User login
Mitchel is a reporter for MDedge based in the Philadelphia area. He started with the company in 1992, when it was International Medical News Group (IMNG), and has since covered a range of medical specialties. Mitchel trained as a virologist at Roswell Park Memorial Institute in Buffalo, and then worked briefly as a researcher at Boston Children's Hospital before pivoting to journalism as a AAAS Mass Media Fellow in 1980. His first reporting job was with Science Digest magazine, and from the mid-1980s to early-1990s he was a reporter with Medical World News. @mitchelzoler
Three-drug regimen shows promise for refractory primary biliary cholangitis
VIENNA –
In addition to producing drops in levels of alkaline phosphatase and bilirubin, key surrogate markers for ultimate clinical benefit, the addition of bezafibrate also led to reduced pruritis among five of eight patients who had this symptom when they started on bezafibrate, Lena Smets said at the meeting, sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver. Pruritis is a bothersome adverse effect from obeticholic acid (OCA) treatment that also occurs in patients with untreated primary biliary cholangitis (PBC), so the drop in pruritis in patients who started bezafibrate was notable. Overall, the triple regimen of ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA), OCA, and bezafibrate was “well tolerated,” said Ms. Smets, a researcher at KU Leuven, Belgium.
Bezafibrate is available in Europe as a lipid-lowering treatment, especially for lowering triglycerides, so there might be a temptation to use it off label in routine practice as an add-on to UDCA and OCA in PBC patients who are not fully responsive to this dual therapy, Ms. Smets acknowledged. But she stressed that what’s needed now is a multicenter, randomized trial of bezafibrate as part of triple-therapy regimen with many more than the 10 patients included in her review.
Both UDCA and OCA have Food and Drug Administration approval for U.S. treatment of PBC. Bezafibrate is not approved for U.S. marketing, but the related agent fenofibrate has FDA approval and has shown preliminary evidence of acting like bezafibrate in PBC patients in small pilot studies or case reports, showing that “growing evidence supports the use of fibrates, but their safety has not been firmly established, and caution should be used,” according to a recent review by clinicians from the University of California, Davis (Gastroenterol Hepatol [NY]. 2018 March;14[3]:154-63).
The series of 10 PBC patients who received triple therapy at KU Leuven began as part of a cohort of 16 PBC patients treated at that center with UDCA monotherapy for an average of 6 years before entering the POISE (Phase 3 Study of Obeticholic Acid in Patients With Primary Biliary Cirrhosis) phase 3 trial that ran at KU Leuven and 57 other sites in 13 countries. POISE randomized 216 PBC patients with persistently elevated alkaline phosphatase and bilirubin levels despite UDCA treatment to added treatment with OCA. The results showed incremental benefit to these patients from a tolerable OCA acid regimen (N Engl J Med. 2016 Aug 18;375[7]631-43). The findings helped OCA (Ocaliva) get FDA marketing approval in 2016 for treatment of PBC when added to UDCA in patients not fully responsive to UDCA monotherapy.
The case for bezafibrate as an add-on to UDCA for refractory PBC patients was documented by a 2018 report from the BEZURSO (Phase 3 Study of Bezafibrate in Combination With Ursodeoxycholic Acid in Primary Biliary Cirrhosis) trial. Run at multiple centers in France, the trial randomized 100 patients on UDCA treatment to added bezafibrate or placebo, and showed that bezafibrate produced significant incremental decreases in and normalizations of alkaline phosphatase and bilirubin levels. It also had the expected effect of increasing serum creatinine level by an average of 5% (N Engl J Med. 2018 June 7;378[23]:2171-81).
Among the 16 participants in the POISE trial at KU Leuven, 13 completed that trial and then agreed to start on a triple regimen with bezafibrate added because of persistent elevations in alkaline phosphatase, and 10 patients completed 6 months on triple treatment. After 6 months, alkaline phosphatase levels reached the normal range in 5 of these 10 patients, Ms. Smets reported. Bilirubin levels also decreased in each of the 10 patients, although bilirubin had already been at a normal level in 9 of the 10 patients at the start of bezafibrate treatment, and this rate remained at 9 of 10 after 6 months. Eight of the 10 had pruritis when they started bezafibrate, and five of these eight reported decreased symptoms on treatment. Patients also showed no biochemical evidence of hepatotoxicity on the triple regimen, Ms. Smets said.
Guidelines published in 2017 from the European Association for the Study of the Liver cited evidence from small studies showing possible efficacy of fibrates as an add-on for PBC patients refractory to UDCA monotherapy, but stopped short of any endorsement of their use (J Hepatol. 2017 July;67[1]:145-72). However, guidelines from the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, released several months later and after publication of the BEZURSO results, said that “fibrates can be considered as off-label alternatives for patients with PBC and inadequate response to UDCA,” but also warned that “use of OCA and fibrates is discouraged in patients with decompensated liver disease (Child Pugh–Turcotte B or C)” (Hepatology. 2018 Jan;69[1]:394-419).
SOURCE: Smets L et al. J Hepatol. 2019 April;70[1]:e130.
Clinicians in Europe already use this triple therapy in appropriate patients. Bezafibrate is cheap, it has been used since the 1970s to lower triglyceride levels, and it is generally safe. Following the report of results from the BEZURSO trial in 2018, guidelines changed to accept the option of adding a fibrate to ursodeoxycholic acid and obeticholic acid.
Thomas Berg, MD, is professor and head of hepatology at University Hospital in Leipzig, Germany. He has received personal fees and research support from several companies including Intercept, the company that markets obeticholic acid (Ocaliva). He made these comments in an interview.
Clinicians in Europe already use this triple therapy in appropriate patients. Bezafibrate is cheap, it has been used since the 1970s to lower triglyceride levels, and it is generally safe. Following the report of results from the BEZURSO trial in 2018, guidelines changed to accept the option of adding a fibrate to ursodeoxycholic acid and obeticholic acid.
Thomas Berg, MD, is professor and head of hepatology at University Hospital in Leipzig, Germany. He has received personal fees and research support from several companies including Intercept, the company that markets obeticholic acid (Ocaliva). He made these comments in an interview.
Clinicians in Europe already use this triple therapy in appropriate patients. Bezafibrate is cheap, it has been used since the 1970s to lower triglyceride levels, and it is generally safe. Following the report of results from the BEZURSO trial in 2018, guidelines changed to accept the option of adding a fibrate to ursodeoxycholic acid and obeticholic acid.
Thomas Berg, MD, is professor and head of hepatology at University Hospital in Leipzig, Germany. He has received personal fees and research support from several companies including Intercept, the company that markets obeticholic acid (Ocaliva). He made these comments in an interview.
VIENNA –
In addition to producing drops in levels of alkaline phosphatase and bilirubin, key surrogate markers for ultimate clinical benefit, the addition of bezafibrate also led to reduced pruritis among five of eight patients who had this symptom when they started on bezafibrate, Lena Smets said at the meeting, sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver. Pruritis is a bothersome adverse effect from obeticholic acid (OCA) treatment that also occurs in patients with untreated primary biliary cholangitis (PBC), so the drop in pruritis in patients who started bezafibrate was notable. Overall, the triple regimen of ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA), OCA, and bezafibrate was “well tolerated,” said Ms. Smets, a researcher at KU Leuven, Belgium.
Bezafibrate is available in Europe as a lipid-lowering treatment, especially for lowering triglycerides, so there might be a temptation to use it off label in routine practice as an add-on to UDCA and OCA in PBC patients who are not fully responsive to this dual therapy, Ms. Smets acknowledged. But she stressed that what’s needed now is a multicenter, randomized trial of bezafibrate as part of triple-therapy regimen with many more than the 10 patients included in her review.
Both UDCA and OCA have Food and Drug Administration approval for U.S. treatment of PBC. Bezafibrate is not approved for U.S. marketing, but the related agent fenofibrate has FDA approval and has shown preliminary evidence of acting like bezafibrate in PBC patients in small pilot studies or case reports, showing that “growing evidence supports the use of fibrates, but their safety has not been firmly established, and caution should be used,” according to a recent review by clinicians from the University of California, Davis (Gastroenterol Hepatol [NY]. 2018 March;14[3]:154-63).
The series of 10 PBC patients who received triple therapy at KU Leuven began as part of a cohort of 16 PBC patients treated at that center with UDCA monotherapy for an average of 6 years before entering the POISE (Phase 3 Study of Obeticholic Acid in Patients With Primary Biliary Cirrhosis) phase 3 trial that ran at KU Leuven and 57 other sites in 13 countries. POISE randomized 216 PBC patients with persistently elevated alkaline phosphatase and bilirubin levels despite UDCA treatment to added treatment with OCA. The results showed incremental benefit to these patients from a tolerable OCA acid regimen (N Engl J Med. 2016 Aug 18;375[7]631-43). The findings helped OCA (Ocaliva) get FDA marketing approval in 2016 for treatment of PBC when added to UDCA in patients not fully responsive to UDCA monotherapy.
The case for bezafibrate as an add-on to UDCA for refractory PBC patients was documented by a 2018 report from the BEZURSO (Phase 3 Study of Bezafibrate in Combination With Ursodeoxycholic Acid in Primary Biliary Cirrhosis) trial. Run at multiple centers in France, the trial randomized 100 patients on UDCA treatment to added bezafibrate or placebo, and showed that bezafibrate produced significant incremental decreases in and normalizations of alkaline phosphatase and bilirubin levels. It also had the expected effect of increasing serum creatinine level by an average of 5% (N Engl J Med. 2018 June 7;378[23]:2171-81).
Among the 16 participants in the POISE trial at KU Leuven, 13 completed that trial and then agreed to start on a triple regimen with bezafibrate added because of persistent elevations in alkaline phosphatase, and 10 patients completed 6 months on triple treatment. After 6 months, alkaline phosphatase levels reached the normal range in 5 of these 10 patients, Ms. Smets reported. Bilirubin levels also decreased in each of the 10 patients, although bilirubin had already been at a normal level in 9 of the 10 patients at the start of bezafibrate treatment, and this rate remained at 9 of 10 after 6 months. Eight of the 10 had pruritis when they started bezafibrate, and five of these eight reported decreased symptoms on treatment. Patients also showed no biochemical evidence of hepatotoxicity on the triple regimen, Ms. Smets said.
Guidelines published in 2017 from the European Association for the Study of the Liver cited evidence from small studies showing possible efficacy of fibrates as an add-on for PBC patients refractory to UDCA monotherapy, but stopped short of any endorsement of their use (J Hepatol. 2017 July;67[1]:145-72). However, guidelines from the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, released several months later and after publication of the BEZURSO results, said that “fibrates can be considered as off-label alternatives for patients with PBC and inadequate response to UDCA,” but also warned that “use of OCA and fibrates is discouraged in patients with decompensated liver disease (Child Pugh–Turcotte B or C)” (Hepatology. 2018 Jan;69[1]:394-419).
SOURCE: Smets L et al. J Hepatol. 2019 April;70[1]:e130.
VIENNA –
In addition to producing drops in levels of alkaline phosphatase and bilirubin, key surrogate markers for ultimate clinical benefit, the addition of bezafibrate also led to reduced pruritis among five of eight patients who had this symptom when they started on bezafibrate, Lena Smets said at the meeting, sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver. Pruritis is a bothersome adverse effect from obeticholic acid (OCA) treatment that also occurs in patients with untreated primary biliary cholangitis (PBC), so the drop in pruritis in patients who started bezafibrate was notable. Overall, the triple regimen of ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA), OCA, and bezafibrate was “well tolerated,” said Ms. Smets, a researcher at KU Leuven, Belgium.
Bezafibrate is available in Europe as a lipid-lowering treatment, especially for lowering triglycerides, so there might be a temptation to use it off label in routine practice as an add-on to UDCA and OCA in PBC patients who are not fully responsive to this dual therapy, Ms. Smets acknowledged. But she stressed that what’s needed now is a multicenter, randomized trial of bezafibrate as part of triple-therapy regimen with many more than the 10 patients included in her review.
Both UDCA and OCA have Food and Drug Administration approval for U.S. treatment of PBC. Bezafibrate is not approved for U.S. marketing, but the related agent fenofibrate has FDA approval and has shown preliminary evidence of acting like bezafibrate in PBC patients in small pilot studies or case reports, showing that “growing evidence supports the use of fibrates, but their safety has not been firmly established, and caution should be used,” according to a recent review by clinicians from the University of California, Davis (Gastroenterol Hepatol [NY]. 2018 March;14[3]:154-63).
The series of 10 PBC patients who received triple therapy at KU Leuven began as part of a cohort of 16 PBC patients treated at that center with UDCA monotherapy for an average of 6 years before entering the POISE (Phase 3 Study of Obeticholic Acid in Patients With Primary Biliary Cirrhosis) phase 3 trial that ran at KU Leuven and 57 other sites in 13 countries. POISE randomized 216 PBC patients with persistently elevated alkaline phosphatase and bilirubin levels despite UDCA treatment to added treatment with OCA. The results showed incremental benefit to these patients from a tolerable OCA acid regimen (N Engl J Med. 2016 Aug 18;375[7]631-43). The findings helped OCA (Ocaliva) get FDA marketing approval in 2016 for treatment of PBC when added to UDCA in patients not fully responsive to UDCA monotherapy.
The case for bezafibrate as an add-on to UDCA for refractory PBC patients was documented by a 2018 report from the BEZURSO (Phase 3 Study of Bezafibrate in Combination With Ursodeoxycholic Acid in Primary Biliary Cirrhosis) trial. Run at multiple centers in France, the trial randomized 100 patients on UDCA treatment to added bezafibrate or placebo, and showed that bezafibrate produced significant incremental decreases in and normalizations of alkaline phosphatase and bilirubin levels. It also had the expected effect of increasing serum creatinine level by an average of 5% (N Engl J Med. 2018 June 7;378[23]:2171-81).
Among the 16 participants in the POISE trial at KU Leuven, 13 completed that trial and then agreed to start on a triple regimen with bezafibrate added because of persistent elevations in alkaline phosphatase, and 10 patients completed 6 months on triple treatment. After 6 months, alkaline phosphatase levels reached the normal range in 5 of these 10 patients, Ms. Smets reported. Bilirubin levels also decreased in each of the 10 patients, although bilirubin had already been at a normal level in 9 of the 10 patients at the start of bezafibrate treatment, and this rate remained at 9 of 10 after 6 months. Eight of the 10 had pruritis when they started bezafibrate, and five of these eight reported decreased symptoms on treatment. Patients also showed no biochemical evidence of hepatotoxicity on the triple regimen, Ms. Smets said.
Guidelines published in 2017 from the European Association for the Study of the Liver cited evidence from small studies showing possible efficacy of fibrates as an add-on for PBC patients refractory to UDCA monotherapy, but stopped short of any endorsement of their use (J Hepatol. 2017 July;67[1]:145-72). However, guidelines from the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, released several months later and after publication of the BEZURSO results, said that “fibrates can be considered as off-label alternatives for patients with PBC and inadequate response to UDCA,” but also warned that “use of OCA and fibrates is discouraged in patients with decompensated liver disease (Child Pugh–Turcotte B or C)” (Hepatology. 2018 Jan;69[1]:394-419).
SOURCE: Smets L et al. J Hepatol. 2019 April;70[1]:e130.
REPORTING FROM ILC 2019
Blunted cardiac reserve strongly predicts incident hepatorenal syndrome
VIENNA – Patients with cirrhosis and undergoing work-up for a possible liver transplant who had low cardiac reserve had a nearly fourfold increased rate of developing hepatorenal syndrome (HRS) during an average 17 months of follow-up, compared with patients with normal cardiac reserve, in a review of 560 Australian patients assessed for a possible liver transplant.
The findings suggest that patients with advanced liver disease should routinely undergo assessment for low cardiac reserve, Anoop N. Koshy, MBBS, said at the meeting sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver.
said Dr. Koshy, a cardiologist with Austin Health in Melbourne. “We propose that it’s not low cardiac output that leads to HRS, but an inability of patients to increase their cardiac output” in response to usual stimuli.
The findings also add to the concerns about using nonselective beta-blocker drugs in patients with cirrhosis because of the potential of these drugs to further blunt increases in cardiac output; they also suggest that noninvasive measurement of cardiac reserve could identify patients with low cardiac reserve who could benefit from closer monitoring and new approaches to treatment, he suggested. About 10%-30% of patients with cirrhosis develop HRS, and the new finding suggests a noninvasive way to identify patients with the highest risk for this complication.
