Federal Practitioner

Finerenone, the first nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist to complete a phase 3 trial, showed cardiovascular benefits in patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease, regardless of whether they entered the study with a history of cardiovascular disease, in follow-up analyses of the FIDELIO-DKD trial, which included 5,674 patients.

“Finerenone demonstrated benefits for primary and secondary cardiovascular disease protection,” said Gerasimos Filippatos, MD, at the American Heart Association scientific sessions. Finerenone treatment cut the rate of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI or stroke, or heart failure hospitalization, when compared with placebo, by a relative 15% among patients with a history of cardiovascular disease (CVD), and by a relative 14% in patients without this history, differences that met a statistical test for consistency. But the absolute, drug-associated increments in benefit over placebo differed between the two CVD subgroups because of a sharp underlying difference in event rates.

In contrast, the analyses reported by Dr. Filippatos and associates from the FIDELIO-DKD study showed significant heterogeneity based on the presence or absence of CVD for the study’s primary endpoint, a composite renal metric that tallied the combined rate of death from renal causes, renal failure, or a sustained drop in estimated glomerular filtration rate of at least 40%. Researchers enrolled patients into FIDELIO-DKD based on having type 2 diabetes (T2D) and chronic kidney disease (CKD). The prevalence of a history of CVD was 46%.

Among patients with a history of CVD, the composite adverse CVD outcome occurred at a rate of 8.5/100 patient-years in patients on placebo and in 7.18/100 patients years among those on finerenone during a median of 2.6 years of follow-up, a 1.32/100–patient-year absolute between-group difference. Among patients in a primary prevention setting, incident CVD event rates during follow-up were roughly half that in the secondary prevention patients. The upshot was that, in the placebo group, the rate was 3.92/100 patient- years, and in those on finerenone was 3.43/100 patient-years, a 0.49/100–patient-year absolute difference.
 

CVD history produced heterogeneity for the primary endpoint

In the analysis that focused on the study’s primary, renal endpoint, among patients identified as having CVD at study entry, the outcome occurred at a rate of 9.06/100 patient-years in the placebo subgroup and at a rate of 6.6/100 patient years in those who received finerenone, a significant 30% relative risk reduction and an absolute between-group difference of 2.46/100 patient-years.

In contrast, among patients without a CVD history, the composite renal endpoint occurred at a rate of 9.1/100 patient-years in the placebo patients and 8.42/100 patient-years in those on finerenone, a 6% relative risk reduction that was not significant, and a 0.68/100–patient-year absolute difference. This disparity in the primary event rate between the two treatment arms reached statistical significance (P = .016), the investigators reported in the published version of the report in Circulation that simultaneously appeared online.

“The totality of evidence suggests that finerenone could be used in patients with T2D with or without a history of CVD,” explained Dr. Filippatos in an interview. “The P-interaction for the composite kidney outcome is significant, but it is not corrected for multiple testing; therefore, it might be a false-chance finding and must be interpreted cautiously.

Furthermore, in another prespecified kidney composite outcome the results were consistent in patients with and without a history of CVD. In sum, all the FIDELIO-DKD analyses so far are “suggestive of a beneficial effect in patients without a history of CVD.”

Despite these patients receiving guideline directed therapies, “there remains a high unmet medical need in patients with T2D and CKD,” added Dr. Filippatos, professor of cardiology at the University of Athens. “We use multiple treatments for patients with heart failure, and we should use the same mindset for treating patients with T2D and CKD. The costs of dialysis and kidney transplant are very high, so it is important to consider options that slow progression of CKD in these patients.”

In FIDELIO-DKD, virtually all patients were on background therapy with a renin-angiotensin-system (RAS) inhibitor, so the trial’s results suggest that treatment should at least involve dual therapy with finerenone and a RAS inhibitor. Fewer than 5% were on background therapy with a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor, a drug class recently established as another key agent for treating CKD in patients with T2D, setting up the prospect for triple therapy, although this approach has not yet undergone prospective testing.

Combining RAS inhibition, finerenone, and an SGLT2 inhibitor is “potentially a marriage made in diabetes heaven,” commented Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, who has not participated in finerenone studies.

Finerenone looks better for safety

Regardless of subgroup analyses based on history of CVD, the findings from all patients enrolled in FIDELIO-DKD were positive for the both the primary renal outcome and key secondary outcome of composite CVD events. In the total randomized cohort, treatment with finerenone on top of optimized treatment with an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (RAS inhibition) led to a significant 18% relative risk reduction, compared with placebo, for the primary renal endpoint, and a significant 14% relative drop in the key secondary CVD outcome. Those results were published in October in the New England Journal of Medicine.

[email protected]

Finerenone, the first nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist to complete a phase 3 trial, showed cardiovascular benefits in patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease, regardless of whether they entered the study with a history of cardiovascular disease, in follow-up analyses of the FIDELIO-DKD trial, which included 5,674 patients.

“Finerenone demonstrated benefits for primary and secondary cardiovascular disease protection,” said Gerasimos Filippatos, MD, at the American Heart Association scientific sessions. Finerenone treatment cut the rate of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI or stroke, or heart failure hospitalization, when compared with placebo, by a relative 15% among patients with a history of cardiovascular disease (CVD), and by a relative 14% in patients without this history, differences that met a statistical test for consistency. But the absolute, drug-associated increments in benefit over placebo differed between the two CVD subgroups because of a sharp underlying difference in event rates.

In contrast, the analyses reported by Dr. Filippatos and associates from the FIDELIO-DKD study showed significant heterogeneity based on the presence or absence of CVD for the study’s primary endpoint, a composite renal metric that tallied the combined rate of death from renal causes, renal failure, or a sustained drop in estimated glomerular filtration rate of at least 40%. Researchers enrolled patients into FIDELIO-DKD based on having type 2 diabetes (T2D) and chronic kidney disease (CKD). The prevalence of a history of CVD was 46%.

Among patients with a history of CVD, the composite adverse CVD outcome occurred at a rate of 8.5/100 patient-years in patients on placebo and in 7.18/100 patients years among those on finerenone during a median of 2.6 years of follow-up, a 1.32/100–patient-year absolute between-group difference. Among patients in a primary prevention setting, incident CVD event rates during follow-up were roughly half that in the secondary prevention patients. The upshot was that, in the placebo group, the rate was 3.92/100 patient- years, and in those on finerenone was 3.43/100 patient-years, a 0.49/100–patient-year absolute difference.
 

CVD history produced heterogeneity for the primary endpoint

In the analysis that focused on the study’s primary, renal endpoint, among patients identified as having CVD at study entry, the outcome occurred at a rate of 9.06/100 patient-years in the placebo subgroup and at a rate of 6.6/100 patient years in those who received finerenone, a significant 30% relative risk reduction and an absolute between-group difference of 2.46/100 patient-years.

In contrast, among patients without a CVD history, the composite renal endpoint occurred at a rate of 9.1/100 patient-years in the placebo patients and 8.42/100 patient-years in those on finerenone, a 6% relative risk reduction that was not significant, and a 0.68/100–patient-year absolute difference. This disparity in the primary event rate between the two treatment arms reached statistical significance (P = .016), the investigators reported in the published version of the report in Circulation that simultaneously appeared online.

“The totality of evidence suggests that finerenone could be used in patients with T2D with or without a history of CVD,” explained Dr. Filippatos in an interview. “The P-interaction for the composite kidney outcome is significant, but it is not corrected for multiple testing; therefore, it might be a false-chance finding and must be interpreted cautiously.

Furthermore, in another prespecified kidney composite outcome the results were consistent in patients with and without a history of CVD. In sum, all the FIDELIO-DKD analyses so far are “suggestive of a beneficial effect in patients without a history of CVD.”

Despite these patients receiving guideline directed therapies, “there remains a high unmet medical need in patients with T2D and CKD,” added Dr. Filippatos, professor of cardiology at the University of Athens. “We use multiple treatments for patients with heart failure, and we should use the same mindset for treating patients with T2D and CKD. The costs of dialysis and kidney transplant are very high, so it is important to consider options that slow progression of CKD in these patients.”

In FIDELIO-DKD, virtually all patients were on background therapy with a renin-angiotensin-system (RAS) inhibitor, so the trial’s results suggest that treatment should at least involve dual therapy with finerenone and a RAS inhibitor. Fewer than 5% were on background therapy with a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor, a drug class recently established as another key agent for treating CKD in patients with T2D, setting up the prospect for triple therapy, although this approach has not yet undergone prospective testing.

Combining RAS inhibition, finerenone, and an SGLT2 inhibitor is “potentially a marriage made in diabetes heaven,” commented Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, who has not participated in finerenone studies.

Finerenone looks better for safety

Regardless of subgroup analyses based on history of CVD, the findings from all patients enrolled in FIDELIO-DKD were positive for the both the primary renal outcome and key secondary outcome of composite CVD events. In the total randomized cohort, treatment with finerenone on top of optimized treatment with an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (RAS inhibition) led to a significant 18% relative risk reduction, compared with placebo, for the primary renal endpoint, and a significant 14% relative drop in the key secondary CVD outcome. Those results were published in October in the New England Journal of Medicine.

[email protected]

Finerenone, the first nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist to complete a phase 3 trial, showed cardiovascular benefits in patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease, regardless of whether they entered the study with a history of cardiovascular disease, in follow-up analyses of the FIDELIO-DKD trial, which included 5,674 patients.

“Finerenone demonstrated benefits for primary and secondary cardiovascular disease protection,” said Gerasimos Filippatos, MD, at the American Heart Association scientific sessions. Finerenone treatment cut the rate of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI or stroke, or heart failure hospitalization, when compared with placebo, by a relative 15% among patients with a history of cardiovascular disease (CVD), and by a relative 14% in patients without this history, differences that met a statistical test for consistency. But the absolute, drug-associated increments in benefit over placebo differed between the two CVD subgroups because of a sharp underlying difference in event rates.

In contrast, the analyses reported by Dr. Filippatos and associates from the FIDELIO-DKD study showed significant heterogeneity based on the presence or absence of CVD for the study’s primary endpoint, a composite renal metric that tallied the combined rate of death from renal causes, renal failure, or a sustained drop in estimated glomerular filtration rate of at least 40%. Researchers enrolled patients into FIDELIO-DKD based on having type 2 diabetes (T2D) and chronic kidney disease (CKD). The prevalence of a history of CVD was 46%.

Among patients with a history of CVD, the composite adverse CVD outcome occurred at a rate of 8.5/100 patient-years in patients on placebo and in 7.18/100 patients years among those on finerenone during a median of 2.6 years of follow-up, a 1.32/100–patient-year absolute between-group difference. Among patients in a primary prevention setting, incident CVD event rates during follow-up were roughly half that in the secondary prevention patients. The upshot was that, in the placebo group, the rate was 3.92/100 patient- years, and in those on finerenone was 3.43/100 patient-years, a 0.49/100–patient-year absolute difference.
 

CVD history produced heterogeneity for the primary endpoint

In the analysis that focused on the study’s primary, renal endpoint, among patients identified as having CVD at study entry, the outcome occurred at a rate of 9.06/100 patient-years in the placebo subgroup and at a rate of 6.6/100 patient years in those who received finerenone, a significant 30% relative risk reduction and an absolute between-group difference of 2.46/100 patient-years.

In contrast, among patients without a CVD history, the composite renal endpoint occurred at a rate of 9.1/100 patient-years in the placebo patients and 8.42/100 patient-years in those on finerenone, a 6% relative risk reduction that was not significant, and a 0.68/100–patient-year absolute difference. This disparity in the primary event rate between the two treatment arms reached statistical significance (P = .016), the investigators reported in the published version of the report in Circulation that simultaneously appeared online.

“The totality of evidence suggests that finerenone could be used in patients with T2D with or without a history of CVD,” explained Dr. Filippatos in an interview. “The P-interaction for the composite kidney outcome is significant, but it is not corrected for multiple testing; therefore, it might be a false-chance finding and must be interpreted cautiously.

Furthermore, in another prespecified kidney composite outcome the results were consistent in patients with and without a history of CVD. In sum, all the FIDELIO-DKD analyses so far are “suggestive of a beneficial effect in patients without a history of CVD.”

Despite these patients receiving guideline directed therapies, “there remains a high unmet medical need in patients with T2D and CKD,” added Dr. Filippatos, professor of cardiology at the University of Athens. “We use multiple treatments for patients with heart failure, and we should use the same mindset for treating patients with T2D and CKD. The costs of dialysis and kidney transplant are very high, so it is important to consider options that slow progression of CKD in these patients.”

