Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management

A once-daily polypill containing four drugs to lower blood pressure and LDL cholesterol reduced major adverse cardiovascular events by 21% relative to placebo in people at intermediate cardiovascular risk in the landmark TIPS-3 trial.

And with the addition of aspirin at 75 mg per day the combination achieved an even more robust 31% relative risk reduction, investigators reported at the.

“Aspirin contributes importantly to the benefits,” Salim Yusuf, MD, DPhil, emphasized in presenting the International Polycap Study (TIPS-3) results jointly with study coprincipal investigator Prem Pais, MD, at the virtual American Heart Association scientific sessions.

The multinational study provides powerful new support for a broad, population health–based approach to primary cardiovascular prevention.

“If half of eligible people [were to] use a polypill with aspirin, 3-5 million cardiovascular events per year would be avoided globally,” according to Dr. Yusuf, professor of medicine and director of the Population Health Research Institute at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont.

“This is likely a cost-effective strategy to meet global targets of reducing cardiovascular disease by 30% by 2020,” added Dr. Pais of St. John’s Research Institute in Bangalore, India.

TIPS-3 included 5,713 participants at intermediate cardiovascular risk, with an estimated event risk of 1.8% per year using the INTERHEART Risk Score. Half were women. More than 80% of participants had hypertension, and nearly 40% had diabetes or impaired fasting glucose. Nearly 90% of participants came from India, the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, or Bangladesh. All participants received advice about lifestyle management.

They were then randomized to receive a polypill or placebo, and then each group was further randomized to receive 75 mg/day of aspirin or matching placebo. The polypill contained 40 mg of simvastatin, 100 mg of atenolol, 25 mg of hydrochlorothiazide, and 10 mg of ramipril.

During a mean 4.6 years of follow-up, the primary composite major adverse cardiovascular event rate occurred in 4.4% of the polypill group, 4.1% of the polypill-plus-aspirin group, and 5.8% of the double-placebo group. This translated to a 21% reduction in cardiovascular disease with the polypill, a 31% reduction with polypill plus aspirin, and a 14% reduction in the composite of cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke with aspirin alone.

The polypill and placebo groups diverged in terms of the primary outcome starting about 6 months into the study, Dr. Pais noted.

Serious adverse events were less common with the polypill than with placebo. Importantly, there was no difference in major, minor, or GI bleeding between the polypill-plus-aspirin group and placebo-treated controls. Dr. Yusuf attributed the lack of excess bleeding in aspirin recipients to two factors: people with a history of bleeding or GI symptoms were excluded from TIPS-3, and the dose of aspirin used was lower than in other primary prevention trials, where bleeding offset the reduction in cardiovascular events.

Nonadherence was a major issue in TIPS-3, mainly because of delays in polypill production and distribution, coupled late in the trial with the COVID-19 pandemic. The nonadherence rate was 19% at 2 years, 32% at 4 years, and 43% at the study’s end. Only 5% of discontinuations were due to side effects. In a sensitivity analysis carried out in participants without discontinuation for nonmedical reasons, the benefits of the polypill plus aspirin were larger than in the overall study: a 39% relative risk reduction in the primary endpoint that probably offers a more accurate picture of the combination’s likely real-world performance.

Discussant Anushka Patel, MBBS, PhD, noted that TIPS-3 is the third randomized trial to provide direct evidence that a polypill-based strategy improves clinical outcomes. The effect sizes of the benefits – a 20%-30% reduction in major cardiovascular events – has been consistent in TIPS-3, PolyIran, and HOPE-3, each of which tested a different polypill drug combination.

“If implementation and adherence challenges can be addressed at the system, prescriber, and patient levels, and if high-quality polypills can be made affordable, the public health impact could actually be enormous,” said Dr. Patel, chief scientist at the George Institute for Global Health and professor of medicine at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia.

However, she parted company with Dr. Yusuf regarding routine incorporation of aspirin into polypills.

“I think the totality of evidence would still probably favor taking an individualized approach that also considers bleeding risk,” the cardiologist said.

Donald Lloyd-Jones, MD, who chaired a press conference highlighting TIPS-3, declared, “You’re seeing a paradigm shift right here in front of your eyes today. This could be a game changer in terms of preventing large numbers of cardiovascular events.”

While TIPS-3 was conducted mainly in low- and middle-income countries, it’s important to recognize that’s where 75% of cardiovascular events and cardiovascular deaths now occur.

“This is very much a disease that has emerged in the developing world,” commented Dr. Lloyd-Jones, the AHA president-elect, chair of the AHA Council on Scientific Sessions Programming, and professor and chair of the department of preventive medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago.

He also sees a polypill strategy for primary cardiovascular prevention as highly viable in high-resource countries. It makes sense to employ it there initially in underserved communities, where a polypill-based approach sidesteps difficulties in monitoring care and adjusting medication doses due to reduced access to health care while minimizing cost and adherence issues, he added.

Dr. Yusuf and Dr. Pais reported receiving institutional research support from the TIPS-3 major sponsors: the Wellcome Trust, Cadila Pharmaceuticals, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada.

Simultaneously with their presentation at AHA 2020, the TIPS-3 results were published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: Yusuf, S. AHA 2020. Session LBS.02.

A once-daily polypill containing four drugs to lower blood pressure and LDL cholesterol reduced major adverse cardiovascular events by 21% relative to placebo in people at intermediate cardiovascular risk in the landmark TIPS-3 trial.

And with the addition of aspirin at 75 mg per day the combination achieved an even more robust 31% relative risk reduction, investigators reported at the.

“Aspirin contributes importantly to the benefits,” Salim Yusuf, MD, DPhil, emphasized in presenting the International Polycap Study (TIPS-3) results jointly with study coprincipal investigator Prem Pais, MD, at the virtual American Heart Association scientific sessions.

The multinational study provides powerful new support for a broad, population health–based approach to primary cardiovascular prevention.

“If half of eligible people [were to] use a polypill with aspirin, 3-5 million cardiovascular events per year would be avoided globally,” according to Dr. Yusuf, professor of medicine and director of the Population Health Research Institute at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont.

“This is likely a cost-effective strategy to meet global targets of reducing cardiovascular disease by 30% by 2020,” added Dr. Pais of St. John’s Research Institute in Bangalore, India.

TIPS-3 included 5,713 participants at intermediate cardiovascular risk, with an estimated event risk of 1.8% per year using the INTERHEART Risk Score. Half were women. More than 80% of participants had hypertension, and nearly 40% had diabetes or impaired fasting glucose. Nearly 90% of participants came from India, the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, or Bangladesh. All participants received advice about lifestyle management.

They were then randomized to receive a polypill or placebo, and then each group was further randomized to receive 75 mg/day of aspirin or matching placebo. The polypill contained 40 mg of simvastatin, 100 mg of atenolol, 25 mg of hydrochlorothiazide, and 10 mg of ramipril.

During a mean 4.6 years of follow-up, the primary composite major adverse cardiovascular event rate occurred in 4.4% of the polypill group, 4.1% of the polypill-plus-aspirin group, and 5.8% of the double-placebo group. This translated to a 21% reduction in cardiovascular disease with the polypill, a 31% reduction with polypill plus aspirin, and a 14% reduction in the composite of cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke with aspirin alone.

The polypill and placebo groups diverged in terms of the primary outcome starting about 6 months into the study, Dr. Pais noted.

Serious adverse events were less common with the polypill than with placebo. Importantly, there was no difference in major, minor, or GI bleeding between the polypill-plus-aspirin group and placebo-treated controls. Dr. Yusuf attributed the lack of excess bleeding in aspirin recipients to two factors: people with a history of bleeding or GI symptoms were excluded from TIPS-3, and the dose of aspirin used was lower than in other primary prevention trials, where bleeding offset the reduction in cardiovascular events.

Nonadherence was a major issue in TIPS-3, mainly because of delays in polypill production and distribution, coupled late in the trial with the COVID-19 pandemic. The nonadherence rate was 19% at 2 years, 32% at 4 years, and 43% at the study’s end. Only 5% of discontinuations were due to side effects. In a sensitivity analysis carried out in participants without discontinuation for nonmedical reasons, the benefits of the polypill plus aspirin were larger than in the overall study: a 39% relative risk reduction in the primary endpoint that probably offers a more accurate picture of the combination’s likely real-world performance.

Discussant Anushka Patel, MBBS, PhD, noted that TIPS-3 is the third randomized trial to provide direct evidence that a polypill-based strategy improves clinical outcomes. The effect sizes of the benefits – a 20%-30% reduction in major cardiovascular events – has been consistent in TIPS-3, PolyIran, and HOPE-3, each of which tested a different polypill drug combination.

“If implementation and adherence challenges can be addressed at the system, prescriber, and patient levels, and if high-quality polypills can be made affordable, the public health impact could actually be enormous,” said Dr. Patel, chief scientist at the George Institute for Global Health and professor of medicine at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia.

However, she parted company with Dr. Yusuf regarding routine incorporation of aspirin into polypills.

“I think the totality of evidence would still probably favor taking an individualized approach that also considers bleeding risk,” the cardiologist said.

Donald Lloyd-Jones, MD, who chaired a press conference highlighting TIPS-3, declared, “You’re seeing a paradigm shift right here in front of your eyes today. This could be a game changer in terms of preventing large numbers of cardiovascular events.”

While TIPS-3 was conducted mainly in low- and middle-income countries, it’s important to recognize that’s where 75% of cardiovascular events and cardiovascular deaths now occur.

“This is very much a disease that has emerged in the developing world,” commented Dr. Lloyd-Jones, the AHA president-elect, chair of the AHA Council on Scientific Sessions Programming, and professor and chair of the department of preventive medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago.

He also sees a polypill strategy for primary cardiovascular prevention as highly viable in high-resource countries. It makes sense to employ it there initially in underserved communities, where a polypill-based approach sidesteps difficulties in monitoring care and adjusting medication doses due to reduced access to health care while minimizing cost and adherence issues, he added.

Dr. Yusuf and Dr. Pais reported receiving institutional research support from the TIPS-3 major sponsors: the Wellcome Trust, Cadila Pharmaceuticals, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada.

Simultaneously with their presentation at AHA 2020, the TIPS-3 results were published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: Yusuf, S. AHA 2020. Session LBS.02.

A once-daily polypill containing four drugs to lower blood pressure and LDL cholesterol reduced major adverse cardiovascular events by 21% relative to placebo in people at intermediate cardiovascular risk in the landmark TIPS-3 trial.

And with the addition of aspirin at 75 mg per day the combination achieved an even more robust 31% relative risk reduction, investigators reported at the.

“Aspirin contributes importantly to the benefits,” Salim Yusuf, MD, DPhil, emphasized in presenting the International Polycap Study (TIPS-3) results jointly with study coprincipal investigator Prem Pais, MD, at the virtual American Heart Association scientific sessions.

The multinational study provides powerful new support for a broad, population health–based approach to primary cardiovascular prevention.

“If half of eligible people [were to] use a polypill with aspirin, 3-5 million cardiovascular events per year would be avoided globally,” according to Dr. Yusuf, professor of medicine and director of the Population Health Research Institute at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont.

“This is likely a cost-effective strategy to meet global targets of reducing cardiovascular disease by 30% by 2020,” added Dr. Pais of St. John’s Research Institute in Bangalore, India.

TIPS-3 included 5,713 participants at intermediate cardiovascular risk, with an estimated event risk of 1.8% per year using the INTERHEART Risk Score. Half were women. More than 80% of participants had hypertension, and nearly 40% had diabetes or impaired fasting glucose. Nearly 90% of participants came from India, the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, or Bangladesh. All participants received advice about lifestyle management.

They were then randomized to receive a polypill or placebo, and then each group was further randomized to receive 75 mg/day of aspirin or matching placebo. The polypill contained 40 mg of simvastatin, 100 mg of atenolol, 25 mg of hydrochlorothiazide, and 10 mg of ramipril.

During a mean 4.6 years of follow-up, the primary composite major adverse cardiovascular event rate occurred in 4.4% of the polypill group, 4.1% of the polypill-plus-aspirin group, and 5.8% of the double-placebo group. This translated to a 21% reduction in cardiovascular disease with the polypill, a 31% reduction with polypill plus aspirin, and a 14% reduction in the composite of cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke with aspirin alone.

The polypill and placebo groups diverged in terms of the primary outcome starting about 6 months into the study, Dr. Pais noted.

Serious adverse events were less common with the polypill than with placebo. Importantly, there was no difference in major, minor, or GI bleeding between the polypill-plus-aspirin group and placebo-treated controls. Dr. Yusuf attributed the lack of excess bleeding in aspirin recipients to two factors: people with a history of bleeding or GI symptoms were excluded from TIPS-3, and the dose of aspirin used was lower than in other primary prevention trials, where bleeding offset the reduction in cardiovascular events.

Nonadherence was a major issue in TIPS-3, mainly because of delays in polypill production and distribution, coupled late in the trial with the COVID-19 pandemic. The nonadherence rate was 19% at 2 years, 32% at 4 years, and 43% at the study’s end. Only 5% of discontinuations were due to side effects. In a sensitivity analysis carried out in participants without discontinuation for nonmedical reasons, the benefits of the polypill plus aspirin were larger than in the overall study: a 39% relative risk reduction in the primary endpoint that probably offers a more accurate picture of the combination’s likely real-world performance.

Discussant Anushka Patel, MBBS, PhD, noted that TIPS-3 is the third randomized trial to provide direct evidence that a polypill-based strategy improves clinical outcomes. The effect sizes of the benefits – a 20%-30% reduction in major cardiovascular events – has been consistent in TIPS-3, PolyIran, and HOPE-3, each of which tested a different polypill drug combination.

“If implementation and adherence challenges can be addressed at the system, prescriber, and patient levels, and if high-quality polypills can be made affordable, the public health impact could actually be enormous,” said Dr. Patel, chief scientist at the George Institute for Global Health and professor of medicine at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia.

However, she parted company with Dr. Yusuf regarding routine incorporation of aspirin into polypills.

“I think the totality of evidence would still probably favor taking an individualized approach that also considers bleeding risk,” the cardiologist said.

Donald Lloyd-Jones, MD, who chaired a press conference highlighting TIPS-3, declared, “You’re seeing a paradigm shift right here in front of your eyes today. This could be a game changer in terms of preventing large numbers of cardiovascular events.”

While TIPS-3 was conducted mainly in low- and middle-income countries, it’s important to recognize that’s where 75% of cardiovascular events and cardiovascular deaths now occur.

“This is very much a disease that has emerged in the developing world,” commented Dr. Lloyd-Jones, the AHA president-elect, chair of the AHA Council on Scientific Sessions Programming, and professor and chair of the department of preventive medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago.

He also sees a polypill strategy for primary cardiovascular prevention as highly viable in high-resource countries. It makes sense to employ it there initially in underserved communities, where a polypill-based approach sidesteps difficulties in monitoring care and adjusting medication doses due to reduced access to health care while minimizing cost and adherence issues, he added.

Dr. Yusuf and Dr. Pais reported receiving institutional research support from the TIPS-3 major sponsors: the Wellcome Trust, Cadila Pharmaceuticals, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada.

Simultaneously with their presentation at AHA 2020, the TIPS-3 results were published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: Yusuf, S. AHA 2020. Session LBS.02.

A new guideline from the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes group addressing issues around diabetes management in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) has just been published in synopsis form in Annals of Internal Medicine.

The full guideline, including 12 recommendations and 48 practice points for clinicians caring for patients with diabetes and CKD, was published last month in Kidney International and on the KDIGO website.

More than 40% of people with diabetes develop CKD, and a significant number develop kidney failure requiring dialysis or transplant. This is the first guidance from KDIGO to address the comorbidity.

The new synopsis is aimed at primary care and nonnephrology specialist clinicians who manage patients with diabetes and CKD, in addition to nephrologists, first author Sankar D. Navaneethan, MD, said in an interview.

“Most of these patients are in the hands of primary care, endocrinology, and cardiology. We want to emphasize when they see patients with different severities of kidney disease [is] what are some of the things they have to be cognizant of,” said Dr. Navaneethan, professor of medicine and director of clinical research in the section of nephrology at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

The synopsis summarizes key recommendations from the larger guidance regarding comprehensive care needs, glycemic monitoring and targets, lifestyle interventions, glucose-lowering therapies, and educational/integrated care approaches.

It does not depart from prior diabetes guidelines, but it does provide advice for specific situations relevant to CKD, such as the limitations of hemoglobin A1c when estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) drops below 30 mL/min per 1.73m², and dietary protein consumption. It is based on published evidence up until February 2020.

For the nephrologist audience in particular, Dr. Navaneethan said, “we wanted to highlight team-based care, interacting with other specialists and working with them.”

“We [nephrologists] are more used to team-based care in dialysis patients. ... So we wanted to highlight that self-management programs and team-based care are important for empowering patients.”

“As nephrologists, we might not be comfortable starting patients on an SGLT2 [sodium-glucose cotransporter 2] inhibitor. We may need to reach out to our endocrinology or primary care colleagues and learn from them,” he explained.
 

RAS inhibitor use, smoking cessation, glycemic targets

Under “comprehensive care,” the guideline panel recommends treatment with an ACE inhibitor or an angiotensin II receptor blocker – renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blockade – for patients with diabetes, hypertension, and albuminuria (albumin-creatinine ratio >30 mg/g).

These medications should be titrated to the highest approved tolerated dose, with close monitoring of serum potassium and serum creatinine levels within 2-4 weeks of initiation or change in dose.

The document guides clinicians on that monitoring, as well as on RAS blockade use in patient subgroups, use of alternative agents, and mitigation of adverse effects.

Patients with diabetes and CKD who use tobacco should be advised to quit.

The group recommended A1c to monitor glycemic control in patients with diabetes and CKD not receiving dialysis.

However, when eGFR is below 30 mL/min per 1.73m2, A1c levels tend to be lower because of shortened erythrocyte lifespan, which interpretation should take into account. Continuous glucose monitoring can be used as an alternative because it is not affected by CKD.

Glycemic targets should be individualized depending on hypoglycemia risk, ranging from 6.5% to 8.0% for A1c or time in range of 70-180 mg/dL for continuous glucose monitoring readings.
 

