User login
Experts say teledermatology’s postpandemic role is unclear
over those provided prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. But it is not clear whether the current rate will fall further, be sustained, or even climb again, according to data presented and opinions expressed in a forum on this topic at the American Academy of Dermatology Virtual Meeting Experience.
There are many unknowns, not least of which is future reimbursement from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and other third-party payers, according to several participants in a scientific session devoted to this topic. The CARES Act, which was passed in the early stages of the pandemic, provided only a temporary increase in reimbursement for telehealth. Postpandemic payments for telehealth services are yet undetermined.
Many of the assembled experts are convinced that teledermatology will continue to be offered at far higher rates than prior to the pandemic, but many issues, including physician acceptance of this approach remain unresolved. This was reflected in an AAD survey of members conducted in June 2020.
“Seventy percent of dermatologists responded that teledermatology will continue, but only 58% reported that they intend to offer it,” after the pandemic, reported Jules Lipoff, MD, assistant professor of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, who is one of the authors of the paper that reported the results.
The low relative proportion of dermatologists planning to participate in teledermatology might at least in part reflect uncertainty about reimbursement, according to Dr. Lipoff, who is the outgoing chair of the AAD teledermatology task force
Many dermatologists might find it difficult to opt out of telehealth. In some types of care, such as follow-up visits, a combination of patient demand and institutional policy, particularly if reimbursement is adequate, might compel or at least strongly incentivize teledermatology services.
“Now that telemedicine has gotten out there, we will never go back to what once was normal practice,” Dr. Lipoff predicted. According to Dr. Lipoff, there was a great deal of data even prior to the pandemic to conclude that mobile dermatology is “an acceptable equivalent” for delivering many types of dermatologic care.
The rapid evolution in telemedicine is remarkable. According to the results of the AAD survey, 14.1% of dermatologists had experience with teledermatology prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, which increased to 96.9% by June, 2020, when the survey was conducted. Nearly 600 dermatologists completed the survey, for a 13.6% response rate.
At the beginning of the pandemic, the CARES act, along with other pandemic legislation and policy changes, changed the landscape of telemedicine by providing reimbursement commensurate with in-office visits, modifying HIPAA regulations, and permitting reciprocal licensing to allow physicians to provide care to patients who had moved out of the state. While these were among the factors that facilitated the phenomenal growth in telemedicine, nearly all of these changes were temporary or are subject to revision.
“Reimbursement [for telehealth] was very low prior to the pandemic,” noted Elizabeth K. Jones, MD, assistant professor of dermatology, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia. While many physicians and policy makers were convinced that reimbursement levels had to be increased temporarily to provide medical care when in-office visits were unsafe, Dr. Jones said it is unlikely that pandemic reimbursement rates will be preserved. But recent statements from the CMS foreshadow lower rates for most video and telephone consults, she added.
Reimbursement is not the only consideration. George Han, MD, PhD, chief of teledermatology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, spoke about the frustration of using imperfect tools. He, like many dermatologists, have become familiar with the difficulty of making a definitive diagnosis from transmitted images of skin lesions.
As long as patients communicate with personal computers and phones under variable lighting conditions, this problem might never go away, but suboptimal quality images do not necessarily preclude other types of consults, particularly follow-up visits, according to Dr. Han, who is also system medical director for dermatology at Mount Sinai Health System.
“Now that patients know about teledermatology, they are for it,” he said. He suggested that increased efficiency of follow-up using telemedicine for both patients and physicians might increase the frequency with which these types of visits are scheduled. Citing evidence that follow-up visits increase patient retention rates, Dr. Han sees these visits among the routine uses of telemedicine when the pandemic is over.
At the height of the pandemic, teledermatology was employed broadly, but after the pandemic, Dr. Han and others predict a narrower focus. Some consults, such as those for acne or other conditions reasonably treated on the basis of patient history, appear to lend themselves to telemedicine. Others, such as a skin check for malignancy, might not.
As the role of telemedicine is sorted out and finds its equilibrium in a postpandemic world, Dr. Lipoff pointed out the need to consider populations without good-quality internet access. Without specific strategies to ensure these patients are not forgotten, he warned of “wealthier patients consuming more than their fair share” of health care resources, further widening an existing disparity.
“Is telemedicine here to stay? It is clear that, yes, it is in some way,” said Dr. Lipoff, who sees no reason for dermatology to be an exception.
Dr. Lipoff reported a financial relationship with AcneAway. The other investigators reported no potential conflicts of interest related to telemedicine.
over those provided prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. But it is not clear whether the current rate will fall further, be sustained, or even climb again, according to data presented and opinions expressed in a forum on this topic at the American Academy of Dermatology Virtual Meeting Experience.
There are many unknowns, not least of which is future reimbursement from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and other third-party payers, according to several participants in a scientific session devoted to this topic. The CARES Act, which was passed in the early stages of the pandemic, provided only a temporary increase in reimbursement for telehealth. Postpandemic payments for telehealth services are yet undetermined.
Many of the assembled experts are convinced that teledermatology will continue to be offered at far higher rates than prior to the pandemic, but many issues, including physician acceptance of this approach remain unresolved. This was reflected in an AAD survey of members conducted in June 2020.
“Seventy percent of dermatologists responded that teledermatology will continue, but only 58% reported that they intend to offer it,” after the pandemic, reported Jules Lipoff, MD, assistant professor of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, who is one of the authors of the paper that reported the results.
The low relative proportion of dermatologists planning to participate in teledermatology might at least in part reflect uncertainty about reimbursement, according to Dr. Lipoff, who is the outgoing chair of the AAD teledermatology task force
Many dermatologists might find it difficult to opt out of telehealth. In some types of care, such as follow-up visits, a combination of patient demand and institutional policy, particularly if reimbursement is adequate, might compel or at least strongly incentivize teledermatology services.
“Now that telemedicine has gotten out there, we will never go back to what once was normal practice,” Dr. Lipoff predicted. According to Dr. Lipoff, there was a great deal of data even prior to the pandemic to conclude that mobile dermatology is “an acceptable equivalent” for delivering many types of dermatologic care.
The rapid evolution in telemedicine is remarkable. According to the results of the AAD survey, 14.1% of dermatologists had experience with teledermatology prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, which increased to 96.9% by June, 2020, when the survey was conducted. Nearly 600 dermatologists completed the survey, for a 13.6% response rate.
At the beginning of the pandemic, the CARES act, along with other pandemic legislation and policy changes, changed the landscape of telemedicine by providing reimbursement commensurate with in-office visits, modifying HIPAA regulations, and permitting reciprocal licensing to allow physicians to provide care to patients who had moved out of the state. While these were among the factors that facilitated the phenomenal growth in telemedicine, nearly all of these changes were temporary or are subject to revision.
“Reimbursement [for telehealth] was very low prior to the pandemic,” noted Elizabeth K. Jones, MD, assistant professor of dermatology, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia. While many physicians and policy makers were convinced that reimbursement levels had to be increased temporarily to provide medical care when in-office visits were unsafe, Dr. Jones said it is unlikely that pandemic reimbursement rates will be preserved. But recent statements from the CMS foreshadow lower rates for most video and telephone consults, she added.
Reimbursement is not the only consideration. George Han, MD, PhD, chief of teledermatology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, spoke about the frustration of using imperfect tools. He, like many dermatologists, have become familiar with the difficulty of making a definitive diagnosis from transmitted images of skin lesions.
As long as patients communicate with personal computers and phones under variable lighting conditions, this problem might never go away, but suboptimal quality images do not necessarily preclude other types of consults, particularly follow-up visits, according to Dr. Han, who is also system medical director for dermatology at Mount Sinai Health System.
“Now that patients know about teledermatology, they are for it,” he said. He suggested that increased efficiency of follow-up using telemedicine for both patients and physicians might increase the frequency with which these types of visits are scheduled. Citing evidence that follow-up visits increase patient retention rates, Dr. Han sees these visits among the routine uses of telemedicine when the pandemic is over.
At the height of the pandemic, teledermatology was employed broadly, but after the pandemic, Dr. Han and others predict a narrower focus. Some consults, such as those for acne or other conditions reasonably treated on the basis of patient history, appear to lend themselves to telemedicine. Others, such as a skin check for malignancy, might not.
As the role of telemedicine is sorted out and finds its equilibrium in a postpandemic world, Dr. Lipoff pointed out the need to consider populations without good-quality internet access. Without specific strategies to ensure these patients are not forgotten, he warned of “wealthier patients consuming more than their fair share” of health care resources, further widening an existing disparity.
“Is telemedicine here to stay? It is clear that, yes, it is in some way,” said Dr. Lipoff, who sees no reason for dermatology to be an exception.
Dr. Lipoff reported a financial relationship with AcneAway. The other investigators reported no potential conflicts of interest related to telemedicine.
over those provided prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. But it is not clear whether the current rate will fall further, be sustained, or even climb again, according to data presented and opinions expressed in a forum on this topic at the American Academy of Dermatology Virtual Meeting Experience.
There are many unknowns, not least of which is future reimbursement from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and other third-party payers, according to several participants in a scientific session devoted to this topic. The CARES Act, which was passed in the early stages of the pandemic, provided only a temporary increase in reimbursement for telehealth. Postpandemic payments for telehealth services are yet undetermined.
Many of the assembled experts are convinced that teledermatology will continue to be offered at far higher rates than prior to the pandemic, but many issues, including physician acceptance of this approach remain unresolved. This was reflected in an AAD survey of members conducted in June 2020.
“Seventy percent of dermatologists responded that teledermatology will continue, but only 58% reported that they intend to offer it,” after the pandemic, reported Jules Lipoff, MD, assistant professor of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, who is one of the authors of the paper that reported the results.
The low relative proportion of dermatologists planning to participate in teledermatology might at least in part reflect uncertainty about reimbursement, according to Dr. Lipoff, who is the outgoing chair of the AAD teledermatology task force
Many dermatologists might find it difficult to opt out of telehealth. In some types of care, such as follow-up visits, a combination of patient demand and institutional policy, particularly if reimbursement is adequate, might compel or at least strongly incentivize teledermatology services.
“Now that telemedicine has gotten out there, we will never go back to what once was normal practice,” Dr. Lipoff predicted. According to Dr. Lipoff, there was a great deal of data even prior to the pandemic to conclude that mobile dermatology is “an acceptable equivalent” for delivering many types of dermatologic care.
The rapid evolution in telemedicine is remarkable. According to the results of the AAD survey, 14.1% of dermatologists had experience with teledermatology prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, which increased to 96.9% by June, 2020, when the survey was conducted. Nearly 600 dermatologists completed the survey, for a 13.6% response rate.
At the beginning of the pandemic, the CARES act, along with other pandemic legislation and policy changes, changed the landscape of telemedicine by providing reimbursement commensurate with in-office visits, modifying HIPAA regulations, and permitting reciprocal licensing to allow physicians to provide care to patients who had moved out of the state. While these were among the factors that facilitated the phenomenal growth in telemedicine, nearly all of these changes were temporary or are subject to revision.
“Reimbursement [for telehealth] was very low prior to the pandemic,” noted Elizabeth K. Jones, MD, assistant professor of dermatology, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia. While many physicians and policy makers were convinced that reimbursement levels had to be increased temporarily to provide medical care when in-office visits were unsafe, Dr. Jones said it is unlikely that pandemic reimbursement rates will be preserved. But recent statements from the CMS foreshadow lower rates for most video and telephone consults, she added.
Reimbursement is not the only consideration. George Han, MD, PhD, chief of teledermatology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, spoke about the frustration of using imperfect tools. He, like many dermatologists, have become familiar with the difficulty of making a definitive diagnosis from transmitted images of skin lesions.
As long as patients communicate with personal computers and phones under variable lighting conditions, this problem might never go away, but suboptimal quality images do not necessarily preclude other types of consults, particularly follow-up visits, according to Dr. Han, who is also system medical director for dermatology at Mount Sinai Health System.
“Now that patients know about teledermatology, they are for it,” he said. He suggested that increased efficiency of follow-up using telemedicine for both patients and physicians might increase the frequency with which these types of visits are scheduled. Citing evidence that follow-up visits increase patient retention rates, Dr. Han sees these visits among the routine uses of telemedicine when the pandemic is over.
At the height of the pandemic, teledermatology was employed broadly, but after the pandemic, Dr. Han and others predict a narrower focus. Some consults, such as those for acne or other conditions reasonably treated on the basis of patient history, appear to lend themselves to telemedicine. Others, such as a skin check for malignancy, might not.
As the role of telemedicine is sorted out and finds its equilibrium in a postpandemic world, Dr. Lipoff pointed out the need to consider populations without good-quality internet access. Without specific strategies to ensure these patients are not forgotten, he warned of “wealthier patients consuming more than their fair share” of health care resources, further widening an existing disparity.
“Is telemedicine here to stay? It is clear that, yes, it is in some way,” said Dr. Lipoff, who sees no reason for dermatology to be an exception.
Dr. Lipoff reported a financial relationship with AcneAway. The other investigators reported no potential conflicts of interest related to telemedicine.
FROM AAD VMX 2021
Topical anticholinergic for axillary hyperhidrosis shows fewer side effects
according to 48-week safety and outcome data.
A structural analogue of glycopyrrolate working through the same mechanism, sofpironium bromide was developed as a retrometabolic agent. This means it is rapidly transformed into an inactive metabolite after application, reducing risk of systemic effects, study investigator Stacy Smith, MD, explained in the late-breaking research session at the American Academy of Dermatology Virtual Meeting Experience.
The anticholinergic glycopyrrolate, which currently is the most commonly used therapy for hyperhidrosis, is absorbed through the skin and excreted through the urine. The systemic exposure to the active agent after topical application explains the substantial risk of adverse effects, said Dr. Smith, a clinician and researcher affiliated with the California Dermatology and Clinical Research Institute, Encinitas.
In contrast,“sofpironium bromide is the ideal topical medication, because it has strong activity at the application site but then reduced systemic activity due to the retrometabolism,” Dr. Smith said.
The 52-week data from the open-label, phase 3 trial supports the premise. In this study of 299 patients randomized to the 5% (102 patients) or 15% (197 patients) topical sofpironium bromide gel formulations, most anticholinergic adverse events were mild or moderate and transient, with complaints concentrated in the first 3 months of the trial.
“The retrometabolic pathway seems to work,” Dr. Smith said. He acknowledged that the treatment-naive patients who entered the study “had to get used to the drug over time,” but the data “show they did.”
The phase 3 trial of sofpironium bromide, which is already approved to treat axillary hyperhidrosis in Japan, did not have a placebo control. It was focused primarily on safety, but outcomes were assessed with the Hyperhidrosis Disease Severity Measure–Axillary (HDSM-Ax).
At least a 1-point improvement in the 7-point HDSM-Ax scale, which is considered clinically meaningful, was achieved by 86.1% and 85.8% of those treated with the 5% and 15% gels, respectively. A 2-point or greater improvement at the end of the study was observed in 69.4% and 61.9%, respectively.
“The medication works well and there was improved efficacy over time. About two-thirds of the patients had at least a 2-point improvement in the HDSM-Ax score at the end of 48 weeks,” Dr. Smith reported.
While response rates climbed over the course of the study, rates of adverse events fell markedly.
After 2 weeks of treatment, the proportions of patients with a treatment-related adverse event were 6% and just under 15% for the 5% and 15% topical-gel groups, respectively. At each 2-week interval when reassessed, the rates fell. By week 12, the rates were less than 2% and about 4% in the two groups, respectively.
The discontinuation rates overall for anticholinergic side effects were 3% and 8.1% for the lower and higher doses. Blurred vision accounted for the vast majority of these discontinuations in both groups. The other discontinuations, which included those for dry mouth, urinary retention, and mydriasis, occurred in one patient each. Again, discontinuations were most common in the first few months of the study.