In FIDELIO-DKD, virtually all patients were on background therapy with a renin-angiotensin-system (RAS) inhibitor, so the trial’s results suggest that treatment should at least involve dual therapy with finerenone and a RAS inhibitor. Fewer than 5% were on background therapy with a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor, a drug class recently established as another key agent for treating CKD in patients with T2D, setting up the prospect for triple therapy, although this approach has not yet undergone prospective testing.

Combining RAS inhibition, finerenone, and an SGLT2 inhibitor is “potentially a marriage made in diabetes heaven,” commented Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, who has not participated in finerenone studies.

Finerenone looks better for safety

Regardless of subgroup analyses based on history of CVD, the findings from all patients enrolled in FIDELIO-DKD were positive for the both the primary renal outcome and key secondary outcome of composite CVD events. In the total randomized cohort, treatment with finerenone on top of optimized treatment with an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (RAS inhibition) led to a significant 18% relative risk reduction, compared with placebo, for the primary renal endpoint, and a significant 14% relative drop in the key secondary CVD outcome. Those results were published in October in the New England Journal of Medicine.

[email protected]

Circulating microRNAs (miRNAs) could be a potential noninvasive biomarker for early diagnosis of multiple myeloma (MM), according to the results of a meta-analysis published online in the Journal of Bone Oncology.

In recent years, because of the rise of the miRNA technique, many scholars have studied its value in the diagnosis of MM, and have obtained good but inconsistent results, according to Shuai-Shuai Gao, of the Xi’an (China) Daxing Hospital, and colleagues. For this reason, they conducted the meta-analysis in order to more clearly determine the role of miRNA in the early diagnosis of MM. The meta-analysis ultimately assessed 32 studies from 15 articles comprising 2,053 MM patients and 1,118 healthy controls.

All the included studies involved newly diagnosed MM patients and healthy controls; the obtained miRNA was derived from serum or plasma specimens; and the report contained relevant statistics such as sensitivity, specificity, and area-under-the-curve values.
 

High sensitivity and specificity

The researchers found that the overall sensitivity and specificity of using miRNAs for the diagnosis of MM were 0.81 and 0.85, respectively. In addition, the overall positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, diagnostic odds ratio, and area under the curve were 5.5, 0.22, 25 and 0.90, respectively.

A subgroup analysis showed that the down-regulation of miRNA clusters with larger samples size of plasma type could carry out a better diagnostic accuracy of MM patients, according to the authors.

“[Circulating miRNAs] not only had high sensitivity and strong specificity, but also had noninvasive and no radiation risks. It is worth continuing to optimize its practicality. In the future, multicenter, more rigorous, and high-quality case-control studies are still needed in clinical practice to improve the efficacy of circulating miRNA in the early diagnosis of MM,” the researchers concluded.

The study did not receive any outside funding and the researchers reported that they had no conflicts.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Gao S-S et al. J Bone Oncol. 2020 Oct 21. doi: 10.1016/j.jbo.2020.100327.

Circulating microRNAs (miRNAs) could be a potential noninvasive biomarker for early diagnosis of multiple myeloma (MM), according to the results of a meta-analysis published online in the Journal of Bone Oncology.

In recent years, because of the rise of the miRNA technique, many scholars have studied its value in the diagnosis of MM, and have obtained good but inconsistent results, according to Shuai-Shuai Gao, of the Xi’an (China) Daxing Hospital, and colleagues. For this reason, they conducted the meta-analysis in order to more clearly determine the role of miRNA in the early diagnosis of MM. The meta-analysis ultimately assessed 32 studies from 15 articles comprising 2,053 MM patients and 1,118 healthy controls.

All the included studies involved newly diagnosed MM patients and healthy controls; the obtained miRNA was derived from serum or plasma specimens; and the report contained relevant statistics such as sensitivity, specificity, and area-under-the-curve values.
 

High sensitivity and specificity

The researchers found that the overall sensitivity and specificity of using miRNAs for the diagnosis of MM were 0.81 and 0.85, respectively. In addition, the overall positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, diagnostic odds ratio, and area under the curve were 5.5, 0.22, 25 and 0.90, respectively.

A subgroup analysis showed that the down-regulation of miRNA clusters with larger samples size of plasma type could carry out a better diagnostic accuracy of MM patients, according to the authors.

“[Circulating miRNAs] not only had high sensitivity and strong specificity, but also had noninvasive and no radiation risks. It is worth continuing to optimize its practicality. In the future, multicenter, more rigorous, and high-quality case-control studies are still needed in clinical practice to improve the efficacy of circulating miRNA in the early diagnosis of MM,” the researchers concluded.

The study did not receive any outside funding and the researchers reported that they had no conflicts.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Gao S-S et al. J Bone Oncol. 2020 Oct 21. doi: 10.1016/j.jbo.2020.100327.

Circulating microRNAs (miRNAs) could be a potential noninvasive biomarker for early diagnosis of multiple myeloma (MM), according to the results of a meta-analysis published online in the Journal of Bone Oncology.

In recent years, because of the rise of the miRNA technique, many scholars have studied its value in the diagnosis of MM, and have obtained good but inconsistent results, according to Shuai-Shuai Gao, of the Xi’an (China) Daxing Hospital, and colleagues. For this reason, they conducted the meta-analysis in order to more clearly determine the role of miRNA in the early diagnosis of MM. The meta-analysis ultimately assessed 32 studies from 15 articles comprising 2,053 MM patients and 1,118 healthy controls.

All the included studies involved newly diagnosed MM patients and healthy controls; the obtained miRNA was derived from serum or plasma specimens; and the report contained relevant statistics such as sensitivity, specificity, and area-under-the-curve values.
 

High sensitivity and specificity

The researchers found that the overall sensitivity and specificity of using miRNAs for the diagnosis of MM were 0.81 and 0.85, respectively. In addition, the overall positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, diagnostic odds ratio, and area under the curve were 5.5, 0.22, 25 and 0.90, respectively.

A subgroup analysis showed that the down-regulation of miRNA clusters with larger samples size of plasma type could carry out a better diagnostic accuracy of MM patients, according to the authors.

“[Circulating miRNAs] not only had high sensitivity and strong specificity, but also had noninvasive and no radiation risks. It is worth continuing to optimize its practicality. In the future, multicenter, more rigorous, and high-quality case-control studies are still needed in clinical practice to improve the efficacy of circulating miRNA in the early diagnosis of MM,” the researchers concluded.

The study did not receive any outside funding and the researchers reported that they had no conflicts.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Gao S-S et al. J Bone Oncol. 2020 Oct 21. doi: 10.1016/j.jbo.2020.100327.

Risk factors for keratinocyte carcinomas, primarily pigment traits and sun sensitivity, were associated with the risk of developing non-Hodgkin lymphomas (NHL) and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) in an analysis of 92,097 women in France.

The presence of “many or very many nevi [moles]” was particularly associated with the risk of CLL among individuals in the E3N cohort, according to a report published online in Cancer Medicine. E3N is a prospective cohort of French women aged 40-65 years at inclusion in 1990. Researchers collected cancer data at baseline and every 2-3 years.

Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for associations between patients pigmentary traits and sun exposure and their risk for CLL/NHL were estimated using Cox models, according to study author Louis-Marie Garcin, MD, of the Université Paris-Saclay, Villejuif, and colleagues.
 

Common etiology?

Among the 92,097 women included in the study, 622 incident cases of CLL/NHL were observed over a median of 24-years’ follow-up.

The presence of nevi was associated with CLL/NHL risk. The HR for “many or very many nevi” relative to “no nevi” was 1.56. The association with number of nevi was strongest for the risk of CLL, with an HR for “many or very many nevi” of 3.00 vs. 1.32 for NHL. In addition, the researchers found that women whose skin was highly sensitive to sunburn also had a higher risk of CLL (HR, 1.96), while no increased risk of NHL was observed. All HR values were within their respective 95% confidence intervals.

Relevant characteristics that were found to not be associated with added CLL/NHL risk were skin or hair color, number of freckles, and average daily UV dose during spring and summer in the location of residence at birth or at inclusion.

These observations suggest that CLL in particular may share some constitutional risk factors with keratinocyte cancers, according to the researchers.

“We report an association between nevi frequency and CLL/NHL risk, suggesting a partly common genetic etiology of these tumors. Future research should investigate common pathophysiological pathways that could promote the development of both skin carcinoma and CLL/NHL,” the researchers concluded.

The study was sponsored by the French government. The authors stated that they had no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Garcin L-M et al. Cancer Med. 2020. doi: 10.1002/cam4.3586.

Risk factors for keratinocyte carcinomas, primarily pigment traits and sun sensitivity, were associated with the risk of developing non-Hodgkin lymphomas (NHL) and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) in an analysis of 92,097 women in France.

The presence of “many or very many nevi [moles]” was particularly associated with the risk of CLL among individuals in the E3N cohort, according to a report published online in Cancer Medicine. E3N is a prospective cohort of French women aged 40-65 years at inclusion in 1990. Researchers collected cancer data at baseline and every 2-3 years.

Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for associations between patients pigmentary traits and sun exposure and their risk for CLL/NHL were estimated using Cox models, according to study author Louis-Marie Garcin, MD, of the Université Paris-Saclay, Villejuif, and colleagues.
 

Common etiology?

Among the 92,097 women included in the study, 622 incident cases of CLL/NHL were observed over a median of 24-years’ follow-up.

The presence of nevi was associated with CLL/NHL risk. The HR for “many or very many nevi” relative to “no nevi” was 1.56. The association with number of nevi was strongest for the risk of CLL, with an HR for “many or very many nevi” of 3.00 vs. 1.32 for NHL. In addition, the researchers found that women whose skin was highly sensitive to sunburn also had a higher risk of CLL (HR, 1.96), while no increased risk of NHL was observed. All HR values were within their respective 95% confidence intervals.

Relevant characteristics that were found to not be associated with added CLL/NHL risk were skin or hair color, number of freckles, and average daily UV dose during spring and summer in the location of residence at birth or at inclusion.

These observations suggest that CLL in particular may share some constitutional risk factors with keratinocyte cancers, according to the researchers.

“We report an association between nevi frequency and CLL/NHL risk, suggesting a partly common genetic etiology of these tumors. Future research should investigate common pathophysiological pathways that could promote the development of both skin carcinoma and CLL/NHL,” the researchers concluded.

The study was sponsored by the French government. The authors stated that they had no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Garcin L-M et al. Cancer Med. 2020. doi: 10.1002/cam4.3586.

Risk factors for keratinocyte carcinomas, primarily pigment traits and sun sensitivity, were associated with the risk of developing non-Hodgkin lymphomas (NHL) and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) in an analysis of 92,097 women in France.

The presence of “many or very many nevi [moles]” was particularly associated with the risk of CLL among individuals in the E3N cohort, according to a report published online in Cancer Medicine. E3N is a prospective cohort of French women aged 40-65 years at inclusion in 1990. Researchers collected cancer data at baseline and every 2-3 years.

Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for associations between patients pigmentary traits and sun exposure and their risk for CLL/NHL were estimated using Cox models, according to study author Louis-Marie Garcin, MD, of the Université Paris-Saclay, Villejuif, and colleagues.
 

Common etiology?

Among the 92,097 women included in the study, 622 incident cases of CLL/NHL were observed over a median of 24-years’ follow-up.

The presence of nevi was associated with CLL/NHL risk. The HR for “many or very many nevi” relative to “no nevi” was 1.56. The association with number of nevi was strongest for the risk of CLL, with an HR for “many or very many nevi” of 3.00 vs. 1.32 for NHL. In addition, the researchers found that women whose skin was highly sensitive to sunburn also had a higher risk of CLL (HR, 1.96), while no increased risk of NHL was observed. All HR values were within their respective 95% confidence intervals.

Relevant characteristics that were found to not be associated with added CLL/NHL risk were skin or hair color, number of freckles, and average daily UV dose during spring and summer in the location of residence at birth or at inclusion.

These observations suggest that CLL in particular may share some constitutional risk factors with keratinocyte cancers, according to the researchers.

“We report an association between nevi frequency and CLL/NHL risk, suggesting a partly common genetic etiology of these tumors. Future research should investigate common pathophysiological pathways that could promote the development of both skin carcinoma and CLL/NHL,” the researchers concluded.