SGLT2 inhibitors, metformin, and GLP-1 agonists

The panel also recommends treatment with both metformin and an SGLT2 inhibitor for patients with type 2 diabetes, CKD, and an eGFR ≥30 mL/min per 1.73m2.

For those who do not achieve glycemic targets or who cannot take those medications, a long-acting glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist can be used instead.

Clinical trial data are summarized for the SGLT2 inhibitor canagliflozin supporting its use in patients with CKD specifically, along with mitigation of adverse events. Last year, the Food and Drug Administration approved this agent to slow the progression of diabetic nephropathy based on the CREDENCE study.

Results from the DAPA-CKD trial showing CKD reduction with another SGLT2 inhibitor, dapagliflozin, were not available at the time the new document was written, nor was the recent study showing diabetic CKD benefit for the novel mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist finerenone, Dr. Navaneethan noted.

The panel determined that there is insufficient evidence for adding other glucose-lowering agents to insulin in patients with type 1 diabetes and CKD.
 

Lifestyle interventions: Dietary protein, sodium, and physical activity

Most of the dietary guidance for patients with diabetes and CKD is the same as for the general population, including a recommendation to eat a diet high in vegetables, fruits, whole grains, fiber, legumes, plant-based proteins, unsaturated fats, and nuts, and lower in processed meats, refined carbohydrates, and sweetened beverages.

However, the guideline details two key areas that differ, one with regard to protein intake and the other on sodium.

Although lower protein intake had been advised in the past for patients with CKD, clinical trial evidence has not shown protein restriction to reduce glomerular hyperfiltration or slow kidney disease progression.

Therefore, the same level recommended for the general population – 0.8 g/kg per day – is also advised for those with diabetes and CKD who are not on dialysis.

Those who are on dialysis can increase daily protein intake to 1.0-1.2 g/kg per day to offset catabolism and negative nitrogen imbalance.

Because kidney function decline is associated with sodium retention that can raise cardiovascular risk, sodium should be limited to less than 2 g/day (or less than 90 mmol or 5 g of sodium chloride per day).

The panel also recommended moderate-intensity physical activity for at least 150 minutes per week or to tolerance.

“We wanted to emphasize how important lifestyle is. It’s the foundation you want to build on. You can take medications without all these other things – exercise, diet, weight loss – but they won’t be nearly as effective,” Dr. Navaneethan commented.
 

Self-management education, team-based care

The final section of the synopsis advises that people with diabetes and CKD receive structured self-management educational programs, and that “policy makers and institutional decision-makers implement team-based, integrated care focused on risk evaluation and patient empowerment to provide comprehensive care in patients with diabetes and CKD.”

Despite limited data for those measures specifically in patients with diabetes and CKD, “the working group believed that well-informed patients would choose self-management as the cornerstone of any chronic care model; therefore, a high value was placed on the potential benefits of self-management education programs in persons with diabetes and CKD.”

And regarding team-based care, “despite a paucity of direct evidence, the working group judged that multidisciplinary integrated care for patients with diabetes and CKD would represent a good investment.”

The guidelines will likely be updated in the next 1-2 years, Dr. Navaneethan said in an interview.

Dr. Navaneethan has reported receiving consultancy fees from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Reata, and Tricida, and research support from Keryx.

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

A new guideline from the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes group addressing issues around diabetes management in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) has just been published in synopsis form in Annals of Internal Medicine.

The full guideline, including 12 recommendations and 48 practice points for clinicians caring for patients with diabetes and CKD, was published last month in Kidney International and on the KDIGO website.

More than 40% of people with diabetes develop CKD, and a significant number develop kidney failure requiring dialysis or transplant. This is the first guidance from KDIGO to address the comorbidity.

The new synopsis is aimed at primary care and nonnephrology specialist clinicians who manage patients with diabetes and CKD, in addition to nephrologists, first author Sankar D. Navaneethan, MD, said in an interview.

“Most of these patients are in the hands of primary care, endocrinology, and cardiology. We want to emphasize when they see patients with different severities of kidney disease [is] what are some of the things they have to be cognizant of,” said Dr. Navaneethan, professor of medicine and director of clinical research in the section of nephrology at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

The synopsis summarizes key recommendations from the larger guidance regarding comprehensive care needs, glycemic monitoring and targets, lifestyle interventions, glucose-lowering therapies, and educational/integrated care approaches.

It does not depart from prior diabetes guidelines, but it does provide advice for specific situations relevant to CKD, such as the limitations of hemoglobin A1c when estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) drops below 30 mL/min per 1.73m², and dietary protein consumption. It is based on published evidence up until February 2020.

For the nephrologist audience in particular, Dr. Navaneethan said, “we wanted to highlight team-based care, interacting with other specialists and working with them.”

“We [nephrologists] are more used to team-based care in dialysis patients. ... So we wanted to highlight that self-management programs and team-based care are important for empowering patients.”

“As nephrologists, we might not be comfortable starting patients on an SGLT2 [sodium-glucose cotransporter 2] inhibitor. We may need to reach out to our endocrinology or primary care colleagues and learn from them,” he explained.
 

RAS inhibitor use, smoking cessation, glycemic targets

Under “comprehensive care,” the guideline panel recommends treatment with an ACE inhibitor or an angiotensin II receptor blocker – renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blockade – for patients with diabetes, hypertension, and albuminuria (albumin-creatinine ratio >30 mg/g).

These medications should be titrated to the highest approved tolerated dose, with close monitoring of serum potassium and serum creatinine levels within 2-4 weeks of initiation or change in dose.

The document guides clinicians on that monitoring, as well as on RAS blockade use in patient subgroups, use of alternative agents, and mitigation of adverse effects.

Patients with diabetes and CKD who use tobacco should be advised to quit.

The group recommended A1c to monitor glycemic control in patients with diabetes and CKD not receiving dialysis.

However, when eGFR is below 30 mL/min per 1.73m2, A1c levels tend to be lower because of shortened erythrocyte lifespan, which interpretation should take into account. Continuous glucose monitoring can be used as an alternative because it is not affected by CKD.

Glycemic targets should be individualized depending on hypoglycemia risk, ranging from 6.5% to 8.0% for A1c or time in range of 70-180 mg/dL for continuous glucose monitoring readings.
 

SGLT2 inhibitors, metformin, and GLP-1 agonists

The panel also recommends treatment with both metformin and an SGLT2 inhibitor for patients with type 2 diabetes, CKD, and an eGFR ≥30 mL/min per 1.73m2.

For those who do not achieve glycemic targets or who cannot take those medications, a long-acting glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist can be used instead.

Clinical trial data are summarized for the SGLT2 inhibitor canagliflozin supporting its use in patients with CKD specifically, along with mitigation of adverse events. Last year, the Food and Drug Administration approved this agent to slow the progression of diabetic nephropathy based on the CREDENCE study.

Results from the DAPA-CKD trial showing CKD reduction with another SGLT2 inhibitor, dapagliflozin, were not available at the time the new document was written, nor was the recent study showing diabetic CKD benefit for the novel mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist finerenone, Dr. Navaneethan noted.

The panel determined that there is insufficient evidence for adding other glucose-lowering agents to insulin in patients with type 1 diabetes and CKD.
 

Lifestyle interventions: Dietary protein, sodium, and physical activity

Most of the dietary guidance for patients with diabetes and CKD is the same as for the general population, including a recommendation to eat a diet high in vegetables, fruits, whole grains, fiber, legumes, plant-based proteins, unsaturated fats, and nuts, and lower in processed meats, refined carbohydrates, and sweetened beverages.

However, the guideline details two key areas that differ, one with regard to protein intake and the other on sodium.

Although lower protein intake had been advised in the past for patients with CKD, clinical trial evidence has not shown protein restriction to reduce glomerular hyperfiltration or slow kidney disease progression.

Therefore, the same level recommended for the general population – 0.8 g/kg per day – is also advised for those with diabetes and CKD who are not on dialysis.

Those who are on dialysis can increase daily protein intake to 1.0-1.2 g/kg per day to offset catabolism and negative nitrogen imbalance.

Because kidney function decline is associated with sodium retention that can raise cardiovascular risk, sodium should be limited to less than 2 g/day (or less than 90 mmol or 5 g of sodium chloride per day).

The panel also recommended moderate-intensity physical activity for at least 150 minutes per week or to tolerance.

“We wanted to emphasize how important lifestyle is. It’s the foundation you want to build on. You can take medications without all these other things – exercise, diet, weight loss – but they won’t be nearly as effective,” Dr. Navaneethan commented.
 

Self-management education, team-based care

The final section of the synopsis advises that people with diabetes and CKD receive structured self-management educational programs, and that “policy makers and institutional decision-makers implement team-based, integrated care focused on risk evaluation and patient empowerment to provide comprehensive care in patients with diabetes and CKD.”

Despite limited data for those measures specifically in patients with diabetes and CKD, “the working group believed that well-informed patients would choose self-management as the cornerstone of any chronic care model; therefore, a high value was placed on the potential benefits of self-management education programs in persons with diabetes and CKD.”

And regarding team-based care, “despite a paucity of direct evidence, the working group judged that multidisciplinary integrated care for patients with diabetes and CKD would represent a good investment.”

The guidelines will likely be updated in the next 1-2 years, Dr. Navaneethan said in an interview.

Dr. Navaneethan has reported receiving consultancy fees from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Reata, and Tricida, and research support from Keryx.

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

A new guideline from the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes group addressing issues around diabetes management in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) has just been published in synopsis form in Annals of Internal Medicine.

The full guideline, including 12 recommendations and 48 practice points for clinicians caring for patients with diabetes and CKD, was published last month in Kidney International and on the KDIGO website.

More than 40% of people with diabetes develop CKD, and a significant number develop kidney failure requiring dialysis or transplant. This is the first guidance from KDIGO to address the comorbidity.

The new synopsis is aimed at primary care and nonnephrology specialist clinicians who manage patients with diabetes and CKD, in addition to nephrologists, first author Sankar D. Navaneethan, MD, said in an interview.

“Most of these patients are in the hands of primary care, endocrinology, and cardiology. We want to emphasize when they see patients with different severities of kidney disease [is] what are some of the things they have to be cognizant of,” said Dr. Navaneethan, professor of medicine and director of clinical research in the section of nephrology at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

The synopsis summarizes key recommendations from the larger guidance regarding comprehensive care needs, glycemic monitoring and targets, lifestyle interventions, glucose-lowering therapies, and educational/integrated care approaches.

It does not depart from prior diabetes guidelines, but it does provide advice for specific situations relevant to CKD, such as the limitations of hemoglobin A1c when estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) drops below 30 mL/min per 1.73m², and dietary protein consumption. It is based on published evidence up until February 2020.

For the nephrologist audience in particular, Dr. Navaneethan said, “we wanted to highlight team-based care, interacting with other specialists and working with them.”

“We [nephrologists] are more used to team-based care in dialysis patients. ... So we wanted to highlight that self-management programs and team-based care are important for empowering patients.”

“As nephrologists, we might not be comfortable starting patients on an SGLT2 [sodium-glucose cotransporter 2] inhibitor. We may need to reach out to our endocrinology or primary care colleagues and learn from them,” he explained.
 

RAS inhibitor use, smoking cessation, glycemic targets

Under “comprehensive care,” the guideline panel recommends treatment with an ACE inhibitor or an angiotensin II receptor blocker – renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blockade – for patients with diabetes, hypertension, and albuminuria (albumin-creatinine ratio >30 mg/g).

These medications should be titrated to the highest approved tolerated dose, with close monitoring of serum potassium and serum creatinine levels within 2-4 weeks of initiation or change in dose.

The document guides clinicians on that monitoring, as well as on RAS blockade use in patient subgroups, use of alternative agents, and mitigation of adverse effects.

Patients with diabetes and CKD who use tobacco should be advised to quit.

The group recommended A1c to monitor glycemic control in patients with diabetes and CKD not receiving dialysis.

However, when eGFR is below 30 mL/min per 1.73m2, A1c levels tend to be lower because of shortened erythrocyte lifespan, which interpretation should take into account. Continuous glucose monitoring can be used as an alternative because it is not affected by CKD.

Glycemic targets should be individualized depending on hypoglycemia risk, ranging from 6.5% to 8.0% for A1c or time in range of 70-180 mg/dL for continuous glucose monitoring readings.
 

SGLT2 inhibitors, metformin, and GLP-1 agonists

The panel also recommends treatment with both metformin and an SGLT2 inhibitor for patients with type 2 diabetes, CKD, and an eGFR ≥30 mL/min per 1.73m2.

For those who do not achieve glycemic targets or who cannot take those medications, a long-acting glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist can be used instead.

Clinical trial data are summarized for the SGLT2 inhibitor canagliflozin supporting its use in patients with CKD specifically, along with mitigation of adverse events. Last year, the Food and Drug Administration approved this agent to slow the progression of diabetic nephropathy based on the CREDENCE study.

Results from the DAPA-CKD trial showing CKD reduction with another SGLT2 inhibitor, dapagliflozin, were not available at the time the new document was written, nor was the recent study showing diabetic CKD benefit for the novel mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist finerenone, Dr. Navaneethan noted.

The panel determined that there is insufficient evidence for adding other glucose-lowering agents to insulin in patients with type 1 diabetes and CKD.
 

Lifestyle interventions: Dietary protein, sodium, and physical activity

Most of the dietary guidance for patients with diabetes and CKD is the same as for the general population, including a recommendation to eat a diet high in vegetables, fruits, whole grains, fiber, legumes, plant-based proteins, unsaturated fats, and nuts, and lower in processed meats, refined carbohydrates, and sweetened beverages.

However, the guideline details two key areas that differ, one with regard to protein intake and the other on sodium.

Although lower protein intake had been advised in the past for patients with CKD, clinical trial evidence has not shown protein restriction to reduce glomerular hyperfiltration or slow kidney disease progression.

Therefore, the same level recommended for the general population – 0.8 g/kg per day – is also advised for those with diabetes and CKD who are not on dialysis.

Those who are on dialysis can increase daily protein intake to 1.0-1.2 g/kg per day to offset catabolism and negative nitrogen imbalance.

Because kidney function decline is associated with sodium retention that can raise cardiovascular risk, sodium should be limited to less than 2 g/day (or less than 90 mmol or 5 g of sodium chloride per day).

The panel also recommended moderate-intensity physical activity for at least 150 minutes per week or to tolerance.

“We wanted to emphasize how important lifestyle is. It’s the foundation you want to build on. You can take medications without all these other things – exercise, diet, weight loss – but they won’t be nearly as effective,” Dr. Navaneethan commented.
 

Self-management education, team-based care

The final section of the synopsis advises that people with diabetes and CKD receive structured self-management educational programs, and that “policy makers and institutional decision-makers implement team-based, integrated care focused on risk evaluation and patient empowerment to provide comprehensive care in patients with diabetes and CKD.”

Despite limited data for those measures specifically in patients with diabetes and CKD, “the working group believed that well-informed patients would choose self-management as the cornerstone of any chronic care model; therefore, a high value was placed on the potential benefits of self-management education programs in persons with diabetes and CKD.”

And regarding team-based care, “despite a paucity of direct evidence, the working group judged that multidisciplinary integrated care for patients with diabetes and CKD would represent a good investment.”

The guidelines will likely be updated in the next 1-2 years, Dr. Navaneethan said in an interview.

Dr. Navaneethan has reported receiving consultancy fees from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Reata, and Tricida, and research support from Keryx.

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

Almost 60% of patients with biopsy-confirmed nonalcoholic steatohepatitis and liver fibrosis showed resolution of NASH after treatment with semaglutide, according to a phase 2, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine and presented at the 2020 American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) meeting.

“This bodes well for further study of semaglutide and is supported further by marked improvements in weight, glycemic control and lipid profile,” commented the study’s senior author Philip N. Newsome, PhD, FRCPE, of the University of Birmingham (England), in an interview.

The highest daily dose (0.4 mg) of the glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, semaglutide, which is approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, led to levels of NASH resolution “which are higher than any previously demonstrated,” noted Dr. Newsome. “This was also accompanied by improvement in noninvasive markers of liver fibrosis and also less fibrosis progression, compared to placebo.”

“I think this represents an exciting advance and will, if confirmed in further studies, mark a step-change in our management of patients with NASH,” he added.

The multicenter study, conducted at 143 sites in 16 countries, included 320 patients, aged 18-75 years, with or without type 2 diabetes, who had histologic evidence of NASH and stage 1-3 liver fibrosis.

They were randomized in a 3:3:3:1:1:1 ratio to receive once-daily subcutaneous semaglutide at a dose of 0.1, 0.2, or 0.4 mg, or placebo for 72 weeks.

The primary endpoint was resolution of NASH and no worsening of fibrosis, with a secondary endpoint being improvement of fibrosis by at least one stage without worsening of NASH.

The study found 40% of patients in the 0.1-mg semaglutide group, 36% in the 0.2-mg group, and 59% in the 0.4-mg group achieved NASH resolution with no worsening of fibrosis, compared with 17% of the placebo group (odds ratio, 6.87; P < .001 for the highest semaglutide dose). However, the treatment did not lead to significant between-group differences in the secondary endpoint, which occurred in 43% of patients on the highest semaglutide dose compared to 33% in the placebo group (OR, 1.42; P = .48).

Treatment with semaglutide also resulted in dose-dependent reductions in body weight, as well as in glycated hemoglobin levels. Bodyweight was reduced by a mean of 5% in the 0.1-mg semaglutide group, followed by mean reductions of 9% and 13% in the 0.2-mg and 0.4-mg groups respectively. This compared to a mean reduction of 1% in the placebo group.

Similarly, glycated hemoglobin levels among patients with type 2 diabetes dropped by 0.63, 1.07, and 1.15 percentage points in the 0.1-mg, 0.2-mg, and 0.4-mg semaglutide groups respectively, compared with a drop of 0.01 percentage point in the placebo group.