The study included 560 consecutive patients with cirrhosis and end-stage liver disease who were awaiting a liver transplant at the Victoria Liver Transplant Unit in Melbourne and underwent assessment by stress echocardiography using low-dose dobutamine (10 mcg/kg per min) during 2010-2017 as part of their standard pretransplant work-up. Exclusion of patients with known cardiac disease prior to their stress echo examination or incomplete measurement left 488 patients, of whom 424 were free from HRS at baseline. Patients with HRS at the time of their stress echo assessment had on average a cardiac output that was about 25% higher than patients without HRS, a statistically significant difference driven by both a significantly increased heart rate and stroke volume.
Among the 424 patients free from HRS at baseline, 85 developed HRS during an average 17-month follow-up. Patients with low cardiac reserve after dobutamine challenge, defined as an increase in cardiac output of less than 25%, had a 3.9-fold increased rate of incident HRS during follow-up, compared with patients who had a larger rise in their cardiac output after adjustment for several clinical and echocardiographic baseline variables, Dr. Koshy reported. In this analysis low cardiac reserve was the strongest predictor of subsequent HRS, he said.
Dr. Koshy had no disclosures.
SOURCE: Koshy AN et al. J Hepatol. 2019 April;70(1):e56.
Cardiovascular abnormalities develop in patients with advanced chronic liver disease to produce a hyperdynamic systemic circulation with splanchnic vasodilation, decreased systemic vascular resistance, and increased cardiac output (J Hepatol. 2018;69[4]:958-60). The term cirrhotic cardiomyopathy has also been used for the changes of systolic dysfunction with impaired cardiac contractile response to stress and altered diastolic relaxation that develops in patients with cirrhosis (J Hepatol. 2010;53[1]:179-90).
In this study by Dr. Koshy and colleagues, the inability to increase cardiac output during dobutamine stress echo (DSE) was associated with a greater subsequent risk for hepatorenal syndrome (J Hepatol. 2019;70:e56).
All patients in the study were undergoing pretransplant liver evaluation. Those who developed hepatorenal syndrome (HRS) in follow-up had a higher mean cardiac output with a reduction of the increase in cardiac output that follows dobutamine administration when compared with those who did not develop HRS. A multivariate analysis that adjusted for age, gender, MELD score, and Child-Pugh score found that “impaired contractile response was the strongest predictor of hepatorenal syndrome” as defined by a less than 22% increase in cardiac output following dobutamine. Overall, 40% of those with impaired contractile reserve developed hepatorenal syndrome, compared with 25% of those with normal contractile reserve following dobutamine (P = .006). It is of interest that cirrhotic patients with HRS at the time of initial dobutamine stress echo had a 25% higher average cardiac output than those without HRS. Patients who subsequently developed hepatorenal syndrome also had higher average cardiac output at initial evaluation than those who did not.
This study continues to raise important questions about the role of cardiovascular dysfunction and the risk of hepatorenal syndrome. Additional studies seem warranted to evaluate progression of cardiac changes and dobutamine response throughout follow-up of end-stage liver disease patients, including at the development of hepatorenal syndrome. Studies of HRS patients with specific associations such as sepsis, spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, and gastrointestinal bleeding may also provide information on the role of systolic and diastolic dysfunction during such events.
This article also draws attention to “concerns about using nonselective beta-blocker drugs in patients with cirrhosis.” Current data indicate that nonselective beta-blockers reduce all-cause mortality and the risk of first variceal hemorrhage in patients with advanced liver disease (Hepatology. 2019;69[4]:1657-75). Until we have studies that reveal a clear association between beta-blockers and development of hepatorenal syndrome, I will continue to recommend the use of beta-blockers in cirrhotic patients at risk for first variceal hemorrhage.
Rowen K. Zetterman, MD, is dean emeritus of the Creighton University School of Medicine in Omaha, Neb. He serves as the Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and the Associate Vice Chancellor for Planning at the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha. Dr. Zetterman, a gastroenterologist and hepatologist, is also a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News.
Cardiovascular abnormalities develop in patients with advanced chronic liver disease to produce a hyperdynamic systemic circulation with splanchnic vasodilation, decreased systemic vascular resistance, and increased cardiac output (J Hepatol. 2018;69[4]:958-60). The term cirrhotic cardiomyopathy has also been used for the changes of systolic dysfunction with impaired cardiac contractile response to stress and altered diastolic relaxation that develops in patients with cirrhosis (J Hepatol. 2010;53[1]:179-90).
In this study by Dr. Koshy and colleagues, the inability to increase cardiac output during dobutamine stress echo (DSE) was associated with a greater subsequent risk for hepatorenal syndrome (J Hepatol. 2019;70:e56).
All patients in the study were undergoing pretransplant liver evaluation. Those who developed hepatorenal syndrome (HRS) in follow-up had a higher mean cardiac output with a reduction of the increase in cardiac output that follows dobutamine administration when compared with those who did not develop HRS. A multivariate analysis that adjusted for age, gender, MELD score, and Child-Pugh score found that “impaired contractile response was the strongest predictor of hepatorenal syndrome” as defined by a less than 22% increase in cardiac output following dobutamine. Overall, 40% of those with impaired contractile reserve developed hepatorenal syndrome, compared with 25% of those with normal contractile reserve following dobutamine (P = .006). It is of interest that cirrhotic patients with HRS at the time of initial dobutamine stress echo had a 25% higher average cardiac output than those without HRS. Patients who subsequently developed hepatorenal syndrome also had higher average cardiac output at initial evaluation than those who did not.
This study continues to raise important questions about the role of cardiovascular dysfunction and the risk of hepatorenal syndrome. Additional studies seem warranted to evaluate progression of cardiac changes and dobutamine response throughout follow-up of end-stage liver disease patients, including at the development of hepatorenal syndrome. Studies of HRS patients with specific associations such as sepsis, spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, and gastrointestinal bleeding may also provide information on the role of systolic and diastolic dysfunction during such events.
This article also draws attention to “concerns about using nonselective beta-blocker drugs in patients with cirrhosis.” Current data indicate that nonselective beta-blockers reduce all-cause mortality and the risk of first variceal hemorrhage in patients with advanced liver disease (Hepatology. 2019;69[4]:1657-75). Until we have studies that reveal a clear association between beta-blockers and development of hepatorenal syndrome, I will continue to recommend the use of beta-blockers in cirrhotic patients at risk for first variceal hemorrhage.
Rowen K. Zetterman, MD, is dean emeritus of the Creighton University School of Medicine in Omaha, Neb. He serves as the Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and the Associate Vice Chancellor for Planning at the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha. Dr. Zetterman, a gastroenterologist and hepatologist, is also a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News.
Cardiovascular abnormalities develop in patients with advanced chronic liver disease to produce a hyperdynamic systemic circulation with splanchnic vasodilation, decreased systemic vascular resistance, and increased cardiac output (J Hepatol. 2018;69[4]:958-60). The term cirrhotic cardiomyopathy has also been used for the changes of systolic dysfunction with impaired cardiac contractile response to stress and altered diastolic relaxation that develops in patients with cirrhosis (J Hepatol. 2010;53[1]:179-90).
In this study by Dr. Koshy and colleagues, the inability to increase cardiac output during dobutamine stress echo (DSE) was associated with a greater subsequent risk for hepatorenal syndrome (J Hepatol. 2019;70:e56).
All patients in the study were undergoing pretransplant liver evaluation. Those who developed hepatorenal syndrome (HRS) in follow-up had a higher mean cardiac output with a reduction of the increase in cardiac output that follows dobutamine administration when compared with those who did not develop HRS. A multivariate analysis that adjusted for age, gender, MELD score, and Child-Pugh score found that “impaired contractile response was the strongest predictor of hepatorenal syndrome” as defined by a less than 22% increase in cardiac output following dobutamine. Overall, 40% of those with impaired contractile reserve developed hepatorenal syndrome, compared with 25% of those with normal contractile reserve following dobutamine (P = .006). It is of interest that cirrhotic patients with HRS at the time of initial dobutamine stress echo had a 25% higher average cardiac output than those without HRS. Patients who subsequently developed hepatorenal syndrome also had higher average cardiac output at initial evaluation than those who did not.
This study continues to raise important questions about the role of cardiovascular dysfunction and the risk of hepatorenal syndrome. Additional studies seem warranted to evaluate progression of cardiac changes and dobutamine response throughout follow-up of end-stage liver disease patients, including at the development of hepatorenal syndrome. Studies of HRS patients with specific associations such as sepsis, spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, and gastrointestinal bleeding may also provide information on the role of systolic and diastolic dysfunction during such events.
This article also draws attention to “concerns about using nonselective beta-blocker drugs in patients with cirrhosis.” Current data indicate that nonselective beta-blockers reduce all-cause mortality and the risk of first variceal hemorrhage in patients with advanced liver disease (Hepatology. 2019;69[4]:1657-75). Until we have studies that reveal a clear association between beta-blockers and development of hepatorenal syndrome, I will continue to recommend the use of beta-blockers in cirrhotic patients at risk for first variceal hemorrhage.
Rowen K. Zetterman, MD, is dean emeritus of the Creighton University School of Medicine in Omaha, Neb. He serves as the Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and the Associate Vice Chancellor for Planning at the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha. Dr. Zetterman, a gastroenterologist and hepatologist, is also a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News.
VIENNA – Patients with cirrhosis and undergoing work-up for a possible liver transplant who had low cardiac reserve had a nearly fourfold increased rate of developing hepatorenal syndrome (HRS) during an average 17 months of follow-up, compared with patients with normal cardiac reserve, in a review of 560 Australian patients assessed for a possible liver transplant.
The findings suggest that patients with advanced liver disease should routinely undergo assessment for low cardiac reserve, Anoop N. Koshy, MBBS, said at the meeting sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver.
said Dr. Koshy, a cardiologist with Austin Health in Melbourne. “We propose that it’s not low cardiac output that leads to HRS, but an inability of patients to increase their cardiac output” in response to usual stimuli.
The findings also add to the concerns about using nonselective beta-blocker drugs in patients with cirrhosis because of the potential of these drugs to further blunt increases in cardiac output; they also suggest that noninvasive measurement of cardiac reserve could identify patients with low cardiac reserve who could benefit from closer monitoring and new approaches to treatment, he suggested. About 10%-30% of patients with cirrhosis develop HRS, and the new finding suggests a noninvasive way to identify patients with the highest risk for this complication.
The study included 560 consecutive patients with cirrhosis and end-stage liver disease who were awaiting a liver transplant at the Victoria Liver Transplant Unit in Melbourne and underwent assessment by stress echocardiography using low-dose dobutamine (10 mcg/kg per min) during 2010-2017 as part of their standard pretransplant work-up. Exclusion of patients with known cardiac disease prior to their stress echo examination or incomplete measurement left 488 patients, of whom 424 were free from HRS at baseline. Patients with HRS at the time of their stress echo assessment had on average a cardiac output that was about 25% higher than patients without HRS, a statistically significant difference driven by both a significantly increased heart rate and stroke volume.
Among the 424 patients free from HRS at baseline, 85 developed HRS during an average 17-month follow-up. Patients with low cardiac reserve after dobutamine challenge, defined as an increase in cardiac output of less than 25%, had a 3.9-fold increased rate of incident HRS during follow-up, compared with patients who had a larger rise in their cardiac output after adjustment for several clinical and echocardiographic baseline variables, Dr. Koshy reported. In this analysis low cardiac reserve was the strongest predictor of subsequent HRS, he said.
Dr. Koshy had no disclosures.
SOURCE: Koshy AN et al. J Hepatol. 2019 April;70(1):e56.
VIENNA – Patients with cirrhosis and undergoing work-up for a possible liver transplant who had low cardiac reserve had a nearly fourfold increased rate of developing hepatorenal syndrome (HRS) during an average 17 months of follow-up, compared with patients with normal cardiac reserve, in a review of 560 Australian patients assessed for a possible liver transplant.
The findings suggest that patients with advanced liver disease should routinely undergo assessment for low cardiac reserve, Anoop N. Koshy, MBBS, said at the meeting sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver.
said Dr. Koshy, a cardiologist with Austin Health in Melbourne. “We propose that it’s not low cardiac output that leads to HRS, but an inability of patients to increase their cardiac output” in response to usual stimuli.
The findings also add to the concerns about using nonselective beta-blocker drugs in patients with cirrhosis because of the potential of these drugs to further blunt increases in cardiac output; they also suggest that noninvasive measurement of cardiac reserve could identify patients with low cardiac reserve who could benefit from closer monitoring and new approaches to treatment, he suggested. About 10%-30% of patients with cirrhosis develop HRS, and the new finding suggests a noninvasive way to identify patients with the highest risk for this complication.
The study included 560 consecutive patients with cirrhosis and end-stage liver disease who were awaiting a liver transplant at the Victoria Liver Transplant Unit in Melbourne and underwent assessment by stress echocardiography using low-dose dobutamine (10 mcg/kg per min) during 2010-2017 as part of their standard pretransplant work-up. Exclusion of patients with known cardiac disease prior to their stress echo examination or incomplete measurement left 488 patients, of whom 424 were free from HRS at baseline. Patients with HRS at the time of their stress echo assessment had on average a cardiac output that was about 25% higher than patients without HRS, a statistically significant difference driven by both a significantly increased heart rate and stroke volume.
Among the 424 patients free from HRS at baseline, 85 developed HRS during an average 17-month follow-up. Patients with low cardiac reserve after dobutamine challenge, defined as an increase in cardiac output of less than 25%, had a 3.9-fold increased rate of incident HRS during follow-up, compared with patients who had a larger rise in their cardiac output after adjustment for several clinical and echocardiographic baseline variables, Dr. Koshy reported. In this analysis low cardiac reserve was the strongest predictor of subsequent HRS, he said.
Dr. Koshy had no disclosures.
SOURCE: Koshy AN et al. J Hepatol. 2019 April;70(1):e56.
REPORTING FROM ILC 2019
Medical societies endorse tiered certification for U.S. heart-valve care
The centerpiece of the integrated model is a certification process that would designate appropriate hospitals as “Comprehensive (Level I)” or “Primary (Level II)” valve centers to serve as the designated U.S. sites for performing repair or replacement of aortic and mitral valves by transcatheter or open-surgery procedures.
The consensus document, written by a panel of mostly interventional cardiologists or heart surgeons and published in Journal of the American College of Cardiology, cited the success of similar accreditation and tiered systems that have become fixtures in United States for the delivery of care for trauma, stroke, cancer, bariatric surgery, and percutaneous coronary intervention for acute ST-segment elevation MI.
The focus of the consensus document is to “initiate a discussion regarding whether a regionalized, tiered system of care for patients with [valvular heart disease (VHD)] that accounts for the differences in valve center expertise, experience, and resources constitutes a more rational delivery model than one left to expand continuously without direction,” the panel wrote.
Under the proposal, a key component of every designated valve center would be a multidisciplinary clinical team, staffed at minimum with an interventional cardiologist, a cardiac surgeon, echocardiographic and radiographic imaging specialists, a specialist in heart failure, a person with valve expertise, nurse practitioners, a cardiovascular anesthesiologist, a program navigator, and a data manager. Valve centers also would need to enroll patients in registries, perform research, education, and training, and collect data using carefully selected performance metrics.
The document addresses case-volume minimums, a topic that’s been tricky for leaders in the heart-valve field to reconcile as they try to balance volume thresholds against having valve procedures readily available and convenient for rural or remote patients.
“The primary motivation behind volume recommendations is not to exclude centers but rather to serve as one metric in the identification of centers that are most capable of providing certain services,” the consensus statement explained. “Volumes alone are not necessarily the best surrogate for quality, but a volume-outcome association does exist for many cardiac procedures.”
Recent proof of this relationship for transcatheter aortic valve replacement appeared in an article published earlier in April; the article reviewed 30-day mortality outcomes for more than 113,000 U.S. patients who underwent this procedure and showed that centers with the lowest procedure volumes also had the highest mortality rate (New Engl J Med. 2019 April 3. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa1901109).
But the document also qualified its support of and the role for volume minimums, highlighting that case volume is an inadequate surrogate for program quality, especially when considered in isolation. “The proposed concept of system care for VHD patients is not conceived to deny individuals and institutions the opportunity to provide services, nor should it be perceived to impede the ability of a committed center to achieve its strategic goals. Rather, it is intended to focus more on outcomes and not simply on procedural volumes.”
