User login
Body dysmorphic disorder diagnosis guidelines completed in Europe
BERLIN – were outlined in a late-breaker presentation at the annual Congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
The development of guidelines for BDD, a disorder familiar to many clinical dermatologists, is intended as a practical tool, according to Maria-Angeliki Gkini, MD, who has appointments at both Bart’s Health NHS Trust in London and the 401 General Army Hospital in Athens.
“BDD is a relatively common disorder in which the patients are preoccupied with a perceived defect or defects,” Dr. Gkini explained. “This affects them so intensely that it affects their mental health and their quality of life.”
In the DSM-5, published by the American Psychiatric Association, BDD is specifically defined as a preoccupation with “one or more perceived defects or flaws in physical appearance that are not observable or appear slight to others.” But Dr. Gkini said that BDD can also develop as a comorbidity of dermatological disorders that are visible.
These patients are challenging because they are difficult to please, added Dr. Gkini, who said they commonly become involved in doctor shopping, leaving negative reviews on social media for the clinicians they have cycled through. The problem is that the defects they seek to resolve typically stem from distorted perceptions.
BDD is related to obsessive-compulsive disorder by the frequency with which patients pursue repetitive behaviors related to their preoccupation, such as intensive grooming, frequent trips to the mirror, or difficulty in focusing on topics other than their own appearance.
The process to develop the soon-to-be-published guidelines began with a literature search. Of the approximately 3,200 articles identified on BDD, only 10 involved randomized controlled trials. Moreover, even the quality of these trials was considered “low to very low” by the experts who reviewed them, Dr. Gkini said.
One explanation is that psychodermatology has only recently started to attract more research interest, and better studies are now underway, she noted.
However, because of the dearth of high quality evidence now available, the guideline development relied on a Delphi method to reach consensus based on expert opinion in discussion of the available data.
Consensus reached by 17 experts
Specifically, 17 experts, all of whom were members of the European Society for Dermatology and Psychiatry proceeded to systematically address a series of clinical questions and recommendations. Consensus was defined as at least 75% of the participants strongly agreeing or agreeing. Several rounds of discussion were often required.
Among the conclusions, the guidelines support uniform screening for BDD in all patients prior to cosmetic procedures. In identifying depression, anxiety, and distorted perceptions, simple tools, such as the Patient Health Questionnaire might be adequate for an initial evaluation, but Dr. Gkini also recommended routinely inquiring about suicidal ideation, which has been reported in up to 80% of individuals with BDD.
Other instruments for screening that can be considered include DSM-5 criteria for BDD and the Body Dysmorphic Disorder Questionnaire–Dermatology Version, which might be particularly useful and appropriate for dermatologists.
One of the reasons to screen for BDD is that these patients often convince themselves that some specific procedure is needed to resolve the source of their obsession. The goal of screening is to verify that it is the dermatologic concern, not an underlying psychiatric disorder that is driving their search for relief. The risk of dermatologic interventions is not only that expectations are not met, but the patient’s perception of a failed intervention “sometimes makes these worse,” Dr. Gkini explained.
Collaboration with psychiatrists recommended
The guidelines include suggestions for treatment of BDD. Of these, SSRIs are recommended at high relative doses, according to Dr. Gkini. Consistent with the consensus recommendation of collaborating with mental health specialists, she said that the recommendations acknowledge evidence of greater benefits when SSRIs are combined with psychotherapy.
Katharine A. Phillips, MD, professor of psychiatry at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, has been conducting BDD research for several years and has written numerous books and articles about this topic, including a review in the journal Focus. She cautioned that, because of a normal concern for appearance, BDD is easily missed by dermatologists.
“For BDD to be diagnosed, the preoccupation with a nonexistent or slight defect in appearance must cause clinically significant distress or impairment in functioning,” she said in an interview. “This is necessary to differentiate BDD from more normal and common appearance concerns that do not qualify for the diagnosis”
She specified that patients should be considered for cognitive-behavioral therapy rather than psychotherapy, a generic term that covers many forms of treatment. She said that most other types of psychotherapy “are probably not effective” for BDD.
Dr. Phillips highly endorsed the development of BDD guidelines for dermatologists because of the frequency with which physicians in this specialty encounter BDD – and believes that more attention to this diagnosis is needed.
“I recommend that dermatologists who have a patient with BDD collaborate with a psychiatrist in delivering care with an SSRI,” she said. “High doses of these medications are often needed to effectively treat BDD.”
Dr. Gkini reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Almirall, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, LEO, Novartis, Sanofi, and Regenlab. Dr. Phillips reported no relevant financial relationships.
BERLIN – were outlined in a late-breaker presentation at the annual Congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
The development of guidelines for BDD, a disorder familiar to many clinical dermatologists, is intended as a practical tool, according to Maria-Angeliki Gkini, MD, who has appointments at both Bart’s Health NHS Trust in London and the 401 General Army Hospital in Athens.
“BDD is a relatively common disorder in which the patients are preoccupied with a perceived defect or defects,” Dr. Gkini explained. “This affects them so intensely that it affects their mental health and their quality of life.”
In the DSM-5, published by the American Psychiatric Association, BDD is specifically defined as a preoccupation with “one or more perceived defects or flaws in physical appearance that are not observable or appear slight to others.” But Dr. Gkini said that BDD can also develop as a comorbidity of dermatological disorders that are visible.
These patients are challenging because they are difficult to please, added Dr. Gkini, who said they commonly become involved in doctor shopping, leaving negative reviews on social media for the clinicians they have cycled through. The problem is that the defects they seek to resolve typically stem from distorted perceptions.
BDD is related to obsessive-compulsive disorder by the frequency with which patients pursue repetitive behaviors related to their preoccupation, such as intensive grooming, frequent trips to the mirror, or difficulty in focusing on topics other than their own appearance.
The process to develop the soon-to-be-published guidelines began with a literature search. Of the approximately 3,200 articles identified on BDD, only 10 involved randomized controlled trials. Moreover, even the quality of these trials was considered “low to very low” by the experts who reviewed them, Dr. Gkini said.
One explanation is that psychodermatology has only recently started to attract more research interest, and better studies are now underway, she noted.
However, because of the dearth of high quality evidence now available, the guideline development relied on a Delphi method to reach consensus based on expert opinion in discussion of the available data.
Consensus reached by 17 experts
Specifically, 17 experts, all of whom were members of the European Society for Dermatology and Psychiatry proceeded to systematically address a series of clinical questions and recommendations. Consensus was defined as at least 75% of the participants strongly agreeing or agreeing. Several rounds of discussion were often required.
Among the conclusions, the guidelines support uniform screening for BDD in all patients prior to cosmetic procedures. In identifying depression, anxiety, and distorted perceptions, simple tools, such as the Patient Health Questionnaire might be adequate for an initial evaluation, but Dr. Gkini also recommended routinely inquiring about suicidal ideation, which has been reported in up to 80% of individuals with BDD.
Other instruments for screening that can be considered include DSM-5 criteria for BDD and the Body Dysmorphic Disorder Questionnaire–Dermatology Version, which might be particularly useful and appropriate for dermatologists.
One of the reasons to screen for BDD is that these patients often convince themselves that some specific procedure is needed to resolve the source of their obsession. The goal of screening is to verify that it is the dermatologic concern, not an underlying psychiatric disorder that is driving their search for relief. The risk of dermatologic interventions is not only that expectations are not met, but the patient’s perception of a failed intervention “sometimes makes these worse,” Dr. Gkini explained.
Collaboration with psychiatrists recommended
The guidelines include suggestions for treatment of BDD. Of these, SSRIs are recommended at high relative doses, according to Dr. Gkini. Consistent with the consensus recommendation of collaborating with mental health specialists, she said that the recommendations acknowledge evidence of greater benefits when SSRIs are combined with psychotherapy.
Katharine A. Phillips, MD, professor of psychiatry at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, has been conducting BDD research for several years and has written numerous books and articles about this topic, including a review in the journal Focus. She cautioned that, because of a normal concern for appearance, BDD is easily missed by dermatologists.
“For BDD to be diagnosed, the preoccupation with a nonexistent or slight defect in appearance must cause clinically significant distress or impairment in functioning,” she said in an interview. “This is necessary to differentiate BDD from more normal and common appearance concerns that do not qualify for the diagnosis”
She specified that patients should be considered for cognitive-behavioral therapy rather than psychotherapy, a generic term that covers many forms of treatment. She said that most other types of psychotherapy “are probably not effective” for BDD.
Dr. Phillips highly endorsed the development of BDD guidelines for dermatologists because of the frequency with which physicians in this specialty encounter BDD – and believes that more attention to this diagnosis is needed.
“I recommend that dermatologists who have a patient with BDD collaborate with a psychiatrist in delivering care with an SSRI,” she said. “High doses of these medications are often needed to effectively treat BDD.”
Dr. Gkini reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Almirall, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, LEO, Novartis, Sanofi, and Regenlab. Dr. Phillips reported no relevant financial relationships.
BERLIN – were outlined in a late-breaker presentation at the annual Congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
The development of guidelines for BDD, a disorder familiar to many clinical dermatologists, is intended as a practical tool, according to Maria-Angeliki Gkini, MD, who has appointments at both Bart’s Health NHS Trust in London and the 401 General Army Hospital in Athens.
“BDD is a relatively common disorder in which the patients are preoccupied with a perceived defect or defects,” Dr. Gkini explained. “This affects them so intensely that it affects their mental health and their quality of life.”
In the DSM-5, published by the American Psychiatric Association, BDD is specifically defined as a preoccupation with “one or more perceived defects or flaws in physical appearance that are not observable or appear slight to others.” But Dr. Gkini said that BDD can also develop as a comorbidity of dermatological disorders that are visible.
These patients are challenging because they are difficult to please, added Dr. Gkini, who said they commonly become involved in doctor shopping, leaving negative reviews on social media for the clinicians they have cycled through. The problem is that the defects they seek to resolve typically stem from distorted perceptions.
BDD is related to obsessive-compulsive disorder by the frequency with which patients pursue repetitive behaviors related to their preoccupation, such as intensive grooming, frequent trips to the mirror, or difficulty in focusing on topics other than their own appearance.
The process to develop the soon-to-be-published guidelines began with a literature search. Of the approximately 3,200 articles identified on BDD, only 10 involved randomized controlled trials. Moreover, even the quality of these trials was considered “low to very low” by the experts who reviewed them, Dr. Gkini said.
One explanation is that psychodermatology has only recently started to attract more research interest, and better studies are now underway, she noted.
However, because of the dearth of high quality evidence now available, the guideline development relied on a Delphi method to reach consensus based on expert opinion in discussion of the available data.
Consensus reached by 17 experts
Specifically, 17 experts, all of whom were members of the European Society for Dermatology and Psychiatry proceeded to systematically address a series of clinical questions and recommendations. Consensus was defined as at least 75% of the participants strongly agreeing or agreeing. Several rounds of discussion were often required.
Among the conclusions, the guidelines support uniform screening for BDD in all patients prior to cosmetic procedures. In identifying depression, anxiety, and distorted perceptions, simple tools, such as the Patient Health Questionnaire might be adequate for an initial evaluation, but Dr. Gkini also recommended routinely inquiring about suicidal ideation, which has been reported in up to 80% of individuals with BDD.
Other instruments for screening that can be considered include DSM-5 criteria for BDD and the Body Dysmorphic Disorder Questionnaire–Dermatology Version, which might be particularly useful and appropriate for dermatologists.
One of the reasons to screen for BDD is that these patients often convince themselves that some specific procedure is needed to resolve the source of their obsession. The goal of screening is to verify that it is the dermatologic concern, not an underlying psychiatric disorder that is driving their search for relief. The risk of dermatologic interventions is not only that expectations are not met, but the patient’s perception of a failed intervention “sometimes makes these worse,” Dr. Gkini explained.
Collaboration with psychiatrists recommended
The guidelines include suggestions for treatment of BDD. Of these, SSRIs are recommended at high relative doses, according to Dr. Gkini. Consistent with the consensus recommendation of collaborating with mental health specialists, she said that the recommendations acknowledge evidence of greater benefits when SSRIs are combined with psychotherapy.
Katharine A. Phillips, MD, professor of psychiatry at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, has been conducting BDD research for several years and has written numerous books and articles about this topic, including a review in the journal Focus. She cautioned that, because of a normal concern for appearance, BDD is easily missed by dermatologists.
“For BDD to be diagnosed, the preoccupation with a nonexistent or slight defect in appearance must cause clinically significant distress or impairment in functioning,” she said in an interview. “This is necessary to differentiate BDD from more normal and common appearance concerns that do not qualify for the diagnosis”
She specified that patients should be considered for cognitive-behavioral therapy rather than psychotherapy, a generic term that covers many forms of treatment. She said that most other types of psychotherapy “are probably not effective” for BDD.
Dr. Phillips highly endorsed the development of BDD guidelines for dermatologists because of the frequency with which physicians in this specialty encounter BDD – and believes that more attention to this diagnosis is needed.
“I recommend that dermatologists who have a patient with BDD collaborate with a psychiatrist in delivering care with an SSRI,” she said. “High doses of these medications are often needed to effectively treat BDD.”
Dr. Gkini reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Almirall, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, LEO, Novartis, Sanofi, and Regenlab. Dr. Phillips reported no relevant financial relationships.
AT THE EADV CONGRESS
Phase 3 trial supports topical JAK inhibitor for AD in young children
BERLIN – as previously shown in adolescents and adults for whom it already has an approved indication.
In this study – TRUE-AD3 – systemic exposure to ruxolitinib, which is selective for JAK1 and 2, was followed closely, and the low mean plasma concentrations “suggest systemic JAK inhibition is highly unlikely,” Lawrence F. Eichenfield, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego, said at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
For example, at a plasma concentration no greater than 27 nM in both younger and older patients at 4 weeks and again at 8 weeks, the systemic exposure was about a tenth of that (281 nM) previously associated with myelosuppression, he reported.
Given the boxed warning for oral JAK inhibitors, which was based largely on a 2022 study in adults with rheumatoid arthritis that associated tofacitinib, a nonspecific JAK inhibitor, with an increased risk of thrombotic events in adults already at risk for these events, safety was a focus of this phase 3 trial. The boxed warning is also in the labeling for topical ruxolitinib, 1.5% (Opzelura), approved for treating to mild to moderate atopic dermatitis in patients 12 years of age and older.
Dr. Eichenfield said there were no significant safety signals in the younger pediatric population. “There were no treatment-emergent adverse events suggestive of systemic JAK inhibition,” he said. This not only included the absence of serious infections, cardiac events, thromboses, or malignancies, but there was no signal of hematologic abnormalities, such as change in hemoglobin or neutrophil count.
Application site reactions
Rather, in the study of children ages 2-11, the only adverse events associated with topical ruxolitinib not observed in the control arm, which received the vehicle alone, were application site reactions, such as pain, erythema, and irritation. None of these occurred in more than 3% of those randomized to ruxolitinib regardless of dose.
Overall, in the trial, which randomized 329 patients ages from 2 to under 12 years with mild to moderate AD to ruxolitinib 1.5% cream, ruxolitinib 0.75% cream, or vehicle in a 2:2:1 fashion, there were just two (0.8%) discontinuations in the ruxolitinib groups (one in each dosing arm). There were none in the vehicle arm.
The safety supports an expansion of the AD indication for topical ruxolitinib in young children, because the rates of response were very similar to that seen in adolescents and adults in the previously published TRUE AD-1 and TRUE AD-2 trials, he said.
For the primary endpoint of Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear) with at least a 2 grade improvement in IGA score from baseline, the response rates were 56.5%, 36.6%, and 10.8% for ruxolitinib 1.5%, ruxolitinib 0.75%, and vehicle respectively, at 8 weeks (P < .0001 for both doses relative to vehicle).
For the secondary efficacy endpoint of 75% or greater clearance on the Eczema Area and Severity Index, the rates were 67.2%, 51.5%, and 15.4%, for ruxolitinib 1.5%, ruxolitinib 0.75%, and vehicle respectively. Again, the advantage of both doses of ruxolitinib relative to vehicle was highly statistically significant (P < .0001).
Control of itch, evaluated with the Numerical Rating Scale was only evaluated in children 6-2 because of concern of the reliability of reporting in younger children. Control was defined as at least a 4-point improvement from baseline. It was achieved by 43.4%, 37.5%, and 29.7% by week 8 in the arms receiving the higher dose of ruxolitinib, the lower dose, and vehicle, respectively. The median time to achieving itch control was 11 days, 13 days, and 23 days, respectively. For all of these endpoints, the separation of the curves was readily apparent within the first 2 weeks.
The efficacy and tolerability of ruxolitinib appeared to be similar in younger children (ages 2-6) relative to older children.
Extension study in children near completion
Most of the patients who participated in TRUE AD-3 have been rolled over to the open-label extension trial, which is nearing completion. Those originally randomized to vehicle have been rerandomized to the lower or higher dose of ruxolitinib.
While this trial was focused on ruxolitinib as monotherapy, Thrasyvoulos Tzellos, MD, head of the department of dermatology, Nordland Hospital Trust, Bødo, Norway, questioned whether this is will be how it will be used in clinical practice. With the increasing array of therapies for AD, the “concept of combination therapy becomes more and more relevant,” he said after Dr. Eichenfield’s presentation.
Questioning whether an effective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agent like ruxolitinib should be considered a first-line treatment in mild disease or an adjunctive treatment for AD of any severity, he suggested that it might be best considered within a combination.
Dr. Eichenfield agreed. “Once we get the drug approved in a controlled trial, I think we then figure out how to use it in clinical practice.” Based on his own use of ruxolitinib in adults, he noted that he has not seen this drug replace other therapies so much as provide another option for control.
“We have an increasing armamentarium of drugs to use for involvement in different areas of the body in order to get more long-term control of disease,” he said. As an effective topical nonsteroidal drug, he believes its addition to clinical care in younger children, if approved, will be meaningful.
Dr. Eichenfield disclosed financial relationships with more multiple pharmaceutical companies, including Incyte, the manufacturer of ruxolitinib cream that provided funding for the True-AD trials. Dr. Tzellos reported financial relationships with AbbVie and UCB.
BERLIN – as previously shown in adolescents and adults for whom it already has an approved indication.
In this study – TRUE-AD3 – systemic exposure to ruxolitinib, which is selective for JAK1 and 2, was followed closely, and the low mean plasma concentrations “suggest systemic JAK inhibition is highly unlikely,” Lawrence F. Eichenfield, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego, said at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
For example, at a plasma concentration no greater than 27 nM in both younger and older patients at 4 weeks and again at 8 weeks, the systemic exposure was about a tenth of that (281 nM) previously associated with myelosuppression, he reported.
Given the boxed warning for oral JAK inhibitors, which was based largely on a 2022 study in adults with rheumatoid arthritis that associated tofacitinib, a nonspecific JAK inhibitor, with an increased risk of thrombotic events in adults already at risk for these events, safety was a focus of this phase 3 trial. The boxed warning is also in the labeling for topical ruxolitinib, 1.5% (Opzelura), approved for treating to mild to moderate atopic dermatitis in patients 12 years of age and older.
Dr. Eichenfield said there were no significant safety signals in the younger pediatric population. “There were no treatment-emergent adverse events suggestive of systemic JAK inhibition,” he said. This not only included the absence of serious infections, cardiac events, thromboses, or malignancies, but there was no signal of hematologic abnormalities, such as change in hemoglobin or neutrophil count.
Application site reactions
Rather, in the study of children ages 2-11, the only adverse events associated with topical ruxolitinib not observed in the control arm, which received the vehicle alone, were application site reactions, such as pain, erythema, and irritation. None of these occurred in more than 3% of those randomized to ruxolitinib regardless of dose.
Overall, in the trial, which randomized 329 patients ages from 2 to under 12 years with mild to moderate AD to ruxolitinib 1.5% cream, ruxolitinib 0.75% cream, or vehicle in a 2:2:1 fashion, there were just two (0.8%) discontinuations in the ruxolitinib groups (one in each dosing arm). There were none in the vehicle arm.
The safety supports an expansion of the AD indication for topical ruxolitinib in young children, because the rates of response were very similar to that seen in adolescents and adults in the previously published TRUE AD-1 and TRUE AD-2 trials, he said.
For the primary endpoint of Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear) with at least a 2 grade improvement in IGA score from baseline, the response rates were 56.5%, 36.6%, and 10.8% for ruxolitinib 1.5%, ruxolitinib 0.75%, and vehicle respectively, at 8 weeks (P < .0001 for both doses relative to vehicle).
For the secondary efficacy endpoint of 75% or greater clearance on the Eczema Area and Severity Index, the rates were 67.2%, 51.5%, and 15.4%, for ruxolitinib 1.5%, ruxolitinib 0.75%, and vehicle respectively. Again, the advantage of both doses of ruxolitinib relative to vehicle was highly statistically significant (P < .0001).
Control of itch, evaluated with the Numerical Rating Scale was only evaluated in children 6-2 because of concern of the reliability of reporting in younger children. Control was defined as at least a 4-point improvement from baseline. It was achieved by 43.4%, 37.5%, and 29.7% by week 8 in the arms receiving the higher dose of ruxolitinib, the lower dose, and vehicle, respectively. The median time to achieving itch control was 11 days, 13 days, and 23 days, respectively. For all of these endpoints, the separation of the curves was readily apparent within the first 2 weeks.