For the total study population, mild (10.8% vs. 24%) and moderate (10.8% vs. 20.3%) side effects accounted for almost all side effects with the lower and higher doses of the topical drug. Only one patient in the low-dose group had a severe adverse event. At 6.1%, the proportion of the high-dose group with a severe adverse event was higher, but none of the adverse events were considered serious. All were transient.
These rates of adverse events are lower than those reported historically with effective doses of glycopyrrolate, Dr. Smith said.
The data presented by Dr. Smith are part of a phase 3 pivotal trials program designed to gain FDA approval. Going forward, these trials, which are enrolling patients as young as 9 years old, are expected to focus on clinical development of the 15% gel, he added.
The gel is delivered with a metered-dose pump that has an applicator, according to Brickell Biotech, the company developing the treatment in the United States. The 5% formulation was approved in Japan in September 2020, for the treatment of primary axillary hyperhidrosis.
In an interview, David M. Pariser, MD, professor of dermatology, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, said that he believes that this drug has could be helpful if the pivotal studies confirm efficacy with a lower risk of adverse events relative to glycopyrrolate. “If it is true that, in phase 3, placebo-controlled trials, there are fewer systemic anticholinergic effects, then this drug will be very useful,” said Dr. Pariser, cofounder of the International Hyperhidrosis Society and an investigator on a previously published dose-ranging, phase 2 study of sofpironium bromide.
The trial was sponsored by Brickell Biotech, which compensated Dr. Smith and other coauthors for their participation. Dr. Pariser has financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies with dermatologic products, including Brickell Biotech.
This article was updated 4/26/21.
according to 48-week safety and outcome data.
A structural analogue of glycopyrrolate working through the same mechanism, sofpironium bromide was developed as a retrometabolic agent. This means it is rapidly transformed into an inactive metabolite after application, reducing risk of systemic effects, study investigator Stacy Smith, MD, explained in the late-breaking research session at the American Academy of Dermatology Virtual Meeting Experience.
The anticholinergic glycopyrrolate, which currently is the most commonly used therapy for hyperhidrosis, is absorbed through the skin and excreted through the urine. The systemic exposure to the active agent after topical application explains the substantial risk of adverse effects, said Dr. Smith, a clinician and researcher affiliated with the California Dermatology and Clinical Research Institute, Encinitas.
In contrast,“sofpironium bromide is the ideal topical medication, because it has strong activity at the application site but then reduced systemic activity due to the retrometabolism,” Dr. Smith said.
The 52-week data from the open-label, phase 3 trial supports the premise. In this study of 299 patients randomized to the 5% (102 patients) or 15% (197 patients) topical sofpironium bromide gel formulations, most anticholinergic adverse events were mild or moderate and transient, with complaints concentrated in the first 3 months of the trial.
“The retrometabolic pathway seems to work,” Dr. Smith said. He acknowledged that the treatment-naive patients who entered the study “had to get used to the drug over time,” but the data “show they did.”
The phase 3 trial of sofpironium bromide, which is already approved to treat axillary hyperhidrosis in Japan, did not have a placebo control. It was focused primarily on safety, but outcomes were assessed with the Hyperhidrosis Disease Severity Measure–Axillary (HDSM-Ax).
At least a 1-point improvement in the 7-point HDSM-Ax scale, which is considered clinically meaningful, was achieved by 86.1% and 85.8% of those treated with the 5% and 15% gels, respectively. A 2-point or greater improvement at the end of the study was observed in 69.4% and 61.9%, respectively.
“The medication works well and there was improved efficacy over time. About two-thirds of the patients had at least a 2-point improvement in the HDSM-Ax score at the end of 48 weeks,” Dr. Smith reported.
While response rates climbed over the course of the study, rates of adverse events fell markedly.
After 2 weeks of treatment, the proportions of patients with a treatment-related adverse event were 6% and just under 15% for the 5% and 15% topical-gel groups, respectively. At each 2-week interval when reassessed, the rates fell. By week 12, the rates were less than 2% and about 4% in the two groups, respectively.
The discontinuation rates overall for anticholinergic side effects were 3% and 8.1% for the lower and higher doses. Blurred vision accounted for the vast majority of these discontinuations in both groups. The other discontinuations, which included those for dry mouth, urinary retention, and mydriasis, occurred in one patient each. Again, discontinuations were most common in the first few months of the study.
For the total study population, mild (10.8% vs. 24%) and moderate (10.8% vs. 20.3%) side effects accounted for almost all side effects with the lower and higher doses of the topical drug. Only one patient in the low-dose group had a severe adverse event. At 6.1%, the proportion of the high-dose group with a severe adverse event was higher, but none of the adverse events were considered serious. All were transient.
These rates of adverse events are lower than those reported historically with effective doses of glycopyrrolate, Dr. Smith said.
The data presented by Dr. Smith are part of a phase 3 pivotal trials program designed to gain FDA approval. Going forward, these trials, which are enrolling patients as young as 9 years old, are expected to focus on clinical development of the 15% gel, he added.
The gel is delivered with a metered-dose pump that has an applicator, according to Brickell Biotech, the company developing the treatment in the United States. The 5% formulation was approved in Japan in September 2020, for the treatment of primary axillary hyperhidrosis.
In an interview, David M. Pariser, MD, professor of dermatology, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, said that he believes that this drug has could be helpful if the pivotal studies confirm efficacy with a lower risk of adverse events relative to glycopyrrolate. “If it is true that, in phase 3, placebo-controlled trials, there are fewer systemic anticholinergic effects, then this drug will be very useful,” said Dr. Pariser, cofounder of the International Hyperhidrosis Society and an investigator on a previously published dose-ranging, phase 2 study of sofpironium bromide.
The trial was sponsored by Brickell Biotech, which compensated Dr. Smith and other coauthors for their participation. Dr. Pariser has financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies with dermatologic products, including Brickell Biotech.
This article was updated 4/26/21.
according to 48-week safety and outcome data.
A structural analogue of glycopyrrolate working through the same mechanism, sofpironium bromide was developed as a retrometabolic agent. This means it is rapidly transformed into an inactive metabolite after application, reducing risk of systemic effects, study investigator Stacy Smith, MD, explained in the late-breaking research session at the American Academy of Dermatology Virtual Meeting Experience.
The anticholinergic glycopyrrolate, which currently is the most commonly used therapy for hyperhidrosis, is absorbed through the skin and excreted through the urine. The systemic exposure to the active agent after topical application explains the substantial risk of adverse effects, said Dr. Smith, a clinician and researcher affiliated with the California Dermatology and Clinical Research Institute, Encinitas.
In contrast,“sofpironium bromide is the ideal topical medication, because it has strong activity at the application site but then reduced systemic activity due to the retrometabolism,” Dr. Smith said.
The 52-week data from the open-label, phase 3 trial supports the premise. In this study of 299 patients randomized to the 5% (102 patients) or 15% (197 patients) topical sofpironium bromide gel formulations, most anticholinergic adverse events were mild or moderate and transient, with complaints concentrated in the first 3 months of the trial.
“The retrometabolic pathway seems to work,” Dr. Smith said. He acknowledged that the treatment-naive patients who entered the study “had to get used to the drug over time,” but the data “show they did.”
The phase 3 trial of sofpironium bromide, which is already approved to treat axillary hyperhidrosis in Japan, did not have a placebo control. It was focused primarily on safety, but outcomes were assessed with the Hyperhidrosis Disease Severity Measure–Axillary (HDSM-Ax).
At least a 1-point improvement in the 7-point HDSM-Ax scale, which is considered clinically meaningful, was achieved by 86.1% and 85.8% of those treated with the 5% and 15% gels, respectively. A 2-point or greater improvement at the end of the study was observed in 69.4% and 61.9%, respectively.
“The medication works well and there was improved efficacy over time. About two-thirds of the patients had at least a 2-point improvement in the HDSM-Ax score at the end of 48 weeks,” Dr. Smith reported.
While response rates climbed over the course of the study, rates of adverse events fell markedly.
After 2 weeks of treatment, the proportions of patients with a treatment-related adverse event were 6% and just under 15% for the 5% and 15% topical-gel groups, respectively. At each 2-week interval when reassessed, the rates fell. By week 12, the rates were less than 2% and about 4% in the two groups, respectively.
The discontinuation rates overall for anticholinergic side effects were 3% and 8.1% for the lower and higher doses. Blurred vision accounted for the vast majority of these discontinuations in both groups. The other discontinuations, which included those for dry mouth, urinary retention, and mydriasis, occurred in one patient each. Again, discontinuations were most common in the first few months of the study.
For the total study population, mild (10.8% vs. 24%) and moderate (10.8% vs. 20.3%) side effects accounted for almost all side effects with the lower and higher doses of the topical drug. Only one patient in the low-dose group had a severe adverse event. At 6.1%, the proportion of the high-dose group with a severe adverse event was higher, but none of the adverse events were considered serious. All were transient.
These rates of adverse events are lower than those reported historically with effective doses of glycopyrrolate, Dr. Smith said.
The data presented by Dr. Smith are part of a phase 3 pivotal trials program designed to gain FDA approval. Going forward, these trials, which are enrolling patients as young as 9 years old, are expected to focus on clinical development of the 15% gel, he added.
The gel is delivered with a metered-dose pump that has an applicator, according to Brickell Biotech, the company developing the treatment in the United States. The 5% formulation was approved in Japan in September 2020, for the treatment of primary axillary hyperhidrosis.
In an interview, David M. Pariser, MD, professor of dermatology, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, said that he believes that this drug has could be helpful if the pivotal studies confirm efficacy with a lower risk of adverse events relative to glycopyrrolate. “If it is true that, in phase 3, placebo-controlled trials, there are fewer systemic anticholinergic effects, then this drug will be very useful,” said Dr. Pariser, cofounder of the International Hyperhidrosis Society and an investigator on a previously published dose-ranging, phase 2 study of sofpironium bromide.
The trial was sponsored by Brickell Biotech, which compensated Dr. Smith and other coauthors for their participation. Dr. Pariser has financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies with dermatologic products, including Brickell Biotech.
This article was updated 4/26/21.
FROM AAD VMX 2021
Systematic approach to pain helps avoid opioid issues for dermatologists
, according to an expert who outlined his strategies at the American Academy of Dermatology Virtual Meeting Experience.
The exceptions relate primarily to patients with issues complicating pain control, such as those with psychosocial problems exacerbating the pain response, drug-seeking behavior, or both, according to Robert G. Micheletti, MD, chief of hospital dermatology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
To stay out of trouble, Dr. Micheletti advocated a systematic approach to the control of pain that includes documentation, clear expectations, and a sparing use of opioids only at the lowest acceptable dose for periods measured in days.
Using a case of pyoderma gangrenosum to make several points, he recognized that some patients do have a level of pain that warrants a short course of opioids, but this is not his first step. Rather, the initial focus, after administering standard therapies for this disease, is wound care, which often attenuates symptoms. He adds non-pharmacologic treatments, such as ice, heat, and rest when appropriate. The initial pharmacologic approach is alternating doses of an NSAID and acetaminophen.
“If necessary, a short course of opioids is reasonable for patients with acute pain,” he acknowledged. But he wants to avoid providing more opioids than needed to address the initial period of acute pain. In the case of pyoderma gangrenosum, he suggested a typical prescription might be 12 pills of 5 mg oxycodone taken every six hours. A followup appointment within a week provides the opportunity to reassess.
“Set clear expectations,” Dr. Micheletti said. This includes explaining that the goal is manageable pain, not complete pain relief, which is often unobtainable. For painful conditions such as pyoderma gangrenosum, hidradenitis suppurativa, or vasculitis, a short course will generally be sufficient to get past the most significant discomfort.
There are several reasons that Dr. Micheletti encourages dermatologists to take responsibility for pain related to skin diseases. One is the potential for inefficiencies and delays common to referrals, but another is the value of the dermatologist’s expertise in judging pain as a symptom of the disorder. With effective treatment, pain should self-resolve.
“If the patient is not getting better medically, then change therapies,” Dr. Micheletti said. When referred to a non-dermatologist, the pain expert might not recognize what persistent pain is revealing about the underlying condition.
Repeatedly, Dr. Micheletti made the point that dermatologists should manage pain related to skin disorders because of their ability to assess complaints in the context of the disease.
“We are the experts. We should understand when what we are seeing should or should not be painful,” he said. He added that dermatologists are also in the best position to judge “when analgesia is no longer needed.”
With this same logic, dermatologists are in a good position to distinguish nociceptive from neuropathic pain. Some conditions are likely to have both, and this should influence choice of pain relief. Citing a patient with calciphylaxis as an example, Dr. Micheletti suggested that drugs with efficacy against neuropathic pain, such as gabapentin, should be one of the options to consider before moving to opioids. In those with sufficient pain to warrant an opioid, however, Dr. Micheletti would consider tramadol, which acts on both types of pain.
Treating pain is not always straightforward, Dr. Micheletti acknowledged. For example, depression and mood disorders are known to exacerbate pain and are reasonable targets of pain control. The stress related to disruptive psychosocial problems can be another factor in risk of pain.
“Be prepared to acknowledge and address these types of issues,” Dr. Micheletti said. Although these are the types of patients some dermatologists might prefer to refer to a pain specialist, he said that the contribution of factors outside of skin disease should not be allowed to obscure a dermatologic source of pain.
“Just because a patient has psychosocial issues does not mean that there is no pain,” he said.
A systematic approach to the assessment and treatment of pain will help sort out these issues, but Dr. Micheletti also said, “Know your comfort zone.” When patients require opioids, there are several appropriate steps important or mandatory to provide adequate protection for the patient and the physician. In addition to documentation, it is reasonable to verify that the patient is not obtaining opioids from other prescribers, a step that is mandatory in some states.
When opioids are needed, Dr. Micheletti suggested a standard approach that includes short courses without refills. He recommended avoiding long-acting opioids and drugs not commonly used by non-pain specialists, such as codeine, hydrocodone, or fentanyl.
“This is not a prescribe and walk away situation,” he said.
Although the same general approach is employed by Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology, George Washington University, Washington, he is a little less reluctant to refer patients to pain specialists.
“For complex situations, you need complex solutions. In the case of significant pain and even itch, I will collaborate with the GW Pain Center,” he said. For severe pain, the solutions might include nerve blocks or even intravenous ketamine for in-patients.
He also made the point that dermatologists, even if they are uncomfortable prescribing opioids, “should be equipped to use relevant medications such as topical anesthetics, gabapentinoids, and SSRIs” to control pain related to skin conditions.
Dr. Micheletti reports no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Friedman has consulting relationships with several pharmaceutical companies, including Amgen, GlaxoSmithKline, and Valeant.
, according to an expert who outlined his strategies at the American Academy of Dermatology Virtual Meeting Experience.
The exceptions relate primarily to patients with issues complicating pain control, such as those with psychosocial problems exacerbating the pain response, drug-seeking behavior, or both, according to Robert G. Micheletti, MD, chief of hospital dermatology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
To stay out of trouble, Dr. Micheletti advocated a systematic approach to the control of pain that includes documentation, clear expectations, and a sparing use of opioids only at the lowest acceptable dose for periods measured in days.
Using a case of pyoderma gangrenosum to make several points, he recognized that some patients do have a level of pain that warrants a short course of opioids, but this is not his first step. Rather, the initial focus, after administering standard therapies for this disease, is wound care, which often attenuates symptoms. He adds non-pharmacologic treatments, such as ice, heat, and rest when appropriate. The initial pharmacologic approach is alternating doses of an NSAID and acetaminophen.
