Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management

Using surgical implants inside the brain, scientists have recorded for the first time electrical patterns that occur when a person is feeling chronic pain, a new study in Nature Neuroscience concluded.

The researchers used the devices on four patients who had felt endless nerve pain for more than a year. The devices recorded several times a day, which could pave “the way for implanted devices to one day predict pain signals or even short-circuit them,” The New York Times reported.

The study says the pain “was associated with electrical fluctuations in the orbitofrontal cortex, an area involved in emotion regulation, self-evaluation, and decision-making,” The Times reported. “The research suggests that such patterns of brain activity could serve as biomarkers to guide diagnosis and treatment for millions of people with shooting or burning chronic pain linked to a damaged nervous system.”

Ajay Wasan, MD, and a pain specialist at the University of Pittsburgh who was not involved in the study praised it to the Times.

“The study really advances a whole generation of research that has shown that the functioning of the brain is really important to processing and perceiving pain,” he said.

Chronic pain is defined as persistent or recurring and lasting more than three months. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says about 20% of Americans experience it. It has been linked with depression, Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias, suicide, and substance use.

Yet, the study’s authors noted, “pain severity is often measured through subjective report, while objective biomarkers that may guide diagnosis and treatment are lacking.”

Medtronic provided devices for the study. The study authors reported no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Using surgical implants inside the brain, scientists have recorded for the first time electrical patterns that occur when a person is feeling chronic pain, a new study in Nature Neuroscience concluded.

The researchers used the devices on four patients who had felt endless nerve pain for more than a year. The devices recorded several times a day, which could pave “the way for implanted devices to one day predict pain signals or even short-circuit them,” The New York Times reported.

The study says the pain “was associated with electrical fluctuations in the orbitofrontal cortex, an area involved in emotion regulation, self-evaluation, and decision-making,” The Times reported. “The research suggests that such patterns of brain activity could serve as biomarkers to guide diagnosis and treatment for millions of people with shooting or burning chronic pain linked to a damaged nervous system.”

Ajay Wasan, MD, and a pain specialist at the University of Pittsburgh who was not involved in the study praised it to the Times.

“The study really advances a whole generation of research that has shown that the functioning of the brain is really important to processing and perceiving pain,” he said.

Chronic pain is defined as persistent or recurring and lasting more than three months. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says about 20% of Americans experience it. It has been linked with depression, Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias, suicide, and substance use.

Yet, the study’s authors noted, “pain severity is often measured through subjective report, while objective biomarkers that may guide diagnosis and treatment are lacking.”

Medtronic provided devices for the study. The study authors reported no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Using surgical implants inside the brain, scientists have recorded for the first time electrical patterns that occur when a person is feeling chronic pain, a new study in Nature Neuroscience concluded.

The researchers used the devices on four patients who had felt endless nerve pain for more than a year. The devices recorded several times a day, which could pave “the way for implanted devices to one day predict pain signals or even short-circuit them,” The New York Times reported.

The study says the pain “was associated with electrical fluctuations in the orbitofrontal cortex, an area involved in emotion regulation, self-evaluation, and decision-making,” The Times reported. “The research suggests that such patterns of brain activity could serve as biomarkers to guide diagnosis and treatment for millions of people with shooting or burning chronic pain linked to a damaged nervous system.”

Ajay Wasan, MD, and a pain specialist at the University of Pittsburgh who was not involved in the study praised it to the Times.

“The study really advances a whole generation of research that has shown that the functioning of the brain is really important to processing and perceiving pain,” he said.

Chronic pain is defined as persistent or recurring and lasting more than three months. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says about 20% of Americans experience it. It has been linked with depression, Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias, suicide, and substance use.

Yet, the study’s authors noted, “pain severity is often measured through subjective report, while objective biomarkers that may guide diagnosis and treatment are lacking.”

Medtronic provided devices for the study. The study authors reported no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

A combination of simple interventions for acute patients with stroke attributable to intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) has been shown to significantly improve the chances of survival without major disability.
 

The INTERACT3 study showed that timely administration of a care bundle that included early intensive lowering of systolic blood pressure, strict glucose control, treatment of fever, and rapid reversal of abnormal anticoagulation led to less disability, lower rates of death, and better overall quality of life.

“This is a groundbreaking result. It is the first-ever published trial in ICH patients to show a clear benefit on functional outcomes and on mortality,” lead investigator Craig Anderson, MD, director of global brain health at the George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, said in an interview.

“These results show that, if we can organize care and focus on optimal management of these four aspects of the health of the patient, they do better,” Dr. Anderson said.

‘Game changer’

“This is a game changer because now we have level A evidence showing something is definitely beneficial for these patients,” Dr. Anderson added. “That means hospitals have the imperative to organize their systems to do these things and maximize care. We have never had that before.”

Dr. Anderson noted that, while some previous studies have suggested benefit from various interventions, such as early lowering of blood pressure, the results have not been conclusive.

“This means the intervention has not always been implemented, leading to large variations in clinical practice. But now we have a package that is proven to work; this should become a guideline-recommended practice,” he commented.

The INTERACT-3 results were presented at the European Stroke Organisation conference in Munich. They were also simultaneously published online in The Lancet.

Dr. Anderson explained that, until now, there haven’t been any proven treatments for ICH. “There has been a lot of energy and research put into the field, but this has resulted in several interventions that are ‘probably useful’ or which have a level B recommendation,” he said. “No therapy has been shown to be beneficial in a totally conclusive way, so we are still not entirely sure exactly whether the treatments we use actually make a difference.”

The INTERACT3 researchers therefore decided to evaluate a care package consisting of a bundle of several treatments in the hope that they may have additive or synergistic effects.

The study involved 7,036 patients with imaging-confirmed spontaneous ICH who presented within 6 hours of symptom onset to one of 121 hospitals in 10 mainly low- and middle-income countries: Brazil, China, India, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Sri Lanka, Vietnam, and Chile.

Using a cluster design, all hospitals started with usual care as a control and then at some point during the study started using the care bundle intervention.

The care-bundle protocol included the early intensive lowering of systolic blood pressure (target, < 140 mm Hg), strict glucose control (target, 6.1-7.8 mmol/L in those without diabetes and 7.8-10.0 mmol/L in those with diabetes), antipyrexia treatment (target body temperature, ≤ 37.5° C), and rapid reversal of warfarin-related anticoagulation (target international normalized ratio, 1.5) in patients for whom these variables were abnormal.

Overall, the modified intention-to-treat population included 3,221 patients who were assigned to the care-bundle group and 3,815 who were assigned to the usual-care group. Primary outcome data were available for 2,892 patients in the care-bundle group and 3,363 patients in the usual-care group.

The primary outcome was functional recovery, measured with the Modified Rankin Scale at 6 months. Results show that the likelihood of a poor functional outcome was lower in the care-bundle group (common odds ratio, 0.86; P = .015).

Patients who received the interventional care bundle also had a significantly lower rate of serious adverse events (16.0% vs. 20.1%) and mortality (14.1% vs. 17.0%).

NNT of 35 to save one life free of disability

“The number needed to treat (NNT) is just 35 to save a life free of disability,” Dr. Anderson commented. “That’s pretty good. We estimate that this care bundle would save tens of thousands of lives a year if universally adopted.”

The intervention group also spent less time in hospital and had improved health-related quality of life.

Dr. Anderson pointed out that the interventions included in the care bundle were all relatively easy to perform.

“They just require a bit more nursing time and the use of a few inexpensive medicines and maybe infusion pumps, but we’re not talking about the need for skilled surgery or a new therapy costing hundreds of thousands of dollars, so this care bundle should be very straightforward to implement. While we haven’t done a formal cost-effectiveness analysis, I would say it will definitely be good value for money.”

Dr. Anderson believes the rapid lowering of blood pressure is a very important part of the care bundle. He noted that target levels were achieved, on average, in 2.3 hours, compared with 4.0 hours in the control group. But he stressed that this was not just a trial of blood pressure reduction and that the whole package is important.

He gave a couple of possible reasons why this trial was successful whereas previous trials did not show a clear benefit of blood pressure lowering in ICH.

“Firstly, it was a very large trial with more than 7,000 patients – that is more than three times larger than any other trial in ICH. And secondly, the package of care means there are several different interventions that together show a real benefit,” he said. “It’s like the polypill, or a rehabilitation program – if you put several different things together, the whole package can show really positive results.”

Dr. Anderson also pointed out that the study included a wide spectrum of ICH patients, and the benefit of the care bundle was seen across all groups and all stroke severities.

“There were a lot of patients with a large ICH, and if anything, they showed an even larger benefit with the bundle of care,” he said.

The researchers note that the burden of ICH is greatest in low- and middle-income countries. In 2019, 30% of all stroke cases in these countries were ICH, almost double the proportion seen in high-income countries (16%). This is in part attributable to high rates of hypertension and limited resources for primary prevention, including identification and management of stroke risk factors by health care services.

‘Outstanding example’ of less therapeutic negativity

Lili Song, MD, PhD, joint lead author and head of the Stroke Program at the George Institute China, Beijing, said, “A lack of proven treatments for ICH has led to a pessimistic view that not much can be done for these patients.

“However, with INTERACT3, we demonstrate on a large scale how readily available treatments can be used to improve outcomes in resource-limited settings,” she said. “We hope this evidence will inform clinical practice guidelines across the globe and help save many lives.”

In a comment that accompanied the article, Wendy Ziai, MD, Matthew Bower, MD, and Daniel Hanley, MD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, say the INTERACT3 study shows that “an intracerebral hemorrhage care bundle focused on physiological control interventions, whether synergistic or not, might promote better outcomes in hospitals where care has not previously optimized sustained interventions.”

Pointing out that the care bundle has minimal risks of cost and coordination and a high public health effect, they conclude: “This effort is an outstanding example of why less therapeutic negativity, and more intervention might benefit survivors of intracerebral hemorrhage.”

The INTERACT3 study was funded by the Department of Health and Social Care, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the Medical Research Council, and the Wellcome Trust (all in the United Kingdom), the West China Hospital Outstanding Discipline Development 1–3-5 Programme, the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, Sichuan Credit Pharmaceutical, and Takeda (China).

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

A combination of simple interventions for acute patients with stroke attributable to intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) has been shown to significantly improve the chances of survival without major disability.
 

The INTERACT3 study showed that timely administration of a care bundle that included early intensive lowering of systolic blood pressure, strict glucose control, treatment of fever, and rapid reversal of abnormal anticoagulation led to less disability, lower rates of death, and better overall quality of life.

“This is a groundbreaking result. It is the first-ever published trial in ICH patients to show a clear benefit on functional outcomes and on mortality,” lead investigator Craig Anderson, MD, director of global brain health at the George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, said in an interview.

“These results show that, if we can organize care and focus on optimal management of these four aspects of the health of the patient, they do better,” Dr. Anderson said.

‘Game changer’

“This is a game changer because now we have level A evidence showing something is definitely beneficial for these patients,” Dr. Anderson added. “That means hospitals have the imperative to organize their systems to do these things and maximize care. We have never had that before.”

Dr. Anderson noted that, while some previous studies have suggested benefit from various interventions, such as early lowering of blood pressure, the results have not been conclusive.

“This means the intervention has not always been implemented, leading to large variations in clinical practice. But now we have a package that is proven to work; this should become a guideline-recommended practice,” he commented.

The INTERACT-3 results were presented at the European Stroke Organisation conference in Munich. They were also simultaneously published online in The Lancet.