The launch by the Joint Commission of a Comprehensive Cardiac Advanced Certification program in January 2017, which included VHD care, is a step toward that goal, but “there is a great deal of detailed work ahead to realize the goal of this proposal,” according to the consensus document.
The consensus statement was issued by the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, the American College of Cardiology, the American Society of Echocardiography, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons.
SOURCE: Nishimura RA et al. J Amer Coll Cardiol. 2019 April 19. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2018.10.007.
The centerpiece of the integrated model is a certification process that would designate appropriate hospitals as “Comprehensive (Level I)” or “Primary (Level II)” valve centers to serve as the designated U.S. sites for performing repair or replacement of aortic and mitral valves by transcatheter or open-surgery procedures.
The consensus document, written by a panel of mostly interventional cardiologists or heart surgeons and published in Journal of the American College of Cardiology, cited the success of similar accreditation and tiered systems that have become fixtures in United States for the delivery of care for trauma, stroke, cancer, bariatric surgery, and percutaneous coronary intervention for acute ST-segment elevation MI.
The focus of the consensus document is to “initiate a discussion regarding whether a regionalized, tiered system of care for patients with [valvular heart disease (VHD)] that accounts for the differences in valve center expertise, experience, and resources constitutes a more rational delivery model than one left to expand continuously without direction,” the panel wrote.
Under the proposal, a key component of every designated valve center would be a multidisciplinary clinical team, staffed at minimum with an interventional cardiologist, a cardiac surgeon, echocardiographic and radiographic imaging specialists, a specialist in heart failure, a person with valve expertise, nurse practitioners, a cardiovascular anesthesiologist, a program navigator, and a data manager. Valve centers also would need to enroll patients in registries, perform research, education, and training, and collect data using carefully selected performance metrics.
The document addresses case-volume minimums, a topic that’s been tricky for leaders in the heart-valve field to reconcile as they try to balance volume thresholds against having valve procedures readily available and convenient for rural or remote patients.
“The primary motivation behind volume recommendations is not to exclude centers but rather to serve as one metric in the identification of centers that are most capable of providing certain services,” the consensus statement explained. “Volumes alone are not necessarily the best surrogate for quality, but a volume-outcome association does exist for many cardiac procedures.”
Recent proof of this relationship for transcatheter aortic valve replacement appeared in an article published earlier in April; the article reviewed 30-day mortality outcomes for more than 113,000 U.S. patients who underwent this procedure and showed that centers with the lowest procedure volumes also had the highest mortality rate (New Engl J Med. 2019 April 3. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa1901109).
But the document also qualified its support of and the role for volume minimums, highlighting that case volume is an inadequate surrogate for program quality, especially when considered in isolation. “The proposed concept of system care for VHD patients is not conceived to deny individuals and institutions the opportunity to provide services, nor should it be perceived to impede the ability of a committed center to achieve its strategic goals. Rather, it is intended to focus more on outcomes and not simply on procedural volumes.”
The launch by the Joint Commission of a Comprehensive Cardiac Advanced Certification program in January 2017, which included VHD care, is a step toward that goal, but “there is a great deal of detailed work ahead to realize the goal of this proposal,” according to the consensus document.
The consensus statement was issued by the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, the American College of Cardiology, the American Society of Echocardiography, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons.
SOURCE: Nishimura RA et al. J Amer Coll Cardiol. 2019 April 19. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2018.10.007.
The centerpiece of the integrated model is a certification process that would designate appropriate hospitals as “Comprehensive (Level I)” or “Primary (Level II)” valve centers to serve as the designated U.S. sites for performing repair or replacement of aortic and mitral valves by transcatheter or open-surgery procedures.
The consensus document, written by a panel of mostly interventional cardiologists or heart surgeons and published in Journal of the American College of Cardiology, cited the success of similar accreditation and tiered systems that have become fixtures in United States for the delivery of care for trauma, stroke, cancer, bariatric surgery, and percutaneous coronary intervention for acute ST-segment elevation MI.
The focus of the consensus document is to “initiate a discussion regarding whether a regionalized, tiered system of care for patients with [valvular heart disease (VHD)] that accounts for the differences in valve center expertise, experience, and resources constitutes a more rational delivery model than one left to expand continuously without direction,” the panel wrote.
Under the proposal, a key component of every designated valve center would be a multidisciplinary clinical team, staffed at minimum with an interventional cardiologist, a cardiac surgeon, echocardiographic and radiographic imaging specialists, a specialist in heart failure, a person with valve expertise, nurse practitioners, a cardiovascular anesthesiologist, a program navigator, and a data manager. Valve centers also would need to enroll patients in registries, perform research, education, and training, and collect data using carefully selected performance metrics.
The document addresses case-volume minimums, a topic that’s been tricky for leaders in the heart-valve field to reconcile as they try to balance volume thresholds against having valve procedures readily available and convenient for rural or remote patients.
“The primary motivation behind volume recommendations is not to exclude centers but rather to serve as one metric in the identification of centers that are most capable of providing certain services,” the consensus statement explained. “Volumes alone are not necessarily the best surrogate for quality, but a volume-outcome association does exist for many cardiac procedures.”
Recent proof of this relationship for transcatheter aortic valve replacement appeared in an article published earlier in April; the article reviewed 30-day mortality outcomes for more than 113,000 U.S. patients who underwent this procedure and showed that centers with the lowest procedure volumes also had the highest mortality rate (New Engl J Med. 2019 April 3. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa1901109).
But the document also qualified its support of and the role for volume minimums, highlighting that case volume is an inadequate surrogate for program quality, especially when considered in isolation. “The proposed concept of system care for VHD patients is not conceived to deny individuals and institutions the opportunity to provide services, nor should it be perceived to impede the ability of a committed center to achieve its strategic goals. Rather, it is intended to focus more on outcomes and not simply on procedural volumes.”
The launch by the Joint Commission of a Comprehensive Cardiac Advanced Certification program in January 2017, which included VHD care, is a step toward that goal, but “there is a great deal of detailed work ahead to realize the goal of this proposal,” according to the consensus document.
The consensus statement was issued by the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, the American College of Cardiology, the American Society of Echocardiography, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons.
SOURCE: Nishimura RA et al. J Amer Coll Cardiol. 2019 April 19. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2018.10.007.
FROM JACC
Liver steatosis common in English young adults
VIENNA – The prevalence of liver steatosis among unselected English young adults was 21% in a study of just over 4,000 people. The prevalence of apparent liver fibrosis was 2.4%, and among the 21% with steatosis, nearly half – 10% of the studied cohort – had severe, S3 steatosis.
The prevalence of steatosis, a marker of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), seemed to be linked with obesity. Among the 79% of the study group who had no steatosis the obesity prevalence was 6%, compared with a 26% prevalence among those with S1 steatosis, a 33% obesity rate among those with S2 steatosis, and a 57% obesity prevalence among those with S3 steatosis, Kushala Abeysekera, MBBS, said at the meeting sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver.
He and his associates determined these prevalence rates in a population that excluded people who reported consuming what was deemed “excessive” alcohol use.
Another notable finding was that 1,874 of the same people had undergone ultrasound assessment for NAFLD when they were 18 years old, and that assessment found a prevalence of 2.5% (J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2014 March;99[3]:e410-7), which meant that during the subsequent 6 years prevalence of NAFLD jumped nearly 900%.
Both the 2014 report and the current study used people who had been enrolled in the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children, a prospective population-based study that began by recruiting a cohort of more than 14,000 pregnant women during 1991-1992, and then followed the more than 13,000 children who resulted from those pregnancies. The study reported by Dr. Abeysekera focused on 4,021 of these children – now young adults – who responded to an invitation to participate in this follow-up, a number that then reduced to 3,600 with informative transient elastography results that quantified fibrosis, and 3,768 with valid Controlled Attenuated Parameter scores from elastography that reflected steatosis extent. Transient elastography is a noninvasive method of measuring liver stiffness using ultrasound and an elastic shear wave (Clin Mol Hepatol. 2012 June;18[2]:163-73).
“To the best of my knowledge, this is the only study that has assessed NAFLD in young adults using transient elastography,” said Dr. Abeysekera, an epidemiologist at the University of Bristol (England).
After subtracting from the study cohort people with excessive alcohol use, the study had transient elastography data from 3,277 24-year-olds that could calculate steatosis severity, and data from 3,128 that could quantify fibrosis.
The analysis also showed a statistically significant link between sex and the presence and severity of steatosis. Among women, 18% had steatosis, including 7% with S3 steatosis, defined as involving at least two-thirds of the liver. Among men, 26% had some degree of steatosis and 14% had the most severe form.
The presence of more severe liver fibrosis also showed a strong link to obesity. The eight people identified with F4 fibrosis (with cirrhosis) had a median body mass index of 32 kg/m2, compared with a median body mass index of 25 kg/m2 or less among those either without fibrosis or with a milder form of F1, F2, or F3 fibrosis.
Dr. Abeysekera reported no disclosures.
VIENNA – The prevalence of liver steatosis among unselected English young adults was 21% in a study of just over 4,000 people. The prevalence of apparent liver fibrosis was 2.4%, and among the 21% with steatosis, nearly half – 10% of the studied cohort – had severe, S3 steatosis.
The prevalence of steatosis, a marker of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), seemed to be linked with obesity. Among the 79% of the study group who had no steatosis the obesity prevalence was 6%, compared with a 26% prevalence among those with S1 steatosis, a 33% obesity rate among those with S2 steatosis, and a 57% obesity prevalence among those with S3 steatosis, Kushala Abeysekera, MBBS, said at the meeting sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver.
He and his associates determined these prevalence rates in a population that excluded people who reported consuming what was deemed “excessive” alcohol use.
Another notable finding was that 1,874 of the same people had undergone ultrasound assessment for NAFLD when they were 18 years old, and that assessment found a prevalence of 2.5% (J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2014 March;99[3]:e410-7), which meant that during the subsequent 6 years prevalence of NAFLD jumped nearly 900%.
Both the 2014 report and the current study used people who had been enrolled in the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children, a prospective population-based study that began by recruiting a cohort of more than 14,000 pregnant women during 1991-1992, and then followed the more than 13,000 children who resulted from those pregnancies. The study reported by Dr. Abeysekera focused on 4,021 of these children – now young adults – who responded to an invitation to participate in this follow-up, a number that then reduced to 3,600 with informative transient elastography results that quantified fibrosis, and 3,768 with valid Controlled Attenuated Parameter scores from elastography that reflected steatosis extent. Transient elastography is a noninvasive method of measuring liver stiffness using ultrasound and an elastic shear wave (Clin Mol Hepatol. 2012 June;18[2]:163-73).
“To the best of my knowledge, this is the only study that has assessed NAFLD in young adults using transient elastography,” said Dr. Abeysekera, an epidemiologist at the University of Bristol (England).
After subtracting from the study cohort people with excessive alcohol use, the study had transient elastography data from 3,277 24-year-olds that could calculate steatosis severity, and data from 3,128 that could quantify fibrosis.
The analysis also showed a statistically significant link between sex and the presence and severity of steatosis. Among women, 18% had steatosis, including 7% with S3 steatosis, defined as involving at least two-thirds of the liver. Among men, 26% had some degree of steatosis and 14% had the most severe form.
The presence of more severe liver fibrosis also showed a strong link to obesity. The eight people identified with F4 fibrosis (with cirrhosis) had a median body mass index of 32 kg/m2, compared with a median body mass index of 25 kg/m2 or less among those either without fibrosis or with a milder form of F1, F2, or F3 fibrosis.
Dr. Abeysekera reported no disclosures.
VIENNA – The prevalence of liver steatosis among unselected English young adults was 21% in a study of just over 4,000 people. The prevalence of apparent liver fibrosis was 2.4%, and among the 21% with steatosis, nearly half – 10% of the studied cohort – had severe, S3 steatosis.
The prevalence of steatosis, a marker of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), seemed to be linked with obesity. Among the 79% of the study group who had no steatosis the obesity prevalence was 6%, compared with a 26% prevalence among those with S1 steatosis, a 33% obesity rate among those with S2 steatosis, and a 57% obesity prevalence among those with S3 steatosis, Kushala Abeysekera, MBBS, said at the meeting sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver.
He and his associates determined these prevalence rates in a population that excluded people who reported consuming what was deemed “excessive” alcohol use.
Another notable finding was that 1,874 of the same people had undergone ultrasound assessment for NAFLD when they were 18 years old, and that assessment found a prevalence of 2.5% (J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2014 March;99[3]:e410-7), which meant that during the subsequent 6 years prevalence of NAFLD jumped nearly 900%.
Both the 2014 report and the current study used people who had been enrolled in the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children, a prospective population-based study that began by recruiting a cohort of more than 14,000 pregnant women during 1991-1992, and then followed the more than 13,000 children who resulted from those pregnancies. The study reported by Dr. Abeysekera focused on 4,021 of these children – now young adults – who responded to an invitation to participate in this follow-up, a number that then reduced to 3,600 with informative transient elastography results that quantified fibrosis, and 3,768 with valid Controlled Attenuated Parameter scores from elastography that reflected steatosis extent. Transient elastography is a noninvasive method of measuring liver stiffness using ultrasound and an elastic shear wave (Clin Mol Hepatol. 2012 June;18[2]:163-73).
“To the best of my knowledge, this is the only study that has assessed NAFLD in young adults using transient elastography,” said Dr. Abeysekera, an epidemiologist at the University of Bristol (England).
After subtracting from the study cohort people with excessive alcohol use, the study had transient elastography data from 3,277 24-year-olds that could calculate steatosis severity, and data from 3,128 that could quantify fibrosis.
The analysis also showed a statistically significant link between sex and the presence and severity of steatosis. Among women, 18% had steatosis, including 7% with S3 steatosis, defined as involving at least two-thirds of the liver. Among men, 26% had some degree of steatosis and 14% had the most severe form.
The presence of more severe liver fibrosis also showed a strong link to obesity. The eight people identified with F4 fibrosis (with cirrhosis) had a median body mass index of 32 kg/m2, compared with a median body mass index of 25 kg/m2 or less among those either without fibrosis or with a milder form of F1, F2, or F3 fibrosis.
Dr. Abeysekera reported no disclosures.
REPORTING FROM ILC 2019
REDUCE-IT results suggest rethinking what’s elevated triglyceride
NEW ORLEANS – The success of icosapent ethyl in cutting triglyceride levels and reducing cardiovascular disease events in at-risk patients in the REDUCE-IT trial may make clinicians rethink the threshold for an unhealthy triglyceride level that merits intervention.
Study results are also showing that the patients enrolled in REDUCE-IT are common, with apparently millions of Americans who could potentially receive the icosapent ethyl–processed fish oil used in the study if the Food and Drug Administration were to approve new labeling for the drug that the manufacturer filed for in late March 2019. Icosapent ethyl (Vascepa) already has U.S. marketing approval for reducing triglyceride (TG) levels in patients with baseline values of 500 mg/dL or greater, while the REDUCE-IT trial enrolled patients with established cardiovascular disease or diabetes plus at least one more risk factor with a TG level of 150-499 mg/dL. REDUCE-IT (Reduction of Cardiovascular Events with Icosapent Ethyl–Intervention Trial) enrolled only patients already on statin treatment and with a LDL cholesterol level of 41-100 mg/dL.
In reality, the clinicians who enrolled the 8,139 participants at 473 worldwide sites included patients with a TG level as low as 81 mg/dL, and 10% of entered patients had levels below the minimum threshold in the trial’s written design of at least 150 mg/dL. Initial results reported with the primary endpoint finding suggested that the icosapent ethyl treatment benefit extended to these patients who entered with what are currently considered normal TG values, and additional analyses reported by the study’s lead investigator, Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, which used a larger endpoint dataset that included total cardiovascular events rather than just first events, further confirmed that patients with lower baseline TG levels had reductions in their cardiovascular disease events that matched what was seen in patients who entered with substantially higher TG levels.
In the analysis that included total events, the tertile of patients with a baseline TG of 81-190 mg/dL had a statistically significant 26% relative reduction in events during an average 3.5-year follow-up, compared with the tertile of patients with a baseline level of 251 mg/dL or higher, who had a 40% reduction in their events during follow-up, reported Dr. Bhatt, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.
“We had patients [in REDUCE-IT] with lower triglycerides than the inclusion criteria. This shows that the study results apply to a broader range of patients,” he said in a talk at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology. “The total-event analysis gives us an appreciation of the large burden of ischemic events that statin-treated patients still have with baseline triglyceride levels of about 100 mg/dL.” Further analysis of the REDUCE-IT data, as well as future studies of TG-lowering drugs like icosapent ethyl, “may help redefine normal TG levels” in a manner similar to what happened over a 2-decade span as serial studies of statins and other drugs that reduced levels of LDL cholesterol led to incremental reductions in goal lipid levels.