“The fact that the percentage of patients who had an improvement in fibrosis stage was not significantly higher with semaglutide than with placebo – despite a greater benefit with respect to NASH resolution and dose-dependent weight loss – was unexpected, given that previous studies have suggested that resolution of NASH and improvements in activity scores for the components of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease are associated with regression of fibrosis,” wrote the authors. “However, the temporal association among NASH resolution, weight loss, and improvement in fibrosis stage is not fully understood. It is possible that the current trial was not of sufficient duration for improvements in fibrosis stage to become apparent.”

The authors also noted that the safety profile of semaglutide was “consistent with that observed in patients with type 2 diabetes in other trials and with the known effects of GLP-1 receptor agonists,” with gastrointestinal disorders being the most commonly reported.

Nausea, constipation, and vomiting were reported more often in the 0.4-mg semaglutide group than in the placebo group (nausea, 42% vs. 11%; constipation, 22% vs. 12%; and vomiting, 15% vs. 2%).

The overall incidence of benign, malignant, or unspecified neoplasms was 15% in the treatment groups versus 8% in the placebo group.

Rowen K. Zetterman, MD, who was not involved with the study, noted that “treatment of NASH is currently limited, and no therapies have yet been approved by the Food and Drug Administration.”

The findings are “important but not yet exciting,” added Dr. Zetterman, who is professor emeritus of internal medicine and associate vice chancellor for strategic planning for the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha.

“Though reversal of liver fibrosis was not noted, the resolution of hepatic inflammation and liver cell injury by semaglutide suggests it may be slowing disease progression,” said Dr. Zetterman, who also serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. This “warrants additional studies where longer treatment with semaglutide may prove reversal of fibrosis and/or prevention of progression to cirrhosis.”

The study was sponsored by Novo Nordisk. Dr. Newsome reported disclosures related to Novo Nordisk during the conduct of the study, and to Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Echosens, Gilead, Pfizer, Pharmaxis, and Poxel. Several of the other study authors reported receiving fees and grants from various pharmaceutical companies, including Novo Nordisk One author reported pending patents for the use of semaglutide. Dr. Zetterman had no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Newsome PN et al. N Engl J Med. 2020 Nov 13. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2028395.

Almost 60% of patients with biopsy-confirmed nonalcoholic steatohepatitis and liver fibrosis showed resolution of NASH after treatment with semaglutide, according to a phase 2, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine and presented at the 2020 American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) meeting.

“This bodes well for further study of semaglutide and is supported further by marked improvements in weight, glycemic control and lipid profile,” commented the study’s senior author Philip N. Newsome, PhD, FRCPE, of the University of Birmingham (England), in an interview.

The highest daily dose (0.4 mg) of the glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, semaglutide, which is approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, led to levels of NASH resolution “which are higher than any previously demonstrated,” noted Dr. Newsome. “This was also accompanied by improvement in noninvasive markers of liver fibrosis and also less fibrosis progression, compared to placebo.”

“I think this represents an exciting advance and will, if confirmed in further studies, mark a step-change in our management of patients with NASH,” he added.

The multicenter study, conducted at 143 sites in 16 countries, included 320 patients, aged 18-75 years, with or without type 2 diabetes, who had histologic evidence of NASH and stage 1-3 liver fibrosis.

They were randomized in a 3:3:3:1:1:1 ratio to receive once-daily subcutaneous semaglutide at a dose of 0.1, 0.2, or 0.4 mg, or placebo for 72 weeks.

The primary endpoint was resolution of NASH and no worsening of fibrosis, with a secondary endpoint being improvement of fibrosis by at least one stage without worsening of NASH.

The study found 40% of patients in the 0.1-mg semaglutide group, 36% in the 0.2-mg group, and 59% in the 0.4-mg group achieved NASH resolution with no worsening of fibrosis, compared with 17% of the placebo group (odds ratio, 6.87; P < .001 for the highest semaglutide dose). However, the treatment did not lead to significant between-group differences in the secondary endpoint, which occurred in 43% of patients on the highest semaglutide dose compared to 33% in the placebo group (OR, 1.42; P = .48).

Treatment with semaglutide also resulted in dose-dependent reductions in body weight, as well as in glycated hemoglobin levels. Bodyweight was reduced by a mean of 5% in the 0.1-mg semaglutide group, followed by mean reductions of 9% and 13% in the 0.2-mg and 0.4-mg groups respectively. This compared to a mean reduction of 1% in the placebo group.

Similarly, glycated hemoglobin levels among patients with type 2 diabetes dropped by 0.63, 1.07, and 1.15 percentage points in the 0.1-mg, 0.2-mg, and 0.4-mg semaglutide groups respectively, compared with a drop of 0.01 percentage point in the placebo group.

“The fact that the percentage of patients who had an improvement in fibrosis stage was not significantly higher with semaglutide than with placebo – despite a greater benefit with respect to NASH resolution and dose-dependent weight loss – was unexpected, given that previous studies have suggested that resolution of NASH and improvements in activity scores for the components of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease are associated with regression of fibrosis,” wrote the authors. “However, the temporal association among NASH resolution, weight loss, and improvement in fibrosis stage is not fully understood. It is possible that the current trial was not of sufficient duration for improvements in fibrosis stage to become apparent.”

The authors also noted that the safety profile of semaglutide was “consistent with that observed in patients with type 2 diabetes in other trials and with the known effects of GLP-1 receptor agonists,” with gastrointestinal disorders being the most commonly reported.

Nausea, constipation, and vomiting were reported more often in the 0.4-mg semaglutide group than in the placebo group (nausea, 42% vs. 11%; constipation, 22% vs. 12%; and vomiting, 15% vs. 2%).

The overall incidence of benign, malignant, or unspecified neoplasms was 15% in the treatment groups versus 8% in the placebo group.

Rowen K. Zetterman, MD, who was not involved with the study, noted that “treatment of NASH is currently limited, and no therapies have yet been approved by the Food and Drug Administration.”

The findings are “important but not yet exciting,” added Dr. Zetterman, who is professor emeritus of internal medicine and associate vice chancellor for strategic planning for the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha.

“Though reversal of liver fibrosis was not noted, the resolution of hepatic inflammation and liver cell injury by semaglutide suggests it may be slowing disease progression,” said Dr. Zetterman, who also serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. This “warrants additional studies where longer treatment with semaglutide may prove reversal of fibrosis and/or prevention of progression to cirrhosis.”

The study was sponsored by Novo Nordisk. Dr. Newsome reported disclosures related to Novo Nordisk during the conduct of the study, and to Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Echosens, Gilead, Pfizer, Pharmaxis, and Poxel. Several of the other study authors reported receiving fees and grants from various pharmaceutical companies, including Novo Nordisk One author reported pending patents for the use of semaglutide. Dr. Zetterman had no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Newsome PN et al. N Engl J Med. 2020 Nov 13. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2028395.

Almost 60% of patients with biopsy-confirmed nonalcoholic steatohepatitis and liver fibrosis showed resolution of NASH after treatment with semaglutide, according to a phase 2, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine and presented at the 2020 American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) meeting.

“This bodes well for further study of semaglutide and is supported further by marked improvements in weight, glycemic control and lipid profile,” commented the study’s senior author Philip N. Newsome, PhD, FRCPE, of the University of Birmingham (England), in an interview.

The highest daily dose (0.4 mg) of the glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, semaglutide, which is approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, led to levels of NASH resolution “which are higher than any previously demonstrated,” noted Dr. Newsome. “This was also accompanied by improvement in noninvasive markers of liver fibrosis and also less fibrosis progression, compared to placebo.”

“I think this represents an exciting advance and will, if confirmed in further studies, mark a step-change in our management of patients with NASH,” he added.

The multicenter study, conducted at 143 sites in 16 countries, included 320 patients, aged 18-75 years, with or without type 2 diabetes, who had histologic evidence of NASH and stage 1-3 liver fibrosis.

They were randomized in a 3:3:3:1:1:1 ratio to receive once-daily subcutaneous semaglutide at a dose of 0.1, 0.2, or 0.4 mg, or placebo for 72 weeks.

The primary endpoint was resolution of NASH and no worsening of fibrosis, with a secondary endpoint being improvement of fibrosis by at least one stage without worsening of NASH.

The study found 40% of patients in the 0.1-mg semaglutide group, 36% in the 0.2-mg group, and 59% in the 0.4-mg group achieved NASH resolution with no worsening of fibrosis, compared with 17% of the placebo group (odds ratio, 6.87; P < .001 for the highest semaglutide dose). However, the treatment did not lead to significant between-group differences in the secondary endpoint, which occurred in 43% of patients on the highest semaglutide dose compared to 33% in the placebo group (OR, 1.42; P = .48).

Treatment with semaglutide also resulted in dose-dependent reductions in body weight, as well as in glycated hemoglobin levels. Bodyweight was reduced by a mean of 5% in the 0.1-mg semaglutide group, followed by mean reductions of 9% and 13% in the 0.2-mg and 0.4-mg groups respectively. This compared to a mean reduction of 1% in the placebo group.

Similarly, glycated hemoglobin levels among patients with type 2 diabetes dropped by 0.63, 1.07, and 1.15 percentage points in the 0.1-mg, 0.2-mg, and 0.4-mg semaglutide groups respectively, compared with a drop of 0.01 percentage point in the placebo group.

“The fact that the percentage of patients who had an improvement in fibrosis stage was not significantly higher with semaglutide than with placebo – despite a greater benefit with respect to NASH resolution and dose-dependent weight loss – was unexpected, given that previous studies have suggested that resolution of NASH and improvements in activity scores for the components of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease are associated with regression of fibrosis,” wrote the authors. “However, the temporal association among NASH resolution, weight loss, and improvement in fibrosis stage is not fully understood. It is possible that the current trial was not of sufficient duration for improvements in fibrosis stage to become apparent.”

The authors also noted that the safety profile of semaglutide was “consistent with that observed in patients with type 2 diabetes in other trials and with the known effects of GLP-1 receptor agonists,” with gastrointestinal disorders being the most commonly reported.

Nausea, constipation, and vomiting were reported more often in the 0.4-mg semaglutide group than in the placebo group (nausea, 42% vs. 11%; constipation, 22% vs. 12%; and vomiting, 15% vs. 2%).

The overall incidence of benign, malignant, or unspecified neoplasms was 15% in the treatment groups versus 8% in the placebo group.

Rowen K. Zetterman, MD, who was not involved with the study, noted that “treatment of NASH is currently limited, and no therapies have yet been approved by the Food and Drug Administration.”

The findings are “important but not yet exciting,” added Dr. Zetterman, who is professor emeritus of internal medicine and associate vice chancellor for strategic planning for the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha.

“Though reversal of liver fibrosis was not noted, the resolution of hepatic inflammation and liver cell injury by semaglutide suggests it may be slowing disease progression,” said Dr. Zetterman, who also serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. This “warrants additional studies where longer treatment with semaglutide may prove reversal of fibrosis and/or prevention of progression to cirrhosis.”

The study was sponsored by Novo Nordisk. Dr. Newsome reported disclosures related to Novo Nordisk during the conduct of the study, and to Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Echosens, Gilead, Pfizer, Pharmaxis, and Poxel. Several of the other study authors reported receiving fees and grants from various pharmaceutical companies, including Novo Nordisk One author reported pending patents for the use of semaglutide. Dr. Zetterman had no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Newsome PN et al. N Engl J Med. 2020 Nov 13. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2028395.

One in five COVID-19 patients are diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder such as anxiety or depression within 3 months of testing positive for the virus, new research suggests.

“People have been worried that COVID-19 survivors will be at greater risk of psychiatric disorders, and our findings in a large and detailed study show this to be true,” principal investigator Paul Harrison, BM, DM, professor of psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom, said in a statement.

Health services “need to be ready to provide care, especially since our results are likely to be underestimates of the actual number of cases,” said Harrison.

The study also showed that having a psychiatric disorder independently increases the risk of getting COVID-19 – a finding that’s in line with research published earlier this month.

“Having a psychiatric illness should be added to the list of risk factors for COVID-19,” study coauthor Maxime Taquet, PhD, University of Oxford, said in the release.

The study was published online Nov. 9 in The Lancet Psychiatry.
 

Double the risk

The investigators took advantage of the TriNetX analytics network, which captured deidentified data from electronic health records of a total of 69.8 million patients from 54 healthcare organizations in the United States.

Of those patients, 62,354 adults were diagnosed with COVID-19 between Jan. 20 and Aug. 1, 2020.

To assess the psychiatric sequelae of COVID-19, the investigators created propensity score–matched cohorts of patients who had received a diagnosis of other conditions that represented a range of common acute presentations.

In 14 to 90 days after being diagnosed with COVID-19, 5.8% of patients received a first recorded diagnosis of psychiatric illness. Among patients with health problems other than COVID, 2.5% to 3.4% of patients received a psychiatric diagnosis, the authors report. The risk was greatest for anxiety disorders, depression, and insomnia.

Older COVID-19 patients had a two- to threefold increased risk for a first dementia diagnosis, a finding that supports an earlier UK study.

Some of this excess risk could reflect misdiagnosed cases of delirium or transient cognitive impairment due to reversible cerebral events, the authors noted.

The study also revealed a bidirectional relationship between mental illness and COVID-19. Individuals with a psychiatric diagnosis were about 65% more likely to be diagnosed with COVID-19 in comparison with their counterparts who did not have mental illness, independently of known physical health risk factors for COVID-19.

“We did not anticipate that psychiatric history would be an independent risk factor for COVID-19. This finding appears robust, being observed in all age strata and in both sexes, and was substantial,” the authors write.

At present, “we don’t understand what the explanation is for the associations between COVID and mental illness. We are looking into this in more detail to try and understand better what subgroups are particularly vulnerable in this regard,” Harrison told Medscape Medical News.
 

“Ambitious” research

Commenting on the findings for Medscape Medical News, Roy H. Perlis, MD, Department of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, said this is “an ambitious effort to understand the short-term consequences of COVID in terms of brain diseases.”

Perlis said he’s not particularly surprised by the increase in psychiatric diagnoses among COVID-19 patients.

“After COVID infection, people are more likely to get close medical follow-up than usual. They’re more likely to be accessing the healthcare system; after all, they’ve already had COVID, so they’re probably less fearful of seeing their doctor. But, that probably also means they’re more likely to get a new diagnosis of something like depression,” he said.

Dementia may be the clearest illustration of this, Perlis said. “It seems less likely that dementia develops a month after COVID; more likely, something that happens during the illness leads someone to be more likely to diagnose dementia later on,” he noted.

Perlis cautioned against being “unnecessarily alarmed” by the findings in this study.

“We know that rates of depression in the UK and the US, as in much of the world, are substantially elevated right now. Much of this is likely a consequence of the stress and disruption that accompanies the pandemic,” said Perlis.

The study was funded by the National Institute for Health Research. Harrison has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. One author is an employee of TriNetX. Perlis has received consulting fees for service on scientific advisory boards of Belle Artificial Intelligence, Burrage Capital, Genomind, Psy Therapeutics, Outermost Therapeutics, RID Ventures, and Takeda. He holds equity in Psy Therapeutics and Outermost Therapeutics.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

One in five COVID-19 patients are diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder such as anxiety or depression within 3 months of testing positive for the virus, new research suggests.

“People have been worried that COVID-19 survivors will be at greater risk of psychiatric disorders, and our findings in a large and detailed study show this to be true,” principal investigator Paul Harrison, BM, DM, professor of psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom, said in a statement.

Health services “need to be ready to provide care, especially since our results are likely to be underestimates of the actual number of cases,” said Harrison.

The study also showed that having a psychiatric disorder independently increases the risk of getting COVID-19 – a finding that’s in line with research published earlier this month.

“Having a psychiatric illness should be added to the list of risk factors for COVID-19,” study coauthor Maxime Taquet, PhD, University of Oxford, said in the release.

The study was published online Nov. 9 in The Lancet Psychiatry.
 

Double the risk

The investigators took advantage of the TriNetX analytics network, which captured deidentified data from electronic health records of a total of 69.8 million patients from 54 healthcare organizations in the United States.

Of those patients, 62,354 adults were diagnosed with COVID-19 between Jan. 20 and Aug. 1, 2020.

To assess the psychiatric sequelae of COVID-19, the investigators created propensity score–matched cohorts of patients who had received a diagnosis of other conditions that represented a range of common acute presentations.

In 14 to 90 days after being diagnosed with COVID-19, 5.8% of patients received a first recorded diagnosis of psychiatric illness. Among patients with health problems other than COVID, 2.5% to 3.4% of patients received a psychiatric diagnosis, the authors report. The risk was greatest for anxiety disorders, depression, and insomnia.

Older COVID-19 patients had a two- to threefold increased risk for a first dementia diagnosis, a finding that supports an earlier UK study.

Some of this excess risk could reflect misdiagnosed cases of delirium or transient cognitive impairment due to reversible cerebral events, the authors noted.

The study also revealed a bidirectional relationship between mental illness and COVID-19. Individuals with a psychiatric diagnosis were about 65% more likely to be diagnosed with COVID-19 in comparison with their counterparts who did not have mental illness, independently of known physical health risk factors for COVID-19.

“We did not anticipate that psychiatric history would be an independent risk factor for COVID-19. This finding appears robust, being observed in all age strata and in both sexes, and was substantial,” the authors write.

At present, “we don’t understand what the explanation is for the associations between COVID and mental illness. We are looking into this in more detail to try and understand better what subgroups are particularly vulnerable in this regard,” Harrison told Medscape Medical News.
 

“Ambitious” research

Commenting on the findings for Medscape Medical News, Roy H. Perlis, MD, Department of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, said this is “an ambitious effort to understand the short-term consequences of COVID in terms of brain diseases.”

Perlis said he’s not particularly surprised by the increase in psychiatric diagnoses among COVID-19 patients.

“After COVID infection, people are more likely to get close medical follow-up than usual. They’re more likely to be accessing the healthcare system; after all, they’ve already had COVID, so they’re probably less fearful of seeing their doctor. But, that probably also means they’re more likely to get a new diagnosis of something like depression,” he said.

Dementia may be the clearest illustration of this, Perlis said. “It seems less likely that dementia develops a month after COVID; more likely, something that happens during the illness leads someone to be more likely to diagnose dementia later on,” he noted.