The efficacy and tolerability of ruxolitinib appeared to be similar in younger children (ages 2-6) relative to older children.
Extension study in children near completion
Most of the patients who participated in TRUE AD-3 have been rolled over to the open-label extension trial, which is nearing completion. Those originally randomized to vehicle have been rerandomized to the lower or higher dose of ruxolitinib.
While this trial was focused on ruxolitinib as monotherapy, Thrasyvoulos Tzellos, MD, head of the department of dermatology, Nordland Hospital Trust, Bødo, Norway, questioned whether this is will be how it will be used in clinical practice. With the increasing array of therapies for AD, the “concept of combination therapy becomes more and more relevant,” he said after Dr. Eichenfield’s presentation.
Questioning whether an effective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agent like ruxolitinib should be considered a first-line treatment in mild disease or an adjunctive treatment for AD of any severity, he suggested that it might be best considered within a combination.
Dr. Eichenfield agreed. “Once we get the drug approved in a controlled trial, I think we then figure out how to use it in clinical practice.” Based on his own use of ruxolitinib in adults, he noted that he has not seen this drug replace other therapies so much as provide another option for control.
“We have an increasing armamentarium of drugs to use for involvement in different areas of the body in order to get more long-term control of disease,” he said. As an effective topical nonsteroidal drug, he believes its addition to clinical care in younger children, if approved, will be meaningful.
Dr. Eichenfield disclosed financial relationships with more multiple pharmaceutical companies, including Incyte, the manufacturer of ruxolitinib cream that provided funding for the True-AD trials. Dr. Tzellos reported financial relationships with AbbVie and UCB.
BERLIN – as previously shown in adolescents and adults for whom it already has an approved indication.
In this study – TRUE-AD3 – systemic exposure to ruxolitinib, which is selective for JAK1 and 2, was followed closely, and the low mean plasma concentrations “suggest systemic JAK inhibition is highly unlikely,” Lawrence F. Eichenfield, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego, said at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
For example, at a plasma concentration no greater than 27 nM in both younger and older patients at 4 weeks and again at 8 weeks, the systemic exposure was about a tenth of that (281 nM) previously associated with myelosuppression, he reported.
Given the boxed warning for oral JAK inhibitors, which was based largely on a 2022 study in adults with rheumatoid arthritis that associated tofacitinib, a nonspecific JAK inhibitor, with an increased risk of thrombotic events in adults already at risk for these events, safety was a focus of this phase 3 trial. The boxed warning is also in the labeling for topical ruxolitinib, 1.5% (Opzelura), approved for treating to mild to moderate atopic dermatitis in patients 12 years of age and older.
Dr. Eichenfield said there were no significant safety signals in the younger pediatric population. “There were no treatment-emergent adverse events suggestive of systemic JAK inhibition,” he said. This not only included the absence of serious infections, cardiac events, thromboses, or malignancies, but there was no signal of hematologic abnormalities, such as change in hemoglobin or neutrophil count.
Application site reactions
Rather, in the study of children ages 2-11, the only adverse events associated with topical ruxolitinib not observed in the control arm, which received the vehicle alone, were application site reactions, such as pain, erythema, and irritation. None of these occurred in more than 3% of those randomized to ruxolitinib regardless of dose.
Overall, in the trial, which randomized 329 patients ages from 2 to under 12 years with mild to moderate AD to ruxolitinib 1.5% cream, ruxolitinib 0.75% cream, or vehicle in a 2:2:1 fashion, there were just two (0.8%) discontinuations in the ruxolitinib groups (one in each dosing arm). There were none in the vehicle arm.
The safety supports an expansion of the AD indication for topical ruxolitinib in young children, because the rates of response were very similar to that seen in adolescents and adults in the previously published TRUE AD-1 and TRUE AD-2 trials, he said.
For the primary endpoint of Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear) with at least a 2 grade improvement in IGA score from baseline, the response rates were 56.5%, 36.6%, and 10.8% for ruxolitinib 1.5%, ruxolitinib 0.75%, and vehicle respectively, at 8 weeks (P < .0001 for both doses relative to vehicle).
For the secondary efficacy endpoint of 75% or greater clearance on the Eczema Area and Severity Index, the rates were 67.2%, 51.5%, and 15.4%, for ruxolitinib 1.5%, ruxolitinib 0.75%, and vehicle respectively. Again, the advantage of both doses of ruxolitinib relative to vehicle was highly statistically significant (P < .0001).
Control of itch, evaluated with the Numerical Rating Scale was only evaluated in children 6-2 because of concern of the reliability of reporting in younger children. Control was defined as at least a 4-point improvement from baseline. It was achieved by 43.4%, 37.5%, and 29.7% by week 8 in the arms receiving the higher dose of ruxolitinib, the lower dose, and vehicle, respectively. The median time to achieving itch control was 11 days, 13 days, and 23 days, respectively. For all of these endpoints, the separation of the curves was readily apparent within the first 2 weeks.
The efficacy and tolerability of ruxolitinib appeared to be similar in younger children (ages 2-6) relative to older children.
Extension study in children near completion
Most of the patients who participated in TRUE AD-3 have been rolled over to the open-label extension trial, which is nearing completion. Those originally randomized to vehicle have been rerandomized to the lower or higher dose of ruxolitinib.
While this trial was focused on ruxolitinib as monotherapy, Thrasyvoulos Tzellos, MD, head of the department of dermatology, Nordland Hospital Trust, Bødo, Norway, questioned whether this is will be how it will be used in clinical practice. With the increasing array of therapies for AD, the “concept of combination therapy becomes more and more relevant,” he said after Dr. Eichenfield’s presentation.
Questioning whether an effective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agent like ruxolitinib should be considered a first-line treatment in mild disease or an adjunctive treatment for AD of any severity, he suggested that it might be best considered within a combination.
Dr. Eichenfield agreed. “Once we get the drug approved in a controlled trial, I think we then figure out how to use it in clinical practice.” Based on his own use of ruxolitinib in adults, he noted that he has not seen this drug replace other therapies so much as provide another option for control.
“We have an increasing armamentarium of drugs to use for involvement in different areas of the body in order to get more long-term control of disease,” he said. As an effective topical nonsteroidal drug, he believes its addition to clinical care in younger children, if approved, will be meaningful.
Dr. Eichenfield disclosed financial relationships with more multiple pharmaceutical companies, including Incyte, the manufacturer of ruxolitinib cream that provided funding for the True-AD trials. Dr. Tzellos reported financial relationships with AbbVie and UCB.
AT THE EADV CONGRESS
Has prompt diagnosis of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis become urgent?
Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) falls easily into the Food and Drug Administration definition of “rare disease.” With an estimated prevalence in the United States of fewer than 20,000 cases,1 ALS sits comfortably below the cutoff of 200,000 cases that serves to define a disease as “rare.”
After a recent steep climb, there are something on the order of 50 therapies, across more than 10 drug classes, in clinical trials for the treatment of ALS.2 This bounty represents exciting progress toward the development of targeted therapies for a characteristically fatal disease.
That headway is coupled with a sobering limitation, however: Relatively few ALS patients are being enrolled.
The knotty problem with therapeutic trials for ALS
“Trials are generally designed for patients with adequate functional reserve and predicted survival, to ensure that a signal of benefit can be seen,” said Nicholas John Maragakis, MD, director of the ALS Clinical Trials Unit at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. “Many of my patients are too severely affected at presentation.”
Dr. Maragakis hasn’t calculated the precise percentage of patients he is enrolling in one of the many available trials available at the Johns Hopkins center. He estimates that it is less than 20%, however.
That percentage is comparable to what is reported by Stephen Scelsa, MD, and Daniel J. Macgowan, MD, who share much of the ALS caseload in a dedicated, comprehensive ALS center at Mount Sinai Beth Israel, New York. Both are on the faculty at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.
“The considerable delay in the diagnosis of ALS remains a challenge,” Dr. Scelsa acknowledges. Like Dr. Maragakis, he reports that, by the time patients develop symptoms that make referral to a comprehensive ALS center like Mount Sinai Beth Israel appropriate, many no longer meet eligibility criteria for most experimental treatments.
Some therapeutic targets in clinical trials, such as neuroinflammation, offer potential benefit even in advancing disease, but it is prevention that is usually the goal of experimental ALS therapies. This approach is associated with far more promise than attempting to reverse existing neurologic damage, which might not be possible, according to both Dr. Scelsa and Dr. Macgowan.
“The clinical trials are typically looking for patients with less than 2 years since the onset of symptoms and at least 60% of predicted respiratory function,” Dr. Macgowan said.
Because of these or other similarly restrictive criteria, coupled with common delays before patients arrive at a center where trials are available, “the window for clinical research closes very quickly,” Dr. Macgowan added, and “the band of patients who are eligible is relatively narrow.”
At Hennepin Healthcare in Minneapolis, which, like Johns Hopkins and Mount Sinai, offers an advanced multidisciplinary approach to ALS care in a dedicated clinic, the problem of late referrals is no different. Samuel Maiser, MD, chair of neurology, does attempt to counter this delay by moving quickly.
“I almost always offer a therapeutic trial to a patient with early-stage ALS,” he said. He does so earlier, rather than later, and explains: “I do not want to delay that conversation, because any delay might reduce the chance for getting into a trial.”
The generalist can make a difference in therapeutic success
The proliferation of clinical trials has made early diagnosis of ALS urgent. However, the experts interviewed for this article agreed: Accelerating the time to diagnosis is more dependent on the general neurologist or primary care physician than on the ALS specialist. ALS is a diagnosis of exclusion, but there is now very little delay in reaching a probable diagnosis at a dedicated center.
Yet neurodegenerative complaints in early-stage ALS are often nonspecific and mild; confidence in making a potential diagnosis of ALS is limited among primary care clinicians and general neurologists, who almost always see these patients first. Usually, the problem is not failure to include ALS in the differential diagnosis but hesitation in being candid when there is still doubt.
General neurologists, in particular, Dr. Maragakis said, “are often highly suspicious of a diagnosis of ALS very early on but are concerned about using this term until the clinical signs are more compelling.”
This is understandable. There is reluctance to deliver bad news when confidence in the diagnosis is limited. But the experts agreed: Delayed diagnosis is not in the patient’s interest now that there is at least the potential for entering a trial supported by a scientific rationale for benefit.
“Waiting for 100% certainty – this could actually harm our patients,” Dr. Maiser said. The tendency to avoid delivering bad news, he said, “is human nature, and it is not easy to tell people that ALS is the potential cause, but it’s important for early treatment.”
Some evidence suggests that the incidence of ALS is increasing3 but this is not necessarily evident at the clinical level. “It is not my impression that the incidence of ALS is increasing,” Dr. Macgowan said, “so much as I think we are getting better at making the diagnosis.”
Where we stand: Pathophysiology, diagnosis, treatment
Pathophysiology. ALS is characterized by muscle denervation.4 In the great majority of cases, the disease represents a proteinopathy involving loss of the TDP-43 protein from nuclei. However, pathological heterogeneity means that other pathophysiological mechanisms – mediated by oxidative stress, mitochondrial dysfunction, and neurotoxicity related to excessive stimulation of postsynaptic glutamate receptors – can participate.2,5,6
Approximately 10% of patients have a known gene associated with ALS.7 The rest have what is considered sporadic ALS, although some experts estimate that heritability will eventually be confirmed in 50% or more of cases that have been given the “sporadic” label.8,9 More than 30 genes have been linked to ALS in genomewide association studies. Among patients whose disease carries a known familial link, four genes – SOD1, TARDBP, FUS, and C9orf72 – account for approximately 70% of cases.2
Diagnosis. Genetic testing in patients with suspected or confirmed ALS is the standard of care at most, if not all, comprehensive ALS treatment centers, according to the four experts interviewed by Neurology Reviews 2023 Rare Neurological Disease Special Report for this article. Such testing was routine for years because of its potential for helping researchers to understand subtypes of disease; today, testing has assumed even greater practical value with recent approval of the first ALS gene therapy: Tofersen (Qalsody, Biogen), licensed in 2023, is an antisense oligonucleotide therapy that targets SOD1 mRNA to reduce production of the SOD1 protein, a mediator of disease progression.
“Genetic testing has been useful for telling us something about the disease and its prognosis,” Dr. Maragakis said, “but an approved gene therapy means it can have a direct effect on treatment.”
ALS therapeutics. Other gene therapies are in development. Gene signatures are likely to provide even more opportunities for clinical trials in the future.
Following three loading doses of tofersen at 14-day intervals, the maintenance regimen, administered intrathecally by lumbar puncture, is every 28 days. In the phase 3 trial, tofersen reduced levels of SOD1 protein and neurofilament light chain, a biomarker of axonal injury.10 Tofersen is appropriate only in patients with SOD1-associated ALS; the drug’s favorable clinical impact, including a positive effect, if any, on survival has not been demonstrated. Extension studies are underway.
Tofersen joins three other FDA-approved ALS therapies:
• Riluzole, an oral drug available since 1995 that slows disease progression by blocking glutamate.
• Edaravone, an antioxidant approved in 2017, administered orally or intravenously.
• An orally administered combination of sodium phenylbutyrate and taurursodiol marketed as Relyvrio and formerly known as AMX0035, that was introduced in 2022.
“We offer riluzole, which is safe in combination with other therapies, to most patients,” said Dr. Scelsa, who noted that treatment trials often test experimental drugs on top of riluzole. He moves to edaravone or Relyvrio, which are far more expensive, selectively. Tofersen, which is also expensive, is reserved for patients with SOD1-associated disease; however, not all eligible patients opt for this therapy after reviewing its benefits and risks.
“There is not yet a guarantee that tofersen will improve outcomes, and it requires intrathecal injections for life,”
Dr. Maiser said. “Some patients, particularly my older patients, have said, ‘No thank you,’ based on the available data.”
Dr. Macgowan pointed out that lumbar puncture repeated indefinitely can be “challenging.” He, too, discusses all available treatment options with every patient, including riluzole, which he agreed is associated with a meaningful benefit, particularly when started early.
Because of the safety of riluzole, Dr. Maragakis takes early treatment a step further. For neurologists who have a high level of suspicion of ALS in a given patient, “my advice would be to treat aggressively from the get-go. Even if not 100% certain of the diagnosis, I would start them on riluzole while waiting for confirmation.” Like the other experts interviewed here, he acknowledged that referral to a busy comprehensive ALS center often takes time, making it reasonable to initiate treatment when suspicion is high.
On the front lines, “the neurologist can tell the patient that ALS is just one of several potential explanations for symptoms but there is concern,” said Dr. Maragakis, proposing a strategy to introduce the possibility of ALS and start treatment that might slow disease while waiting for confirmation of the diagnosis. “My biggest concern is that no one is making that call,” he said, trying to address at least one reason for the current delay in making referrals.
Comprehensive care at specialty centers
Whenever possible, ALS is a disease best managed at a center that offers comprehensive management, including multidisciplinary care. On this point, the four experts agreed.
“Tertiary-care centers for ALS serve a critical purpose,”
Dr. Maiser said. For a disease that affects nearly every aspect of life, the skills of a multidisciplinary support staff offer an “opportunity to stay in front of the disease” for as long as possible. Teamwork often leads to “outside-of-the-box thinking” for helping patients and families cope with the range of disabilities that undermine the patient’s quality of life.
Details of ALS management matter. At Mount Sinai and Hennepin Healthcare, and at Johns Hopkins, where demand recently led to the opening of a second ALS clinic, the ALS center is set up to address the full spectrum of needs. Staff members have multiple skills so that they can work together to make patients comfortable and prepare them for what is inevitably progression – even if the rate of that progression varies.
All these centers incorporate a rational, thorough discussion of end-of-life options in a palliative care approach that targets optimized quality of life. One goal is to prepare patients to consider and be prepared to make decisions when it is time for tracheostomy, percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy, and other life support options that are not always well tolerated. The goal? Avoiding unnecessary anguish during end-stage disease when impaired respiratory function – the primary cause of ALS-related death – no longer sustains unassisted survival.
“I am concerned for the many ALS patients without access to this type of comprehensive care,” Dr. Macgowan said.
Like the other experts here, he emphasized that the demands of ALS care can be “overwhelming” outside a comprehensive care setting – for the patient, their family, and individual providers.
Looking ahead
There are many reasons to be optimistic about improving the survival and care of patients with ALS. Besides therapies in clinical trials, Dr. Scelsa explained, there is the potential role for monitoring neurofilament light changes, a biomarker of neurodegeneration, in patients who are at risk of ALS.
Dr. Maragakis offered an analogy to the gene therapy onasemnogene abeparvovec, which can prevent the associated neurodegeneration of spinal muscular atrophy if initiated before symptoms appear. He said that, in ALS, neurofilament light changes or other biomarkers might offer an opportunity to halt the progression of disease before it starts – if one or more therapies in development prove workable.
In the meantime, neurologists who do not specialize in ALS should be thinking about how they can participate in speedier diagnostic pathways.
“There are a number of therapies that look promising,” Dr. Maiser told Rare Neurological Disease Special Report. He singled out strategies to degrade TDP-43 or prevent it from forming. If these treatments are found effective, it’s expected that they would be of value in sporadic ALS, the most common form. Again, though, “the challenge is getting patients on this therapy at the earliest stages of disease.”
Dr. Maragakis discloses equity ownership/stock options with Braintrust Bio and Akava; he is a patent holder with Johns Hopkins [ALS] and has received grant/research/clinical trial support from Apellis Pharma, Biogen Idec, Cytokinetics, Helixmith, Calico, Sanofi, Department of Defense ALSRP, Maryland Stem Cell Research Fund, Massachusetts General Hospital, Medicinova, and NINDS. He serves as consultant or advisory board member for Amylyx; Cytokinetics, Roche, Healey Center, Nura Bio, Northeast ALS Consortium, Akava, Inflammx, and Secretome. Dr. Scelsa did not report any conflicts of interest. Dr. Macgowan and Dr. Maiser have no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.
References
1. Mehta P et al. Prevalence of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis in the United States using established and novel methodologies, 2017. Amyotroph Lateral Scler Frontotemporal Degener. 2023;24(1-2):108-16. doi: 10.1080/21678421.2022.2059380.
2. Mead RJ et al. Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: A neurodegenerative disorder poised for successful therapeutic translation. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2023;22(3):185-212. doi: 10.1038/s41573-022-00612-2.
3. Longinetti E and Fang F. Epidemiology of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: An update of recent literature. Curr Opin Neurol. 2019;32(5):771-6. doi: 10.1097/WCO.0000000000000730.
4. van den Bos MAJ et al. Pathophysiology and diagnosis of ALS: Insights from advances in neurophysiological techniques. Int J Mol Sci. 2019;20(11):2818. doi: 10.3390/ijms20112818.
5. Neumann M et al. Ubiquitinated TDP-43 in frontotemporal lobar degeneration and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Science. 2006;314(5796):130-3. doi: 10.1126/science.1134108.
6. Ling S-C et al. Converging mechanisms in ALS and FTD: Disrupted RNA and protein homeostasis. Neuron. 2013;79(3):416-38. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2013.07.033.
7. Ranganathan R et al. Multifaceted genes in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis-frontotemporal dementia. Front Neurosci. 2020;14:684. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2020.00684.
8. Ryan M et al. Lifetime risk and heritability of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. JAMA Neurol. 2019;76(11):1367-74. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.2044.
9. van Rheenen W et al. Common and rare variant association analyses in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis identify 15 risk loci with distinct genetic architectures and neuron-specific biology. Nat Genet. 2021;53(12):1636-48. doi: 10.1038/s41588-021-00973-1.
10. Miller TM et al; VALOR and OLE Working Group. Trial of antisense oligonucleotide tofersen for SOD1 ALS. N Engl J Med. 2022;387(12):1099-110. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2204705.
Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) falls easily into the Food and Drug Administration definition of “rare disease.” With an estimated prevalence in the United States of fewer than 20,000 cases,1 ALS sits comfortably below the cutoff of 200,000 cases that serves to define a disease as “rare.”
After a recent steep climb, there are something on the order of 50 therapies, across more than 10 drug classes, in clinical trials for the treatment of ALS.2 This bounty represents exciting progress toward the development of targeted therapies for a characteristically fatal disease.
That headway is coupled with a sobering limitation, however: Relatively few ALS patients are being enrolled.
The knotty problem with therapeutic trials for ALS
“Trials are generally designed for patients with adequate functional reserve and predicted survival, to ensure that a signal of benefit can be seen,” said Nicholas John Maragakis, MD, director of the ALS Clinical Trials Unit at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. “Many of my patients are too severely affected at presentation.”
Dr. Maragakis hasn’t calculated the precise percentage of patients he is enrolling in one of the many available trials available at the Johns Hopkins center. He estimates that it is less than 20%, however.
That percentage is comparable to what is reported by Stephen Scelsa, MD, and Daniel J. Macgowan, MD, who share much of the ALS caseload in a dedicated, comprehensive ALS center at Mount Sinai Beth Israel, New York. Both are on the faculty at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.
“The considerable delay in the diagnosis of ALS remains a challenge,” Dr. Scelsa acknowledges. Like Dr. Maragakis, he reports that, by the time patients develop symptoms that make referral to a comprehensive ALS center like Mount Sinai Beth Israel appropriate, many no longer meet eligibility criteria for most experimental treatments.