In addition to providing greater precision in defining the impact of icosapent ethyl on events in patients with lower baseline TG levels, the total-event analysis “provided a better sense of what is actually going on” with patients clinically as they experience multiple cardiovascular events during follow-up, as well as the impact of treatment on reducing health-related costs. Concurrently with Dr. Bhatt’s report of the total-event analysis at the meeting, some of the new findings he presented also appeared online (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 March 18. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.02.032).
Recent analyses have also begun to assess the scope of patients who could potentially receive icosapent ethyl based on the enrollment criteria of REDUCE-IT. One analysis of more than 1 million people in the U.S. Veterans Affairs Health System during 2010 identified 439,019 people on statin treatment and with an LDL cholesterol of 41-100 mg/dL, the cardiovascular disease history or risk pattern that matched the trial, and not on treatment that could reduce TG levels such as fish oil. Among these people, 30% had a TG level at or above 150 mg/dL that would have qualified them to enter REDUCE-IT, said William E. Boden, MD, professor of medicine at Boston University. Among the 132,203 patients in this group who were on statin treatment and at their target LDL cholesterol level, the 5-year rate of cardiovascular disease events was 8.5% in those with higher TG levels and 6.3% in those with levels below 150 mg/dL, a statistically significant 19% increased risk after adjustment for some potential confounders, Dr. Boden reported in a poster he presented at the meeting. This analysis hinted at the magnitude of patients who are candidates for icosapent ethyl treatment based on REDUCE-IT, and the 19% residual increased risk they displayed showed what this treatment could address.
Analysis of another database identified 16% of more than 24,000 patients with stable coronary artery disease in the CLARIFY registry who would qualify for icosapent ethyl treatment by matching the REDUCE-IT enrollment criteria (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 March;73[11];doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.01.016).
REDUCE-IT was sponsored by Amarin, the company that markets icosapent ethyl (Vascepa). Dr. Bhatt is an adviser to Cardax, PhaseBio, and Regado Biosciences, he is on the board of TobeSoft, and he has received research funding from several companies. Dr. Boden reported no disclosures.
Potential "game-changing" trials appear infrequently, but needless to say, they make a huge impact when they are validated. The atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD)/diabetes community fortunately has benefited from several lipid-lowering outcomes in recent years. Clinical trials with the PCSK9 and SGLT2 inhibitors already have had substantial impact on how we approach the patient with ASCVD, and now REDUCE-IT promises to move the needle substantially in both primary and secondary ASCVD prevention and in how we view triglyceride elevations.
After achieving LDL levels of 40-100 mg/dL with statin therapy, the 8,000-patient, 4.8-year trial demonstrated a robust 25% reduction in both primary and secondary outcomes in patients treated with 4 g/day of icosapent ethyl. Patients without previous cardiovascular disease (CVD) events with diabetes and one additional CVD risk factor (primary prevention cohort) achieved the same benefit. The "total event" as opposed to the first event analysis demonstrated a 30% overall risk reduction in patients having subsequent events.
The most stunning finding in REDUCE-IT was clearly that the benefit was not directly related to the baseline triglyceride level even though icosapent ethyl is a triglyceride-lowering agent. The subgroups with baseline triglycerides 150 mg/dL or less and those with 151-200 mg/dL had a comparable CVD benefit. The "total event" analysis, however, did demonstrate a more robust relative risk reduction in patients with baseline triglycerides of 251 mg/dL or higher.
Based on the REDUCE-IT findings, pure icosapent ethyl can be added to ezetimibe and PCSK9 inhibitors as agents that amplify the statin benefit and robustly reduce the elusive statin residual risk. The role of triglycerides in CVD remains unclear, although subgroup analysis from several fibrate studies suggest a CVD benefit from treating hypertriglyceridemia in patients with triglycerides of greater than 200 mg/dL. REDUCE-IT points to a largely independent action of icosapent ethyl. Laboratory studies suggest icosapent ethyl has potent plaque-stabilizing properties. The lowering of triglycerides may well play an additive but not primary role.
Just as was the case with LDL, as studies like this evolve our understanding of "normal" triglyceride levels will also evolve. Triglycerides may eventually join LDL with strong evidence that "lower is better." Stay tuned.
Paul Jellinger, MD, MACE, is a member of the editorial advisory board for Clinical Endocrinology News. He is professor of clinical medicine on the voluntary faculty at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine and a practicing endocrinologist at The Center for Diabetes & Endocrine Care in Hollywood, Fla. He is past president of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and the American College of Endocrinology.
This comment was added 6/10/2019.
Potential "game-changing" trials appear infrequently, but needless to say, they make a huge impact when they are validated. The atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD)/diabetes community fortunately has benefited from several lipid-lowering outcomes in recent years. Clinical trials with the PCSK9 and SGLT2 inhibitors already have had substantial impact on how we approach the patient with ASCVD, and now REDUCE-IT promises to move the needle substantially in both primary and secondary ASCVD prevention and in how we view triglyceride elevations.
After achieving LDL levels of 40-100 mg/dL with statin therapy, the 8,000-patient, 4.8-year trial demonstrated a robust 25% reduction in both primary and secondary outcomes in patients treated with 4 g/day of icosapent ethyl. Patients without previous cardiovascular disease (CVD) events with diabetes and one additional CVD risk factor (primary prevention cohort) achieved the same benefit. The "total event" as opposed to the first event analysis demonstrated a 30% overall risk reduction in patients having subsequent events.
The most stunning finding in REDUCE-IT was clearly that the benefit was not directly related to the baseline triglyceride level even though icosapent ethyl is a triglyceride-lowering agent. The subgroups with baseline triglycerides 150 mg/dL or less and those with 151-200 mg/dL had a comparable CVD benefit. The "total event" analysis, however, did demonstrate a more robust relative risk reduction in patients with baseline triglycerides of 251 mg/dL or higher.
Based on the REDUCE-IT findings, pure icosapent ethyl can be added to ezetimibe and PCSK9 inhibitors as agents that amplify the statin benefit and robustly reduce the elusive statin residual risk. The role of triglycerides in CVD remains unclear, although subgroup analysis from several fibrate studies suggest a CVD benefit from treating hypertriglyceridemia in patients with triglycerides of greater than 200 mg/dL. REDUCE-IT points to a largely independent action of icosapent ethyl. Laboratory studies suggest icosapent ethyl has potent plaque-stabilizing properties. The lowering of triglycerides may well play an additive but not primary role.
Just as was the case with LDL, as studies like this evolve our understanding of "normal" triglyceride levels will also evolve. Triglycerides may eventually join LDL with strong evidence that "lower is better." Stay tuned.
Paul Jellinger, MD, MACE, is a member of the editorial advisory board for Clinical Endocrinology News. He is professor of clinical medicine on the voluntary faculty at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine and a practicing endocrinologist at The Center for Diabetes & Endocrine Care in Hollywood, Fla. He is past president of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and the American College of Endocrinology.
This comment was added 6/10/2019.
Potential "game-changing" trials appear infrequently, but needless to say, they make a huge impact when they are validated. The atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD)/diabetes community fortunately has benefited from several lipid-lowering outcomes in recent years. Clinical trials with the PCSK9 and SGLT2 inhibitors already have had substantial impact on how we approach the patient with ASCVD, and now REDUCE-IT promises to move the needle substantially in both primary and secondary ASCVD prevention and in how we view triglyceride elevations.
After achieving LDL levels of 40-100 mg/dL with statin therapy, the 8,000-patient, 4.8-year trial demonstrated a robust 25% reduction in both primary and secondary outcomes in patients treated with 4 g/day of icosapent ethyl. Patients without previous cardiovascular disease (CVD) events with diabetes and one additional CVD risk factor (primary prevention cohort) achieved the same benefit. The "total event" as opposed to the first event analysis demonstrated a 30% overall risk reduction in patients having subsequent events.
The most stunning finding in REDUCE-IT was clearly that the benefit was not directly related to the baseline triglyceride level even though icosapent ethyl is a triglyceride-lowering agent. The subgroups with baseline triglycerides 150 mg/dL or less and those with 151-200 mg/dL had a comparable CVD benefit. The "total event" analysis, however, did demonstrate a more robust relative risk reduction in patients with baseline triglycerides of 251 mg/dL or higher.
Based on the REDUCE-IT findings, pure icosapent ethyl can be added to ezetimibe and PCSK9 inhibitors as agents that amplify the statin benefit and robustly reduce the elusive statin residual risk. The role of triglycerides in CVD remains unclear, although subgroup analysis from several fibrate studies suggest a CVD benefit from treating hypertriglyceridemia in patients with triglycerides of greater than 200 mg/dL. REDUCE-IT points to a largely independent action of icosapent ethyl. Laboratory studies suggest icosapent ethyl has potent plaque-stabilizing properties. The lowering of triglycerides may well play an additive but not primary role.
Just as was the case with LDL, as studies like this evolve our understanding of "normal" triglyceride levels will also evolve. Triglycerides may eventually join LDL with strong evidence that "lower is better." Stay tuned.
Paul Jellinger, MD, MACE, is a member of the editorial advisory board for Clinical Endocrinology News. He is professor of clinical medicine on the voluntary faculty at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine and a practicing endocrinologist at The Center for Diabetes & Endocrine Care in Hollywood, Fla. He is past president of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and the American College of Endocrinology.
This comment was added 6/10/2019.
NEW ORLEANS – The success of icosapent ethyl in cutting triglyceride levels and reducing cardiovascular disease events in at-risk patients in the REDUCE-IT trial may make clinicians rethink the threshold for an unhealthy triglyceride level that merits intervention.
Study results are also showing that the patients enrolled in REDUCE-IT are common, with apparently millions of Americans who could potentially receive the icosapent ethyl–processed fish oil used in the study if the Food and Drug Administration were to approve new labeling for the drug that the manufacturer filed for in late March 2019. Icosapent ethyl (Vascepa) already has U.S. marketing approval for reducing triglyceride (TG) levels in patients with baseline values of 500 mg/dL or greater, while the REDUCE-IT trial enrolled patients with established cardiovascular disease or diabetes plus at least one more risk factor with a TG level of 150-499 mg/dL. REDUCE-IT (Reduction of Cardiovascular Events with Icosapent Ethyl–Intervention Trial) enrolled only patients already on statin treatment and with a LDL cholesterol level of 41-100 mg/dL.
In reality, the clinicians who enrolled the 8,139 participants at 473 worldwide sites included patients with a TG level as low as 81 mg/dL, and 10% of entered patients had levels below the minimum threshold in the trial’s written design of at least 150 mg/dL. Initial results reported with the primary endpoint finding suggested that the icosapent ethyl treatment benefit extended to these patients who entered with what are currently considered normal TG values, and additional analyses reported by the study’s lead investigator, Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, which used a larger endpoint dataset that included total cardiovascular events rather than just first events, further confirmed that patients with lower baseline TG levels had reductions in their cardiovascular disease events that matched what was seen in patients who entered with substantially higher TG levels.
In the analysis that included total events, the tertile of patients with a baseline TG of 81-190 mg/dL had a statistically significant 26% relative reduction in events during an average 3.5-year follow-up, compared with the tertile of patients with a baseline level of 251 mg/dL or higher, who had a 40% reduction in their events during follow-up, reported Dr. Bhatt, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.
“We had patients [in REDUCE-IT] with lower triglycerides than the inclusion criteria. This shows that the study results apply to a broader range of patients,” he said in a talk at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology. “The total-event analysis gives us an appreciation of the large burden of ischemic events that statin-treated patients still have with baseline triglyceride levels of about 100 mg/dL.” Further analysis of the REDUCE-IT data, as well as future studies of TG-lowering drugs like icosapent ethyl, “may help redefine normal TG levels” in a manner similar to what happened over a 2-decade span as serial studies of statins and other drugs that reduced levels of LDL cholesterol led to incremental reductions in goal lipid levels.
In addition to providing greater precision in defining the impact of icosapent ethyl on events in patients with lower baseline TG levels, the total-event analysis “provided a better sense of what is actually going on” with patients clinically as they experience multiple cardiovascular events during follow-up, as well as the impact of treatment on reducing health-related costs. Concurrently with Dr. Bhatt’s report of the total-event analysis at the meeting, some of the new findings he presented also appeared online (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 March 18. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.02.032).
Recent analyses have also begun to assess the scope of patients who could potentially receive icosapent ethyl based on the enrollment criteria of REDUCE-IT. One analysis of more than 1 million people in the U.S. Veterans Affairs Health System during 2010 identified 439,019 people on statin treatment and with an LDL cholesterol of 41-100 mg/dL, the cardiovascular disease history or risk pattern that matched the trial, and not on treatment that could reduce TG levels such as fish oil. Among these people, 30% had a TG level at or above 150 mg/dL that would have qualified them to enter REDUCE-IT, said William E. Boden, MD, professor of medicine at Boston University. Among the 132,203 patients in this group who were on statin treatment and at their target LDL cholesterol level, the 5-year rate of cardiovascular disease events was 8.5% in those with higher TG levels and 6.3% in those with levels below 150 mg/dL, a statistically significant 19% increased risk after adjustment for some potential confounders, Dr. Boden reported in a poster he presented at the meeting. This analysis hinted at the magnitude of patients who are candidates for icosapent ethyl treatment based on REDUCE-IT, and the 19% residual increased risk they displayed showed what this treatment could address.
Analysis of another database identified 16% of more than 24,000 patients with stable coronary artery disease in the CLARIFY registry who would qualify for icosapent ethyl treatment by matching the REDUCE-IT enrollment criteria (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 March;73[11];doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.01.016).
REDUCE-IT was sponsored by Amarin, the company that markets icosapent ethyl (Vascepa). Dr. Bhatt is an adviser to Cardax, PhaseBio, and Regado Biosciences, he is on the board of TobeSoft, and he has received research funding from several companies. Dr. Boden reported no disclosures.
NEW ORLEANS – The success of icosapent ethyl in cutting triglyceride levels and reducing cardiovascular disease events in at-risk patients in the REDUCE-IT trial may make clinicians rethink the threshold for an unhealthy triglyceride level that merits intervention.
Study results are also showing that the patients enrolled in REDUCE-IT are common, with apparently millions of Americans who could potentially receive the icosapent ethyl–processed fish oil used in the study if the Food and Drug Administration were to approve new labeling for the drug that the manufacturer filed for in late March 2019. Icosapent ethyl (Vascepa) already has U.S. marketing approval for reducing triglyceride (TG) levels in patients with baseline values of 500 mg/dL or greater, while the REDUCE-IT trial enrolled patients with established cardiovascular disease or diabetes plus at least one more risk factor with a TG level of 150-499 mg/dL. REDUCE-IT (Reduction of Cardiovascular Events with Icosapent Ethyl–Intervention Trial) enrolled only patients already on statin treatment and with a LDL cholesterol level of 41-100 mg/dL.
In reality, the clinicians who enrolled the 8,139 participants at 473 worldwide sites included patients with a TG level as low as 81 mg/dL, and 10% of entered patients had levels below the minimum threshold in the trial’s written design of at least 150 mg/dL. Initial results reported with the primary endpoint finding suggested that the icosapent ethyl treatment benefit extended to these patients who entered with what are currently considered normal TG values, and additional analyses reported by the study’s lead investigator, Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, which used a larger endpoint dataset that included total cardiovascular events rather than just first events, further confirmed that patients with lower baseline TG levels had reductions in their cardiovascular disease events that matched what was seen in patients who entered with substantially higher TG levels.
In the analysis that included total events, the tertile of patients with a baseline TG of 81-190 mg/dL had a statistically significant 26% relative reduction in events during an average 3.5-year follow-up, compared with the tertile of patients with a baseline level of 251 mg/dL or higher, who had a 40% reduction in their events during follow-up, reported Dr. Bhatt, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston.
“We had patients [in REDUCE-IT] with lower triglycerides than the inclusion criteria. This shows that the study results apply to a broader range of patients,” he said in a talk at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology. “The total-event analysis gives us an appreciation of the large burden of ischemic events that statin-treated patients still have with baseline triglyceride levels of about 100 mg/dL.” Further analysis of the REDUCE-IT data, as well as future studies of TG-lowering drugs like icosapent ethyl, “may help redefine normal TG levels” in a manner similar to what happened over a 2-decade span as serial studies of statins and other drugs that reduced levels of LDL cholesterol led to incremental reductions in goal lipid levels.