Perlis cautioned against being “unnecessarily alarmed” by the findings in this study.

“We know that rates of depression in the UK and the US, as in much of the world, are substantially elevated right now. Much of this is likely a consequence of the stress and disruption that accompanies the pandemic,” said Perlis.

The study was funded by the National Institute for Health Research. Harrison has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. One author is an employee of TriNetX. Perlis has received consulting fees for service on scientific advisory boards of Belle Artificial Intelligence, Burrage Capital, Genomind, Psy Therapeutics, Outermost Therapeutics, RID Ventures, and Takeda. He holds equity in Psy Therapeutics and Outermost Therapeutics.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

One in five COVID-19 patients are diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder such as anxiety or depression within 3 months of testing positive for the virus, new research suggests.

“People have been worried that COVID-19 survivors will be at greater risk of psychiatric disorders, and our findings in a large and detailed study show this to be true,” principal investigator Paul Harrison, BM, DM, professor of psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom, said in a statement.

Health services “need to be ready to provide care, especially since our results are likely to be underestimates of the actual number of cases,” said Harrison.

The study also showed that having a psychiatric disorder independently increases the risk of getting COVID-19 – a finding that’s in line with research published earlier this month.

“Having a psychiatric illness should be added to the list of risk factors for COVID-19,” study coauthor Maxime Taquet, PhD, University of Oxford, said in the release.

The study was published online Nov. 9 in The Lancet Psychiatry.
 

Double the risk

The investigators took advantage of the TriNetX analytics network, which captured deidentified data from electronic health records of a total of 69.8 million patients from 54 healthcare organizations in the United States.

Of those patients, 62,354 adults were diagnosed with COVID-19 between Jan. 20 and Aug. 1, 2020.

To assess the psychiatric sequelae of COVID-19, the investigators created propensity score–matched cohorts of patients who had received a diagnosis of other conditions that represented a range of common acute presentations.

In 14 to 90 days after being diagnosed with COVID-19, 5.8% of patients received a first recorded diagnosis of psychiatric illness. Among patients with health problems other than COVID, 2.5% to 3.4% of patients received a psychiatric diagnosis, the authors report. The risk was greatest for anxiety disorders, depression, and insomnia.

Older COVID-19 patients had a two- to threefold increased risk for a first dementia diagnosis, a finding that supports an earlier UK study.

Some of this excess risk could reflect misdiagnosed cases of delirium or transient cognitive impairment due to reversible cerebral events, the authors noted.

The study also revealed a bidirectional relationship between mental illness and COVID-19. Individuals with a psychiatric diagnosis were about 65% more likely to be diagnosed with COVID-19 in comparison with their counterparts who did not have mental illness, independently of known physical health risk factors for COVID-19.

“We did not anticipate that psychiatric history would be an independent risk factor for COVID-19. This finding appears robust, being observed in all age strata and in both sexes, and was substantial,” the authors write.

At present, “we don’t understand what the explanation is for the associations between COVID and mental illness. We are looking into this in more detail to try and understand better what subgroups are particularly vulnerable in this regard,” Harrison told Medscape Medical News.
 

“Ambitious” research

Commenting on the findings for Medscape Medical News, Roy H. Perlis, MD, Department of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, said this is “an ambitious effort to understand the short-term consequences of COVID in terms of brain diseases.”

Perlis said he’s not particularly surprised by the increase in psychiatric diagnoses among COVID-19 patients.

“After COVID infection, people are more likely to get close medical follow-up than usual. They’re more likely to be accessing the healthcare system; after all, they’ve already had COVID, so they’re probably less fearful of seeing their doctor. But, that probably also means they’re more likely to get a new diagnosis of something like depression,” he said.

Dementia may be the clearest illustration of this, Perlis said. “It seems less likely that dementia develops a month after COVID; more likely, something that happens during the illness leads someone to be more likely to diagnose dementia later on,” he noted.

Perlis cautioned against being “unnecessarily alarmed” by the findings in this study.

“We know that rates of depression in the UK and the US, as in much of the world, are substantially elevated right now. Much of this is likely a consequence of the stress and disruption that accompanies the pandemic,” said Perlis.

The study was funded by the National Institute for Health Research. Harrison has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. One author is an employee of TriNetX. Perlis has received consulting fees for service on scientific advisory boards of Belle Artificial Intelligence, Burrage Capital, Genomind, Psy Therapeutics, Outermost Therapeutics, RID Ventures, and Takeda. He holds equity in Psy Therapeutics and Outermost Therapeutics.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The largest U.S. physician organization on Tuesday took a step to prepare for future payments for administration of two leading COVID-19 vaccine candidates, publishing new billing codes tailored to track each use of these medications.

The American Medical Association updated its CPT code set to reflect the expected future availability of COVID-19 vaccines. The new codes apply to the experimental vaccine being developed by Pfizer, in collaboration with a smaller German firm BioNTech, and to the similar product expected from Moderna, according to an AMA press release.

Positive news has emerged this week about both of these vaccines, which were developed using a newer – and as yet unproven – approach. They seek to use messenger RNA to instruct cells to produce a target protein for SARS-CoV-2.

New York–based Pfizer on Monday announced interim phase 3 data that was widely viewed as promising. Pfizer said the vaccine appeared to be 90% effective in preventing COVID-19 in trial volunteers who were without evidence of prior infection of the virus.

In a press release, Pfizer said it plans to ask the Food and Drug Administration to consider a special clearance, known as an emergency-use authorization, “soon after” a safety milestone is achieved in its vaccine trial. That milestone could be reached this month.

Moderna said it was on track to report early data from a late-stage trial of its experimental coronavirus vaccine later this month, and could file with the FDA for an emergency-use authorization in early December, according to a Reuters report.

The severity of the global pandemic has put the FDA under pressure to move quickly on approval of COVID-19 vaccines, based on limited data, while also working to make sure these products are safe. The creation of CPT codes for each of two coronavirus vaccines, as well as accompanying administration codes, will set up a way to keep tabs on each dose of each of these shots, the AMA said.

American Medical Association

“Correlating each coronavirus vaccine with its own unique CPT code provides analytical advantages to help track, allocate and optimize resources as an immunization program ramps up in the United States,” AMA President Susan R. Bailey, MD, said in the release.

AMA plans to introduce more vaccine-specific CPT codes as more vaccine candidates approach FDA review. These vaccine-specific CPT codes can go into effect only after the FDA grants a clearance.

The newly created Category I CPT codes and long descriptors for the vaccine products are:
 

• 91300; severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (coronavirus disease [COVID-19]) vaccine, mRNA-LNP, spike protein, preservative free, 30 mcg/0.3mL dosage, diluent reconstituted, for intramuscular use (Pfizer/BioNTech)
• 91301; severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (coronavirus disease [COVID-19]) vaccine, mRNA-LNP, spike protein, preservative free, 100 mcg/0.5mL dosage, for intramuscular use (Moderna)

These two administrative codes would apply to the Pfizer-BioNTech shot:

• 0001A; Immunization administration by intramuscular injection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (coronavirus disease [COVID-19]) vaccine, mRNA-LNP, spike protein, preservative free, 30 mcg/0.3 mL dosage, diluent reconstituted; first dose.
• 0002A; Immunization administration by intramuscular injection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (coronavirus disease [COVID-19]) vaccine, mRNA-LNP, spike protein, preservative free, 30 mcg/0.3 mL dosage, diluent reconstituted; second dose.

And these two administrative codes would apply to the Moderna shot:

• 0011A; Immunization administration by intramuscular injection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (coronavirus disease [COVID-19]) vaccine, mRNA-LNP, spike protein, preservative free, 100 mcg/0.5 mL dosage; first dose.
• 0012A; Immunization administration by intramuscular injection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (coronavirus disease [COVID-19]) vaccine, mRNA-LNP, spike protein, preservative free, 100 mcg/0.5 mL dosage; second dose.

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

The largest U.S. physician organization on Tuesday took a step to prepare for future payments for administration of two leading COVID-19 vaccine candidates, publishing new billing codes tailored to track each use of these medications.

The American Medical Association updated its CPT code set to reflect the expected future availability of COVID-19 vaccines. The new codes apply to the experimental vaccine being developed by Pfizer, in collaboration with a smaller German firm BioNTech, and to the similar product expected from Moderna, according to an AMA press release.

Positive news has emerged this week about both of these vaccines, which were developed using a newer – and as yet unproven – approach. They seek to use messenger RNA to instruct cells to produce a target protein for SARS-CoV-2.

New York–based Pfizer on Monday announced interim phase 3 data that was widely viewed as promising. Pfizer said the vaccine appeared to be 90% effective in preventing COVID-19 in trial volunteers who were without evidence of prior infection of the virus.

In a press release, Pfizer said it plans to ask the Food and Drug Administration to consider a special clearance, known as an emergency-use authorization, “soon after” a safety milestone is achieved in its vaccine trial. That milestone could be reached this month.

Moderna said it was on track to report early data from a late-stage trial of its experimental coronavirus vaccine later this month, and could file with the FDA for an emergency-use authorization in early December, according to a Reuters report.

The severity of the global pandemic has put the FDA under pressure to move quickly on approval of COVID-19 vaccines, based on limited data, while also working to make sure these products are safe. The creation of CPT codes for each of two coronavirus vaccines, as well as accompanying administration codes, will set up a way to keep tabs on each dose of each of these shots, the AMA said.

American Medical Association

“Correlating each coronavirus vaccine with its own unique CPT code provides analytical advantages to help track, allocate and optimize resources as an immunization program ramps up in the United States,” AMA President Susan R. Bailey, MD, said in the release.

AMA plans to introduce more vaccine-specific CPT codes as more vaccine candidates approach FDA review. These vaccine-specific CPT codes can go into effect only after the FDA grants a clearance.

The newly created Category I CPT codes and long descriptors for the vaccine products are:
 

• 91300; severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (coronavirus disease [COVID-19]) vaccine, mRNA-LNP, spike protein, preservative free, 30 mcg/0.3mL dosage, diluent reconstituted, for intramuscular use (Pfizer/BioNTech)
• 91301; severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (coronavirus disease [COVID-19]) vaccine, mRNA-LNP, spike protein, preservative free, 100 mcg/0.5mL dosage, for intramuscular use (Moderna)

These two administrative codes would apply to the Pfizer-BioNTech shot:

• 0001A; Immunization administration by intramuscular injection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (coronavirus disease [COVID-19]) vaccine, mRNA-LNP, spike protein, preservative free, 30 mcg/0.3 mL dosage, diluent reconstituted; first dose.
• 0002A; Immunization administration by intramuscular injection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (coronavirus disease [COVID-19]) vaccine, mRNA-LNP, spike protein, preservative free, 30 mcg/0.3 mL dosage, diluent reconstituted; second dose.

And these two administrative codes would apply to the Moderna shot:

• 0011A; Immunization administration by intramuscular injection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (coronavirus disease [COVID-19]) vaccine, mRNA-LNP, spike protein, preservative free, 100 mcg/0.5 mL dosage; first dose.
• 0012A; Immunization administration by intramuscular injection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (coronavirus disease [COVID-19]) vaccine, mRNA-LNP, spike protein, preservative free, 100 mcg/0.5 mL dosage; second dose.

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

The largest U.S. physician organization on Tuesday took a step to prepare for future payments for administration of two leading COVID-19 vaccine candidates, publishing new billing codes tailored to track each use of these medications.

The American Medical Association updated its CPT code set to reflect the expected future availability of COVID-19 vaccines. The new codes apply to the experimental vaccine being developed by Pfizer, in collaboration with a smaller German firm BioNTech, and to the similar product expected from Moderna, according to an AMA press release.

Positive news has emerged this week about both of these vaccines, which were developed using a newer – and as yet unproven – approach. They seek to use messenger RNA to instruct cells to produce a target protein for SARS-CoV-2.

New York–based Pfizer on Monday announced interim phase 3 data that was widely viewed as promising. Pfizer said the vaccine appeared to be 90% effective in preventing COVID-19 in trial volunteers who were without evidence of prior infection of the virus.

In a press release, Pfizer said it plans to ask the Food and Drug Administration to consider a special clearance, known as an emergency-use authorization, “soon after” a safety milestone is achieved in its vaccine trial. That milestone could be reached this month.

Moderna said it was on track to report early data from a late-stage trial of its experimental coronavirus vaccine later this month, and could file with the FDA for an emergency-use authorization in early December, according to a Reuters report.

The severity of the global pandemic has put the FDA under pressure to move quickly on approval of COVID-19 vaccines, based on limited data, while also working to make sure these products are safe. The creation of CPT codes for each of two coronavirus vaccines, as well as accompanying administration codes, will set up a way to keep tabs on each dose of each of these shots, the AMA said.

American Medical Association

“Correlating each coronavirus vaccine with its own unique CPT code provides analytical advantages to help track, allocate and optimize resources as an immunization program ramps up in the United States,” AMA President Susan R. Bailey, MD, said in the release.

AMA plans to introduce more vaccine-specific CPT codes as more vaccine candidates approach FDA review. These vaccine-specific CPT codes can go into effect only after the FDA grants a clearance.

The newly created Category I CPT codes and long descriptors for the vaccine products are:
 

• 91300; severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (coronavirus disease [COVID-19]) vaccine, mRNA-LNP, spike protein, preservative free, 30 mcg/0.3mL dosage, diluent reconstituted, for intramuscular use (Pfizer/BioNTech)
• 91301; severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (coronavirus disease [COVID-19]) vaccine, mRNA-LNP, spike protein, preservative free, 100 mcg/0.5mL dosage, for intramuscular use (Moderna)

These two administrative codes would apply to the Pfizer-BioNTech shot:

• 0001A; Immunization administration by intramuscular injection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (coronavirus disease [COVID-19]) vaccine, mRNA-LNP, spike protein, preservative free, 30 mcg/0.3 mL dosage, diluent reconstituted; first dose.
• 0002A; Immunization administration by intramuscular injection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (coronavirus disease [COVID-19]) vaccine, mRNA-LNP, spike protein, preservative free, 30 mcg/0.3 mL dosage, diluent reconstituted; second dose.

And these two administrative codes would apply to the Moderna shot:

• 0011A; Immunization administration by intramuscular injection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (coronavirus disease [COVID-19]) vaccine, mRNA-LNP, spike protein, preservative free, 100 mcg/0.5 mL dosage; first dose.
• 0012A; Immunization administration by intramuscular injection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (coronavirus disease [COVID-19]) vaccine, mRNA-LNP, spike protein, preservative free, 100 mcg/0.5 mL dosage; second dose.

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

After a 50-year hiatus, psychedelic drugs are undergoing a research renaissance. Roland R. Griffiths, PhD, professor in the Departments of Psychiatry and Neuroscience and the Oliver Lee McCabe III, Professor in the Neuropsychopharmacology of Consciousness, and director of the Center for Psychedelic and Consciousness Research at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, discusses the status of these drugs in the United States and their potential to treat psychiatric disorders.

Classic psychedelics are compounds that bind to the 5-hydroxytryptamine 2A (5-HT2A) receptor and include the naturally occurring compounds psilocybin, N,N-dimethyltryptamine (DMT, a component of ayahuasca) and mescaline (peyote cactus), as well as the synthesized compound lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD).

Other drugs, such as ketamine, are sometimes referred to as “psychedelics” because they can produce subjective experiences that are similar to those of people who receive classic psychedelics. However, unlike classic psychedelics, the effects of ketamine tend to be short lived. Ketamine also has addictive potential and can be lethal in high doses, which is not the case with psilocybin.

Another compound sometimes referred to as a “psychedelic” is 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), also known as “ecstasy.” The Food and Drug Administration granted breakthrough approval for the study of MDMA for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). FDA-approved registration trials are ongoing. MDMA differs from classic psychedelics in risk profile and pharmacology. In particular, MDMA was widely abused as part of the “rave culture,” while classic psychedelic agents do not lend themselves to that type of misuse.
 

What is the current legal status of psychedelic agents in the United States? Can clinicians prescribe them, or are they available only in a research setting?

All classic psychedelics are considered to be “Schedule 1” which means they are illegal to possess and use except for research and only if approved by the FDA and under licensure of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), so they are not available for clinical use.

In anticipation of the possibility that phase 3 research may support the efficacy and safety of psilocybin for one or more medical or mental health disorders, our team has reviewed available evidence regarding its abuse liability and concluded that, if psilocybin were approved as medication, it could possibly be included in the Schedule IV category, with additional FDA-mandated risk management provisions. However, this is not yet the case.
 

Which psychedelic agents are under investigation in the United States, and for which indications?

Psilocybin is under investigation in our center, as well as elsewhere in the United States. We have previously found it to be effective for smoking cessation, and we are conducting another study that is currently recruiting volunteers for this indication. We are also recruiting volunteers for studies on the use of psilocybin for major depression, Alzheimer’s disease, and anorexia nervosa. Further information about our studies can be found on the Web site for our center, the Center for Psychedelic and Consciousness Research.

Two companies – the Usona Institute and COMPASS Pathways – have received FDA Breakthrough Therapy Designation for their programs seeking approval of psilocybin as a treatment major depressive disorder and treatment-resistant depression (TRD), respectively. In addition, an international multicenter study currently underway, which includes US centers in Houston, Baltimore, New York, San Diego, and Atlanta, is investigating psilocybin for TRD.

A number of studies, including one conducted at our center, have investigated psilocybin for depression and anxiety in patients with cancer and found it effective.

Additional research showed that psilocybin alleviated symptoms of cancer-related anxiety and depression, both in the short-term and 5 years later.

LSD has been studied and found promising in the treatment of alcohol use disorder. Additional studies of LSD that are being conducted in Basel Switzerland and at the University of Chicago are examining its impact on mood in healthy volunteers.

Ayahuasca has been studied extensively for depression and anxiety and is also currently under investigation for PTSD. We found that its use in a naturalistic group setting was associated with unintended improvements in depression and anxiety.

Lastly, a lesser-known psychedelic agent is Salvinorin A, which our center has been studying, is the psychoactive constituent of the Salvia divinorum plant. While this is not a “classic” psychedelic compound, it is nevertheless the focus of much scientific interest because its effects are mediated at opioid receptors, rather than 5-HT2A receptors, and may prove to be a novel nonaddictive opioid that may ultimately be a promising treatment for pain and addiction.
 