Dr. Anderson explained that, until now, there haven’t been any proven treatments for ICH. “There has been a lot of energy and research put into the field, but this has resulted in several interventions that are ‘probably useful’ or which have a level B recommendation,” he said. “No therapy has been shown to be beneficial in a totally conclusive way, so we are still not entirely sure exactly whether the treatments we use actually make a difference.”

The INTERACT3 researchers therefore decided to evaluate a care package consisting of a bundle of several treatments in the hope that they may have additive or synergistic effects.

The study involved 7,036 patients with imaging-confirmed spontaneous ICH who presented within 6 hours of symptom onset to one of 121 hospitals in 10 mainly low- and middle-income countries: Brazil, China, India, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Sri Lanka, Vietnam, and Chile.

Using a cluster design, all hospitals started with usual care as a control and then at some point during the study started using the care bundle intervention.

The care-bundle protocol included the early intensive lowering of systolic blood pressure (target, < 140 mm Hg), strict glucose control (target, 6.1-7.8 mmol/L in those without diabetes and 7.8-10.0 mmol/L in those with diabetes), antipyrexia treatment (target body temperature, ≤ 37.5° C), and rapid reversal of warfarin-related anticoagulation (target international normalized ratio, 1.5) in patients for whom these variables were abnormal.

Overall, the modified intention-to-treat population included 3,221 patients who were assigned to the care-bundle group and 3,815 who were assigned to the usual-care group. Primary outcome data were available for 2,892 patients in the care-bundle group and 3,363 patients in the usual-care group.

The primary outcome was functional recovery, measured with the Modified Rankin Scale at 6 months. Results show that the likelihood of a poor functional outcome was lower in the care-bundle group (common odds ratio, 0.86; P = .015).

Patients who received the interventional care bundle also had a significantly lower rate of serious adverse events (16.0% vs. 20.1%) and mortality (14.1% vs. 17.0%).

NNT of 35 to save one life free of disability

“The number needed to treat (NNT) is just 35 to save a life free of disability,” Dr. Anderson commented. “That’s pretty good. We estimate that this care bundle would save tens of thousands of lives a year if universally adopted.”

The intervention group also spent less time in hospital and had improved health-related quality of life.

Dr. Anderson pointed out that the interventions included in the care bundle were all relatively easy to perform.

“They just require a bit more nursing time and the use of a few inexpensive medicines and maybe infusion pumps, but we’re not talking about the need for skilled surgery or a new therapy costing hundreds of thousands of dollars, so this care bundle should be very straightforward to implement. While we haven’t done a formal cost-effectiveness analysis, I would say it will definitely be good value for money.”

Dr. Anderson believes the rapid lowering of blood pressure is a very important part of the care bundle. He noted that target levels were achieved, on average, in 2.3 hours, compared with 4.0 hours in the control group. But he stressed that this was not just a trial of blood pressure reduction and that the whole package is important.

He gave a couple of possible reasons why this trial was successful whereas previous trials did not show a clear benefit of blood pressure lowering in ICH.

“Firstly, it was a very large trial with more than 7,000 patients – that is more than three times larger than any other trial in ICH. And secondly, the package of care means there are several different interventions that together show a real benefit,” he said. “It’s like the polypill, or a rehabilitation program – if you put several different things together, the whole package can show really positive results.”

Dr. Anderson also pointed out that the study included a wide spectrum of ICH patients, and the benefit of the care bundle was seen across all groups and all stroke severities.

“There were a lot of patients with a large ICH, and if anything, they showed an even larger benefit with the bundle of care,” he said.

The researchers note that the burden of ICH is greatest in low- and middle-income countries. In 2019, 30% of all stroke cases in these countries were ICH, almost double the proportion seen in high-income countries (16%). This is in part attributable to high rates of hypertension and limited resources for primary prevention, including identification and management of stroke risk factors by health care services.

‘Outstanding example’ of less therapeutic negativity

Lili Song, MD, PhD, joint lead author and head of the Stroke Program at the George Institute China, Beijing, said, “A lack of proven treatments for ICH has led to a pessimistic view that not much can be done for these patients.

“However, with INTERACT3, we demonstrate on a large scale how readily available treatments can be used to improve outcomes in resource-limited settings,” she said. “We hope this evidence will inform clinical practice guidelines across the globe and help save many lives.”

In a comment that accompanied the article, Wendy Ziai, MD, Matthew Bower, MD, and Daniel Hanley, MD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, say the INTERACT3 study shows that “an intracerebral hemorrhage care bundle focused on physiological control interventions, whether synergistic or not, might promote better outcomes in hospitals where care has not previously optimized sustained interventions.”

Pointing out that the care bundle has minimal risks of cost and coordination and a high public health effect, they conclude: “This effort is an outstanding example of why less therapeutic negativity, and more intervention might benefit survivors of intracerebral hemorrhage.”

The INTERACT3 study was funded by the Department of Health and Social Care, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the Medical Research Council, and the Wellcome Trust (all in the United Kingdom), the West China Hospital Outstanding Discipline Development 1–3-5 Programme, the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, Sichuan Credit Pharmaceutical, and Takeda (China).

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

A combination of simple interventions for acute patients with stroke attributable to intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) has been shown to significantly improve the chances of survival without major disability.
 

The INTERACT3 study showed that timely administration of a care bundle that included early intensive lowering of systolic blood pressure, strict glucose control, treatment of fever, and rapid reversal of abnormal anticoagulation led to less disability, lower rates of death, and better overall quality of life.

“This is a groundbreaking result. It is the first-ever published trial in ICH patients to show a clear benefit on functional outcomes and on mortality,” lead investigator Craig Anderson, MD, director of global brain health at the George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, said in an interview.

“These results show that, if we can organize care and focus on optimal management of these four aspects of the health of the patient, they do better,” Dr. Anderson said.

‘Game changer’

“This is a game changer because now we have level A evidence showing something is definitely beneficial for these patients,” Dr. Anderson added. “That means hospitals have the imperative to organize their systems to do these things and maximize care. We have never had that before.”

Dr. Anderson noted that, while some previous studies have suggested benefit from various interventions, such as early lowering of blood pressure, the results have not been conclusive.

“This means the intervention has not always been implemented, leading to large variations in clinical practice. But now we have a package that is proven to work; this should become a guideline-recommended practice,” he commented.

The INTERACT-3 results were presented at the European Stroke Organisation conference in Munich. They were also simultaneously published online in The Lancet.

Dr. Anderson explained that, until now, there haven’t been any proven treatments for ICH. “There has been a lot of energy and research put into the field, but this has resulted in several interventions that are ‘probably useful’ or which have a level B recommendation,” he said. “No therapy has been shown to be beneficial in a totally conclusive way, so we are still not entirely sure exactly whether the treatments we use actually make a difference.”

The INTERACT3 researchers therefore decided to evaluate a care package consisting of a bundle of several treatments in the hope that they may have additive or synergistic effects.

The study involved 7,036 patients with imaging-confirmed spontaneous ICH who presented within 6 hours of symptom onset to one of 121 hospitals in 10 mainly low- and middle-income countries: Brazil, China, India, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Sri Lanka, Vietnam, and Chile.

Using a cluster design, all hospitals started with usual care as a control and then at some point during the study started using the care bundle intervention.

The care-bundle protocol included the early intensive lowering of systolic blood pressure (target, < 140 mm Hg), strict glucose control (target, 6.1-7.8 mmol/L in those without diabetes and 7.8-10.0 mmol/L in those with diabetes), antipyrexia treatment (target body temperature, ≤ 37.5° C), and rapid reversal of warfarin-related anticoagulation (target international normalized ratio, 1.5) in patients for whom these variables were abnormal.

Overall, the modified intention-to-treat population included 3,221 patients who were assigned to the care-bundle group and 3,815 who were assigned to the usual-care group. Primary outcome data were available for 2,892 patients in the care-bundle group and 3,363 patients in the usual-care group.

The primary outcome was functional recovery, measured with the Modified Rankin Scale at 6 months. Results show that the likelihood of a poor functional outcome was lower in the care-bundle group (common odds ratio, 0.86; P = .015).

Patients who received the interventional care bundle also had a significantly lower rate of serious adverse events (16.0% vs. 20.1%) and mortality (14.1% vs. 17.0%).

NNT of 35 to save one life free of disability

“The number needed to treat (NNT) is just 35 to save a life free of disability,” Dr. Anderson commented. “That’s pretty good. We estimate that this care bundle would save tens of thousands of lives a year if universally adopted.”

The intervention group also spent less time in hospital and had improved health-related quality of life.

Dr. Anderson pointed out that the interventions included in the care bundle were all relatively easy to perform.

“They just require a bit more nursing time and the use of a few inexpensive medicines and maybe infusion pumps, but we’re not talking about the need for skilled surgery or a new therapy costing hundreds of thousands of dollars, so this care bundle should be very straightforward to implement. While we haven’t done a formal cost-effectiveness analysis, I would say it will definitely be good value for money.”

Dr. Anderson believes the rapid lowering of blood pressure is a very important part of the care bundle. He noted that target levels were achieved, on average, in 2.3 hours, compared with 4.0 hours in the control group. But he stressed that this was not just a trial of blood pressure reduction and that the whole package is important.

He gave a couple of possible reasons why this trial was successful whereas previous trials did not show a clear benefit of blood pressure lowering in ICH.

“Firstly, it was a very large trial with more than 7,000 patients – that is more than three times larger than any other trial in ICH. And secondly, the package of care means there are several different interventions that together show a real benefit,” he said. “It’s like the polypill, or a rehabilitation program – if you put several different things together, the whole package can show really positive results.”

Dr. Anderson also pointed out that the study included a wide spectrum of ICH patients, and the benefit of the care bundle was seen across all groups and all stroke severities.

“There were a lot of patients with a large ICH, and if anything, they showed an even larger benefit with the bundle of care,” he said.

The researchers note that the burden of ICH is greatest in low- and middle-income countries. In 2019, 30% of all stroke cases in these countries were ICH, almost double the proportion seen in high-income countries (16%). This is in part attributable to high rates of hypertension and limited resources for primary prevention, including identification and management of stroke risk factors by health care services.

‘Outstanding example’ of less therapeutic negativity

Lili Song, MD, PhD, joint lead author and head of the Stroke Program at the George Institute China, Beijing, said, “A lack of proven treatments for ICH has led to a pessimistic view that not much can be done for these patients.

“However, with INTERACT3, we demonstrate on a large scale how readily available treatments can be used to improve outcomes in resource-limited settings,” she said. “We hope this evidence will inform clinical practice guidelines across the globe and help save many lives.”

In a comment that accompanied the article, Wendy Ziai, MD, Matthew Bower, MD, and Daniel Hanley, MD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, say the INTERACT3 study shows that “an intracerebral hemorrhage care bundle focused on physiological control interventions, whether synergistic or not, might promote better outcomes in hospitals where care has not previously optimized sustained interventions.”

Pointing out that the care bundle has minimal risks of cost and coordination and a high public health effect, they conclude: “This effort is an outstanding example of why less therapeutic negativity, and more intervention might benefit survivors of intracerebral hemorrhage.”

The INTERACT3 study was funded by the Department of Health and Social Care, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the Medical Research Council, and the Wellcome Trust (all in the United Kingdom), the West China Hospital Outstanding Discipline Development 1–3-5 Programme, the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, Sichuan Credit Pharmaceutical, and Takeda (China).

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved extended-release injection buprenorphine (Brixadi, Braeburn) for the treatment of moderate to severe opioid use disorder (OUD).

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The medication comes in two formulations: a weekly and a monthly version. The weekly treatment is indicated in patients who have initiated treatment with a single dose of transmucosal buprenorphine or who are already being treated with the drug. The monthly version is for patients already receiving buprenorphine.

