (HR, 2.81; 95% CI, 1.74-4.56). These higher risks in older men persisted after adjustment for age, multivariate factors, and HbA1c.

“The association between severe hypoglycemia, poor glycemic control, and fracture risk at any anatomic site seems to be stronger in men than in postmenopausal women, although the interaction between men and postmenopausal women for fracture risk was not significant,” the researchers said. “The higher incidence rate of fractures in postmenopausal women, compared with men, was attributed to drastic changes in sex hormones after menopause, which may reduce the apparent impacts of hyperglycemia and severe hypoglycemia on postmenopausal women.”

Researchers said they did not consider potential external factors for fracture incidence, nor did they measure incident falls or other markers of bone health, such as bone mineral density and 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels. They also noted among the limitations of the study the self-reported nature of fracture reporting, and the lack of generalizability of the results.

This study was funded in part by grants from The Japan Society for the Promotion of Science KAKENHI from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan; the Junior Scientist Development Grant supported by the Japan Diabetes Society; and the Lilly Research Grant Program for Bone & Mineral Research. The authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Komorita Y et al. Diabet Med. 2019 Sep 25. doi: 10.1111/dme.14142.

Patients with type 2 diabetes and poor glycemic control or severe hypoglycemia may be at greater risk for fracture, according to recent research from a Japanese cohort of older men and postmenopausal women.

“The impacts of severe hypoglycemia and poor glycemic control on fractures appeared to be independent,” noted Yuji Komorita, MD, PhD, of the department of medicine and clinical science, Graduate School of Medical Sciences at Kyushu University, and colleagues. “This study suggests that the glycemic target to prevent fractures may be HbA1c <75 mmol/mol, which is far higher than that used to prevent microvascular complications, and higher than that for older adults with type 2 diabetes.”

Dr. Komorita and colleagues performed a prospective analysis of fracture incidence for 2,755 men and 1,951 postmenopausal women with type 2 diabetes in the Fukuoka Diabetes Registry who were mean 66 years old between April 2008 and October 2010. At the start of the study, the researchers assessed patient diabetes duration, previous fracture history, physical activity, alcohol and smoking status, whether patients were treated for diabetic retinopathy with laser photocoagulation, and their history of coronary artery disease or stroke. Patients were followed for a median 5.3 years, during which fractures were assessed through an annual self-administered questionnaire, with the results stratified by glycemic control and hypoglycemia.

Overall, there were 249 men and 413 women who experienced fractures during the study period, with a follow-up rate of 97.6%. In a multivariate analysis, patients with a higher risk of fracture included those with two or more episodes of severe hypoglycemia (hazard ratio, 2.25; 95% confidence interval, 1.57-3.22) and one episode of severe hypoglycemia (HR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.11-2.20). In patients without severe hypoglycemic episodes, there was an increased risk of fracture in those with baseline hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) level of 53 to less than 64 mmol/mol (7% to less than 8%; HR, 1.14; 0.94-1.39), 64 to less than 75 mmol/mol (8% to less than 9%; HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.86-1.43), and at least 75 mmol/mol (at least 9%; HR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.06-1.98).

Compared with postmenopausal women, the unadjusted risk of fracture was higher in men with multiple severe hypoglycemic episodes (HR, 3.46; 95% CI, 2.05-5.85) and one episode of hypoglycemia (HR, 2.81; 95% CI, 1.74-4.56). These higher risks in older men persisted after adjustment for age, multivariate factors, and HbA1c.

“The association between severe hypoglycemia, poor glycemic control, and fracture risk at any anatomic site seems to be stronger in men than in postmenopausal women, although the interaction between men and postmenopausal women for fracture risk was not significant,” the researchers said. “The higher incidence rate of fractures in postmenopausal women, compared with men, was attributed to drastic changes in sex hormones after menopause, which may reduce the apparent impacts of hyperglycemia and severe hypoglycemia on postmenopausal women.”

Researchers said they did not consider potential external factors for fracture incidence, nor did they measure incident falls or other markers of bone health, such as bone mineral density and 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels. They also noted among the limitations of the study the self-reported nature of fracture reporting, and the lack of generalizability of the results.