The study was sponsored by the French government. The authors stated that they had no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Garcin L-M et al. Cancer Med. 2020. doi: 10.1002/cam4.3586.

The American Medical Association House of Delegates has adopted a policy to educate physicians on how to speak with patients about COVID-19 vaccination to counteract widespread misinformation about the vaccine development process.

Other highlights of the AMA’s recent special meeting include a new policy on the ethics of physicians getting immunized against COVID-19 and a far-reaching statement about racism.

Under the organization’s new vaccination education policy, the AMA will provide physicians with “culturally appropriate patient education materials,” according to a news release.

This campaign will be conducted “bearing in mind the historical context of ‘experimentation’ with vaccines and other medication in communities of color,” the AMA said, apparently alluding to the infamous Tuskegee study of syphilis in Black men.

Educating the public about the safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine programs is an “urgent priority,” the AMA said. This is especially true among populations that have been disproportionately affected by the disease. Black and Latino people are being hospitalized for COVID-19 at far higher rates than White Americans.

“Under the new policy, the AMA will help address patient concerns, dispel misinformation, and build confidence in COVID-19 vaccination,” the release states. The AMA also plans to build a coalition of health care and public health organizations to develop and implement a joint public education program.

Polls have indicated that many people will not get vaccinated when supplies of the new COVID-19 vaccines are available, although public support is rising. A recent Gallup poll found that 58% of surveyed adults were willing to be inoculated, up from 50% in September.

A Kaiser Family Foundation survey in September found that a majority of Americans were skeptical of a rushed vaccine, because they were concerned that the Trump administration was pressuring the Food and Drug Administration to approve a vaccine before the election.

“Given the unprecedented situation with COVID-19 and with vaccine development moving at a rapid pace, many of our patients and the public have questions and concerns,” said AMA President Susan R. Bailey, MD, in the release. “It is essential that we speak together as a strong, unified voice across health care and public health, inclusive of organizations respected in communities of color; to use scientific, fact-based evidence to help allay public concerns; and build confidence in COVID-19 vaccine candidates that are determined to be safe and effective.”
 

Physician, immunize thyself

The AMA also adopted a new ethics policy about physician immunization. On Monday, the AMA House of Delegates stated that physicians who are not immunized from a vaccine-preventable disease have an ethical responsibility to take appropriate actions to protect patients and colleagues.

The AMA code of ethics has long maintained that physicians have a strong ethical duty to accept immunizations when a safe, effective vaccine is available. However, the organization said in a news release, “it is not ethically problematic to exempt individuals when a specific vaccine poses a risk due to underlying medical conditions.”

Ethical concerns arise when physicians are allowed to decline vaccinations for nonmedical reasons, according to a report presented to the House of Delegates by the AMA Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs.

According to the newly amended AMA ethical guidance, “physicians who are not or cannot be immunized have a responsibility to voluntarily take appropriate actions to protect patients, fellow health care workers and others.” This includes refraining from direct patient contact.

The delegates also approved a guidance asserting that physician practices and health care institutions are responsible for developing policies and procedures for responding to pandemics and epidemics. These policies and procedures should outline appropriate protective equipment allocation, staff immunization programs, and infection control practices.
 

Combating systemic racism

In an effort to reduce racial disparities in healthcare, the AMA House of Delegates adopted new policies recognizing race as a social construct, rather than a biological construct.

“The policies aim to advance data-driven, antiracist concepts challenging the current clinical application of race and its effects on vulnerable patient populations,” an AMA statement said.

The new AMA policies “reflect an understanding of race as a socially constructed category different from ethnicity, genetic ancestry, or biology, and aim to end the misinterpretation of race as a biological category defined by genetic traits or biological differences,” the AMA said.

According to the AMA, the practice of accepting race as a biological construct “exacerbates health disparities and results in detrimental health outcomes for marginalized and minoritized communities.”

Specifically, the AMA said it supports ending the practice of using race as a proxy for biology in medical education, research, and clinical practice. It also encourages medical education programs to recognize the harmful effects of this approach. It recommends that clinicians and researchers focus on genetics and biology, the experience of racism, and social determinants of health when describing risk factors for disease.

“The AMA is dedicated to dismantling racist and discriminatory policies and practices across all of health care, and that includes the way we define race in medicine,” said AMA board member Michael Suk, MD, in its statement. “We believe it is not sufficient for medicine to be nonracist, which is why the AMA is committed to pushing for a shift in thinking from race as a biological risk factor to a deeper understanding of racism as a determinant of health.”

The AMA also plans to partner with physician organizations and other stakeholders “to identify any problematic aspects of medical education that may perpetuate institutional and structural racism.” For example, the AMA will work with other organizations to improve clinical algorithms that incorrectly adjust for race and lead to less-than-optimal care for minority patients.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

The American Medical Association House of Delegates has adopted a policy to educate physicians on how to speak with patients about COVID-19 vaccination to counteract widespread misinformation about the vaccine development process.

Other highlights of the AMA’s recent special meeting include a new policy on the ethics of physicians getting immunized against COVID-19 and a far-reaching statement about racism.

Under the organization’s new vaccination education policy, the AMA will provide physicians with “culturally appropriate patient education materials,” according to a news release.

This campaign will be conducted “bearing in mind the historical context of ‘experimentation’ with vaccines and other medication in communities of color,” the AMA said, apparently alluding to the infamous Tuskegee study of syphilis in Black men.

Educating the public about the safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine programs is an “urgent priority,” the AMA said. This is especially true among populations that have been disproportionately affected by the disease. Black and Latino people are being hospitalized for COVID-19 at far higher rates than White Americans.

“Under the new policy, the AMA will help address patient concerns, dispel misinformation, and build confidence in COVID-19 vaccination,” the release states. The AMA also plans to build a coalition of health care and public health organizations to develop and implement a joint public education program.

Polls have indicated that many people will not get vaccinated when supplies of the new COVID-19 vaccines are available, although public support is rising. A recent Gallup poll found that 58% of surveyed adults were willing to be inoculated, up from 50% in September.

A Kaiser Family Foundation survey in September found that a majority of Americans were skeptical of a rushed vaccine, because they were concerned that the Trump administration was pressuring the Food and Drug Administration to approve a vaccine before the election.

“Given the unprecedented situation with COVID-19 and with vaccine development moving at a rapid pace, many of our patients and the public have questions and concerns,” said AMA President Susan R. Bailey, MD, in the release. “It is essential that we speak together as a strong, unified voice across health care and public health, inclusive of organizations respected in communities of color; to use scientific, fact-based evidence to help allay public concerns; and build confidence in COVID-19 vaccine candidates that are determined to be safe and effective.”
 

Physician, immunize thyself

The AMA also adopted a new ethics policy about physician immunization. On Monday, the AMA House of Delegates stated that physicians who are not immunized from a vaccine-preventable disease have an ethical responsibility to take appropriate actions to protect patients and colleagues.

The AMA code of ethics has long maintained that physicians have a strong ethical duty to accept immunizations when a safe, effective vaccine is available. However, the organization said in a news release, “it is not ethically problematic to exempt individuals when a specific vaccine poses a risk due to underlying medical conditions.”

Ethical concerns arise when physicians are allowed to decline vaccinations for nonmedical reasons, according to a report presented to the House of Delegates by the AMA Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs.

According to the newly amended AMA ethical guidance, “physicians who are not or cannot be immunized have a responsibility to voluntarily take appropriate actions to protect patients, fellow health care workers and others.” This includes refraining from direct patient contact.

The delegates also approved a guidance asserting that physician practices and health care institutions are responsible for developing policies and procedures for responding to pandemics and epidemics. These policies and procedures should outline appropriate protective equipment allocation, staff immunization programs, and infection control practices.
 

Combating systemic racism

In an effort to reduce racial disparities in healthcare, the AMA House of Delegates adopted new policies recognizing race as a social construct, rather than a biological construct.

“The policies aim to advance data-driven, antiracist concepts challenging the current clinical application of race and its effects on vulnerable patient populations,” an AMA statement said.

The new AMA policies “reflect an understanding of race as a socially constructed category different from ethnicity, genetic ancestry, or biology, and aim to end the misinterpretation of race as a biological category defined by genetic traits or biological differences,” the AMA said.

According to the AMA, the practice of accepting race as a biological construct “exacerbates health disparities and results in detrimental health outcomes for marginalized and minoritized communities.”

Specifically, the AMA said it supports ending the practice of using race as a proxy for biology in medical education, research, and clinical practice. It also encourages medical education programs to recognize the harmful effects of this approach. It recommends that clinicians and researchers focus on genetics and biology, the experience of racism, and social determinants of health when describing risk factors for disease.

“The AMA is dedicated to dismantling racist and discriminatory policies and practices across all of health care, and that includes the way we define race in medicine,” said AMA board member Michael Suk, MD, in its statement. “We believe it is not sufficient for medicine to be nonracist, which is why the AMA is committed to pushing for a shift in thinking from race as a biological risk factor to a deeper understanding of racism as a determinant of health.”

The AMA also plans to partner with physician organizations and other stakeholders “to identify any problematic aspects of medical education that may perpetuate institutional and structural racism.” For example, the AMA will work with other organizations to improve clinical algorithms that incorrectly adjust for race and lead to less-than-optimal care for minority patients.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

The American Medical Association House of Delegates has adopted a policy to educate physicians on how to speak with patients about COVID-19 vaccination to counteract widespread misinformation about the vaccine development process.

Other highlights of the AMA’s recent special meeting include a new policy on the ethics of physicians getting immunized against COVID-19 and a far-reaching statement about racism.

Under the organization’s new vaccination education policy, the AMA will provide physicians with “culturally appropriate patient education materials,” according to a news release.

This campaign will be conducted “bearing in mind the historical context of ‘experimentation’ with vaccines and other medication in communities of color,” the AMA said, apparently alluding to the infamous Tuskegee study of syphilis in Black men.

Educating the public about the safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine programs is an “urgent priority,” the AMA said. This is especially true among populations that have been disproportionately affected by the disease. Black and Latino people are being hospitalized for COVID-19 at far higher rates than White Americans.

“Under the new policy, the AMA will help address patient concerns, dispel misinformation, and build confidence in COVID-19 vaccination,” the release states. The AMA also plans to build a coalition of health care and public health organizations to develop and implement a joint public education program.

Polls have indicated that many people will not get vaccinated when supplies of the new COVID-19 vaccines are available, although public support is rising. A recent Gallup poll found that 58% of surveyed adults were willing to be inoculated, up from 50% in September.

A Kaiser Family Foundation survey in September found that a majority of Americans were skeptical of a rushed vaccine, because they were concerned that the Trump administration was pressuring the Food and Drug Administration to approve a vaccine before the election.

“Given the unprecedented situation with COVID-19 and with vaccine development moving at a rapid pace, many of our patients and the public have questions and concerns,” said AMA President Susan R. Bailey, MD, in the release. “It is essential that we speak together as a strong, unified voice across health care and public health, inclusive of organizations respected in communities of color; to use scientific, fact-based evidence to help allay public concerns; and build confidence in COVID-19 vaccine candidates that are determined to be safe and effective.”
 

Physician, immunize thyself

The AMA also adopted a new ethics policy about physician immunization. On Monday, the AMA House of Delegates stated that physicians who are not immunized from a vaccine-preventable disease have an ethical responsibility to take appropriate actions to protect patients and colleagues.

The AMA code of ethics has long maintained that physicians have a strong ethical duty to accept immunizations when a safe, effective vaccine is available. However, the organization said in a news release, “it is not ethically problematic to exempt individuals when a specific vaccine poses a risk due to underlying medical conditions.”

Ethical concerns arise when physicians are allowed to decline vaccinations for nonmedical reasons, according to a report presented to the House of Delegates by the AMA Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs.

According to the newly amended AMA ethical guidance, “physicians who are not or cannot be immunized have a responsibility to voluntarily take appropriate actions to protect patients, fellow health care workers and others.” This includes refraining from direct patient contact.

The delegates also approved a guidance asserting that physician practices and health care institutions are responsible for developing policies and procedures for responding to pandemics and epidemics. These policies and procedures should outline appropriate protective equipment allocation, staff immunization programs, and infection control practices.
 

Combating systemic racism

In an effort to reduce racial disparities in healthcare, the AMA House of Delegates adopted new policies recognizing race as a social construct, rather than a biological construct.