Some therapeutic targets in clinical trials, such as neuroinflammation, offer potential benefit even in advancing disease, but it is prevention that is usually the goal of experimental ALS therapies. This approach is associated with far more promise than attempting to reverse existing neurologic damage, which might not be possible, according to both Dr. Scelsa and Dr. Macgowan.
“The clinical trials are typically looking for patients with less than 2 years since the onset of symptoms and at least 60% of predicted respiratory function,” Dr. Macgowan said.
Because of these or other similarly restrictive criteria, coupled with common delays before patients arrive at a center where trials are available, “the window for clinical research closes very quickly,” Dr. Macgowan added, and “the band of patients who are eligible is relatively narrow.”
At Hennepin Healthcare in Minneapolis, which, like Johns Hopkins and Mount Sinai, offers an advanced multidisciplinary approach to ALS care in a dedicated clinic, the problem of late referrals is no different. Samuel Maiser, MD, chair of neurology, does attempt to counter this delay by moving quickly.
“I almost always offer a therapeutic trial to a patient with early-stage ALS,” he said. He does so earlier, rather than later, and explains: “I do not want to delay that conversation, because any delay might reduce the chance for getting into a trial.”
The generalist can make a difference in therapeutic success
The proliferation of clinical trials has made early diagnosis of ALS urgent. However, the experts interviewed for this article agreed: Accelerating the time to diagnosis is more dependent on the general neurologist or primary care physician than on the ALS specialist. ALS is a diagnosis of exclusion, but there is now very little delay in reaching a probable diagnosis at a dedicated center.
Yet neurodegenerative complaints in early-stage ALS are often nonspecific and mild; confidence in making a potential diagnosis of ALS is limited among primary care clinicians and general neurologists, who almost always see these patients first. Usually, the problem is not failure to include ALS in the differential diagnosis but hesitation in being candid when there is still doubt.
General neurologists, in particular, Dr. Maragakis said, “are often highly suspicious of a diagnosis of ALS very early on but are concerned about using this term until the clinical signs are more compelling.”
This is understandable. There is reluctance to deliver bad news when confidence in the diagnosis is limited. But the experts agreed: Delayed diagnosis is not in the patient’s interest now that there is at least the potential for entering a trial supported by a scientific rationale for benefit.
“Waiting for 100% certainty – this could actually harm our patients,” Dr. Maiser said. The tendency to avoid delivering bad news, he said, “is human nature, and it is not easy to tell people that ALS is the potential cause, but it’s important for early treatment.”
Some evidence suggests that the incidence of ALS is increasing3 but this is not necessarily evident at the clinical level. “It is not my impression that the incidence of ALS is increasing,” Dr. Macgowan said, “so much as I think we are getting better at making the diagnosis.”
Where we stand: Pathophysiology, diagnosis, treatment
Pathophysiology. ALS is characterized by muscle denervation.4 In the great majority of cases, the disease represents a proteinopathy involving loss of the TDP-43 protein from nuclei. However, pathological heterogeneity means that other pathophysiological mechanisms – mediated by oxidative stress, mitochondrial dysfunction, and neurotoxicity related to excessive stimulation of postsynaptic glutamate receptors – can participate.2,5,6
Approximately 10% of patients have a known gene associated with ALS.7 The rest have what is considered sporadic ALS, although some experts estimate that heritability will eventually be confirmed in 50% or more of cases that have been given the “sporadic” label.8,9 More than 30 genes have been linked to ALS in genomewide association studies. Among patients whose disease carries a known familial link, four genes – SOD1, TARDBP, FUS, and C9orf72 – account for approximately 70% of cases.2
Diagnosis. Genetic testing in patients with suspected or confirmed ALS is the standard of care at most, if not all, comprehensive ALS treatment centers, according to the four experts interviewed by Neurology Reviews 2023 Rare Neurological Disease Special Report for this article. Such testing was routine for years because of its potential for helping researchers to understand subtypes of disease; today, testing has assumed even greater practical value with recent approval of the first ALS gene therapy: Tofersen (Qalsody, Biogen), licensed in 2023, is an antisense oligonucleotide therapy that targets SOD1 mRNA to reduce production of the SOD1 protein, a mediator of disease progression.
“Genetic testing has been useful for telling us something about the disease and its prognosis,” Dr. Maragakis said, “but an approved gene therapy means it can have a direct effect on treatment.”
ALS therapeutics. Other gene therapies are in development. Gene signatures are likely to provide even more opportunities for clinical trials in the future.
Following three loading doses of tofersen at 14-day intervals, the maintenance regimen, administered intrathecally by lumbar puncture, is every 28 days. In the phase 3 trial, tofersen reduced levels of SOD1 protein and neurofilament light chain, a biomarker of axonal injury.10 Tofersen is appropriate only in patients with SOD1-associated ALS; the drug’s favorable clinical impact, including a positive effect, if any, on survival has not been demonstrated. Extension studies are underway.
Tofersen joins three other FDA-approved ALS therapies:
• Riluzole, an oral drug available since 1995 that slows disease progression by blocking glutamate.
• Edaravone, an antioxidant approved in 2017, administered orally or intravenously.
• An orally administered combination of sodium phenylbutyrate and taurursodiol marketed as Relyvrio and formerly known as AMX0035, that was introduced in 2022.
“We offer riluzole, which is safe in combination with other therapies, to most patients,” said Dr. Scelsa, who noted that treatment trials often test experimental drugs on top of riluzole. He moves to edaravone or Relyvrio, which are far more expensive, selectively. Tofersen, which is also expensive, is reserved for patients with SOD1-associated disease; however, not all eligible patients opt for this therapy after reviewing its benefits and risks.
“There is not yet a guarantee that tofersen will improve outcomes, and it requires intrathecal injections for life,”
Dr. Maiser said. “Some patients, particularly my older patients, have said, ‘No thank you,’ based on the available data.”
Dr. Macgowan pointed out that lumbar puncture repeated indefinitely can be “challenging.” He, too, discusses all available treatment options with every patient, including riluzole, which he agreed is associated with a meaningful benefit, particularly when started early.
Because of the safety of riluzole, Dr. Maragakis takes early treatment a step further. For neurologists who have a high level of suspicion of ALS in a given patient, “my advice would be to treat aggressively from the get-go. Even if not 100% certain of the diagnosis, I would start them on riluzole while waiting for confirmation.” Like the other experts interviewed here, he acknowledged that referral to a busy comprehensive ALS center often takes time, making it reasonable to initiate treatment when suspicion is high.
On the front lines, “the neurologist can tell the patient that ALS is just one of several potential explanations for symptoms but there is concern,” said Dr. Maragakis, proposing a strategy to introduce the possibility of ALS and start treatment that might slow disease while waiting for confirmation of the diagnosis. “My biggest concern is that no one is making that call,” he said, trying to address at least one reason for the current delay in making referrals.
Comprehensive care at specialty centers
Whenever possible, ALS is a disease best managed at a center that offers comprehensive management, including multidisciplinary care. On this point, the four experts agreed.
“Tertiary-care centers for ALS serve a critical purpose,”
Dr. Maiser said. For a disease that affects nearly every aspect of life, the skills of a multidisciplinary support staff offer an “opportunity to stay in front of the disease” for as long as possible. Teamwork often leads to “outside-of-the-box thinking” for helping patients and families cope with the range of disabilities that undermine the patient’s quality of life.
Details of ALS management matter. At Mount Sinai and Hennepin Healthcare, and at Johns Hopkins, where demand recently led to the opening of a second ALS clinic, the ALS center is set up to address the full spectrum of needs. Staff members have multiple skills so that they can work together to make patients comfortable and prepare them for what is inevitably progression – even if the rate of that progression varies.
All these centers incorporate a rational, thorough discussion of end-of-life options in a palliative care approach that targets optimized quality of life. One goal is to prepare patients to consider and be prepared to make decisions when it is time for tracheostomy, percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy, and other life support options that are not always well tolerated. The goal? Avoiding unnecessary anguish during end-stage disease when impaired respiratory function – the primary cause of ALS-related death – no longer sustains unassisted survival.
“I am concerned for the many ALS patients without access to this type of comprehensive care,” Dr. Macgowan said.
Like the other experts here, he emphasized that the demands of ALS care can be “overwhelming” outside a comprehensive care setting – for the patient, their family, and individual providers.
Looking ahead
There are many reasons to be optimistic about improving the survival and care of patients with ALS. Besides therapies in clinical trials, Dr. Scelsa explained, there is the potential role for monitoring neurofilament light changes, a biomarker of neurodegeneration, in patients who are at risk of ALS.
Dr. Maragakis offered an analogy to the gene therapy onasemnogene abeparvovec, which can prevent the associated neurodegeneration of spinal muscular atrophy if initiated before symptoms appear. He said that, in ALS, neurofilament light changes or other biomarkers might offer an opportunity to halt the progression of disease before it starts – if one or more therapies in development prove workable.
In the meantime, neurologists who do not specialize in ALS should be thinking about how they can participate in speedier diagnostic pathways.
“There are a number of therapies that look promising,” Dr. Maiser told Rare Neurological Disease Special Report. He singled out strategies to degrade TDP-43 or prevent it from forming. If these treatments are found effective, it’s expected that they would be of value in sporadic ALS, the most common form. Again, though, “the challenge is getting patients on this therapy at the earliest stages of disease.”
Dr. Maragakis discloses equity ownership/stock options with Braintrust Bio and Akava; he is a patent holder with Johns Hopkins [ALS] and has received grant/research/clinical trial support from Apellis Pharma, Biogen Idec, Cytokinetics, Helixmith, Calico, Sanofi, Department of Defense ALSRP, Maryland Stem Cell Research Fund, Massachusetts General Hospital, Medicinova, and NINDS. He serves as consultant or advisory board member for Amylyx; Cytokinetics, Roche, Healey Center, Nura Bio, Northeast ALS Consortium, Akava, Inflammx, and Secretome. Dr. Scelsa did not report any conflicts of interest. Dr. Macgowan and Dr. Maiser have no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.
References
1. Mehta P et al. Prevalence of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis in the United States using established and novel methodologies, 2017. Amyotroph Lateral Scler Frontotemporal Degener. 2023;24(1-2):108-16. doi: 10.1080/21678421.2022.2059380.
2. Mead RJ et al. Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: A neurodegenerative disorder poised for successful therapeutic translation. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2023;22(3):185-212. doi: 10.1038/s41573-022-00612-2.
3. Longinetti E and Fang F. Epidemiology of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: An update of recent literature. Curr Opin Neurol. 2019;32(5):771-6. doi: 10.1097/WCO.0000000000000730.
4. van den Bos MAJ et al. Pathophysiology and diagnosis of ALS: Insights from advances in neurophysiological techniques. Int J Mol Sci. 2019;20(11):2818. doi: 10.3390/ijms20112818.
5. Neumann M et al. Ubiquitinated TDP-43 in frontotemporal lobar degeneration and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Science. 2006;314(5796):130-3. doi: 10.1126/science.1134108.
6. Ling S-C et al. Converging mechanisms in ALS and FTD: Disrupted RNA and protein homeostasis. Neuron. 2013;79(3):416-38. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2013.07.033.
7. Ranganathan R et al. Multifaceted genes in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis-frontotemporal dementia. Front Neurosci. 2020;14:684. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2020.00684.
8. Ryan M et al. Lifetime risk and heritability of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. JAMA Neurol. 2019;76(11):1367-74. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.2044.
9. van Rheenen W et al. Common and rare variant association analyses in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis identify 15 risk loci with distinct genetic architectures and neuron-specific biology. Nat Genet. 2021;53(12):1636-48. doi: 10.1038/s41588-021-00973-1.
10. Miller TM et al; VALOR and OLE Working Group. Trial of antisense oligonucleotide tofersen for SOD1 ALS. N Engl J Med. 2022;387(12):1099-110. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2204705.
Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) falls easily into the Food and Drug Administration definition of “rare disease.” With an estimated prevalence in the United States of fewer than 20,000 cases,1 ALS sits comfortably below the cutoff of 200,000 cases that serves to define a disease as “rare.”
After a recent steep climb, there are something on the order of 50 therapies, across more than 10 drug classes, in clinical trials for the treatment of ALS.2 This bounty represents exciting progress toward the development of targeted therapies for a characteristically fatal disease.
That headway is coupled with a sobering limitation, however: Relatively few ALS patients are being enrolled.
The knotty problem with therapeutic trials for ALS
“Trials are generally designed for patients with adequate functional reserve and predicted survival, to ensure that a signal of benefit can be seen,” said Nicholas John Maragakis, MD, director of the ALS Clinical Trials Unit at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. “Many of my patients are too severely affected at presentation.”
Dr. Maragakis hasn’t calculated the precise percentage of patients he is enrolling in one of the many available trials available at the Johns Hopkins center. He estimates that it is less than 20%, however.
That percentage is comparable to what is reported by Stephen Scelsa, MD, and Daniel J. Macgowan, MD, who share much of the ALS caseload in a dedicated, comprehensive ALS center at Mount Sinai Beth Israel, New York. Both are on the faculty at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.
“The considerable delay in the diagnosis of ALS remains a challenge,” Dr. Scelsa acknowledges. Like Dr. Maragakis, he reports that, by the time patients develop symptoms that make referral to a comprehensive ALS center like Mount Sinai Beth Israel appropriate, many no longer meet eligibility criteria for most experimental treatments.
Some therapeutic targets in clinical trials, such as neuroinflammation, offer potential benefit even in advancing disease, but it is prevention that is usually the goal of experimental ALS therapies. This approach is associated with far more promise than attempting to reverse existing neurologic damage, which might not be possible, according to both Dr. Scelsa and Dr. Macgowan.
“The clinical trials are typically looking for patients with less than 2 years since the onset of symptoms and at least 60% of predicted respiratory function,” Dr. Macgowan said.
Because of these or other similarly restrictive criteria, coupled with common delays before patients arrive at a center where trials are available, “the window for clinical research closes very quickly,” Dr. Macgowan added, and “the band of patients who are eligible is relatively narrow.”
At Hennepin Healthcare in Minneapolis, which, like Johns Hopkins and Mount Sinai, offers an advanced multidisciplinary approach to ALS care in a dedicated clinic, the problem of late referrals is no different. Samuel Maiser, MD, chair of neurology, does attempt to counter this delay by moving quickly.
“I almost always offer a therapeutic trial to a patient with early-stage ALS,” he said. He does so earlier, rather than later, and explains: “I do not want to delay that conversation, because any delay might reduce the chance for getting into a trial.”
The generalist can make a difference in therapeutic success
The proliferation of clinical trials has made early diagnosis of ALS urgent. However, the experts interviewed for this article agreed: Accelerating the time to diagnosis is more dependent on the general neurologist or primary care physician than on the ALS specialist. ALS is a diagnosis of exclusion, but there is now very little delay in reaching a probable diagnosis at a dedicated center.
Yet neurodegenerative complaints in early-stage ALS are often nonspecific and mild; confidence in making a potential diagnosis of ALS is limited among primary care clinicians and general neurologists, who almost always see these patients first. Usually, the problem is not failure to include ALS in the differential diagnosis but hesitation in being candid when there is still doubt.
General neurologists, in particular, Dr. Maragakis said, “are often highly suspicious of a diagnosis of ALS very early on but are concerned about using this term until the clinical signs are more compelling.”
This is understandable. There is reluctance to deliver bad news when confidence in the diagnosis is limited. But the experts agreed: Delayed diagnosis is not in the patient’s interest now that there is at least the potential for entering a trial supported by a scientific rationale for benefit.
“Waiting for 100% certainty – this could actually harm our patients,” Dr. Maiser said. The tendency to avoid delivering bad news, he said, “is human nature, and it is not easy to tell people that ALS is the potential cause, but it’s important for early treatment.”
Some evidence suggests that the incidence of ALS is increasing3 but this is not necessarily evident at the clinical level. “It is not my impression that the incidence of ALS is increasing,” Dr. Macgowan said, “so much as I think we are getting better at making the diagnosis.”
Where we stand: Pathophysiology, diagnosis, treatment
Pathophysiology. ALS is characterized by muscle denervation.4 In the great majority of cases, the disease represents a proteinopathy involving loss of the TDP-43 protein from nuclei. However, pathological heterogeneity means that other pathophysiological mechanisms – mediated by oxidative stress, mitochondrial dysfunction, and neurotoxicity related to excessive stimulation of postsynaptic glutamate receptors – can participate.2,5,6
Approximately 10% of patients have a known gene associated with ALS.7 The rest have what is considered sporadic ALS, although some experts estimate that heritability will eventually be confirmed in 50% or more of cases that have been given the “sporadic” label.8,9 More than 30 genes have been linked to ALS in genomewide association studies. Among patients whose disease carries a known familial link, four genes – SOD1, TARDBP, FUS, and C9orf72 – account for approximately 70% of cases.2
Diagnosis. Genetic testing in patients with suspected or confirmed ALS is the standard of care at most, if not all, comprehensive ALS treatment centers, according to the four experts interviewed by Neurology Reviews 2023 Rare Neurological Disease Special Report for this article. Such testing was routine for years because of its potential for helping researchers to understand subtypes of disease; today, testing has assumed even greater practical value with recent approval of the first ALS gene therapy: Tofersen (Qalsody, Biogen), licensed in 2023, is an antisense oligonucleotide therapy that targets SOD1 mRNA to reduce production of the SOD1 protein, a mediator of disease progression.
“Genetic testing has been useful for telling us something about the disease and its prognosis,” Dr. Maragakis said, “but an approved gene therapy means it can have a direct effect on treatment.”
ALS therapeutics. Other gene therapies are in development. Gene signatures are likely to provide even more opportunities for clinical trials in the future.
Following three loading doses of tofersen at 14-day intervals, the maintenance regimen, administered intrathecally by lumbar puncture, is every 28 days. In the phase 3 trial, tofersen reduced levels of SOD1 protein and neurofilament light chain, a biomarker of axonal injury.10 Tofersen is appropriate only in patients with SOD1-associated ALS; the drug’s favorable clinical impact, including a positive effect, if any, on survival has not been demonstrated. Extension studies are underway.
Tofersen joins three other FDA-approved ALS therapies:
• Riluzole, an oral drug available since 1995 that slows disease progression by blocking glutamate.
• Edaravone, an antioxidant approved in 2017, administered orally or intravenously.
• An orally administered combination of sodium phenylbutyrate and taurursodiol marketed as Relyvrio and formerly known as AMX0035, that was introduced in 2022.
“We offer riluzole, which is safe in combination with other therapies, to most patients,” said Dr. Scelsa, who noted that treatment trials often test experimental drugs on top of riluzole. He moves to edaravone or Relyvrio, which are far more expensive, selectively. Tofersen, which is also expensive, is reserved for patients with SOD1-associated disease; however, not all eligible patients opt for this therapy after reviewing its benefits and risks.
“There is not yet a guarantee that tofersen will improve outcomes, and it requires intrathecal injections for life,”
Dr. Maiser said. “Some patients, particularly my older patients, have said, ‘No thank you,’ based on the available data.”
Dr. Macgowan pointed out that lumbar puncture repeated indefinitely can be “challenging.” He, too, discusses all available treatment options with every patient, including riluzole, which he agreed is associated with a meaningful benefit, particularly when started early.
Because of the safety of riluzole, Dr. Maragakis takes early treatment a step further. For neurologists who have a high level of suspicion of ALS in a given patient, “my advice would be to treat aggressively from the get-go. Even if not 100% certain of the diagnosis, I would start them on riluzole while waiting for confirmation.” Like the other experts interviewed here, he acknowledged that referral to a busy comprehensive ALS center often takes time, making it reasonable to initiate treatment when suspicion is high.
On the front lines, “the neurologist can tell the patient that ALS is just one of several potential explanations for symptoms but there is concern,” said Dr. Maragakis, proposing a strategy to introduce the possibility of ALS and start treatment that might slow disease while waiting for confirmation of the diagnosis. “My biggest concern is that no one is making that call,” he said, trying to address at least one reason for the current delay in making referrals.
Comprehensive care at specialty centers
Whenever possible, ALS is a disease best managed at a center that offers comprehensive management, including multidisciplinary care. On this point, the four experts agreed.
“Tertiary-care centers for ALS serve a critical purpose,”
Dr. Maiser said. For a disease that affects nearly every aspect of life, the skills of a multidisciplinary support staff offer an “opportunity to stay in front of the disease” for as long as possible. Teamwork often leads to “outside-of-the-box thinking” for helping patients and families cope with the range of disabilities that undermine the patient’s quality of life.
Details of ALS management matter. At Mount Sinai and Hennepin Healthcare, and at Johns Hopkins, where demand recently led to the opening of a second ALS clinic, the ALS center is set up to address the full spectrum of needs. Staff members have multiple skills so that they can work together to make patients comfortable and prepare them for what is inevitably progression – even if the rate of that progression varies.
All these centers incorporate a rational, thorough discussion of end-of-life options in a palliative care approach that targets optimized quality of life. One goal is to prepare patients to consider and be prepared to make decisions when it is time for tracheostomy, percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy, and other life support options that are not always well tolerated. The goal? Avoiding unnecessary anguish during end-stage disease when impaired respiratory function – the primary cause of ALS-related death – no longer sustains unassisted survival.
“I am concerned for the many ALS patients without access to this type of comprehensive care,” Dr. Macgowan said.
Like the other experts here, he emphasized that the demands of ALS care can be “overwhelming” outside a comprehensive care setting – for the patient, their family, and individual providers.