This study was funded in part by grants from The Japan Society for the Promotion of Science KAKENHI from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan; the Junior Scientist Development Grant supported by the Japan Diabetes Society; and the Lilly Research Grant Program for Bone & Mineral Research. The authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Komorita Y et al. Diabet Med. 2019 Sep 25. doi: 10.1111/dme.14142.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Article Source

FROM DIABETIC MEDICINE

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

Ovarian cryopreservation should no longer be experimental

Article Type
Changed
Sat, 10/26/2019 - 13:07

– Ovarian tissue cryopreservation should no longer be considered experimental, Sherman J. Silber, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine.

That claim is based on more than 20 years of experience at his center performing the procedure and results he presented from patients for whom frozen ovarian tissue has been reimplanted resulting in a spontaneous pregnancy.

“For prepubertal girls with cancer and for patients who have already had a preliminary round of chemotherapy, ovarian tissue freezing is the only method available to preserve their fertility,” said Dr. Silber, of the Infertility Center of St. Louis in Chesterfield, Missouri. “It is also the only method available to preserve their fertility.”

“I have very strong feelings about this,” he added. “It has huge societal implications for insurance payments.”

Dr. Silber presented results of ovarian tissue freezing and reimplantation at his center beginning in 1997, where 115 patients between the ages of 2 and 35 years underwent the procedure using the same technique. Of these patients, 14 women came back years later to have their frozen ovary cortex reimplanted. Dr. Silber and his group followed these patients monthly for more than 2 years after reimplantation for signs of return of menses, hormonal changes, pregnancy, and live birth.

Most of the patients who chose ovarian tissue freezing had cancer. Eight patients underwent the procedure after being diagnosed with solid tissue cancer and three had leukemia, while two patients underwent ovarian tissue freezing due to premature ovarian failure, and one because of multiple sclerosis. Patients who underwent reimplantation were menopausal for at least 3 years, said Dr. Silber.

Dr. Silber also described the technique used for reimplantation. After the cortical tissue was thawed, the tissue was quilted into one piece from three to five slices using 9-0 nylon interrupted sutures. The quilted tissue was then sutured to the medulla after the surgeon completely removed the dead cortex from the other ovary. “Hemostasis was achieved with micro bipolar forceps,” said Dr. Silber. “Constant irrigation was employed with pulsed heparinized media because we wanted to avoid adhesions, and we wanted to try for spontaneous pregnancy rather than IVF.”

“Then, we put [the quilted ovarian slices] on to the medulla on the other side in such a way that the fallopian tube would be able to reach and catch any egg that’s ovulated during that time,” he added.

Dr. Silber and his group found that, over time, follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) levels sharply decreased to normal or near-normal levels between 69 days and 133 days after the procedure while Anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) levels dramatically rose to higher levels between 133 days and 227 days post-procedure before dropping to very low levels, “and the AMH remained at low levels despite the fact that [transplants] would last 8 to 10 years,” said Dr. Silber.

Of the 14 cases where frozen ovarian tissue was reimplanted, 11 patients (78%) achieved pregnancy, 10 patients (71%) delivered healthy babies, and 1 patient (9%) experienced a miscarriage. All patients had spontaneous pregnancies, and none used in vitro fertilization (IVF), noted Dr. Silber. There were 2 patients who had four children from transplanted ovarian tissue, and 2 of 3 patients with leukemia had a total of five children.

Additionally, Dr. Silber’s group examined the literature for other examples of ovarian tissue reimplantation after cryopreservation to determine how many live births resulted from the procedure. They found an additional 170 live births in addition to the 15 live births at their center, with a pregnancy rate ranging from 31% to 71% in different studies. Cancer was not transmitted from mother to child in any case, said Dr. Silber.

Compared with egg freezing, there is a benefit to performing ovarian tissue freezing, even after chemotherapy has begun, noted Dr. Silber. The cost of ovarian tissue freezing is also roughly one-tenth that of egg freezing, and the procedure is less burdensome than multiple cycles with the potential for ovarian hyperstimulation, and it restores the hormone function and the fertility of eggs after reimplantation.