“The policies aim to advance data-driven, antiracist concepts challenging the current clinical application of race and its effects on vulnerable patient populations,” an AMA statement said.

The new AMA policies “reflect an understanding of race as a socially constructed category different from ethnicity, genetic ancestry, or biology, and aim to end the misinterpretation of race as a biological category defined by genetic traits or biological differences,” the AMA said.

According to the AMA, the practice of accepting race as a biological construct “exacerbates health disparities and results in detrimental health outcomes for marginalized and minoritized communities.”

Specifically, the AMA said it supports ending the practice of using race as a proxy for biology in medical education, research, and clinical practice. It also encourages medical education programs to recognize the harmful effects of this approach. It recommends that clinicians and researchers focus on genetics and biology, the experience of racism, and social determinants of health when describing risk factors for disease.

“The AMA is dedicated to dismantling racist and discriminatory policies and practices across all of health care, and that includes the way we define race in medicine,” said AMA board member Michael Suk, MD, in its statement. “We believe it is not sufficient for medicine to be nonracist, which is why the AMA is committed to pushing for a shift in thinking from race as a biological risk factor to a deeper understanding of racism as a determinant of health.”

The AMA also plans to partner with physician organizations and other stakeholders “to identify any problematic aspects of medical education that may perpetuate institutional and structural racism.” For example, the AMA will work with other organizations to improve clinical algorithms that incorrectly adjust for race and lead to less-than-optimal care for minority patients.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Marijuana use was associated with a higher prevalence of recurrent MI and a greater risk of bleeding or stroke after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in separate studies.

Rhushik Bhuva, MD, presented the recurrent-MI results from a national U.S. study, and Sang Gune K. Yoo, MD, presented the PCI study, which used data from a Michigan cohort. The studies were presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Both studies “add to our accumulating knowledge of the cardiovascular risks of marijuana,” Ersilia M. DeFilippis, MD, a cardiology fellow at Columbia University Irvine Medical Center, New York, who was not involved with this research, said in an interview.

Dr. DeFilippis and the two study authors say clinicians and patients need to be more aware of cardiovascular risks from smoking marijuana, and they call for more patient screening, counseling, and research.
 

Need for screening and counseling

Marijuana is a Schedule 1 controlled substance in the United States, which makes it illegal to conduct rigorous controlled trials of marijuana products. Existing knowledge is therefore based on observational studies, Dr. DeFilippis noted.

She was lead author of a review of marijuana use by patients with cardiovascular disease. The review was published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology. An AHA scientific statement about marijuana and cardiovascular health was published in Circulation.

Both documents drew attention to risks from marijuana use in patients with cardiovascular disease.

Until more data are available, “I think it is absolutely critical” that cardiologists and general providers screen patients for marijuana use, “either at the time of their MI or ideally prior to that, when they are making a cardiovascular risk assessment,” said Dr. DeFilippis.

That is also the time to “counsel patients, especially those who have had an MI, about risks associated with continuing to use marijuana.”

Importantly, providers and patients need to be aware that “cannabinoids, through the cytochrome P450 system, can interact with well-known cardiovascular medications, which we know provide benefit in the post-MI period,” she added. “For example, marijuana can interfere with beta-blockers, statins, antiarrhythmics, and certain anticoagulants.”

Dr. Bhuva, a cardiology fellow with the Wright Center for Community Health, Scranton, Pa., said that it is “concerning” that “recurrent heart attacks and cardiac interventions [were] higher among cannabis users, even though they were younger and had fewer risk factors for heart disease.

“Spreading awareness regarding the potential risk of recurrent heart attacks in middle-aged, African American, and male cannabis users and screening them at an earlier age for potential risk factors of future heart attacks should be encouraged among clinicians,” he urged in a statement from the AHA.

Dr. Yoo, an internal medicine resident at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, pointed out that, in their study of patients who underwent PCI after MI or because they had coronary artery disease, those who smoked or vaped marijuana were younger and were more likely to be male. They were less likely to have traditional cardiovascular risk factors except for smoking tobacco, which was highly prevalent.

After propensity matching, patients who used marijuana had a 1.5-fold increased risk of in-hospital bleeding and an 11-fold higher risk for in-hospital stroke following PCI.

However, the absolute number of strokes in PCI was small, and the confidence interval was wide (indicating a large uncertainty), Dr. Yoo said in an interview.

These risks “should not deter patients from undergoing these [lifesaving] procedures,” he said; however, clinicians should be aware of these risks with marijuana use and should screen and counsel patients about this.
 

Hospitalized patients with prior MI

Dr. Bhuva and colleagues identified patients from the National Inpatient Sample who were hospitalized in the United States from 2007 to 2014 and who had experienced a prior MI and had undergone revascularization with PCI or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).

There were about 8 million hospital stays per year. The database did not specify the type of marijuana that patients used.

During the 8-year study period, many states legalized or decriminalized medical and/or recreational marijuana, and marijuana use increased steadily, from 0.2% to 0.7%.

Compared with nonusers, those who used marijuana were younger (median age, 53 vs. 72 years), and there were more men (77% vs. 62%) or Black persons (34% vs. 10%) (all P < .001). Fewer marijuana users had hypertension (72% vs. 75%), diabetes (24% vs. 33%), or dyslipidemia (51% vs. 58%) (all P < .001). More marijuana users underwent a repeat MI (67% vs. 41%).

On the other hand, marijuana users, who were younger and healthier than the other patients, were less likely to die during hospitalization for a recurrent MI (0.8% vs. 2.5%), and their hospital costs were lower.

The researchers acknowledged that study limitations include lack of information about marijuana type (smoked, edible, medicinal, or recreational) or dose, as well as the time from marijuana use to cardiac event.
 

In-Hospital outcomes after PCI

Dr. Yoo and colleagues analyzed data from patients who underwent PCI from Jan. 1, 2013, to Oct. 1, 2016, at Michigan’s 48 nonfederal hospitals, which are part of the Blue Cross Blue Shield Michigan Cardiovascular Consortium PCI registry.

In this cohort, 3,970 patients (3.5%) had smoked or vaped marijuana in the month prior to PCI, and 109,507 patients had not done so. The marijuana users were younger (mean age, 54 vs. 66 years) and were more likely to be male (79% vs. 67%) and to smoke cigarettes (73% vs. 27%).

They were less likely to have hypertension, type 2 diabetes, dyslipidemia, cerebrovascular disease, or prior CABG and were equally likely to have had a prior MI (36%).

Compared with nonusers, marijuana users were more likely to present with non–ST-elevation MI (30% vs. 23%) or ST-elevation MI (27% vs. 16%) and were less likely to present with angina.

Using propensity score matching, the researchers matched 3,803 marijuana users with the same number of nonusers.

In the matched cohort, patients who used marijuana had a greater risk of in-hospital bleeding (adjusted odds ratio, 1.54; 95% confidence interval, 1.20-1.97; P < .001) or stroke (aOR, 11.01; 95% CI, 1.32-91.67; P = .026) following PCI.

Marijuana users had a lower risk for acute kidney injury (2.2% vs. 2.9%; P = .007). Transfusion and mortality rates were similar in both groups.

The researchers acknowledged study limitations, including the fact that it did not include marijuana edibles, that the results may not be generalizable, and that marijuana use is now likely more common in Michigan following legalization of recreational marijuana in 2018.

Dr. Bhuva, Dr. Yoo, and Dr. DeFilippis have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Marijuana use was associated with a higher prevalence of recurrent MI and a greater risk of bleeding or stroke after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in separate studies.

Rhushik Bhuva, MD, presented the recurrent-MI results from a national U.S. study, and Sang Gune K. Yoo, MD, presented the PCI study, which used data from a Michigan cohort. The studies were presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Both studies “add to our accumulating knowledge of the cardiovascular risks of marijuana,” Ersilia M. DeFilippis, MD, a cardiology fellow at Columbia University Irvine Medical Center, New York, who was not involved with this research, said in an interview.

Dr. DeFilippis and the two study authors say clinicians and patients need to be more aware of cardiovascular risks from smoking marijuana, and they call for more patient screening, counseling, and research.
 

Need for screening and counseling

Marijuana is a Schedule 1 controlled substance in the United States, which makes it illegal to conduct rigorous controlled trials of marijuana products. Existing knowledge is therefore based on observational studies, Dr. DeFilippis noted.

She was lead author of a review of marijuana use by patients with cardiovascular disease. The review was published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology. An AHA scientific statement about marijuana and cardiovascular health was published in Circulation.

Both documents drew attention to risks from marijuana use in patients with cardiovascular disease.

Until more data are available, “I think it is absolutely critical” that cardiologists and general providers screen patients for marijuana use, “either at the time of their MI or ideally prior to that, when they are making a cardiovascular risk assessment,” said Dr. DeFilippis.

That is also the time to “counsel patients, especially those who have had an MI, about risks associated with continuing to use marijuana.”

Importantly, providers and patients need to be aware that “cannabinoids, through the cytochrome P450 system, can interact with well-known cardiovascular medications, which we know provide benefit in the post-MI period,” she added. “For example, marijuana can interfere with beta-blockers, statins, antiarrhythmics, and certain anticoagulants.”

Dr. Bhuva, a cardiology fellow with the Wright Center for Community Health, Scranton, Pa., said that it is “concerning” that “recurrent heart attacks and cardiac interventions [were] higher among cannabis users, even though they were younger and had fewer risk factors for heart disease.

“Spreading awareness regarding the potential risk of recurrent heart attacks in middle-aged, African American, and male cannabis users and screening them at an earlier age for potential risk factors of future heart attacks should be encouraged among clinicians,” he urged in a statement from the AHA.

Dr. Yoo, an internal medicine resident at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, pointed out that, in their study of patients who underwent PCI after MI or because they had coronary artery disease, those who smoked or vaped marijuana were younger and were more likely to be male. They were less likely to have traditional cardiovascular risk factors except for smoking tobacco, which was highly prevalent.

After propensity matching, patients who used marijuana had a 1.5-fold increased risk of in-hospital bleeding and an 11-fold higher risk for in-hospital stroke following PCI.

However, the absolute number of strokes in PCI was small, and the confidence interval was wide (indicating a large uncertainty), Dr. Yoo said in an interview.

These risks “should not deter patients from undergoing these [lifesaving] procedures,” he said; however, clinicians should be aware of these risks with marijuana use and should screen and counsel patients about this.
 

Hospitalized patients with prior MI

Dr. Bhuva and colleagues identified patients from the National Inpatient Sample who were hospitalized in the United States from 2007 to 2014 and who had experienced a prior MI and had undergone revascularization with PCI or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).

There were about 8 million hospital stays per year. The database did not specify the type of marijuana that patients used.

During the 8-year study period, many states legalized or decriminalized medical and/or recreational marijuana, and marijuana use increased steadily, from 0.2% to 0.7%.

Compared with nonusers, those who used marijuana were younger (median age, 53 vs. 72 years), and there were more men (77% vs. 62%) or Black persons (34% vs. 10%) (all P < .001). Fewer marijuana users had hypertension (72% vs. 75%), diabetes (24% vs. 33%), or dyslipidemia (51% vs. 58%) (all P < .001). More marijuana users underwent a repeat MI (67% vs. 41%).

On the other hand, marijuana users, who were younger and healthier than the other patients, were less likely to die during hospitalization for a recurrent MI (0.8% vs. 2.5%), and their hospital costs were lower.

The researchers acknowledged that study limitations include lack of information about marijuana type (smoked, edible, medicinal, or recreational) or dose, as well as the time from marijuana use to cardiac event.
 

In-Hospital outcomes after PCI

Dr. Yoo and colleagues analyzed data from patients who underwent PCI from Jan. 1, 2013, to Oct. 1, 2016, at Michigan’s 48 nonfederal hospitals, which are part of the Blue Cross Blue Shield Michigan Cardiovascular Consortium PCI registry.

In this cohort, 3,970 patients (3.5%) had smoked or vaped marijuana in the month prior to PCI, and 109,507 patients had not done so. The marijuana users were younger (mean age, 54 vs. 66 years) and were more likely to be male (79% vs. 67%) and to smoke cigarettes (73% vs. 27%).

They were less likely to have hypertension, type 2 diabetes, dyslipidemia, cerebrovascular disease, or prior CABG and were equally likely to have had a prior MI (36%).

Compared with nonusers, marijuana users were more likely to present with non–ST-elevation MI (30% vs. 23%) or ST-elevation MI (27% vs. 16%) and were less likely to present with angina.