“If necessary, a short course of opioids is reasonable for patients with acute pain,” he acknowledged. But he wants to avoid providing more opioids than needed to address the initial period of acute pain. In the case of pyoderma gangrenosum, he suggested a typical prescription might be 12 pills of 5 mg oxycodone taken every six hours. A followup appointment within a week provides the opportunity to reassess.
“Set clear expectations,” Dr. Micheletti said. This includes explaining that the goal is manageable pain, not complete pain relief, which is often unobtainable. For painful conditions such as pyoderma gangrenosum, hidradenitis suppurativa, or vasculitis, a short course will generally be sufficient to get past the most significant discomfort.
There are several reasons that Dr. Micheletti encourages dermatologists to take responsibility for pain related to skin diseases. One is the potential for inefficiencies and delays common to referrals, but another is the value of the dermatologist’s expertise in judging pain as a symptom of the disorder. With effective treatment, pain should self-resolve.
“If the patient is not getting better medically, then change therapies,” Dr. Micheletti said. When referred to a non-dermatologist, the pain expert might not recognize what persistent pain is revealing about the underlying condition.
Repeatedly, Dr. Micheletti made the point that dermatologists should manage pain related to skin disorders because of their ability to assess complaints in the context of the disease.
“We are the experts. We should understand when what we are seeing should or should not be painful,” he said. He added that dermatologists are also in the best position to judge “when analgesia is no longer needed.”
With this same logic, dermatologists are in a good position to distinguish nociceptive from neuropathic pain. Some conditions are likely to have both, and this should influence choice of pain relief. Citing a patient with calciphylaxis as an example, Dr. Micheletti suggested that drugs with efficacy against neuropathic pain, such as gabapentin, should be one of the options to consider before moving to opioids. In those with sufficient pain to warrant an opioid, however, Dr. Micheletti would consider tramadol, which acts on both types of pain.
Treating pain is not always straightforward, Dr. Micheletti acknowledged. For example, depression and mood disorders are known to exacerbate pain and are reasonable targets of pain control. The stress related to disruptive psychosocial problems can be another factor in risk of pain.
“Be prepared to acknowledge and address these types of issues,” Dr. Micheletti said. Although these are the types of patients some dermatologists might prefer to refer to a pain specialist, he said that the contribution of factors outside of skin disease should not be allowed to obscure a dermatologic source of pain.
“Just because a patient has psychosocial issues does not mean that there is no pain,” he said.
A systematic approach to the assessment and treatment of pain will help sort out these issues, but Dr. Micheletti also said, “Know your comfort zone.” When patients require opioids, there are several appropriate steps important or mandatory to provide adequate protection for the patient and the physician. In addition to documentation, it is reasonable to verify that the patient is not obtaining opioids from other prescribers, a step that is mandatory in some states.
When opioids are needed, Dr. Micheletti suggested a standard approach that includes short courses without refills. He recommended avoiding long-acting opioids and drugs not commonly used by non-pain specialists, such as codeine, hydrocodone, or fentanyl.
“This is not a prescribe and walk away situation,” he said.
Although the same general approach is employed by Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology, George Washington University, Washington, he is a little less reluctant to refer patients to pain specialists.
“For complex situations, you need complex solutions. In the case of significant pain and even itch, I will collaborate with the GW Pain Center,” he said. For severe pain, the solutions might include nerve blocks or even intravenous ketamine for in-patients.
He also made the point that dermatologists, even if they are uncomfortable prescribing opioids, “should be equipped to use relevant medications such as topical anesthetics, gabapentinoids, and SSRIs” to control pain related to skin conditions.
Dr. Micheletti reports no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Friedman has consulting relationships with several pharmaceutical companies, including Amgen, GlaxoSmithKline, and Valeant.
, according to an expert who outlined his strategies at the American Academy of Dermatology Virtual Meeting Experience.
The exceptions relate primarily to patients with issues complicating pain control, such as those with psychosocial problems exacerbating the pain response, drug-seeking behavior, or both, according to Robert G. Micheletti, MD, chief of hospital dermatology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
To stay out of trouble, Dr. Micheletti advocated a systematic approach to the control of pain that includes documentation, clear expectations, and a sparing use of opioids only at the lowest acceptable dose for periods measured in days.
Using a case of pyoderma gangrenosum to make several points, he recognized that some patients do have a level of pain that warrants a short course of opioids, but this is not his first step. Rather, the initial focus, after administering standard therapies for this disease, is wound care, which often attenuates symptoms. He adds non-pharmacologic treatments, such as ice, heat, and rest when appropriate. The initial pharmacologic approach is alternating doses of an NSAID and acetaminophen.
“If necessary, a short course of opioids is reasonable for patients with acute pain,” he acknowledged. But he wants to avoid providing more opioids than needed to address the initial period of acute pain. In the case of pyoderma gangrenosum, he suggested a typical prescription might be 12 pills of 5 mg oxycodone taken every six hours. A followup appointment within a week provides the opportunity to reassess.
“Set clear expectations,” Dr. Micheletti said. This includes explaining that the goal is manageable pain, not complete pain relief, which is often unobtainable. For painful conditions such as pyoderma gangrenosum, hidradenitis suppurativa, or vasculitis, a short course will generally be sufficient to get past the most significant discomfort.
There are several reasons that Dr. Micheletti encourages dermatologists to take responsibility for pain related to skin diseases. One is the potential for inefficiencies and delays common to referrals, but another is the value of the dermatologist’s expertise in judging pain as a symptom of the disorder. With effective treatment, pain should self-resolve.
“If the patient is not getting better medically, then change therapies,” Dr. Micheletti said. When referred to a non-dermatologist, the pain expert might not recognize what persistent pain is revealing about the underlying condition.
Repeatedly, Dr. Micheletti made the point that dermatologists should manage pain related to skin disorders because of their ability to assess complaints in the context of the disease.
“We are the experts. We should understand when what we are seeing should or should not be painful,” he said. He added that dermatologists are also in the best position to judge “when analgesia is no longer needed.”
With this same logic, dermatologists are in a good position to distinguish nociceptive from neuropathic pain. Some conditions are likely to have both, and this should influence choice of pain relief. Citing a patient with calciphylaxis as an example, Dr. Micheletti suggested that drugs with efficacy against neuropathic pain, such as gabapentin, should be one of the options to consider before moving to opioids. In those with sufficient pain to warrant an opioid, however, Dr. Micheletti would consider tramadol, which acts on both types of pain.
Treating pain is not always straightforward, Dr. Micheletti acknowledged. For example, depression and mood disorders are known to exacerbate pain and are reasonable targets of pain control. The stress related to disruptive psychosocial problems can be another factor in risk of pain.
“Be prepared to acknowledge and address these types of issues,” Dr. Micheletti said. Although these are the types of patients some dermatologists might prefer to refer to a pain specialist, he said that the contribution of factors outside of skin disease should not be allowed to obscure a dermatologic source of pain.
“Just because a patient has psychosocial issues does not mean that there is no pain,” he said.
A systematic approach to the assessment and treatment of pain will help sort out these issues, but Dr. Micheletti also said, “Know your comfort zone.” When patients require opioids, there are several appropriate steps important or mandatory to provide adequate protection for the patient and the physician. In addition to documentation, it is reasonable to verify that the patient is not obtaining opioids from other prescribers, a step that is mandatory in some states.
When opioids are needed, Dr. Micheletti suggested a standard approach that includes short courses without refills. He recommended avoiding long-acting opioids and drugs not commonly used by non-pain specialists, such as codeine, hydrocodone, or fentanyl.
“This is not a prescribe and walk away situation,” he said.
Although the same general approach is employed by Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology, George Washington University, Washington, he is a little less reluctant to refer patients to pain specialists.
“For complex situations, you need complex solutions. In the case of significant pain and even itch, I will collaborate with the GW Pain Center,” he said. For severe pain, the solutions might include nerve blocks or even intravenous ketamine for in-patients.
He also made the point that dermatologists, even if they are uncomfortable prescribing opioids, “should be equipped to use relevant medications such as topical anesthetics, gabapentinoids, and SSRIs” to control pain related to skin conditions.
Dr. Micheletti reports no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Friedman has consulting relationships with several pharmaceutical companies, including Amgen, GlaxoSmithKline, and Valeant.
FROM AAD VMX 2021
In low-risk thyroid cancer, no advantage found for postsurgical iodine
After 3 years of follow-up in patients with low-risk differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC), there is no significant difference in the rate of tumor-related events in those treated with postsurgical radioactive iodine (RAI) relative to those who are not, according to a randomized phase 3 trial.
The controversy about whether postoperative RAI is beneficial or an overtreatment in low-risk DTC has persisted for years, but it can now be addressed with level one data, according to Sophie Leboulleux, MD, PhD, who heads the thyroid cancer division at Gustave Roussy Cancer Institute, Villejuif, France.
The trial, called ESTIMABL2, included 776 low-risk DTC patients managed at 35 participating treatment centers in France. Two to five months after surgery, patients were randomized to receive RAI or to follow-up without RAI if there were no suspicious findings, such as changes in lateral neck lymph nodes, on ultrasonography.
Three years after randomization in 729 evaluable patients, tumor-related effects occurred in 4.1% of those randomized to RAI and 4.9% of those randomized to follow-up without RAI.
“Thus, 95.1% of patients in the followed group and 95.9% in the RAI group had no event over 3 years of follow-up. The difference of 0.8% was noninferior by the prespecified definition,” Dr. Leboulleux reported at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.
The 0.8% difference in events is noninferior
The prespecified definition was a less than 5% difference in events at the end of 5 years. The 0.8% difference in this study was comfortably within the 95% confidence interval (–3.3%-1.8%).
On yearly evaluations under levothyroxine treatment, events were defined as an indication for treatment, whether surgery or RAI administration if there was abnormal RAI intake on the posttherapeutic whole-body scan or elevated thyroglobulin or thyroglobulin antibodies. In the latter case, this was an event even in the absence of abnormal neck ultrasonography.
“Elevated thyroglobulin levels on levothyroxine treatment were defined as greater than 2 ng/mL in the group that did not received RAI and greater than 1 ng/mL in the group that did,” Dr. Leboulleux reported.
Thyroglobulin antibodies were considered elevated with a greater than 50% increase over the upper limit of normal on two consecutive determinations 6 months apart, Dr. Leboulleux said. The same or similar definitions of an event have been used previously.
Of the study population, 83% were women and almost all (96%) had papillary DTC. The mean age was 52 years. Of the tumors, 81.1% were T1b, of which more than half were unevaluable for node status and about 40% were node negative. The remaining tumors were grade T1a, of which about two-thirds had unevaluable node status and the remainder were confirmed node negative.
Prior studies also question RAI benefit
Several retrospective studies have also failed to associated RAI with a significant protection against thyroid events in low-risk DTC. In the most recent guidelines, the American Thoracic Society recommended against routine use of RAI following surgery in low-risk DTC patients. However, these guidelines acknowledged this is a “weak recommendation” based on “low-quality evidence.”
Recurrence rates following surgery in low-risk DTC are not zero. According to a review article coauthored by Dr. Leboulleux, these may occur in up to 3% of patients. This measurable risk might explain why many published retrospective data suggest low-risk DTC patients are continuing to receive postsurgical RAI. In one, using data taken from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database, nearly 25% of 17,286 low-risk papillary thyroid cancers had received postsurgical RAI.
The ESTIMABL2 trial is one of two randomized studies launched over the last several years to address the controversy regarding postsurgical RAI in low-risk DTC with prospective randomized data. The ongoing IoN trial is the other. The researchers plan a much longer follow-up, with data not expected until 2031.
In fact, one criticism of the ESTIMABL2 is “the low event rate and relatively short follow-up,” reported Megan Haymart, MD, a professor in the division of metabolism, endocrinology, and diabetes at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
“The strengths of this study include the involvement of 35 French centers, the use of a cohort that is representative of the distribution of low-risk thyroid cancer at large, and the use of biochemical markers during follow-up,” Dr. Haymart said in an interview.
Ultimately, despite the limited follow-up, “this is a clinically important study as it supports the recent paradigm shift towards less use of RAI for low-risk thyroid cancer,” she said.
Dr. Leboulleux and Dr. Haymart report no relevant conflicts of interest.
After 3 years of follow-up in patients with low-risk differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC), there is no significant difference in the rate of tumor-related events in those treated with postsurgical radioactive iodine (RAI) relative to those who are not, according to a randomized phase 3 trial.
The controversy about whether postoperative RAI is beneficial or an overtreatment in low-risk DTC has persisted for years, but it can now be addressed with level one data, according to Sophie Leboulleux, MD, PhD, who heads the thyroid cancer division at Gustave Roussy Cancer Institute, Villejuif, France.
The trial, called ESTIMABL2, included 776 low-risk DTC patients managed at 35 participating treatment centers in France. Two to five months after surgery, patients were randomized to receive RAI or to follow-up without RAI if there were no suspicious findings, such as changes in lateral neck lymph nodes, on ultrasonography.
Three years after randomization in 729 evaluable patients, tumor-related effects occurred in 4.1% of those randomized to RAI and 4.9% of those randomized to follow-up without RAI.
“Thus, 95.1% of patients in the followed group and 95.9% in the RAI group had no event over 3 years of follow-up. The difference of 0.8% was noninferior by the prespecified definition,” Dr. Leboulleux reported at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.
The 0.8% difference in events is noninferior
The prespecified definition was a less than 5% difference in events at the end of 5 years. The 0.8% difference in this study was comfortably within the 95% confidence interval (–3.3%-1.8%).
On yearly evaluations under levothyroxine treatment, events were defined as an indication for treatment, whether surgery or RAI administration if there was abnormal RAI intake on the posttherapeutic whole-body scan or elevated thyroglobulin or thyroglobulin antibodies. In the latter case, this was an event even in the absence of abnormal neck ultrasonography.
“Elevated thyroglobulin levels on levothyroxine treatment were defined as greater than 2 ng/mL in the group that did not received RAI and greater than 1 ng/mL in the group that did,” Dr. Leboulleux reported.
Thyroglobulin antibodies were considered elevated with a greater than 50% increase over the upper limit of normal on two consecutive determinations 6 months apart, Dr. Leboulleux said. The same or similar definitions of an event have been used previously.
Of the study population, 83% were women and almost all (96%) had papillary DTC. The mean age was 52 years. Of the tumors, 81.1% were T1b, of which more than half were unevaluable for node status and about 40% were node negative. The remaining tumors were grade T1a, of which about two-thirds had unevaluable node status and the remainder were confirmed node negative.
Prior studies also question RAI benefit
Several retrospective studies have also failed to associated RAI with a significant protection against thyroid events in low-risk DTC. In the most recent guidelines, the American Thoracic Society recommended against routine use of RAI following surgery in low-risk DTC patients. However, these guidelines acknowledged this is a “weak recommendation” based on “low-quality evidence.”
Recurrence rates following surgery in low-risk DTC are not zero. According to a review article coauthored by Dr. Leboulleux, these may occur in up to 3% of patients. This measurable risk might explain why many published retrospective data suggest low-risk DTC patients are continuing to receive postsurgical RAI. In one, using data taken from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database, nearly 25% of 17,286 low-risk papillary thyroid cancers had received postsurgical RAI.
The ESTIMABL2 trial is one of two randomized studies launched over the last several years to address the controversy regarding postsurgical RAI in low-risk DTC with prospective randomized data. The ongoing IoN trial is the other. The researchers plan a much longer follow-up, with data not expected until 2031.
In fact, one criticism of the ESTIMABL2 is “the low event rate and relatively short follow-up,” reported Megan Haymart, MD, a professor in the division of metabolism, endocrinology, and diabetes at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
“The strengths of this study include the involvement of 35 French centers, the use of a cohort that is representative of the distribution of low-risk thyroid cancer at large, and the use of biochemical markers during follow-up,” Dr. Haymart said in an interview.