In addition to providing greater precision in defining the impact of icosapent ethyl on events in patients with lower baseline TG levels, the total-event analysis “provided a better sense of what is actually going on” with patients clinically as they experience multiple cardiovascular events during follow-up, as well as the impact of treatment on reducing health-related costs. Concurrently with Dr. Bhatt’s report of the total-event analysis at the meeting, some of the new findings he presented also appeared online (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 March 18. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.02.032).
Recent analyses have also begun to assess the scope of patients who could potentially receive icosapent ethyl based on the enrollment criteria of REDUCE-IT. One analysis of more than 1 million people in the U.S. Veterans Affairs Health System during 2010 identified 439,019 people on statin treatment and with an LDL cholesterol of 41-100 mg/dL, the cardiovascular disease history or risk pattern that matched the trial, and not on treatment that could reduce TG levels such as fish oil. Among these people, 30% had a TG level at or above 150 mg/dL that would have qualified them to enter REDUCE-IT, said William E. Boden, MD, professor of medicine at Boston University. Among the 132,203 patients in this group who were on statin treatment and at their target LDL cholesterol level, the 5-year rate of cardiovascular disease events was 8.5% in those with higher TG levels and 6.3% in those with levels below 150 mg/dL, a statistically significant 19% increased risk after adjustment for some potential confounders, Dr. Boden reported in a poster he presented at the meeting. This analysis hinted at the magnitude of patients who are candidates for icosapent ethyl treatment based on REDUCE-IT, and the 19% residual increased risk they displayed showed what this treatment could address.
Analysis of another database identified 16% of more than 24,000 patients with stable coronary artery disease in the CLARIFY registry who would qualify for icosapent ethyl treatment by matching the REDUCE-IT enrollment criteria (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 March;73[11];doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.01.016).
REDUCE-IT was sponsored by Amarin, the company that markets icosapent ethyl (Vascepa). Dr. Bhatt is an adviser to Cardax, PhaseBio, and Regado Biosciences, he is on the board of TobeSoft, and he has received research funding from several companies. Dr. Boden reported no disclosures.
REPORTING FROM ACC 2019
Research coalition issues plan for curing hepatitis B virus
VIENNA – They hope either to have a cure or to have made substantial progress toward this goal over the next 10 years.
Treatments already are on the market that effectively inhibit hepatitis B replication in infected patients (and an effective preventive vaccine also exists). Still, these treatments are not curative, and for the vast majority of patients treatment must continue indefinitely, while their risk for liver cancer and their virally induced immune system abnormalities remain, Peter A. Revill, PhD, said during a press briefing that introduced a strategy for hepatitis B virus (HBV) cure development from the International Coalition to Eliminate HBV. Concurrently with the briefing session, the strategy appeared in an article published online (Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Apr 10. doi: 10.1016/s2468-1253(19)30119-0).
The way forward will likely be a “two-pronged approach or restoring immune responses and targeting the virus,” Dr. Revill, head of molecular virology at the Doherty Institute in Melbourne, said in a video interview.
The new strategy recognizes the huge challenge of devising a treatment that produces a total cure that includes elimination of all traces of viral DNA from patients and for the immediate future focuses on the goal of functional cure. The term functional cure means a sustained period without detectable HBV surface antigen or HBV DNA in a patient’s serum, as well as suppressed virus release. Another feature of a functional cure would be a halt to progression of liver disease, replaced by liver regeneration, said Anna S. Lok, MD, professor of medicine and director of clinical hepatology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and a member of the strategy-writing group. She and her colleagues who wrote the strategy foresee the need for drug combinations with agents that can hit multiple viral targets as well as agents that restore normal immune function.
Several novel drug classes aimed at new viral targets, such as capsid inhibitors, are in various stages of clinical development, said Fabien Zoulim, MD, head of the gastroenterology and hepatology service at the Red Cross Hospital in Lyon, France, and another member of the writing panel. “We have many drug candidates” that use novel approaches to further restrict viral growth, roughly 50 agents in phase 1 and 2 studies, he said during the press briefing, held during the meeting sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver. The other, immunologic aspect of the two-part cure strategy – restoring the “exhausted” HBV-specific T-cell population and stimulating production of neutralizing antibody to HBV – remains hypothetical right now, however. “It’s a concept that needs development,” Dr. Zoulim said.
A reason members of the coalition are optimistic about eventual prospects for a cure is that currently about 1% of patients on HBV antiviral treatments have a functional cure after relatively brief treatment, and the percentage of cured patients plateaus at about 10% among those who remain on current HBV antiviral drugs for several years. In addition, a substantial fraction of patients spontaneously resolve their HBV infection without any treatment. Experts estimate that more than 1 billion people worldwide have been infected by HBV and then later had their infection clear “naturally,” said Dr. Revill. But the mechanism by which this happens is currently a mystery. “We don’t know how or why” so many infected people are “cured” naturally, Dr. Revill admitted, but it gives him and his colleagues hope that the numbers can expand once more and better treatments for HBV infection are available.
VIENNA – They hope either to have a cure or to have made substantial progress toward this goal over the next 10 years.
Treatments already are on the market that effectively inhibit hepatitis B replication in infected patients (and an effective preventive vaccine also exists). Still, these treatments are not curative, and for the vast majority of patients treatment must continue indefinitely, while their risk for liver cancer and their virally induced immune system abnormalities remain, Peter A. Revill, PhD, said during a press briefing that introduced a strategy for hepatitis B virus (HBV) cure development from the International Coalition to Eliminate HBV. Concurrently with the briefing session, the strategy appeared in an article published online (Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Apr 10. doi: 10.1016/s2468-1253(19)30119-0).
The way forward will likely be a “two-pronged approach or restoring immune responses and targeting the virus,” Dr. Revill, head of molecular virology at the Doherty Institute in Melbourne, said in a video interview.
The new strategy recognizes the huge challenge of devising a treatment that produces a total cure that includes elimination of all traces of viral DNA from patients and for the immediate future focuses on the goal of functional cure. The term functional cure means a sustained period without detectable HBV surface antigen or HBV DNA in a patient’s serum, as well as suppressed virus release. Another feature of a functional cure would be a halt to progression of liver disease, replaced by liver regeneration, said Anna S. Lok, MD, professor of medicine and director of clinical hepatology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and a member of the strategy-writing group. She and her colleagues who wrote the strategy foresee the need for drug combinations with agents that can hit multiple viral targets as well as agents that restore normal immune function.
Several novel drug classes aimed at new viral targets, such as capsid inhibitors, are in various stages of clinical development, said Fabien Zoulim, MD, head of the gastroenterology and hepatology service at the Red Cross Hospital in Lyon, France, and another member of the writing panel. “We have many drug candidates” that use novel approaches to further restrict viral growth, roughly 50 agents in phase 1 and 2 studies, he said during the press briefing, held during the meeting sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver. The other, immunologic aspect of the two-part cure strategy – restoring the “exhausted” HBV-specific T-cell population and stimulating production of neutralizing antibody to HBV – remains hypothetical right now, however. “It’s a concept that needs development,” Dr. Zoulim said.
A reason members of the coalition are optimistic about eventual prospects for a cure is that currently about 1% of patients on HBV antiviral treatments have a functional cure after relatively brief treatment, and the percentage of cured patients plateaus at about 10% among those who remain on current HBV antiviral drugs for several years. In addition, a substantial fraction of patients spontaneously resolve their HBV infection without any treatment. Experts estimate that more than 1 billion people worldwide have been infected by HBV and then later had their infection clear “naturally,” said Dr. Revill. But the mechanism by which this happens is currently a mystery. “We don’t know how or why” so many infected people are “cured” naturally, Dr. Revill admitted, but it gives him and his colleagues hope that the numbers can expand once more and better treatments for HBV infection are available.
VIENNA – They hope either to have a cure or to have made substantial progress toward this goal over the next 10 years.
Treatments already are on the market that effectively inhibit hepatitis B replication in infected patients (and an effective preventive vaccine also exists). Still, these treatments are not curative, and for the vast majority of patients treatment must continue indefinitely, while their risk for liver cancer and their virally induced immune system abnormalities remain, Peter A. Revill, PhD, said during a press briefing that introduced a strategy for hepatitis B virus (HBV) cure development from the International Coalition to Eliminate HBV. Concurrently with the briefing session, the strategy appeared in an article published online (Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Apr 10. doi: 10.1016/s2468-1253(19)30119-0).
The way forward will likely be a “two-pronged approach or restoring immune responses and targeting the virus,” Dr. Revill, head of molecular virology at the Doherty Institute in Melbourne, said in a video interview.
The new strategy recognizes the huge challenge of devising a treatment that produces a total cure that includes elimination of all traces of viral DNA from patients and for the immediate future focuses on the goal of functional cure. The term functional cure means a sustained period without detectable HBV surface antigen or HBV DNA in a patient’s serum, as well as suppressed virus release. Another feature of a functional cure would be a halt to progression of liver disease, replaced by liver regeneration, said Anna S. Lok, MD, professor of medicine and director of clinical hepatology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and a member of the strategy-writing group. She and her colleagues who wrote the strategy foresee the need for drug combinations with agents that can hit multiple viral targets as well as agents that restore normal immune function.
Several novel drug classes aimed at new viral targets, such as capsid inhibitors, are in various stages of clinical development, said Fabien Zoulim, MD, head of the gastroenterology and hepatology service at the Red Cross Hospital in Lyon, France, and another member of the writing panel. “We have many drug candidates” that use novel approaches to further restrict viral growth, roughly 50 agents in phase 1 and 2 studies, he said during the press briefing, held during the meeting sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver. The other, immunologic aspect of the two-part cure strategy – restoring the “exhausted” HBV-specific T-cell population and stimulating production of neutralizing antibody to HBV – remains hypothetical right now, however. “It’s a concept that needs development,” Dr. Zoulim said.
A reason members of the coalition are optimistic about eventual prospects for a cure is that currently about 1% of patients on HBV antiviral treatments have a functional cure after relatively brief treatment, and the percentage of cured patients plateaus at about 10% among those who remain on current HBV antiviral drugs for several years. In addition, a substantial fraction of patients spontaneously resolve their HBV infection without any treatment. Experts estimate that more than 1 billion people worldwide have been infected by HBV and then later had their infection clear “naturally,” said Dr. Revill. But the mechanism by which this happens is currently a mystery. “We don’t know how or why” so many infected people are “cured” naturally, Dr. Revill admitted, but it gives him and his colleagues hope that the numbers can expand once more and better treatments for HBV infection are available.
REPORTING FROM ILC 2019
Clinicians, CMS confer over heart failure–readmission penalty
NEW ORLEANS – Mounting evidence shows that heart failure patient mortality increased as an unintended consequence of a Medicare program that penalizes hospitals with too many 30-day readmissions of heart failure patients. This has prompted discussions among cardiologists, Medicare officials, and other stakeholders in an attempt to modify the penalty program so it no longer considers just readmissions but instead bases penalties on broader and more nuanced measures of patient outcomes.
Staffers at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the federal agency that manages Medicare, “said that they take this seriously and will look into it, and they are interested in next-generation measures that are more patient centered” than simply the 30-day readmission rate, Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, said in an interview at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology. “This is a case where there is credible evidence of increased mortality that is consistent, reproducible, and strongly associated with the penalty and cannot be otherwise explained,” said Dr. Fonarow, professor of medicine and cochief of cardiology at the University of California, Los Angeles.
He is among the most active researchers to document that, while CMS’s Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) led to significantly reduced readmission rates in patients with heart failure, this came at a cost of a significant increase in mortality among the same patients. For example, an article he published in 2018 that analyzed more than 115,000 Medicare beneficiaries during 2006-2014 showed that during the penalty phase, which began in 2012, readmissions fell after adjustment by a relative 8%, but adjusted mortality rose by a relative 10%, compared with how patients had fared prior to launching the HRRP (JAMA Cardiol. 2018 Jan;3[1]:44-53). Recent reports from other research groups have had similar findings, such as a study of more than 3 million Medicare beneficiaries with heart failure during 2005-2015 that also showed significantly increased mortality after the penalty phase for readmissions began (JAMA. 2018 Dec 25;320[24]:2542-52). In a commentary that accompanied this report, Dr. Fonarow cited the multiple analyses that show consistent findings and the need for CMS to “initiate an expeditious reconsideration and revision” of their current approach to penalizing hospitals for heart failure readmissions (JAMA. 2018 Dec 25;320[24]:2539-41).
The groups recently in discussion with CMS about this issue include the American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, the Heart Failure Society of America, the American College of Physicians, the American Hospital Association, and several other medical professional groups, said Biykem Bozkurt, MD, who has worked with Dr. Fonarow and representatives from these organizations in talks with CMS.
“We are trying to find a harmonized approach with patient-centric outcomes that reflect true improvements in quality of care,” she said in an interview. One possibility up for consideration is a combined measure of heart failure readmissions, mortality, and a patient-reported outcome. The measure would go to CMS directly from each patient’s electronic medical record, making data collection less burdensome to clinicians, said Dr. Bozkurt, professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine and cardiology section chief at the VA Medical Center in Houston. She expressed hope that a change in the CMS metric might happen later this year.
“CMS can’t simply stop the HRRP, so the discussion is on how to get a meaningful change. I’m increasingly optimistic, because the findings of harm [from current policies] are impossible to ignore,” Dr. Fonarow said. “There will be increasing pressure on CMS to develop a pathway to make modifications. It’s egregious to continue a policy that’s been associated with harm” to heart failure patients.
Dr. Fonarow and Dr. Bozkurt had no relevant commercial disclosures.
NEW ORLEANS – Mounting evidence shows that heart failure patient mortality increased as an unintended consequence of a Medicare program that penalizes hospitals with too many 30-day readmissions of heart failure patients. This has prompted discussions among cardiologists, Medicare officials, and other stakeholders in an attempt to modify the penalty program so it no longer considers just readmissions but instead bases penalties on broader and more nuanced measures of patient outcomes.
Staffers at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the federal agency that manages Medicare, “said that they take this seriously and will look into it, and they are interested in next-generation measures that are more patient centered” than simply the 30-day readmission rate, Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, said in an interview at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology. “This is a case where there is credible evidence of increased mortality that is consistent, reproducible, and strongly associated with the penalty and cannot be otherwise explained,” said Dr. Fonarow, professor of medicine and cochief of cardiology at the University of California, Los Angeles.
He is among the most active researchers to document that, while CMS’s Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) led to significantly reduced readmission rates in patients with heart failure, this came at a cost of a significant increase in mortality among the same patients. For example, an article he published in 2018 that analyzed more than 115,000 Medicare beneficiaries during 2006-2014 showed that during the penalty phase, which began in 2012, readmissions fell after adjustment by a relative 8%, but adjusted mortality rose by a relative 10%, compared with how patients had fared prior to launching the HRRP (JAMA Cardiol. 2018 Jan;3[1]:44-53). Recent reports from other research groups have had similar findings, such as a study of more than 3 million Medicare beneficiaries with heart failure during 2005-2015 that also showed significantly increased mortality after the penalty phase for readmissions began (JAMA. 2018 Dec 25;320[24]:2542-52). In a commentary that accompanied this report, Dr. Fonarow cited the multiple analyses that show consistent findings and the need for CMS to “initiate an expeditious reconsideration and revision” of their current approach to penalizing hospitals for heart failure readmissions (JAMA. 2018 Dec 25;320[24]:2539-41).
The groups recently in discussion with CMS about this issue include the American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, the Heart Failure Society of America, the American College of Physicians, the American Hospital Association, and several other medical professional groups, said Biykem Bozkurt, MD, who has worked with Dr. Fonarow and representatives from these organizations in talks with CMS.
“We are trying to find a harmonized approach with patient-centric outcomes that reflect true improvements in quality of care,” she said in an interview. One possibility up for consideration is a combined measure of heart failure readmissions, mortality, and a patient-reported outcome. The measure would go to CMS directly from each patient’s electronic medical record, making data collection less burdensome to clinicians, said Dr. Bozkurt, professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine and cardiology section chief at the VA Medical Center in Houston. She expressed hope that a change in the CMS metric might happen later this year.
“CMS can’t simply stop the HRRP, so the discussion is on how to get a meaningful change. I’m increasingly optimistic, because the findings of harm [from current policies] are impossible to ignore,” Dr. Fonarow said. “There will be increasing pressure on CMS to develop a pathway to make modifications. It’s egregious to continue a policy that’s been associated with harm” to heart failure patients.