“Because the greater primordial follicle recruitment decreases as the ovarian reserve decreases, you can put a piece of ovary tissue back every 8 years, and a woman can have endocrine function until she’s 100 years old,” said Dr. Silber.

Dr. Silber reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Silber SJ. ASRM 2019. Abstract O-203.

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

– Ovarian tissue cryopreservation should no longer be considered experimental, Sherman J. Silber, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine.

That claim is based on more than 20 years of experience at his center performing the procedure and results he presented from patients for whom frozen ovarian tissue has been reimplanted resulting in a spontaneous pregnancy.

“For prepubertal girls with cancer and for patients who have already had a preliminary round of chemotherapy, ovarian tissue freezing is the only method available to preserve their fertility,” said Dr. Silber, of the Infertility Center of St. Louis in Chesterfield, Missouri. “It is also the only method available to preserve their fertility.”

“I have very strong feelings about this,” he added. “It has huge societal implications for insurance payments.”

Dr. Silber presented results of ovarian tissue freezing and reimplantation at his center beginning in 1997, where 115 patients between the ages of 2 and 35 years underwent the procedure using the same technique. Of these patients, 14 women came back years later to have their frozen ovary cortex reimplanted. Dr. Silber and his group followed these patients monthly for more than 2 years after reimplantation for signs of return of menses, hormonal changes, pregnancy, and live birth.

Most of the patients who chose ovarian tissue freezing had cancer. Eight patients underwent the procedure after being diagnosed with solid tissue cancer and three had leukemia, while two patients underwent ovarian tissue freezing due to premature ovarian failure, and one because of multiple sclerosis. Patients who underwent reimplantation were menopausal for at least 3 years, said Dr. Silber.

Dr. Silber also described the technique used for reimplantation. After the cortical tissue was thawed, the tissue was quilted into one piece from three to five slices using 9-0 nylon interrupted sutures. The quilted tissue was then sutured to the medulla after the surgeon completely removed the dead cortex from the other ovary. “Hemostasis was achieved with micro bipolar forceps,” said Dr. Silber. “Constant irrigation was employed with pulsed heparinized media because we wanted to avoid adhesions, and we wanted to try for spontaneous pregnancy rather than IVF.”

“Then, we put [the quilted ovarian slices] on to the medulla on the other side in such a way that the fallopian tube would be able to reach and catch any egg that’s ovulated during that time,” he added.

Dr. Silber and his group found that, over time, follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) levels sharply decreased to normal or near-normal levels between 69 days and 133 days after the procedure while Anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) levels dramatically rose to higher levels between 133 days and 227 days post-procedure before dropping to very low levels, “and the AMH remained at low levels despite the fact that [transplants] would last 8 to 10 years,” said Dr. Silber.

Of the 14 cases where frozen ovarian tissue was reimplanted, 11 patients (78%) achieved pregnancy, 10 patients (71%) delivered healthy babies, and 1 patient (9%) experienced a miscarriage. All patients had spontaneous pregnancies, and none used in vitro fertilization (IVF), noted Dr. Silber. There were 2 patients who had four children from transplanted ovarian tissue, and 2 of 3 patients with leukemia had a total of five children.

Additionally, Dr. Silber’s group examined the literature for other examples of ovarian tissue reimplantation after cryopreservation to determine how many live births resulted from the procedure. They found an additional 170 live births in addition to the 15 live births at their center, with a pregnancy rate ranging from 31% to 71% in different studies. Cancer was not transmitted from mother to child in any case, said Dr. Silber.

Compared with egg freezing, there is a benefit to performing ovarian tissue freezing, even after chemotherapy has begun, noted Dr. Silber. The cost of ovarian tissue freezing is also roughly one-tenth that of egg freezing, and the procedure is less burdensome than multiple cycles with the potential for ovarian hyperstimulation, and it restores the hormone function and the fertility of eggs after reimplantation.

“Because the greater primordial follicle recruitment decreases as the ovarian reserve decreases, you can put a piece of ovary tissue back every 8 years, and a woman can have endocrine function until she’s 100 years old,” said Dr. Silber.