What is the typical treatment regimen for psychedelic agents?

It is hard to speak of a “treatment regimen” in agents that are not used in clinical practice. Ongoing clinical trials with psilocybin generally involve one or two 6- to 8-hour sessions involving the oral administration of a moderately high dose under psychologically supported conditions.

Based on the current evidence base, which agents show the most promise?

Psilocybin is currently the most promising classic psychedelic undergoing clinical trials.

Do psychedelics have to be administered in a controlled setting in order to be effective?

Although many people have had meaningful experiences whether inside or outside of a controlled setting, there are serious potential risks associated with use of psilocybin and other classic psychedelics. The safety of psilocybin has been established in clinical studies in which participants have been carefully screened physically and psychologically, are psychologically prepared before their first session, and are psychologically supported during and after sessions. In vulnerable individuals, psilocybin has been associated with enduring psychiatric problems and sometimes persisting visual perceptual conditions. When taken in uncontrolled conditions, classic psychedelics can produce confusion and disorientation resulting in behavior dangerous to the participant and others – including life-threatening risk. Thus, for safety reasons, the optimal environment for using these agents is in a controlled setting.

Do results differ between patients who have used psychedelic agents previously and those who have not?

We have not found any difference between psychedelic-naive volunteers and those who have used psychedelics in the past.

Do you provide patient education prior to treatment initiation?

All of our study participants are thoroughly screened for medical concerns or mental health history such as psychosis, which would preclude their participation. They are educated about the effects of these agents and what they might expect and typically receive several hours of psychological preparation before the first session. They are also provided with psychological support after sessions. Additionally, we spend time developing trust and rapport prior to the first session.

How durable are the effects of psychedelic treatment?

Studies in patients and healthy participants suggest that the positive effects of psilocybin are long lasting, with most individuals reporting positive changes in moods, attitudes, and behavior that they attribute to psilocybin and which endure months or years after the session. The qualities of the acute session experience can vary widely ranging from experiences of transcendence or psychological insight to experiences of intense anxiety or fear.

An enduring shift in worldview and sense of self, as well as psychological insight, may increase psychological flexibility, thereby allowing individuals to subsequently avoid maladaptive patterns of behavior or thought and to make more healthy choices.

Our research has shown that the benefits of these experiences can last as long as 14 months, often longer, and that many participants characterize their psilocybin experience as among the most profound and personally meaningful experience of their lives.
 

Do participants experience any adverse effects? If so, how are they managed?

Sometimes, despite all the preparation, screening, and support we provide, some participants can have frightening experiences, such as fear and anxiety during the session. When that occurs, it is often shorted lived. The psychological preparation we provide before the session and the psychological support we provide during the session are important for managing such effects.

We provide support and encourage participants to stay with that experience, which may open to experiences of deep meaning or insight. A number of people report that these psychologically challenging states are a valuable part of the overall experience.

We conducted a survey of roughly 2,000 people who took high doses of psilocybin mushrooms and then had a challenging experience. About 10% reported they put themselves or others at risk of physical harm. Of more concern, of those whose experience occurred more than 1 year before, 8% sought treatment for enduring psychological symptoms. These findings underscore potential risks of psilocybin use but do not provide an estimate of the actual incidence of such effects.

Importantly, in our research at Johns Hopkins, we have not observed such effects in over 700 sessions that we have conducted with almost 400 participants, likely because we thoroughly screen and prepare participants and support them after they have completed the study. The potential for serious lasting harm represents a concern and points to the importance of adequate screening and aftercare.
 

What are the implications for future therapeutics?

We are living in exciting times, in terms of psychedelic research. The potential for a single treatment with a classic psychedelic to produce rapid and sustained therapeutic effects, possibly across a range of psychiatric conditions, is unprecedented in psychiatry. The effect appears to be an “inverse PTSD effect.”

In PTSD, a single exposure to a traumatic event can rewire the nervous system to the point that it produces enduring harm and toxicity. In the case of psychedelics, a single exposure appears to have enduring positive effects in worldview, mood, attitude, behavior, and overall life satisfaction. We can look forward to continued growth and expansion of this research including the refinement of protocols for a variety of therapeutic indications and to the development of a variety of new classic psychedelic compounds.
 

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

After a 50-year hiatus, psychedelic drugs are undergoing a research renaissance. Roland R. Griffiths, PhD, professor in the Departments of Psychiatry and Neuroscience and the Oliver Lee McCabe III, Professor in the Neuropsychopharmacology of Consciousness, and director of the Center for Psychedelic and Consciousness Research at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, discusses the status of these drugs in the United States and their potential to treat psychiatric disorders.

Classic psychedelics are compounds that bind to the 5-hydroxytryptamine 2A (5-HT2A) receptor and include the naturally occurring compounds psilocybin, N,N-dimethyltryptamine (DMT, a component of ayahuasca) and mescaline (peyote cactus), as well as the synthesized compound lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD).

Other drugs, such as ketamine, are sometimes referred to as “psychedelics” because they can produce subjective experiences that are similar to those of people who receive classic psychedelics. However, unlike classic psychedelics, the effects of ketamine tend to be short lived. Ketamine also has addictive potential and can be lethal in high doses, which is not the case with psilocybin.

Another compound sometimes referred to as a “psychedelic” is 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), also known as “ecstasy.” The Food and Drug Administration granted breakthrough approval for the study of MDMA for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). FDA-approved registration trials are ongoing. MDMA differs from classic psychedelics in risk profile and pharmacology. In particular, MDMA was widely abused as part of the “rave culture,” while classic psychedelic agents do not lend themselves to that type of misuse.
 

What is the current legal status of psychedelic agents in the United States? Can clinicians prescribe them, or are they available only in a research setting?

All classic psychedelics are considered to be “Schedule 1” which means they are illegal to possess and use except for research and only if approved by the FDA and under licensure of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), so they are not available for clinical use.

In anticipation of the possibility that phase 3 research may support the efficacy and safety of psilocybin for one or more medical or mental health disorders, our team has reviewed available evidence regarding its abuse liability and concluded that, if psilocybin were approved as medication, it could possibly be included in the Schedule IV category, with additional FDA-mandated risk management provisions. However, this is not yet the case.
 

Which psychedelic agents are under investigation in the United States, and for which indications?

Psilocybin is under investigation in our center, as well as elsewhere in the United States. We have previously found it to be effective for smoking cessation, and we are conducting another study that is currently recruiting volunteers for this indication. We are also recruiting volunteers for studies on the use of psilocybin for major depression, Alzheimer’s disease, and anorexia nervosa. Further information about our studies can be found on the Web site for our center, the Center for Psychedelic and Consciousness Research.

Two companies – the Usona Institute and COMPASS Pathways – have received FDA Breakthrough Therapy Designation for their programs seeking approval of psilocybin as a treatment major depressive disorder and treatment-resistant depression (TRD), respectively. In addition, an international multicenter study currently underway, which includes US centers in Houston, Baltimore, New York, San Diego, and Atlanta, is investigating psilocybin for TRD.

A number of studies, including one conducted at our center, have investigated psilocybin for depression and anxiety in patients with cancer and found it effective.

Additional research showed that psilocybin alleviated symptoms of cancer-related anxiety and depression, both in the short-term and 5 years later.

LSD has been studied and found promising in the treatment of alcohol use disorder. Additional studies of LSD that are being conducted in Basel Switzerland and at the University of Chicago are examining its impact on mood in healthy volunteers.

Ayahuasca has been studied extensively for depression and anxiety and is also currently under investigation for PTSD. We found that its use in a naturalistic group setting was associated with unintended improvements in depression and anxiety.

Lastly, a lesser-known psychedelic agent is Salvinorin A, which our center has been studying, is the psychoactive constituent of the Salvia divinorum plant. While this is not a “classic” psychedelic compound, it is nevertheless the focus of much scientific interest because its effects are mediated at opioid receptors, rather than 5-HT2A receptors, and may prove to be a novel nonaddictive opioid that may ultimately be a promising treatment for pain and addiction.
 

What is the typical treatment regimen for psychedelic agents?

It is hard to speak of a “treatment regimen” in agents that are not used in clinical practice. Ongoing clinical trials with psilocybin generally involve one or two 6- to 8-hour sessions involving the oral administration of a moderately high dose under psychologically supported conditions.

Based on the current evidence base, which agents show the most promise?

Psilocybin is currently the most promising classic psychedelic undergoing clinical trials.

Do psychedelics have to be administered in a controlled setting in order to be effective?

Although many people have had meaningful experiences whether inside or outside of a controlled setting, there are serious potential risks associated with use of psilocybin and other classic psychedelics. The safety of psilocybin has been established in clinical studies in which participants have been carefully screened physically and psychologically, are psychologically prepared before their first session, and are psychologically supported during and after sessions. In vulnerable individuals, psilocybin has been associated with enduring psychiatric problems and sometimes persisting visual perceptual conditions. When taken in uncontrolled conditions, classic psychedelics can produce confusion and disorientation resulting in behavior dangerous to the participant and others – including life-threatening risk. Thus, for safety reasons, the optimal environment for using these agents is in a controlled setting.

Do results differ between patients who have used psychedelic agents previously and those who have not?

We have not found any difference between psychedelic-naive volunteers and those who have used psychedelics in the past.

Do you provide patient education prior to treatment initiation?

All of our study participants are thoroughly screened for medical concerns or mental health history such as psychosis, which would preclude their participation. They are educated about the effects of these agents and what they might expect and typically receive several hours of psychological preparation before the first session. They are also provided with psychological support after sessions. Additionally, we spend time developing trust and rapport prior to the first session.

How durable are the effects of psychedelic treatment?

Studies in patients and healthy participants suggest that the positive effects of psilocybin are long lasting, with most individuals reporting positive changes in moods, attitudes, and behavior that they attribute to psilocybin and which endure months or years after the session. The qualities of the acute session experience can vary widely ranging from experiences of transcendence or psychological insight to experiences of intense anxiety or fear.

An enduring shift in worldview and sense of self, as well as psychological insight, may increase psychological flexibility, thereby allowing individuals to subsequently avoid maladaptive patterns of behavior or thought and to make more healthy choices.

Our research has shown that the benefits of these experiences can last as long as 14 months, often longer, and that many participants characterize their psilocybin experience as among the most profound and personally meaningful experience of their lives.
 

Do participants experience any adverse effects? If so, how are they managed?

Sometimes, despite all the preparation, screening, and support we provide, some participants can have frightening experiences, such as fear and anxiety during the session. When that occurs, it is often shorted lived. The psychological preparation we provide before the session and the psychological support we provide during the session are important for managing such effects.

We provide support and encourage participants to stay with that experience, which may open to experiences of deep meaning or insight. A number of people report that these psychologically challenging states are a valuable part of the overall experience.

We conducted a survey of roughly 2,000 people who took high doses of psilocybin mushrooms and then had a challenging experience. About 10% reported they put themselves or others at risk of physical harm. Of more concern, of those whose experience occurred more than 1 year before, 8% sought treatment for enduring psychological symptoms. These findings underscore potential risks of psilocybin use but do not provide an estimate of the actual incidence of such effects.

Importantly, in our research at Johns Hopkins, we have not observed such effects in over 700 sessions that we have conducted with almost 400 participants, likely because we thoroughly screen and prepare participants and support them after they have completed the study. The potential for serious lasting harm represents a concern and points to the importance of adequate screening and aftercare.
 

What are the implications for future therapeutics?

We are living in exciting times, in terms of psychedelic research. The potential for a single treatment with a classic psychedelic to produce rapid and sustained therapeutic effects, possibly across a range of psychiatric conditions, is unprecedented in psychiatry. The effect appears to be an “inverse PTSD effect.”

In PTSD, a single exposure to a traumatic event can rewire the nervous system to the point that it produces enduring harm and toxicity. In the case of psychedelics, a single exposure appears to have enduring positive effects in worldview, mood, attitude, behavior, and overall life satisfaction. We can look forward to continued growth and expansion of this research including the refinement of protocols for a variety of therapeutic indications and to the development of a variety of new classic psychedelic compounds.
 

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

After a 50-year hiatus, psychedelic drugs are undergoing a research renaissance. Roland R. Griffiths, PhD, professor in the Departments of Psychiatry and Neuroscience and the Oliver Lee McCabe III, Professor in the Neuropsychopharmacology of Consciousness, and director of the Center for Psychedelic and Consciousness Research at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, discusses the status of these drugs in the United States and their potential to treat psychiatric disorders.

Classic psychedelics are compounds that bind to the 5-hydroxytryptamine 2A (5-HT2A) receptor and include the naturally occurring compounds psilocybin, N,N-dimethyltryptamine (DMT, a component of ayahuasca) and mescaline (peyote cactus), as well as the synthesized compound lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD).

Other drugs, such as ketamine, are sometimes referred to as “psychedelics” because they can produce subjective experiences that are similar to those of people who receive classic psychedelics. However, unlike classic psychedelics, the effects of ketamine tend to be short lived. Ketamine also has addictive potential and can be lethal in high doses, which is not the case with psilocybin.

Another compound sometimes referred to as a “psychedelic” is 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), also known as “ecstasy.” The Food and Drug Administration granted breakthrough approval for the study of MDMA for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). FDA-approved registration trials are ongoing. MDMA differs from classic psychedelics in risk profile and pharmacology. In particular, MDMA was widely abused as part of the “rave culture,” while classic psychedelic agents do not lend themselves to that type of misuse.
 

What is the current legal status of psychedelic agents in the United States? Can clinicians prescribe them, or are they available only in a research setting?

All classic psychedelics are considered to be “Schedule 1” which means they are illegal to possess and use except for research and only if approved by the FDA and under licensure of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), so they are not available for clinical use.

In anticipation of the possibility that phase 3 research may support the efficacy and safety of psilocybin for one or more medical or mental health disorders, our team has reviewed available evidence regarding its abuse liability and concluded that, if psilocybin were approved as medication, it could possibly be included in the Schedule IV category, with additional FDA-mandated risk management provisions. However, this is not yet the case.
 

Which psychedelic agents are under investigation in the United States, and for which indications?

Psilocybin is under investigation in our center, as well as elsewhere in the United States. We have previously found it to be effective for smoking cessation, and we are conducting another study that is currently recruiting volunteers for this indication. We are also recruiting volunteers for studies on the use of psilocybin for major depression, Alzheimer’s disease, and anorexia nervosa. Further information about our studies can be found on the Web site for our center, the Center for Psychedelic and Consciousness Research.

Two companies – the Usona Institute and COMPASS Pathways – have received FDA Breakthrough Therapy Designation for their programs seeking approval of psilocybin as a treatment major depressive disorder and treatment-resistant depression (TRD), respectively. In addition, an international multicenter study currently underway, which includes US centers in Houston, Baltimore, New York, San Diego, and Atlanta, is investigating psilocybin for TRD.

A number of studies, including one conducted at our center, have investigated psilocybin for depression and anxiety in patients with cancer and found it effective.

Additional research showed that psilocybin alleviated symptoms of cancer-related anxiety and depression, both in the short-term and 5 years later.

LSD has been studied and found promising in the treatment of alcohol use disorder. Additional studies of LSD that are being conducted in Basel Switzerland and at the University of Chicago are examining its impact on mood in healthy volunteers.

Ayahuasca has been studied extensively for depression and anxiety and is also currently under investigation for PTSD. We found that its use in a naturalistic group setting was associated with unintended improvements in depression and anxiety.

Lastly, a lesser-known psychedelic agent is Salvinorin A, which our center has been studying, is the psychoactive constituent of the Salvia divinorum plant. While this is not a “classic” psychedelic compound, it is nevertheless the focus of much scientific interest because its effects are mediated at opioid receptors, rather than 5-HT2A receptors, and may prove to be a novel nonaddictive opioid that may ultimately be a promising treatment for pain and addiction.
 

What is the typical treatment regimen for psychedelic agents?

It is hard to speak of a “treatment regimen” in agents that are not used in clinical practice. Ongoing clinical trials with psilocybin generally involve one or two 6- to 8-hour sessions involving the oral administration of a moderately high dose under psychologically supported conditions.

Based on the current evidence base, which agents show the most promise?

Psilocybin is currently the most promising classic psychedelic undergoing clinical trials.

Do psychedelics have to be administered in a controlled setting in order to be effective?

Although many people have had meaningful experiences whether inside or outside of a controlled setting, there are serious potential risks associated with use of psilocybin and other classic psychedelics. The safety of psilocybin has been established in clinical studies in which participants have been carefully screened physically and psychologically, are psychologically prepared before their first session, and are psychologically supported during and after sessions. In vulnerable individuals, psilocybin has been associated with enduring psychiatric problems and sometimes persisting visual perceptual conditions. When taken in uncontrolled conditions, classic psychedelics can produce confusion and disorientation resulting in behavior dangerous to the participant and others – including life-threatening risk. Thus, for safety reasons, the optimal environment for using these agents is in a controlled setting.

Do results differ between patients who have used psychedelic agents previously and those who have not?

We have not found any difference between psychedelic-naive volunteers and those who have used psychedelics in the past.

Do you provide patient education prior to treatment initiation?

All of our study participants are thoroughly screened for medical concerns or mental health history such as psychosis, which would preclude their participation. They are educated about the effects of these agents and what they might expect and typically receive several hours of psychological preparation before the first session. They are also provided with psychological support after sessions. Additionally, we spend time developing trust and rapport prior to the first session.

How durable are the effects of psychedelic treatment?

Studies in patients and healthy participants suggest that the positive effects of psilocybin are long lasting, with most individuals reporting positive changes in moods, attitudes, and behavior that they attribute to psilocybin and which endure months or years after the session. The qualities of the acute session experience can vary widely ranging from experiences of transcendence or psychological insight to experiences of intense anxiety or fear.

An enduring shift in worldview and sense of self, as well as psychological insight, may increase psychological flexibility, thereby allowing individuals to subsequently avoid maladaptive patterns of behavior or thought and to make more healthy choices.