“Buprenorphine is an important treatment option for opioid use disorder. Today’s approval expands dosing options and provides people with opioid use disorder a greater opportunity to sustain long-term recovery,” said FDA Commissioner Robert M. Califf, MD, in a release. “The FDA will continue to take the critical steps necessary to pursue efforts that advance evidence-based treatments for substance use disorders, which is a strategic priority under the FDA’s Overdose Prevention Framework,” Dr. Califf added.

The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration reports that patients receiving medication for OUD have their risk for all-cause mortality cut by 50%.

In its release, the FDA said that it remains committed to increasing treatment options for OUD. Earlier this month, the agency issued a joint letter with SAMHSA to underscore the importance of counseling and other services as part of a comprehensive treatment plan the disorder. It also emphasized that receiving buprenorphine should not be contingent on participating in such services.

Brixadi is approved in both weekly and monthly subcutaneous injectable formulations at varying doses, including lower doses that may be appropriate for patients who do not tolerate higher doses of extended-release buprenorphine that are currently available.

The drug will be available through a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy program and administered only by health care providers in a health care setting.

The most common adverse reactions associated with the drug include injection-site pain, headache, constipation, nausea, injection-site erythema, injection-site pruritus, insomnia, and urinary tract infections. The FDA reports that such side effects occur in at least 5% of patients.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved extended-release injection buprenorphine (Brixadi, Braeburn) for the treatment of moderate to severe opioid use disorder (OUD).

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The medication comes in two formulations: a weekly and a monthly version. The weekly treatment is indicated in patients who have initiated treatment with a single dose of transmucosal buprenorphine or who are already being treated with the drug. The monthly version is for patients already receiving buprenorphine.

“Buprenorphine is an important treatment option for opioid use disorder. Today’s approval expands dosing options and provides people with opioid use disorder a greater opportunity to sustain long-term recovery,” said FDA Commissioner Robert M. Califf, MD, in a release. “The FDA will continue to take the critical steps necessary to pursue efforts that advance evidence-based treatments for substance use disorders, which is a strategic priority under the FDA’s Overdose Prevention Framework,” Dr. Califf added.

The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration reports that patients receiving medication for OUD have their risk for all-cause mortality cut by 50%.

In its release, the FDA said that it remains committed to increasing treatment options for OUD. Earlier this month, the agency issued a joint letter with SAMHSA to underscore the importance of counseling and other services as part of a comprehensive treatment plan the disorder. It also emphasized that receiving buprenorphine should not be contingent on participating in such services.

Brixadi is approved in both weekly and monthly subcutaneous injectable formulations at varying doses, including lower doses that may be appropriate for patients who do not tolerate higher doses of extended-release buprenorphine that are currently available.

The drug will be available through a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy program and administered only by health care providers in a health care setting.

The most common adverse reactions associated with the drug include injection-site pain, headache, constipation, nausea, injection-site erythema, injection-site pruritus, insomnia, and urinary tract infections. The FDA reports that such side effects occur in at least 5% of patients.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved extended-release injection buprenorphine (Brixadi, Braeburn) for the treatment of moderate to severe opioid use disorder (OUD).

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The medication comes in two formulations: a weekly and a monthly version. The weekly treatment is indicated in patients who have initiated treatment with a single dose of transmucosal buprenorphine or who are already being treated with the drug. The monthly version is for patients already receiving buprenorphine.

“Buprenorphine is an important treatment option for opioid use disorder. Today’s approval expands dosing options and provides people with opioid use disorder a greater opportunity to sustain long-term recovery,” said FDA Commissioner Robert M. Califf, MD, in a release. “The FDA will continue to take the critical steps necessary to pursue efforts that advance evidence-based treatments for substance use disorders, which is a strategic priority under the FDA’s Overdose Prevention Framework,” Dr. Califf added.

The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration reports that patients receiving medication for OUD have their risk for all-cause mortality cut by 50%.

In its release, the FDA said that it remains committed to increasing treatment options for OUD. Earlier this month, the agency issued a joint letter with SAMHSA to underscore the importance of counseling and other services as part of a comprehensive treatment plan the disorder. It also emphasized that receiving buprenorphine should not be contingent on participating in such services.

Brixadi is approved in both weekly and monthly subcutaneous injectable formulations at varying doses, including lower doses that may be appropriate for patients who do not tolerate higher doses of extended-release buprenorphine that are currently available.

The drug will be available through a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy program and administered only by health care providers in a health care setting.

The most common adverse reactions associated with the drug include injection-site pain, headache, constipation, nausea, injection-site erythema, injection-site pruritus, insomnia, and urinary tract infections. The FDA reports that such side effects occur in at least 5% of patients.

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

Patients presenting with an acute ischemic stroke and found to have atrial fibrillation (AFib) can be safely started on a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) much earlier than starting generally occurs in current clinical practice, a new study suggests.

The ELAN trial found that starting DOAC treatment earlier was not associated with an increased risk for intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) but rather was linked to a lower rate of ischemic events.

“We conclude that there is no reason to delay DOAC treatment in these patients. Our results suggest that early DOAC treatment is reasonable; it is unlikely to cause harm, and it is probably better at reducing ischemic events,” lead investigator of the study, Urs Fischer, MD, professor of neurology at University Hospital Basel (Switzerland), commented in an interview.

“This trial will change clinical practice in that we can feel much more reassured that starting DOAC treatment early in these patients will not cause harm,” he said.

Senior investigator Jesse Dawson, MD, professor of stroke medicine at Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Glasgow, added: “This issue of timing of DOAC treatment causes a lot of anxiety in our daily workload. Clinicians are scared of causing an ICH, so they tend to wait. These results will ease a lot of that anxiety.”

Imaging-based assessment of stroke severity

In the ELAN trial, the definition of stroke severity was based on imaging rather than on the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS).

“We took a cautious approach by using imaging to define stroke severity. So, when using these results in clinical practice, it is important that patients are selected for the timing of DOAC treatment based on the imaging results,” Dr. Dawson explained. “This is very straightforward, as the size of the stroke can be seen clearly on the routine CT imaging that all patients receive up front. This is a very pragmatic and simple protocol. And advanced imaging is not required.”

He noted that though clinicians tend to use the NIHSS clinical symptom score to define mild, moderate, and severe stroke, the imaging approach is actually more accurate when determining the risk for bleeding and ICH. And though imaging results often correlate with NIHSS scores, there can be some exceptions.

Commenting on the ELAN trial results at the ESOC meeting, Georgios Tsivgoulis, MD, professor of neurology, University of Athens, said that the trial showed that early administration of DOACs in these patients was safe and did not increase the rate of ICH.

“There was a very low ICH rate with only two events in each group. And then there was above a 1% reduction in the composite outcome including ischemic vascular events and bleeding,” he noted.

“This is important because there are many thousands of patients with acute ischemic stroke and AFib, and now we have a large study showing we can treat them with a DOAC early, and this appears to be safe and it appears also be more effective in terms of outcome events,” Dr. Tsivgoulis said.

But he highlighted one important caveat: The majority of patients had mild or moderate stroke.

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

Patients presenting with an acute ischemic stroke and found to have atrial fibrillation (AFib) can be safely started on a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) much earlier than starting generally occurs in current clinical practice, a new study suggests.

The ELAN trial found that starting DOAC treatment earlier was not associated with an increased risk for intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) but rather was linked to a lower rate of ischemic events.

“We conclude that there is no reason to delay DOAC treatment in these patients. Our results suggest that early DOAC treatment is reasonable; it is unlikely to cause harm, and it is probably better at reducing ischemic events,” lead investigator of the study, Urs Fischer, MD, professor of neurology at University Hospital Basel (Switzerland), commented in an interview.

“This trial will change clinical practice in that we can feel much more reassured that starting DOAC treatment early in these patients will not cause harm,” he said.

Senior investigator Jesse Dawson, MD, professor of stroke medicine at Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Glasgow, added: “This issue of timing of DOAC treatment causes a lot of anxiety in our daily workload. Clinicians are scared of causing an ICH, so they tend to wait. These results will ease a lot of that anxiety.”

Imaging-based assessment of stroke severity

In the ELAN trial, the definition of stroke severity was based on imaging rather than on the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS).

“We took a cautious approach by using imaging to define stroke severity. So, when using these results in clinical practice, it is important that patients are selected for the timing of DOAC treatment based on the imaging results,” Dr. Dawson explained. “This is very straightforward, as the size of the stroke can be seen clearly on the routine CT imaging that all patients receive up front. This is a very pragmatic and simple protocol. And advanced imaging is not required.”

He noted that though clinicians tend to use the NIHSS clinical symptom score to define mild, moderate, and severe stroke, the imaging approach is actually more accurate when determining the risk for bleeding and ICH. And though imaging results often correlate with NIHSS scores, there can be some exceptions.

Commenting on the ELAN trial results at the ESOC meeting, Georgios Tsivgoulis, MD, professor of neurology, University of Athens, said that the trial showed that early administration of DOACs in these patients was safe and did not increase the rate of ICH.

“There was a very low ICH rate with only two events in each group. And then there was above a 1% reduction in the composite outcome including ischemic vascular events and bleeding,” he noted.

“This is important because there are many thousands of patients with acute ischemic stroke and AFib, and now we have a large study showing we can treat them with a DOAC early, and this appears to be safe and it appears also be more effective in terms of outcome events,” Dr. Tsivgoulis said.

But he highlighted one important caveat: The majority of patients had mild or moderate stroke.

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

Patients presenting with an acute ischemic stroke and found to have atrial fibrillation (AFib) can be safely started on a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) much earlier than starting generally occurs in current clinical practice, a new study suggests.

The ELAN trial found that starting DOAC treatment earlier was not associated with an increased risk for intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) but rather was linked to a lower rate of ischemic events.

“We conclude that there is no reason to delay DOAC treatment in these patients. Our results suggest that early DOAC treatment is reasonable; it is unlikely to cause harm, and it is probably better at reducing ischemic events,” lead investigator of the study, Urs Fischer, MD, professor of neurology at University Hospital Basel (Switzerland), commented in an interview.

“This trial will change clinical practice in that we can feel much more reassured that starting DOAC treatment early in these patients will not cause harm,” he said.

Senior investigator Jesse Dawson, MD, professor of stroke medicine at Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Glasgow, added: “This issue of timing of DOAC treatment causes a lot of anxiety in our daily workload. Clinicians are scared of causing an ICH, so they tend to wait. These results will ease a lot of that anxiety.”

Imaging-based assessment of stroke severity

In the ELAN trial, the definition of stroke severity was based on imaging rather than on the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS).

“We took a cautious approach by using imaging to define stroke severity. So, when using these results in clinical practice, it is important that patients are selected for the timing of DOAC treatment based on the imaging results,” Dr. Dawson explained. “This is very straightforward, as the size of the stroke can be seen clearly on the routine CT imaging that all patients receive up front. This is a very pragmatic and simple protocol. And advanced imaging is not required.”

He noted that though clinicians tend to use the NIHSS clinical symptom score to define mild, moderate, and severe stroke, the imaging approach is actually more accurate when determining the risk for bleeding and ICH. And though imaging results often correlate with NIHSS scores, there can be some exceptions.

Commenting on the ELAN trial results at the ESOC meeting, Georgios Tsivgoulis, MD, professor of neurology, University of Athens, said that the trial showed that early administration of DOACs in these patients was safe and did not increase the rate of ICH.