Dr. Fonarow and Dr. Bozkurt had no relevant commercial disclosures.
NEW ORLEANS – Mounting evidence shows that heart failure patient mortality increased as an unintended consequence of a Medicare program that penalizes hospitals with too many 30-day readmissions of heart failure patients. This has prompted discussions among cardiologists, Medicare officials, and other stakeholders in an attempt to modify the penalty program so it no longer considers just readmissions but instead bases penalties on broader and more nuanced measures of patient outcomes.
Staffers at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the federal agency that manages Medicare, “said that they take this seriously and will look into it, and they are interested in next-generation measures that are more patient centered” than simply the 30-day readmission rate, Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, said in an interview at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology. “This is a case where there is credible evidence of increased mortality that is consistent, reproducible, and strongly associated with the penalty and cannot be otherwise explained,” said Dr. Fonarow, professor of medicine and cochief of cardiology at the University of California, Los Angeles.
He is among the most active researchers to document that, while CMS’s Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) led to significantly reduced readmission rates in patients with heart failure, this came at a cost of a significant increase in mortality among the same patients. For example, an article he published in 2018 that analyzed more than 115,000 Medicare beneficiaries during 2006-2014 showed that during the penalty phase, which began in 2012, readmissions fell after adjustment by a relative 8%, but adjusted mortality rose by a relative 10%, compared with how patients had fared prior to launching the HRRP (JAMA Cardiol. 2018 Jan;3[1]:44-53). Recent reports from other research groups have had similar findings, such as a study of more than 3 million Medicare beneficiaries with heart failure during 2005-2015 that also showed significantly increased mortality after the penalty phase for readmissions began (JAMA. 2018 Dec 25;320[24]:2542-52). In a commentary that accompanied this report, Dr. Fonarow cited the multiple analyses that show consistent findings and the need for CMS to “initiate an expeditious reconsideration and revision” of their current approach to penalizing hospitals for heart failure readmissions (JAMA. 2018 Dec 25;320[24]:2539-41).
The groups recently in discussion with CMS about this issue include the American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, the Heart Failure Society of America, the American College of Physicians, the American Hospital Association, and several other medical professional groups, said Biykem Bozkurt, MD, who has worked with Dr. Fonarow and representatives from these organizations in talks with CMS.
“We are trying to find a harmonized approach with patient-centric outcomes that reflect true improvements in quality of care,” she said in an interview. One possibility up for consideration is a combined measure of heart failure readmissions, mortality, and a patient-reported outcome. The measure would go to CMS directly from each patient’s electronic medical record, making data collection less burdensome to clinicians, said Dr. Bozkurt, professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine and cardiology section chief at the VA Medical Center in Houston. She expressed hope that a change in the CMS metric might happen later this year.
“CMS can’t simply stop the HRRP, so the discussion is on how to get a meaningful change. I’m increasingly optimistic, because the findings of harm [from current policies] are impossible to ignore,” Dr. Fonarow said. “There will be increasing pressure on CMS to develop a pathway to make modifications. It’s egregious to continue a policy that’s been associated with harm” to heart failure patients.
Dr. Fonarow and Dr. Bozkurt had no relevant commercial disclosures.
REPORTING FROM ACC 19
Powerful breast-implant testimony constrained by limited evidence
What’s the role of anecdotal medical histories in the era of evidence-based medicine?
But the anecdotal histories fell short of producing a clear committee consensus on dramatic, immediate changes in FDA policy, such as joining a renewed ban on certain types of breast implants linked with a rare lymphoma, a step recently taken by 38 other countries, including 33 European countries acting in concert through the European Union.
The disconnect between gripping testimony and limited panel recommendations was most stark for a complication that’s been named Breast Implant Illness (BII) by patients on the Internet. Many breast implant recipients have reported life-changing symptoms that appeared after implant placement, most often fatigue, joint and muscle pain, brain fog, neurologic symptoms, immune dysfunction, skin manifestations, and autoimmune disease or symptoms. By my count, 22 people spoke about their harrowing experiences with BII symptoms out of the 77 who stepped to the panel’s public-comment mic during 4 hours of public testimony over 2-days of hearings, often saying that they had experienced dramatic improvements after their implants came out. The meeting of the General and Plastic Surgery Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee also heard presentations from two experts who ran some of the first reported studies on BII, or a BII-like syndrome called Autoimmune Syndrome Induced by Adjuvants (ASIA) described by Jan W.C. Tervaert, MD, professor of medicine and director of rheumatology at the University of Alberta in Edmonton. Dr. Tervaert and his associates published their findings about ASIA in the rheumatology literature last year (Clin Rheumatol. 2018 Feb;37[2]:483-93), and during his talk before the FDA panel, he said that silicone breast implants and the surgical mesh often used with them could be ASIA triggers.
Panel members seemed to mostly believe that the evidence they heard about BII did no more than hint at a possible association between breast implants and BII symptoms that required additional study. Many agreed on the need to include mention of the most common BII-linked patient complaints in informed consent material, but some were reluctant about even taking that step.
“I do not mention BII to patients. It’s not a disease; it’s a constellation of symptoms,” said panel member and plastic surgeon Pierre M. Chevray, MD, from Houston Methodist Hospital. The evidence for BII “is extremely anecdotal,” he said in an interview at the end of the 2-day session. Descriptions of BII “have been mainly published on social media. One reason why I don’t tell patients [about BII as part of informed consent] is because right now the evidence of a link is weak. We don’t yet even have a definition of this as an illness. A first step is to define it,” said Dr. Chevray, who has a very active implant practice. Other plastic surgeons were more accepting of BII as a real complication, although they agreed it needs much more study. During the testimony period, St. Louis plastic surgeon Patricia A. McGuire, MD, highlighted the challenge of teasing apart whether real symptoms are truly related to implants or are simply common ailments that accumulate during middle-age in many women. Dr. McGuire and some of her associates published an assessment of the challenges and possible solutions to studying BII that appeared shortly before the hearing (Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019 March;143[3S]:74S-81S),
Consensus recommendations from the panel to the FDA to address BII included having a single registry that would include all U.S. patients who receive breast implants (recently launched as the National Breast Implant Registry), inclusion of a control group, and collection of data at baseline and after regular follow-up intervals that includes a variety of measures relevant to autoimmune and rheumatologic disorders. Several panel members cited inadequate postmarketing safety surveillance by manufacturers in the years since breast implants returned to the U.S. market, and earlier in March, the FDA issued warning letters to two of the four companies that market U.S. breast implants over their inadequate long-term safety follow-up.
The panel’s decisions about the other major implant-associated health risk it considered, breast implant associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL), faced a different sort of challenge. First described as linked to breast implants in 2011, today there is little doubt that BIA-ALCL is a consequence of breast implants, what several patients derisively called a “man-made cancer.” The key issue the committee grappled with was whether the calculated incidence of BIA-ALCL was at a frequency that warranted a ban on at least selected breast implant types. Mark W. Clemens, MD, a plastic surgeon at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, told the panel that he calculated the Allergan Biocell group of implants, which have textured surfaces that allows for easier and more stable placement in patients, linked with an incidence of BIA-ALCL that was sevenfold to eightfold higher than that with smooth implants. That’s against a background of an overall incidence of about one case for every 20,000 U.S. implant recipients, Dr. Clemens said.
Many testifying patients, including several of the eight who described a personal history of BIA-ALCL, called for a ban on the sale of at least some breast implants because of their role in causing lymphoma. That sentiment was shared by Dr. Chevray, who endorsed a ban on “salt-loss” implants (the method that makes Biocell implants) during his closing comments to his fellow panel members. But earlier during panel discussions, others on the committee pushed back against implant bans, leaving the FDA’s eventual decision on this issue unclear. Evidence presented during the hearings suggests that implants cause ALCL by triggering a local “inflammatory milieu” and that different types of implants can have varying levels of potency for producing this milieu.
Perhaps the closest congruence between what patients called for and what the committee recommended was on informed consent. “No doubt, patients feel that informed consent failed them,” concluded panel member Karen E. Burke, MD, a New York dermatologist who was one of two panel discussants for the topic.
In addition to many suggestions on how to improve informed consent and public awareness lobbed at FDA staffers during the session by panel members, the final public comment of the 2 days came from Laurie A. Casas, MD, a Chicago plastic surgeon affiliated with the University of Chicago and a member of the board of directors of the American Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery (also know as the Aesthetic Society). During her testimony, Dr. Casas said “Over the past 2 days, we heard that patients need a structured educational checklist for informed consent. The Aesthetic Society hears you,” and promised that the website of the Society’s publication, the Aesthetic Surgery Journal, will soon feature a safety checklist for people receiving breast implants that will get updated as new information becomes available. She also highlighted the need for a comprehensive registry and long-term follow-up of implant recipients by the plastic surgeons who treated them.
In addition to better informed consent, patients who came to the hearing clearly also hoped to raise awareness in the general American public about the potential dangers from breast implants and the need to follow patients who receive implants. The 2 days of hearing accomplished that in part just by taking place. The New York Times and The Washington Post ran at least a couple of articles apiece on implant safety just before or during the hearings, while a more regional paper, the Philadelphia Inquirer, ran one article, as presumably did many other newspapers, broadcast outlets, and websites across America. Much of the coverage focused on compelling and moving personal stories from patients.
Women who have been having adverse effects from breast implants “have felt dismissed,” noted panel member Natalie C. Portis, PhD, a clinical psychologist from Oakland, Calif., and the patient representative on the advisory committee. “We need to listen to women that something real is happening.”
Dr. Tervaert, Dr. Chevray, Dr. McGuire, Dr. Clemens, Dr. Burke, Dr. Casas, and Dr. Portis had no relevant commercial disclosures.
What’s the role of anecdotal medical histories in the era of evidence-based medicine?
But the anecdotal histories fell short of producing a clear committee consensus on dramatic, immediate changes in FDA policy, such as joining a renewed ban on certain types of breast implants linked with a rare lymphoma, a step recently taken by 38 other countries, including 33 European countries acting in concert through the European Union.
The disconnect between gripping testimony and limited panel recommendations was most stark for a complication that’s been named Breast Implant Illness (BII) by patients on the Internet. Many breast implant recipients have reported life-changing symptoms that appeared after implant placement, most often fatigue, joint and muscle pain, brain fog, neurologic symptoms, immune dysfunction, skin manifestations, and autoimmune disease or symptoms. By my count, 22 people spoke about their harrowing experiences with BII symptoms out of the 77 who stepped to the panel’s public-comment mic during 4 hours of public testimony over 2-days of hearings, often saying that they had experienced dramatic improvements after their implants came out. The meeting of the General and Plastic Surgery Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee also heard presentations from two experts who ran some of the first reported studies on BII, or a BII-like syndrome called Autoimmune Syndrome Induced by Adjuvants (ASIA) described by Jan W.C. Tervaert, MD, professor of medicine and director of rheumatology at the University of Alberta in Edmonton. Dr. Tervaert and his associates published their findings about ASIA in the rheumatology literature last year (Clin Rheumatol. 2018 Feb;37[2]:483-93), and during his talk before the FDA panel, he said that silicone breast implants and the surgical mesh often used with them could be ASIA triggers.
Panel members seemed to mostly believe that the evidence they heard about BII did no more than hint at a possible association between breast implants and BII symptoms that required additional study. Many agreed on the need to include mention of the most common BII-linked patient complaints in informed consent material, but some were reluctant about even taking that step.
“I do not mention BII to patients. It’s not a disease; it’s a constellation of symptoms,” said panel member and plastic surgeon Pierre M. Chevray, MD, from Houston Methodist Hospital. The evidence for BII “is extremely anecdotal,” he said in an interview at the end of the 2-day session. Descriptions of BII “have been mainly published on social media. One reason why I don’t tell patients [about BII as part of informed consent] is because right now the evidence of a link is weak. We don’t yet even have a definition of this as an illness. A first step is to define it,” said Dr. Chevray, who has a very active implant practice. Other plastic surgeons were more accepting of BII as a real complication, although they agreed it needs much more study. During the testimony period, St. Louis plastic surgeon Patricia A. McGuire, MD, highlighted the challenge of teasing apart whether real symptoms are truly related to implants or are simply common ailments that accumulate during middle-age in many women. Dr. McGuire and some of her associates published an assessment of the challenges and possible solutions to studying BII that appeared shortly before the hearing (Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019 March;143[3S]:74S-81S),
Consensus recommendations from the panel to the FDA to address BII included having a single registry that would include all U.S. patients who receive breast implants (recently launched as the National Breast Implant Registry), inclusion of a control group, and collection of data at baseline and after regular follow-up intervals that includes a variety of measures relevant to autoimmune and rheumatologic disorders. Several panel members cited inadequate postmarketing safety surveillance by manufacturers in the years since breast implants returned to the U.S. market, and earlier in March, the FDA issued warning letters to two of the four companies that market U.S. breast implants over their inadequate long-term safety follow-up.
The panel’s decisions about the other major implant-associated health risk it considered, breast implant associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL), faced a different sort of challenge. First described as linked to breast implants in 2011, today there is little doubt that BIA-ALCL is a consequence of breast implants, what several patients derisively called a “man-made cancer.” The key issue the committee grappled with was whether the calculated incidence of BIA-ALCL was at a frequency that warranted a ban on at least selected breast implant types. Mark W. Clemens, MD, a plastic surgeon at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, told the panel that he calculated the Allergan Biocell group of implants, which have textured surfaces that allows for easier and more stable placement in patients, linked with an incidence of BIA-ALCL that was sevenfold to eightfold higher than that with smooth implants. That’s against a background of an overall incidence of about one case for every 20,000 U.S. implant recipients, Dr. Clemens said.
Many testifying patients, including several of the eight who described a personal history of BIA-ALCL, called for a ban on the sale of at least some breast implants because of their role in causing lymphoma. That sentiment was shared by Dr. Chevray, who endorsed a ban on “salt-loss” implants (the method that makes Biocell implants) during his closing comments to his fellow panel members. But earlier during panel discussions, others on the committee pushed back against implant bans, leaving the FDA’s eventual decision on this issue unclear. Evidence presented during the hearings suggests that implants cause ALCL by triggering a local “inflammatory milieu” and that different types of implants can have varying levels of potency for producing this milieu.
Perhaps the closest congruence between what patients called for and what the committee recommended was on informed consent. “No doubt, patients feel that informed consent failed them,” concluded panel member Karen E. Burke, MD, a New York dermatologist who was one of two panel discussants for the topic.
In addition to many suggestions on how to improve informed consent and public awareness lobbed at FDA staffers during the session by panel members, the final public comment of the 2 days came from Laurie A. Casas, MD, a Chicago plastic surgeon affiliated with the University of Chicago and a member of the board of directors of the American Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery (also know as the Aesthetic Society). During her testimony, Dr. Casas said “Over the past 2 days, we heard that patients need a structured educational checklist for informed consent. The Aesthetic Society hears you,” and promised that the website of the Society’s publication, the Aesthetic Surgery Journal, will soon feature a safety checklist for people receiving breast implants that will get updated as new information becomes available. She also highlighted the need for a comprehensive registry and long-term follow-up of implant recipients by the plastic surgeons who treated them.
In addition to better informed consent, patients who came to the hearing clearly also hoped to raise awareness in the general American public about the potential dangers from breast implants and the need to follow patients who receive implants. The 2 days of hearing accomplished that in part just by taking place. The New York Times and The Washington Post ran at least a couple of articles apiece on implant safety just before or during the hearings, while a more regional paper, the Philadelphia Inquirer, ran one article, as presumably did many other newspapers, broadcast outlets, and websites across America. Much of the coverage focused on compelling and moving personal stories from patients.
Women who have been having adverse effects from breast implants “have felt dismissed,” noted panel member Natalie C. Portis, PhD, a clinical psychologist from Oakland, Calif., and the patient representative on the advisory committee. “We need to listen to women that something real is happening.”
Dr. Tervaert, Dr. Chevray, Dr. McGuire, Dr. Clemens, Dr. Burke, Dr. Casas, and Dr. Portis had no relevant commercial disclosures.
What’s the role of anecdotal medical histories in the era of evidence-based medicine?
But the anecdotal histories fell short of producing a clear committee consensus on dramatic, immediate changes in FDA policy, such as joining a renewed ban on certain types of breast implants linked with a rare lymphoma, a step recently taken by 38 other countries, including 33 European countries acting in concert through the European Union.