Using propensity score matching, the researchers matched 3,803 marijuana users with the same number of nonusers.

In the matched cohort, patients who used marijuana had a greater risk of in-hospital bleeding (adjusted odds ratio, 1.54; 95% confidence interval, 1.20-1.97; P < .001) or stroke (aOR, 11.01; 95% CI, 1.32-91.67; P = .026) following PCI.

Marijuana users had a lower risk for acute kidney injury (2.2% vs. 2.9%; P = .007). Transfusion and mortality rates were similar in both groups.

The researchers acknowledged study limitations, including the fact that it did not include marijuana edibles, that the results may not be generalizable, and that marijuana use is now likely more common in Michigan following legalization of recreational marijuana in 2018.

Dr. Bhuva, Dr. Yoo, and Dr. DeFilippis have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Marijuana use was associated with a higher prevalence of recurrent MI and a greater risk of bleeding or stroke after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in separate studies.

Rhushik Bhuva, MD, presented the recurrent-MI results from a national U.S. study, and Sang Gune K. Yoo, MD, presented the PCI study, which used data from a Michigan cohort. The studies were presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Both studies “add to our accumulating knowledge of the cardiovascular risks of marijuana,” Ersilia M. DeFilippis, MD, a cardiology fellow at Columbia University Irvine Medical Center, New York, who was not involved with this research, said in an interview.

Dr. DeFilippis and the two study authors say clinicians and patients need to be more aware of cardiovascular risks from smoking marijuana, and they call for more patient screening, counseling, and research.
 

Need for screening and counseling

Marijuana is a Schedule 1 controlled substance in the United States, which makes it illegal to conduct rigorous controlled trials of marijuana products. Existing knowledge is therefore based on observational studies, Dr. DeFilippis noted.

She was lead author of a review of marijuana use by patients with cardiovascular disease. The review was published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology. An AHA scientific statement about marijuana and cardiovascular health was published in Circulation.

Both documents drew attention to risks from marijuana use in patients with cardiovascular disease.

Until more data are available, “I think it is absolutely critical” that cardiologists and general providers screen patients for marijuana use, “either at the time of their MI or ideally prior to that, when they are making a cardiovascular risk assessment,” said Dr. DeFilippis.

That is also the time to “counsel patients, especially those who have had an MI, about risks associated with continuing to use marijuana.”

Importantly, providers and patients need to be aware that “cannabinoids, through the cytochrome P450 system, can interact with well-known cardiovascular medications, which we know provide benefit in the post-MI period,” she added. “For example, marijuana can interfere with beta-blockers, statins, antiarrhythmics, and certain anticoagulants.”

Dr. Bhuva, a cardiology fellow with the Wright Center for Community Health, Scranton, Pa., said that it is “concerning” that “recurrent heart attacks and cardiac interventions [were] higher among cannabis users, even though they were younger and had fewer risk factors for heart disease.

“Spreading awareness regarding the potential risk of recurrent heart attacks in middle-aged, African American, and male cannabis users and screening them at an earlier age for potential risk factors of future heart attacks should be encouraged among clinicians,” he urged in a statement from the AHA.

Dr. Yoo, an internal medicine resident at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, pointed out that, in their study of patients who underwent PCI after MI or because they had coronary artery disease, those who smoked or vaped marijuana were younger and were more likely to be male. They were less likely to have traditional cardiovascular risk factors except for smoking tobacco, which was highly prevalent.

After propensity matching, patients who used marijuana had a 1.5-fold increased risk of in-hospital bleeding and an 11-fold higher risk for in-hospital stroke following PCI.

However, the absolute number of strokes in PCI was small, and the confidence interval was wide (indicating a large uncertainty), Dr. Yoo said in an interview.

These risks “should not deter patients from undergoing these [lifesaving] procedures,” he said; however, clinicians should be aware of these risks with marijuana use and should screen and counsel patients about this.
 

Hospitalized patients with prior MI

Dr. Bhuva and colleagues identified patients from the National Inpatient Sample who were hospitalized in the United States from 2007 to 2014 and who had experienced a prior MI and had undergone revascularization with PCI or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).

There were about 8 million hospital stays per year. The database did not specify the type of marijuana that patients used.

During the 8-year study period, many states legalized or decriminalized medical and/or recreational marijuana, and marijuana use increased steadily, from 0.2% to 0.7%.

Compared with nonusers, those who used marijuana were younger (median age, 53 vs. 72 years), and there were more men (77% vs. 62%) or Black persons (34% vs. 10%) (all P < .001). Fewer marijuana users had hypertension (72% vs. 75%), diabetes (24% vs. 33%), or dyslipidemia (51% vs. 58%) (all P < .001). More marijuana users underwent a repeat MI (67% vs. 41%).

On the other hand, marijuana users, who were younger and healthier than the other patients, were less likely to die during hospitalization for a recurrent MI (0.8% vs. 2.5%), and their hospital costs were lower.

The researchers acknowledged that study limitations include lack of information about marijuana type (smoked, edible, medicinal, or recreational) or dose, as well as the time from marijuana use to cardiac event.
 

In-Hospital outcomes after PCI

Dr. Yoo and colleagues analyzed data from patients who underwent PCI from Jan. 1, 2013, to Oct. 1, 2016, at Michigan’s 48 nonfederal hospitals, which are part of the Blue Cross Blue Shield Michigan Cardiovascular Consortium PCI registry.

In this cohort, 3,970 patients (3.5%) had smoked or vaped marijuana in the month prior to PCI, and 109,507 patients had not done so. The marijuana users were younger (mean age, 54 vs. 66 years) and were more likely to be male (79% vs. 67%) and to smoke cigarettes (73% vs. 27%).

They were less likely to have hypertension, type 2 diabetes, dyslipidemia, cerebrovascular disease, or prior CABG and were equally likely to have had a prior MI (36%).

Compared with nonusers, marijuana users were more likely to present with non–ST-elevation MI (30% vs. 23%) or ST-elevation MI (27% vs. 16%) and were less likely to present with angina.

Using propensity score matching, the researchers matched 3,803 marijuana users with the same number of nonusers.

In the matched cohort, patients who used marijuana had a greater risk of in-hospital bleeding (adjusted odds ratio, 1.54; 95% confidence interval, 1.20-1.97; P < .001) or stroke (aOR, 11.01; 95% CI, 1.32-91.67; P = .026) following PCI.

Marijuana users had a lower risk for acute kidney injury (2.2% vs. 2.9%; P = .007). Transfusion and mortality rates were similar in both groups.

The researchers acknowledged study limitations, including the fact that it did not include marijuana edibles, that the results may not be generalizable, and that marijuana use is now likely more common in Michigan following legalization of recreational marijuana in 2018.

Dr. Bhuva, Dr. Yoo, and Dr. DeFilippis have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Early treatment with the antidepressant fluvoxamine (Luvox) may help prevent respiratory deterioration in patients with mild symptomatic COVID-19, results of a preliminary randomized controlled trial suggest.

In the trial, none of the patients who took fluvoxamine within 7 days of first symptoms developed serious breathing difficulties or required hospitalization for respiratory deterioration.

Antiviral effects?

The study included 152 nonhospitalized adults (mean age, 46 years; 72% women) with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and mild COVID-19 symptoms starting within 7 days and oxygen saturation of 92% or greater.

Eighty were randomly assigned to 100 mg of fluvoxamine three times daily for 15 days and 72 to matching placebo.

The primary outcome was clinical deterioration within 15 days of randomization defined by meeting two criteria. These included shortness of breath or hospitalization for shortness of breath or pneumonia and oxygen saturation <92% on room air or need for supplemental oxygen to achieve oxygen saturation of 92% or greater.

Clinical deterioration occurred in none of the 80 patients taking fluvoxamine compared with 6 of 72 (8.3%) patients taking placebo, an absolute difference of 8.7% (95% confidence interval, 1.8%-16.4%).

Clinical deterioration in the placebo group happened from 1 to 7 days after randomization and from 3 to 12 days after the onset of COVID-19 symptoms. Four of the 6 patients with clinical deterioration were admitted to the hospital for 4-21 days. One patient required mechanical ventilation for 10 days. No patients died.
 

Hypothesis generating

The authors cautioned that the study was small and with short follow-up and that the findings “need to be interpreted as hypothesis generating rather than as a demonstration of efficacy.”

However, they noted, if the drug turns out to be effective for COVID-19, the potential advantages of fluvoxamine for outpatient use include its safety, widespread availability, low cost, and oral administration.

Carolyn Machamer, PhD, member of the COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund (CETF) scientific advisory board, which funded the study, noted that there are several reasons fluvoxamine might be helpful in COVID-19.

“The preliminary data suggest the mechanism involves activation of the sigma-1 receptor, which has a number of documented activities. One strong possibility is that activation dampens cytokine release and thus the inflammatory response,” she said in an interview.

“Other possible mechanisms can include inhibition of platelet activation and modulation of autophagy. Coronaviruses usurp some autophagy machinery to remodel membranes for replicating their genomes, so this last mechanism might actually be antiviral,” said Dr. Machamer.

She added that a much larger trial is “crucial to see if the initial striking results can be reproduced, and the Healthy Mind Lab and CETF are currently coordinating these next steps.”

The editors of JAMA published an “Editor’s Note” with the study. In it, they wrote the pilot study addresses a “critically important question during the pandemic of how to prevent individuals who acquire COVID-19 from deteriorating to serious illness. If an effective treatment is found for this key gap in treatment, it will affect the health of millions of people worldwide.”

However, the study has “important limitations, and the findings should be interpreted as only hypothesis generating; they should not be used as the basis for current treatment decisions,” cautioned authors Christopher Seymour, MD, Howard Bauchner, MD, and Robert Golub, MD.

This study was supported by the Taylor Family Institute for Innovative Psychiatric Treatment at Washington University and the CETF. Additional support was provided by the Center for Brain Research in Mood Disorders at Washington University, the Bantly Foundation, and the National Institutes of Health.

Dr. Lenze has received grants from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, Takeda, Alkermes, Janssen, Acadia, and the Barnes Jewish Hospital Foundation and has received consulting fees from Janssen and Jazz Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Machamer has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Seymour has received grants from the National Institutes of Health and personal fees from Beckman Coulter and Edwards Lifesciences.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Early treatment with the antidepressant fluvoxamine (Luvox) may help prevent respiratory deterioration in patients with mild symptomatic COVID-19, results of a preliminary randomized controlled trial suggest.

In the trial, none of the patients who took fluvoxamine within 7 days of first symptoms developed serious breathing difficulties or required hospitalization for respiratory deterioration.

Antiviral effects?

The study included 152 nonhospitalized adults (mean age, 46 years; 72% women) with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and mild COVID-19 symptoms starting within 7 days and oxygen saturation of 92% or greater.

Eighty were randomly assigned to 100 mg of fluvoxamine three times daily for 15 days and 72 to matching placebo.

The primary outcome was clinical deterioration within 15 days of randomization defined by meeting two criteria. These included shortness of breath or hospitalization for shortness of breath or pneumonia and oxygen saturation <92% on room air or need for supplemental oxygen to achieve oxygen saturation of 92% or greater.

Clinical deterioration occurred in none of the 80 patients taking fluvoxamine compared with 6 of 72 (8.3%) patients taking placebo, an absolute difference of 8.7% (95% confidence interval, 1.8%-16.4%).

Clinical deterioration in the placebo group happened from 1 to 7 days after randomization and from 3 to 12 days after the onset of COVID-19 symptoms. Four of the 6 patients with clinical deterioration were admitted to the hospital for 4-21 days. One patient required mechanical ventilation for 10 days. No patients died.
 

Hypothesis generating

The authors cautioned that the study was small and with short follow-up and that the findings “need to be interpreted as hypothesis generating rather than as a demonstration of efficacy.”

However, they noted, if the drug turns out to be effective for COVID-19, the potential advantages of fluvoxamine for outpatient use include its safety, widespread availability, low cost, and oral administration.

Carolyn Machamer, PhD, member of the COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund (CETF) scientific advisory board, which funded the study, noted that there are several reasons fluvoxamine might be helpful in COVID-19.

“The preliminary data suggest the mechanism involves activation of the sigma-1 receptor, which has a number of documented activities. One strong possibility is that activation dampens cytokine release and thus the inflammatory response,” she said in an interview.