“There was a very low ICH rate with only two events in each group. And then there was above a 1% reduction in the composite outcome including ischemic vascular events and bleeding,” he noted.

“This is important because there are many thousands of patients with acute ischemic stroke and AFib, and now we have a large study showing we can treat them with a DOAC early, and this appears to be safe and it appears also be more effective in terms of outcome events,” Dr. Tsivgoulis said.

But he highlighted one important caveat: The majority of patients had mild or moderate stroke.

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

In the first randomized clinical trial of remote pulmonary artery pressure–guided monitoring and management of chronic heart failure (HF) in Europe, the intervention “substantially” improved quality of life (QoL) and reduced HF hospitalizations, new data show.

The CardioMEMS-HF system (Abbot Laboratories) used in the trial, called MONITOR-HF, remotely monitors changes in pulmonary artery pressure and provides an early warning of worsening HF.

Jasper Brugts, MD, PhD, of Erasmus MC University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, said in an interview, “The concordance on outcomes of the three CardioMEMS trials across different eras, evolving GDMT [guideline-directed medical therapy], different conditions (pandemic), and different health care systems is reassuring and supportive of technologies such as CardioMEMS to improve patient monitoring to prevent HF hospitalizations and improve QoL.”

Dr. Brugts presented the study at the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (HFA-ESC) 2023 sessions.

The system “improved QoL in all six domains of the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire” and resulted in fewer HF-related hospitalizations (117 vs. 212) and fewer urgent visits (11 vs. 17), in comparison with standard of care, Dr. Brugts told meeting attendees.

Furthermore, CardioMEMS monitors hypervolemia as well as hypovolemia, enabling “fine-tuning of diuretics.”

The presentation drew such applause that one chairperson described it as “close to a standing ovation.” The study was published simultaneously in The Lancet.
 

Aggregate evidence

Early clinical evidence of the benefits of remote monitoring with the CardioMEMS-HF system was provided by the CHAMPION trial, which included patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III heart failure.

Results of the subsequent GUIDE-HF trial, which aimed to test a broader population of patients with NYHA class II–IV heart failure and either increased N-terminal-pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) concentrations or hospitalization, were inconclusive.

However, a pre–COVID-19 impact analysis of GUIDE-HF indicated a possible benefit, which was primarily driven by a lower HF hospitalization rate, compared with the control group. That finding was the basis for an expanded indication for the system from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

The 2022 FDA indication permits the use of CardioMEMS for patients with NYHA class II HF and for those with worsening HF, as assessed by elevated natriuretic peptide levels.
 

From United States to Europe

Aware that most CardioMEMS data came from U.S. trials, the investigators embarked on the current trial, MONITOR-HF, an open-label, randomized trial in 25 centers in the Netherlands. Eligible patients had chronic NYHA class III HF, irrespective of ejection fraction, and had previously undergone hospitalization for HF.

A total of 348 patients were randomly assigned to either CardioMEMS-HF or standard of care (SoC) between 2019 and 2022.The median age of the patients was 69 years, and the median ejection fraction was 30%.

All patients were scheduled to be seen by their clinician at 3 months, 6 months, and every 6 months thereafter for up to 48 months.

The primary endpoint was the mean difference in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) summary score at 12 months

That difference between groups was 7.13 (+7.05 in the CardioMEMS group and –0.08 in the SoC group).

In the responder analysis, the odds ratio of an improvement of at least 5 points in the KCCQ overall summary score was 1.69 in the CardioMEMS group vs. the SoC group; the OR of a deterioration of at least 5 points was 0.45.

Subgroup analyses showed no relevant heterogeneity in the treatment effect on total HF hospitalizations and, notably, no significant interaction in patients with an EF below 40% and an EF above 40%.

There was a significant reduction in the median NT-proBNP change from baseline only in the remote monitoring group (800 pg/mL) and a smaller, nonsignificant difference with SoC.

Both groups received highly appropriate background guideline–directed medical therapy throughout the study. There were no significant between-group differences at 12 months.

Freedom from device-related or system-related complications and sensor failure were 97.7% and 98.8%, respectively.

Two sensor failures occurred during a mean follow-up 1.8 years. The percentage of failures was comparable to CHAMPION and GUIDE-HF trials.

The trial was not powered to assess a mortality benefit.
 

Pick the right patients

“As in the U.S. trials, there will be side effects, so select the right patients, because [remote monitoring] is not without risk,” Dr. Brugts told meeting attendees.

That point also was made by Christiane E. Angermann of University and University Hospital Würzburg, Germany, in a related editorial in The Lancet.

“To reproduce these results on a large scale in real-life health care, diligent patient selection should identify those at high risk of heart failure–related hospitalization who agree with the concept of daily data collection and are able and motivated to comply with treatment recommendations even if asymptomatic,” Dr. Angermann writes.

“Without direct interaction between health care providers and patients, and timely treatment modification triggered by abnormal monitoring results, the care cycle might break and the potential benefits from early detection of decompensation would be lost.”

Val Rakita, MD, assistant professor of medicine at Temple University, Philadelphia, a specialist in advanced heart failure and main implanter of the CardioMEMS device at Temple University Hospital, commented on the study for this article.

“This study confirms the previous data that the device is very safe and effective in preventing HF hospitalizations and improving patients’ quality of life, even in a different population with more modern background guideline-directed medical therapy.”

Nevertheless, he noted, “Studies have yet to confirm a mortality benefit, despite logic telling us that preventing heart failure hospitalizations should also improve patient survival. More studies are needed to see if a survival benefit can be proven over a longer follow-up period.”

Overall, he said, “Remote monitoring allows more precise management of medications, prevention of hospitalizations, and improvement in quality of life, and I am an advocate for it in my practice.”

Not everyone is an advocate, however. In a commentary published last year, John M. Mandrola, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist at Baptist Medical Associates in Louisville, Ky., said the expanded FDA indication for the device is the result of “dubious trial analysis, spin, lax regulation, and the growth of low-value care.”

Others also have questioned the device’s value in the clinic.

But at least for now, as Dr. Angermann writes, “Scientific evidence supports the use of the CardioMEMS-HF system to enhance remote patient management in heart failure care. For more widespread application, technological advancements are desirable to provide more comfort for patients and reusable external device components, thereby improving care experience and saving resources.”

The MONITOR-HF trial is funded by the Dutch Ministry of Health and Health Care institute. Dr. Brugts has an independent research grant from Abbott (investigator-sponsored study) and has had speaker engagements or has participated in advisory boards for Abbott and other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Angermann has received personal fees from Abbott for serving as chair of the steering committee for the CardioMEMS European Monitoring Study for Heart Failure (MEMS-HF) and consulting fees, honoraria, and travel costs from Abbott. Dr. Rakita has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In the first randomized clinical trial of remote pulmonary artery pressure–guided monitoring and management of chronic heart failure (HF) in Europe, the intervention “substantially” improved quality of life (QoL) and reduced HF hospitalizations, new data show.

The CardioMEMS-HF system (Abbot Laboratories) used in the trial, called MONITOR-HF, remotely monitors changes in pulmonary artery pressure and provides an early warning of worsening HF.

Jasper Brugts, MD, PhD, of Erasmus MC University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, said in an interview, “The concordance on outcomes of the three CardioMEMS trials across different eras, evolving GDMT [guideline-directed medical therapy], different conditions (pandemic), and different health care systems is reassuring and supportive of technologies such as CardioMEMS to improve patient monitoring to prevent HF hospitalizations and improve QoL.”

Dr. Brugts presented the study at the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (HFA-ESC) 2023 sessions.

The system “improved QoL in all six domains of the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire” and resulted in fewer HF-related hospitalizations (117 vs. 212) and fewer urgent visits (11 vs. 17), in comparison with standard of care, Dr. Brugts told meeting attendees.

Furthermore, CardioMEMS monitors hypervolemia as well as hypovolemia, enabling “fine-tuning of diuretics.”

The presentation drew such applause that one chairperson described it as “close to a standing ovation.” The study was published simultaneously in The Lancet.
 

Aggregate evidence

Early clinical evidence of the benefits of remote monitoring with the CardioMEMS-HF system was provided by the CHAMPION trial, which included patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III heart failure.

Results of the subsequent GUIDE-HF trial, which aimed to test a broader population of patients with NYHA class II–IV heart failure and either increased N-terminal-pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) concentrations or hospitalization, were inconclusive.

However, a pre–COVID-19 impact analysis of GUIDE-HF indicated a possible benefit, which was primarily driven by a lower HF hospitalization rate, compared with the control group. That finding was the basis for an expanded indication for the system from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

The 2022 FDA indication permits the use of CardioMEMS for patients with NYHA class II HF and for those with worsening HF, as assessed by elevated natriuretic peptide levels.
 

From United States to Europe

Aware that most CardioMEMS data came from U.S. trials, the investigators embarked on the current trial, MONITOR-HF, an open-label, randomized trial in 25 centers in the Netherlands. Eligible patients had chronic NYHA class III HF, irrespective of ejection fraction, and had previously undergone hospitalization for HF.

A total of 348 patients were randomly assigned to either CardioMEMS-HF or standard of care (SoC) between 2019 and 2022.The median age of the patients was 69 years, and the median ejection fraction was 30%.

All patients were scheduled to be seen by their clinician at 3 months, 6 months, and every 6 months thereafter for up to 48 months.

The primary endpoint was the mean difference in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) summary score at 12 months

That difference between groups was 7.13 (+7.05 in the CardioMEMS group and –0.08 in the SoC group).

In the responder analysis, the odds ratio of an improvement of at least 5 points in the KCCQ overall summary score was 1.69 in the CardioMEMS group vs. the SoC group; the OR of a deterioration of at least 5 points was 0.45.

Subgroup analyses showed no relevant heterogeneity in the treatment effect on total HF hospitalizations and, notably, no significant interaction in patients with an EF below 40% and an EF above 40%.

There was a significant reduction in the median NT-proBNP change from baseline only in the remote monitoring group (800 pg/mL) and a smaller, nonsignificant difference with SoC.

Both groups received highly appropriate background guideline–directed medical therapy throughout the study. There were no significant between-group differences at 12 months.

Freedom from device-related or system-related complications and sensor failure were 97.7% and 98.8%, respectively.

Two sensor failures occurred during a mean follow-up 1.8 years. The percentage of failures was comparable to CHAMPION and GUIDE-HF trials.

The trial was not powered to assess a mortality benefit.
 

Pick the right patients

“As in the U.S. trials, there will be side effects, so select the right patients, because [remote monitoring] is not without risk,” Dr. Brugts told meeting attendees.

That point also was made by Christiane E. Angermann of University and University Hospital Würzburg, Germany, in a related editorial in The Lancet.

“To reproduce these results on a large scale in real-life health care, diligent patient selection should identify those at high risk of heart failure–related hospitalization who agree with the concept of daily data collection and are able and motivated to comply with treatment recommendations even if asymptomatic,” Dr. Angermann writes.

“Without direct interaction between health care providers and patients, and timely treatment modification triggered by abnormal monitoring results, the care cycle might break and the potential benefits from early detection of decompensation would be lost.”

Val Rakita, MD, assistant professor of medicine at Temple University, Philadelphia, a specialist in advanced heart failure and main implanter of the CardioMEMS device at Temple University Hospital, commented on the study for this article.

“This study confirms the previous data that the device is very safe and effective in preventing HF hospitalizations and improving patients’ quality of life, even in a different population with more modern background guideline-directed medical therapy.”

Nevertheless, he noted, “Studies have yet to confirm a mortality benefit, despite logic telling us that preventing heart failure hospitalizations should also improve patient survival. More studies are needed to see if a survival benefit can be proven over a longer follow-up period.”