Looking ahead
There are many reasons to be optimistic about improving the survival and care of patients with ALS. Besides therapies in clinical trials, Dr. Scelsa explained, there is the potential role for monitoring neurofilament light changes, a biomarker of neurodegeneration, in patients who are at risk of ALS.
Dr. Maragakis offered an analogy to the gene therapy onasemnogene abeparvovec, which can prevent the associated neurodegeneration of spinal muscular atrophy if initiated before symptoms appear. He said that, in ALS, neurofilament light changes or other biomarkers might offer an opportunity to halt the progression of disease before it starts – if one or more therapies in development prove workable.
In the meantime, neurologists who do not specialize in ALS should be thinking about how they can participate in speedier diagnostic pathways.
“There are a number of therapies that look promising,” Dr. Maiser told Rare Neurological Disease Special Report. He singled out strategies to degrade TDP-43 or prevent it from forming. If these treatments are found effective, it’s expected that they would be of value in sporadic ALS, the most common form. Again, though, “the challenge is getting patients on this therapy at the earliest stages of disease.”
Dr. Maragakis discloses equity ownership/stock options with Braintrust Bio and Akava; he is a patent holder with Johns Hopkins [ALS] and has received grant/research/clinical trial support from Apellis Pharma, Biogen Idec, Cytokinetics, Helixmith, Calico, Sanofi, Department of Defense ALSRP, Maryland Stem Cell Research Fund, Massachusetts General Hospital, Medicinova, and NINDS. He serves as consultant or advisory board member for Amylyx; Cytokinetics, Roche, Healey Center, Nura Bio, Northeast ALS Consortium, Akava, Inflammx, and Secretome. Dr. Scelsa did not report any conflicts of interest. Dr. Macgowan and Dr. Maiser have no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.
References
1. Mehta P et al. Prevalence of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis in the United States using established and novel methodologies, 2017. Amyotroph Lateral Scler Frontotemporal Degener. 2023;24(1-2):108-16. doi: 10.1080/21678421.2022.2059380.
2. Mead RJ et al. Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: A neurodegenerative disorder poised for successful therapeutic translation. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2023;22(3):185-212. doi: 10.1038/s41573-022-00612-2.
3. Longinetti E and Fang F. Epidemiology of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: An update of recent literature. Curr Opin Neurol. 2019;32(5):771-6. doi: 10.1097/WCO.0000000000000730.
4. van den Bos MAJ et al. Pathophysiology and diagnosis of ALS: Insights from advances in neurophysiological techniques. Int J Mol Sci. 2019;20(11):2818. doi: 10.3390/ijms20112818.
5. Neumann M et al. Ubiquitinated TDP-43 in frontotemporal lobar degeneration and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Science. 2006;314(5796):130-3. doi: 10.1126/science.1134108.
6. Ling S-C et al. Converging mechanisms in ALS and FTD: Disrupted RNA and protein homeostasis. Neuron. 2013;79(3):416-38. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2013.07.033.
7. Ranganathan R et al. Multifaceted genes in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis-frontotemporal dementia. Front Neurosci. 2020;14:684. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2020.00684.
8. Ryan M et al. Lifetime risk and heritability of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. JAMA Neurol. 2019;76(11):1367-74. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.2044.
9. van Rheenen W et al. Common and rare variant association analyses in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis identify 15 risk loci with distinct genetic architectures and neuron-specific biology. Nat Genet. 2021;53(12):1636-48. doi: 10.1038/s41588-021-00973-1.
10. Miller TM et al; VALOR and OLE Working Group. Trial of antisense oligonucleotide tofersen for SOD1 ALS. N Engl J Med. 2022;387(12):1099-110. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2204705.
STEMI trial fails to support post-PCI anticoagulation
The first randomized trial to evaluate postprocedural anticoagulation (PPA) in patients undergoing a primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for an ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) did not associate significant benefit – or significant harm – with any of the three tested regimens relative to placebo.
There has been a signal from nonrandomized studies that PPA reduces the risk for ischemic events, but no controlled prospective trials have evaluated the risk-benefit relationship in STEMI patients, said Yan Yan, MD, a researcher in Beijing Anzhen Hospital.
The results of the randomized trial, called RIGHT, were presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology by Dr. Yan, on behalf of a team of coinvestigators led by Nie Shaoping, MD, PhD, a cardiologist affiliated with Capital Medical University, Beijing.
The bottom line is that Dr. Yan concluded.
Objective study
In her presentation, Dr. Yan explained that an objective study has been needed to validate the common use of empirically administered PPA. According to Dr. Yan, PPA is being offered to up to 40% of STEMI patients in Europe, with even higher rates in China.
In the investigator-initiated RIGHT trial, 2,856 STEMI patients undergoing PCI were randomized to PPA or placebo in a 1:1 ratio. In the PPA arm, patients received one of three low-dose anticoagulation regimens over 48 hours or until discharge if this was longer: 0.2 mg/kg per hour of bivalirudin administered intravenously; 40 mg of enoxaparin administered subcutaneously; or 10 U/kg per hour of unfractionated heparin (UFH) to maintain an activated coagulation time between 150 and 200 seconds.
Each of the 53 participating Chinese centers selected one of the anticoagulation regimens. Matching placebos were employed in the double-blind design. All received bivalirudin anticoagulation during PCI. Exclusion criteria included unstable disease, such as cardiogenic shock, prior coronary artery bypass grafting, or an indication for anticoagulation other than PPA.
For the composite primary endpoint of all-cause death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, stent thrombosis, or urgent revascularization at 30 days, there was no difference between PPA and placebo. The event rate in both arms was 2.5%.
There were also no significant differences between PPA and placebo for any of the secondary ischemic endpoints, which included the individual components of the primary endpoint and cardiovascular death.
For the primary safety endpoint of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) grade 3-5 bleeding, the slight increase in events among those in the placebo group did not approach statistical significance (P = .551). On other definitions of bleeding, which were secondary endpoints, PPA and placebo also did not differ significantly.
Compared for safety, the three anticoagulation regimens performed similarly with no significant interaction for the primary endpoint (P = .679).
For efficacy, the differences did range sufficiently to produce a significant interaction (P = .01) with enoxaparin appearing to be more effective, UFH less effective, and bivalirudin falling in between. This led Dr. Yan to speculate that the three anticoagulants “may not be equivalent,” although she said larger trials are needed to explore potential differences.
Design flawed?
The ESC-invited discussant, Pascal Vranckx, MD, PhD, medical director, cardiac critical care services, Hartcentrum Hasselt, Belgium, liked the question being asked in the study, but concluded that the design was flawed.
“There are a variety of anticoagulants employed in a variety of doses [for PPA] but we have very limited data. The research question is totally appropriate,” he said. However, he asked, “What went wrong? Was it the drugs, the trial, or both?”
The problem, he thinks, is the dose. Much of the design of RIGHT was based on the 2015 MATRIX trial, which did show a benefit from a single dose of bivalirudin following PCI relative to two other comparators. In that study, STEMI patients randomized to bivalirudin received a bolus of 0.75 mg/kg followed by an infusion of 1.75 mg/kg per hour for at least 4 hours. The comparators were UFH or a control arm of low-molecular-weight heparin with optional glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors.
At 30 days, bivalirudin was associated with a 40% reduction (hazard ratio, 0.60; P = .001) relative to control for the composite primary endpoint of death or bleeding. Dr. Vranckx pointed out that MATRIX was a trial of a single-dose prolongation of PPA, whereas RIGHT was “a prolongation of a prolongation,” but he believes MATRIX data support higher doses of anticoagulation, particularly of bivalirudin.
“Perhaps low dose bivalirudin is not the way to go,” he speculated.
He further advised the authors to reevaluate the expected benefit from PPA following STEMI. In MATRIX, the risk for events was highly concentrated in the immediate period after PCI, suggesting that the opportunity to reduce risk is much lower as anticoagulation is prolonged. He suggested that the low number of events in RIGHT are consistent with the diminishing risk for events over time.
Nevertheless, Dr. Vranckx praised the authors for addressing a research question that is “timely and highly relevant.” He called the data “important” by drawing attention to a potential target for risk reduction, and encouraged additional trials to determine what PPA strategy, if any, can further reduce early ischemic events after PCI.
Dr. Yan and colleagues report financial relationships with Abbott, Boston Scientific, East China Pharmaceuticals, Saniju Medical and Pharmaceuticals, and Jiangsu Hengrui Pharmaceuticals, which provided funding for this study. Dr. Vranckx reports no potential conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The first randomized trial to evaluate postprocedural anticoagulation (PPA) in patients undergoing a primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for an ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) did not associate significant benefit – or significant harm – with any of the three tested regimens relative to placebo.
There has been a signal from nonrandomized studies that PPA reduces the risk for ischemic events, but no controlled prospective trials have evaluated the risk-benefit relationship in STEMI patients, said Yan Yan, MD, a researcher in Beijing Anzhen Hospital.
The results of the randomized trial, called RIGHT, were presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology by Dr. Yan, on behalf of a team of coinvestigators led by Nie Shaoping, MD, PhD, a cardiologist affiliated with Capital Medical University, Beijing.
The bottom line is that Dr. Yan concluded.
Objective study
In her presentation, Dr. Yan explained that an objective study has been needed to validate the common use of empirically administered PPA. According to Dr. Yan, PPA is being offered to up to 40% of STEMI patients in Europe, with even higher rates in China.
In the investigator-initiated RIGHT trial, 2,856 STEMI patients undergoing PCI were randomized to PPA or placebo in a 1:1 ratio. In the PPA arm, patients received one of three low-dose anticoagulation regimens over 48 hours or until discharge if this was longer: 0.2 mg/kg per hour of bivalirudin administered intravenously; 40 mg of enoxaparin administered subcutaneously; or 10 U/kg per hour of unfractionated heparin (UFH) to maintain an activated coagulation time between 150 and 200 seconds.
Each of the 53 participating Chinese centers selected one of the anticoagulation regimens. Matching placebos were employed in the double-blind design. All received bivalirudin anticoagulation during PCI. Exclusion criteria included unstable disease, such as cardiogenic shock, prior coronary artery bypass grafting, or an indication for anticoagulation other than PPA.
For the composite primary endpoint of all-cause death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, stent thrombosis, or urgent revascularization at 30 days, there was no difference between PPA and placebo. The event rate in both arms was 2.5%.
There were also no significant differences between PPA and placebo for any of the secondary ischemic endpoints, which included the individual components of the primary endpoint and cardiovascular death.
For the primary safety endpoint of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) grade 3-5 bleeding, the slight increase in events among those in the placebo group did not approach statistical significance (P = .551). On other definitions of bleeding, which were secondary endpoints, PPA and placebo also did not differ significantly.
Compared for safety, the three anticoagulation regimens performed similarly with no significant interaction for the primary endpoint (P = .679).
For efficacy, the differences did range sufficiently to produce a significant interaction (P = .01) with enoxaparin appearing to be more effective, UFH less effective, and bivalirudin falling in between. This led Dr. Yan to speculate that the three anticoagulants “may not be equivalent,” although she said larger trials are needed to explore potential differences.
Design flawed?
The ESC-invited discussant, Pascal Vranckx, MD, PhD, medical director, cardiac critical care services, Hartcentrum Hasselt, Belgium, liked the question being asked in the study, but concluded that the design was flawed.
“There are a variety of anticoagulants employed in a variety of doses [for PPA] but we have very limited data. The research question is totally appropriate,” he said. However, he asked, “What went wrong? Was it the drugs, the trial, or both?”
The problem, he thinks, is the dose. Much of the design of RIGHT was based on the 2015 MATRIX trial, which did show a benefit from a single dose of bivalirudin following PCI relative to two other comparators. In that study, STEMI patients randomized to bivalirudin received a bolus of 0.75 mg/kg followed by an infusion of 1.75 mg/kg per hour for at least 4 hours. The comparators were UFH or a control arm of low-molecular-weight heparin with optional glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors.
At 30 days, bivalirudin was associated with a 40% reduction (hazard ratio, 0.60; P = .001) relative to control for the composite primary endpoint of death or bleeding. Dr. Vranckx pointed out that MATRIX was a trial of a single-dose prolongation of PPA, whereas RIGHT was “a prolongation of a prolongation,” but he believes MATRIX data support higher doses of anticoagulation, particularly of bivalirudin.
“Perhaps low dose bivalirudin is not the way to go,” he speculated.
He further advised the authors to reevaluate the expected benefit from PPA following STEMI. In MATRIX, the risk for events was highly concentrated in the immediate period after PCI, suggesting that the opportunity to reduce risk is much lower as anticoagulation is prolonged. He suggested that the low number of events in RIGHT are consistent with the diminishing risk for events over time.
Nevertheless, Dr. Vranckx praised the authors for addressing a research question that is “timely and highly relevant.” He called the data “important” by drawing attention to a potential target for risk reduction, and encouraged additional trials to determine what PPA strategy, if any, can further reduce early ischemic events after PCI.
Dr. Yan and colleagues report financial relationships with Abbott, Boston Scientific, East China Pharmaceuticals, Saniju Medical and Pharmaceuticals, and Jiangsu Hengrui Pharmaceuticals, which provided funding for this study. Dr. Vranckx reports no potential conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The first randomized trial to evaluate postprocedural anticoagulation (PPA) in patients undergoing a primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for an ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) did not associate significant benefit – or significant harm – with any of the three tested regimens relative to placebo.
There has been a signal from nonrandomized studies that PPA reduces the risk for ischemic events, but no controlled prospective trials have evaluated the risk-benefit relationship in STEMI patients, said Yan Yan, MD, a researcher in Beijing Anzhen Hospital.
The results of the randomized trial, called RIGHT, were presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology by Dr. Yan, on behalf of a team of coinvestigators led by Nie Shaoping, MD, PhD, a cardiologist affiliated with Capital Medical University, Beijing.
The bottom line is that Dr. Yan concluded.
Objective study
In her presentation, Dr. Yan explained that an objective study has been needed to validate the common use of empirically administered PPA. According to Dr. Yan, PPA is being offered to up to 40% of STEMI patients in Europe, with even higher rates in China.
In the investigator-initiated RIGHT trial, 2,856 STEMI patients undergoing PCI were randomized to PPA or placebo in a 1:1 ratio. In the PPA arm, patients received one of three low-dose anticoagulation regimens over 48 hours or until discharge if this was longer: 0.2 mg/kg per hour of bivalirudin administered intravenously; 40 mg of enoxaparin administered subcutaneously; or 10 U/kg per hour of unfractionated heparin (UFH) to maintain an activated coagulation time between 150 and 200 seconds.
Each of the 53 participating Chinese centers selected one of the anticoagulation regimens. Matching placebos were employed in the double-blind design. All received bivalirudin anticoagulation during PCI. Exclusion criteria included unstable disease, such as cardiogenic shock, prior coronary artery bypass grafting, or an indication for anticoagulation other than PPA.
For the composite primary endpoint of all-cause death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, stent thrombosis, or urgent revascularization at 30 days, there was no difference between PPA and placebo. The event rate in both arms was 2.5%.
There were also no significant differences between PPA and placebo for any of the secondary ischemic endpoints, which included the individual components of the primary endpoint and cardiovascular death.
For the primary safety endpoint of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) grade 3-5 bleeding, the slight increase in events among those in the placebo group did not approach statistical significance (P = .551). On other definitions of bleeding, which were secondary endpoints, PPA and placebo also did not differ significantly.
Compared for safety, the three anticoagulation regimens performed similarly with no significant interaction for the primary endpoint (P = .679).
For efficacy, the differences did range sufficiently to produce a significant interaction (P = .01) with enoxaparin appearing to be more effective, UFH less effective, and bivalirudin falling in between. This led Dr. Yan to speculate that the three anticoagulants “may not be equivalent,” although she said larger trials are needed to explore potential differences.
Design flawed?
The ESC-invited discussant, Pascal Vranckx, MD, PhD, medical director, cardiac critical care services, Hartcentrum Hasselt, Belgium, liked the question being asked in the study, but concluded that the design was flawed.
“There are a variety of anticoagulants employed in a variety of doses [for PPA] but we have very limited data. The research question is totally appropriate,” he said. However, he asked, “What went wrong? Was it the drugs, the trial, or both?”
The problem, he thinks, is the dose. Much of the design of RIGHT was based on the 2015 MATRIX trial, which did show a benefit from a single dose of bivalirudin following PCI relative to two other comparators. In that study, STEMI patients randomized to bivalirudin received a bolus of 0.75 mg/kg followed by an infusion of 1.75 mg/kg per hour for at least 4 hours. The comparators were UFH or a control arm of low-molecular-weight heparin with optional glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors.
At 30 days, bivalirudin was associated with a 40% reduction (hazard ratio, 0.60; P = .001) relative to control for the composite primary endpoint of death or bleeding. Dr. Vranckx pointed out that MATRIX was a trial of a single-dose prolongation of PPA, whereas RIGHT was “a prolongation of a prolongation,” but he believes MATRIX data support higher doses of anticoagulation, particularly of bivalirudin.
“Perhaps low dose bivalirudin is not the way to go,” he speculated.
He further advised the authors to reevaluate the expected benefit from PPA following STEMI. In MATRIX, the risk for events was highly concentrated in the immediate period after PCI, suggesting that the opportunity to reduce risk is much lower as anticoagulation is prolonged. He suggested that the low number of events in RIGHT are consistent with the diminishing risk for events over time.
Nevertheless, Dr. Vranckx praised the authors for addressing a research question that is “timely and highly relevant.” He called the data “important” by drawing attention to a potential target for risk reduction, and encouraged additional trials to determine what PPA strategy, if any, can further reduce early ischemic events after PCI.
Dr. Yan and colleagues report financial relationships with Abbott, Boston Scientific, East China Pharmaceuticals, Saniju Medical and Pharmaceuticals, and Jiangsu Hengrui Pharmaceuticals, which provided funding for this study. Dr. Vranckx reports no potential conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE ESC CONGRESS 2023
ESC issues first comprehensive cardiomyopathy guidelines
The European Society of Cardiology has released new guidelines for cardiomyopathies, their first major comprehensive international guidelines to address diagnosis and treatment of the broad causes of heart muscle dysfunction.
The document was released in conjunction with the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology and is also available online in the European Heart Journal.
“We have considered cardiomyopathies across the life course from pediatric to adult,” explained Elena Arbelo, MD, PhD, coordinator of the cardiac genetic diseases and sudden arrhythmic death unit, Hospital Clinic de Barcelona. Dr. Arbelo is first author and one of two chairpersons of the ESC task force that brought the guidelines forward.
Not an update, Dr. Arbelo said.
Guidelines organize cardiomyopathy phenotypes
Cardiomyopathy can present at any age. It can have multiple complex etiologies, including genetic predisposition, heart muscle injury caused by disease, or a mix of participating factors. The ESC task force employed several strategies in taking a comprehensive approach to the condition, said Juan Kaski, MD, PhD, professor of pediatric inherited cardiovascular medicine at the University College of London.
“From my point of view, the key innovations include a diagnostic workup that starts with a detailed phenotypic description, including the new phenotype of nondilated left ventricular cardiomyopathy, that then triggers a multiparametric, systematic evaluation,” said Dr. Kaski, cochair of the task force.
As explained in the introduction to the guideline and reiterated by both Dr. Arbelo and Dr. Kaski, the guidelines have been organized around the patient pathway, meaning that focus should be placed on recognizing the presenting phenotype as a critical first step in discerning the underlying etiology and its treatments.
“Central to this approach is not only the individual patient but also the family as a whole,” Dr. Arbelo said. “Clinical findings in relatives are essential for understanding what happens to the patient and vice versa.”
Genetic testing in children described
The new guidelines include specific recommendations about genetic testing of children. They also emphasize the value of cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging in the “diagnosis, screening, monitoring, and prognostication” for patients of all ages, according to Dr. Kaski.
“CMR is recommended at the initial evaluation for every patient with cardiomyopathy,” Dr. Arbelo said. It should be “considered” during follow-up and for many other applications, including the evaluation of “genotype-positive but phenotype-negative relatives.”
Etiologic prediction models have been incorporated into the guidelines, including genotyping for dilated cardiomyopathies and nondilated left ventricular cardiomyopathy, said both Dr. Arbelo and Dr. Kaski, interviewed separately. They both indicated that the task force did their best to make the guidelines user friendly.
Each of the recommendations in the guidelines is provided with an evidence-based classification. In order, these are class I (recommended), class IIa (should be considered), class IIb (may be considered), and class III (not recommended).
Many symptoms are cardiomyopathy related
Dr. Kaski and Dr. Arbelo both emphasized that the guidelines draw attention to the relationship of cardiomyopathy to common cardiovascular conditions, such as heart failure, arrhythmia, and chest pain. Dr. Kaski pointed out that these are the types of problems commonly encountered by general cardiologists and well as primary care physicians.
In 2014, the ESC published guidelines specific to HCM. The new broader guidelines do not overlook this subtype. According to Dr. Kaski, there have been several innovations in HCM since the previous guidelines, such as when to consider cardiac myosin inhibitors for symptomatic left ventricular outflow tract obstruction.
The ESC guidelines place an emphasis on a “coordinated, systematic, and individualized” care pathway based on a multidisciplinary approach, according to Dr. Arbelo. Although the composition of the interdisciplinary team depends on the individual case, the guidelines recognize a key role for general cardiologists in managing the majority of patients. Suggestions of when to refer challenging cases to expert centers are outlined.