“Other possible mechanisms can include inhibition of platelet activation and modulation of autophagy. Coronaviruses usurp some autophagy machinery to remodel membranes for replicating their genomes, so this last mechanism might actually be antiviral,” said Dr. Machamer.

She added that a much larger trial is “crucial to see if the initial striking results can be reproduced, and the Healthy Mind Lab and CETF are currently coordinating these next steps.”

The editors of JAMA published an “Editor’s Note” with the study. In it, they wrote the pilot study addresses a “critically important question during the pandemic of how to prevent individuals who acquire COVID-19 from deteriorating to serious illness. If an effective treatment is found for this key gap in treatment, it will affect the health of millions of people worldwide.”

However, the study has “important limitations, and the findings should be interpreted as only hypothesis generating; they should not be used as the basis for current treatment decisions,” cautioned authors Christopher Seymour, MD, Howard Bauchner, MD, and Robert Golub, MD.

This study was supported by the Taylor Family Institute for Innovative Psychiatric Treatment at Washington University and the CETF. Additional support was provided by the Center for Brain Research in Mood Disorders at Washington University, the Bantly Foundation, and the National Institutes of Health.

Dr. Lenze has received grants from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, Takeda, Alkermes, Janssen, Acadia, and the Barnes Jewish Hospital Foundation and has received consulting fees from Janssen and Jazz Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Machamer has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Seymour has received grants from the National Institutes of Health and personal fees from Beckman Coulter and Edwards Lifesciences.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Early treatment with the antidepressant fluvoxamine (Luvox) may help prevent respiratory deterioration in patients with mild symptomatic COVID-19, results of a preliminary randomized controlled trial suggest.

In the trial, none of the patients who took fluvoxamine within 7 days of first symptoms developed serious breathing difficulties or required hospitalization for respiratory deterioration.

Antiviral effects?

The study included 152 nonhospitalized adults (mean age, 46 years; 72% women) with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and mild COVID-19 symptoms starting within 7 days and oxygen saturation of 92% or greater.

Eighty were randomly assigned to 100 mg of fluvoxamine three times daily for 15 days and 72 to matching placebo.

The primary outcome was clinical deterioration within 15 days of randomization defined by meeting two criteria. These included shortness of breath or hospitalization for shortness of breath or pneumonia and oxygen saturation <92% on room air or need for supplemental oxygen to achieve oxygen saturation of 92% or greater.

Clinical deterioration occurred in none of the 80 patients taking fluvoxamine compared with 6 of 72 (8.3%) patients taking placebo, an absolute difference of 8.7% (95% confidence interval, 1.8%-16.4%).

Clinical deterioration in the placebo group happened from 1 to 7 days after randomization and from 3 to 12 days after the onset of COVID-19 symptoms. Four of the 6 patients with clinical deterioration were admitted to the hospital for 4-21 days. One patient required mechanical ventilation for 10 days. No patients died.
 

Hypothesis generating

The authors cautioned that the study was small and with short follow-up and that the findings “need to be interpreted as hypothesis generating rather than as a demonstration of efficacy.”

However, they noted, if the drug turns out to be effective for COVID-19, the potential advantages of fluvoxamine for outpatient use include its safety, widespread availability, low cost, and oral administration.

Carolyn Machamer, PhD, member of the COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund (CETF) scientific advisory board, which funded the study, noted that there are several reasons fluvoxamine might be helpful in COVID-19.

“The preliminary data suggest the mechanism involves activation of the sigma-1 receptor, which has a number of documented activities. One strong possibility is that activation dampens cytokine release and thus the inflammatory response,” she said in an interview.

“Other possible mechanisms can include inhibition of platelet activation and modulation of autophagy. Coronaviruses usurp some autophagy machinery to remodel membranes for replicating their genomes, so this last mechanism might actually be antiviral,” said Dr. Machamer.

She added that a much larger trial is “crucial to see if the initial striking results can be reproduced, and the Healthy Mind Lab and CETF are currently coordinating these next steps.”

The editors of JAMA published an “Editor’s Note” with the study. In it, they wrote the pilot study addresses a “critically important question during the pandemic of how to prevent individuals who acquire COVID-19 from deteriorating to serious illness. If an effective treatment is found for this key gap in treatment, it will affect the health of millions of people worldwide.”

However, the study has “important limitations, and the findings should be interpreted as only hypothesis generating; they should not be used as the basis for current treatment decisions,” cautioned authors Christopher Seymour, MD, Howard Bauchner, MD, and Robert Golub, MD.

This study was supported by the Taylor Family Institute for Innovative Psychiatric Treatment at Washington University and the CETF. Additional support was provided by the Center for Brain Research in Mood Disorders at Washington University, the Bantly Foundation, and the National Institutes of Health.

Dr. Lenze has received grants from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, Takeda, Alkermes, Janssen, Acadia, and the Barnes Jewish Hospital Foundation and has received consulting fees from Janssen and Jazz Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Machamer has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Seymour has received grants from the National Institutes of Health and personal fees from Beckman Coulter and Edwards Lifesciences.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Nov. 19 issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Janus kinase inhibitor baricitinib (Olumiant, Eli Lilly) in combination with remdesivir (Veklury, Gilead) for treating hospitalized adults and children at least 2 years old with suspected or confirmed COVID-19.

The combination treatment is meant for patients who need supplemental oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO).

Baricitinib/remdesivir was shown in a clinical trial to reduce time to recovery within 29 days of starting the treatment compared with a control group who received placebo/remdesivir, according to the FDA press release.

The median time to recovery from COVID-19 was 7 days for the combination group vs. 8 days for those in the placebo/remdesivir group. Recovery was defined as either discharge from the hospital or “being hospitalized but not requiring supplemental oxygen and no longer requiring ongoing medical care,” the agency explained in the press release.

The odds of a patient dying or being ventilated at day 29 was lower in the combination group compared with those taking placebo/remdesivir, the press release said without providing specific data. “For all of these endpoints, the effects were statistically significant,” the agency stated.

The safety and efficacy continues to be evaluated. Baricitinib alone is not approved as a treatment for COVID-19.

“The FDA’s emergency authorization of this combination therapy represents an incremental step forward in the treatment of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients, and FDA’s first authorization of a drug that acts on the inflammation pathway,” said Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, acting director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

“Despite advances in the management of COVID-19 infection since the onset of the pandemic, we need more therapies to accelerate recovery and additional clinical research will be essential to identifying therapies that slow disease progression and lower mortality in the sicker patients,” she said.

As a JAK inhibitor, baricitinib interferes with a pathway that leads to inflammation. Baricitinib is already prescribed as an oral medication and is FDA-approved for treating moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis.

The data supporting the EUA for the combination treatment are based on a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial (ACTT-2), conducted by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID).

The trial followed patients for 29 days and included 1,033 patients with moderate to severe COVID-19; 515 patients received baricitinib/remdesivir, and 518 patients received placebo/remdesivir.

The FDA emphasizes that an EUA is not a full FDA approval.

In reviewing the combination, the FDA “determined that it is reasonable to believe that baricitinib, in combination with remdesivir, may be effective in treating COVID-19 for the authorized population” and the known benefits outweigh the known and potential risks. Additionally, there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives for the treatment population.

“Today’s action demonstrates the FDA’s steadfast efforts to make potential COVID-19 treatments available in a timely manner, where appropriate, while continuing to support research to further evaluate whether they are safe and effective,” said FDA Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD. “As part of our Coronavirus Treatment Acceleration Program, the FDA continues to use every possible avenue to facilitate new treatments for patients as quickly as possible to combat COVID-19.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Nov. 19 issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Janus kinase inhibitor baricitinib (Olumiant, Eli Lilly) in combination with remdesivir (Veklury, Gilead) for treating hospitalized adults and children at least 2 years old with suspected or confirmed COVID-19.

The combination treatment is meant for patients who need supplemental oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO).

Baricitinib/remdesivir was shown in a clinical trial to reduce time to recovery within 29 days of starting the treatment compared with a control group who received placebo/remdesivir, according to the FDA press release.

The median time to recovery from COVID-19 was 7 days for the combination group vs. 8 days for those in the placebo/remdesivir group. Recovery was defined as either discharge from the hospital or “being hospitalized but not requiring supplemental oxygen and no longer requiring ongoing medical care,” the agency explained in the press release.

The odds of a patient dying or being ventilated at day 29 was lower in the combination group compared with those taking placebo/remdesivir, the press release said without providing specific data. “For all of these endpoints, the effects were statistically significant,” the agency stated.

The safety and efficacy continues to be evaluated. Baricitinib alone is not approved as a treatment for COVID-19.

“The FDA’s emergency authorization of this combination therapy represents an incremental step forward in the treatment of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients, and FDA’s first authorization of a drug that acts on the inflammation pathway,” said Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, acting director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

“Despite advances in the management of COVID-19 infection since the onset of the pandemic, we need more therapies to accelerate recovery and additional clinical research will be essential to identifying therapies that slow disease progression and lower mortality in the sicker patients,” she said.

As a JAK inhibitor, baricitinib interferes with a pathway that leads to inflammation. Baricitinib is already prescribed as an oral medication and is FDA-approved for treating moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis.

The data supporting the EUA for the combination treatment are based on a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial (ACTT-2), conducted by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID).

The trial followed patients for 29 days and included 1,033 patients with moderate to severe COVID-19; 515 patients received baricitinib/remdesivir, and 518 patients received placebo/remdesivir.

The FDA emphasizes that an EUA is not a full FDA approval.

In reviewing the combination, the FDA “determined that it is reasonable to believe that baricitinib, in combination with remdesivir, may be effective in treating COVID-19 for the authorized population” and the known benefits outweigh the known and potential risks. Additionally, there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives for the treatment population.

“Today’s action demonstrates the FDA’s steadfast efforts to make potential COVID-19 treatments available in a timely manner, where appropriate, while continuing to support research to further evaluate whether they are safe and effective,” said FDA Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD. “As part of our Coronavirus Treatment Acceleration Program, the FDA continues to use every possible avenue to facilitate new treatments for patients as quickly as possible to combat COVID-19.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Nov. 19 issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Janus kinase inhibitor baricitinib (Olumiant, Eli Lilly) in combination with remdesivir (Veklury, Gilead) for treating hospitalized adults and children at least 2 years old with suspected or confirmed COVID-19.

The combination treatment is meant for patients who need supplemental oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO).

Baricitinib/remdesivir was shown in a clinical trial to reduce time to recovery within 29 days of starting the treatment compared with a control group who received placebo/remdesivir, according to the FDA press release.

The median time to recovery from COVID-19 was 7 days for the combination group vs. 8 days for those in the placebo/remdesivir group. Recovery was defined as either discharge from the hospital or “being hospitalized but not requiring supplemental oxygen and no longer requiring ongoing medical care,” the agency explained in the press release.

The odds of a patient dying or being ventilated at day 29 was lower in the combination group compared with those taking placebo/remdesivir, the press release said without providing specific data. “For all of these endpoints, the effects were statistically significant,” the agency stated.

The safety and efficacy continues to be evaluated. Baricitinib alone is not approved as a treatment for COVID-19.

“The FDA’s emergency authorization of this combination therapy represents an incremental step forward in the treatment of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients, and FDA’s first authorization of a drug that acts on the inflammation pathway,” said Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, acting director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

“Despite advances in the management of COVID-19 infection since the onset of the pandemic, we need more therapies to accelerate recovery and additional clinical research will be essential to identifying therapies that slow disease progression and lower mortality in the sicker patients,” she said.

As a JAK inhibitor, baricitinib interferes with a pathway that leads to inflammation. Baricitinib is already prescribed as an oral medication and is FDA-approved for treating moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis.

The data supporting the EUA for the combination treatment are based on a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial (ACTT-2), conducted by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID).

The trial followed patients for 29 days and included 1,033 patients with moderate to severe COVID-19; 515 patients received baricitinib/remdesivir, and 518 patients received placebo/remdesivir.

The FDA emphasizes that an EUA is not a full FDA approval.

In reviewing the combination, the FDA “determined that it is reasonable to believe that baricitinib, in combination with remdesivir, may be effective in treating COVID-19 for the authorized population” and the known benefits outweigh the known and potential risks. Additionally, there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives for the treatment population.