Our research has shown that the benefits of these experiences can last as long as 14 months, often longer, and that many participants characterize their psilocybin experience as among the most profound and personally meaningful experience of their lives.
 

Do participants experience any adverse effects? If so, how are they managed?

Sometimes, despite all the preparation, screening, and support we provide, some participants can have frightening experiences, such as fear and anxiety during the session. When that occurs, it is often shorted lived. The psychological preparation we provide before the session and the psychological support we provide during the session are important for managing such effects.

We provide support and encourage participants to stay with that experience, which may open to experiences of deep meaning or insight. A number of people report that these psychologically challenging states are a valuable part of the overall experience.

We conducted a survey of roughly 2,000 people who took high doses of psilocybin mushrooms and then had a challenging experience. About 10% reported they put themselves or others at risk of physical harm. Of more concern, of those whose experience occurred more than 1 year before, 8% sought treatment for enduring psychological symptoms. These findings underscore potential risks of psilocybin use but do not provide an estimate of the actual incidence of such effects.

Importantly, in our research at Johns Hopkins, we have not observed such effects in over 700 sessions that we have conducted with almost 400 participants, likely because we thoroughly screen and prepare participants and support them after they have completed the study. The potential for serious lasting harm represents a concern and points to the importance of adequate screening and aftercare.
 

What are the implications for future therapeutics?

We are living in exciting times, in terms of psychedelic research. The potential for a single treatment with a classic psychedelic to produce rapid and sustained therapeutic effects, possibly across a range of psychiatric conditions, is unprecedented in psychiatry. The effect appears to be an “inverse PTSD effect.”

In PTSD, a single exposure to a traumatic event can rewire the nervous system to the point that it produces enduring harm and toxicity. In the case of psychedelics, a single exposure appears to have enduring positive effects in worldview, mood, attitude, behavior, and overall life satisfaction. We can look forward to continued growth and expansion of this research including the refinement of protocols for a variety of therapeutic indications and to the development of a variety of new classic psychedelic compounds.
 

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

Late-onset epilepsy is linked to a substantial increased risk of subsequent dementia. Results of a retrospective analysis show that patients who develop epilepsy at age 67 or older have a threefold increased risk of subsequent dementia versus their counterparts without epilepsy.

“This is an exciting area, as we are finding that just as the risk of seizures is increased in neurodegenerative diseases, the risk of dementia is increased after late-onset epilepsy and seizures,” study investigator Emily L. Johnson, MD, assistant professor of neurology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview. “Several other cohort studies are finding similar results, including the Veterans’ Health Study and the Framingham Study,” she added.

The study was published online Oct. 23 in Neurology
 

Bidirectional relationship?

Previous research has established that dementia is a risk factor for epilepsy, but recent studies also suggest an increased risk of incident dementia among patients with adult-onset epilepsy. Several risk factors for late-onset epilepsy, including diabetes and hypertension, also are risk factors for dementia. However, the effect of late-onset epilepsy on dementia risk in patients with these comorbidities has not been clarified.

To investigate, the researchers examined data from the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study. Participants include Black and White men and women from four U.S. communities. Baseline visits in this longitudinal cohort study began between 1987 and 1989, and follow-up included seven additional visits and regular phone calls.

The investigators identified participants with late-onset epilepsy by searching for Medicare claims related to seizures or epilepsy filed between 1991 and 2015. Those with two or more such claims and age of onset of 67 years or greater were considered to have late-onset epilepsy. Participants with preexisting conditions such as brain tumors or multiple sclerosis were excluded.

ARIC participants who presented in person for visits 2, 4, 5, and 6 underwent cognitive testing with the Delayed Word Recall Test, the Digit Symbol Substitution Test, and the Word Fluency Test.

Testing at visits 5 and 6 also included other tests, such as the Mini-Mental State Examination, the Boston Naming test, and the Wechsler Memory Scale-III. Dr. Johnson and colleagues excluded data for visit 7 from the analysis because dementia adjudication was not yet complete.

The researchers identified participants with dementia using data from visits 5 and 6 and ascertained time of dementia onset through participant and informant interviews, phone calls, and hospital discharge data. Participants also were screened for mild cognitive impairment (MCI) at visits 5 and 6.

Data were analyzed using a Cox proportional hazards model and multinomial logistic regression. In subsequent analyses, researchers adjusted the data for age, sex, race, smoking status, alcohol use, hypertension, diabetes, body mass index (BMI), APOE4 status, and prevalent stroke.

The researchers found that of 9,033 study participants, 671 had late-onset epilepsy. The late-onset epilepsy group was older at baseline (56.5 vs. 55.1 years) and more likely to have hypertension (38.9% vs. 33.3%), diabetes (16.1% vs. 9.6%), and two alleles of APOE4 genotype (3.9% vs. 2.5%), compared with those without the disorder.

In all, 1,687 participants developed dementia during follow-up. The rate of incident dementia was 41.6% in participants with late-onset epilepsy and 16.8% in participants without late-onset epilepsy. The adjusted hazard ratio of subsequent dementia in participants with late-onset epilepsy versus those without the disorder was 3.05 (95% confidence interval, 2.65-3.51).

The median time to dementia ascertainment after late-onset epilepsy was 3.66 years.
 

Counterintuitive finding

The relationship between late-onset epilepsy and subsequent dementia was stronger in patients without stroke. The investigators offered a possible explanation for this counterintuitive finding. “We observed an interaction between [late-onset epilepsy] and stroke, with a lower (but still substantial) association between [late-onset epilepsy] and dementia in those with a history of stroke. This may be due to the known strong association between stroke and dementia, which may wash out the contributions of [late-onset epilepsy] to cognitive impairment,” the researchers wrote.

“There may also be under-capturing of dementia diagnoses among participants with stroke in the ascertainment from [Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] codes, as physicians may be reluctant to make a separate code for ‘dementia’ in those with cognitive impairment after stroke,” they added.

When the researchers restricted the analysis only to participants who attended visits 5 and 6 and had late-onset epilepsy ascertainment available, they found that the relative risk ratio for dementia at visit 6 was 2.90 (95% CI, 1.22-6.92; P = .009). The RRR for MCI was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.39-2.38; P = .803). The greater functional impairment in patients with late-onset epilepsy may explain the lack of a relationship between late-onset epilepsy and MCI.

“It will be important for neurologists to be aware of the possibility of cognitive impairment following late-onset epilepsy and to check in with patients and family members to see if there are concerns,” said Dr. Johnson.

“We should also be talking about the importance of lowering other risk factors for dementia by making sure cardiovascular risk factors are controlled and encouraging physical and cognitive activity,” she added.

The results require confirmation in a clinical population, the investigators noted. In addition, future research is necessary to clarify whether seizures directly increase the risk of dementia or whether shared neuropathology between epilepsy and dementia explains the risk.

“In the near future, I plan to enroll participants with late-onset epilepsy in an observational study to better understand factors that may contribute to cognitive change. Collaborations will be key as we seek to further understand what causes these changes and what could be done to prevent them,” Dr. Johnson added.
 

Strengths and weaknesses

In an accompanying editorial, W. Allen Hauser, MD, professor emeritus of neurology and epidemiology at Columbia University in New York, and colleagues noted that the findings support a bidirectional relationship between dementia and epilepsy, adding that accumulation of amyloid beta peptide is a plausible underlying pathophysiology that may explain this relationship.

Future research should clarify the effect of factors such as seizure type, seizure frequency, and age of onset on the risk of dementia among patients with epilepsy, the editorialists wrote. Such investigations could help elucidate the underlying mechanisms of these conditions and help to improve treatment, they added.

Commenting on the findings, Ilo Leppik, MD, professor of neurology and pharmacy at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis described the research as “a very well-done study by qualified researchers in the field. … For the last century, medicine has unfortunately become compartmentalized by specialty and then subspecialty. The brain and disorders of the brain do not recognize these silos. … It is not a stretch of the known science to begin to understand that epilepsy and dementia have common anatomical and physiological underpinnings.”

The long period of prospectively gathering data and the measurement of cognitive function through various modalities are among the study’s great strengths, said Dr. Leppik. However, the study’s weakness is its reliance on Medicare claims data, which mainly would reflect convulsive seizures.

“What is missing is how many persons had subtle focal-unaware seizures that may not be identified unless a careful history is taken,” said Dr. Leppik. “Thus, this study likely underestimates the frequency of epilepsy.”

Neurologists who evaluate a person with early dementia should be on the lookout for a history of subtle seizures, said Dr. Leppik. Animal studies suggest treatment with levetiracetam or brivaracetam may slow the course of dementia, and a clinical study in participants with early dementia is underway.

“Treatment with an antiseizure drug may prove to be beneficial, especially if evidence for the presence of subtle epilepsy can be found,” Dr. Leppik added.

Greater collaboration between epileptologists and dementia specialists and larger studies of antiseizure drugs are necessary, he noted. “These studies can incorporate sophisticated structural and biochemical [analyses] to better identify the relationships between brain mechanisms that likely underlie both seizures and dementia. The ultimate promise is that early treatment of seizures may alter the course of dementia,” Dr. Leppik said.

The study by Dr. Johnson and colleagues was supported by a contract from the National Institute on Aging; ARIC from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the National Institutes of Health; and the Department of Health & Human Services. The authors and Dr. Leppik have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Late-onset epilepsy is linked to a substantial increased risk of subsequent dementia. Results of a retrospective analysis show that patients who develop epilepsy at age 67 or older have a threefold increased risk of subsequent dementia versus their counterparts without epilepsy.

“This is an exciting area, as we are finding that just as the risk of seizures is increased in neurodegenerative diseases, the risk of dementia is increased after late-onset epilepsy and seizures,” study investigator Emily L. Johnson, MD, assistant professor of neurology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview. “Several other cohort studies are finding similar results, including the Veterans’ Health Study and the Framingham Study,” she added.

The study was published online Oct. 23 in Neurology
 

Bidirectional relationship?

Previous research has established that dementia is a risk factor for epilepsy, but recent studies also suggest an increased risk of incident dementia among patients with adult-onset epilepsy. Several risk factors for late-onset epilepsy, including diabetes and hypertension, also are risk factors for dementia. However, the effect of late-onset epilepsy on dementia risk in patients with these comorbidities has not been clarified.

To investigate, the researchers examined data from the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study. Participants include Black and White men and women from four U.S. communities. Baseline visits in this longitudinal cohort study began between 1987 and 1989, and follow-up included seven additional visits and regular phone calls.

The investigators identified participants with late-onset epilepsy by searching for Medicare claims related to seizures or epilepsy filed between 1991 and 2015. Those with two or more such claims and age of onset of 67 years or greater were considered to have late-onset epilepsy. Participants with preexisting conditions such as brain tumors or multiple sclerosis were excluded.

ARIC participants who presented in person for visits 2, 4, 5, and 6 underwent cognitive testing with the Delayed Word Recall Test, the Digit Symbol Substitution Test, and the Word Fluency Test.

Testing at visits 5 and 6 also included other tests, such as the Mini-Mental State Examination, the Boston Naming test, and the Wechsler Memory Scale-III. Dr. Johnson and colleagues excluded data for visit 7 from the analysis because dementia adjudication was not yet complete.

The researchers identified participants with dementia using data from visits 5 and 6 and ascertained time of dementia onset through participant and informant interviews, phone calls, and hospital discharge data. Participants also were screened for mild cognitive impairment (MCI) at visits 5 and 6.

Data were analyzed using a Cox proportional hazards model and multinomial logistic regression. In subsequent analyses, researchers adjusted the data for age, sex, race, smoking status, alcohol use, hypertension, diabetes, body mass index (BMI), APOE4 status, and prevalent stroke.

The researchers found that of 9,033 study participants, 671 had late-onset epilepsy. The late-onset epilepsy group was older at baseline (56.5 vs. 55.1 years) and more likely to have hypertension (38.9% vs. 33.3%), diabetes (16.1% vs. 9.6%), and two alleles of APOE4 genotype (3.9% vs. 2.5%), compared with those without the disorder.

In all, 1,687 participants developed dementia during follow-up. The rate of incident dementia was 41.6% in participants with late-onset epilepsy and 16.8% in participants without late-onset epilepsy. The adjusted hazard ratio of subsequent dementia in participants with late-onset epilepsy versus those without the disorder was 3.05 (95% confidence interval, 2.65-3.51).

The median time to dementia ascertainment after late-onset epilepsy was 3.66 years.
 

Counterintuitive finding

The relationship between late-onset epilepsy and subsequent dementia was stronger in patients without stroke. The investigators offered a possible explanation for this counterintuitive finding. “We observed an interaction between [late-onset epilepsy] and stroke, with a lower (but still substantial) association between [late-onset epilepsy] and dementia in those with a history of stroke. This may be due to the known strong association between stroke and dementia, which may wash out the contributions of [late-onset epilepsy] to cognitive impairment,” the researchers wrote.

“There may also be under-capturing of dementia diagnoses among participants with stroke in the ascertainment from [Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] codes, as physicians may be reluctant to make a separate code for ‘dementia’ in those with cognitive impairment after stroke,” they added.

When the researchers restricted the analysis only to participants who attended visits 5 and 6 and had late-onset epilepsy ascertainment available, they found that the relative risk ratio for dementia at visit 6 was 2.90 (95% CI, 1.22-6.92; P = .009). The RRR for MCI was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.39-2.38; P = .803). The greater functional impairment in patients with late-onset epilepsy may explain the lack of a relationship between late-onset epilepsy and MCI.

“It will be important for neurologists to be aware of the possibility of cognitive impairment following late-onset epilepsy and to check in with patients and family members to see if there are concerns,” said Dr. Johnson.

“We should also be talking about the importance of lowering other risk factors for dementia by making sure cardiovascular risk factors are controlled and encouraging physical and cognitive activity,” she added.

The results require confirmation in a clinical population, the investigators noted. In addition, future research is necessary to clarify whether seizures directly increase the risk of dementia or whether shared neuropathology between epilepsy and dementia explains the risk.

“In the near future, I plan to enroll participants with late-onset epilepsy in an observational study to better understand factors that may contribute to cognitive change. Collaborations will be key as we seek to further understand what causes these changes and what could be done to prevent them,” Dr. Johnson added.
 

Strengths and weaknesses

In an accompanying editorial, W. Allen Hauser, MD, professor emeritus of neurology and epidemiology at Columbia University in New York, and colleagues noted that the findings support a bidirectional relationship between dementia and epilepsy, adding that accumulation of amyloid beta peptide is a plausible underlying pathophysiology that may explain this relationship.

Future research should clarify the effect of factors such as seizure type, seizure frequency, and age of onset on the risk of dementia among patients with epilepsy, the editorialists wrote. Such investigations could help elucidate the underlying mechanisms of these conditions and help to improve treatment, they added.

Commenting on the findings, Ilo Leppik, MD, professor of neurology and pharmacy at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis described the research as “a very well-done study by qualified researchers in the field. … For the last century, medicine has unfortunately become compartmentalized by specialty and then subspecialty. The brain and disorders of the brain do not recognize these silos. … It is not a stretch of the known science to begin to understand that epilepsy and dementia have common anatomical and physiological underpinnings.”

The long period of prospectively gathering data and the measurement of cognitive function through various modalities are among the study’s great strengths, said Dr. Leppik. However, the study’s weakness is its reliance on Medicare claims data, which mainly would reflect convulsive seizures.

“What is missing is how many persons had subtle focal-unaware seizures that may not be identified unless a careful history is taken,” said Dr. Leppik. “Thus, this study likely underestimates the frequency of epilepsy.”

Neurologists who evaluate a person with early dementia should be on the lookout for a history of subtle seizures, said Dr. Leppik. Animal studies suggest treatment with levetiracetam or brivaracetam may slow the course of dementia, and a clinical study in participants with early dementia is underway.

“Treatment with an antiseizure drug may prove to be beneficial, especially if evidence for the presence of subtle epilepsy can be found,” Dr. Leppik added.

Greater collaboration between epileptologists and dementia specialists and larger studies of antiseizure drugs are necessary, he noted. “These studies can incorporate sophisticated structural and biochemical [analyses] to better identify the relationships between brain mechanisms that likely underlie both seizures and dementia. The ultimate promise is that early treatment of seizures may alter the course of dementia,” Dr. Leppik said.

The study by Dr. Johnson and colleagues was supported by a contract from the National Institute on Aging; ARIC from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the National Institutes of Health; and the Department of Health & Human Services. The authors and Dr. Leppik have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Late-onset epilepsy is linked to a substantial increased risk of subsequent dementia. Results of a retrospective analysis show that patients who develop epilepsy at age 67 or older have a threefold increased risk of subsequent dementia versus their counterparts without epilepsy.

“This is an exciting area, as we are finding that just as the risk of seizures is increased in neurodegenerative diseases, the risk of dementia is increased after late-onset epilepsy and seizures,” study investigator Emily L. Johnson, MD, assistant professor of neurology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview. “Several other cohort studies are finding similar results, including the Veterans’ Health Study and the Framingham Study,” she added.

The study was published online Oct. 23 in Neurology
 

Bidirectional relationship?

Previous research has established that dementia is a risk factor for epilepsy, but recent studies also suggest an increased risk of incident dementia among patients with adult-onset epilepsy. Several risk factors for late-onset epilepsy, including diabetes and hypertension, also are risk factors for dementia. However, the effect of late-onset epilepsy on dementia risk in patients with these comorbidities has not been clarified.

To investigate, the researchers examined data from the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study. Participants include Black and White men and women from four U.S. communities. Baseline visits in this longitudinal cohort study began between 1987 and 1989, and follow-up included seven additional visits and regular phone calls.

The investigators identified participants with late-onset epilepsy by searching for Medicare claims related to seizures or epilepsy filed between 1991 and 2015. Those with two or more such claims and age of onset of 67 years or greater were considered to have late-onset epilepsy. Participants with preexisting conditions such as brain tumors or multiple sclerosis were excluded.

ARIC participants who presented in person for visits 2, 4, 5, and 6 underwent cognitive testing with the Delayed Word Recall Test, the Digit Symbol Substitution Test, and the Word Fluency Test.

Testing at visits 5 and 6 also included other tests, such as the Mini-Mental State Examination, the Boston Naming test, and the Wechsler Memory Scale-III. Dr. Johnson and colleagues excluded data for visit 7 from the analysis because dementia adjudication was not yet complete.