32 key messages derived from guidelines
The guidelines include almost 90 pages of recommendations. The task force isolated 32 key messages from 13 sections ranging from descriptions of how the patient pathway is defined to what types of physical activity should be considered for different forms of cardiomyopathy. There is also a section devoted to important gaps in evidence and areas in which there is the most need for further studies.
The guidelines end with a comprehensive list of “what to do” and “what not to do” in the diagnosis and care of cardiomyopathy. These include most of the class I recommendations and summarize some important class III cautions.
“Most of the recommendations in the guideline are new,” the authors wrote in the introduction. Although they acknowledged that they did not attempt to provide detailed recommendations for every cardiomyopathy phenotype, they endeavored to cover general evaluation and management issues supported by relevant evidence.
Dr. Arbelo and Dr. Kaski disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The European Society of Cardiology has released new guidelines for cardiomyopathies, their first major comprehensive international guidelines to address diagnosis and treatment of the broad causes of heart muscle dysfunction.
The document was released in conjunction with the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology and is also available online in the European Heart Journal.
“We have considered cardiomyopathies across the life course from pediatric to adult,” explained Elena Arbelo, MD, PhD, coordinator of the cardiac genetic diseases and sudden arrhythmic death unit, Hospital Clinic de Barcelona. Dr. Arbelo is first author and one of two chairpersons of the ESC task force that brought the guidelines forward.
Not an update, Dr. Arbelo said.
Guidelines organize cardiomyopathy phenotypes
Cardiomyopathy can present at any age. It can have multiple complex etiologies, including genetic predisposition, heart muscle injury caused by disease, or a mix of participating factors. The ESC task force employed several strategies in taking a comprehensive approach to the condition, said Juan Kaski, MD, PhD, professor of pediatric inherited cardiovascular medicine at the University College of London.
“From my point of view, the key innovations include a diagnostic workup that starts with a detailed phenotypic description, including the new phenotype of nondilated left ventricular cardiomyopathy, that then triggers a multiparametric, systematic evaluation,” said Dr. Kaski, cochair of the task force.
As explained in the introduction to the guideline and reiterated by both Dr. Arbelo and Dr. Kaski, the guidelines have been organized around the patient pathway, meaning that focus should be placed on recognizing the presenting phenotype as a critical first step in discerning the underlying etiology and its treatments.
“Central to this approach is not only the individual patient but also the family as a whole,” Dr. Arbelo said. “Clinical findings in relatives are essential for understanding what happens to the patient and vice versa.”
Genetic testing in children described
The new guidelines include specific recommendations about genetic testing of children. They also emphasize the value of cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging in the “diagnosis, screening, monitoring, and prognostication” for patients of all ages, according to Dr. Kaski.
“CMR is recommended at the initial evaluation for every patient with cardiomyopathy,” Dr. Arbelo said. It should be “considered” during follow-up and for many other applications, including the evaluation of “genotype-positive but phenotype-negative relatives.”
Etiologic prediction models have been incorporated into the guidelines, including genotyping for dilated cardiomyopathies and nondilated left ventricular cardiomyopathy, said both Dr. Arbelo and Dr. Kaski, interviewed separately. They both indicated that the task force did their best to make the guidelines user friendly.
Each of the recommendations in the guidelines is provided with an evidence-based classification. In order, these are class I (recommended), class IIa (should be considered), class IIb (may be considered), and class III (not recommended).
Many symptoms are cardiomyopathy related
Dr. Kaski and Dr. Arbelo both emphasized that the guidelines draw attention to the relationship of cardiomyopathy to common cardiovascular conditions, such as heart failure, arrhythmia, and chest pain. Dr. Kaski pointed out that these are the types of problems commonly encountered by general cardiologists and well as primary care physicians.
In 2014, the ESC published guidelines specific to HCM. The new broader guidelines do not overlook this subtype. According to Dr. Kaski, there have been several innovations in HCM since the previous guidelines, such as when to consider cardiac myosin inhibitors for symptomatic left ventricular outflow tract obstruction.
The ESC guidelines place an emphasis on a “coordinated, systematic, and individualized” care pathway based on a multidisciplinary approach, according to Dr. Arbelo. Although the composition of the interdisciplinary team depends on the individual case, the guidelines recognize a key role for general cardiologists in managing the majority of patients. Suggestions of when to refer challenging cases to expert centers are outlined.
32 key messages derived from guidelines
The guidelines include almost 90 pages of recommendations. The task force isolated 32 key messages from 13 sections ranging from descriptions of how the patient pathway is defined to what types of physical activity should be considered for different forms of cardiomyopathy. There is also a section devoted to important gaps in evidence and areas in which there is the most need for further studies.
The guidelines end with a comprehensive list of “what to do” and “what not to do” in the diagnosis and care of cardiomyopathy. These include most of the class I recommendations and summarize some important class III cautions.
“Most of the recommendations in the guideline are new,” the authors wrote in the introduction. Although they acknowledged that they did not attempt to provide detailed recommendations for every cardiomyopathy phenotype, they endeavored to cover general evaluation and management issues supported by relevant evidence.
Dr. Arbelo and Dr. Kaski disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The European Society of Cardiology has released new guidelines for cardiomyopathies, their first major comprehensive international guidelines to address diagnosis and treatment of the broad causes of heart muscle dysfunction.
The document was released in conjunction with the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology and is also available online in the European Heart Journal.
“We have considered cardiomyopathies across the life course from pediatric to adult,” explained Elena Arbelo, MD, PhD, coordinator of the cardiac genetic diseases and sudden arrhythmic death unit, Hospital Clinic de Barcelona. Dr. Arbelo is first author and one of two chairpersons of the ESC task force that brought the guidelines forward.
Not an update, Dr. Arbelo said.
Guidelines organize cardiomyopathy phenotypes
Cardiomyopathy can present at any age. It can have multiple complex etiologies, including genetic predisposition, heart muscle injury caused by disease, or a mix of participating factors. The ESC task force employed several strategies in taking a comprehensive approach to the condition, said Juan Kaski, MD, PhD, professor of pediatric inherited cardiovascular medicine at the University College of London.
“From my point of view, the key innovations include a diagnostic workup that starts with a detailed phenotypic description, including the new phenotype of nondilated left ventricular cardiomyopathy, that then triggers a multiparametric, systematic evaluation,” said Dr. Kaski, cochair of the task force.
As explained in the introduction to the guideline and reiterated by both Dr. Arbelo and Dr. Kaski, the guidelines have been organized around the patient pathway, meaning that focus should be placed on recognizing the presenting phenotype as a critical first step in discerning the underlying etiology and its treatments.
“Central to this approach is not only the individual patient but also the family as a whole,” Dr. Arbelo said. “Clinical findings in relatives are essential for understanding what happens to the patient and vice versa.”
Genetic testing in children described
The new guidelines include specific recommendations about genetic testing of children. They also emphasize the value of cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging in the “diagnosis, screening, monitoring, and prognostication” for patients of all ages, according to Dr. Kaski.
“CMR is recommended at the initial evaluation for every patient with cardiomyopathy,” Dr. Arbelo said. It should be “considered” during follow-up and for many other applications, including the evaluation of “genotype-positive but phenotype-negative relatives.”
Etiologic prediction models have been incorporated into the guidelines, including genotyping for dilated cardiomyopathies and nondilated left ventricular cardiomyopathy, said both Dr. Arbelo and Dr. Kaski, interviewed separately. They both indicated that the task force did their best to make the guidelines user friendly.
Each of the recommendations in the guidelines is provided with an evidence-based classification. In order, these are class I (recommended), class IIa (should be considered), class IIb (may be considered), and class III (not recommended).
Many symptoms are cardiomyopathy related
Dr. Kaski and Dr. Arbelo both emphasized that the guidelines draw attention to the relationship of cardiomyopathy to common cardiovascular conditions, such as heart failure, arrhythmia, and chest pain. Dr. Kaski pointed out that these are the types of problems commonly encountered by general cardiologists and well as primary care physicians.
In 2014, the ESC published guidelines specific to HCM. The new broader guidelines do not overlook this subtype. According to Dr. Kaski, there have been several innovations in HCM since the previous guidelines, such as when to consider cardiac myosin inhibitors for symptomatic left ventricular outflow tract obstruction.
The ESC guidelines place an emphasis on a “coordinated, systematic, and individualized” care pathway based on a multidisciplinary approach, according to Dr. Arbelo. Although the composition of the interdisciplinary team depends on the individual case, the guidelines recognize a key role for general cardiologists in managing the majority of patients. Suggestions of when to refer challenging cases to expert centers are outlined.
32 key messages derived from guidelines
The guidelines include almost 90 pages of recommendations. The task force isolated 32 key messages from 13 sections ranging from descriptions of how the patient pathway is defined to what types of physical activity should be considered for different forms of cardiomyopathy. There is also a section devoted to important gaps in evidence and areas in which there is the most need for further studies.
The guidelines end with a comprehensive list of “what to do” and “what not to do” in the diagnosis and care of cardiomyopathy. These include most of the class I recommendations and summarize some important class III cautions.
“Most of the recommendations in the guideline are new,” the authors wrote in the introduction. Although they acknowledged that they did not attempt to provide detailed recommendations for every cardiomyopathy phenotype, they endeavored to cover general evaluation and management issues supported by relevant evidence.
Dr. Arbelo and Dr. Kaski disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE ESC CONGRESS 2023
Minimizing atrial pacing no benefit in sinus node disease: DANPACE II
suggest results of a trial that randomly assigned patients with SND who had received their first pacemaker implant to one of two pacing programs.
Over 2 years of follow-up with remote monitoring, there was no difference in the primary endpoint of time to first device-detected episode of AF lasting more than 6 minutes, reported Max Brix Kronborg, MD, PhD, department of cardiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark.
The study, DANPACE II, excluded patients with permanent or persistent AF or persistent bradycardia prior to or at the time of enrollment.
The findings were presented at annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology and were published online simultaneously in the European Heart Journal.
The 539 participants in the trial were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to a pacing program of 60 beats/minute with rate-adaptive pacing (DDR-60) or 40 beats/minute without rate-adaptive pacing (DDD-40). All patients were equipped with remote monitoring and were followed for 2 years. Tracings were adjudicated for atrial high-rate episodes by experienced device specialists, Dr. Kronborg said.
No difference seen in primary outcome
When graphed, curves for the primary outcome in the two groups were essentially superimposable. For the secondary outcomes of AF lasting more than 6 hours and AF lasting more than 24 hours, there was a modest but progressive separation in the lines favoring the DDR-60 group for both. However, the P value did not approach significance in the first of these endpoints (P = .35) and remained only a trend (P = .08) in the second.
There were no substantial differences in results when patients were stratified by age (> 73 years vs. younger), gender (women represented 50% of patients), PR interval (> 150 milliseconds vs. less), or history of AF prior to study entry; the latter group represented approximately 40% of the trial participants.
There was a between-group difference in the primary composite safety endpoint of syncope and presyncope. By 2 years, 13% of those in the DDR-60 group had experienced one of these safety events, vs. 22% (P = .01) of the DDD-40 group.
The study was not designed to determine a cause for these episodes, but Dr. Kronborg reported that bradycardia was suspected in the majority of cases.
Crossovers more common on minimal pacing
Crossovers were permitted, and 26% of patients did so at some point in the trial. Of these, about one-third were switched to the opposite arm in response to syncope. Almost all of the others crossed over because of chronotropic incompetence. The greater crossover rate in the DDD-40 group (23% vs. 3%; P < .001) was highly significant.
Quality of life was measured with the SF36 tool, and physical function was evaluated with the 6-minute walk distance test (6MWD). Results on these measures did not differ significantly between groups. For 6MWD, the mean gain from baseline was 8 m in both groups.
The results of this study are important because they challenge what has been a widely held perception among electrophysiologists, according to Cecilia Linde, MD, PhD, a professor of cardiology at the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm.
“I think many of us involved in pacing thought for many years that minimizing pacing would be beneficial, and this clearly shows it is not,” said Dr. Linde, who was the moderator of the scientific session in which these results were presented.
Results appear definitive
The ESC-invited discussant, Jose L. Merino, MD, PhD, director of arrhythmia and electrophysiology research, La Paz University Hospital, Madrid, concurred. He said these results are convincing.
On the basis of these findings, which not only failed to show a benefit but showed in the experimental arm a higher incidence of syncope and chronotropic incompetence, Dr. Merino concluded, “Programming intended to minimize atrial pacing should not be used as routine in unselected patients with SND.”
A trend for protection from DDR-60 over DDD-40 from the longest episodes of AF caught Dr. Merino’s attention, leading him to question whether the optimal rate of pacing might be even higher than 60 beats/minute in SND, but he said that is a separate issue. DANPACE was not powered to examine the effect in long duration episodes.
Ultimately, while Dr. Merino characterized the increased risk of syncope with minimized pacing as “an important finding” in regard to dissuading clinicians to pursue this strategy, he said that the underlying question of the DANPACE trial remains unanswered.
Pacing remains “a treatment of choice” in SND, but further investigation is needed “about the optimal pacing rate to minimize AF and syncope” in this population, he said.
Dr. Kronborg reports a financial relationship with Abbott. Dr. Linde reports financial relationships with Cardio 3, Medtronic, St. Jude, and Vifor. Dr. Merino reports financial relationships with Abbott, Medtronic, and Microport.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
suggest results of a trial that randomly assigned patients with SND who had received their first pacemaker implant to one of two pacing programs.
Over 2 years of follow-up with remote monitoring, there was no difference in the primary endpoint of time to first device-detected episode of AF lasting more than 6 minutes, reported Max Brix Kronborg, MD, PhD, department of cardiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark.
The study, DANPACE II, excluded patients with permanent or persistent AF or persistent bradycardia prior to or at the time of enrollment.
The findings were presented at annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology and were published online simultaneously in the European Heart Journal.
The 539 participants in the trial were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to a pacing program of 60 beats/minute with rate-adaptive pacing (DDR-60) or 40 beats/minute without rate-adaptive pacing (DDD-40). All patients were equipped with remote monitoring and were followed for 2 years. Tracings were adjudicated for atrial high-rate episodes by experienced device specialists, Dr. Kronborg said.
No difference seen in primary outcome
When graphed, curves for the primary outcome in the two groups were essentially superimposable. For the secondary outcomes of AF lasting more than 6 hours and AF lasting more than 24 hours, there was a modest but progressive separation in the lines favoring the DDR-60 group for both. However, the P value did not approach significance in the first of these endpoints (P = .35) and remained only a trend (P = .08) in the second.
There were no substantial differences in results when patients were stratified by age (> 73 years vs. younger), gender (women represented 50% of patients), PR interval (> 150 milliseconds vs. less), or history of AF prior to study entry; the latter group represented approximately 40% of the trial participants.
There was a between-group difference in the primary composite safety endpoint of syncope and presyncope. By 2 years, 13% of those in the DDR-60 group had experienced one of these safety events, vs. 22% (P = .01) of the DDD-40 group.
The study was not designed to determine a cause for these episodes, but Dr. Kronborg reported that bradycardia was suspected in the majority of cases.
Crossovers more common on minimal pacing
Crossovers were permitted, and 26% of patients did so at some point in the trial. Of these, about one-third were switched to the opposite arm in response to syncope. Almost all of the others crossed over because of chronotropic incompetence. The greater crossover rate in the DDD-40 group (23% vs. 3%; P < .001) was highly significant.
Quality of life was measured with the SF36 tool, and physical function was evaluated with the 6-minute walk distance test (6MWD). Results on these measures did not differ significantly between groups. For 6MWD, the mean gain from baseline was 8 m in both groups.
The results of this study are important because they challenge what has been a widely held perception among electrophysiologists, according to Cecilia Linde, MD, PhD, a professor of cardiology at the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm.
“I think many of us involved in pacing thought for many years that minimizing pacing would be beneficial, and this clearly shows it is not,” said Dr. Linde, who was the moderator of the scientific session in which these results were presented.
Results appear definitive
The ESC-invited discussant, Jose L. Merino, MD, PhD, director of arrhythmia and electrophysiology research, La Paz University Hospital, Madrid, concurred. He said these results are convincing.
On the basis of these findings, which not only failed to show a benefit but showed in the experimental arm a higher incidence of syncope and chronotropic incompetence, Dr. Merino concluded, “Programming intended to minimize atrial pacing should not be used as routine in unselected patients with SND.”
A trend for protection from DDR-60 over DDD-40 from the longest episodes of AF caught Dr. Merino’s attention, leading him to question whether the optimal rate of pacing might be even higher than 60 beats/minute in SND, but he said that is a separate issue. DANPACE was not powered to examine the effect in long duration episodes.
Ultimately, while Dr. Merino characterized the increased risk of syncope with minimized pacing as “an important finding” in regard to dissuading clinicians to pursue this strategy, he said that the underlying question of the DANPACE trial remains unanswered.
Pacing remains “a treatment of choice” in SND, but further investigation is needed “about the optimal pacing rate to minimize AF and syncope” in this population, he said.
Dr. Kronborg reports a financial relationship with Abbott. Dr. Linde reports financial relationships with Cardio 3, Medtronic, St. Jude, and Vifor. Dr. Merino reports financial relationships with Abbott, Medtronic, and Microport.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
suggest results of a trial that randomly assigned patients with SND who had received their first pacemaker implant to one of two pacing programs.
Over 2 years of follow-up with remote monitoring, there was no difference in the primary endpoint of time to first device-detected episode of AF lasting more than 6 minutes, reported Max Brix Kronborg, MD, PhD, department of cardiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark.
The study, DANPACE II, excluded patients with permanent or persistent AF or persistent bradycardia prior to or at the time of enrollment.
The findings were presented at annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology and were published online simultaneously in the European Heart Journal.
The 539 participants in the trial were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to a pacing program of 60 beats/minute with rate-adaptive pacing (DDR-60) or 40 beats/minute without rate-adaptive pacing (DDD-40). All patients were equipped with remote monitoring and were followed for 2 years. Tracings were adjudicated for atrial high-rate episodes by experienced device specialists, Dr. Kronborg said.
No difference seen in primary outcome
When graphed, curves for the primary outcome in the two groups were essentially superimposable. For the secondary outcomes of AF lasting more than 6 hours and AF lasting more than 24 hours, there was a modest but progressive separation in the lines favoring the DDR-60 group for both. However, the P value did not approach significance in the first of these endpoints (P = .35) and remained only a trend (P = .08) in the second.
There were no substantial differences in results when patients were stratified by age (> 73 years vs. younger), gender (women represented 50% of patients), PR interval (> 150 milliseconds vs. less), or history of AF prior to study entry; the latter group represented approximately 40% of the trial participants.
There was a between-group difference in the primary composite safety endpoint of syncope and presyncope. By 2 years, 13% of those in the DDR-60 group had experienced one of these safety events, vs. 22% (P = .01) of the DDD-40 group.
The study was not designed to determine a cause for these episodes, but Dr. Kronborg reported that bradycardia was suspected in the majority of cases.
Crossovers more common on minimal pacing
Crossovers were permitted, and 26% of patients did so at some point in the trial. Of these, about one-third were switched to the opposite arm in response to syncope. Almost all of the others crossed over because of chronotropic incompetence. The greater crossover rate in the DDD-40 group (23% vs. 3%; P < .001) was highly significant.
Quality of life was measured with the SF36 tool, and physical function was evaluated with the 6-minute walk distance test (6MWD). Results on these measures did not differ significantly between groups. For 6MWD, the mean gain from baseline was 8 m in both groups.
The results of this study are important because they challenge what has been a widely held perception among electrophysiologists, according to Cecilia Linde, MD, PhD, a professor of cardiology at the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm.
“I think many of us involved in pacing thought for many years that minimizing pacing would be beneficial, and this clearly shows it is not,” said Dr. Linde, who was the moderator of the scientific session in which these results were presented.
Results appear definitive
The ESC-invited discussant, Jose L. Merino, MD, PhD, director of arrhythmia and electrophysiology research, La Paz University Hospital, Madrid, concurred. He said these results are convincing.
On the basis of these findings, which not only failed to show a benefit but showed in the experimental arm a higher incidence of syncope and chronotropic incompetence, Dr. Merino concluded, “Programming intended to minimize atrial pacing should not be used as routine in unselected patients with SND.”
A trend for protection from DDR-60 over DDD-40 from the longest episodes of AF caught Dr. Merino’s attention, leading him to question whether the optimal rate of pacing might be even higher than 60 beats/minute in SND, but he said that is a separate issue. DANPACE was not powered to examine the effect in long duration episodes.
Ultimately, while Dr. Merino characterized the increased risk of syncope with minimized pacing as “an important finding” in regard to dissuading clinicians to pursue this strategy, he said that the underlying question of the DANPACE trial remains unanswered.
Pacing remains “a treatment of choice” in SND, but further investigation is needed “about the optimal pacing rate to minimize AF and syncope” in this population, he said.
Dr. Kronborg reports a financial relationship with Abbott. Dr. Linde reports financial relationships with Cardio 3, Medtronic, St. Jude, and Vifor. Dr. Merino reports financial relationships with Abbott, Medtronic, and Microport.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ESC CONGRESS 2023
Traditional Chinese medicine improves outcomes in HFrEF
When added to guideline-directed therapies for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), a traditional Chinese medicine called qiliqiangxin reduced the composite endpoint of cardiovascular death and heart failure hospitalization by more than 20%, results of a large placebo-controlled trial show.
reported Xinli Li, MD, PhD, First Affiliated Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, China.