Dr. Silber reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Silber SJ. ASRM 2019. Abstract O-203.

– Ovarian tissue cryopreservation should no longer be considered experimental, Sherman J. Silber, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine.

That claim is based on more than 20 years of experience at his center performing the procedure and results he presented from patients for whom frozen ovarian tissue has been reimplanted resulting in a spontaneous pregnancy.

“For prepubertal girls with cancer and for patients who have already had a preliminary round of chemotherapy, ovarian tissue freezing is the only method available to preserve their fertility,” said Dr. Silber, of the Infertility Center of St. Louis in Chesterfield, Missouri. “It is also the only method available to preserve their fertility.”

“I have very strong feelings about this,” he added. “It has huge societal implications for insurance payments.”

Dr. Silber presented results of ovarian tissue freezing and reimplantation at his center beginning in 1997, where 115 patients between the ages of 2 and 35 years underwent the procedure using the same technique. Of these patients, 14 women came back years later to have their frozen ovary cortex reimplanted. Dr. Silber and his group followed these patients monthly for more than 2 years after reimplantation for signs of return of menses, hormonal changes, pregnancy, and live birth.

Most of the patients who chose ovarian tissue freezing had cancer. Eight patients underwent the procedure after being diagnosed with solid tissue cancer and three had leukemia, while two patients underwent ovarian tissue freezing due to premature ovarian failure, and one because of multiple sclerosis. Patients who underwent reimplantation were menopausal for at least 3 years, said Dr. Silber.

Dr. Silber also described the technique used for reimplantation. After the cortical tissue was thawed, the tissue was quilted into one piece from three to five slices using 9-0 nylon interrupted sutures. The quilted tissue was then sutured to the medulla after the surgeon completely removed the dead cortex from the other ovary. “Hemostasis was achieved with micro bipolar forceps,” said Dr. Silber. “Constant irrigation was employed with pulsed heparinized media because we wanted to avoid adhesions, and we wanted to try for spontaneous pregnancy rather than IVF.”

“Then, we put [the quilted ovarian slices] on to the medulla on the other side in such a way that the fallopian tube would be able to reach and catch any egg that’s ovulated during that time,” he added.

Dr. Silber and his group found that, over time, follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) levels sharply decreased to normal or near-normal levels between 69 days and 133 days after the procedure while Anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) levels dramatically rose to higher levels between 133 days and 227 days post-procedure before dropping to very low levels, “and the AMH remained at low levels despite the fact that [transplants] would last 8 to 10 years,” said Dr. Silber.

Of the 14 cases where frozen ovarian tissue was reimplanted, 11 patients (78%) achieved pregnancy, 10 patients (71%) delivered healthy babies, and 1 patient (9%) experienced a miscarriage. All patients had spontaneous pregnancies, and none used in vitro fertilization (IVF), noted Dr. Silber. There were 2 patients who had four children from transplanted ovarian tissue, and 2 of 3 patients with leukemia had a total of five children.

Additionally, Dr. Silber’s group examined the literature for other examples of ovarian tissue reimplantation after cryopreservation to determine how many live births resulted from the procedure. They found an additional 170 live births in addition to the 15 live births at their center, with a pregnancy rate ranging from 31% to 71% in different studies. Cancer was not transmitted from mother to child in any case, said Dr. Silber.

Compared with egg freezing, there is a benefit to performing ovarian tissue freezing, even after chemotherapy has begun, noted Dr. Silber. The cost of ovarian tissue freezing is also roughly one-tenth that of egg freezing, and the procedure is less burdensome than multiple cycles with the potential for ovarian hyperstimulation, and it restores the hormone function and the fertility of eggs after reimplantation.

“Because the greater primordial follicle recruitment decreases as the ovarian reserve decreases, you can put a piece of ovary tissue back every 8 years, and a woman can have endocrine function until she’s 100 years old,” said Dr. Silber.

Dr. Silber reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Silber SJ. ASRM 2019. Abstract O-203.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Article Source

REPORTING FROM ASRM 2019

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