Ultimately, despite the limited follow-up, “this is a clinically important study as it supports the recent paradigm shift towards less use of RAI for low-risk thyroid cancer,” she said.
Dr. Leboulleux and Dr. Haymart report no relevant conflicts of interest.
After 3 years of follow-up in patients with low-risk differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC), there is no significant difference in the rate of tumor-related events in those treated with postsurgical radioactive iodine (RAI) relative to those who are not, according to a randomized phase 3 trial.
The controversy about whether postoperative RAI is beneficial or an overtreatment in low-risk DTC has persisted for years, but it can now be addressed with level one data, according to Sophie Leboulleux, MD, PhD, who heads the thyroid cancer division at Gustave Roussy Cancer Institute, Villejuif, France.
The trial, called ESTIMABL2, included 776 low-risk DTC patients managed at 35 participating treatment centers in France. Two to five months after surgery, patients were randomized to receive RAI or to follow-up without RAI if there were no suspicious findings, such as changes in lateral neck lymph nodes, on ultrasonography.
Three years after randomization in 729 evaluable patients, tumor-related effects occurred in 4.1% of those randomized to RAI and 4.9% of those randomized to follow-up without RAI.
“Thus, 95.1% of patients in the followed group and 95.9% in the RAI group had no event over 3 years of follow-up. The difference of 0.8% was noninferior by the prespecified definition,” Dr. Leboulleux reported at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.
The 0.8% difference in events is noninferior
The prespecified definition was a less than 5% difference in events at the end of 5 years. The 0.8% difference in this study was comfortably within the 95% confidence interval (–3.3%-1.8%).
On yearly evaluations under levothyroxine treatment, events were defined as an indication for treatment, whether surgery or RAI administration if there was abnormal RAI intake on the posttherapeutic whole-body scan or elevated thyroglobulin or thyroglobulin antibodies. In the latter case, this was an event even in the absence of abnormal neck ultrasonography.
“Elevated thyroglobulin levels on levothyroxine treatment were defined as greater than 2 ng/mL in the group that did not received RAI and greater than 1 ng/mL in the group that did,” Dr. Leboulleux reported.
Thyroglobulin antibodies were considered elevated with a greater than 50% increase over the upper limit of normal on two consecutive determinations 6 months apart, Dr. Leboulleux said. The same or similar definitions of an event have been used previously.
Of the study population, 83% were women and almost all (96%) had papillary DTC. The mean age was 52 years. Of the tumors, 81.1% were T1b, of which more than half were unevaluable for node status and about 40% were node negative. The remaining tumors were grade T1a, of which about two-thirds had unevaluable node status and the remainder were confirmed node negative.
Prior studies also question RAI benefit
Several retrospective studies have also failed to associated RAI with a significant protection against thyroid events in low-risk DTC. In the most recent guidelines, the American Thoracic Society recommended against routine use of RAI following surgery in low-risk DTC patients. However, these guidelines acknowledged this is a “weak recommendation” based on “low-quality evidence.”
Recurrence rates following surgery in low-risk DTC are not zero. According to a review article coauthored by Dr. Leboulleux, these may occur in up to 3% of patients. This measurable risk might explain why many published retrospective data suggest low-risk DTC patients are continuing to receive postsurgical RAI. In one, using data taken from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database, nearly 25% of 17,286 low-risk papillary thyroid cancers had received postsurgical RAI.
The ESTIMABL2 trial is one of two randomized studies launched over the last several years to address the controversy regarding postsurgical RAI in low-risk DTC with prospective randomized data. The ongoing IoN trial is the other. The researchers plan a much longer follow-up, with data not expected until 2031.
In fact, one criticism of the ESTIMABL2 is “the low event rate and relatively short follow-up,” reported Megan Haymart, MD, a professor in the division of metabolism, endocrinology, and diabetes at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
“The strengths of this study include the involvement of 35 French centers, the use of a cohort that is representative of the distribution of low-risk thyroid cancer at large, and the use of biochemical markers during follow-up,” Dr. Haymart said in an interview.
Ultimately, despite the limited follow-up, “this is a clinically important study as it supports the recent paradigm shift towards less use of RAI for low-risk thyroid cancer,” she said.
Dr. Leboulleux and Dr. Haymart report no relevant conflicts of interest.
FROM ENDO 2021
Denosumab now dominant therapy for osteoporosis linked to cancer
Amid a substantial expansion of therapies in several drug classes for the treatment of osteoporosis, there has been a notable increase in the prescription of denosumab for patients with a cancer-related indication.
In an analysis of claims data from January 2009 to March 2020, the bisphosphonate alendronate represented more than 50% of all prescriptions for bone-directed therapies, but growth in the use of the monoclonal antibody denosumab overall and in cancer-related indications particularly was steady throughout the study period.
“In the malignancy cohort, alendronate and zoledronic acid were each used in approximately 30% of individuals at the onset of the study, but use of both then declined,” Sara Cromer, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.
For malignancy-based prescriptions, denosumab surpassed either bisphosphonate by 2013 and then continued to rise.
Denosumab use “reached approximately 50% of all bone-directed medication use in the malignancy cohort” by the end of the study period, said Dr. Cromer, a clinical research fellow in endocrinology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
The claims data for this analysis was drawn from the Clinformatics Data Mart. The analysis was restricted to individuals aged older than 50 years who received a prescription for a bone-directed therapy. The 15.48 million prescriptions evaluated were drawn from 1.46 million unique individuals. The mean age was 69 years, and 89% of those prescribed a drug were women.
Oncologic indications one of two tracked cohorts
In the context of a large expansion of treatment options in several drug classes for osteoporosis, the objective of this claims analysis was to document trends in treatment choice, according to Dr. Cromer. She and her coinvestigators looked at prescriptions overall as well as in two cohorts defined by ICD codes. One included patients prescribed a prescription by an oncologist. The other included everyone else.
When all prescriptions for bone-directed therapy were evaluated over the study period, alendronate was the most commonly prescribed therapy, and its use increased over time. Prescriptions of zoledronic acid also rose, doubling over the study period, but use was very low in the beginning and it never climbed above 5%.
The proportion of prescriptions written for bisphosphonates other than alendronate and zoledronic acid “declined steadily” over the study period, Dr. Cromer reported.
Denosumab, a monoclonal antibody that targets a step in the process important to maturation of osteoclasts, was approved in 2010. It accounted for 10% of all prescriptions for osteoporosis by 2015 and 15% by 2018. It was still rising through the end of the study period.
In contrast, prescriptions of raloxifene, a selective estrogen receptor modulator, began to decline after 2013. In general, the rates of prescriptions for other agents, including some of the more recently approved drugs, such as teriparatide, abaloparatide, and romosozumab, changed very little over the study period. None of these therapies ever represented more than 2% of prescriptions.
When looking at the cohort of patients who received a bone-directed reason for a noncancer indication, the trends “paralleled those in the all-user analysis,” Dr. Cromer reported.
Denosumab use greater in privately insured
In the malignancy cohort, the decline in the use of bisphosphonates and the rise in the use of denosumab were most pronounced in patients who were privately insured. The increased use of denosumab over the study period “outpaced gains in use of other agents despite guidelines,” said Dr. Cromer, referring to the those issued by the Endocrine Society in 2019 .
In those guidelines, written for management of postmenopausal women at high risk of fractures, bisphosphonates are recommended for initial treatment while denosumab is recommended as an alternative. However, those guidelines do not provide specific recommendations for therapies directed at osteoporosis associated with cancer.
Guidelines for this population exist, including one published by the American Society of Clinical Oncology in 2019.
In the ASCO guidelines, oral bisphosphonates, intravenous bisphosphonates, and subcutaneous denosumab were all identified as “efficacious options,” according to Charles L. Shapiro, MD, director of breast cancer translational research, Mount Sinai Health System, New York.
Specifically, “all three of them work to reduce fractures and improve bone density in women with breast cancer in whom you are trying to prevent or treat osteoporosis,” Dr. Shapiro said in an interview.
There might be relative advantages for one therapy over another in specific subgroups defined by type of cancer or stage of cancer, but trials are not definitive for such outcomes as overall survival. Citing one comparative study associating denosumab with an 18% delay to first skeletal event in women with metastatic breast cancer, Dr. Shapiro observed, “I personally don’t consider an 18% delay [for this outcome] to be that clinically meaningful.”
Although major guidelines from ASCO have not so far favored denosumab over any bisphosphonate in routine care, Dr. Shapiro did not rule out the possibility that future studies will show differences.
Dr. Comer and Dr. Shapiro reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
Amid a substantial expansion of therapies in several drug classes for the treatment of osteoporosis, there has been a notable increase in the prescription of denosumab for patients with a cancer-related indication.
In an analysis of claims data from January 2009 to March 2020, the bisphosphonate alendronate represented more than 50% of all prescriptions for bone-directed therapies, but growth in the use of the monoclonal antibody denosumab overall and in cancer-related indications particularly was steady throughout the study period.
“In the malignancy cohort, alendronate and zoledronic acid were each used in approximately 30% of individuals at the onset of the study, but use of both then declined,” Sara Cromer, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.
For malignancy-based prescriptions, denosumab surpassed either bisphosphonate by 2013 and then continued to rise.
Denosumab use “reached approximately 50% of all bone-directed medication use in the malignancy cohort” by the end of the study period, said Dr. Cromer, a clinical research fellow in endocrinology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
The claims data for this analysis was drawn from the Clinformatics Data Mart. The analysis was restricted to individuals aged older than 50 years who received a prescription for a bone-directed therapy. The 15.48 million prescriptions evaluated were drawn from 1.46 million unique individuals. The mean age was 69 years, and 89% of those prescribed a drug were women.
Oncologic indications one of two tracked cohorts
In the context of a large expansion of treatment options in several drug classes for osteoporosis, the objective of this claims analysis was to document trends in treatment choice, according to Dr. Cromer. She and her coinvestigators looked at prescriptions overall as well as in two cohorts defined by ICD codes. One included patients prescribed a prescription by an oncologist. The other included everyone else.
When all prescriptions for bone-directed therapy were evaluated over the study period, alendronate was the most commonly prescribed therapy, and its use increased over time. Prescriptions of zoledronic acid also rose, doubling over the study period, but use was very low in the beginning and it never climbed above 5%.
The proportion of prescriptions written for bisphosphonates other than alendronate and zoledronic acid “declined steadily” over the study period, Dr. Cromer reported.
Denosumab, a monoclonal antibody that targets a step in the process important to maturation of osteoclasts, was approved in 2010. It accounted for 10% of all prescriptions for osteoporosis by 2015 and 15% by 2018. It was still rising through the end of the study period.
In contrast, prescriptions of raloxifene, a selective estrogen receptor modulator, began to decline after 2013. In general, the rates of prescriptions for other agents, including some of the more recently approved drugs, such as teriparatide, abaloparatide, and romosozumab, changed very little over the study period. None of these therapies ever represented more than 2% of prescriptions.
When looking at the cohort of patients who received a bone-directed reason for a noncancer indication, the trends “paralleled those in the all-user analysis,” Dr. Cromer reported.
Denosumab use greater in privately insured
In the malignancy cohort, the decline in the use of bisphosphonates and the rise in the use of denosumab were most pronounced in patients who were privately insured. The increased use of denosumab over the study period “outpaced gains in use of other agents despite guidelines,” said Dr. Cromer, referring to the those issued by the Endocrine Society in 2019 .
In those guidelines, written for management of postmenopausal women at high risk of fractures, bisphosphonates are recommended for initial treatment while denosumab is recommended as an alternative. However, those guidelines do not provide specific recommendations for therapies directed at osteoporosis associated with cancer.
Guidelines for this population exist, including one published by the American Society of Clinical Oncology in 2019.
In the ASCO guidelines, oral bisphosphonates, intravenous bisphosphonates, and subcutaneous denosumab were all identified as “efficacious options,” according to Charles L. Shapiro, MD, director of breast cancer translational research, Mount Sinai Health System, New York.
Specifically, “all three of them work to reduce fractures and improve bone density in women with breast cancer in whom you are trying to prevent or treat osteoporosis,” Dr. Shapiro said in an interview.
There might be relative advantages for one therapy over another in specific subgroups defined by type of cancer or stage of cancer, but trials are not definitive for such outcomes as overall survival. Citing one comparative study associating denosumab with an 18% delay to first skeletal event in women with metastatic breast cancer, Dr. Shapiro observed, “I personally don’t consider an 18% delay [for this outcome] to be that clinically meaningful.”
Although major guidelines from ASCO have not so far favored denosumab over any bisphosphonate in routine care, Dr. Shapiro did not rule out the possibility that future studies will show differences.
Dr. Comer and Dr. Shapiro reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
Amid a substantial expansion of therapies in several drug classes for the treatment of osteoporosis, there has been a notable increase in the prescription of denosumab for patients with a cancer-related indication.
In an analysis of claims data from January 2009 to March 2020, the bisphosphonate alendronate represented more than 50% of all prescriptions for bone-directed therapies, but growth in the use of the monoclonal antibody denosumab overall and in cancer-related indications particularly was steady throughout the study period.
“In the malignancy cohort, alendronate and zoledronic acid were each used in approximately 30% of individuals at the onset of the study, but use of both then declined,” Sara Cromer, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.
For malignancy-based prescriptions, denosumab surpassed either bisphosphonate by 2013 and then continued to rise.
Denosumab use “reached approximately 50% of all bone-directed medication use in the malignancy cohort” by the end of the study period, said Dr. Cromer, a clinical research fellow in endocrinology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
The claims data for this analysis was drawn from the Clinformatics Data Mart. The analysis was restricted to individuals aged older than 50 years who received a prescription for a bone-directed therapy. The 15.48 million prescriptions evaluated were drawn from 1.46 million unique individuals. The mean age was 69 years, and 89% of those prescribed a drug were women.
Oncologic indications one of two tracked cohorts
In the context of a large expansion of treatment options in several drug classes for osteoporosis, the objective of this claims analysis was to document trends in treatment choice, according to Dr. Cromer. She and her coinvestigators looked at prescriptions overall as well as in two cohorts defined by ICD codes. One included patients prescribed a prescription by an oncologist. The other included everyone else.
When all prescriptions for bone-directed therapy were evaluated over the study period, alendronate was the most commonly prescribed therapy, and its use increased over time. Prescriptions of zoledronic acid also rose, doubling over the study period, but use was very low in the beginning and it never climbed above 5%.
The proportion of prescriptions written for bisphosphonates other than alendronate and zoledronic acid “declined steadily” over the study period, Dr. Cromer reported.
Denosumab, a monoclonal antibody that targets a step in the process important to maturation of osteoclasts, was approved in 2010. It accounted for 10% of all prescriptions for osteoporosis by 2015 and 15% by 2018. It was still rising through the end of the study period.
In contrast, prescriptions of raloxifene, a selective estrogen receptor modulator, began to decline after 2013. In general, the rates of prescriptions for other agents, including some of the more recently approved drugs, such as teriparatide, abaloparatide, and romosozumab, changed very little over the study period. None of these therapies ever represented more than 2% of prescriptions.
When looking at the cohort of patients who received a bone-directed reason for a noncancer indication, the trends “paralleled those in the all-user analysis,” Dr. Cromer reported.
Denosumab use greater in privately insured
In the malignancy cohort, the decline in the use of bisphosphonates and the rise in the use of denosumab were most pronounced in patients who were privately insured. The increased use of denosumab over the study period “outpaced gains in use of other agents despite guidelines,” said Dr. Cromer, referring to the those issued by the Endocrine Society in 2019 .
In those guidelines, written for management of postmenopausal women at high risk of fractures, bisphosphonates are recommended for initial treatment while denosumab is recommended as an alternative. However, those guidelines do not provide specific recommendations for therapies directed at osteoporosis associated with cancer.