Overall, he said, “Remote monitoring allows more precise management of medications, prevention of hospitalizations, and improvement in quality of life, and I am an advocate for it in my practice.”

Not everyone is an advocate, however. In a commentary published last year, John M. Mandrola, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist at Baptist Medical Associates in Louisville, Ky., said the expanded FDA indication for the device is the result of “dubious trial analysis, spin, lax regulation, and the growth of low-value care.”

Others also have questioned the device’s value in the clinic.

But at least for now, as Dr. Angermann writes, “Scientific evidence supports the use of the CardioMEMS-HF system to enhance remote patient management in heart failure care. For more widespread application, technological advancements are desirable to provide more comfort for patients and reusable external device components, thereby improving care experience and saving resources.”

The MONITOR-HF trial is funded by the Dutch Ministry of Health and Health Care institute. Dr. Brugts has an independent research grant from Abbott (investigator-sponsored study) and has had speaker engagements or has participated in advisory boards for Abbott and other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Angermann has received personal fees from Abbott for serving as chair of the steering committee for the CardioMEMS European Monitoring Study for Heart Failure (MEMS-HF) and consulting fees, honoraria, and travel costs from Abbott. Dr. Rakita has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In the first randomized clinical trial of remote pulmonary artery pressure–guided monitoring and management of chronic heart failure (HF) in Europe, the intervention “substantially” improved quality of life (QoL) and reduced HF hospitalizations, new data show.

The CardioMEMS-HF system (Abbot Laboratories) used in the trial, called MONITOR-HF, remotely monitors changes in pulmonary artery pressure and provides an early warning of worsening HF.

Jasper Brugts, MD, PhD, of Erasmus MC University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, said in an interview, “The concordance on outcomes of the three CardioMEMS trials across different eras, evolving GDMT [guideline-directed medical therapy], different conditions (pandemic), and different health care systems is reassuring and supportive of technologies such as CardioMEMS to improve patient monitoring to prevent HF hospitalizations and improve QoL.”

Dr. Brugts presented the study at the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (HFA-ESC) 2023 sessions.

The system “improved QoL in all six domains of the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire” and resulted in fewer HF-related hospitalizations (117 vs. 212) and fewer urgent visits (11 vs. 17), in comparison with standard of care, Dr. Brugts told meeting attendees.

Furthermore, CardioMEMS monitors hypervolemia as well as hypovolemia, enabling “fine-tuning of diuretics.”

The presentation drew such applause that one chairperson described it as “close to a standing ovation.” The study was published simultaneously in The Lancet.
 

Aggregate evidence

Early clinical evidence of the benefits of remote monitoring with the CardioMEMS-HF system was provided by the CHAMPION trial, which included patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III heart failure.

Results of the subsequent GUIDE-HF trial, which aimed to test a broader population of patients with NYHA class II–IV heart failure and either increased N-terminal-pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) concentrations or hospitalization, were inconclusive.

However, a pre–COVID-19 impact analysis of GUIDE-HF indicated a possible benefit, which was primarily driven by a lower HF hospitalization rate, compared with the control group. That finding was the basis for an expanded indication for the system from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

The 2022 FDA indication permits the use of CardioMEMS for patients with NYHA class II HF and for those with worsening HF, as assessed by elevated natriuretic peptide levels.
 

From United States to Europe

Aware that most CardioMEMS data came from U.S. trials, the investigators embarked on the current trial, MONITOR-HF, an open-label, randomized trial in 25 centers in the Netherlands. Eligible patients had chronic NYHA class III HF, irrespective of ejection fraction, and had previously undergone hospitalization for HF.

A total of 348 patients were randomly assigned to either CardioMEMS-HF or standard of care (SoC) between 2019 and 2022.The median age of the patients was 69 years, and the median ejection fraction was 30%.

All patients were scheduled to be seen by their clinician at 3 months, 6 months, and every 6 months thereafter for up to 48 months.

The primary endpoint was the mean difference in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) summary score at 12 months

That difference between groups was 7.13 (+7.05 in the CardioMEMS group and –0.08 in the SoC group).

In the responder analysis, the odds ratio of an improvement of at least 5 points in the KCCQ overall summary score was 1.69 in the CardioMEMS group vs. the SoC group; the OR of a deterioration of at least 5 points was 0.45.

Subgroup analyses showed no relevant heterogeneity in the treatment effect on total HF hospitalizations and, notably, no significant interaction in patients with an EF below 40% and an EF above 40%.

There was a significant reduction in the median NT-proBNP change from baseline only in the remote monitoring group (800 pg/mL) and a smaller, nonsignificant difference with SoC.

Both groups received highly appropriate background guideline–directed medical therapy throughout the study. There were no significant between-group differences at 12 months.

Freedom from device-related or system-related complications and sensor failure were 97.7% and 98.8%, respectively.

Two sensor failures occurred during a mean follow-up 1.8 years. The percentage of failures was comparable to CHAMPION and GUIDE-HF trials.

The trial was not powered to assess a mortality benefit.
 

Pick the right patients

“As in the U.S. trials, there will be side effects, so select the right patients, because [remote monitoring] is not without risk,” Dr. Brugts told meeting attendees.

That point also was made by Christiane E. Angermann of University and University Hospital Würzburg, Germany, in a related editorial in The Lancet.

“To reproduce these results on a large scale in real-life health care, diligent patient selection should identify those at high risk of heart failure–related hospitalization who agree with the concept of daily data collection and are able and motivated to comply with treatment recommendations even if asymptomatic,” Dr. Angermann writes.

“Without direct interaction between health care providers and patients, and timely treatment modification triggered by abnormal monitoring results, the care cycle might break and the potential benefits from early detection of decompensation would be lost.”

Val Rakita, MD, assistant professor of medicine at Temple University, Philadelphia, a specialist in advanced heart failure and main implanter of the CardioMEMS device at Temple University Hospital, commented on the study for this article.

“This study confirms the previous data that the device is very safe and effective in preventing HF hospitalizations and improving patients’ quality of life, even in a different population with more modern background guideline-directed medical therapy.”

Nevertheless, he noted, “Studies have yet to confirm a mortality benefit, despite logic telling us that preventing heart failure hospitalizations should also improve patient survival. More studies are needed to see if a survival benefit can be proven over a longer follow-up period.”

Overall, he said, “Remote monitoring allows more precise management of medications, prevention of hospitalizations, and improvement in quality of life, and I am an advocate for it in my practice.”

Not everyone is an advocate, however. In a commentary published last year, John M. Mandrola, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist at Baptist Medical Associates in Louisville, Ky., said the expanded FDA indication for the device is the result of “dubious trial analysis, spin, lax regulation, and the growth of low-value care.”

Others also have questioned the device’s value in the clinic.

But at least for now, as Dr. Angermann writes, “Scientific evidence supports the use of the CardioMEMS-HF system to enhance remote patient management in heart failure care. For more widespread application, technological advancements are desirable to provide more comfort for patients and reusable external device components, thereby improving care experience and saving resources.”

The MONITOR-HF trial is funded by the Dutch Ministry of Health and Health Care institute. Dr. Brugts has an independent research grant from Abbott (investigator-sponsored study) and has had speaker engagements or has participated in advisory boards for Abbott and other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Angermann has received personal fees from Abbott for serving as chair of the steering committee for the CardioMEMS European Monitoring Study for Heart Failure (MEMS-HF) and consulting fees, honoraria, and travel costs from Abbott. Dr. Rakita has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

SAN FRANCISCO – Young people who commit suicide using a gun are often introduced to guns through family traditions and use the family gun to commit suicide, according to results of a novel “psychological autopsy study” of loved ones of youth who died by gun-related suicide.

Yet, families don’t always recognize the danger firearms pose to a young person with suicide risk factors, even when there is a young person in the house with a mental health condition, the data show.

Perhaps most importantly, many parents indicated that they would have removed firearms from the home if it had been suggested by their health care professionals.

The study was presented at the American Psychiatric Association annual meeting. 

The message is very clear: Clinicians need to ask about guns and gun safety with patients and families, said study investigator Paul Nestadt, MD, of Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore.

“It’s never illegal to ask about gun access and it’s medically relevant. Just do it,” he said during a briefing with reporters.
 

Grim statistics

Suicide rates have been climbing in the United States for the majority of the past 20 years. Suicide is the second most common cause of death among youth.

Dr. Nestadt noted that overall about 8% of suicide attempts result in death, but when an attempt involves a firearm the percentage jumps astronomically to 90%.

Research has shown that for every 10% increase in household firearms in a given community there is a 27% increase in youth suicide deaths.

“In the world of public health and mental health, we think about having access to firearms as an important risk factor for completed suicide. But in the United States, guns have become an important part of how many Americans see themselves,” Dr. Nestadt told reporters.

Research has shown that half of gun owners say owning a gun is central to their identity and three quarters say it’s essential to their freedom, he noted.

To explore these attitudes further, Dr. Nestadt and colleagues did 11 “psychological autopsy interviews” with the loved ones of nine young people aged 17-21 who died by gun-related suicide. They interviewed six mothers, three fathers, one sibling, and one close friend.

Most of the families had some level of “familial engagement” with firearms, Dr. Nestadt reported.

In more than two-thirds of the families, the youth used a family-owned firearm to commit suicide.

Notably, more than three-quarters of the youth had received mental health care before taking their lives, with many receiving care in the weeks prior to their suicide; 44% had made a prior suicide attempt.

In many cases, parents shared that they had not considered their family-owned firearms to be sources of danger and indicated that had their clinicians expressed concern about the gun in the home, they may have acted to reduce the risk by removing it.

Several also shared that they would have considered using Maryland’s Extreme Risk Protective Order Law if it had existed at the time and they had been made aware of it.

Extreme risk protection order (ERPO) laws, or “red flag laws,” prohibit individuals at risk for harming themselves or others from purchasing or owning a firearm.

Dr. Nestadt said youth suicide interventions “must acknowledge culturally embedded roots of identity formation while rescripting firearms from expressions of family cohesion to instruments that may undermine that cohesion.”
 

‘Courageous study’

Dr. Nestadt noted that while this study was challenging on many fronts, it took no convincing to get these grieving families to participate.

“They wanted to talk to us, especially because they were hopeful that our work could help prevent future suicides, but also they wanted to talk about their loved ones,” he said. 

“When you lose someone to cancer, people give you hugs and flowers. When you lose someone to suicide, people don’t discuss it. Suicide has a stigma to it.”

Briefing moderator Howard Liu, MD, MBA, chair of the department of psychiatry, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, praised the study team for a “courageous study that really required a tremendous amount of vulnerability from the research team and clearly from the survivors as well.”

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

SAN FRANCISCO – Young people who commit suicide using a gun are often introduced to guns through family traditions and use the family gun to commit suicide, according to results of a novel “psychological autopsy study” of loved ones of youth who died by gun-related suicide.

Yet, families don’t always recognize the danger firearms pose to a young person with suicide risk factors, even when there is a young person in the house with a mental health condition, the data show.

Perhaps most importantly, many parents indicated that they would have removed firearms from the home if it had been suggested by their health care professionals.

The study was presented at the American Psychiatric Association annual meeting. 

The message is very clear: Clinicians need to ask about guns and gun safety with patients and families, said study investigator Paul Nestadt, MD, of Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore.

“It’s never illegal to ask about gun access and it’s medically relevant. Just do it,” he said during a briefing with reporters.
 

Grim statistics

Suicide rates have been climbing in the United States for the majority of the past 20 years. Suicide is the second most common cause of death among youth.