“Today’s action demonstrates the FDA’s steadfast efforts to make potential COVID-19 treatments available in a timely manner, where appropriate, while continuing to support research to further evaluate whether they are safe and effective,” said FDA Commissioner Stephen M. Hahn, MD. “As part of our Coronavirus Treatment Acceleration Program, the FDA continues to use every possible avenue to facilitate new treatments for patients as quickly as possible to combat COVID-19.”
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Combining the recombinant Flt3 ligand CDX-301 with the dendritic cell–targeted vaccine CDX-1401 enhanced vaccine-induced immune responses in patients with high-risk melanoma, according to results from a phase 2 trial.

“[This] study supports the potential of combining [the] CDX-1401 vaccine and CDX-301 with checkpoint inhibitors, which are standard-of-care therapy,” study author Nina Bhardwaj, MD, PhD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and colleagues wrote.

The team described their study in Nature Cancer.

The multicenter, open-label, randomized study included 60 patients with resected stage IIb-IV melanoma, all of whom had not received any prior treatment, including radiotherapy, biologics, and chemotherapy.

Patients randomized to the combination arm (cohort 1; n = 30) received the anti–DEC-205-NY-ESO-1 vaccine CDX-1401 and were pretreated with CDX-301, while those in the comparator arm (cohort 2; n = 30) received CDX-1401 alone.

Serial blood samples were collected to evaluate response to the vaccine antigen (NY-ESO-1) before each cycle, as well as 4 weeks and 12 weeks after the last vaccination. The primary endpoint was immune response prior to the third vaccination.

T-cell responses were detected in 76% of patients who received CDX-301 and 33% of patients who did not (P < .0011). In addition, the magnitude of response was significantly higher with the combination than with CDX-1401 alone (mean of 41 and 17 corrected spots per well, respectively; P = .032).

“All 30 (100%) cohort 1 participants had NY-ESO-1–specific T-cell responses for at least one time point, whereas 8 (27%) cohort 2 participants had no responses at any time point,” the researchers wrote.

Responses were maintained up to 12 weeks after the final vaccination, but there was no statistically significant difference between cohorts 1 and 2 at 12 weeks (54% and 38%, respectively; P = .2).

The researchers acknowledged that a key limitation of this trial was that it was not sized to evaluate relapse or overall survival.

“Given that ipilimumab, pembrolizumab, and nivolumab are approved as adjuvant therapy for high-risk stage III melanoma, vaccines incorporating CDX-301 and suitable antigen-containing platforms merit clinical investigation in the adjuvant setting in combination with immune checkpoint blockade,” the authors wrote.

“I am hopeful that highly immunogenic cancer vaccines can be added to currently approved immunotherapies, thus boosting an individual’s anticancer immune response even further,” Dr. Bhardwaj said in an interview.

This study was supported by grant funding from the National Cancer Institute. Some authors reported financial affiliations with Celldex Therapeutics, NanoString Technologies, and Oncovir. Dr. Bhardwaj disclosed relationships with Celldex and Oncovir.

SOURCE: Bhardwaj N et al. Nat Cancer. 2020 Nov 16. doi: 10.1038/s43018-020-00143-y.

Combining the recombinant Flt3 ligand CDX-301 with the dendritic cell–targeted vaccine CDX-1401 enhanced vaccine-induced immune responses in patients with high-risk melanoma, according to results from a phase 2 trial.

“[This] study supports the potential of combining [the] CDX-1401 vaccine and CDX-301 with checkpoint inhibitors, which are standard-of-care therapy,” study author Nina Bhardwaj, MD, PhD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and colleagues wrote.

The team described their study in Nature Cancer.

The multicenter, open-label, randomized study included 60 patients with resected stage IIb-IV melanoma, all of whom had not received any prior treatment, including radiotherapy, biologics, and chemotherapy.

Patients randomized to the combination arm (cohort 1; n = 30) received the anti–DEC-205-NY-ESO-1 vaccine CDX-1401 and were pretreated with CDX-301, while those in the comparator arm (cohort 2; n = 30) received CDX-1401 alone.

Serial blood samples were collected to evaluate response to the vaccine antigen (NY-ESO-1) before each cycle, as well as 4 weeks and 12 weeks after the last vaccination. The primary endpoint was immune response prior to the third vaccination.

T-cell responses were detected in 76% of patients who received CDX-301 and 33% of patients who did not (P < .0011). In addition, the magnitude of response was significantly higher with the combination than with CDX-1401 alone (mean of 41 and 17 corrected spots per well, respectively; P = .032).

“All 30 (100%) cohort 1 participants had NY-ESO-1–specific T-cell responses for at least one time point, whereas 8 (27%) cohort 2 participants had no responses at any time point,” the researchers wrote.

Responses were maintained up to 12 weeks after the final vaccination, but there was no statistically significant difference between cohorts 1 and 2 at 12 weeks (54% and 38%, respectively; P = .2).

The researchers acknowledged that a key limitation of this trial was that it was not sized to evaluate relapse or overall survival.

“Given that ipilimumab, pembrolizumab, and nivolumab are approved as adjuvant therapy for high-risk stage III melanoma, vaccines incorporating CDX-301 and suitable antigen-containing platforms merit clinical investigation in the adjuvant setting in combination with immune checkpoint blockade,” the authors wrote.

“I am hopeful that highly immunogenic cancer vaccines can be added to currently approved immunotherapies, thus boosting an individual’s anticancer immune response even further,” Dr. Bhardwaj said in an interview.

This study was supported by grant funding from the National Cancer Institute. Some authors reported financial affiliations with Celldex Therapeutics, NanoString Technologies, and Oncovir. Dr. Bhardwaj disclosed relationships with Celldex and Oncovir.

SOURCE: Bhardwaj N et al. Nat Cancer. 2020 Nov 16. doi: 10.1038/s43018-020-00143-y.

Combining the recombinant Flt3 ligand CDX-301 with the dendritic cell–targeted vaccine CDX-1401 enhanced vaccine-induced immune responses in patients with high-risk melanoma, according to results from a phase 2 trial.

“[This] study supports the potential of combining [the] CDX-1401 vaccine and CDX-301 with checkpoint inhibitors, which are standard-of-care therapy,” study author Nina Bhardwaj, MD, PhD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and colleagues wrote.

The team described their study in Nature Cancer.

The multicenter, open-label, randomized study included 60 patients with resected stage IIb-IV melanoma, all of whom had not received any prior treatment, including radiotherapy, biologics, and chemotherapy.

Patients randomized to the combination arm (cohort 1; n = 30) received the anti–DEC-205-NY-ESO-1 vaccine CDX-1401 and were pretreated with CDX-301, while those in the comparator arm (cohort 2; n = 30) received CDX-1401 alone.

Serial blood samples were collected to evaluate response to the vaccine antigen (NY-ESO-1) before each cycle, as well as 4 weeks and 12 weeks after the last vaccination. The primary endpoint was immune response prior to the third vaccination.

T-cell responses were detected in 76% of patients who received CDX-301 and 33% of patients who did not (P < .0011). In addition, the magnitude of response was significantly higher with the combination than with CDX-1401 alone (mean of 41 and 17 corrected spots per well, respectively; P = .032).

“All 30 (100%) cohort 1 participants had NY-ESO-1–specific T-cell responses for at least one time point, whereas 8 (27%) cohort 2 participants had no responses at any time point,” the researchers wrote.

Responses were maintained up to 12 weeks after the final vaccination, but there was no statistically significant difference between cohorts 1 and 2 at 12 weeks (54% and 38%, respectively; P = .2).

The researchers acknowledged that a key limitation of this trial was that it was not sized to evaluate relapse or overall survival.

“Given that ipilimumab, pembrolizumab, and nivolumab are approved as adjuvant therapy for high-risk stage III melanoma, vaccines incorporating CDX-301 and suitable antigen-containing platforms merit clinical investigation in the adjuvant setting in combination with immune checkpoint blockade,” the authors wrote.

“I am hopeful that highly immunogenic cancer vaccines can be added to currently approved immunotherapies, thus boosting an individual’s anticancer immune response even further,” Dr. Bhardwaj said in an interview.

This study was supported by grant funding from the National Cancer Institute. Some authors reported financial affiliations with Celldex Therapeutics, NanoString Technologies, and Oncovir. Dr. Bhardwaj disclosed relationships with Celldex and Oncovir.

SOURCE: Bhardwaj N et al. Nat Cancer. 2020 Nov 16. doi: 10.1038/s43018-020-00143-y.

The incidence rate of hepatocellular carcinoma in urban areas of the United States began to slow in 2009, but the rate in rural areas of the nation continued to rise at a steady pace, especially among non-Hispanic Whites and Blacks, investigators have found.

Although overall hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) incidence rates were consistently lower among people living in nonmetro (rural) versus metro (urban) areas, the average annual percentage change in urban areas began to slow from 5.3% for the period of 1995 through 2009 to 2.7% thereafter. In contrast, the average annual percentage change in rural areas remained steady at 5.7%, a disparity that remained even after adjusting for differences among subgroups, reported Christina Gainey, MD, a third-year resident in internal medicine at the University of Southern California Medical Center, Los Angeles.

“We found that there are striking urban-rural disparities in HCC incidence trends that vary by race and ethnicity, and these disparities are growing over time,” she said during the virtual annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.

“Our study really highlights a critical public health issue that’s disproportionately affecting rural Americans. They already face considerable health inequities when it comes to access to care, health outcomes, and public health infrastructure and resources, and as of now we still don’t know why cases of HCC continue to rise in these areas,” she said.

Dr. Gainey noted that HCC is the fastest-growing cancer in the United States, according to the 2020 Annual Report to the Nation on the Status of Cancer, issued jointly by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries, the American Cancer Society, and the National Cancer Institute.

Previous studies have identified disparities between urban and rural regions in care of patients with cervical cancer, colorectal cancer, and other malignancies, but there are very few data on urban-rural differences in HCC incidence, she said.
 

Incidence trends

To better understand whether such differences exists, the investigators compared trends in age-adjusted incidence rates of HCC in both rural and urban areas of the United States from 1995 to 2016, with stratification of trends by race/ethnicity and other demographic factors.

They drew from the NAACR database, which captures 93% of the U.S. population, in contrast to the CDC’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database which samples just 18% of the population.

Patients with HCC were defined by diagnostic codes, with diagnoses of intrahepatic bile duct cancers excluded.

They used 2013 U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural-Urban Continuum Codes to identify rural areas (regions of open countryside with town populations fewer than 2,500 people) and urban areas (populations ranging from 2,500 to 49,999, but not part of a larger labor market area).

The investigators identified a total of 310,635 HCC cases, 85% in urban areas and 15% in rural areas. Three-fourths of the patients (77%) were male. The median age ranged from 55-59 years.

There were notable demographic differences between the regions with non-Hispanic Whites comprising only 57% of the urban sample, but 82% of the rural sample. The urban sample included 16% non-Hispanic Blacks, 10% Asian/Pacific Islanders, and 17% Hispanics. The respective proportions in the rural areas were 8%, 2%, and 8%.

As noted before, age-adjusted incidence rates (adjusted to the year 2000 U.S. population) were lower in rural areas, at 4.9 per 100,000 population, compared with 6.9/100,000 in urban areas.

But when they looked at the average annual percentage changes using jointpoint regression, they saw that beginning in 2009 the AAPC in urban areas began to slow, from 5.3% for the period prior to 2009 to 2.7% thereafter, while the average annual percentage change in urban areas remained steady at 5.7%.

The largest increase in incidence over the course of the study was among rural non-Hispanic Whites, with an AAPC of 5.7%. Among urban non-Hispanic Blacks, the AAPC rose by 6.6% from 1995 to 2009, but slowed thereafter.

In contrast, among rural non-Hispanic Blacks the AAPC remained steady, at 5.4%.

The only group to see a decline in incidence was urban Asians/Pacific Islanders, who had an overall decline of 1%.

Among all groups, rural Hispanics had the highest age-adjusted incidence rates, at 14.9 per 100,000 in 2016.
 

Awareness gap?

 Lewis R. Roberts, MB, ChB, PhD, a hepatobiliary cancer researcher at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., who was not involved in the study, said in an interview that the difference in incidence rates between cities and the country may be attributable to a number of factors, including the opioid crisis, which can lead to an increase in injectable drug use or sexual behaviors resulting in increases in chronic hepatitis C infections and cirrhosis, known risk factors for HCC, as well as a lack of awareness of infections as a risk factor.

“In order for people to find these diseases, they have to be looking, and many of these are hidden diseases in our community,” he said. “What the study made me wonder was whether it just happens to be that they are in some ways more hidden in a rural community than they are in an urban community.”