Guidelines for this population exist, including one published by the American Society of Clinical Oncology in 2019.
In the ASCO guidelines, oral bisphosphonates, intravenous bisphosphonates, and subcutaneous denosumab were all identified as “efficacious options,” according to Charles L. Shapiro, MD, director of breast cancer translational research, Mount Sinai Health System, New York.
Specifically, “all three of them work to reduce fractures and improve bone density in women with breast cancer in whom you are trying to prevent or treat osteoporosis,” Dr. Shapiro said in an interview.
There might be relative advantages for one therapy over another in specific subgroups defined by type of cancer or stage of cancer, but trials are not definitive for such outcomes as overall survival. Citing one comparative study associating denosumab with an 18% delay to first skeletal event in women with metastatic breast cancer, Dr. Shapiro observed, “I personally don’t consider an 18% delay [for this outcome] to be that clinically meaningful.”
Although major guidelines from ASCO have not so far favored denosumab over any bisphosphonate in routine care, Dr. Shapiro did not rule out the possibility that future studies will show differences.
Dr. Comer and Dr. Shapiro reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
FROM ENDO 2021
Obesity pegged as source of marked increased risk of diabetes in PCOS
The increased risk of type 2 diabetes in women with polycystic ovary syndrome is well established, but a new analysis has shown that obesity is the major mediator and a target for preventing or reversing this comorbidity.
“Most women with PCOS are obese, complicating the effort to understand whether high rates of diabetes in this population are due to PCOS or excess weight, but our study now suggest that obesity isa targetable risk factor,” reported Panagiotis Anagnostis, MD, PhD, a reproductive endocrinologist at the Medical School of Aristotle University, Thessaloniki, Greece.
Obesity is also a known risk factor for type 2 diabetes (T2D), but there is reason to suspect that PCOS, which is associated with abnormal carbohydrate metabolism, has a direct impact on the risk of developing T2D, according to Dr. Anagnostis. It is also reasonable to expect “a synergistic deleterious effect” from PCOS and obesity on adverse changes in glucose metabolism that lead to T2D.
Even though rates of obesity among women with PCOS reach 80% in some studies, Dr. Anagnostis attempted to disentangle the relationship between obesity, PCOS, and risk of T2D using a large set of data drawn from a comprehensive search of published studies.
After screening with predefined criteria, 12 studies provided data on 224,284 women, of whom 45,361 had PCOS and 5,717 had T2D. Not least of the criteria for inclusion in this analysis, all studies stratified women as obese, defined as a body mass index (BMI) greater than 30 kg/m2, or nonobese, he reported at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.
Diabetes risk tripled in PCOS
When compared without regard to BMI, the relative risk of having T2D among those with PCOS relative to those without this condition was more than three times greater (RR 3.13; P < .001). When women with PCOS were stratified for BMI, obesity was associated with a more than fourfold increased risk relative to controls without PCOS (RR, 4.06; P < .001).
In women who were nonobese, the risk of T2D was numerically higher for those with PCOS than those without (RR, 2.68), but it was only a trend with a large confidence interval (95% confidence interval, 0.97-7.49).
Among women with PCOS, those who were obese also had a more than fourfold and highly significant increased risk of T2D relative to those who were not obese (RR, 4.20; P < .001).
The message from these data is that obesity is a major and potentially modifiable risk factor for diabetes in women with PCOS, according to Dr. Anagnostis.
He said these data provide the basis for recommending weight loss specifically for managing this common PCOS comorbidity.
Almost the same relative risk of diabetes was derived from an analysis of a women’s health database published 2 years ago in Diabetes Care. In that study with 1,916 person-years of follow-up, the hazard ratio for T2D was also more than three times greater (HR, 3.23; P < .001) for those with PCOS relative to those without the syndrome.
However, normal BMI did not eliminate risk of developing diabetes in this study. Rather, the relative risk of T2D in women with PCOS was higher in those of normal weight, compared with those who were obese (HR, 4.68 vs. 2.36; P < .005). The investigators recommend screening all women with PCOS at least every 3 years with more frequent screening in those with risk factors.
PCOS complexity challenges simple conclusions
The complexity of disturbed metabolic pathways in patients with PCOS and obesity might explain some of the difficulty in unraveling the relationship between these two disease states and diabetes risk. In one recent review, it was suggested that obesity and PCOS share interrelated adverse effects on glucose metabolism. As a result, these associations are “more complex than a simple cause-and-effect process.” the authors of that article concluded.
Furthermore, in their examination of metabolic pathways, genetic susceptibility, and behavioral factors that might link PCOS, weight gain, and T2D, the authors did not ignore the psychological impact of PCOS in causing obesity and, as a byproduct, diabetes. These psychological factors might be relevant to treatment.
For example, depression and stress “might hamper ongoing attempts at lifestyle change and therefore effective weight loss” in at least some women, they cautioned.
However, in encouraging weight loss in overweight women with PCOS, the debate about cause of T2D might be moot in practical terms, according to Michael Dansinger, MD, founding director of the diabetes reversal program at Tufts Medical Center, Boston.
“Reducing excess body fat reduces the risk of type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Dansinger said in an interview. “Since women with obesity and PCOS are clearly at risk for future type 2 diabetes, that’s another reason to lose excess body fat through healthy eating and exercise.”
Dr. Anagnostis and Dr. Dansinger reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
The increased risk of type 2 diabetes in women with polycystic ovary syndrome is well established, but a new analysis has shown that obesity is the major mediator and a target for preventing or reversing this comorbidity.
“Most women with PCOS are obese, complicating the effort to understand whether high rates of diabetes in this population are due to PCOS or excess weight, but our study now suggest that obesity isa targetable risk factor,” reported Panagiotis Anagnostis, MD, PhD, a reproductive endocrinologist at the Medical School of Aristotle University, Thessaloniki, Greece.
Obesity is also a known risk factor for type 2 diabetes (T2D), but there is reason to suspect that PCOS, which is associated with abnormal carbohydrate metabolism, has a direct impact on the risk of developing T2D, according to Dr. Anagnostis. It is also reasonable to expect “a synergistic deleterious effect” from PCOS and obesity on adverse changes in glucose metabolism that lead to T2D.
Even though rates of obesity among women with PCOS reach 80% in some studies, Dr. Anagnostis attempted to disentangle the relationship between obesity, PCOS, and risk of T2D using a large set of data drawn from a comprehensive search of published studies.
After screening with predefined criteria, 12 studies provided data on 224,284 women, of whom 45,361 had PCOS and 5,717 had T2D. Not least of the criteria for inclusion in this analysis, all studies stratified women as obese, defined as a body mass index (BMI) greater than 30 kg/m2, or nonobese, he reported at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.
Diabetes risk tripled in PCOS
When compared without regard to BMI, the relative risk of having T2D among those with PCOS relative to those without this condition was more than three times greater (RR 3.13; P < .001). When women with PCOS were stratified for BMI, obesity was associated with a more than fourfold increased risk relative to controls without PCOS (RR, 4.06; P < .001).
In women who were nonobese, the risk of T2D was numerically higher for those with PCOS than those without (RR, 2.68), but it was only a trend with a large confidence interval (95% confidence interval, 0.97-7.49).
Among women with PCOS, those who were obese also had a more than fourfold and highly significant increased risk of T2D relative to those who were not obese (RR, 4.20; P < .001).
The message from these data is that obesity is a major and potentially modifiable risk factor for diabetes in women with PCOS, according to Dr. Anagnostis.
He said these data provide the basis for recommending weight loss specifically for managing this common PCOS comorbidity.
Almost the same relative risk of diabetes was derived from an analysis of a women’s health database published 2 years ago in Diabetes Care. In that study with 1,916 person-years of follow-up, the hazard ratio for T2D was also more than three times greater (HR, 3.23; P < .001) for those with PCOS relative to those without the syndrome.
However, normal BMI did not eliminate risk of developing diabetes in this study. Rather, the relative risk of T2D in women with PCOS was higher in those of normal weight, compared with those who were obese (HR, 4.68 vs. 2.36; P < .005). The investigators recommend screening all women with PCOS at least every 3 years with more frequent screening in those with risk factors.
PCOS complexity challenges simple conclusions
The complexity of disturbed metabolic pathways in patients with PCOS and obesity might explain some of the difficulty in unraveling the relationship between these two disease states and diabetes risk. In one recent review, it was suggested that obesity and PCOS share interrelated adverse effects on glucose metabolism. As a result, these associations are “more complex than a simple cause-and-effect process.” the authors of that article concluded.
Furthermore, in their examination of metabolic pathways, genetic susceptibility, and behavioral factors that might link PCOS, weight gain, and T2D, the authors did not ignore the psychological impact of PCOS in causing obesity and, as a byproduct, diabetes. These psychological factors might be relevant to treatment.
For example, depression and stress “might hamper ongoing attempts at lifestyle change and therefore effective weight loss” in at least some women, they cautioned.
However, in encouraging weight loss in overweight women with PCOS, the debate about cause of T2D might be moot in practical terms, according to Michael Dansinger, MD, founding director of the diabetes reversal program at Tufts Medical Center, Boston.
“Reducing excess body fat reduces the risk of type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Dansinger said in an interview. “Since women with obesity and PCOS are clearly at risk for future type 2 diabetes, that’s another reason to lose excess body fat through healthy eating and exercise.”
Dr. Anagnostis and Dr. Dansinger reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
The increased risk of type 2 diabetes in women with polycystic ovary syndrome is well established, but a new analysis has shown that obesity is the major mediator and a target for preventing or reversing this comorbidity.
“Most women with PCOS are obese, complicating the effort to understand whether high rates of diabetes in this population are due to PCOS or excess weight, but our study now suggest that obesity isa targetable risk factor,” reported Panagiotis Anagnostis, MD, PhD, a reproductive endocrinologist at the Medical School of Aristotle University, Thessaloniki, Greece.
Obesity is also a known risk factor for type 2 diabetes (T2D), but there is reason to suspect that PCOS, which is associated with abnormal carbohydrate metabolism, has a direct impact on the risk of developing T2D, according to Dr. Anagnostis. It is also reasonable to expect “a synergistic deleterious effect” from PCOS and obesity on adverse changes in glucose metabolism that lead to T2D.
Even though rates of obesity among women with PCOS reach 80% in some studies, Dr. Anagnostis attempted to disentangle the relationship between obesity, PCOS, and risk of T2D using a large set of data drawn from a comprehensive search of published studies.
After screening with predefined criteria, 12 studies provided data on 224,284 women, of whom 45,361 had PCOS and 5,717 had T2D. Not least of the criteria for inclusion in this analysis, all studies stratified women as obese, defined as a body mass index (BMI) greater than 30 kg/m2, or nonobese, he reported at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.
Diabetes risk tripled in PCOS
When compared without regard to BMI, the relative risk of having T2D among those with PCOS relative to those without this condition was more than three times greater (RR 3.13; P < .001). When women with PCOS were stratified for BMI, obesity was associated with a more than fourfold increased risk relative to controls without PCOS (RR, 4.06; P < .001).
In women who were nonobese, the risk of T2D was numerically higher for those with PCOS than those without (RR, 2.68), but it was only a trend with a large confidence interval (95% confidence interval, 0.97-7.49).
Among women with PCOS, those who were obese also had a more than fourfold and highly significant increased risk of T2D relative to those who were not obese (RR, 4.20; P < .001).
The message from these data is that obesity is a major and potentially modifiable risk factor for diabetes in women with PCOS, according to Dr. Anagnostis.
He said these data provide the basis for recommending weight loss specifically for managing this common PCOS comorbidity.
Almost the same relative risk of diabetes was derived from an analysis of a women’s health database published 2 years ago in Diabetes Care. In that study with 1,916 person-years of follow-up, the hazard ratio for T2D was also more than three times greater (HR, 3.23; P < .001) for those with PCOS relative to those without the syndrome.
However, normal BMI did not eliminate risk of developing diabetes in this study. Rather, the relative risk of T2D in women with PCOS was higher in those of normal weight, compared with those who were obese (HR, 4.68 vs. 2.36; P < .005). The investigators recommend screening all women with PCOS at least every 3 years with more frequent screening in those with risk factors.
PCOS complexity challenges simple conclusions
The complexity of disturbed metabolic pathways in patients with PCOS and obesity might explain some of the difficulty in unraveling the relationship between these two disease states and diabetes risk. In one recent review, it was suggested that obesity and PCOS share interrelated adverse effects on glucose metabolism. As a result, these associations are “more complex than a simple cause-and-effect process.” the authors of that article concluded.
Furthermore, in their examination of metabolic pathways, genetic susceptibility, and behavioral factors that might link PCOS, weight gain, and T2D, the authors did not ignore the psychological impact of PCOS in causing obesity and, as a byproduct, diabetes. These psychological factors might be relevant to treatment.
For example, depression and stress “might hamper ongoing attempts at lifestyle change and therefore effective weight loss” in at least some women, they cautioned.
However, in encouraging weight loss in overweight women with PCOS, the debate about cause of T2D might be moot in practical terms, according to Michael Dansinger, MD, founding director of the diabetes reversal program at Tufts Medical Center, Boston.
“Reducing excess body fat reduces the risk of type 2 diabetes,” Dr. Dansinger said in an interview. “Since women with obesity and PCOS are clearly at risk for future type 2 diabetes, that’s another reason to lose excess body fat through healthy eating and exercise.”
Dr. Anagnostis and Dr. Dansinger reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
FROM ENDO 2021
PCOS equivalent in men: No ovaries required
The concept that there is a male equivalent of polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) was first described more than 15 years ago; a new study has further validated the principle using a polygenic risk score.
By demonstrating a high rates of cardiometabolic dysfunction and androgenic conditions in men with a high PCOS risk score, “we have shown that these genetic risk factors can act independently of ovarian function,” reported Jia Zhu, MD, a clinical endocrinology fellow at Boston Children’s Hospital.
The characterization of a male equivalent of PCOS has implications for both men and women, according to Dr. Zhu. For men, better definition of a phenotype has potential to accelerate the recognition and treatment of an inherited metabolic disorder. For women, this direction of study might help to unravel the relationship between the metabolic pathology and symptoms involving the reproductive system.
Affecting up to 10% of women, PCOS is characterized by ovulatory dysfunction and hyperandrogenism commonly associated with insulin resistance, obesity, and elevation in cardiovascular risk factors. Familial clustering implies an important genetic component, but the relationship between metabolic and ovulatory dysfunction remains incompletely understood.
“Both ovarian-related and ovarian-independent factors have been implicated in the pathogenesis of PCOS, but it remains to be determined which are the inciting events and which are the secondary consequences,” Dr. Zhu explained during his presentation of the study at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.
Polygenic risk score applied to men
In this study, a polygenic risk score algorithm developed to predict PCOS in women was applied to men. The risk score was developed through genetic testing in 206,851 unrelated women in the UK Biobank. This algorithm was then applied to stratify risk in 176,360 men from the same biobank. For males, several adjustments were made, including those for age and genetic components relevant to ancestry.
When stratified into quintiles, those at highest risk, relative to those at lower risk, had numerically modest but highly significant increased odds ratio for obesity defined by a body mass index (BMI) of at least 30 kg/m2 (OR, 1.17; P < .13 x 10–29) and type 2 diabetes (OR, 1.15; P = .53 x 10–7). Those in the highest risk group were also more likely to have coronary artery disease (HR, 1.05; P = .01) as well as androgenic alopecia (OR, 1.05; P = .03).
When stratified into deciles of risk, a stepwise increase was observed for the prevalence of several cardiovascular risk factors. These included hemoglobin A1c, triglycerides, BMI, and free androgen, reported Dr. Zhu.
The relationship between the risk score and both coronary artery disease and several dyslipidemias appeared to be mediated by BMI, but the relationship between the PCOS polygenic risk score and type 2 diabetes persisted after adjusting for BMI.