Qiliqiangxin, a commonly used therapy in China for cardiovascular disease, is not a single chemical entity but a treatment composed of 11 plant-based substances that together are associated with diuretic effects, vasodilation, and “cardiotonic” activity, Dr. Li said. He also cited studies showing an upregulation effect on peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma coactivator 1-beta (PGC1-beta).
The results were presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
Hard endpoints pursued in rigorous design
There have been numerous studies of qiliqiangxin for cardiovascular diseases, including a double-blind study that associated this agent with a greater than 30% reduction in the surrogate endpoint of N-terminal pro–B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP).
In the newly completed multicenter trial, called QUEST, the goal was to determine whether this therapy could reduce hard endpoints relative to placebo in a rigorously conducted trial enrolling patients receiving an optimized triple-therapy heart failure regimen.
Few patients in the study received a sodium glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2 inhibitor), which was not a standard at the time the study was designed but is now part of the quadruple guideline-directed medical therapy in most European and North American guidelines.
In this trial, 3,119 patients were randomly assigned at 133 centers in China to take four capsules of qiliqiangxin or placebo three times per day. At a median follow-up of 18.3 months, outcomes were evaluable in nearly all 1,561 patients randomly assigned to the experimental therapy and 1,555 patients randomly assigned to placebo.
The key inclusion criteria were a left ventricular ejection fraction of 40% or less and a serum NT-proBNP level of at least 450 pg/mL. Patients in New York Heart Association class IV heart failure were excluded.
At enrollment, more than 80% of patients in both arms were receiving a renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitor (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, angiotensin receptor blocker, or angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor), more than 80% were receiving a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, and more than 85% were receiving a beta-blocker.
Death and hospitalization reduced 22%
By hazard ratio, the primary composite endpoint of CV death and heart failure hospitalization was reduced by 22% relative to placebo (HR, 0.78; P < .001). When evaluated separately, the relative reductions in these respective endpoints were 17% (HR, 0.83; P = .045) and 24% (HR, 0.76; P = .002).
The risk reduction was robust (HR, 0.76; P < .001) in patients with an ischemic cause but nonsignificant in those without (HR, 0.92; P = .575). A significant benefit was sustained in patients receiving an angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (HR, 0.84; P = .041), as well as those who did not receive this class of drug (HR, 0.77; P = .012).
However, the benefit of qiliqiangxin among patients receiving all components of guideline-directed triple therapy (RAS inhibitor, beta-blocker, and mineralocorticoid antagonist) was only a trend (HR, 0.86; P = .079).
All-cause mortality, a secondary endpoint, was lower among patients randomly assigned to qiliqiangxin than to those assigned to placebo, but this difference fell just short of statistical significance (14.21% vs. 16.85%; P = .058).
Qiliqiangxin was well tolerated. The proportion of patients with a serious adverse event was numerically lower with qiliqiangxin than with placebo (17.43% vs. 19.74%), whereas discontinuations associated with an adverse event were numerically higher in the qiliqiangxin group (1.03% vs. 0.58%), albeit still very low in both study arms.
Overlap of drug benefits suspected
Given the safety of this drug and its highly significant reduction in a composite endpoint used in other major HFrEF trials, the ESC-invited discussant, Carolyn S.P. Lam, MBBS, PhD, National Heart Centre, Singapore, called the outcome “remarkable” and a validation for “the millions of people” who are already taking qiliqiangxin in China and other Asian countries.
Using the DAPA-HF trial as a point of reference, Dr. Lam noted that relative reduction in the composite endpoint of cardiovascular death for the SGLT-2 inhibitor dapagliflozin relative to placebo on top of triple guideline-directed medical therapy was lower (17% vs. 24%), but there were significant reductions in each of the components, as well as a nonsignificant signal of a mortality benefit.
However, Dr. Lam pointed out that there does seem to be more of an overlap for the benefits of qiliqiangxin than dapagliflozin relative to other components of triple therapy based on the lower rate of benefit when patients were optimized on triple therapy.
“The subgroup analysis [of this study] is very important,” Dr. Lam said. Qiliqiangxin may be best in patients who cannot take one or more of the components of triple therapy, she suggested, even though she called for further studies to test this theory. She also cautioned that the pill burden of four capsules taken three times per day might be onerous for some patients.
Of the many questions still to be answered, Dr. Lam noted that the low rate of enrollment for patients (< 10%) taking SGLT-2 inhibitors makes the contribution of qiliqiangxin unclear among those receiving the current standard of quadruple guideline-directed medical therapy.
She also suggested that it will be important to dissect the relative contribution of the different active ingredients of qiliqiangxin.
“This is not a purified compound that we are used to in Western medicine,” Dr. Lam said. While she praised the study as “scientifically rigorous” and indicated that the results support a clinical benefit from qiliqiangxin, she thinks an exploration of the mechanism or mechanisms of benefit is a next step in understanding where this therapy fits in HFrEF management.
Dr. Li reports financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Bayer, Novartis, Roche, and Yiling. Dr. Lam reports financial relationships with more than 25 pharmaceutical or device manufacturers, many of which produce therapies for heart failure, as well as with Medscape/WebMD Global LLC. The study was supported by the Chinese National Key Research and Development Project and Yiling Pharmaceuticals.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
When added to guideline-directed therapies for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), a traditional Chinese medicine called qiliqiangxin reduced the composite endpoint of cardiovascular death and heart failure hospitalization by more than 20%, results of a large placebo-controlled trial show.
reported Xinli Li, MD, PhD, First Affiliated Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, China.
Qiliqiangxin, a commonly used therapy in China for cardiovascular disease, is not a single chemical entity but a treatment composed of 11 plant-based substances that together are associated with diuretic effects, vasodilation, and “cardiotonic” activity, Dr. Li said. He also cited studies showing an upregulation effect on peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma coactivator 1-beta (PGC1-beta).
The results were presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
Hard endpoints pursued in rigorous design
There have been numerous studies of qiliqiangxin for cardiovascular diseases, including a double-blind study that associated this agent with a greater than 30% reduction in the surrogate endpoint of N-terminal pro–B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP).
In the newly completed multicenter trial, called QUEST, the goal was to determine whether this therapy could reduce hard endpoints relative to placebo in a rigorously conducted trial enrolling patients receiving an optimized triple-therapy heart failure regimen.
Few patients in the study received a sodium glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2 inhibitor), which was not a standard at the time the study was designed but is now part of the quadruple guideline-directed medical therapy in most European and North American guidelines.
In this trial, 3,119 patients were randomly assigned at 133 centers in China to take four capsules of qiliqiangxin or placebo three times per day. At a median follow-up of 18.3 months, outcomes were evaluable in nearly all 1,561 patients randomly assigned to the experimental therapy and 1,555 patients randomly assigned to placebo.
The key inclusion criteria were a left ventricular ejection fraction of 40% or less and a serum NT-proBNP level of at least 450 pg/mL. Patients in New York Heart Association class IV heart failure were excluded.
At enrollment, more than 80% of patients in both arms were receiving a renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitor (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, angiotensin receptor blocker, or angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor), more than 80% were receiving a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, and more than 85% were receiving a beta-blocker.
Death and hospitalization reduced 22%
By hazard ratio, the primary composite endpoint of CV death and heart failure hospitalization was reduced by 22% relative to placebo (HR, 0.78; P < .001). When evaluated separately, the relative reductions in these respective endpoints were 17% (HR, 0.83; P = .045) and 24% (HR, 0.76; P = .002).
The risk reduction was robust (HR, 0.76; P < .001) in patients with an ischemic cause but nonsignificant in those without (HR, 0.92; P = .575). A significant benefit was sustained in patients receiving an angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (HR, 0.84; P = .041), as well as those who did not receive this class of drug (HR, 0.77; P = .012).
However, the benefit of qiliqiangxin among patients receiving all components of guideline-directed triple therapy (RAS inhibitor, beta-blocker, and mineralocorticoid antagonist) was only a trend (HR, 0.86; P = .079).
All-cause mortality, a secondary endpoint, was lower among patients randomly assigned to qiliqiangxin than to those assigned to placebo, but this difference fell just short of statistical significance (14.21% vs. 16.85%; P = .058).
Qiliqiangxin was well tolerated. The proportion of patients with a serious adverse event was numerically lower with qiliqiangxin than with placebo (17.43% vs. 19.74%), whereas discontinuations associated with an adverse event were numerically higher in the qiliqiangxin group (1.03% vs. 0.58%), albeit still very low in both study arms.
Overlap of drug benefits suspected
Given the safety of this drug and its highly significant reduction in a composite endpoint used in other major HFrEF trials, the ESC-invited discussant, Carolyn S.P. Lam, MBBS, PhD, National Heart Centre, Singapore, called the outcome “remarkable” and a validation for “the millions of people” who are already taking qiliqiangxin in China and other Asian countries.
Using the DAPA-HF trial as a point of reference, Dr. Lam noted that relative reduction in the composite endpoint of cardiovascular death for the SGLT-2 inhibitor dapagliflozin relative to placebo on top of triple guideline-directed medical therapy was lower (17% vs. 24%), but there were significant reductions in each of the components, as well as a nonsignificant signal of a mortality benefit.
However, Dr. Lam pointed out that there does seem to be more of an overlap for the benefits of qiliqiangxin than dapagliflozin relative to other components of triple therapy based on the lower rate of benefit when patients were optimized on triple therapy.
“The subgroup analysis [of this study] is very important,” Dr. Lam said. Qiliqiangxin may be best in patients who cannot take one or more of the components of triple therapy, she suggested, even though she called for further studies to test this theory. She also cautioned that the pill burden of four capsules taken three times per day might be onerous for some patients.
Of the many questions still to be answered, Dr. Lam noted that the low rate of enrollment for patients (< 10%) taking SGLT-2 inhibitors makes the contribution of qiliqiangxin unclear among those receiving the current standard of quadruple guideline-directed medical therapy.
She also suggested that it will be important to dissect the relative contribution of the different active ingredients of qiliqiangxin.
“This is not a purified compound that we are used to in Western medicine,” Dr. Lam said. While she praised the study as “scientifically rigorous” and indicated that the results support a clinical benefit from qiliqiangxin, she thinks an exploration of the mechanism or mechanisms of benefit is a next step in understanding where this therapy fits in HFrEF management.
Dr. Li reports financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Bayer, Novartis, Roche, and Yiling. Dr. Lam reports financial relationships with more than 25 pharmaceutical or device manufacturers, many of which produce therapies for heart failure, as well as with Medscape/WebMD Global LLC. The study was supported by the Chinese National Key Research and Development Project and Yiling Pharmaceuticals.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
When added to guideline-directed therapies for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), a traditional Chinese medicine called qiliqiangxin reduced the composite endpoint of cardiovascular death and heart failure hospitalization by more than 20%, results of a large placebo-controlled trial show.
reported Xinli Li, MD, PhD, First Affiliated Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, China.
Qiliqiangxin, a commonly used therapy in China for cardiovascular disease, is not a single chemical entity but a treatment composed of 11 plant-based substances that together are associated with diuretic effects, vasodilation, and “cardiotonic” activity, Dr. Li said. He also cited studies showing an upregulation effect on peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma coactivator 1-beta (PGC1-beta).
The results were presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
Hard endpoints pursued in rigorous design
There have been numerous studies of qiliqiangxin for cardiovascular diseases, including a double-blind study that associated this agent with a greater than 30% reduction in the surrogate endpoint of N-terminal pro–B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP).
In the newly completed multicenter trial, called QUEST, the goal was to determine whether this therapy could reduce hard endpoints relative to placebo in a rigorously conducted trial enrolling patients receiving an optimized triple-therapy heart failure regimen.
Few patients in the study received a sodium glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2 inhibitor), which was not a standard at the time the study was designed but is now part of the quadruple guideline-directed medical therapy in most European and North American guidelines.
In this trial, 3,119 patients were randomly assigned at 133 centers in China to take four capsules of qiliqiangxin or placebo three times per day. At a median follow-up of 18.3 months, outcomes were evaluable in nearly all 1,561 patients randomly assigned to the experimental therapy and 1,555 patients randomly assigned to placebo.
The key inclusion criteria were a left ventricular ejection fraction of 40% or less and a serum NT-proBNP level of at least 450 pg/mL. Patients in New York Heart Association class IV heart failure were excluded.
At enrollment, more than 80% of patients in both arms were receiving a renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitor (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, angiotensin receptor blocker, or angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor), more than 80% were receiving a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, and more than 85% were receiving a beta-blocker.
Death and hospitalization reduced 22%
By hazard ratio, the primary composite endpoint of CV death and heart failure hospitalization was reduced by 22% relative to placebo (HR, 0.78; P < .001). When evaluated separately, the relative reductions in these respective endpoints were 17% (HR, 0.83; P = .045) and 24% (HR, 0.76; P = .002).
The risk reduction was robust (HR, 0.76; P < .001) in patients with an ischemic cause but nonsignificant in those without (HR, 0.92; P = .575). A significant benefit was sustained in patients receiving an angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (HR, 0.84; P = .041), as well as those who did not receive this class of drug (HR, 0.77; P = .012).
However, the benefit of qiliqiangxin among patients receiving all components of guideline-directed triple therapy (RAS inhibitor, beta-blocker, and mineralocorticoid antagonist) was only a trend (HR, 0.86; P = .079).
All-cause mortality, a secondary endpoint, was lower among patients randomly assigned to qiliqiangxin than to those assigned to placebo, but this difference fell just short of statistical significance (14.21% vs. 16.85%; P = .058).
Qiliqiangxin was well tolerated. The proportion of patients with a serious adverse event was numerically lower with qiliqiangxin than with placebo (17.43% vs. 19.74%), whereas discontinuations associated with an adverse event were numerically higher in the qiliqiangxin group (1.03% vs. 0.58%), albeit still very low in both study arms.
Overlap of drug benefits suspected
Given the safety of this drug and its highly significant reduction in a composite endpoint used in other major HFrEF trials, the ESC-invited discussant, Carolyn S.P. Lam, MBBS, PhD, National Heart Centre, Singapore, called the outcome “remarkable” and a validation for “the millions of people” who are already taking qiliqiangxin in China and other Asian countries.
Using the DAPA-HF trial as a point of reference, Dr. Lam noted that relative reduction in the composite endpoint of cardiovascular death for the SGLT-2 inhibitor dapagliflozin relative to placebo on top of triple guideline-directed medical therapy was lower (17% vs. 24%), but there were significant reductions in each of the components, as well as a nonsignificant signal of a mortality benefit.
However, Dr. Lam pointed out that there does seem to be more of an overlap for the benefits of qiliqiangxin than dapagliflozin relative to other components of triple therapy based on the lower rate of benefit when patients were optimized on triple therapy.
“The subgroup analysis [of this study] is very important,” Dr. Lam said. Qiliqiangxin may be best in patients who cannot take one or more of the components of triple therapy, she suggested, even though she called for further studies to test this theory. She also cautioned that the pill burden of four capsules taken three times per day might be onerous for some patients.
Of the many questions still to be answered, Dr. Lam noted that the low rate of enrollment for patients (< 10%) taking SGLT-2 inhibitors makes the contribution of qiliqiangxin unclear among those receiving the current standard of quadruple guideline-directed medical therapy.
She also suggested that it will be important to dissect the relative contribution of the different active ingredients of qiliqiangxin.
“This is not a purified compound that we are used to in Western medicine,” Dr. Lam said. While she praised the study as “scientifically rigorous” and indicated that the results support a clinical benefit from qiliqiangxin, she thinks an exploration of the mechanism or mechanisms of benefit is a next step in understanding where this therapy fits in HFrEF management.
Dr. Li reports financial relationships with AstraZeneca, Bayer, Novartis, Roche, and Yiling. Dr. Lam reports financial relationships with more than 25 pharmaceutical or device manufacturers, many of which produce therapies for heart failure, as well as with Medscape/WebMD Global LLC. The study was supported by the Chinese National Key Research and Development Project and Yiling Pharmaceuticals.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ESC CONGRESS 2023
Pulsed field ablation challenges conventional devices in AFib
in a head-to-head trial, an outcome that might favor PFA in the context of other considerations.
“The take-home message is that this is a new technology that has important safety benefits. Patients do not have to worry about the possibility – albeit rare – of esophageal fistulae and other problems. It is faster with at least the same efficacy,” reported Vivek Y. Reddy MD, director of cardiac arrhythmia services, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York.
As opposed to conventional catheter-based thermal ablation, which isolates pulmonary veins harboring AF triggers by heating or freezing the tissue, PFA uses microsecond high-voltage electrical fields to produce cellular necrosis. It is largely nonthermal, Dr. Reddy said.
New device might spare adjacent tissue
In experimental studies, PFA has demonstrated a high degree of ablative specificity, limiting effects on adjacent tissues, such as the esophagus and phrenic nerve, he explained.
Several previous clinical studies support the specificity of the PFA ablative effect, but the ADVENT trial, which Dr. Reddy presented Aug. 27 at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, is the first trial in which patients have been randomly assigned to PFA or catheter-based ablation.
The study was published online in the New England Journal of Medicine simultaneously with the ESC presentation.
The primary efficacy endpoint was the absence of a composite of endpoints indicating incomplete ablation. These included an initial procedural failure, atrial tachyarrhythmias arising after a 3-month blanking period, subsequent use of antiarrhythmic drugs, cardioversion, or repeat ablation. The primary safety endpoint involved a composite of procedure-related adverse events.
The 607 patients enrolled in this trial had AF refractory to at least one antiarrhythmic drug class. They were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to PFA with a catheter system (Farapulse–Boston Scientific) or to thermal ablation.
Of the thermal approaches, radiofrequency or cryoablation was permitted, but each center was required to use just one for the control arm. For the comparison to PFA, outcomes for the two thermal techniques, which were used in similar proportions of patients, were combined based on previous evidence that these approaches perform similarly.
At 1 year, 73.3% of patients in the PFA group and 71.3% of those in the control group met the primary outcome, meaning none of the events signaling ablation failure occurred. The numeric advantage of PFA confirmed noninferiority, although an evaluation of superiority for efficacy, which was triggered by the advantage of PFA, was not significant.
As predicted by previous studies, stratification of thermal ablation approaches showed that outcomes were similar, although the proportion of patients who remained free of events at 1 year was numerically higher in the cryoablation group relative to the radiofrequency group (73.6% vs. 69.2%).
An adverse safety event occurred in 2.1% of those who underwent PFA and in 1.5% of those who underwent thermal ablation. This 0.6–percentage point difference placed PFA well within the boundary of noninferiority for safety.
Of notable events, the only death in this study occurred in the PFA group, and the only stroke occurred in the control group. Phrenic nerve palsies occurred only in the control group (2 vs. 0) while pericarditis was seen only in the PFA group (2 vs. 0). One case of pulmonary edema occurred in each group.
“Catheter ablation is quite safe and effective,” said Dr. Reddy, explaining why this comparison was conducted on the basis of noninferiority.
Dr. Reddy emphasized that noninferiority for PFA was achieved by operators with little or no experience with this technology, whereas the catheter ablations were delivered by operators who typically had previously performed hundreds of interventions.
“With experience, one would expect even better rates of success. This is the floor,” Dr. Reddy said.
Procedure time faster with PFA
Despite working with a new technology, the mean procedure performance time with PFA was faster (105 vs. 123 minutes) even though mean fluoroscopy time was longer (21.1 vs 13.9 minutes). Dr. Reddy considers the difference in procedure time a meaningful demonstration of the efficiency of PFA.
“When you look at procedure performance, it is remarkable that the procedure times were statistically significantly shorter for a first-use technology in the hands of multiple operators,” Dr. Reddy said.
There was also a statistically significant advantage for PFA regarding change in the mean pulmonary vein cross-sectional area following the procedures (0.9% vs. 12%). Dr. Reddy acknowledged that small changes in pulmonary vein dimension are not clinically meaningful, but this result “gets at the question of whether we can achieve ablation without tissue proliferation that we see with conventional ablation.”
Overall, Dr. Reddy believes that the data from ADVENT provide several reasons “to get excited about PFA,” including the efficiency of this technique in the context of at least similar efficacy but a potential for fewer adverse events.
The ESC-invited discussant, Samuel Kiil Sørensen, MD, Gentofte University Hospital, Copenhagen, agreed that the ADVENT data support PFA as an alternative to thermal ablation. He suggested that the shorter procedure times are clinically meaningful given comparable safety and efficacy.
“Which property of PFA justifies noninferiority?” he asked. “Many of the complications of AF ablation are not specific to the energy modality. The devastating complications from damage to the esophagus, pulmonary veins, and phrenic nerve that the PFA technology may eliminate are rare, so they would not be expected to change the overall complication rate in a [randomized controlled trial] of realistic size.”
However, he suggested PFA might still prove to be an incremental advance for AF. He cited previous evidence that supports the specificity of its ablative activity and emphasized that ADVENT tested a first-generation device that might not capture the full advantages of the PFA technology.
The trial was supported by Farapulse–Boston Scientific. Dr. Reddy reports financial relationships with more than 30 pharmaceutical or device manufacturers, including Farapulse–Boston Scientific. Dr. Sørensen reports financial relationships with Medtronic and Biosense Webster.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
in a head-to-head trial, an outcome that might favor PFA in the context of other considerations.