Dr. Nestadt noted that overall about 8% of suicide attempts result in death, but when an attempt involves a firearm the percentage jumps astronomically to 90%.

Research has shown that for every 10% increase in household firearms in a given community there is a 27% increase in youth suicide deaths.

“In the world of public health and mental health, we think about having access to firearms as an important risk factor for completed suicide. But in the United States, guns have become an important part of how many Americans see themselves,” Dr. Nestadt told reporters.

Research has shown that half of gun owners say owning a gun is central to their identity and three quarters say it’s essential to their freedom, he noted.

To explore these attitudes further, Dr. Nestadt and colleagues did 11 “psychological autopsy interviews” with the loved ones of nine young people aged 17-21 who died by gun-related suicide. They interviewed six mothers, three fathers, one sibling, and one close friend.

Most of the families had some level of “familial engagement” with firearms, Dr. Nestadt reported.

In more than two-thirds of the families, the youth used a family-owned firearm to commit suicide.

Notably, more than three-quarters of the youth had received mental health care before taking their lives, with many receiving care in the weeks prior to their suicide; 44% had made a prior suicide attempt.

In many cases, parents shared that they had not considered their family-owned firearms to be sources of danger and indicated that had their clinicians expressed concern about the gun in the home, they may have acted to reduce the risk by removing it.

Several also shared that they would have considered using Maryland’s Extreme Risk Protective Order Law if it had existed at the time and they had been made aware of it.

Extreme risk protection order (ERPO) laws, or “red flag laws,” prohibit individuals at risk for harming themselves or others from purchasing or owning a firearm.

Dr. Nestadt said youth suicide interventions “must acknowledge culturally embedded roots of identity formation while rescripting firearms from expressions of family cohesion to instruments that may undermine that cohesion.”
 

‘Courageous study’

Dr. Nestadt noted that while this study was challenging on many fronts, it took no convincing to get these grieving families to participate.

“They wanted to talk to us, especially because they were hopeful that our work could help prevent future suicides, but also they wanted to talk about their loved ones,” he said. 

“When you lose someone to cancer, people give you hugs and flowers. When you lose someone to suicide, people don’t discuss it. Suicide has a stigma to it.”

Briefing moderator Howard Liu, MD, MBA, chair of the department of psychiatry, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, praised the study team for a “courageous study that really required a tremendous amount of vulnerability from the research team and clearly from the survivors as well.”

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

SAN FRANCISCO – Young people who commit suicide using a gun are often introduced to guns through family traditions and use the family gun to commit suicide, according to results of a novel “psychological autopsy study” of loved ones of youth who died by gun-related suicide.

Yet, families don’t always recognize the danger firearms pose to a young person with suicide risk factors, even when there is a young person in the house with a mental health condition, the data show.

Perhaps most importantly, many parents indicated that they would have removed firearms from the home if it had been suggested by their health care professionals.

The study was presented at the American Psychiatric Association annual meeting. 

The message is very clear: Clinicians need to ask about guns and gun safety with patients and families, said study investigator Paul Nestadt, MD, of Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore.

“It’s never illegal to ask about gun access and it’s medically relevant. Just do it,” he said during a briefing with reporters.
 

Grim statistics

Suicide rates have been climbing in the United States for the majority of the past 20 years. Suicide is the second most common cause of death among youth.

Dr. Nestadt noted that overall about 8% of suicide attempts result in death, but when an attempt involves a firearm the percentage jumps astronomically to 90%.

Research has shown that for every 10% increase in household firearms in a given community there is a 27% increase in youth suicide deaths.

“In the world of public health and mental health, we think about having access to firearms as an important risk factor for completed suicide. But in the United States, guns have become an important part of how many Americans see themselves,” Dr. Nestadt told reporters.

Research has shown that half of gun owners say owning a gun is central to their identity and three quarters say it’s essential to their freedom, he noted.

To explore these attitudes further, Dr. Nestadt and colleagues did 11 “psychological autopsy interviews” with the loved ones of nine young people aged 17-21 who died by gun-related suicide. They interviewed six mothers, three fathers, one sibling, and one close friend.

Most of the families had some level of “familial engagement” with firearms, Dr. Nestadt reported.

In more than two-thirds of the families, the youth used a family-owned firearm to commit suicide.

Notably, more than three-quarters of the youth had received mental health care before taking their lives, with many receiving care in the weeks prior to their suicide; 44% had made a prior suicide attempt.

In many cases, parents shared that they had not considered their family-owned firearms to be sources of danger and indicated that had their clinicians expressed concern about the gun in the home, they may have acted to reduce the risk by removing it.

Several also shared that they would have considered using Maryland’s Extreme Risk Protective Order Law if it had existed at the time and they had been made aware of it.

Extreme risk protection order (ERPO) laws, or “red flag laws,” prohibit individuals at risk for harming themselves or others from purchasing or owning a firearm.

Dr. Nestadt said youth suicide interventions “must acknowledge culturally embedded roots of identity formation while rescripting firearms from expressions of family cohesion to instruments that may undermine that cohesion.”
 

‘Courageous study’

Dr. Nestadt noted that while this study was challenging on many fronts, it took no convincing to get these grieving families to participate.

“They wanted to talk to us, especially because they were hopeful that our work could help prevent future suicides, but also they wanted to talk about their loved ones,” he said. 

“When you lose someone to cancer, people give you hugs and flowers. When you lose someone to suicide, people don’t discuss it. Suicide has a stigma to it.”

Briefing moderator Howard Liu, MD, MBA, chair of the department of psychiatry, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, praised the study team for a “courageous study that really required a tremendous amount of vulnerability from the research team and clearly from the survivors as well.”

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

Screening for and treating chronic kidney disease (CKD) in all U.S. adults 35-75 years old is cost effective using a strategy that starts by measuring their urine albumin-creatinine ratio (UACR) followed by confirmatory tests and treatment of confirmed cases with current standard-care medications, according to an analysis published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

This new evidence may prove important as the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has begun revisiting its 2012 conclusion that “evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of routine screening for chronic kidney disease in asymptomatic adults.”

A big difference between 2012 and today has been that sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors arrived on the scene as an important complement to well-established treatment with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker. SGLT2 inhibitors have been documented as safe and effective for slowing CKD progression regardless of a person’s diabetes status, and have “dramatically altered” first-line treatment of adults with CKD, wrote the authors of the new study.
 

‘Large population health gains’ from CKD screening

“Given the high prevalence of CKD, even among those without risk factors, low-cost screening combined with effective treatment using SGLT2 inhibitors represent value,” explained Marika M. Cusick, lead author of the report, a PhD student, and a health policy researcher at Stanford (Calif.) University. “Our results show large population health gains can be achieved through CKD screening,” she said in an interview.

“This is a well-designed cost-effectiveness analysis that, importantly, considers newer treatments shown to be effective for slowing progression of CKD. The overall findings are convincing,” commented Deidra C. Crews, MD, a nephrologist and professor at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore who was not involved in the research.

Dr. Crews, who is also president-elect of the American Society of Nephrology noted that the findings “may be a conservative estimate of the cost-effectiveness of CKD screening in certain subgroups, particularly when considering profound racial, ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in survival and CKD progression.”

The USPSTF starts a relook

The new evidence of cost-effectiveness of routine CKD screening follows the USPSTF’s release in January 2023 of a draft research plan to reassess the potential role for CKD screening of asymptomatic adults in the United States, the first step on a potential path to a revised set of recommendations. Public comment on the draft plan closed in February, and based on the standard USPSTF development steps and time frames, a final recommendation statement could appear by early 2026.

Revisiting the prior USPSTF decision from 2012 received endorsement earlier in 2023 from the ASN. The organization issued a statement last January that cited “more than a decade of advocacy in support of more kidney health screening by ASN and other stakeholders dedicated to intervening earlier to slow or stop the progression of kidney diseases.”

A more detailed letter of support for CKD screening sent to top USPSTF officials followed in February 2023 from ASN president Michelle A. Josephson, MD, who said in part that “ASN believes that kidney care is at an inflection point. There are now far more novel therapeutics to slow the progression of CKD, evidence to support the impact of nonpharmacologic interventions on CKD, and an increased commitment in public health to confront disparities and their causes.”
 

USPSTF recommendation could make a difference

Dr. Josephson also cited the modest effect that CKD screening recommendations from other groups have had up to now.

“Although guidance from Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes and the National Kidney Foundation recommends CKD screening among patients with hypertension, only approximately 10% of individuals with hypertension receive yearly screening. Furthermore, American Diabetes Association guidelines recommend yearly CKD screening in patients with diabetes, but only 40%-50% of patients receive this.”

“USPSTF recommendations tend to reach clinicians in primary care settings, where screening for diseases most commonly occurs, much more than recommendations from professional or patient organizations,” Dr. Crews said in an interview. “USPSTF recommendations also often influence health policies that might financially incentivize clinicians and health systems to screen their patients.”

“We hope [the USPSTF] will be interested in including our results within the totality of evidence assessed in their review of CKD screening,” said Ms. Cusick.
 

Preventing hundreds of thousands dialysis cases

The Stanford researchers developed a decision analytic Markov cohort model of CKD progression in U.S. adults aged 35 years or older and fit their model to data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). They found that implementing one-time screening and adding SGLT2 inhibitors to treatment of the 158 million U.S. adults 35-75 years old would prevent the need for kidney replacement therapy (dialysis or transplant) in approximately 398,000 people over their lifetimes, representing a 10% decrease in such cases, compared with the status quo. Screening every 10 or 5 years combined with SGLT2 inhibitors would prevent approximately 598,000 or 658,000 people, respectively, from requiring kidney replacement therapy, compared with not screening.

Analysis showed that one-time screening produced an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $86,300 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained when one-time screening occurred in adults when they reached 55 years old. Screening every 10 years until people became 75 years old cost $98,400 per QALY gained for this group when adults were 35 years old, and $89,800 per QALY gained when screening occurred at 65 years old. These QALY costs are less than “commonly used” U.S. thresholds for acceptable cost-effectiveness of $100,000-$150,000 per QALY gained, the authors said.

Ms. Cusick highlighted the advantages of population-level screening for all U.S. adults, including those who are asymptomatic, compared with focusing on adults with risk factors, such as hypertension or diabetes.

“While risk-based screening can be more cost effective in some settings, risk factors are not always known, especially in marginalized and disadvantaged populations. This may lead to disparities in the use of screening and downstream health outcomes that could be avoided through universal screening policies,” she explained.

The study received no commercial funding. Ms. Cusick had no disclosures. Dr. Crews has received research grants from Somatus. Dr. Josephson has been a consultant to Exosome Diagnostics, IMMUCOR, Labcorp, Otsuka, UBC, and Vera Therapeutics, and has an ownership interest in Seagen.

Screening for and treating chronic kidney disease (CKD) in all U.S. adults 35-75 years old is cost effective using a strategy that starts by measuring their urine albumin-creatinine ratio (UACR) followed by confirmatory tests and treatment of confirmed cases with current standard-care medications, according to an analysis published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

This new evidence may prove important as the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has begun revisiting its 2012 conclusion that “evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of routine screening for chronic kidney disease in asymptomatic adults.”

A big difference between 2012 and today has been that sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors arrived on the scene as an important complement to well-established treatment with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker. SGLT2 inhibitors have been documented as safe and effective for slowing CKD progression regardless of a person’s diabetes status, and have “dramatically altered” first-line treatment of adults with CKD, wrote the authors of the new study.
 