He noted that clinicians in urban communities are more accustomed to treating more diverse populations who may have higher susceptibility to viral hepatitis, for example, and that screening and treatment for hepatitis C may be more common in urban areas than rural areas, he said.

No funding source for the study was reported. Dr. Gainey and Dr. Roberts reported having no conflicts of interest to disclose.

SOURCE: Gainey C et al. Liver Meeting 2020, Abstract 136.

The incidence rate of hepatocellular carcinoma in urban areas of the United States began to slow in 2009, but the rate in rural areas of the nation continued to rise at a steady pace, especially among non-Hispanic Whites and Blacks, investigators have found.

Although overall hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) incidence rates were consistently lower among people living in nonmetro (rural) versus metro (urban) areas, the average annual percentage change in urban areas began to slow from 5.3% for the period of 1995 through 2009 to 2.7% thereafter. In contrast, the average annual percentage change in rural areas remained steady at 5.7%, a disparity that remained even after adjusting for differences among subgroups, reported Christina Gainey, MD, a third-year resident in internal medicine at the University of Southern California Medical Center, Los Angeles.

“We found that there are striking urban-rural disparities in HCC incidence trends that vary by race and ethnicity, and these disparities are growing over time,” she said during the virtual annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.

“Our study really highlights a critical public health issue that’s disproportionately affecting rural Americans. They already face considerable health inequities when it comes to access to care, health outcomes, and public health infrastructure and resources, and as of now we still don’t know why cases of HCC continue to rise in these areas,” she said.

Dr. Gainey noted that HCC is the fastest-growing cancer in the United States, according to the 2020 Annual Report to the Nation on the Status of Cancer, issued jointly by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries, the American Cancer Society, and the National Cancer Institute.

Previous studies have identified disparities between urban and rural regions in care of patients with cervical cancer, colorectal cancer, and other malignancies, but there are very few data on urban-rural differences in HCC incidence, she said.
 

Incidence trends

To better understand whether such differences exists, the investigators compared trends in age-adjusted incidence rates of HCC in both rural and urban areas of the United States from 1995 to 2016, with stratification of trends by race/ethnicity and other demographic factors.

They drew from the NAACR database, which captures 93% of the U.S. population, in contrast to the CDC’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database which samples just 18% of the population.

Patients with HCC were defined by diagnostic codes, with diagnoses of intrahepatic bile duct cancers excluded.

They used 2013 U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural-Urban Continuum Codes to identify rural areas (regions of open countryside with town populations fewer than 2,500 people) and urban areas (populations ranging from 2,500 to 49,999, but not part of a larger labor market area).

The investigators identified a total of 310,635 HCC cases, 85% in urban areas and 15% in rural areas. Three-fourths of the patients (77%) were male. The median age ranged from 55-59 years.

There were notable demographic differences between the regions with non-Hispanic Whites comprising only 57% of the urban sample, but 82% of the rural sample. The urban sample included 16% non-Hispanic Blacks, 10% Asian/Pacific Islanders, and 17% Hispanics. The respective proportions in the rural areas were 8%, 2%, and 8%.

As noted before, age-adjusted incidence rates (adjusted to the year 2000 U.S. population) were lower in rural areas, at 4.9 per 100,000 population, compared with 6.9/100,000 in urban areas.

But when they looked at the average annual percentage changes using jointpoint regression, they saw that beginning in 2009 the AAPC in urban areas began to slow, from 5.3% for the period prior to 2009 to 2.7% thereafter, while the average annual percentage change in urban areas remained steady at 5.7%.

The largest increase in incidence over the course of the study was among rural non-Hispanic Whites, with an AAPC of 5.7%. Among urban non-Hispanic Blacks, the AAPC rose by 6.6% from 1995 to 2009, but slowed thereafter.

In contrast, among rural non-Hispanic Blacks the AAPC remained steady, at 5.4%.

The only group to see a decline in incidence was urban Asians/Pacific Islanders, who had an overall decline of 1%.

Among all groups, rural Hispanics had the highest age-adjusted incidence rates, at 14.9 per 100,000 in 2016.
 

Awareness gap?

 Lewis R. Roberts, MB, ChB, PhD, a hepatobiliary cancer researcher at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., who was not involved in the study, said in an interview that the difference in incidence rates between cities and the country may be attributable to a number of factors, including the opioid crisis, which can lead to an increase in injectable drug use or sexual behaviors resulting in increases in chronic hepatitis C infections and cirrhosis, known risk factors for HCC, as well as a lack of awareness of infections as a risk factor.

“In order for people to find these diseases, they have to be looking, and many of these are hidden diseases in our community,” he said. “What the study made me wonder was whether it just happens to be that they are in some ways more hidden in a rural community than they are in an urban community.”

He noted that clinicians in urban communities are more accustomed to treating more diverse populations who may have higher susceptibility to viral hepatitis, for example, and that screening and treatment for hepatitis C may be more common in urban areas than rural areas, he said.

No funding source for the study was reported. Dr. Gainey and Dr. Roberts reported having no conflicts of interest to disclose.

SOURCE: Gainey C et al. Liver Meeting 2020, Abstract 136.

The incidence rate of hepatocellular carcinoma in urban areas of the United States began to slow in 2009, but the rate in rural areas of the nation continued to rise at a steady pace, especially among non-Hispanic Whites and Blacks, investigators have found.

Although overall hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) incidence rates were consistently lower among people living in nonmetro (rural) versus metro (urban) areas, the average annual percentage change in urban areas began to slow from 5.3% for the period of 1995 through 2009 to 2.7% thereafter. In contrast, the average annual percentage change in rural areas remained steady at 5.7%, a disparity that remained even after adjusting for differences among subgroups, reported Christina Gainey, MD, a third-year resident in internal medicine at the University of Southern California Medical Center, Los Angeles.

“We found that there are striking urban-rural disparities in HCC incidence trends that vary by race and ethnicity, and these disparities are growing over time,” she said during the virtual annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.

“Our study really highlights a critical public health issue that’s disproportionately affecting rural Americans. They already face considerable health inequities when it comes to access to care, health outcomes, and public health infrastructure and resources, and as of now we still don’t know why cases of HCC continue to rise in these areas,” she said.

Dr. Gainey noted that HCC is the fastest-growing cancer in the United States, according to the 2020 Annual Report to the Nation on the Status of Cancer, issued jointly by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries, the American Cancer Society, and the National Cancer Institute.

Previous studies have identified disparities between urban and rural regions in care of patients with cervical cancer, colorectal cancer, and other malignancies, but there are very few data on urban-rural differences in HCC incidence, she said.
 

Incidence trends

To better understand whether such differences exists, the investigators compared trends in age-adjusted incidence rates of HCC in both rural and urban areas of the United States from 1995 to 2016, with stratification of trends by race/ethnicity and other demographic factors.

They drew from the NAACR database, which captures 93% of the U.S. population, in contrast to the CDC’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database which samples just 18% of the population.

Patients with HCC were defined by diagnostic codes, with diagnoses of intrahepatic bile duct cancers excluded.

They used 2013 U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural-Urban Continuum Codes to identify rural areas (regions of open countryside with town populations fewer than 2,500 people) and urban areas (populations ranging from 2,500 to 49,999, but not part of a larger labor market area).

The investigators identified a total of 310,635 HCC cases, 85% in urban areas and 15% in rural areas. Three-fourths of the patients (77%) were male. The median age ranged from 55-59 years.

There were notable demographic differences between the regions with non-Hispanic Whites comprising only 57% of the urban sample, but 82% of the rural sample. The urban sample included 16% non-Hispanic Blacks, 10% Asian/Pacific Islanders, and 17% Hispanics. The respective proportions in the rural areas were 8%, 2%, and 8%.

As noted before, age-adjusted incidence rates (adjusted to the year 2000 U.S. population) were lower in rural areas, at 4.9 per 100,000 population, compared with 6.9/100,000 in urban areas.

But when they looked at the average annual percentage changes using jointpoint regression, they saw that beginning in 2009 the AAPC in urban areas began to slow, from 5.3% for the period prior to 2009 to 2.7% thereafter, while the average annual percentage change in urban areas remained steady at 5.7%.

The largest increase in incidence over the course of the study was among rural non-Hispanic Whites, with an AAPC of 5.7%. Among urban non-Hispanic Blacks, the AAPC rose by 6.6% from 1995 to 2009, but slowed thereafter.

In contrast, among rural non-Hispanic Blacks the AAPC remained steady, at 5.4%.

The only group to see a decline in incidence was urban Asians/Pacific Islanders, who had an overall decline of 1%.

Among all groups, rural Hispanics had the highest age-adjusted incidence rates, at 14.9 per 100,000 in 2016.
 

Awareness gap?

 Lewis R. Roberts, MB, ChB, PhD, a hepatobiliary cancer researcher at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., who was not involved in the study, said in an interview that the difference in incidence rates between cities and the country may be attributable to a number of factors, including the opioid crisis, which can lead to an increase in injectable drug use or sexual behaviors resulting in increases in chronic hepatitis C infections and cirrhosis, known risk factors for HCC, as well as a lack of awareness of infections as a risk factor.

“In order for people to find these diseases, they have to be looking, and many of these are hidden diseases in our community,” he said. “What the study made me wonder was whether it just happens to be that they are in some ways more hidden in a rural community than they are in an urban community.”

He noted that clinicians in urban communities are more accustomed to treating more diverse populations who may have higher susceptibility to viral hepatitis, for example, and that screening and treatment for hepatitis C may be more common in urban areas than rural areas, he said.

No funding source for the study was reported. Dr. Gainey and Dr. Roberts reported having no conflicts of interest to disclose.

SOURCE: Gainey C et al. Liver Meeting 2020, Abstract 136.

Individuals living with hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection face several challenges in accessing care, many of which are shared by patients in the HIV community.

Better linkage to care with providers who are familiar with both the HCV and HIV treatment cascade may not only improve access to HCV treatment, but it may also support patient retention, treatment adherence, and achievement of sustained virologic response (SVR) and viral suppression, said Stephanie LaMoy, CAN Community Health, North Point, Florida. She presented the results of a pilot study at the virtual Association of Nurses in AIDS Care 2020 Annual Meeting.

In an effort to identify strategies most important for improving care access among their patients with HCV, LaMoy and her colleagues assessed 12-month patient data collected from three of their clinics. These data were evaluated for HCV treatment access, engagement, and outcomes.

The pilot study included 126 patients who were reactive and another 24 HCV-positive patients who were referred from other sources. Active HCV infections requiring treatment were reported in 144 patients.

A total of 59 patients were linked to care but did not initiate treatment for their active infection. LaMoy said there were multiple causes, including homelessness, substance abuse, and inability to maintain contact.

In contrast, 85 patients with HCV infection started treatment, but 35 of these patients did not complete their regimen. Out of the 50 patients who reported completing treatment, 30 did not return to the clinic to confirm sustained viral suppression.

According to LaMoy, this raised a red flag, causing the investigators to consider a different approach to care.
 

HIV care continuum model and its role in HCV

To improve the rate at which patients with HCV infection complete treatment within their clinics, the researchers formed a panel to determine necessary interventions that could reduce barriers to care.

The HIV care continuum came into play. They chose this model based on knowledge that HCV and HIV share the same care continuum with similar goals in diagnosis, linkage to care, retention, and suppression.

Based on the consensus of the panel and consideration of the HIV care continuum model, they identified a number of interventions needed to mitigate HCV treatment barriers. These included the incorporation of peer navigators or linkage-to-care (LCC) coordinators, use of the mobile medical unit, greater implementation of onsite lab visits, and medication-assisted treatment.

The LCC coordinators proved to be particularly important, as these team members helped assist patients with social and financial support to address challenges with access to treatment. These coordinators can also help  patients gain access to specialized providers, ultimately improving the chance of successful HCV management.

Additionally, LCC coordinators may help identify and reduce barriers associated with housing, transportation, and nutrition. Frequent patient contact by the LCC coordinators can encourage adherence and promote risk reduction education, such as providing referrals to needle exchange services.

“Linking individuals to care with providers who are familiar with the treatment cascade could help improve retention and should be a top priority for those involved in HCV screening and treatment,” said LaMoy. “An environment with knowledge, lack of judgment, and a tenacious need to heal the community that welcomes those with barriers to care is exactly what is needed for the patients in our program.”