“The take-home message is that this is a new technology that has important safety benefits. Patients do not have to worry about the possibility – albeit rare – of esophageal fistulae and other problems. It is faster with at least the same efficacy,” reported Vivek Y. Reddy MD, director of cardiac arrhythmia services, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York.
As opposed to conventional catheter-based thermal ablation, which isolates pulmonary veins harboring AF triggers by heating or freezing the tissue, PFA uses microsecond high-voltage electrical fields to produce cellular necrosis. It is largely nonthermal, Dr. Reddy said.
New device might spare adjacent tissue
In experimental studies, PFA has demonstrated a high degree of ablative specificity, limiting effects on adjacent tissues, such as the esophagus and phrenic nerve, he explained.
Several previous clinical studies support the specificity of the PFA ablative effect, but the ADVENT trial, which Dr. Reddy presented Aug. 27 at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, is the first trial in which patients have been randomly assigned to PFA or catheter-based ablation.
The study was published online in the New England Journal of Medicine simultaneously with the ESC presentation.
The primary efficacy endpoint was the absence of a composite of endpoints indicating incomplete ablation. These included an initial procedural failure, atrial tachyarrhythmias arising after a 3-month blanking period, subsequent use of antiarrhythmic drugs, cardioversion, or repeat ablation. The primary safety endpoint involved a composite of procedure-related adverse events.
The 607 patients enrolled in this trial had AF refractory to at least one antiarrhythmic drug class. They were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to PFA with a catheter system (Farapulse–Boston Scientific) or to thermal ablation.
Of the thermal approaches, radiofrequency or cryoablation was permitted, but each center was required to use just one for the control arm. For the comparison to PFA, outcomes for the two thermal techniques, which were used in similar proportions of patients, were combined based on previous evidence that these approaches perform similarly.
At 1 year, 73.3% of patients in the PFA group and 71.3% of those in the control group met the primary outcome, meaning none of the events signaling ablation failure occurred. The numeric advantage of PFA confirmed noninferiority, although an evaluation of superiority for efficacy, which was triggered by the advantage of PFA, was not significant.
As predicted by previous studies, stratification of thermal ablation approaches showed that outcomes were similar, although the proportion of patients who remained free of events at 1 year was numerically higher in the cryoablation group relative to the radiofrequency group (73.6% vs. 69.2%).
An adverse safety event occurred in 2.1% of those who underwent PFA and in 1.5% of those who underwent thermal ablation. This 0.6–percentage point difference placed PFA well within the boundary of noninferiority for safety.
Of notable events, the only death in this study occurred in the PFA group, and the only stroke occurred in the control group. Phrenic nerve palsies occurred only in the control group (2 vs. 0) while pericarditis was seen only in the PFA group (2 vs. 0). One case of pulmonary edema occurred in each group.
“Catheter ablation is quite safe and effective,” said Dr. Reddy, explaining why this comparison was conducted on the basis of noninferiority.
Dr. Reddy emphasized that noninferiority for PFA was achieved by operators with little or no experience with this technology, whereas the catheter ablations were delivered by operators who typically had previously performed hundreds of interventions.
“With experience, one would expect even better rates of success. This is the floor,” Dr. Reddy said.
Procedure time faster with PFA
Despite working with a new technology, the mean procedure performance time with PFA was faster (105 vs. 123 minutes) even though mean fluoroscopy time was longer (21.1 vs 13.9 minutes). Dr. Reddy considers the difference in procedure time a meaningful demonstration of the efficiency of PFA.
“When you look at procedure performance, it is remarkable that the procedure times were statistically significantly shorter for a first-use technology in the hands of multiple operators,” Dr. Reddy said.
There was also a statistically significant advantage for PFA regarding change in the mean pulmonary vein cross-sectional area following the procedures (0.9% vs. 12%). Dr. Reddy acknowledged that small changes in pulmonary vein dimension are not clinically meaningful, but this result “gets at the question of whether we can achieve ablation without tissue proliferation that we see with conventional ablation.”
Overall, Dr. Reddy believes that the data from ADVENT provide several reasons “to get excited about PFA,” including the efficiency of this technique in the context of at least similar efficacy but a potential for fewer adverse events.
The ESC-invited discussant, Samuel Kiil Sørensen, MD, Gentofte University Hospital, Copenhagen, agreed that the ADVENT data support PFA as an alternative to thermal ablation. He suggested that the shorter procedure times are clinically meaningful given comparable safety and efficacy.
“Which property of PFA justifies noninferiority?” he asked. “Many of the complications of AF ablation are not specific to the energy modality. The devastating complications from damage to the esophagus, pulmonary veins, and phrenic nerve that the PFA technology may eliminate are rare, so they would not be expected to change the overall complication rate in a [randomized controlled trial] of realistic size.”
However, he suggested PFA might still prove to be an incremental advance for AF. He cited previous evidence that supports the specificity of its ablative activity and emphasized that ADVENT tested a first-generation device that might not capture the full advantages of the PFA technology.
The trial was supported by Farapulse–Boston Scientific. Dr. Reddy reports financial relationships with more than 30 pharmaceutical or device manufacturers, including Farapulse–Boston Scientific. Dr. Sørensen reports financial relationships with Medtronic and Biosense Webster.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
in a head-to-head trial, an outcome that might favor PFA in the context of other considerations.
“The take-home message is that this is a new technology that has important safety benefits. Patients do not have to worry about the possibility – albeit rare – of esophageal fistulae and other problems. It is faster with at least the same efficacy,” reported Vivek Y. Reddy MD, director of cardiac arrhythmia services, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York.
As opposed to conventional catheter-based thermal ablation, which isolates pulmonary veins harboring AF triggers by heating or freezing the tissue, PFA uses microsecond high-voltage electrical fields to produce cellular necrosis. It is largely nonthermal, Dr. Reddy said.
New device might spare adjacent tissue
In experimental studies, PFA has demonstrated a high degree of ablative specificity, limiting effects on adjacent tissues, such as the esophagus and phrenic nerve, he explained.
Several previous clinical studies support the specificity of the PFA ablative effect, but the ADVENT trial, which Dr. Reddy presented Aug. 27 at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, is the first trial in which patients have been randomly assigned to PFA or catheter-based ablation.
The study was published online in the New England Journal of Medicine simultaneously with the ESC presentation.
The primary efficacy endpoint was the absence of a composite of endpoints indicating incomplete ablation. These included an initial procedural failure, atrial tachyarrhythmias arising after a 3-month blanking period, subsequent use of antiarrhythmic drugs, cardioversion, or repeat ablation. The primary safety endpoint involved a composite of procedure-related adverse events.
The 607 patients enrolled in this trial had AF refractory to at least one antiarrhythmic drug class. They were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to PFA with a catheter system (Farapulse–Boston Scientific) or to thermal ablation.
Of the thermal approaches, radiofrequency or cryoablation was permitted, but each center was required to use just one for the control arm. For the comparison to PFA, outcomes for the two thermal techniques, which were used in similar proportions of patients, were combined based on previous evidence that these approaches perform similarly.
At 1 year, 73.3% of patients in the PFA group and 71.3% of those in the control group met the primary outcome, meaning none of the events signaling ablation failure occurred. The numeric advantage of PFA confirmed noninferiority, although an evaluation of superiority for efficacy, which was triggered by the advantage of PFA, was not significant.
As predicted by previous studies, stratification of thermal ablation approaches showed that outcomes were similar, although the proportion of patients who remained free of events at 1 year was numerically higher in the cryoablation group relative to the radiofrequency group (73.6% vs. 69.2%).
An adverse safety event occurred in 2.1% of those who underwent PFA and in 1.5% of those who underwent thermal ablation. This 0.6–percentage point difference placed PFA well within the boundary of noninferiority for safety.
Of notable events, the only death in this study occurred in the PFA group, and the only stroke occurred in the control group. Phrenic nerve palsies occurred only in the control group (2 vs. 0) while pericarditis was seen only in the PFA group (2 vs. 0). One case of pulmonary edema occurred in each group.
“Catheter ablation is quite safe and effective,” said Dr. Reddy, explaining why this comparison was conducted on the basis of noninferiority.
Dr. Reddy emphasized that noninferiority for PFA was achieved by operators with little or no experience with this technology, whereas the catheter ablations were delivered by operators who typically had previously performed hundreds of interventions.
“With experience, one would expect even better rates of success. This is the floor,” Dr. Reddy said.
Procedure time faster with PFA
Despite working with a new technology, the mean procedure performance time with PFA was faster (105 vs. 123 minutes) even though mean fluoroscopy time was longer (21.1 vs 13.9 minutes). Dr. Reddy considers the difference in procedure time a meaningful demonstration of the efficiency of PFA.
“When you look at procedure performance, it is remarkable that the procedure times were statistically significantly shorter for a first-use technology in the hands of multiple operators,” Dr. Reddy said.
There was also a statistically significant advantage for PFA regarding change in the mean pulmonary vein cross-sectional area following the procedures (0.9% vs. 12%). Dr. Reddy acknowledged that small changes in pulmonary vein dimension are not clinically meaningful, but this result “gets at the question of whether we can achieve ablation without tissue proliferation that we see with conventional ablation.”
Overall, Dr. Reddy believes that the data from ADVENT provide several reasons “to get excited about PFA,” including the efficiency of this technique in the context of at least similar efficacy but a potential for fewer adverse events.
The ESC-invited discussant, Samuel Kiil Sørensen, MD, Gentofte University Hospital, Copenhagen, agreed that the ADVENT data support PFA as an alternative to thermal ablation. He suggested that the shorter procedure times are clinically meaningful given comparable safety and efficacy.
“Which property of PFA justifies noninferiority?” he asked. “Many of the complications of AF ablation are not specific to the energy modality. The devastating complications from damage to the esophagus, pulmonary veins, and phrenic nerve that the PFA technology may eliminate are rare, so they would not be expected to change the overall complication rate in a [randomized controlled trial] of realistic size.”
However, he suggested PFA might still prove to be an incremental advance for AF. He cited previous evidence that supports the specificity of its ablative activity and emphasized that ADVENT tested a first-generation device that might not capture the full advantages of the PFA technology.
The trial was supported by Farapulse–Boston Scientific. Dr. Reddy reports financial relationships with more than 30 pharmaceutical or device manufacturers, including Farapulse–Boston Scientific. Dr. Sørensen reports financial relationships with Medtronic and Biosense Webster.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE ESC CONGRESS 2023
Consider housing insecurity, other issues when managing challenging skin diseases in children, expert says
ASHEVILLE, N.C. – , according to a pediatric dermatologist who addressed the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology.
As a general principle for treating chronic skin conditions in children who are not doing well, it is reasonable to draw out information about a patient’s access to adequate housing, nutrition, and other basic needs, George Hightower, MD, PhD, of the division of pediatric and adolescent dermatology, University of California, San Diego, said at the meeting.
“We need conversations about where patients play, learn, and rest their heads at night,” said Dr. Hightower, who conducts research in this area. Fundamental components of well-being, such as stable housing and secure access to nutrition “are inseparable” from a child’s health, he noted.
“What are the stakes?” he asked. For many children, these factors might mean the difference between effective and poor control of the diseases for which the patient is seeking care.
To illustrate the point, Dr. Hightower used hidradenitis suppurativa (HS), a disease that appears to be on the rise among adolescents, as an example of why patient circumstances matter and should be considered. A complex disorder that is more prevalent in resource-poor communities, HS is difficult to control, often requiring extended periods of treatment with medications that can involve complex dosing or regular infusions.
“There is a need for medical providers to help the patient plan for this chronic illness,” said Dr. Hightower, referring to the importance of close follow-up. In adolescents, HS can be sufficiently disruptive from both the physical and psychological perspective that poor control can “derail future aspirations” by complicating educational endeavors and social interactions.
Dr. Hightower acknowledged that simply documenting housing insecurity or other issues does not solve these problems, but he does believe that developing a sensitivity to these obstacles to health care is a first step. It is a process that should permeate into medical training, health care research, and strategies to improve outcomes.
“The connections between fair housing and clinical practice may appear tenuous and inconsequential to the care provided by medical specialists,” Dr. Hightower said, but he emphasized that there are clear consequences when these factors contribute to inadequate control of such diseases as HS. As a source of missed appointments and disjointed care, an unstable home life can be an important barrier to disease control – and because of scarring nodules, fistulae, pain, school absences, and social isolation, complications can be dire.
Solutions to insecure housing are not typically available to an individual clinician, but the awareness that this can be a factor can help both physicians and patients begin to think about the role this plays in impairing recovery and what solutions might be found to modify the impact. Awareness not just among individual clinicians but a broader consortium of those working to improve health care outcomes is needed to “challenge the way we are doing medicine,” he said.
While conversations about the social determinants of health, including access to resources within patients’ neighborhoods, schools, and environment, can demonstrate concern about how to address obstacles, it can also be part of a reorientation to think beyond treatment for the underlying pathology alone. Eliciting trust and emphasizing the importance of environmental barriers to adequate care can be positive steps on the path to solutions.
Participatory action research
Relevant to this orientation, Dr. Hightower spoke about participatory action research (PAR), which provides a framework for patients to participate in the planning of clinical studies to effect change, not just serve as subjects in these studies.
The assumption of PAR is that “all people have valuable knowledge about their lives and experiences,” Dr. Hightower said. From this assumption, individuals who have been historically marginalized by race, income, or other factors can help define the problems from the patient’s perspective and, from there, create studies to seek solutions.
PAR is consistent with a patient-centered approach to medical care, which Dr. Hightower called “the future of medicine.” It involves a big-picture approach to look beyond disease pathology and symptoms to factors that might be creating susceptibility to disease and undermining health care.
Organized medicine alone cannot solve the cause of social inequities leading to disparate risks for disease and risks of inadequate health care, but Dr. Hightower argued that these inequities should not be ignored. He believes medical trainees should learn how to elicit information about the barriers to adequate health care and be aware of solutions, such as fair housing policies.
While he believes that PAR is an example of a pathway to problem solving, he suggested that a comprehensive approach requires an effective method of communication between providers and patients that would lead to a collaborative and mutually reinforcing approach.
“How do we ensure that individuals from communities most impacted by health disparities are treated fairly and empowered to address these disparities?” Dr. Hightower asked. He said that this is the direction of his own research and the issues that inhibit adequate treatment of many dermatologic diseases, as well as other types of disease, in childhood.
Craig Burkhart, MD, director of a private pediatric and adolescent dermatology practice in Cary, N.C., said that Dr. Hightower’s message is relevant. The value of considering and addressing the psychological well-being of patients of any age is not a new concept, but he acknowledged that he, for one, has not routinely inquired about obstacles to follow-up care if there is a signal that this might be an issue.
“As dermatologists, we focus on the acute complaints. We want to make the patient better,” said Dr. Burkhart, who moderated the session in which Dr. Hightower spoke. He agreed with Dr. Hightower that environmental factors make a difference on the road to recovery for a patient, and his presentation was a good reminder, he said, to consider the patient’s circumstances when response to treatment is inadequate, particularly in chronic diseases like HS, for which comprehensive care and close follow-up are needed.
Dr. Hightower and Dr. Burkhart report no potential conflicts of interest.
ASHEVILLE, N.C. – , according to a pediatric dermatologist who addressed the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology.
As a general principle for treating chronic skin conditions in children who are not doing well, it is reasonable to draw out information about a patient’s access to adequate housing, nutrition, and other basic needs, George Hightower, MD, PhD, of the division of pediatric and adolescent dermatology, University of California, San Diego, said at the meeting.
“We need conversations about where patients play, learn, and rest their heads at night,” said Dr. Hightower, who conducts research in this area. Fundamental components of well-being, such as stable housing and secure access to nutrition “are inseparable” from a child’s health, he noted.
“What are the stakes?” he asked. For many children, these factors might mean the difference between effective and poor control of the diseases for which the patient is seeking care.
To illustrate the point, Dr. Hightower used hidradenitis suppurativa (HS), a disease that appears to be on the rise among adolescents, as an example of why patient circumstances matter and should be considered. A complex disorder that is more prevalent in resource-poor communities, HS is difficult to control, often requiring extended periods of treatment with medications that can involve complex dosing or regular infusions.
“There is a need for medical providers to help the patient plan for this chronic illness,” said Dr. Hightower, referring to the importance of close follow-up. In adolescents, HS can be sufficiently disruptive from both the physical and psychological perspective that poor control can “derail future aspirations” by complicating educational endeavors and social interactions.
Dr. Hightower acknowledged that simply documenting housing insecurity or other issues does not solve these problems, but he does believe that developing a sensitivity to these obstacles to health care is a first step. It is a process that should permeate into medical training, health care research, and strategies to improve outcomes.
“The connections between fair housing and clinical practice may appear tenuous and inconsequential to the care provided by medical specialists,” Dr. Hightower said, but he emphasized that there are clear consequences when these factors contribute to inadequate control of such diseases as HS. As a source of missed appointments and disjointed care, an unstable home life can be an important barrier to disease control – and because of scarring nodules, fistulae, pain, school absences, and social isolation, complications can be dire.
Solutions to insecure housing are not typically available to an individual clinician, but the awareness that this can be a factor can help both physicians and patients begin to think about the role this plays in impairing recovery and what solutions might be found to modify the impact. Awareness not just among individual clinicians but a broader consortium of those working to improve health care outcomes is needed to “challenge the way we are doing medicine,” he said.
While conversations about the social determinants of health, including access to resources within patients’ neighborhoods, schools, and environment, can demonstrate concern about how to address obstacles, it can also be part of a reorientation to think beyond treatment for the underlying pathology alone. Eliciting trust and emphasizing the importance of environmental barriers to adequate care can be positive steps on the path to solutions.
Participatory action research
Relevant to this orientation, Dr. Hightower spoke about participatory action research (PAR), which provides a framework for patients to participate in the planning of clinical studies to effect change, not just serve as subjects in these studies.
The assumption of PAR is that “all people have valuable knowledge about their lives and experiences,” Dr. Hightower said. From this assumption, individuals who have been historically marginalized by race, income, or other factors can help define the problems from the patient’s perspective and, from there, create studies to seek solutions.
PAR is consistent with a patient-centered approach to medical care, which Dr. Hightower called “the future of medicine.” It involves a big-picture approach to look beyond disease pathology and symptoms to factors that might be creating susceptibility to disease and undermining health care.
Organized medicine alone cannot solve the cause of social inequities leading to disparate risks for disease and risks of inadequate health care, but Dr. Hightower argued that these inequities should not be ignored. He believes medical trainees should learn how to elicit information about the barriers to adequate health care and be aware of solutions, such as fair housing policies.
While he believes that PAR is an example of a pathway to problem solving, he suggested that a comprehensive approach requires an effective method of communication between providers and patients that would lead to a collaborative and mutually reinforcing approach.
“How do we ensure that individuals from communities most impacted by health disparities are treated fairly and empowered to address these disparities?” Dr. Hightower asked. He said that this is the direction of his own research and the issues that inhibit adequate treatment of many dermatologic diseases, as well as other types of disease, in childhood.
Craig Burkhart, MD, director of a private pediatric and adolescent dermatology practice in Cary, N.C., said that Dr. Hightower’s message is relevant. The value of considering and addressing the psychological well-being of patients of any age is not a new concept, but he acknowledged that he, for one, has not routinely inquired about obstacles to follow-up care if there is a signal that this might be an issue.
“As dermatologists, we focus on the acute complaints. We want to make the patient better,” said Dr. Burkhart, who moderated the session in which Dr. Hightower spoke. He agreed with Dr. Hightower that environmental factors make a difference on the road to recovery for a patient, and his presentation was a good reminder, he said, to consider the patient’s circumstances when response to treatment is inadequate, particularly in chronic diseases like HS, for which comprehensive care and close follow-up are needed.
Dr. Hightower and Dr. Burkhart report no potential conflicts of interest.
ASHEVILLE, N.C. – , according to a pediatric dermatologist who addressed the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology.
As a general principle for treating chronic skin conditions in children who are not doing well, it is reasonable to draw out information about a patient’s access to adequate housing, nutrition, and other basic needs, George Hightower, MD, PhD, of the division of pediatric and adolescent dermatology, University of California, San Diego, said at the meeting.
“We need conversations about where patients play, learn, and rest their heads at night,” said Dr. Hightower, who conducts research in this area. Fundamental components of well-being, such as stable housing and secure access to nutrition “are inseparable” from a child’s health, he noted.
“What are the stakes?” he asked. For many children, these factors might mean the difference between effective and poor control of the diseases for which the patient is seeking care.
To illustrate the point, Dr. Hightower used hidradenitis suppurativa (HS), a disease that appears to be on the rise among adolescents, as an example of why patient circumstances matter and should be considered. A complex disorder that is more prevalent in resource-poor communities, HS is difficult to control, often requiring extended periods of treatment with medications that can involve complex dosing or regular infusions.
“There is a need for medical providers to help the patient plan for this chronic illness,” said Dr. Hightower, referring to the importance of close follow-up. In adolescents, HS can be sufficiently disruptive from both the physical and psychological perspective that poor control can “derail future aspirations” by complicating educational endeavors and social interactions.
Dr. Hightower acknowledged that simply documenting housing insecurity or other issues does not solve these problems, but he does believe that developing a sensitivity to these obstacles to health care is a first step. It is a process that should permeate into medical training, health care research, and strategies to improve outcomes.