‘Large population health gains’ from CKD screening

“Given the high prevalence of CKD, even among those without risk factors, low-cost screening combined with effective treatment using SGLT2 inhibitors represent value,” explained Marika M. Cusick, lead author of the report, a PhD student, and a health policy researcher at Stanford (Calif.) University. “Our results show large population health gains can be achieved through CKD screening,” she said in an interview.

“This is a well-designed cost-effectiveness analysis that, importantly, considers newer treatments shown to be effective for slowing progression of CKD. The overall findings are convincing,” commented Deidra C. Crews, MD, a nephrologist and professor at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore who was not involved in the research.

Dr. Crews, who is also president-elect of the American Society of Nephrology noted that the findings “may be a conservative estimate of the cost-effectiveness of CKD screening in certain subgroups, particularly when considering profound racial, ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in survival and CKD progression.”

The USPSTF starts a relook

The new evidence of cost-effectiveness of routine CKD screening follows the USPSTF’s release in January 2023 of a draft research plan to reassess the potential role for CKD screening of asymptomatic adults in the United States, the first step on a potential path to a revised set of recommendations. Public comment on the draft plan closed in February, and based on the standard USPSTF development steps and time frames, a final recommendation statement could appear by early 2026.

Revisiting the prior USPSTF decision from 2012 received endorsement earlier in 2023 from the ASN. The organization issued a statement last January that cited “more than a decade of advocacy in support of more kidney health screening by ASN and other stakeholders dedicated to intervening earlier to slow or stop the progression of kidney diseases.”

A more detailed letter of support for CKD screening sent to top USPSTF officials followed in February 2023 from ASN president Michelle A. Josephson, MD, who said in part that “ASN believes that kidney care is at an inflection point. There are now far more novel therapeutics to slow the progression of CKD, evidence to support the impact of nonpharmacologic interventions on CKD, and an increased commitment in public health to confront disparities and their causes.”
 

USPSTF recommendation could make a difference

Dr. Josephson also cited the modest effect that CKD screening recommendations from other groups have had up to now.

“Although guidance from Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes and the National Kidney Foundation recommends CKD screening among patients with hypertension, only approximately 10% of individuals with hypertension receive yearly screening. Furthermore, American Diabetes Association guidelines recommend yearly CKD screening in patients with diabetes, but only 40%-50% of patients receive this.”

“USPSTF recommendations tend to reach clinicians in primary care settings, where screening for diseases most commonly occurs, much more than recommendations from professional or patient organizations,” Dr. Crews said in an interview. “USPSTF recommendations also often influence health policies that might financially incentivize clinicians and health systems to screen their patients.”

“We hope [the USPSTF] will be interested in including our results within the totality of evidence assessed in their review of CKD screening,” said Ms. Cusick.
 

Preventing hundreds of thousands dialysis cases

The Stanford researchers developed a decision analytic Markov cohort model of CKD progression in U.S. adults aged 35 years or older and fit their model to data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). They found that implementing one-time screening and adding SGLT2 inhibitors to treatment of the 158 million U.S. adults 35-75 years old would prevent the need for kidney replacement therapy (dialysis or transplant) in approximately 398,000 people over their lifetimes, representing a 10% decrease in such cases, compared with the status quo. Screening every 10 or 5 years combined with SGLT2 inhibitors would prevent approximately 598,000 or 658,000 people, respectively, from requiring kidney replacement therapy, compared with not screening.

Analysis showed that one-time screening produced an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $86,300 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained when one-time screening occurred in adults when they reached 55 years old. Screening every 10 years until people became 75 years old cost $98,400 per QALY gained for this group when adults were 35 years old, and $89,800 per QALY gained when screening occurred at 65 years old. These QALY costs are less than “commonly used” U.S. thresholds for acceptable cost-effectiveness of $100,000-$150,000 per QALY gained, the authors said.

Ms. Cusick highlighted the advantages of population-level screening for all U.S. adults, including those who are asymptomatic, compared with focusing on adults with risk factors, such as hypertension or diabetes.

“While risk-based screening can be more cost effective in some settings, risk factors are not always known, especially in marginalized and disadvantaged populations. This may lead to disparities in the use of screening and downstream health outcomes that could be avoided through universal screening policies,” she explained.

The study received no commercial funding. Ms. Cusick had no disclosures. Dr. Crews has received research grants from Somatus. Dr. Josephson has been a consultant to Exosome Diagnostics, IMMUCOR, Labcorp, Otsuka, UBC, and Vera Therapeutics, and has an ownership interest in Seagen.

Screening for and treating chronic kidney disease (CKD) in all U.S. adults 35-75 years old is cost effective using a strategy that starts by measuring their urine albumin-creatinine ratio (UACR) followed by confirmatory tests and treatment of confirmed cases with current standard-care medications, according to an analysis published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

This new evidence may prove important as the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has begun revisiting its 2012 conclusion that “evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of routine screening for chronic kidney disease in asymptomatic adults.”

A big difference between 2012 and today has been that sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors arrived on the scene as an important complement to well-established treatment with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker. SGLT2 inhibitors have been documented as safe and effective for slowing CKD progression regardless of a person’s diabetes status, and have “dramatically altered” first-line treatment of adults with CKD, wrote the authors of the new study.
 

‘Large population health gains’ from CKD screening

“Given the high prevalence of CKD, even among those without risk factors, low-cost screening combined with effective treatment using SGLT2 inhibitors represent value,” explained Marika M. Cusick, lead author of the report, a PhD student, and a health policy researcher at Stanford (Calif.) University. “Our results show large population health gains can be achieved through CKD screening,” she said in an interview.

“This is a well-designed cost-effectiveness analysis that, importantly, considers newer treatments shown to be effective for slowing progression of CKD. The overall findings are convincing,” commented Deidra C. Crews, MD, a nephrologist and professor at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore who was not involved in the research.

Dr. Crews, who is also president-elect of the American Society of Nephrology noted that the findings “may be a conservative estimate of the cost-effectiveness of CKD screening in certain subgroups, particularly when considering profound racial, ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in survival and CKD progression.”

The USPSTF starts a relook

The new evidence of cost-effectiveness of routine CKD screening follows the USPSTF’s release in January 2023 of a draft research plan to reassess the potential role for CKD screening of asymptomatic adults in the United States, the first step on a potential path to a revised set of recommendations. Public comment on the draft plan closed in February, and based on the standard USPSTF development steps and time frames, a final recommendation statement could appear by early 2026.

Revisiting the prior USPSTF decision from 2012 received endorsement earlier in 2023 from the ASN. The organization issued a statement last January that cited “more than a decade of advocacy in support of more kidney health screening by ASN and other stakeholders dedicated to intervening earlier to slow or stop the progression of kidney diseases.”

A more detailed letter of support for CKD screening sent to top USPSTF officials followed in February 2023 from ASN president Michelle A. Josephson, MD, who said in part that “ASN believes that kidney care is at an inflection point. There are now far more novel therapeutics to slow the progression of CKD, evidence to support the impact of nonpharmacologic interventions on CKD, and an increased commitment in public health to confront disparities and their causes.”
 

USPSTF recommendation could make a difference

Dr. Josephson also cited the modest effect that CKD screening recommendations from other groups have had up to now.

“Although guidance from Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes and the National Kidney Foundation recommends CKD screening among patients with hypertension, only approximately 10% of individuals with hypertension receive yearly screening. Furthermore, American Diabetes Association guidelines recommend yearly CKD screening in patients with diabetes, but only 40%-50% of patients receive this.”

“USPSTF recommendations tend to reach clinicians in primary care settings, where screening for diseases most commonly occurs, much more than recommendations from professional or patient organizations,” Dr. Crews said in an interview. “USPSTF recommendations also often influence health policies that might financially incentivize clinicians and health systems to screen their patients.”

“We hope [the USPSTF] will be interested in including our results within the totality of evidence assessed in their review of CKD screening,” said Ms. Cusick.
 

Preventing hundreds of thousands dialysis cases

The Stanford researchers developed a decision analytic Markov cohort model of CKD progression in U.S. adults aged 35 years or older and fit their model to data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). They found that implementing one-time screening and adding SGLT2 inhibitors to treatment of the 158 million U.S. adults 35-75 years old would prevent the need for kidney replacement therapy (dialysis or transplant) in approximately 398,000 people over their lifetimes, representing a 10% decrease in such cases, compared with the status quo. Screening every 10 or 5 years combined with SGLT2 inhibitors would prevent approximately 598,000 or 658,000 people, respectively, from requiring kidney replacement therapy, compared with not screening.

Analysis showed that one-time screening produced an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $86,300 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained when one-time screening occurred in adults when they reached 55 years old. Screening every 10 years until people became 75 years old cost $98,400 per QALY gained for this group when adults were 35 years old, and $89,800 per QALY gained when screening occurred at 65 years old. These QALY costs are less than “commonly used” U.S. thresholds for acceptable cost-effectiveness of $100,000-$150,000 per QALY gained, the authors said.

Ms. Cusick highlighted the advantages of population-level screening for all U.S. adults, including those who are asymptomatic, compared with focusing on adults with risk factors, such as hypertension or diabetes.

“While risk-based screening can be more cost effective in some settings, risk factors are not always known, especially in marginalized and disadvantaged populations. This may lead to disparities in the use of screening and downstream health outcomes that could be avoided through universal screening policies,” she explained.

The study received no commercial funding. Ms. Cusick had no disclosures. Dr. Crews has received research grants from Somatus. Dr. Josephson has been a consultant to Exosome Diagnostics, IMMUCOR, Labcorp, Otsuka, UBC, and Vera Therapeutics, and has an ownership interest in Seagen.

In what may be the first randomized trial to compare coronary intervention access using the distal or proximal radial arteries, researchers have found no significant differences between the two in hand function a year after the procedure.

The distal radial artery (DRA) access point is just below the thumb on the inside of the wrist. The proximal radial artery (PRA) entry is in the inside lower forearm above the wrist.

“There has been growing interest in the use of distal radial access given its ease of hemostasis, lower incidence of radial artery occlusions, as well as the more ergonomic favorable setup for a left radial access, which is typically utilized in patients with prior CABG who undergo a cardiac catheterization when used as alternative to femoral artery access,” Karim Al-Azizi, MD, of Texas A&M University, an interventional cardiologist and associate program director of the cardiology fellowship at  Baylor Scott & White Health, in Plano, Tex., said in an interview.

Baylor Scott &amp; White

Dr Al-Azizi presented the late-breaking 1-year results of the DIPRA–for Distal vs. Proximal Radial Artery–study at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions annual scientific sessions. The 30-day results of the DIPRA trial were presented in 2022 at this meeting.

Dr. Al-Azizi said DIPRA is the first randomized, controlled trial comparing hand function outcomes with the two approaches. “I think the biggest question for most investigators and most practitioners is that, is this safe on the hand? Are we doing the right thing by going into the radial artery in the anatomical snuff box in proximity to the radial nerve and would that affect motor function?” he said. “And it does not seem like it from a head-to-head comparison of proximal versus distal access.”

The DIPRA study randomized 300 patients 1:1 to cardiac catheterization through either the distal or proximal access. Of those, 216 completed 1-year follow-up, 112 randomized to DRA and 104 to PRA.

The study used three metrics to evaluate hand function: hand-grip strength; pinch test, which measured the strength of a pinch between the thumb and index finger; and QuickDASH, an abbreviated version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire, in which participants self-evaluate their hand function. Study protocol mandated that operators use ultrasound guidance for DRA access.