For women, the implication of this analysis is that the reproductive dysfunction associated with PCOS might arise in at least some cases “secondarily from the genetically determined disruption of biological pathways common to both men and women,” Dr. Zhu said. She suggested that efforts to dissect these biological pathways might provide a path to under-standing the underlying mechanism of the ovarian complications, such as irregular menstrual periods, infertility, and ovarian cysts.
Family history of PCOS central to male risk
For men, a family history of PCOS might be relevant to predicting increased risk of type 2 diabetes, obesity and cardiovascular disease, Dr. Zhu indicated. In addition, this syndrome is also likely relevant to such signs of hyperandrogenism as hair loss and low testosterone levels in males with the PCOS-equivalent syndrome.
Other investigators have also suggested that male-equivalent PCOS exists and might be clinically relevant. According to Frederica Di Guardio, MD, a gynecologist in the department of medical surgical specialties, University of Catania (Italy), there is enough evidence for a PCOS-equivalent syndrome in men to consider asking males with obesity or other evidence of the metabolic abnormalities about a family history of PCOS.
“These patients have a high risk of developing cardiovascular disease, metabolic syndrome, and carotid atherosclerotic plaques,” she advised on the basis of her own and previous studies. By asking about a family history of PCOS in males, it can raise clinical suspicion and permit early intervention.
Not least important, identifying males at risk can allow them “to adopt a healthy lifestyle, preventing the risk of metabolic and cardiovascular events,” Dr. Di Guardio said.
In a recent review article on the male PCOS syndrome, Dr. Di Guardio traced the male PCOS-equivalent syndrome to a 2004 article. She reported that more than 30 articles have been published subsequently.
There is no formal clinical definition of male equivalent PCOS. According to her review of published studies, Dr. Di Guardio acknowledged that there has been considerable heterogeneity in the prevalence of the associated features, but the unifying factor is the presence of a set of genes associated with PCOS. In men, as well as in women, these appear to drive an increased risk of metabolic abnormalities and cardiovascular disease.
Dr. Zhu and Dr. Di Guardio reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
The concept that there is a male equivalent of polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) was first described more than 15 years ago; a new study has further validated the principle using a polygenic risk score.
By demonstrating a high rates of cardiometabolic dysfunction and androgenic conditions in men with a high PCOS risk score, “we have shown that these genetic risk factors can act independently of ovarian function,” reported Jia Zhu, MD, a clinical endocrinology fellow at Boston Children’s Hospital.
The characterization of a male equivalent of PCOS has implications for both men and women, according to Dr. Zhu. For men, better definition of a phenotype has potential to accelerate the recognition and treatment of an inherited metabolic disorder. For women, this direction of study might help to unravel the relationship between the metabolic pathology and symptoms involving the reproductive system.
Affecting up to 10% of women, PCOS is characterized by ovulatory dysfunction and hyperandrogenism commonly associated with insulin resistance, obesity, and elevation in cardiovascular risk factors. Familial clustering implies an important genetic component, but the relationship between metabolic and ovulatory dysfunction remains incompletely understood.
“Both ovarian-related and ovarian-independent factors have been implicated in the pathogenesis of PCOS, but it remains to be determined which are the inciting events and which are the secondary consequences,” Dr. Zhu explained during his presentation of the study at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.
Polygenic risk score applied to men
In this study, a polygenic risk score algorithm developed to predict PCOS in women was applied to men. The risk score was developed through genetic testing in 206,851 unrelated women in the UK Biobank. This algorithm was then applied to stratify risk in 176,360 men from the same biobank. For males, several adjustments were made, including those for age and genetic components relevant to ancestry.
When stratified into quintiles, those at highest risk, relative to those at lower risk, had numerically modest but highly significant increased odds ratio for obesity defined by a body mass index (BMI) of at least 30 kg/m2 (OR, 1.17; P < .13 x 10–29) and type 2 diabetes (OR, 1.15; P = .53 x 10–7). Those in the highest risk group were also more likely to have coronary artery disease (HR, 1.05; P = .01) as well as androgenic alopecia (OR, 1.05; P = .03).
When stratified into deciles of risk, a stepwise increase was observed for the prevalence of several cardiovascular risk factors. These included hemoglobin A1c, triglycerides, BMI, and free androgen, reported Dr. Zhu.
The relationship between the risk score and both coronary artery disease and several dyslipidemias appeared to be mediated by BMI, but the relationship between the PCOS polygenic risk score and type 2 diabetes persisted after adjusting for BMI.
For women, the implication of this analysis is that the reproductive dysfunction associated with PCOS might arise in at least some cases “secondarily from the genetically determined disruption of biological pathways common to both men and women,” Dr. Zhu said. She suggested that efforts to dissect these biological pathways might provide a path to under-standing the underlying mechanism of the ovarian complications, such as irregular menstrual periods, infertility, and ovarian cysts.
Family history of PCOS central to male risk
For men, a family history of PCOS might be relevant to predicting increased risk of type 2 diabetes, obesity and cardiovascular disease, Dr. Zhu indicated. In addition, this syndrome is also likely relevant to such signs of hyperandrogenism as hair loss and low testosterone levels in males with the PCOS-equivalent syndrome.
Other investigators have also suggested that male-equivalent PCOS exists and might be clinically relevant. According to Frederica Di Guardio, MD, a gynecologist in the department of medical surgical specialties, University of Catania (Italy), there is enough evidence for a PCOS-equivalent syndrome in men to consider asking males with obesity or other evidence of the metabolic abnormalities about a family history of PCOS.
“These patients have a high risk of developing cardiovascular disease, metabolic syndrome, and carotid atherosclerotic plaques,” she advised on the basis of her own and previous studies. By asking about a family history of PCOS in males, it can raise clinical suspicion and permit early intervention.
Not least important, identifying males at risk can allow them “to adopt a healthy lifestyle, preventing the risk of metabolic and cardiovascular events,” Dr. Di Guardio said.
In a recent review article on the male PCOS syndrome, Dr. Di Guardio traced the male PCOS-equivalent syndrome to a 2004 article. She reported that more than 30 articles have been published subsequently.
There is no formal clinical definition of male equivalent PCOS. According to her review of published studies, Dr. Di Guardio acknowledged that there has been considerable heterogeneity in the prevalence of the associated features, but the unifying factor is the presence of a set of genes associated with PCOS. In men, as well as in women, these appear to drive an increased risk of metabolic abnormalities and cardiovascular disease.
Dr. Zhu and Dr. Di Guardio reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
The concept that there is a male equivalent of polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) was first described more than 15 years ago; a new study has further validated the principle using a polygenic risk score.
By demonstrating a high rates of cardiometabolic dysfunction and androgenic conditions in men with a high PCOS risk score, “we have shown that these genetic risk factors can act independently of ovarian function,” reported Jia Zhu, MD, a clinical endocrinology fellow at Boston Children’s Hospital.
The characterization of a male equivalent of PCOS has implications for both men and women, according to Dr. Zhu. For men, better definition of a phenotype has potential to accelerate the recognition and treatment of an inherited metabolic disorder. For women, this direction of study might help to unravel the relationship between the metabolic pathology and symptoms involving the reproductive system.
Affecting up to 10% of women, PCOS is characterized by ovulatory dysfunction and hyperandrogenism commonly associated with insulin resistance, obesity, and elevation in cardiovascular risk factors. Familial clustering implies an important genetic component, but the relationship between metabolic and ovulatory dysfunction remains incompletely understood.
“Both ovarian-related and ovarian-independent factors have been implicated in the pathogenesis of PCOS, but it remains to be determined which are the inciting events and which are the secondary consequences,” Dr. Zhu explained during his presentation of the study at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.
Polygenic risk score applied to men
In this study, a polygenic risk score algorithm developed to predict PCOS in women was applied to men. The risk score was developed through genetic testing in 206,851 unrelated women in the UK Biobank. This algorithm was then applied to stratify risk in 176,360 men from the same biobank. For males, several adjustments were made, including those for age and genetic components relevant to ancestry.
When stratified into quintiles, those at highest risk, relative to those at lower risk, had numerically modest but highly significant increased odds ratio for obesity defined by a body mass index (BMI) of at least 30 kg/m2 (OR, 1.17; P < .13 x 10–29) and type 2 diabetes (OR, 1.15; P = .53 x 10–7). Those in the highest risk group were also more likely to have coronary artery disease (HR, 1.05; P = .01) as well as androgenic alopecia (OR, 1.05; P = .03).
When stratified into deciles of risk, a stepwise increase was observed for the prevalence of several cardiovascular risk factors. These included hemoglobin A1c, triglycerides, BMI, and free androgen, reported Dr. Zhu.
The relationship between the risk score and both coronary artery disease and several dyslipidemias appeared to be mediated by BMI, but the relationship between the PCOS polygenic risk score and type 2 diabetes persisted after adjusting for BMI.
For women, the implication of this analysis is that the reproductive dysfunction associated with PCOS might arise in at least some cases “secondarily from the genetically determined disruption of biological pathways common to both men and women,” Dr. Zhu said. She suggested that efforts to dissect these biological pathways might provide a path to under-standing the underlying mechanism of the ovarian complications, such as irregular menstrual periods, infertility, and ovarian cysts.
Family history of PCOS central to male risk
For men, a family history of PCOS might be relevant to predicting increased risk of type 2 diabetes, obesity and cardiovascular disease, Dr. Zhu indicated. In addition, this syndrome is also likely relevant to such signs of hyperandrogenism as hair loss and low testosterone levels in males with the PCOS-equivalent syndrome.
Other investigators have also suggested that male-equivalent PCOS exists and might be clinically relevant. According to Frederica Di Guardio, MD, a gynecologist in the department of medical surgical specialties, University of Catania (Italy), there is enough evidence for a PCOS-equivalent syndrome in men to consider asking males with obesity or other evidence of the metabolic abnormalities about a family history of PCOS.
“These patients have a high risk of developing cardiovascular disease, metabolic syndrome, and carotid atherosclerotic plaques,” she advised on the basis of her own and previous studies. By asking about a family history of PCOS in males, it can raise clinical suspicion and permit early intervention.
Not least important, identifying males at risk can allow them “to adopt a healthy lifestyle, preventing the risk of metabolic and cardiovascular events,” Dr. Di Guardio said.
In a recent review article on the male PCOS syndrome, Dr. Di Guardio traced the male PCOS-equivalent syndrome to a 2004 article. She reported that more than 30 articles have been published subsequently.
There is no formal clinical definition of male equivalent PCOS. According to her review of published studies, Dr. Di Guardio acknowledged that there has been considerable heterogeneity in the prevalence of the associated features, but the unifying factor is the presence of a set of genes associated with PCOS. In men, as well as in women, these appear to drive an increased risk of metabolic abnormalities and cardiovascular disease.
Dr. Zhu and Dr. Di Guardio reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
FROM ENDO 2021
Success in achondroplasia spurs testing vosoritide in more growth disorders
On the basis of the quality of sustained bone growth achieved with vosoritide in dwarfism, studies are underway or being considered for more diseases that impair bone growth, according to discussion that followed the presentation of a phase 3 trial extension study at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.
After 1 year on active therapy in the randomized trial and another year in the extension study, patients in the vosoritide group had sustained growth velocity while placebo group patients who crossed over to active therapy caught up, reported Ravi Savarirayan, MD, Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, University of Melbourne, Australia.
Moreover, the quality and type of bone growth, such as the improvement in body segment ratios over the second year of the study, support a durable benefit. Dr. Savarirayan said that improvements in activities of daily living are expected from this improvement in upper-to-lower body segment ratios, as well as the growth seen in the limbs.
Currently there is no approved pharmacologic therapy for achondroplasia in the United States. Growth hormone has been approved in Japan, but Dr. Savarirayan said its effects have been limited. Surgery such as limb lengthening is another option, but this approach is not uniformly effective and carries risks.
The 52-week results from the multinational phase 3 trial with vosoritide, which stimulates bone growth, were published last year in The Lancet. In that trial, 121 patients between the ages of 5 and 18 years with achondroplasia were randomized to vosoritide at a dose of 15 μg/kg once daily or placebo.
Relative to those in the placebo arm, which did not experience any change in growth, the median growth at the end of 52 weeks was 1.75 cm/year greater (6.71 vs. 3.99 cm).
After crossover, placebo patients catch up
In the extension study, the placebo patients were crossed over to the active therapy and both groups were followed for an additional 52 weeks. Over this period, velocity declined modestly in those in the group initially randomized to vosoritide but climbed steeply in the placebo group so that rates after 1 year were nearly identical (5.57 vs. 5.65 cm, respectively).
“The results suggest this medication may well have a durable effect,” said Dr. Savarirayan, who believes that the benefit is derived from stimulation of the growth plates. Based on the very similar efficacy observed in the placebo group once switched to active therapy, the response to vosoritide appears to be predictable.
Of the 60 patients initially randomized to vosoritide, 58 entered the extension. Of the patients who did not remain in the study, two left due to discomfort from injection-site reactions. All 61 patients initially assigned to placebo crossed over.
“We did not see any evidence of tachyphylaxis in the randomized study or in the extension,” Dr. Savarirayan said.
Although two more patients initiated on vosoritide discontinued treatment before the end of 2 years, there were no new adverse events observed. Rather, injection-site pain, which self-resolved in all patients, appears to be the most significant side effect.
“In children, the daily subcutaneous injections can be an issue,” Dr. Savarirayan acknowledged.
Injection site reactions most common adverse event
In a detailed evaluation of safety in a previously published dose-finding phase 2 study, injection-site reactions were also the most common of treatment-related adverse events, but there were no episodes of anaphylaxis or other grade 3 or higher hypersensitivity reactions (N Engl J Med. 2019 Jul 4;381:25-35).
Prior to clinical trials, continuous infusion of endogenous C-type natriuretic peptide demonstrated an ability to stimulate long-bone growth in experimental studies. Vosoritide, a recombinant analogue of C-type natriuretic peptide, appears to provide the same activity but offers a longer half-life.
Based on the benefits observed in achondroplasia, other applications are now being explored.
“When you evaluate the quality of the bone growth associated with vosoritide, it is normal,” said Melita Irving, MD, a consultant in clinical genetics at the Guy’s and St .Thomas’ NHS Trust, London. Dr. Irving has been involved in other research initiatives with this therapy and she cited a variety of evidence that has supported healthy bone development, including favorable changes in markers of bone growth such as type 10 collagen.
As a result, vosoritide, which is now under review by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for treatment of dwarfism, is being pursued for several other diseases that result in abnormal bone growth, such as hypochondroplasia. Not least, clinical studies in idiopathic short stature have reached “early stages,” Dr. Irving said.
Dr. Savarirayan and Dr. Irving report no relevant conflicts of interest.
On the basis of the quality of sustained bone growth achieved with vosoritide in dwarfism, studies are underway or being considered for more diseases that impair bone growth, according to discussion that followed the presentation of a phase 3 trial extension study at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.
After 1 year on active therapy in the randomized trial and another year in the extension study, patients in the vosoritide group had sustained growth velocity while placebo group patients who crossed over to active therapy caught up, reported Ravi Savarirayan, MD, Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, University of Melbourne, Australia.
Moreover, the quality and type of bone growth, such as the improvement in body segment ratios over the second year of the study, support a durable benefit. Dr. Savarirayan said that improvements in activities of daily living are expected from this improvement in upper-to-lower body segment ratios, as well as the growth seen in the limbs.
Currently there is no approved pharmacologic therapy for achondroplasia in the United States. Growth hormone has been approved in Japan, but Dr. Savarirayan said its effects have been limited. Surgery such as limb lengthening is another option, but this approach is not uniformly effective and carries risks.