“The connections between fair housing and clinical practice may appear tenuous and inconsequential to the care provided by medical specialists,” Dr. Hightower said, but he emphasized that there are clear consequences when these factors contribute to inadequate control of such diseases as HS. As a source of missed appointments and disjointed care, an unstable home life can be an important barrier to disease control – and because of scarring nodules, fistulae, pain, school absences, and social isolation, complications can be dire.
Solutions to insecure housing are not typically available to an individual clinician, but the awareness that this can be a factor can help both physicians and patients begin to think about the role this plays in impairing recovery and what solutions might be found to modify the impact. Awareness not just among individual clinicians but a broader consortium of those working to improve health care outcomes is needed to “challenge the way we are doing medicine,” he said.
While conversations about the social determinants of health, including access to resources within patients’ neighborhoods, schools, and environment, can demonstrate concern about how to address obstacles, it can also be part of a reorientation to think beyond treatment for the underlying pathology alone. Eliciting trust and emphasizing the importance of environmental barriers to adequate care can be positive steps on the path to solutions.
Participatory action research
Relevant to this orientation, Dr. Hightower spoke about participatory action research (PAR), which provides a framework for patients to participate in the planning of clinical studies to effect change, not just serve as subjects in these studies.
The assumption of PAR is that “all people have valuable knowledge about their lives and experiences,” Dr. Hightower said. From this assumption, individuals who have been historically marginalized by race, income, or other factors can help define the problems from the patient’s perspective and, from there, create studies to seek solutions.
PAR is consistent with a patient-centered approach to medical care, which Dr. Hightower called “the future of medicine.” It involves a big-picture approach to look beyond disease pathology and symptoms to factors that might be creating susceptibility to disease and undermining health care.
Organized medicine alone cannot solve the cause of social inequities leading to disparate risks for disease and risks of inadequate health care, but Dr. Hightower argued that these inequities should not be ignored. He believes medical trainees should learn how to elicit information about the barriers to adequate health care and be aware of solutions, such as fair housing policies.
While he believes that PAR is an example of a pathway to problem solving, he suggested that a comprehensive approach requires an effective method of communication between providers and patients that would lead to a collaborative and mutually reinforcing approach.
“How do we ensure that individuals from communities most impacted by health disparities are treated fairly and empowered to address these disparities?” Dr. Hightower asked. He said that this is the direction of his own research and the issues that inhibit adequate treatment of many dermatologic diseases, as well as other types of disease, in childhood.
Craig Burkhart, MD, director of a private pediatric and adolescent dermatology practice in Cary, N.C., said that Dr. Hightower’s message is relevant. The value of considering and addressing the psychological well-being of patients of any age is not a new concept, but he acknowledged that he, for one, has not routinely inquired about obstacles to follow-up care if there is a signal that this might be an issue.
“As dermatologists, we focus on the acute complaints. We want to make the patient better,” said Dr. Burkhart, who moderated the session in which Dr. Hightower spoke. He agreed with Dr. Hightower that environmental factors make a difference on the road to recovery for a patient, and his presentation was a good reminder, he said, to consider the patient’s circumstances when response to treatment is inadequate, particularly in chronic diseases like HS, for which comprehensive care and close follow-up are needed.
Dr. Hightower and Dr. Burkhart report no potential conflicts of interest.
AT SPD 2023
GERD with bronchiectasis: New invasive interventions show benefit
NEW YORK – Newer invasive procedures for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) are associated with lower risks of postprocedural complications when performed to improve control of bronchiectasis or other serious lung diseases, according to a surgeon who addressed the 6th World Bronchiectasis & NTM Conference.
“The options are not what they were 20 or 30 years ago,” according to Tanuja Damani, MD, surgical director of the Center for Esophageal and Foregut Health, NYU Langone Health, New York.
The more favorable benefit-to-risk ratio of the newer options might make them more attractive to consider earlier for control of GERD in worsening lung disease than interventions have in the past, Dr. Damani suggested.
The association between the presence of GERD and increased severity of bronchiectasis or many other lung diseases is well established, according to Dr. Damani. In the case of bronchiectasis, GERD not only impairs lung function and quality of life, but is strongly linked to greater symptom burden, more exacerbations, more hospitalizations, and even increased mortality.
Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are effective in reducing intragastric acid, a source of irritation and discomfort when the contents of the stomach are refluxed past the lower esophageal sphincter (LES), but Dr. Damani explained that this therapy is often inadequate. Control of intragastric acid is an oversimplification of a more complex pathophysiology.
“It is not just the lower esophageal sphincter,” she said, explaining that other factors, particularly hiatal hernias that often contribute to transient LES relaxations, can play an important role in postprandial transit of gastric contents into the esophagus.
“Any procedure aimed at reinforcing just the LES [without addressing other mechanisms of GERD] are destined to fail,” Dr. Damani said.
She backed up this assertion with examples. These include the many endoscopic procedures designed to strengthen the barrier function of the LES, such as the Stretta procedure or transoral incisionless fundoplication (TIF). Neither addresses the hiatal hernia. Both typically provide immediate symptom relief, but acid in the lower esophagus and symptoms return over time. This has been shown with pH testing, which Dr. Damani called the gold standard for monitoring GERD control.
In procedures that function only by supporting the barrier function of the LES, symptoms typically recur in 6-12 months, requiring resumption of PPIs, if they were ever discontinued, Dr. Damani said. They also include the return of the complications of GERD in lung disease, which includes the damage to lung tissue associated with aspiration of acid as well as the extraesophageal symptoms, including cough, laryngitis and chest pain.
Nissen fundoplication performed with hiatal hernia repair was long regarded as the gold standard for surgical management of GERD, but this is now changing, according to Dr. Damani. She said most centers, including her own, are moving from this to the related Toupet fundoplication, which differs primarily by its use of a 270-degree rather than a 360-degree fundoplication.
By incompletely wrapping the esophagus with the gastric fundus, “the benefit is the same, but the risk of adverse events is much lower,” said Dr. Damani, referring to the bloating, flatulence, and discomfort experienced by some patients following the Nissen procedure. “It is now our operation of choice.”
This Toupet fundoplication, like the Nissen, can be performed laparoscopically or robotically, according to Dr. Damani, who said that efficacy and safety are achieved at a very high rate of consistency in high-volume centers.
However, Dr. Damani also reported that there has been progress with endoscopic approaches and reversible interventions for GERD. These expand the array of options and might be particularly attractive in patients who are poor candidates for surgery or those seeking a reversible intervention.
Of these options, Dr. Damani paid particular attention to the Linx reflux management system. This device is composed of a chain of titanium beads with a magnetic cord that are looped around the lower esophagus to add a barrier function. The level of the magnetic force allows the chain of beads to expand when food descends or gas rises but prevents transient LES relaxations. As a result of its ability to expand and contract, the device is “very dynamic,” Dr. Damani said.
Prior to placement of the device, “the hiatal hernia is dissected and closed like other effective procedures. Then the Linx device is sized and placed,” Dr. Damani explained. Importantly, this procedure can be reversed simply by removing the device.
“There is no side-by-side comparison with a Nissen, but the results have been excellent so far,” Dr. Damani said. The most significant concern is foreign body reactions, but the erosion rates have been reported as less than 0.1%, according to Dr. Damani, who noted that erosion, if it occurs, can be managed endoscopically.
She did caution that candidates for the Linx device must have normal esophageal motility and be free of metal allergies, but she has been impressed with its durable function.
Perhaps the most difficult question in assessing and treating GERD in the context of bronchiectasis is to determine when it is needed. Dr. Damani warned that many patients with lung disease exacerbated by GERD are asymptomatic, requiring a workup to determine if GERD is present. Even if present, it can be challenging to confirm that GERD is a major treatable contributor to poor lung function.
Illustrative of that point, Doreen J. Addrizzo-Harris, MD, codirector of the NYU Langone Health bronchiectasis & NTM clinical and translational program, and President of American College of Chest Physicians, described a patient with advanced bronchiectasis whose poorly controlled lung function had not been considered to be GERD related even though the patent had been inadequately responsive to multiple aggressive treatment strategies. The decision to surgically correct GERD was taken on the basis of diminishing alternative options.
“The improvement in lung function was substantial and rapid,” she said.
Dr. Addrizzo-Harris, who served as a chair of the 2023 World Bronchiectasis & NTM Conference, recounted this case to support the major potential improvements in selected patients with advanced lung disease when GERD is treated. She indicated that even experts overlook this variable.
This still does not answer the question of when to consider an invasive procedure for GERD, but “there is no hard and fast answer,” according to David Kamelhar, MD, who is the other codirector of the NYU Langone Health bronchiectasis & NTM clinical and translational program.
Dr. Kamelhar admitted that he does not immediately think of GERD as a strategy to control lung disease treatable in patients without GERD-related symptoms, but he has pursued this comorbidity in cases when he has “nothing else to offer.” He suggested that multidisciplinary management is one way to consider GERD as treatment target before it becomes a last resort.
As pulmonologists, “we are not GERD experts, so we need to bring in a gastroenterologist or a surgeon who can help with this decision,” he said, referring to when and how to intervene.
From Dr. Damani’s talk, he suggested that the take-home message is that GERD treatment options have improved, and it might make more sense to consider GERD as a treatable comorbidity of lung disease in earlier rather than later stages of disease.
Dr. Damani, Dr. Addrizzo-Harris, and Dr. Kamelhar reported having no potential conflicts of interest relevant to this topic.
NEW YORK – Newer invasive procedures for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) are associated with lower risks of postprocedural complications when performed to improve control of bronchiectasis or other serious lung diseases, according to a surgeon who addressed the 6th World Bronchiectasis & NTM Conference.
“The options are not what they were 20 or 30 years ago,” according to Tanuja Damani, MD, surgical director of the Center for Esophageal and Foregut Health, NYU Langone Health, New York.
The more favorable benefit-to-risk ratio of the newer options might make them more attractive to consider earlier for control of GERD in worsening lung disease than interventions have in the past, Dr. Damani suggested.
The association between the presence of GERD and increased severity of bronchiectasis or many other lung diseases is well established, according to Dr. Damani. In the case of bronchiectasis, GERD not only impairs lung function and quality of life, but is strongly linked to greater symptom burden, more exacerbations, more hospitalizations, and even increased mortality.
Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are effective in reducing intragastric acid, a source of irritation and discomfort when the contents of the stomach are refluxed past the lower esophageal sphincter (LES), but Dr. Damani explained that this therapy is often inadequate. Control of intragastric acid is an oversimplification of a more complex pathophysiology.
“It is not just the lower esophageal sphincter,” she said, explaining that other factors, particularly hiatal hernias that often contribute to transient LES relaxations, can play an important role in postprandial transit of gastric contents into the esophagus.
“Any procedure aimed at reinforcing just the LES [without addressing other mechanisms of GERD] are destined to fail,” Dr. Damani said.
She backed up this assertion with examples. These include the many endoscopic procedures designed to strengthen the barrier function of the LES, such as the Stretta procedure or transoral incisionless fundoplication (TIF). Neither addresses the hiatal hernia. Both typically provide immediate symptom relief, but acid in the lower esophagus and symptoms return over time. This has been shown with pH testing, which Dr. Damani called the gold standard for monitoring GERD control.
In procedures that function only by supporting the barrier function of the LES, symptoms typically recur in 6-12 months, requiring resumption of PPIs, if they were ever discontinued, Dr. Damani said. They also include the return of the complications of GERD in lung disease, which includes the damage to lung tissue associated with aspiration of acid as well as the extraesophageal symptoms, including cough, laryngitis and chest pain.
Nissen fundoplication performed with hiatal hernia repair was long regarded as the gold standard for surgical management of GERD, but this is now changing, according to Dr. Damani. She said most centers, including her own, are moving from this to the related Toupet fundoplication, which differs primarily by its use of a 270-degree rather than a 360-degree fundoplication.
By incompletely wrapping the esophagus with the gastric fundus, “the benefit is the same, but the risk of adverse events is much lower,” said Dr. Damani, referring to the bloating, flatulence, and discomfort experienced by some patients following the Nissen procedure. “It is now our operation of choice.”
This Toupet fundoplication, like the Nissen, can be performed laparoscopically or robotically, according to Dr. Damani, who said that efficacy and safety are achieved at a very high rate of consistency in high-volume centers.
However, Dr. Damani also reported that there has been progress with endoscopic approaches and reversible interventions for GERD. These expand the array of options and might be particularly attractive in patients who are poor candidates for surgery or those seeking a reversible intervention.
Of these options, Dr. Damani paid particular attention to the Linx reflux management system. This device is composed of a chain of titanium beads with a magnetic cord that are looped around the lower esophagus to add a barrier function. The level of the magnetic force allows the chain of beads to expand when food descends or gas rises but prevents transient LES relaxations. As a result of its ability to expand and contract, the device is “very dynamic,” Dr. Damani said.
Prior to placement of the device, “the hiatal hernia is dissected and closed like other effective procedures. Then the Linx device is sized and placed,” Dr. Damani explained. Importantly, this procedure can be reversed simply by removing the device.
“There is no side-by-side comparison with a Nissen, but the results have been excellent so far,” Dr. Damani said. The most significant concern is foreign body reactions, but the erosion rates have been reported as less than 0.1%, according to Dr. Damani, who noted that erosion, if it occurs, can be managed endoscopically.
She did caution that candidates for the Linx device must have normal esophageal motility and be free of metal allergies, but she has been impressed with its durable function.
Perhaps the most difficult question in assessing and treating GERD in the context of bronchiectasis is to determine when it is needed. Dr. Damani warned that many patients with lung disease exacerbated by GERD are asymptomatic, requiring a workup to determine if GERD is present. Even if present, it can be challenging to confirm that GERD is a major treatable contributor to poor lung function.
Illustrative of that point, Doreen J. Addrizzo-Harris, MD, codirector of the NYU Langone Health bronchiectasis & NTM clinical and translational program, and President of American College of Chest Physicians, described a patient with advanced bronchiectasis whose poorly controlled lung function had not been considered to be GERD related even though the patent had been inadequately responsive to multiple aggressive treatment strategies. The decision to surgically correct GERD was taken on the basis of diminishing alternative options.
“The improvement in lung function was substantial and rapid,” she said.
Dr. Addrizzo-Harris, who served as a chair of the 2023 World Bronchiectasis & NTM Conference, recounted this case to support the major potential improvements in selected patients with advanced lung disease when GERD is treated. She indicated that even experts overlook this variable.
This still does not answer the question of when to consider an invasive procedure for GERD, but “there is no hard and fast answer,” according to David Kamelhar, MD, who is the other codirector of the NYU Langone Health bronchiectasis & NTM clinical and translational program.
Dr. Kamelhar admitted that he does not immediately think of GERD as a strategy to control lung disease treatable in patients without GERD-related symptoms, but he has pursued this comorbidity in cases when he has “nothing else to offer.” He suggested that multidisciplinary management is one way to consider GERD as treatment target before it becomes a last resort.
As pulmonologists, “we are not GERD experts, so we need to bring in a gastroenterologist or a surgeon who can help with this decision,” he said, referring to when and how to intervene.
From Dr. Damani’s talk, he suggested that the take-home message is that GERD treatment options have improved, and it might make more sense to consider GERD as a treatable comorbidity of lung disease in earlier rather than later stages of disease.
Dr. Damani, Dr. Addrizzo-Harris, and Dr. Kamelhar reported having no potential conflicts of interest relevant to this topic.
NEW YORK – Newer invasive procedures for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) are associated with lower risks of postprocedural complications when performed to improve control of bronchiectasis or other serious lung diseases, according to a surgeon who addressed the 6th World Bronchiectasis & NTM Conference.
“The options are not what they were 20 or 30 years ago,” according to Tanuja Damani, MD, surgical director of the Center for Esophageal and Foregut Health, NYU Langone Health, New York.
The more favorable benefit-to-risk ratio of the newer options might make them more attractive to consider earlier for control of GERD in worsening lung disease than interventions have in the past, Dr. Damani suggested.
The association between the presence of GERD and increased severity of bronchiectasis or many other lung diseases is well established, according to Dr. Damani. In the case of bronchiectasis, GERD not only impairs lung function and quality of life, but is strongly linked to greater symptom burden, more exacerbations, more hospitalizations, and even increased mortality.
Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are effective in reducing intragastric acid, a source of irritation and discomfort when the contents of the stomach are refluxed past the lower esophageal sphincter (LES), but Dr. Damani explained that this therapy is often inadequate. Control of intragastric acid is an oversimplification of a more complex pathophysiology.
“It is not just the lower esophageal sphincter,” she said, explaining that other factors, particularly hiatal hernias that often contribute to transient LES relaxations, can play an important role in postprandial transit of gastric contents into the esophagus.
“Any procedure aimed at reinforcing just the LES [without addressing other mechanisms of GERD] are destined to fail,” Dr. Damani said.
She backed up this assertion with examples. These include the many endoscopic procedures designed to strengthen the barrier function of the LES, such as the Stretta procedure or transoral incisionless fundoplication (TIF). Neither addresses the hiatal hernia. Both typically provide immediate symptom relief, but acid in the lower esophagus and symptoms return over time. This has been shown with pH testing, which Dr. Damani called the gold standard for monitoring GERD control.
In procedures that function only by supporting the barrier function of the LES, symptoms typically recur in 6-12 months, requiring resumption of PPIs, if they were ever discontinued, Dr. Damani said. They also include the return of the complications of GERD in lung disease, which includes the damage to lung tissue associated with aspiration of acid as well as the extraesophageal symptoms, including cough, laryngitis and chest pain.
Nissen fundoplication performed with hiatal hernia repair was long regarded as the gold standard for surgical management of GERD, but this is now changing, according to Dr. Damani. She said most centers, including her own, are moving from this to the related Toupet fundoplication, which differs primarily by its use of a 270-degree rather than a 360-degree fundoplication.
By incompletely wrapping the esophagus with the gastric fundus, “the benefit is the same, but the risk of adverse events is much lower,” said Dr. Damani, referring to the bloating, flatulence, and discomfort experienced by some patients following the Nissen procedure. “It is now our operation of choice.”
This Toupet fundoplication, like the Nissen, can be performed laparoscopically or robotically, according to Dr. Damani, who said that efficacy and safety are achieved at a very high rate of consistency in high-volume centers.
However, Dr. Damani also reported that there has been progress with endoscopic approaches and reversible interventions for GERD. These expand the array of options and might be particularly attractive in patients who are poor candidates for surgery or those seeking a reversible intervention.
Of these options, Dr. Damani paid particular attention to the Linx reflux management system. This device is composed of a chain of titanium beads with a magnetic cord that are looped around the lower esophagus to add a barrier function. The level of the magnetic force allows the chain of beads to expand when food descends or gas rises but prevents transient LES relaxations. As a result of its ability to expand and contract, the device is “very dynamic,” Dr. Damani said.
Prior to placement of the device, “the hiatal hernia is dissected and closed like other effective procedures. Then the Linx device is sized and placed,” Dr. Damani explained. Importantly, this procedure can be reversed simply by removing the device.
“There is no side-by-side comparison with a Nissen, but the results have been excellent so far,” Dr. Damani said. The most significant concern is foreign body reactions, but the erosion rates have been reported as less than 0.1%, according to Dr. Damani, who noted that erosion, if it occurs, can be managed endoscopically.
She did caution that candidates for the Linx device must have normal esophageal motility and be free of metal allergies, but she has been impressed with its durable function.
Perhaps the most difficult question in assessing and treating GERD in the context of bronchiectasis is to determine when it is needed. Dr. Damani warned that many patients with lung disease exacerbated by GERD are asymptomatic, requiring a workup to determine if GERD is present. Even if present, it can be challenging to confirm that GERD is a major treatable contributor to poor lung function.
Illustrative of that point, Doreen J. Addrizzo-Harris, MD, codirector of the NYU Langone Health bronchiectasis & NTM clinical and translational program, and President of American College of Chest Physicians, described a patient with advanced bronchiectasis whose poorly controlled lung function had not been considered to be GERD related even though the patent had been inadequately responsive to multiple aggressive treatment strategies. The decision to surgically correct GERD was taken on the basis of diminishing alternative options.
“The improvement in lung function was substantial and rapid,” she said.
Dr. Addrizzo-Harris, who served as a chair of the 2023 World Bronchiectasis & NTM Conference, recounted this case to support the major potential improvements in selected patients with advanced lung disease when GERD is treated. She indicated that even experts overlook this variable.
This still does not answer the question of when to consider an invasive procedure for GERD, but “there is no hard and fast answer,” according to David Kamelhar, MD, who is the other codirector of the NYU Langone Health bronchiectasis & NTM clinical and translational program.
Dr. Kamelhar admitted that he does not immediately think of GERD as a strategy to control lung disease treatable in patients without GERD-related symptoms, but he has pursued this comorbidity in cases when he has “nothing else to offer.” He suggested that multidisciplinary management is one way to consider GERD as treatment target before it becomes a last resort.
As pulmonologists, “we are not GERD experts, so we need to bring in a gastroenterologist or a surgeon who can help with this decision,” he said, referring to when and how to intervene.
From Dr. Damani’s talk, he suggested that the take-home message is that GERD treatment options have improved, and it might make more sense to consider GERD as a treatable comorbidity of lung disease in earlier rather than later stages of disease.
Dr. Damani, Dr. Addrizzo-Harris, and Dr. Kamelhar reported having no potential conflicts of interest relevant to this topic.
AT WBC 2023