The 1-year results of all three measures showed no significant difference in change of hand function from baseline between the two groups. The composite average score change was –0.07 (–0.41, 0.44) for the DRA patients and –0.03. (–0.36, 0.44) for the PRA group (P = .59).

One-year change for the specific hand function measures for DRA and PRA, respectively, were: hand grip, 0.7 (–3, 4.5) vs. 1.3 (–2, 4.3) kg (P = .57); pinch grip, –0.1 (–1.1, 1) vs. –0.3 (–1, 0.7) kg (P = .66); and none for change in the QuickDASH score (–6.6, 2.3 vs. –4.6, 2.9) points (P = .58).

Outcomes at intervention were also similar. Bleeding incidence was 0% and 1.4% (P = .25) in the respective groups. Successful RA access was achieved in 96.7% and 98% (P = .72).

Baseline characteristics were balanced between the two groups: 75% were male; mean age was 66.6 ± 9.6 years; 32% had diabetes; 77% had hypertension; and 19% had a previous percutaneous coronary intervention.

One key strength of the DIPRA study Dr. Al-Azizi noted is that it included some investigators who were at the early stage of the learning curve with the procedure. A limitation is that it didn’t evaluate hand numbness or tingling, but hand sensory testing is “very subjective,” he said. “To avoid confusion, we decided to go with the more repeatable questionnaire rather than a sensation or sensory test,” he added.

The next step for his research team is to conduct a meta-analysis of studies that have evaluated DRA and PRA, Dr. Al-Azizi said.
 

‘Slow to the party’

U.S. interventional cardiologists have been “slow to the party” in adopting radial artery access for PCI, said David A. Cox, MD, of Sanger Heart and Vascular Institute in Charlotte, N.C., and SCAI communications committee chair. Even now uptake is low, compared with the rest of the world, he said.

“I can tell you what patients care about: Did you have to stick my groin?” he said at a SCAI press conference. “What they just want to know is that there are no issues with hand function.”

Some patients who need fine motor hand function would still opt for femoral access, he said.

“Are we looking at the right metric?” he asked Dr. Al-Azizi. “It took a long time to get American doctors to stick the radial, so why would I want to learn distal radial artery if I’m really pretty good at proximal and if it’s not inferior?”

Dr. Al-Azizi noted that previous studies showed a trend toward a lower incidence of radial artery occlusion (RAO) with DRA access. It also better preserves the renal arteries for dialysis and CABG, he said.

“The metric that would move the needle,” Dr. Cox noted, “is if you had radial artery occlusion rates vs. snuff box occlusion rates, and we don’t have that rate.”

Dr. Al-Azizi has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Cox disclosed financial relationships with Medtronic.

In what may be the first randomized trial to compare coronary intervention access using the distal or proximal radial arteries, researchers have found no significant differences between the two in hand function a year after the procedure.

The distal radial artery (DRA) access point is just below the thumb on the inside of the wrist. The proximal radial artery (PRA) entry is in the inside lower forearm above the wrist.

“There has been growing interest in the use of distal radial access given its ease of hemostasis, lower incidence of radial artery occlusions, as well as the more ergonomic favorable setup for a left radial access, which is typically utilized in patients with prior CABG who undergo a cardiac catheterization when used as alternative to femoral artery access,” Karim Al-Azizi, MD, of Texas A&M University, an interventional cardiologist and associate program director of the cardiology fellowship at  Baylor Scott & White Health, in Plano, Tex., said in an interview.

Baylor Scott &amp; White

Dr Al-Azizi presented the late-breaking 1-year results of the DIPRA–for Distal vs. Proximal Radial Artery–study at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions annual scientific sessions. The 30-day results of the DIPRA trial were presented in 2022 at this meeting.

Dr. Al-Azizi said DIPRA is the first randomized, controlled trial comparing hand function outcomes with the two approaches. “I think the biggest question for most investigators and most practitioners is that, is this safe on the hand? Are we doing the right thing by going into the radial artery in the anatomical snuff box in proximity to the radial nerve and would that affect motor function?” he said. “And it does not seem like it from a head-to-head comparison of proximal versus distal access.”

The DIPRA study randomized 300 patients 1:1 to cardiac catheterization through either the distal or proximal access. Of those, 216 completed 1-year follow-up, 112 randomized to DRA and 104 to PRA.

The study used three metrics to evaluate hand function: hand-grip strength; pinch test, which measured the strength of a pinch between the thumb and index finger; and QuickDASH, an abbreviated version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire, in which participants self-evaluate their hand function. Study protocol mandated that operators use ultrasound guidance for DRA access.

The 1-year results of all three measures showed no significant difference in change of hand function from baseline between the two groups. The composite average score change was –0.07 (–0.41, 0.44) for the DRA patients and –0.03. (–0.36, 0.44) for the PRA group (P = .59).

One-year change for the specific hand function measures for DRA and PRA, respectively, were: hand grip, 0.7 (–3, 4.5) vs. 1.3 (–2, 4.3) kg (P = .57); pinch grip, –0.1 (–1.1, 1) vs. –0.3 (–1, 0.7) kg (P = .66); and none for change in the QuickDASH score (–6.6, 2.3 vs. –4.6, 2.9) points (P = .58).

Outcomes at intervention were also similar. Bleeding incidence was 0% and 1.4% (P = .25) in the respective groups. Successful RA access was achieved in 96.7% and 98% (P = .72).

Baseline characteristics were balanced between the two groups: 75% were male; mean age was 66.6 ± 9.6 years; 32% had diabetes; 77% had hypertension; and 19% had a previous percutaneous coronary intervention.

One key strength of the DIPRA study Dr. Al-Azizi noted is that it included some investigators who were at the early stage of the learning curve with the procedure. A limitation is that it didn’t evaluate hand numbness or tingling, but hand sensory testing is “very subjective,” he said. “To avoid confusion, we decided to go with the more repeatable questionnaire rather than a sensation or sensory test,” he added.

The next step for his research team is to conduct a meta-analysis of studies that have evaluated DRA and PRA, Dr. Al-Azizi said.
 

‘Slow to the party’

U.S. interventional cardiologists have been “slow to the party” in adopting radial artery access for PCI, said David A. Cox, MD, of Sanger Heart and Vascular Institute in Charlotte, N.C., and SCAI communications committee chair. Even now uptake is low, compared with the rest of the world, he said.

“I can tell you what patients care about: Did you have to stick my groin?” he said at a SCAI press conference. “What they just want to know is that there are no issues with hand function.”

Some patients who need fine motor hand function would still opt for femoral access, he said.

“Are we looking at the right metric?” he asked Dr. Al-Azizi. “It took a long time to get American doctors to stick the radial, so why would I want to learn distal radial artery if I’m really pretty good at proximal and if it’s not inferior?”

Dr. Al-Azizi noted that previous studies showed a trend toward a lower incidence of radial artery occlusion (RAO) with DRA access. It also better preserves the renal arteries for dialysis and CABG, he said.

“The metric that would move the needle,” Dr. Cox noted, “is if you had radial artery occlusion rates vs. snuff box occlusion rates, and we don’t have that rate.”

Dr. Al-Azizi has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Cox disclosed financial relationships with Medtronic.

In what may be the first randomized trial to compare coronary intervention access using the distal or proximal radial arteries, researchers have found no significant differences between the two in hand function a year after the procedure.

The distal radial artery (DRA) access point is just below the thumb on the inside of the wrist. The proximal radial artery (PRA) entry is in the inside lower forearm above the wrist.

“There has been growing interest in the use of distal radial access given its ease of hemostasis, lower incidence of radial artery occlusions, as well as the more ergonomic favorable setup for a left radial access, which is typically utilized in patients with prior CABG who undergo a cardiac catheterization when used as alternative to femoral artery access,” Karim Al-Azizi, MD, of Texas A&M University, an interventional cardiologist and associate program director of the cardiology fellowship at  Baylor Scott & White Health, in Plano, Tex., said in an interview.

Baylor Scott &amp; White

Dr Al-Azizi presented the late-breaking 1-year results of the DIPRA–for Distal vs. Proximal Radial Artery–study at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions annual scientific sessions. The 30-day results of the DIPRA trial were presented in 2022 at this meeting.

Dr. Al-Azizi said DIPRA is the first randomized, controlled trial comparing hand function outcomes with the two approaches. “I think the biggest question for most investigators and most practitioners is that, is this safe on the hand? Are we doing the right thing by going into the radial artery in the anatomical snuff box in proximity to the radial nerve and would that affect motor function?” he said. “And it does not seem like it from a head-to-head comparison of proximal versus distal access.”

The DIPRA study randomized 300 patients 1:1 to cardiac catheterization through either the distal or proximal access. Of those, 216 completed 1-year follow-up, 112 randomized to DRA and 104 to PRA.

The study used three metrics to evaluate hand function: hand-grip strength; pinch test, which measured the strength of a pinch between the thumb and index finger; and QuickDASH, an abbreviated version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire, in which participants self-evaluate their hand function. Study protocol mandated that operators use ultrasound guidance for DRA access.

The 1-year results of all three measures showed no significant difference in change of hand function from baseline between the two groups. The composite average score change was –0.07 (–0.41, 0.44) for the DRA patients and –0.03. (–0.36, 0.44) for the PRA group (P = .59).

One-year change for the specific hand function measures for DRA and PRA, respectively, were: hand grip, 0.7 (–3, 4.5) vs. 1.3 (–2, 4.3) kg (P = .57); pinch grip, –0.1 (–1.1, 1) vs. –0.3 (–1, 0.7) kg (P = .66); and none for change in the QuickDASH score (–6.6, 2.3 vs. –4.6, 2.9) points (P = .58).

Outcomes at intervention were also similar. Bleeding incidence was 0% and 1.4% (P = .25) in the respective groups. Successful RA access was achieved in 96.7% and 98% (P = .72).

Baseline characteristics were balanced between the two groups: 75% were male; mean age was 66.6 ± 9.6 years; 32% had diabetes; 77% had hypertension; and 19% had a previous percutaneous coronary intervention.

One key strength of the DIPRA study Dr. Al-Azizi noted is that it included some investigators who were at the early stage of the learning curve with the procedure. A limitation is that it didn’t evaluate hand numbness or tingling, but hand sensory testing is “very subjective,” he said. “To avoid confusion, we decided to go with the more repeatable questionnaire rather than a sensation or sensory test,” he added.

The next step for his research team is to conduct a meta-analysis of studies that have evaluated DRA and PRA, Dr. Al-Azizi said.
 

‘Slow to the party’

U.S. interventional cardiologists have been “slow to the party” in adopting radial artery access for PCI, said David A. Cox, MD, of Sanger Heart and Vascular Institute in Charlotte, N.C., and SCAI communications committee chair. Even now uptake is low, compared with the rest of the world, he said.

“I can tell you what patients care about: Did you have to stick my groin?” he said at a SCAI press conference. “What they just want to know is that there are no issues with hand function.”

Some patients who need fine motor hand function would still opt for femoral access, he said.

“Are we looking at the right metric?” he asked Dr. Al-Azizi. “It took a long time to get American doctors to stick the radial, so why would I want to learn distal radial artery if I’m really pretty good at proximal and if it’s not inferior?”

Dr. Al-Azizi noted that previous studies showed a trend toward a lower incidence of radial artery occlusion (RAO) with DRA access. It also better preserves the renal arteries for dialysis and CABG, he said.

“The metric that would move the needle,” Dr. Cox noted, “is if you had radial artery occlusion rates vs. snuff box occlusion rates, and we don’t have that rate.”

Dr. Al-Azizi has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Cox disclosed financial relationships with Medtronic.