The 52-week results from the multinational phase 3 trial with vosoritide, which stimulates bone growth, were published last year in The Lancet. In that trial, 121 patients between the ages of 5 and 18 years with achondroplasia were randomized to vosoritide at a dose of 15 μg/kg once daily or placebo.
Relative to those in the placebo arm, which did not experience any change in growth, the median growth at the end of 52 weeks was 1.75 cm/year greater (6.71 vs. 3.99 cm).
After crossover, placebo patients catch up
In the extension study, the placebo patients were crossed over to the active therapy and both groups were followed for an additional 52 weeks. Over this period, velocity declined modestly in those in the group initially randomized to vosoritide but climbed steeply in the placebo group so that rates after 1 year were nearly identical (5.57 vs. 5.65 cm, respectively).
“The results suggest this medication may well have a durable effect,” said Dr. Savarirayan, who believes that the benefit is derived from stimulation of the growth plates. Based on the very similar efficacy observed in the placebo group once switched to active therapy, the response to vosoritide appears to be predictable.
Of the 60 patients initially randomized to vosoritide, 58 entered the extension. Of the patients who did not remain in the study, two left due to discomfort from injection-site reactions. All 61 patients initially assigned to placebo crossed over.
“We did not see any evidence of tachyphylaxis in the randomized study or in the extension,” Dr. Savarirayan said.
Although two more patients initiated on vosoritide discontinued treatment before the end of 2 years, there were no new adverse events observed. Rather, injection-site pain, which self-resolved in all patients, appears to be the most significant side effect.
“In children, the daily subcutaneous injections can be an issue,” Dr. Savarirayan acknowledged.
Injection site reactions most common adverse event
In a detailed evaluation of safety in a previously published dose-finding phase 2 study, injection-site reactions were also the most common of treatment-related adverse events, but there were no episodes of anaphylaxis or other grade 3 or higher hypersensitivity reactions (N Engl J Med. 2019 Jul 4;381:25-35).
Prior to clinical trials, continuous infusion of endogenous C-type natriuretic peptide demonstrated an ability to stimulate long-bone growth in experimental studies. Vosoritide, a recombinant analogue of C-type natriuretic peptide, appears to provide the same activity but offers a longer half-life.
Based on the benefits observed in achondroplasia, other applications are now being explored.
“When you evaluate the quality of the bone growth associated with vosoritide, it is normal,” said Melita Irving, MD, a consultant in clinical genetics at the Guy’s and St .Thomas’ NHS Trust, London. Dr. Irving has been involved in other research initiatives with this therapy and she cited a variety of evidence that has supported healthy bone development, including favorable changes in markers of bone growth such as type 10 collagen.
As a result, vosoritide, which is now under review by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for treatment of dwarfism, is being pursued for several other diseases that result in abnormal bone growth, such as hypochondroplasia. Not least, clinical studies in idiopathic short stature have reached “early stages,” Dr. Irving said.
Dr. Savarirayan and Dr. Irving report no relevant conflicts of interest.
On the basis of the quality of sustained bone growth achieved with vosoritide in dwarfism, studies are underway or being considered for more diseases that impair bone growth, according to discussion that followed the presentation of a phase 3 trial extension study at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.
After 1 year on active therapy in the randomized trial and another year in the extension study, patients in the vosoritide group had sustained growth velocity while placebo group patients who crossed over to active therapy caught up, reported Ravi Savarirayan, MD, Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, University of Melbourne, Australia.
Moreover, the quality and type of bone growth, such as the improvement in body segment ratios over the second year of the study, support a durable benefit. Dr. Savarirayan said that improvements in activities of daily living are expected from this improvement in upper-to-lower body segment ratios, as well as the growth seen in the limbs.
Currently there is no approved pharmacologic therapy for achondroplasia in the United States. Growth hormone has been approved in Japan, but Dr. Savarirayan said its effects have been limited. Surgery such as limb lengthening is another option, but this approach is not uniformly effective and carries risks.
The 52-week results from the multinational phase 3 trial with vosoritide, which stimulates bone growth, were published last year in The Lancet. In that trial, 121 patients between the ages of 5 and 18 years with achondroplasia were randomized to vosoritide at a dose of 15 μg/kg once daily or placebo.
Relative to those in the placebo arm, which did not experience any change in growth, the median growth at the end of 52 weeks was 1.75 cm/year greater (6.71 vs. 3.99 cm).
After crossover, placebo patients catch up
In the extension study, the placebo patients were crossed over to the active therapy and both groups were followed for an additional 52 weeks. Over this period, velocity declined modestly in those in the group initially randomized to vosoritide but climbed steeply in the placebo group so that rates after 1 year were nearly identical (5.57 vs. 5.65 cm, respectively).
“The results suggest this medication may well have a durable effect,” said Dr. Savarirayan, who believes that the benefit is derived from stimulation of the growth plates. Based on the very similar efficacy observed in the placebo group once switched to active therapy, the response to vosoritide appears to be predictable.
Of the 60 patients initially randomized to vosoritide, 58 entered the extension. Of the patients who did not remain in the study, two left due to discomfort from injection-site reactions. All 61 patients initially assigned to placebo crossed over.
“We did not see any evidence of tachyphylaxis in the randomized study or in the extension,” Dr. Savarirayan said.
Although two more patients initiated on vosoritide discontinued treatment before the end of 2 years, there were no new adverse events observed. Rather, injection-site pain, which self-resolved in all patients, appears to be the most significant side effect.
“In children, the daily subcutaneous injections can be an issue,” Dr. Savarirayan acknowledged.
Injection site reactions most common adverse event
In a detailed evaluation of safety in a previously published dose-finding phase 2 study, injection-site reactions were also the most common of treatment-related adverse events, but there were no episodes of anaphylaxis or other grade 3 or higher hypersensitivity reactions (N Engl J Med. 2019 Jul 4;381:25-35).
Prior to clinical trials, continuous infusion of endogenous C-type natriuretic peptide demonstrated an ability to stimulate long-bone growth in experimental studies. Vosoritide, a recombinant analogue of C-type natriuretic peptide, appears to provide the same activity but offers a longer half-life.
Based on the benefits observed in achondroplasia, other applications are now being explored.
“When you evaluate the quality of the bone growth associated with vosoritide, it is normal,” said Melita Irving, MD, a consultant in clinical genetics at the Guy’s and St .Thomas’ NHS Trust, London. Dr. Irving has been involved in other research initiatives with this therapy and she cited a variety of evidence that has supported healthy bone development, including favorable changes in markers of bone growth such as type 10 collagen.
As a result, vosoritide, which is now under review by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for treatment of dwarfism, is being pursued for several other diseases that result in abnormal bone growth, such as hypochondroplasia. Not least, clinical studies in idiopathic short stature have reached “early stages,” Dr. Irving said.
Dr. Savarirayan and Dr. Irving report no relevant conflicts of interest.
FROM ENDO 2021
Colchicine before PCI for acute MI fails to improve major outcomes
In a placebo-controlled randomized trial, a preprocedural dose of colchicine administered immediately before percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for an acute ST-segment elevated myocardial infarction (STEMI) did not reduce the no-reflow phenomenon or improve outcomes.
No-reflow, in which insufficient myocardial perfusion is present even though the coronary artery appears patent, was the primary outcome, and the proportion of patients experiencing this event was exactly the same (14.4%) in the colchicine and placebo groups, reported Yaser Jenab, MD, at CRT 2021 sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute.
The hypothesis that colchicine would offer benefit in this setting was largely based on the Colchicine Cardiovascular Outcomes Trial (COLCOT). In that study, colchicine was associated with a 23% reduction in risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) relative to placebo when administered within 30 days after a myocardial infarction (hazard ratio, 0.77; P = .02).
The benefit in that trial was attributed to an anti-inflammatory effect, according to Dr. Jenab, associate professor of cardiology at Tehran (Iran) Heart Center. In particular as it relates to vascular disease, he cited experimental studies associating colchicine with a reduction in neutrophil activation and adherence to vascular endothelium.
The rationale for a preprocedural approach to colchicine was supplied by a subsequent time-to-treatment COLCOT analysis. In this study, MACE risk reduction for colchicine climbed to 48% (HR 0.52) for those treated within 3 days of the MI but largely disappeared (HR 0.96) if treatment was started at least 8 days post MI.
PodCAST-PCI trial
In the preprocedural study, called the PodCAST-PCI trial, 321 acute STEMI patients were randomized. Patients received a 1-mg dose of oral colchicine or placebo at the time PCI was scheduled. Another dose of colchicine (0.5 mg) or placebo was administered 1 hour after the procedure.
Of secondary outcomes, which included MACE at 1 month and 1 year, ST-segment resolution at 1 month, and change in inflammatory markers at 1 month, none were significant. Few even trended for significance.
For MACE, which included cardiac death, stroke, nonfatal MI, new hospitalization due to heart failure, or target vessel revascularization, the rates were lower in the colchicine group at 1 month (4.3% vs. 7.5%) and 1 year (9.3% vs. 11.2%), but neither approached significance.
For ST-segment resolution, the proportions were generally comparable among the colchicine and placebo groups, respectively, for the proportion below 50% (18.6% vs. 23.1%), between 50% and 70% (16.8% vs. 15.6%), and above 70% (64.6% vs. 61.3%).
The average troponin levels were nonsignificantly lower at 6 hours (1,847 vs. 2,883 ng/mL) in the colchicine group but higher at 48 hours (1,197 vs. 1,147 ng/mL). The average C-reactive protein (CRP) levels at 48 hours were nonsignificantly lower on colchicine (176.5 vs. 244.5 mg/L).
There were no significant differences in postprocedural perfusion, as measured with TIMI blood flow, or in the rate of stent thrombosis, which occurred in roughly 3% of each group of patients.
The small sample size was one limitation of this study, Dr. Jenab acknowledged. For this and other reasons, he cautioned that these data are not definitive and do not preclude a benefit on clinical outcomes in a study with a larger size, a different design, or different dosing.
Timing might be the issue
However, even if colchicine has a potential benefit in this setting, timing might be a major obstacle, according to Binata Shah, MD, associate director of research for the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory at New York University.
“We have learned from our rheumatology colleagues that peak plasma levels of colchicine are not achieved for at least 1 hour after the full loading dose,” Dr. Shah said. “With us moving so quickly in a primary PCI setting, it is hard to imagine that colchicine would have had time to really kick in and exert its anti-inflammatory effect.”
Indeed, the problem might be worse than reaching the peak plasma level.
“Even though peak plasma levels occur as early as 1 hour after a full loading dose, we see that it takes about 24 hours to really see the effects translate downstream into more systemic inflammatory markers such as CRP and interleukin-6,” she added. If lowering these signals of inflammation is predictive of benefit, than this might be the biggest obstacle to benefit from colchicine in an urgent treatment setting.
Dr. Jenab and Dr. Shah reported no potential conflicts of interest.
In a placebo-controlled randomized trial, a preprocedural dose of colchicine administered immediately before percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for an acute ST-segment elevated myocardial infarction (STEMI) did not reduce the no-reflow phenomenon or improve outcomes.
No-reflow, in which insufficient myocardial perfusion is present even though the coronary artery appears patent, was the primary outcome, and the proportion of patients experiencing this event was exactly the same (14.4%) in the colchicine and placebo groups, reported Yaser Jenab, MD, at CRT 2021 sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute.
The hypothesis that colchicine would offer benefit in this setting was largely based on the Colchicine Cardiovascular Outcomes Trial (COLCOT). In that study, colchicine was associated with a 23% reduction in risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) relative to placebo when administered within 30 days after a myocardial infarction (hazard ratio, 0.77; P = .02).
The benefit in that trial was attributed to an anti-inflammatory effect, according to Dr. Jenab, associate professor of cardiology at Tehran (Iran) Heart Center. In particular as it relates to vascular disease, he cited experimental studies associating colchicine with a reduction in neutrophil activation and adherence to vascular endothelium.
The rationale for a preprocedural approach to colchicine was supplied by a subsequent time-to-treatment COLCOT analysis. In this study, MACE risk reduction for colchicine climbed to 48% (HR 0.52) for those treated within 3 days of the MI but largely disappeared (HR 0.96) if treatment was started at least 8 days post MI.
PodCAST-PCI trial
In the preprocedural study, called the PodCAST-PCI trial, 321 acute STEMI patients were randomized. Patients received a 1-mg dose of oral colchicine or placebo at the time PCI was scheduled. Another dose of colchicine (0.5 mg) or placebo was administered 1 hour after the procedure.
Of secondary outcomes, which included MACE at 1 month and 1 year, ST-segment resolution at 1 month, and change in inflammatory markers at 1 month, none were significant. Few even trended for significance.
For MACE, which included cardiac death, stroke, nonfatal MI, new hospitalization due to heart failure, or target vessel revascularization, the rates were lower in the colchicine group at 1 month (4.3% vs. 7.5%) and 1 year (9.3% vs. 11.2%), but neither approached significance.
For ST-segment resolution, the proportions were generally comparable among the colchicine and placebo groups, respectively, for the proportion below 50% (18.6% vs. 23.1%), between 50% and 70% (16.8% vs. 15.6%), and above 70% (64.6% vs. 61.3%).
The average troponin levels were nonsignificantly lower at 6 hours (1,847 vs. 2,883 ng/mL) in the colchicine group but higher at 48 hours (1,197 vs. 1,147 ng/mL). The average C-reactive protein (CRP) levels at 48 hours were nonsignificantly lower on colchicine (176.5 vs. 244.5 mg/L).
There were no significant differences in postprocedural perfusion, as measured with TIMI blood flow, or in the rate of stent thrombosis, which occurred in roughly 3% of each group of patients.
The small sample size was one limitation of this study, Dr. Jenab acknowledged. For this and other reasons, he cautioned that these data are not definitive and do not preclude a benefit on clinical outcomes in a study with a larger size, a different design, or different dosing.
Timing might be the issue
However, even if colchicine has a potential benefit in this setting, timing might be a major obstacle, according to Binata Shah, MD, associate director of research for the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory at New York University.
“We have learned from our rheumatology colleagues that peak plasma levels of colchicine are not achieved for at least 1 hour after the full loading dose,” Dr. Shah said. “With us moving so quickly in a primary PCI setting, it is hard to imagine that colchicine would have had time to really kick in and exert its anti-inflammatory effect.”
Indeed, the problem might be worse than reaching the peak plasma level.
“Even though peak plasma levels occur as early as 1 hour after a full loading dose, we see that it takes about 24 hours to really see the effects translate downstream into more systemic inflammatory markers such as CRP and interleukin-6,” she added. If lowering these signals of inflammation is predictive of benefit, than this might be the biggest obstacle to benefit from colchicine in an urgent treatment setting.
Dr. Jenab and Dr. Shah reported no potential conflicts of interest.
In a placebo-controlled randomized trial, a preprocedural dose of colchicine administered immediately before percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for an acute ST-segment elevated myocardial infarction (STEMI) did not reduce the no-reflow phenomenon or improve outcomes.
No-reflow, in which insufficient myocardial perfusion is present even though the coronary artery appears patent, was the primary outcome, and the proportion of patients experiencing this event was exactly the same (14.4%) in the colchicine and placebo groups, reported Yaser Jenab, MD, at CRT 2021 sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute.
The hypothesis that colchicine would offer benefit in this setting was largely based on the Colchicine Cardiovascular Outcomes Trial (COLCOT). In that study, colchicine was associated with a 23% reduction in risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) relative to placebo when administered within 30 days after a myocardial infarction (hazard ratio, 0.77; P = .02).
The benefit in that trial was attributed to an anti-inflammatory effect, according to Dr. Jenab, associate professor of cardiology at Tehran (Iran) Heart Center. In particular as it relates to vascular disease, he cited experimental studies associating colchicine with a reduction in neutrophil activation and adherence to vascular endothelium.