The researchers identified participants with dementia using data from visits 5 and 6 and ascertained time of dementia onset through participant and informant interviews, phone calls, and hospital discharge data. Participants also were screened for mild cognitive impairment (MCI) at visits 5 and 6.

Data were analyzed using a Cox proportional hazards model and multinomial logistic regression. In subsequent analyses, researchers adjusted the data for age, sex, race, smoking status, alcohol use, hypertension, diabetes, body mass index (BMI), APOE4 status, and prevalent stroke.

The researchers found that of 9,033 study participants, 671 had late-onset epilepsy. The late-onset epilepsy group was older at baseline (56.5 vs. 55.1 years) and more likely to have hypertension (38.9% vs. 33.3%), diabetes (16.1% vs. 9.6%), and two alleles of APOE4 genotype (3.9% vs. 2.5%), compared with those without the disorder.

In all, 1,687 participants developed dementia during follow-up. The rate of incident dementia was 41.6% in participants with late-onset epilepsy and 16.8% in participants without late-onset epilepsy. The adjusted hazard ratio of subsequent dementia in participants with late-onset epilepsy versus those without the disorder was 3.05 (95% confidence interval, 2.65-3.51).

The median time to dementia ascertainment after late-onset epilepsy was 3.66 years.
 

Counterintuitive finding

The relationship between late-onset epilepsy and subsequent dementia was stronger in patients without stroke. The investigators offered a possible explanation for this counterintuitive finding. “We observed an interaction between [late-onset epilepsy] and stroke, with a lower (but still substantial) association between [late-onset epilepsy] and dementia in those with a history of stroke. This may be due to the known strong association between stroke and dementia, which may wash out the contributions of [late-onset epilepsy] to cognitive impairment,” the researchers wrote.

“There may also be under-capturing of dementia diagnoses among participants with stroke in the ascertainment from [Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] codes, as physicians may be reluctant to make a separate code for ‘dementia’ in those with cognitive impairment after stroke,” they added.

When the researchers restricted the analysis only to participants who attended visits 5 and 6 and had late-onset epilepsy ascertainment available, they found that the relative risk ratio for dementia at visit 6 was 2.90 (95% CI, 1.22-6.92; P = .009). The RRR for MCI was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.39-2.38; P = .803). The greater functional impairment in patients with late-onset epilepsy may explain the lack of a relationship between late-onset epilepsy and MCI.

“It will be important for neurologists to be aware of the possibility of cognitive impairment following late-onset epilepsy and to check in with patients and family members to see if there are concerns,” said Dr. Johnson.

“We should also be talking about the importance of lowering other risk factors for dementia by making sure cardiovascular risk factors are controlled and encouraging physical and cognitive activity,” she added.

The results require confirmation in a clinical population, the investigators noted. In addition, future research is necessary to clarify whether seizures directly increase the risk of dementia or whether shared neuropathology between epilepsy and dementia explains the risk.

“In the near future, I plan to enroll participants with late-onset epilepsy in an observational study to better understand factors that may contribute to cognitive change. Collaborations will be key as we seek to further understand what causes these changes and what could be done to prevent them,” Dr. Johnson added.
 

Strengths and weaknesses

In an accompanying editorial, W. Allen Hauser, MD, professor emeritus of neurology and epidemiology at Columbia University in New York, and colleagues noted that the findings support a bidirectional relationship between dementia and epilepsy, adding that accumulation of amyloid beta peptide is a plausible underlying pathophysiology that may explain this relationship.

Future research should clarify the effect of factors such as seizure type, seizure frequency, and age of onset on the risk of dementia among patients with epilepsy, the editorialists wrote. Such investigations could help elucidate the underlying mechanisms of these conditions and help to improve treatment, they added.

Commenting on the findings, Ilo Leppik, MD, professor of neurology and pharmacy at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis described the research as “a very well-done study by qualified researchers in the field. … For the last century, medicine has unfortunately become compartmentalized by specialty and then subspecialty. The brain and disorders of the brain do not recognize these silos. … It is not a stretch of the known science to begin to understand that epilepsy and dementia have common anatomical and physiological underpinnings.”

The long period of prospectively gathering data and the measurement of cognitive function through various modalities are among the study’s great strengths, said Dr. Leppik. However, the study’s weakness is its reliance on Medicare claims data, which mainly would reflect convulsive seizures.

“What is missing is how many persons had subtle focal-unaware seizures that may not be identified unless a careful history is taken,” said Dr. Leppik. “Thus, this study likely underestimates the frequency of epilepsy.”

Neurologists who evaluate a person with early dementia should be on the lookout for a history of subtle seizures, said Dr. Leppik. Animal studies suggest treatment with levetiracetam or brivaracetam may slow the course of dementia, and a clinical study in participants with early dementia is underway.

“Treatment with an antiseizure drug may prove to be beneficial, especially if evidence for the presence of subtle epilepsy can be found,” Dr. Leppik added.

Greater collaboration between epileptologists and dementia specialists and larger studies of antiseizure drugs are necessary, he noted. “These studies can incorporate sophisticated structural and biochemical [analyses] to better identify the relationships between brain mechanisms that likely underlie both seizures and dementia. The ultimate promise is that early treatment of seizures may alter the course of dementia,” Dr. Leppik said.

The study by Dr. Johnson and colleagues was supported by a contract from the National Institute on Aging; ARIC from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the National Institutes of Health; and the Department of Health & Human Services. The authors and Dr. Leppik have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

For patients suspected of having a large-vessel occlusion stroke, direct transfer to a comprehensive stroke center capable of endovascular therapy that is farther away than a local primary stroke center does not necessarily produce better functional stroke outcomes, a new study has shown.

In the RACECAT trial, functional outcomes were similar for patients suspected of having a large-vessel occlusion stroke who were located in areas not currently served by a comprehensive stroke center, whether they were first taken to a local primary stroke center or whether they were transported over a longer distance to a comprehensive center.

“Under the particular conditions in our study where we had a very well-organized system, a ‘mothership’ transfer protocol for patients with suspected large-vessel occlusion has not proven superior over the ‘drip-and-ship’ protocol, but the opposite is also true,” lead investigator Marc Ribo, MD, concluded.

Dr. Ribo, assistant professor of neurology at Hospital Vall d’Hebron, Barcelona, presented the RACECAT results at the European Stroke Organisation–World Stroke Organisation (ESO-WSO) Conference 2020.

Dr. Ribo said in an interview that there is a feeling among the stroke community that patients with a suspected large-vessel occlusion should be transferred directly to a comprehensive stroke center capable of performing endovascular thrombectomy, even if there is a nearer, smaller primary stroke center where patients are usually taken first for thrombolysis.

“Many stroke neurologists believe we are losing time by sending patients with severe stroke to a local hospital and that we should skip this step, but this is controversial area,” he commented. “Our findings suggest that we should not automatically bypass local stroke centers.”

Dr. Ribo pointed out that the local centers performed very well in the study, with very fast “in/out” times for patients who were subsequently transferred for thrombectomy.

“On the basis of our results, we recommend that if a local stroke center can perform well like ours did – if they are within the time indicators for treating and transferring patients – then they should keep receiving these patients. But if they are not performing well in this regard, then they should probably be bypassed,” he commented.

The RACECAT trial was well received by stroke experts at an ESO-WSO 2020 press conference at which it was discussed.

Stefan Kiechl, MD, Medical University Innsbruck (Austria), described the trial as “outstanding,” adding: “It has addressed a very important question. It is a big achievement in stroke medicine.”

Patrik Michel, MD, Lausanne (Switzerland) University Hospital, said that “this is a very important and highly sophisticated trial in terms of design and execution. The message is that it doesn’t matter which pathway is used, but it is important to have a well-organized network with highly trained paramedics.”
 

RACECAT

The RACECAT trial was conducted in the Catalonia region of Spain. Twenty-seven hospitals participated, including 7 comprehensive stroke centers and 20 local stroke centers.

The trial included stroke patients with suspected large-vessel occlusion stroke, as determined on the basis of evaluation by paramedics using the criteria of a Rapid Arterial Occlusion Evaluation (RACE) scale score above 4 and on the basis of a call to a vascular neurologist. For inclusion in the study, patients had to be in a geographical area not served by a comprehensive stroke center and to have an estimated arrival time to a comprehensive center of less than 7 hours from symptom onset in order that thrombectomy would be possible.

Of 7,475 stroke code patients evaluated, 1,401 met the inclusion criteria and were randomly assigned to be transferred to a local hospital or to a comprehensive stroke center farther away.

Baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups. The patients had severe strokes with an average National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score of 17. It was later confirmed that 46% of the patients enrolled in the study had a large-vessel occlusion stroke.

Results showed that time from symptom onset to hospital arrival was 142 minutes for those taken to a local center and 216 minutes for those taken to a comprehensive stroke center. Of those taken to a local hospital, 86% arrived within 4 hours of symptom onset and so were potential candidates for thrombolysis, compared with 76% of those taken to a comprehensive center.

Of the patients taken to a local hospital, 60% were given thrombolysis versus 43% of those taken immediately to a comprehensive center. On the other hand, 50% of patients who were taken directly to a comprehensive center underwent thrombectomy, compared with 40% who were first taken to a local center.

For patients who received thrombolysis, time to tissue plasminogen activator administration was 120 minutes for those treated at a local hospital versus 155 minutes for those taken directly to a comprehensive center.

For patients who received thrombectomy, time from symptom onset to groin puncture was 270 minutes if they were first taken to a local hospital and were then transferred, versus 214 minutes for those taken directly to the comprehensive center.

The primary efficacy endpoint was functional outcome using Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) shift analysis at 90 days for ischemic stroke patients. This showed a “completely flat” result, Dr. Ribo reported, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.029 for patients taken to a comprehensive center in comparison with those taken to a local center.

“There was absolutely no trend towards benefit in one group over the other,” he said.
 

What about hemorrhagic stroke?

The study also evaluated functional outcomes for the whole population enrolled. “If we make the decision just based on thrombectomy-eligible patients, we may harm the rest of the patients, so we did this study to look at the whole population of severe stroke patients,” Dr. Ribo said.

Of the study population, 25% of patients were found to have had a hemorrhagic stroke.

“The problem is, at the prehospital level, it is impossible to know if a patient is having a large-vessel occlusion ischemic stroke or a hemorrhagic stroke,” Dr. Ribo explained. “We have to make a decision for the whole population, and while a longer transport time to get to a comprehensive stroke center might help a patient with a large-vessel occlusion ischemic stroke, it might not be so appropriate for patients with a hemorrhagic stroke who need to have their blood pressure stabilized as soon as possible.”

For the whole population, the mRS shift analysis at 90 days was also neutral, with an aHR of 0.965.

When considering only patients with hemorrhagic stroke, the adjusted hazard ratio for the mRS shift analysis at 90 days was 1.216, which was still nonsignificant (95% confidence interval, 0.864-1.709). This included a nonsignificant increase in mortality among those taken directly to a comprehensive center.

“If we had better tools for a certain diagnosis in the field, then we could consider taking large-vessel occlusion ischemic stroke patients to a comprehensive center and hemorrhagic stroke patients to the local stroke center, but so far, we don’t have this option apart from a few places using mobile stroke units with CT scanners,” Dr. Ribo noted.

Transfer times to comprehensive centers in the study ranged from 30 minutes to 2.5 hours. “There might well be a difference in outcomes for short and long transfers, and we may be able to offer different transfer protocols in these different situations, and we are looking at that, but the study was only stopped in June, and we haven’t had a chance to analyze those results yet,” Dr. Ribo added.

Complications during transport occurred in 0.5% of those taken to a local hospital and in 1% of those taken directly to a comprehensive center. “We were concerned about complications with longer transfers, but these numbers are quite low. Intubations were very low – just one patient taken to a local center, versus three or four in the longer transfer group,” he added.

For both local and comprehensive centers, treatment times were impressive in the study. For local hospitals, the average in/out time was just 60 minutes for patients who went to a comprehensive center; for patients receiving thrombolysis, the average door to needle time was around 30 minutes.

Time to thrombectomy in the comprehensive center for patients transferred from a local hospital was also very fast, with an average door to groin puncture time of less than 40 minutes. “This shows we have a very well-oiled system,” Dr. Ribo said.

“There is always going to be a balance between a quicker time to thrombolysis by taking a patient to the closest hospital but a quicker time to thrombectomy if patients are taken straight to the comprehensive center,” he concluded. “But in our system, where we are achieving fast treatment and transfer times, our results show that patients had timely access to reperfusion therapies regardless of transfer protocol, and under these circumstances, it is fine for the emergency services to take stroke patients to the closest stroke center.”
 

Results applicable elsewhere?

During the discussion at an ESO-WSO 2020 press conference, other experts pointed out that the Catalonia group is a leader in this field, being the pioneers of the RACE score used in this study for paramedics to identify suspected large-vessel occlusions. This led to questions about the applicability of the results.

“The performance by paramedics was very good using the RACE scale, and the performance times were very impressive. Are these results applicable elsewhere?” Dr. Kiechl asked.

Dr. Ribo said the combination of the RACE score and a call with a vascular neurologist was of “great value” in identifying appropriate patients. Half of the patients selected in this way for the trial were confirmed to have a large-vessel occlusion. “That is a good result,” he added.

He noted that the performance of the local hospitals improved dramatically during the study. “They had an incentive to work on their times. They could have lost most of their stroke patients if their results came out worse. We told them they had an opportunity to show that they have a role in treating these patients, and they took that opportunity.”

Dr. Ribo said there were lessons here for those involved in acute stroke care. “When creating stroke transfer policies in local networks, the performances of individual centers need to be taken into account. If primary stroke centers are motivated and can work in a well-coordinated way and perform to within the recommended times, then they can keep receiving stroke code patients. This should be possible in most developed countries.”

Noting that the in/out time of 60 minutes at local hospitals was “very impressive,” Dr. Kiechl asked how such fast times were achieved.

Dr. Ribo responded that, to a great extent, this was because of ambulance staff. “We have trained the paramedics to anticipate a second transfer after delivering the patient to the local hospital so they can prepare for this rather than waiting for a second call.”

Dr. Ribo pointed out that there were other advantages in taking patients to local centers first. “For those that do not need to be transferred on, they will be closer to relatives. It is very difficult for the family if the patient is hundreds of miles away. And there may be a cost advantage. We did look at costs, but haven’t got that data yet.”

He said: “If local stroke centers do not treat so many stroke code patients, they will lose their expertise, and that will be detrimental to the remaining patients who are taken there. We want to try to maintain a good standard of stroke care across a decent spread of hospitals—not just a couple of major comprehensive centers,” he added.

Commenting on the study, Jesse Dawson, MD, University of Glasgow, who was chair of the plenary session at which the study was presented, said: “RACECAT is very interesting but needs a lot of thought to dissect. My takeaway is that we know that time to reperfusion is key, and we need to get these times as low as possible, but we don’t need to chase a particular care pathway. Thus, if your country/geography suits ‘drip and ship’ better, this is acceptable. If direct to endovascular is possible or you are close to such a center, then this is ideal. But within those paradigms, be as fast as possible.”

He added that results of the subgroups with regard to transfer time will be helpful.

The RACECAT study was funded by Fundacio Ictus Malaltia Vascular.

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

For patients suspected of having a large-vessel occlusion stroke, direct transfer to a comprehensive stroke center capable of endovascular therapy that is farther away than a local primary stroke center does not necessarily produce better functional stroke outcomes, a new study has shown.

In the RACECAT trial, functional outcomes were similar for patients suspected of having a large-vessel occlusion stroke who were located in areas not currently served by a comprehensive stroke center, whether they were first taken to a local primary stroke center or whether they were transported over a longer distance to a comprehensive center.

“Under the particular conditions in our study where we had a very well-organized system, a ‘mothership’ transfer protocol for patients with suspected large-vessel occlusion has not proven superior over the ‘drip-and-ship’ protocol, but the opposite is also true,” lead investigator Marc Ribo, MD, concluded.

Dr. Ribo, assistant professor of neurology at Hospital Vall d’Hebron, Barcelona, presented the RACECAT results at the European Stroke Organisation–World Stroke Organisation (ESO-WSO) Conference 2020.

Dr. Ribo said in an interview that there is a feeling among the stroke community that patients with a suspected large-vessel occlusion should be transferred directly to a comprehensive stroke center capable of performing endovascular thrombectomy, even if there is a nearer, smaller primary stroke center where patients are usually taken first for thrombolysis.

“Many stroke neurologists believe we are losing time by sending patients with severe stroke to a local hospital and that we should skip this step, but this is controversial area,” he commented. “Our findings suggest that we should not automatically bypass local stroke centers.”

Dr. Ribo pointed out that the local centers performed very well in the study, with very fast “in/out” times for patients who were subsequently transferred for thrombectomy.

“On the basis of our results, we recommend that if a local stroke center can perform well like ours did – if they are within the time indicators for treating and transferring patients – then they should keep receiving these patients. But if they are not performing well in this regard, then they should probably be bypassed,” he commented.

The RACECAT trial was well received by stroke experts at an ESO-WSO 2020 press conference at which it was discussed.

Stefan Kiechl, MD, Medical University Innsbruck (Austria), described the trial as “outstanding,” adding: “It has addressed a very important question. It is a big achievement in stroke medicine.”

Patrik Michel, MD, Lausanne (Switzerland) University Hospital, said that “this is a very important and highly sophisticated trial in terms of design and execution. The message is that it doesn’t matter which pathway is used, but it is important to have a well-organized network with highly trained paramedics.”
 

RACECAT

The RACECAT trial was conducted in the Catalonia region of Spain. Twenty-seven hospitals participated, including 7 comprehensive stroke centers and 20 local stroke centers.

The trial included stroke patients with suspected large-vessel occlusion stroke, as determined on the basis of evaluation by paramedics using the criteria of a Rapid Arterial Occlusion Evaluation (RACE) scale score above 4 and on the basis of a call to a vascular neurologist. For inclusion in the study, patients had to be in a geographical area not served by a comprehensive stroke center and to have an estimated arrival time to a comprehensive center of less than 7 hours from symptom onset in order that thrombectomy would be possible.