The disconnect between gripping testimony and limited panel recommendations was most stark for a complication that’s been named Breast Implant Illness (BII) by patients on the Internet. Many breast implant recipients have reported life-changing symptoms that appeared after implant placement, most often fatigue, joint and muscle pain, brain fog, neurologic symptoms, immune dysfunction, skin manifestations, and autoimmune disease or symptoms. By my count, 22 people spoke about their harrowing experiences with BII symptoms out of the 77 who stepped to the panel’s public-comment mic during 4 hours of public testimony over 2-days of hearings, often saying that they had experienced dramatic improvements after their implants came out. The meeting of the General and Plastic Surgery Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee also heard presentations from two experts who ran some of the first reported studies on BII, or a BII-like syndrome called Autoimmune Syndrome Induced by Adjuvants (ASIA) described by Jan W.C. Tervaert, MD, professor of medicine and director of rheumatology at the University of Alberta in Edmonton. Dr. Tervaert and his associates published their findings about ASIA in the rheumatology literature last year (Clin Rheumatol. 2018 Feb;37[2]:483-93), and during his talk before the FDA panel, he said that silicone breast implants and the surgical mesh often used with them could be ASIA triggers.
Panel members seemed to mostly believe that the evidence they heard about BII did no more than hint at a possible association between breast implants and BII symptoms that required additional study. Many agreed on the need to include mention of the most common BII-linked patient complaints in informed consent material, but some were reluctant about even taking that step.
“I do not mention BII to patients. It’s not a disease; it’s a constellation of symptoms,” said panel member and plastic surgeon Pierre M. Chevray, MD, from Houston Methodist Hospital. The evidence for BII “is extremely anecdotal,” he said in an interview at the end of the 2-day session. Descriptions of BII “have been mainly published on social media. One reason why I don’t tell patients [about BII as part of informed consent] is because right now the evidence of a link is weak. We don’t yet even have a definition of this as an illness. A first step is to define it,” said Dr. Chevray, who has a very active implant practice. Other plastic surgeons were more accepting of BII as a real complication, although they agreed it needs much more study. During the testimony period, St. Louis plastic surgeon Patricia A. McGuire, MD, highlighted the challenge of teasing apart whether real symptoms are truly related to implants or are simply common ailments that accumulate during middle-age in many women. Dr. McGuire and some of her associates published an assessment of the challenges and possible solutions to studying BII that appeared shortly before the hearing (Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019 March;143[3S]:74S-81S),
Consensus recommendations from the panel to the FDA to address BII included having a single registry that would include all U.S. patients who receive breast implants (recently launched as the National Breast Implant Registry), inclusion of a control group, and collection of data at baseline and after regular follow-up intervals that includes a variety of measures relevant to autoimmune and rheumatologic disorders. Several panel members cited inadequate postmarketing safety surveillance by manufacturers in the years since breast implants returned to the U.S. market, and earlier in March, the FDA issued warning letters to two of the four companies that market U.S. breast implants over their inadequate long-term safety follow-up.
The panel’s decisions about the other major implant-associated health risk it considered, breast implant associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL), faced a different sort of challenge. First described as linked to breast implants in 2011, today there is little doubt that BIA-ALCL is a consequence of breast implants, what several patients derisively called a “man-made cancer.” The key issue the committee grappled with was whether the calculated incidence of BIA-ALCL was at a frequency that warranted a ban on at least selected breast implant types. Mark W. Clemens, MD, a plastic surgeon at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, told the panel that he calculated the Allergan Biocell group of implants, which have textured surfaces that allows for easier and more stable placement in patients, linked with an incidence of BIA-ALCL that was sevenfold to eightfold higher than that with smooth implants. That’s against a background of an overall incidence of about one case for every 20,000 U.S. implant recipients, Dr. Clemens said.
Many testifying patients, including several of the eight who described a personal history of BIA-ALCL, called for a ban on the sale of at least some breast implants because of their role in causing lymphoma. That sentiment was shared by Dr. Chevray, who endorsed a ban on “salt-loss” implants (the method that makes Biocell implants) during his closing comments to his fellow panel members. But earlier during panel discussions, others on the committee pushed back against implant bans, leaving the FDA’s eventual decision on this issue unclear. Evidence presented during the hearings suggests that implants cause ALCL by triggering a local “inflammatory milieu” and that different types of implants can have varying levels of potency for producing this milieu.
Perhaps the closest congruence between what patients called for and what the committee recommended was on informed consent. “No doubt, patients feel that informed consent failed them,” concluded panel member Karen E. Burke, MD, a New York dermatologist who was one of two panel discussants for the topic.
In addition to many suggestions on how to improve informed consent and public awareness lobbed at FDA staffers during the session by panel members, the final public comment of the 2 days came from Laurie A. Casas, MD, a Chicago plastic surgeon affiliated with the University of Chicago and a member of the board of directors of the American Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery (also know as the Aesthetic Society). During her testimony, Dr. Casas said “Over the past 2 days, we heard that patients need a structured educational checklist for informed consent. The Aesthetic Society hears you,” and promised that the website of the Society’s publication, the Aesthetic Surgery Journal, will soon feature a safety checklist for people receiving breast implants that will get updated as new information becomes available. She also highlighted the need for a comprehensive registry and long-term follow-up of implant recipients by the plastic surgeons who treated them.
In addition to better informed consent, patients who came to the hearing clearly also hoped to raise awareness in the general American public about the potential dangers from breast implants and the need to follow patients who receive implants. The 2 days of hearing accomplished that in part just by taking place. The New York Times and The Washington Post ran at least a couple of articles apiece on implant safety just before or during the hearings, while a more regional paper, the Philadelphia Inquirer, ran one article, as presumably did many other newspapers, broadcast outlets, and websites across America. Much of the coverage focused on compelling and moving personal stories from patients.
Women who have been having adverse effects from breast implants “have felt dismissed,” noted panel member Natalie C. Portis, PhD, a clinical psychologist from Oakland, Calif., and the patient representative on the advisory committee. “We need to listen to women that something real is happening.”
Dr. Tervaert, Dr. Chevray, Dr. McGuire, Dr. Clemens, Dr. Burke, Dr. Casas, and Dr. Portis had no relevant commercial disclosures.
Hospital TAVR volume matters to patient survival
Hospitals that performed more transcatheter aortic valve replacements continued to outperform low-volume centers for 30-day postprocedure survival, in data collected from more than 113,000 transcatheter aortic valves replaced during 2015-2017.
During that time, 113,662 transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) procedures occurred in the United States and were entered into a registry maintained by the Society of Thoracic Surgeons and American College of Cardiology. The new analysis focused on the more than 96,000 valve placements done via a transfemoral approach. The analysis divided these patients into quartiles based on total annual TAVR volume at each of the 554 centers where the procedures occurred, and this showed that 30-day mortality, after adjustment for 39 demographic and clinical variables, was 3.19% among patients treated at centers in the lowest-volume quartile and 2.66% in patients treated at centers in the highest-volume quartile. This translated to a 21% relative risk increase in 30-day mortality at the lowest volume centers that was statistically significant, Sreekanth Vemulapalli, MD, and his associates reported in an article published online on April 3 in the New England Journal of Medicine.
The mean annual volume among centers in the lowest-volume quartile during the 3 years studied was 27 procedures/year, while the average volume among the 25% highest-volume centers was 143 TAVRs each year, reported Dr. Vemulapalli, an interventional cardiologist at Duke University in Durham, N.C., and his associates. After excluding the first 12 months of TAVR performance for each center during the study period, the adjusted 30-day mortality averaged 3.10% in the lowest-volume tertile and 2.61% in centers in the highest-volume tertile. That meant the lowest-volume centers saw a 19% relative increase in mortality that was statistically significant.
This is not the first study to show a significant link between TAVR procedure volumes at individual centers and patient outcomes, and since 2012 the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has stipulated that eligibility for Medicare coverage of TAVR requires that it be done at a center that performs at least 20 TAVR procedures annually or at least 40 during the most recent 2 years. A prior report showing a similar volume-outcome link looked at U.S. TAVR cases during 2011-2015 (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017 July;70[1]:29-41), and reports of volume-outcome relationships have also come out for other catheter-based intravascular procedures.
“Our results suggest that raising the minimum volume requirements for TAVR centers may improve the quality of outcomes. However, this potential improvement in quality needs to be balanced against access to care in general, and for underserved and underrepresented populations in particular,” Dr. Vemulapalli said in an interview. The data suggested that a significant number of patients from underserved populations are treated at lower-volume TAVR centers. It’s unclear what impact raising the threshold volume [by CMS] might have on these underserved populations,” he explained.
Dr. Vemulapalli conceded that his analysis may have been affected by several potential confounding variables that did not receive adjustment in the analyses he and his associates ran. The variables of hospital size and teaching status both showed an association with TAVR volume. Hospitals with a greater number of beds and those that were teaching hospitals were also the places where TAVR volumes were highest, while lower-volume centers tended to be smaller, nonteaching institutions. But the variables of size and teaching status did not receive adjustment. Both are “difficult to tease apart from TAVR volume,” he noted.
The CMS mandated Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry also functions as a quality-improvement mechanism in which U.S. TAVR sites receive quarterly feedback on their performance and are benchmarked against other programs in a risk-adjusted way. The registry also disseminates best practices as part of the quality improvement process, Dr. Vemulapalli said.
Results from two TAVR trials reported at the American College of Cardiology’s annual meeting in March, PARTNER 3 and Evolut Low Risk, documented the efficacy and safety of TAVR compared with surgery in low-risk patients, findings that will soon substantially increase the volume of TAVR cases performed (N Engl J Med. 2019 Mar 16. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1814052 and doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1816885).
When the impact of TAVR moving to low-risk patients starts to kick in, “the findings from our analysis will become even more relevant,” Dr. Vemulapalli predicted. “As TAVR moves to low-risk, healthier patients, and more patients undergo the procedure, a firm commitment to measuring and ensuring quality while balancing access to care will be pivotal. The data in our study regarding the association between TAVR volume and outcomes and the characteristics of low- and high-volume hospitals and the patients they treat are fundamental to striking this balance.”
SOURCE: Vemulapalli S. et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Apr 3.doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa1901109.
Hospitals that performed more transcatheter aortic valve replacements continued to outperform low-volume centers for 30-day postprocedure survival, in data collected from more than 113,000 transcatheter aortic valves replaced during 2015-2017.
During that time, 113,662 transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) procedures occurred in the United States and were entered into a registry maintained by the Society of Thoracic Surgeons and American College of Cardiology. The new analysis focused on the more than 96,000 valve placements done via a transfemoral approach. The analysis divided these patients into quartiles based on total annual TAVR volume at each of the 554 centers where the procedures occurred, and this showed that 30-day mortality, after adjustment for 39 demographic and clinical variables, was 3.19% among patients treated at centers in the lowest-volume quartile and 2.66% in patients treated at centers in the highest-volume quartile. This translated to a 21% relative risk increase in 30-day mortality at the lowest volume centers that was statistically significant, Sreekanth Vemulapalli, MD, and his associates reported in an article published online on April 3 in the New England Journal of Medicine.
The mean annual volume among centers in the lowest-volume quartile during the 3 years studied was 27 procedures/year, while the average volume among the 25% highest-volume centers was 143 TAVRs each year, reported Dr. Vemulapalli, an interventional cardiologist at Duke University in Durham, N.C., and his associates. After excluding the first 12 months of TAVR performance for each center during the study period, the adjusted 30-day mortality averaged 3.10% in the lowest-volume tertile and 2.61% in centers in the highest-volume tertile. That meant the lowest-volume centers saw a 19% relative increase in mortality that was statistically significant.
This is not the first study to show a significant link between TAVR procedure volumes at individual centers and patient outcomes, and since 2012 the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has stipulated that eligibility for Medicare coverage of TAVR requires that it be done at a center that performs at least 20 TAVR procedures annually or at least 40 during the most recent 2 years. A prior report showing a similar volume-outcome link looked at U.S. TAVR cases during 2011-2015 (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017 July;70[1]:29-41), and reports of volume-outcome relationships have also come out for other catheter-based intravascular procedures.
“Our results suggest that raising the minimum volume requirements for TAVR centers may improve the quality of outcomes. However, this potential improvement in quality needs to be balanced against access to care in general, and for underserved and underrepresented populations in particular,” Dr. Vemulapalli said in an interview. The data suggested that a significant number of patients from underserved populations are treated at lower-volume TAVR centers. It’s unclear what impact raising the threshold volume [by CMS] might have on these underserved populations,” he explained.
Dr. Vemulapalli conceded that his analysis may have been affected by several potential confounding variables that did not receive adjustment in the analyses he and his associates ran. The variables of hospital size and teaching status both showed an association with TAVR volume. Hospitals with a greater number of beds and those that were teaching hospitals were also the places where TAVR volumes were highest, while lower-volume centers tended to be smaller, nonteaching institutions. But the variables of size and teaching status did not receive adjustment. Both are “difficult to tease apart from TAVR volume,” he noted.
The CMS mandated Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry also functions as a quality-improvement mechanism in which U.S. TAVR sites receive quarterly feedback on their performance and are benchmarked against other programs in a risk-adjusted way. The registry also disseminates best practices as part of the quality improvement process, Dr. Vemulapalli said.
Results from two TAVR trials reported at the American College of Cardiology’s annual meeting in March, PARTNER 3 and Evolut Low Risk, documented the efficacy and safety of TAVR compared with surgery in low-risk patients, findings that will soon substantially increase the volume of TAVR cases performed (N Engl J Med. 2019 Mar 16. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1814052 and doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1816885).
When the impact of TAVR moving to low-risk patients starts to kick in, “the findings from our analysis will become even more relevant,” Dr. Vemulapalli predicted. “As TAVR moves to low-risk, healthier patients, and more patients undergo the procedure, a firm commitment to measuring and ensuring quality while balancing access to care will be pivotal. The data in our study regarding the association between TAVR volume and outcomes and the characteristics of low- and high-volume hospitals and the patients they treat are fundamental to striking this balance.”
SOURCE: Vemulapalli S. et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Apr 3.doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa1901109.
Hospitals that performed more transcatheter aortic valve replacements continued to outperform low-volume centers for 30-day postprocedure survival, in data collected from more than 113,000 transcatheter aortic valves replaced during 2015-2017.
During that time, 113,662 transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) procedures occurred in the United States and were entered into a registry maintained by the Society of Thoracic Surgeons and American College of Cardiology. The new analysis focused on the more than 96,000 valve placements done via a transfemoral approach. The analysis divided these patients into quartiles based on total annual TAVR volume at each of the 554 centers where the procedures occurred, and this showed that 30-day mortality, after adjustment for 39 demographic and clinical variables, was 3.19% among patients treated at centers in the lowest-volume quartile and 2.66% in patients treated at centers in the highest-volume quartile. This translated to a 21% relative risk increase in 30-day mortality at the lowest volume centers that was statistically significant, Sreekanth Vemulapalli, MD, and his associates reported in an article published online on April 3 in the New England Journal of Medicine.
The mean annual volume among centers in the lowest-volume quartile during the 3 years studied was 27 procedures/year, while the average volume among the 25% highest-volume centers was 143 TAVRs each year, reported Dr. Vemulapalli, an interventional cardiologist at Duke University in Durham, N.C., and his associates. After excluding the first 12 months of TAVR performance for each center during the study period, the adjusted 30-day mortality averaged 3.10% in the lowest-volume tertile and 2.61% in centers in the highest-volume tertile. That meant the lowest-volume centers saw a 19% relative increase in mortality that was statistically significant.
This is not the first study to show a significant link between TAVR procedure volumes at individual centers and patient outcomes, and since 2012 the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has stipulated that eligibility for Medicare coverage of TAVR requires that it be done at a center that performs at least 20 TAVR procedures annually or at least 40 during the most recent 2 years. A prior report showing a similar volume-outcome link looked at U.S. TAVR cases during 2011-2015 (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017 July;70[1]:29-41), and reports of volume-outcome relationships have also come out for other catheter-based intravascular procedures.
“Our results suggest that raising the minimum volume requirements for TAVR centers may improve the quality of outcomes. However, this potential improvement in quality needs to be balanced against access to care in general, and for underserved and underrepresented populations in particular,” Dr. Vemulapalli said in an interview. The data suggested that a significant number of patients from underserved populations are treated at lower-volume TAVR centers. It’s unclear what impact raising the threshold volume [by CMS] might have on these underserved populations,” he explained.