The rationale for a preprocedural approach to colchicine was supplied by a subsequent time-to-treatment COLCOT analysis. In this study, MACE risk reduction for colchicine climbed to 48% (HR 0.52) for those treated within 3 days of the MI but largely disappeared (HR 0.96) if treatment was started at least 8 days post MI.
PodCAST-PCI trial
In the preprocedural study, called the PodCAST-PCI trial, 321 acute STEMI patients were randomized. Patients received a 1-mg dose of oral colchicine or placebo at the time PCI was scheduled. Another dose of colchicine (0.5 mg) or placebo was administered 1 hour after the procedure.
Of secondary outcomes, which included MACE at 1 month and 1 year, ST-segment resolution at 1 month, and change in inflammatory markers at 1 month, none were significant. Few even trended for significance.
For MACE, which included cardiac death, stroke, nonfatal MI, new hospitalization due to heart failure, or target vessel revascularization, the rates were lower in the colchicine group at 1 month (4.3% vs. 7.5%) and 1 year (9.3% vs. 11.2%), but neither approached significance.
For ST-segment resolution, the proportions were generally comparable among the colchicine and placebo groups, respectively, for the proportion below 50% (18.6% vs. 23.1%), between 50% and 70% (16.8% vs. 15.6%), and above 70% (64.6% vs. 61.3%).
The average troponin levels were nonsignificantly lower at 6 hours (1,847 vs. 2,883 ng/mL) in the colchicine group but higher at 48 hours (1,197 vs. 1,147 ng/mL). The average C-reactive protein (CRP) levels at 48 hours were nonsignificantly lower on colchicine (176.5 vs. 244.5 mg/L).
There were no significant differences in postprocedural perfusion, as measured with TIMI blood flow, or in the rate of stent thrombosis, which occurred in roughly 3% of each group of patients.
The small sample size was one limitation of this study, Dr. Jenab acknowledged. For this and other reasons, he cautioned that these data are not definitive and do not preclude a benefit on clinical outcomes in a study with a larger size, a different design, or different dosing.
Timing might be the issue
However, even if colchicine has a potential benefit in this setting, timing might be a major obstacle, according to Binata Shah, MD, associate director of research for the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory at New York University.
“We have learned from our rheumatology colleagues that peak plasma levels of colchicine are not achieved for at least 1 hour after the full loading dose,” Dr. Shah said. “With us moving so quickly in a primary PCI setting, it is hard to imagine that colchicine would have had time to really kick in and exert its anti-inflammatory effect.”
Indeed, the problem might be worse than reaching the peak plasma level.
“Even though peak plasma levels occur as early as 1 hour after a full loading dose, we see that it takes about 24 hours to really see the effects translate downstream into more systemic inflammatory markers such as CRP and interleukin-6,” she added. If lowering these signals of inflammation is predictive of benefit, than this might be the biggest obstacle to benefit from colchicine in an urgent treatment setting.
Dr. Jenab and Dr. Shah reported no potential conflicts of interest.
FROM CRT 2021
Target-lesion failure reduced 2 years after MI with biodegradable stent
For a primary composite target-lesion failure outcome, a biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent showed superiority at 2 years over a durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent in patients undergoing percutaneous intervention (PCI) for an ST-segment elevated acute myocardial infarction (STEMI), according to a late-breaking trial presentation at CRT 2021.
As in the previously reported 1-year results from the BIOSTEMI trial, the advantage of the biodegradable device was “driven by lower rates of target-lesion revascularization,” reported Thomas Pilgrim, MD, of the University of Bern (Switzerland).
Drug-eluting stents have already been established as superior to bare-metal stents, but the question asked in this study is whether the polymer that carries antiproliferative drugs, such as sirolimus or everolimus, improves lesion-based outcomes if it is biodegradable rather than durable, Dr. Pilgrim explained.
The composite primary outcome was target-lesion failure defined by cardiac death, target-lesion MI, or clinically indicated target-lesion revascularization.
After 2 years of follow-up, the rates of target-lesion failure were 5.1% and 8.1% for the biodegradable and durable polymer stents, respectively. This 0.58 rate ratio was statistically significant, favoring the biodegradable stent.
The investigator-initiated BIOSTEMI trial randomized 1,300 patients to one of two drug-eluting stents with ultrathin struts. One was the Orsiro stent that employs a biodegradable polymer to deliver sirolimus. The other was the Xience Prime/Xpedition that uses a durable polymer stent to deliver everolimus.
The strut thicknesses of the Orsiro stent are 60 mcm for stents of 3.0 mm in diameter or smaller and 80 mcm for those with a larger diameter. The strut thickness of the Xience stent is 81 mcm regardless of diameter.
“Patients with an acute myocardial infarction are at increased risk of stent-related events due to exacerbated inflammatory response and delayed arterial healing,” Dr. Pilgrim said. The theoretical advantages of polymer that biodegrades include “mitigation of the arterial injury, facilitation of endothelialization, and reduced intimal hyperplasia,” he explained at the meeting sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute.
The rates of cardiac death (2.9% vs. 3.2%) and target-vessel MI (2.9% vs. 3.2%) were lower for the biodegradable polymer stent, but not significantly. However, the rates of target-vessel revascularization at 2 years were 2.5% versus 5.1%. The associated rate ratio of 0.52 favoring the biodegradable stent was significant.
Similar results favoring the biodegradable polymer stent were observed at 1 year, but those earlier results factored in historical data from the BIOSCIENCE trial, using a Bayesian analysis, to improve the power of the comparison. In this 2-year analysis, the superiority of the biodegradable polymer stent to the durable polymer stent remained statistically significant even when excluding those historical controls.
The advantage of the biodegradable polymer stent was confined to “device-oriented” outcomes, according to Dr. Pilgrim. When compared for important patient-oriented outcomes at 2 years, there were no significant differences. Rather, several were numerically more common, including death (4.2% vs. 3.8%) and MI (3.7% vs. 3.1%) in those who were randomized to the biodegradable polymer stent.
But these types of clinical outcomes are not necessarily related to stent assignment because “up to one-half of all events over the 2 years of follow-up were unrelated to the stent implanted,” Dr. Pilgrim said. He noted that high rates of events unrelated to the implanted stent have also been seen in follow-up of other comparative stent trials.
The superiority of the biodegradable stent is noteworthy. Although Dr. Pilgrim described the BIOSTEMI trial as “the first head-to-head comparison of two new-generation drug-eluting stents in patients undergoing a primary percutaneous intervention for acute myocardial infarction,” there have been several studies comparing stents for other indications. Significant differences have been uncommon.
“Over the last 10 years, we have seen a number of noninferiority stent trials, but only now are we seeing some superiority differences. This is a move in the right direction,” commented Sripal Bangalore, MD, director of the cardiovascular outcomes group, New York University.
However, he, like others, questioned whether the difference in outcomes in this trial could be fully attributed to the type of polymer. He noted that all stents could be characterized by multiple small and large differences in design and composition. Any specific characteristic, such as biodegradable polymer, might be an important contributor but not an isolated factor in the outcomes observed.
On the day that the 2-year results of the BIOSTEMI trial were presented at the CRT 2021 meeting they were simultaneously published in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.
Dr. Pilgrim reports financial relationships with several companies that make stent devices, including Biotronik and Boston Scientific. Dr. Bangalore reports no potential conflicts of interest.
For a primary composite target-lesion failure outcome, a biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent showed superiority at 2 years over a durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent in patients undergoing percutaneous intervention (PCI) for an ST-segment elevated acute myocardial infarction (STEMI), according to a late-breaking trial presentation at CRT 2021.
As in the previously reported 1-year results from the BIOSTEMI trial, the advantage of the biodegradable device was “driven by lower rates of target-lesion revascularization,” reported Thomas Pilgrim, MD, of the University of Bern (Switzerland).
Drug-eluting stents have already been established as superior to bare-metal stents, but the question asked in this study is whether the polymer that carries antiproliferative drugs, such as sirolimus or everolimus, improves lesion-based outcomes if it is biodegradable rather than durable, Dr. Pilgrim explained.
The composite primary outcome was target-lesion failure defined by cardiac death, target-lesion MI, or clinically indicated target-lesion revascularization.
After 2 years of follow-up, the rates of target-lesion failure were 5.1% and 8.1% for the biodegradable and durable polymer stents, respectively. This 0.58 rate ratio was statistically significant, favoring the biodegradable stent.
The investigator-initiated BIOSTEMI trial randomized 1,300 patients to one of two drug-eluting stents with ultrathin struts. One was the Orsiro stent that employs a biodegradable polymer to deliver sirolimus. The other was the Xience Prime/Xpedition that uses a durable polymer stent to deliver everolimus.
The strut thicknesses of the Orsiro stent are 60 mcm for stents of 3.0 mm in diameter or smaller and 80 mcm for those with a larger diameter. The strut thickness of the Xience stent is 81 mcm regardless of diameter.
“Patients with an acute myocardial infarction are at increased risk of stent-related events due to exacerbated inflammatory response and delayed arterial healing,” Dr. Pilgrim said. The theoretical advantages of polymer that biodegrades include “mitigation of the arterial injury, facilitation of endothelialization, and reduced intimal hyperplasia,” he explained at the meeting sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute.
The rates of cardiac death (2.9% vs. 3.2%) and target-vessel MI (2.9% vs. 3.2%) were lower for the biodegradable polymer stent, but not significantly. However, the rates of target-vessel revascularization at 2 years were 2.5% versus 5.1%. The associated rate ratio of 0.52 favoring the biodegradable stent was significant.
Similar results favoring the biodegradable polymer stent were observed at 1 year, but those earlier results factored in historical data from the BIOSCIENCE trial, using a Bayesian analysis, to improve the power of the comparison. In this 2-year analysis, the superiority of the biodegradable polymer stent to the durable polymer stent remained statistically significant even when excluding those historical controls.
The advantage of the biodegradable polymer stent was confined to “device-oriented” outcomes, according to Dr. Pilgrim. When compared for important patient-oriented outcomes at 2 years, there were no significant differences. Rather, several were numerically more common, including death (4.2% vs. 3.8%) and MI (3.7% vs. 3.1%) in those who were randomized to the biodegradable polymer stent.
But these types of clinical outcomes are not necessarily related to stent assignment because “up to one-half of all events over the 2 years of follow-up were unrelated to the stent implanted,” Dr. Pilgrim said. He noted that high rates of events unrelated to the implanted stent have also been seen in follow-up of other comparative stent trials.
The superiority of the biodegradable stent is noteworthy. Although Dr. Pilgrim described the BIOSTEMI trial as “the first head-to-head comparison of two new-generation drug-eluting stents in patients undergoing a primary percutaneous intervention for acute myocardial infarction,” there have been several studies comparing stents for other indications. Significant differences have been uncommon.
“Over the last 10 years, we have seen a number of noninferiority stent trials, but only now are we seeing some superiority differences. This is a move in the right direction,” commented Sripal Bangalore, MD, director of the cardiovascular outcomes group, New York University.
However, he, like others, questioned whether the difference in outcomes in this trial could be fully attributed to the type of polymer. He noted that all stents could be characterized by multiple small and large differences in design and composition. Any specific characteristic, such as biodegradable polymer, might be an important contributor but not an isolated factor in the outcomes observed.
On the day that the 2-year results of the BIOSTEMI trial were presented at the CRT 2021 meeting they were simultaneously published in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.
Dr. Pilgrim reports financial relationships with several companies that make stent devices, including Biotronik and Boston Scientific. Dr. Bangalore reports no potential conflicts of interest.
For a primary composite target-lesion failure outcome, a biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent showed superiority at 2 years over a durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent in patients undergoing percutaneous intervention (PCI) for an ST-segment elevated acute myocardial infarction (STEMI), according to a late-breaking trial presentation at CRT 2021.
As in the previously reported 1-year results from the BIOSTEMI trial, the advantage of the biodegradable device was “driven by lower rates of target-lesion revascularization,” reported Thomas Pilgrim, MD, of the University of Bern (Switzerland).
Drug-eluting stents have already been established as superior to bare-metal stents, but the question asked in this study is whether the polymer that carries antiproliferative drugs, such as sirolimus or everolimus, improves lesion-based outcomes if it is biodegradable rather than durable, Dr. Pilgrim explained.
The composite primary outcome was target-lesion failure defined by cardiac death, target-lesion MI, or clinically indicated target-lesion revascularization.
After 2 years of follow-up, the rates of target-lesion failure were 5.1% and 8.1% for the biodegradable and durable polymer stents, respectively. This 0.58 rate ratio was statistically significant, favoring the biodegradable stent.
The investigator-initiated BIOSTEMI trial randomized 1,300 patients to one of two drug-eluting stents with ultrathin struts. One was the Orsiro stent that employs a biodegradable polymer to deliver sirolimus. The other was the Xience Prime/Xpedition that uses a durable polymer stent to deliver everolimus.
The strut thicknesses of the Orsiro stent are 60 mcm for stents of 3.0 mm in diameter or smaller and 80 mcm for those with a larger diameter. The strut thickness of the Xience stent is 81 mcm regardless of diameter.
“Patients with an acute myocardial infarction are at increased risk of stent-related events due to exacerbated inflammatory response and delayed arterial healing,” Dr. Pilgrim said. The theoretical advantages of polymer that biodegrades include “mitigation of the arterial injury, facilitation of endothelialization, and reduced intimal hyperplasia,” he explained at the meeting sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute.
The rates of cardiac death (2.9% vs. 3.2%) and target-vessel MI (2.9% vs. 3.2%) were lower for the biodegradable polymer stent, but not significantly. However, the rates of target-vessel revascularization at 2 years were 2.5% versus 5.1%. The associated rate ratio of 0.52 favoring the biodegradable stent was significant.
Similar results favoring the biodegradable polymer stent were observed at 1 year, but those earlier results factored in historical data from the BIOSCIENCE trial, using a Bayesian analysis, to improve the power of the comparison. In this 2-year analysis, the superiority of the biodegradable polymer stent to the durable polymer stent remained statistically significant even when excluding those historical controls.
The advantage of the biodegradable polymer stent was confined to “device-oriented” outcomes, according to Dr. Pilgrim. When compared for important patient-oriented outcomes at 2 years, there were no significant differences. Rather, several were numerically more common, including death (4.2% vs. 3.8%) and MI (3.7% vs. 3.1%) in those who were randomized to the biodegradable polymer stent.
But these types of clinical outcomes are not necessarily related to stent assignment because “up to one-half of all events over the 2 years of follow-up were unrelated to the stent implanted,” Dr. Pilgrim said. He noted that high rates of events unrelated to the implanted stent have also been seen in follow-up of other comparative stent trials.
The superiority of the biodegradable stent is noteworthy. Although Dr. Pilgrim described the BIOSTEMI trial as “the first head-to-head comparison of two new-generation drug-eluting stents in patients undergoing a primary percutaneous intervention for acute myocardial infarction,” there have been several studies comparing stents for other indications. Significant differences have been uncommon.
“Over the last 10 years, we have seen a number of noninferiority stent trials, but only now are we seeing some superiority differences. This is a move in the right direction,” commented Sripal Bangalore, MD, director of the cardiovascular outcomes group, New York University.
However, he, like others, questioned whether the difference in outcomes in this trial could be fully attributed to the type of polymer. He noted that all stents could be characterized by multiple small and large differences in design and composition. Any specific characteristic, such as biodegradable polymer, might be an important contributor but not an isolated factor in the outcomes observed.
On the day that the 2-year results of the BIOSTEMI trial were presented at the CRT 2021 meeting they were simultaneously published in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.
Dr. Pilgrim reports financial relationships with several companies that make stent devices, including Biotronik and Boston Scientific. Dr. Bangalore reports no potential conflicts of interest.
FROM CRT 2021