Dr. Vemulapalli conceded that his analysis may have been affected by several potential confounding variables that did not receive adjustment in the analyses he and his associates ran. The variables of hospital size and teaching status both showed an association with TAVR volume. Hospitals with a greater number of beds and those that were teaching hospitals were also the places where TAVR volumes were highest, while lower-volume centers tended to be smaller, nonteaching institutions. But the variables of size and teaching status did not receive adjustment. Both are “difficult to tease apart from TAVR volume,” he noted.
The CMS mandated Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry also functions as a quality-improvement mechanism in which U.S. TAVR sites receive quarterly feedback on their performance and are benchmarked against other programs in a risk-adjusted way. The registry also disseminates best practices as part of the quality improvement process, Dr. Vemulapalli said.
Results from two TAVR trials reported at the American College of Cardiology’s annual meeting in March, PARTNER 3 and Evolut Low Risk, documented the efficacy and safety of TAVR compared with surgery in low-risk patients, findings that will soon substantially increase the volume of TAVR cases performed (N Engl J Med. 2019 Mar 16. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1814052 and doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1816885).
When the impact of TAVR moving to low-risk patients starts to kick in, “the findings from our analysis will become even more relevant,” Dr. Vemulapalli predicted. “As TAVR moves to low-risk, healthier patients, and more patients undergo the procedure, a firm commitment to measuring and ensuring quality while balancing access to care will be pivotal. The data in our study regarding the association between TAVR volume and outcomes and the characteristics of low- and high-volume hospitals and the patients they treat are fundamental to striking this balance.”
SOURCE: Vemulapalli S. et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Apr 3.doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa1901109.
FROM THE NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE
Key clinical point: U.S. centers that performed the most TAVR procedures had the best rates of 30-day patient survival.
Major finding: .
Study details: Analysis of data from 113,622 TAVR procedures done at U.S. hospitals during 2015-2017.
Disclosures: Dr. Vemulapalli has received personal fees from Boston Scientific, Janssen, Novella, Premiere, and Zafgen, and he has received research funding from Abbott Vascular and Boston Scientific.
Source: Vemulapalli S et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Apr 3. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa1901109.
FDA panel calls for changes to breast implant rupture screening
A Food and Drug Administration advisory panel urged the agency to switch its recommended screening method for silent breast implant ruptures from MRI to ultrasound and to push the first screening examination back from the current 3 years post implant to 5 years.
Members of the FDA’s General and Plastic Surgery Advisory Panel also made suggestions to the FDA regarding how it might improve communication about the risks of breast implants to the public in general and to people considering implants in particular.
The panel also discussed the sort of safety and efficacy assessments the FDA should require for acellular dermal matrix (ADM), also known as mesh, to add the material’s label for use during breast reconstruction or implant augmentation. Surgeons have used mesh routinely as a surgical aid at other body sites, such as the abdomen. Although ADM is now also widely used during breast surgery, it has never undergone testing or labeling for use in that setting.
The FDA convened the advisory committee meeting largely to assess and discuss data and concerns about two recently appreciated complications of breast implant placement – breast implant–associated anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) and a still poorly defined and described constellation of autoimmune and rheumatoid-like symptoms reported anecdotally by some breast implant recipients called Breast Implant Illness (BII). But agency officials asked the panel to also address these other issues related to the safety of breast implants and implant surgery.
The revised screening recommendations were primarily a response to a lack of compliance with current FDA recommendations to screen for breast implant rupture with MRI starting 3 years after placement and then every 2 years.
The problem is that a screening MRI costs about $1,500-$2,000 and is generally not covered by insurance when done for this purpose, although it is often covered when used to investigate a suspected rupture. The result is that less than 5% of implanted patients comply with the recommended screening schedule, noted committee chair Frank R. Lewis Jr., MD, executive director, emeritus, of the American Board of Surgery in Philadelphia.
“Effectively it’s a useless recommendation,” he said. “Ultrasound is far easier, quicker, and cheaper” and seems effective for screening.
The advisory panel recommended starting ultrasound screening 5 years after implantation, based on MRI screening data showing that virtually all ruptures don’t occur until after 5 years, and then following with ultrasound screening every 3 years after that. The panel recommended using MRI when the ultrasound result is equivocal or when the patient has symptoms suggesting rupture.
After hearing testimony during the sessions from several dozen women who told horror stories of the complications they experienced from breast implants, panel member Karen E. Burke, MD, PhD, spoke for many on the panel when she said “no doubt patients feel that the informed consent process failed them, that they were not aware of the risks.”
Dr. Burke suggested that patients must be informed so that they realize that breast implants are not static objects that will always sit unchanged in their body for the rest of their lives, that certain factors such as allergy or family history of tissue disease might predispose them to autoimmune-type reactions and that the diverse symptoms described for BII are possible sequelae.
A black box warning for the potential of developing anaplastic large-cell lymphoma should also go into the label, said Dr. Burke, a dermatologist who practices in New York City.
Dr. Lewis ridiculed the information booklets that implant manufacturers currently provide for patients as too long and dense. “They were not constructed to inform patients in the best way; they were constructed to provide legal protection.” He called for creating a two- or three-page list of potential adverse effects and points to consider.
Other panel members suggested public service advertisements similar to what is used to inform consumers about the risk from cigarettes. Dr. Burke recommended getting the word out about BII to other medical specialties that are more likely to see affected patients first, such as rheumatologists, immunologists, and dermatologists. She vowed to speak about these complications at an upcoming meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. But other panel members noted that BII right now remains without any official medical definition nor clear causal link to breast implants.
The question of exactly what safety and efficacy data the FDA might require from manufacturers seeking a breast surgery indication for ADM was less clear.
Binita Ashar, MD, director of the FDA’s Division of Surgical Devices, highlighted the agency’s dilemma about considering data for a breast surgery indication. “The challenge for us is that we can’t expect a control arm because everyone today is using” mesh, she explained. “We’re looking for guidance on how to understand the risk-to-benefit profile” of ADM.
A plastic surgeon on the advisory panel, Pierre M. Chevray, MD, PhD, from Houston Methodist Hospital summarized the way ADM mesh reached its current niche in routine, U.S. breast surgery.
About 20 years ago, plastic surgeons began using mesh during implant surgery to improve eventual breast cosmesis. Surgeons began to wrap the implant in mesh and then attached the mesh to the pectoral muscle so that the implant could go on top of the muscle and not beneath it. It greatly diminished capsular contraction around the implant over time, reduced the risk for implant movement, and allowed for more natural positioning of the breast with the implant inside, he said.
Another factor in the growing use of mesh was heavy promotion by manufacturers to a generation of plastic surgeons, Dr. Chevray said. But use of ADM may also lead to a slightly increased rate of seromas and infections.
“The benefit from mesh is hard to prove and is questionable” because it largely depends on a subjective assessment by a surgeon or patient, Dr. Chevray said. “The cost [of ADM] is substantial, but no data have shown that outcomes are better” with its use. Despite that, “nearly every surgeon uses mesh” these days, he noted.
A Food and Drug Administration advisory panel urged the agency to switch its recommended screening method for silent breast implant ruptures from MRI to ultrasound and to push the first screening examination back from the current 3 years post implant to 5 years.
Members of the FDA’s General and Plastic Surgery Advisory Panel also made suggestions to the FDA regarding how it might improve communication about the risks of breast implants to the public in general and to people considering implants in particular.
The panel also discussed the sort of safety and efficacy assessments the FDA should require for acellular dermal matrix (ADM), also known as mesh, to add the material’s label for use during breast reconstruction or implant augmentation. Surgeons have used mesh routinely as a surgical aid at other body sites, such as the abdomen. Although ADM is now also widely used during breast surgery, it has never undergone testing or labeling for use in that setting.
The FDA convened the advisory committee meeting largely to assess and discuss data and concerns about two recently appreciated complications of breast implant placement – breast implant–associated anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) and a still poorly defined and described constellation of autoimmune and rheumatoid-like symptoms reported anecdotally by some breast implant recipients called Breast Implant Illness (BII). But agency officials asked the panel to also address these other issues related to the safety of breast implants and implant surgery.
The revised screening recommendations were primarily a response to a lack of compliance with current FDA recommendations to screen for breast implant rupture with MRI starting 3 years after placement and then every 2 years.
The problem is that a screening MRI costs about $1,500-$2,000 and is generally not covered by insurance when done for this purpose, although it is often covered when used to investigate a suspected rupture. The result is that less than 5% of implanted patients comply with the recommended screening schedule, noted committee chair Frank R. Lewis Jr., MD, executive director, emeritus, of the American Board of Surgery in Philadelphia.
“Effectively it’s a useless recommendation,” he said. “Ultrasound is far easier, quicker, and cheaper” and seems effective for screening.
The advisory panel recommended starting ultrasound screening 5 years after implantation, based on MRI screening data showing that virtually all ruptures don’t occur until after 5 years, and then following with ultrasound screening every 3 years after that. The panel recommended using MRI when the ultrasound result is equivocal or when the patient has symptoms suggesting rupture.
After hearing testimony during the sessions from several dozen women who told horror stories of the complications they experienced from breast implants, panel member Karen E. Burke, MD, PhD, spoke for many on the panel when she said “no doubt patients feel that the informed consent process failed them, that they were not aware of the risks.”
Dr. Burke suggested that patients must be informed so that they realize that breast implants are not static objects that will always sit unchanged in their body for the rest of their lives, that certain factors such as allergy or family history of tissue disease might predispose them to autoimmune-type reactions and that the diverse symptoms described for BII are possible sequelae.
A black box warning for the potential of developing anaplastic large-cell lymphoma should also go into the label, said Dr. Burke, a dermatologist who practices in New York City.
Dr. Lewis ridiculed the information booklets that implant manufacturers currently provide for patients as too long and dense. “They were not constructed to inform patients in the best way; they were constructed to provide legal protection.” He called for creating a two- or three-page list of potential adverse effects and points to consider.
Other panel members suggested public service advertisements similar to what is used to inform consumers about the risk from cigarettes. Dr. Burke recommended getting the word out about BII to other medical specialties that are more likely to see affected patients first, such as rheumatologists, immunologists, and dermatologists. She vowed to speak about these complications at an upcoming meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. But other panel members noted that BII right now remains without any official medical definition nor clear causal link to breast implants.
The question of exactly what safety and efficacy data the FDA might require from manufacturers seeking a breast surgery indication for ADM was less clear.
Binita Ashar, MD, director of the FDA’s Division of Surgical Devices, highlighted the agency’s dilemma about considering data for a breast surgery indication. “The challenge for us is that we can’t expect a control arm because everyone today is using” mesh, she explained. “We’re looking for guidance on how to understand the risk-to-benefit profile” of ADM.
A plastic surgeon on the advisory panel, Pierre M. Chevray, MD, PhD, from Houston Methodist Hospital summarized the way ADM mesh reached its current niche in routine, U.S. breast surgery.
About 20 years ago, plastic surgeons began using mesh during implant surgery to improve eventual breast cosmesis. Surgeons began to wrap the implant in mesh and then attached the mesh to the pectoral muscle so that the implant could go on top of the muscle and not beneath it. It greatly diminished capsular contraction around the implant over time, reduced the risk for implant movement, and allowed for more natural positioning of the breast with the implant inside, he said.
Another factor in the growing use of mesh was heavy promotion by manufacturers to a generation of plastic surgeons, Dr. Chevray said. But use of ADM may also lead to a slightly increased rate of seromas and infections.
“The benefit from mesh is hard to prove and is questionable” because it largely depends on a subjective assessment by a surgeon or patient, Dr. Chevray said. “The cost [of ADM] is substantial, but no data have shown that outcomes are better” with its use. Despite that, “nearly every surgeon uses mesh” these days, he noted.
A Food and Drug Administration advisory panel urged the agency to switch its recommended screening method for silent breast implant ruptures from MRI to ultrasound and to push the first screening examination back from the current 3 years post implant to 5 years.
Members of the FDA’s General and Plastic Surgery Advisory Panel also made suggestions to the FDA regarding how it might improve communication about the risks of breast implants to the public in general and to people considering implants in particular.
The panel also discussed the sort of safety and efficacy assessments the FDA should require for acellular dermal matrix (ADM), also known as mesh, to add the material’s label for use during breast reconstruction or implant augmentation. Surgeons have used mesh routinely as a surgical aid at other body sites, such as the abdomen. Although ADM is now also widely used during breast surgery, it has never undergone testing or labeling for use in that setting.
The FDA convened the advisory committee meeting largely to assess and discuss data and concerns about two recently appreciated complications of breast implant placement – breast implant–associated anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) and a still poorly defined and described constellation of autoimmune and rheumatoid-like symptoms reported anecdotally by some breast implant recipients called Breast Implant Illness (BII). But agency officials asked the panel to also address these other issues related to the safety of breast implants and implant surgery.
The revised screening recommendations were primarily a response to a lack of compliance with current FDA recommendations to screen for breast implant rupture with MRI starting 3 years after placement and then every 2 years.
The problem is that a screening MRI costs about $1,500-$2,000 and is generally not covered by insurance when done for this purpose, although it is often covered when used to investigate a suspected rupture. The result is that less than 5% of implanted patients comply with the recommended screening schedule, noted committee chair Frank R. Lewis Jr., MD, executive director, emeritus, of the American Board of Surgery in Philadelphia.
“Effectively it’s a useless recommendation,” he said. “Ultrasound is far easier, quicker, and cheaper” and seems effective for screening.
The advisory panel recommended starting ultrasound screening 5 years after implantation, based on MRI screening data showing that virtually all ruptures don’t occur until after 5 years, and then following with ultrasound screening every 3 years after that. The panel recommended using MRI when the ultrasound result is equivocal or when the patient has symptoms suggesting rupture.
After hearing testimony during the sessions from several dozen women who told horror stories of the complications they experienced from breast implants, panel member Karen E. Burke, MD, PhD, spoke for many on the panel when she said “no doubt patients feel that the informed consent process failed them, that they were not aware of the risks.”
Dr. Burke suggested that patients must be informed so that they realize that breast implants are not static objects that will always sit unchanged in their body for the rest of their lives, that certain factors such as allergy or family history of tissue disease might predispose them to autoimmune-type reactions and that the diverse symptoms described for BII are possible sequelae.
A black box warning for the potential of developing anaplastic large-cell lymphoma should also go into the label, said Dr. Burke, a dermatologist who practices in New York City.
Dr. Lewis ridiculed the information booklets that implant manufacturers currently provide for patients as too long and dense. “They were not constructed to inform patients in the best way; they were constructed to provide legal protection.” He called for creating a two- or three-page list of potential adverse effects and points to consider.
Other panel members suggested public service advertisements similar to what is used to inform consumers about the risk from cigarettes. Dr. Burke recommended getting the word out about BII to other medical specialties that are more likely to see affected patients first, such as rheumatologists, immunologists, and dermatologists. She vowed to speak about these complications at an upcoming meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. But other panel members noted that BII right now remains without any official medical definition nor clear causal link to breast implants.
The question of exactly what safety and efficacy data the FDA might require from manufacturers seeking a breast surgery indication for ADM was less clear.
Binita Ashar, MD, director of the FDA’s Division of Surgical Devices, highlighted the agency’s dilemma about considering data for a breast surgery indication. “The challenge for us is that we can’t expect a control arm because everyone today is using” mesh, she explained. “We’re looking for guidance on how to understand the risk-to-benefit profile” of ADM.
A plastic surgeon on the advisory panel, Pierre M. Chevray, MD, PhD, from Houston Methodist Hospital summarized the way ADM mesh reached its current niche in routine, U.S. breast surgery.
About 20 years ago, plastic surgeons began using mesh during implant surgery to improve eventual breast cosmesis. Surgeons began to wrap the implant in mesh and then attached the mesh to the pectoral muscle so that the implant could go on top of the muscle and not beneath it. It greatly diminished capsular contraction around the implant over time, reduced the risk for implant movement, and allowed for more natural positioning of the breast with the implant inside, he said.
Another factor in the growing use of mesh was heavy promotion by manufacturers to a generation of plastic surgeons, Dr. Chevray said. But use of ADM may also lead to a slightly increased rate of seromas and infections.
“The benefit from mesh is hard to prove and is questionable” because it largely depends on a subjective assessment by a surgeon or patient, Dr. Chevray said. “The cost [of ADM] is substantial, but no data have shown that outcomes are better” with its use. Despite that, “nearly every surgeon uses mesh” these days, he noted.
AT AN FDA ADVISORY PANEL MEETING