Of 7,475 stroke code patients evaluated, 1,401 met the inclusion criteria and were randomly assigned to be transferred to a local hospital or to a comprehensive stroke center farther away.

Baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups. The patients had severe strokes with an average National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score of 17. It was later confirmed that 46% of the patients enrolled in the study had a large-vessel occlusion stroke.

Results showed that time from symptom onset to hospital arrival was 142 minutes for those taken to a local center and 216 minutes for those taken to a comprehensive stroke center. Of those taken to a local hospital, 86% arrived within 4 hours of symptom onset and so were potential candidates for thrombolysis, compared with 76% of those taken to a comprehensive center.

Of the patients taken to a local hospital, 60% were given thrombolysis versus 43% of those taken immediately to a comprehensive center. On the other hand, 50% of patients who were taken directly to a comprehensive center underwent thrombectomy, compared with 40% who were first taken to a local center.

For patients who received thrombolysis, time to tissue plasminogen activator administration was 120 minutes for those treated at a local hospital versus 155 minutes for those taken directly to a comprehensive center.

For patients who received thrombectomy, time from symptom onset to groin puncture was 270 minutes if they were first taken to a local hospital and were then transferred, versus 214 minutes for those taken directly to the comprehensive center.

The primary efficacy endpoint was functional outcome using Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) shift analysis at 90 days for ischemic stroke patients. This showed a “completely flat” result, Dr. Ribo reported, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.029 for patients taken to a comprehensive center in comparison with those taken to a local center.

“There was absolutely no trend towards benefit in one group over the other,” he said.
 

What about hemorrhagic stroke?

The study also evaluated functional outcomes for the whole population enrolled. “If we make the decision just based on thrombectomy-eligible patients, we may harm the rest of the patients, so we did this study to look at the whole population of severe stroke patients,” Dr. Ribo said.

Of the study population, 25% of patients were found to have had a hemorrhagic stroke.

“The problem is, at the prehospital level, it is impossible to know if a patient is having a large-vessel occlusion ischemic stroke or a hemorrhagic stroke,” Dr. Ribo explained. “We have to make a decision for the whole population, and while a longer transport time to get to a comprehensive stroke center might help a patient with a large-vessel occlusion ischemic stroke, it might not be so appropriate for patients with a hemorrhagic stroke who need to have their blood pressure stabilized as soon as possible.”

For the whole population, the mRS shift analysis at 90 days was also neutral, with an aHR of 0.965.

When considering only patients with hemorrhagic stroke, the adjusted hazard ratio for the mRS shift analysis at 90 days was 1.216, which was still nonsignificant (95% confidence interval, 0.864-1.709). This included a nonsignificant increase in mortality among those taken directly to a comprehensive center.

“If we had better tools for a certain diagnosis in the field, then we could consider taking large-vessel occlusion ischemic stroke patients to a comprehensive center and hemorrhagic stroke patients to the local stroke center, but so far, we don’t have this option apart from a few places using mobile stroke units with CT scanners,” Dr. Ribo noted.

Transfer times to comprehensive centers in the study ranged from 30 minutes to 2.5 hours. “There might well be a difference in outcomes for short and long transfers, and we may be able to offer different transfer protocols in these different situations, and we are looking at that, but the study was only stopped in June, and we haven’t had a chance to analyze those results yet,” Dr. Ribo added.

Complications during transport occurred in 0.5% of those taken to a local hospital and in 1% of those taken directly to a comprehensive center. “We were concerned about complications with longer transfers, but these numbers are quite low. Intubations were very low – just one patient taken to a local center, versus three or four in the longer transfer group,” he added.

For both local and comprehensive centers, treatment times were impressive in the study. For local hospitals, the average in/out time was just 60 minutes for patients who went to a comprehensive center; for patients receiving thrombolysis, the average door to needle time was around 30 minutes.

Time to thrombectomy in the comprehensive center for patients transferred from a local hospital was also very fast, with an average door to groin puncture time of less than 40 minutes. “This shows we have a very well-oiled system,” Dr. Ribo said.

“There is always going to be a balance between a quicker time to thrombolysis by taking a patient to the closest hospital but a quicker time to thrombectomy if patients are taken straight to the comprehensive center,” he concluded. “But in our system, where we are achieving fast treatment and transfer times, our results show that patients had timely access to reperfusion therapies regardless of transfer protocol, and under these circumstances, it is fine for the emergency services to take stroke patients to the closest stroke center.”
 

Results applicable elsewhere?

During the discussion at an ESO-WSO 2020 press conference, other experts pointed out that the Catalonia group is a leader in this field, being the pioneers of the RACE score used in this study for paramedics to identify suspected large-vessel occlusions. This led to questions about the applicability of the results.

“The performance by paramedics was very good using the RACE scale, and the performance times were very impressive. Are these results applicable elsewhere?” Dr. Kiechl asked.

Dr. Ribo said the combination of the RACE score and a call with a vascular neurologist was of “great value” in identifying appropriate patients. Half of the patients selected in this way for the trial were confirmed to have a large-vessel occlusion. “That is a good result,” he added.

He noted that the performance of the local hospitals improved dramatically during the study. “They had an incentive to work on their times. They could have lost most of their stroke patients if their results came out worse. We told them they had an opportunity to show that they have a role in treating these patients, and they took that opportunity.”

Dr. Ribo said there were lessons here for those involved in acute stroke care. “When creating stroke transfer policies in local networks, the performances of individual centers need to be taken into account. If primary stroke centers are motivated and can work in a well-coordinated way and perform to within the recommended times, then they can keep receiving stroke code patients. This should be possible in most developed countries.”

Noting that the in/out time of 60 minutes at local hospitals was “very impressive,” Dr. Kiechl asked how such fast times were achieved.

Dr. Ribo responded that, to a great extent, this was because of ambulance staff. “We have trained the paramedics to anticipate a second transfer after delivering the patient to the local hospital so they can prepare for this rather than waiting for a second call.”

Dr. Ribo pointed out that there were other advantages in taking patients to local centers first. “For those that do not need to be transferred on, they will be closer to relatives. It is very difficult for the family if the patient is hundreds of miles away. And there may be a cost advantage. We did look at costs, but haven’t got that data yet.”

He said: “If local stroke centers do not treat so many stroke code patients, they will lose their expertise, and that will be detrimental to the remaining patients who are taken there. We want to try to maintain a good standard of stroke care across a decent spread of hospitals—not just a couple of major comprehensive centers,” he added.

Commenting on the study, Jesse Dawson, MD, University of Glasgow, who was chair of the plenary session at which the study was presented, said: “RACECAT is very interesting but needs a lot of thought to dissect. My takeaway is that we know that time to reperfusion is key, and we need to get these times as low as possible, but we don’t need to chase a particular care pathway. Thus, if your country/geography suits ‘drip and ship’ better, this is acceptable. If direct to endovascular is possible or you are close to such a center, then this is ideal. But within those paradigms, be as fast as possible.”

He added that results of the subgroups with regard to transfer time will be helpful.

The RACECAT study was funded by Fundacio Ictus Malaltia Vascular.

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

For patients suspected of having a large-vessel occlusion stroke, direct transfer to a comprehensive stroke center capable of endovascular therapy that is farther away than a local primary stroke center does not necessarily produce better functional stroke outcomes, a new study has shown.

In the RACECAT trial, functional outcomes were similar for patients suspected of having a large-vessel occlusion stroke who were located in areas not currently served by a comprehensive stroke center, whether they were first taken to a local primary stroke center or whether they were transported over a longer distance to a comprehensive center.

“Under the particular conditions in our study where we had a very well-organized system, a ‘mothership’ transfer protocol for patients with suspected large-vessel occlusion has not proven superior over the ‘drip-and-ship’ protocol, but the opposite is also true,” lead investigator Marc Ribo, MD, concluded.

Dr. Ribo, assistant professor of neurology at Hospital Vall d’Hebron, Barcelona, presented the RACECAT results at the European Stroke Organisation–World Stroke Organisation (ESO-WSO) Conference 2020.

Dr. Ribo said in an interview that there is a feeling among the stroke community that patients with a suspected large-vessel occlusion should be transferred directly to a comprehensive stroke center capable of performing endovascular thrombectomy, even if there is a nearer, smaller primary stroke center where patients are usually taken first for thrombolysis.

“Many stroke neurologists believe we are losing time by sending patients with severe stroke to a local hospital and that we should skip this step, but this is controversial area,” he commented. “Our findings suggest that we should not automatically bypass local stroke centers.”

Dr. Ribo pointed out that the local centers performed very well in the study, with very fast “in/out” times for patients who were subsequently transferred for thrombectomy.

“On the basis of our results, we recommend that if a local stroke center can perform well like ours did – if they are within the time indicators for treating and transferring patients – then they should keep receiving these patients. But if they are not performing well in this regard, then they should probably be bypassed,” he commented.

The RACECAT trial was well received by stroke experts at an ESO-WSO 2020 press conference at which it was discussed.

Stefan Kiechl, MD, Medical University Innsbruck (Austria), described the trial as “outstanding,” adding: “It has addressed a very important question. It is a big achievement in stroke medicine.”

Patrik Michel, MD, Lausanne (Switzerland) University Hospital, said that “this is a very important and highly sophisticated trial in terms of design and execution. The message is that it doesn’t matter which pathway is used, but it is important to have a well-organized network with highly trained paramedics.”
 

RACECAT

The RACECAT trial was conducted in the Catalonia region of Spain. Twenty-seven hospitals participated, including 7 comprehensive stroke centers and 20 local stroke centers.

The trial included stroke patients with suspected large-vessel occlusion stroke, as determined on the basis of evaluation by paramedics using the criteria of a Rapid Arterial Occlusion Evaluation (RACE) scale score above 4 and on the basis of a call to a vascular neurologist. For inclusion in the study, patients had to be in a geographical area not served by a comprehensive stroke center and to have an estimated arrival time to a comprehensive center of less than 7 hours from symptom onset in order that thrombectomy would be possible.

Of 7,475 stroke code patients evaluated, 1,401 met the inclusion criteria and were randomly assigned to be transferred to a local hospital or to a comprehensive stroke center farther away.

Baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups. The patients had severe strokes with an average National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score of 17. It was later confirmed that 46% of the patients enrolled in the study had a large-vessel occlusion stroke.

Results showed that time from symptom onset to hospital arrival was 142 minutes for those taken to a local center and 216 minutes for those taken to a comprehensive stroke center. Of those taken to a local hospital, 86% arrived within 4 hours of symptom onset and so were potential candidates for thrombolysis, compared with 76% of those taken to a comprehensive center.

Of the patients taken to a local hospital, 60% were given thrombolysis versus 43% of those taken immediately to a comprehensive center. On the other hand, 50% of patients who were taken directly to a comprehensive center underwent thrombectomy, compared with 40% who were first taken to a local center.

For patients who received thrombolysis, time to tissue plasminogen activator administration was 120 minutes for those treated at a local hospital versus 155 minutes for those taken directly to a comprehensive center.

For patients who received thrombectomy, time from symptom onset to groin puncture was 270 minutes if they were first taken to a local hospital and were then transferred, versus 214 minutes for those taken directly to the comprehensive center.

The primary efficacy endpoint was functional outcome using Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) shift analysis at 90 days for ischemic stroke patients. This showed a “completely flat” result, Dr. Ribo reported, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.029 for patients taken to a comprehensive center in comparison with those taken to a local center.

“There was absolutely no trend towards benefit in one group over the other,” he said.
 

What about hemorrhagic stroke?

The study also evaluated functional outcomes for the whole population enrolled. “If we make the decision just based on thrombectomy-eligible patients, we may harm the rest of the patients, so we did this study to look at the whole population of severe stroke patients,” Dr. Ribo said.

Of the study population, 25% of patients were found to have had a hemorrhagic stroke.

“The problem is, at the prehospital level, it is impossible to know if a patient is having a large-vessel occlusion ischemic stroke or a hemorrhagic stroke,” Dr. Ribo explained. “We have to make a decision for the whole population, and while a longer transport time to get to a comprehensive stroke center might help a patient with a large-vessel occlusion ischemic stroke, it might not be so appropriate for patients with a hemorrhagic stroke who need to have their blood pressure stabilized as soon as possible.”

For the whole population, the mRS shift analysis at 90 days was also neutral, with an aHR of 0.965.

When considering only patients with hemorrhagic stroke, the adjusted hazard ratio for the mRS shift analysis at 90 days was 1.216, which was still nonsignificant (95% confidence interval, 0.864-1.709). This included a nonsignificant increase in mortality among those taken directly to a comprehensive center.

“If we had better tools for a certain diagnosis in the field, then we could consider taking large-vessel occlusion ischemic stroke patients to a comprehensive center and hemorrhagic stroke patients to the local stroke center, but so far, we don’t have this option apart from a few places using mobile stroke units with CT scanners,” Dr. Ribo noted.

Transfer times to comprehensive centers in the study ranged from 30 minutes to 2.5 hours. “There might well be a difference in outcomes for short and long transfers, and we may be able to offer different transfer protocols in these different situations, and we are looking at that, but the study was only stopped in June, and we haven’t had a chance to analyze those results yet,” Dr. Ribo added.

Complications during transport occurred in 0.5% of those taken to a local hospital and in 1% of those taken directly to a comprehensive center. “We were concerned about complications with longer transfers, but these numbers are quite low. Intubations were very low – just one patient taken to a local center, versus three or four in the longer transfer group,” he added.

For both local and comprehensive centers, treatment times were impressive in the study. For local hospitals, the average in/out time was just 60 minutes for patients who went to a comprehensive center; for patients receiving thrombolysis, the average door to needle time was around 30 minutes.

Time to thrombectomy in the comprehensive center for patients transferred from a local hospital was also very fast, with an average door to groin puncture time of less than 40 minutes. “This shows we have a very well-oiled system,” Dr. Ribo said.

“There is always going to be a balance between a quicker time to thrombolysis by taking a patient to the closest hospital but a quicker time to thrombectomy if patients are taken straight to the comprehensive center,” he concluded. “But in our system, where we are achieving fast treatment and transfer times, our results show that patients had timely access to reperfusion therapies regardless of transfer protocol, and under these circumstances, it is fine for the emergency services to take stroke patients to the closest stroke center.”
 

Results applicable elsewhere?

During the discussion at an ESO-WSO 2020 press conference, other experts pointed out that the Catalonia group is a leader in this field, being the pioneers of the RACE score used in this study for paramedics to identify suspected large-vessel occlusions. This led to questions about the applicability of the results.

“The performance by paramedics was very good using the RACE scale, and the performance times were very impressive. Are these results applicable elsewhere?” Dr. Kiechl asked.

Dr. Ribo said the combination of the RACE score and a call with a vascular neurologist was of “great value” in identifying appropriate patients. Half of the patients selected in this way for the trial were confirmed to have a large-vessel occlusion. “That is a good result,” he added.

He noted that the performance of the local hospitals improved dramatically during the study. “They had an incentive to work on their times. They could have lost most of their stroke patients if their results came out worse. We told them they had an opportunity to show that they have a role in treating these patients, and they took that opportunity.”

Dr. Ribo said there were lessons here for those involved in acute stroke care. “When creating stroke transfer policies in local networks, the performances of individual centers need to be taken into account. If primary stroke centers are motivated and can work in a well-coordinated way and perform to within the recommended times, then they can keep receiving stroke code patients. This should be possible in most developed countries.”

Noting that the in/out time of 60 minutes at local hospitals was “very impressive,” Dr. Kiechl asked how such fast times were achieved.

Dr. Ribo responded that, to a great extent, this was because of ambulance staff. “We have trained the paramedics to anticipate a second transfer after delivering the patient to the local hospital so they can prepare for this rather than waiting for a second call.”

Dr. Ribo pointed out that there were other advantages in taking patients to local centers first. “For those that do not need to be transferred on, they will be closer to relatives. It is very difficult for the family if the patient is hundreds of miles away. And there may be a cost advantage. We did look at costs, but haven’t got that data yet.”

He said: “If local stroke centers do not treat so many stroke code patients, they will lose their expertise, and that will be detrimental to the remaining patients who are taken there. We want to try to maintain a good standard of stroke care across a decent spread of hospitals—not just a couple of major comprehensive centers,” he added.

Commenting on the study, Jesse Dawson, MD, University of Glasgow, who was chair of the plenary session at which the study was presented, said: “RACECAT is very interesting but needs a lot of thought to dissect. My takeaway is that we know that time to reperfusion is key, and we need to get these times as low as possible, but we don’t need to chase a particular care pathway. Thus, if your country/geography suits ‘drip and ship’ better, this is acceptable. If direct to endovascular is possible or you are close to such a center, then this is ideal. But within those paradigms, be as fast as possible.”

He added that results of the subgroups with regard to transfer time will be helpful.

The RACECAT study was funded by Fundacio Ictus Malaltia Vascular.

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

Cancer drug approvals between 2000 and 2016 were associated with a significant reduction in deaths from the most common cancers in the United States, according to a new study.

Reductions in mortality were most notable for tumor types with relatively more approvals, including lung and breast cancer, melanoma, lymphoma, and leukemia.

A report from the American Cancer Society (ACS) estimated that, from 1991 to 2017, there were 2,902,200 total cancer deaths avoided from improvements in mortality from all potential sources.

The new findings, reported in the Journal of Medical Economics, suggest that drugs approved between 2000 and 2016 to treat the 15 most common cancer types helped to reduce mortality by 24% per 100,000 people.

“This study provides evidence that a significant share of that reduction from 2000 to 2016 was associated with the introduction of new therapies. The ACS report and other studies demonstrate that the improvements in lung cancer specifically are likely due to new treatments,” said lead study author Joanna P. MacEwan, MD, of PRECISIONheor in Los Angeles.

The findings contribute to a better understanding of whether increased spending on cancer drugs are worth the investment, according to the study authors.

“We provide evidence that the gains in survival measured in clinical trials are translating into health benefits for patients in the real world and confirm previous research that has also shown that new pharmaceutical treatments are associated with improved real-world survival outcomes for patients,” Dr. MacEwan said.
 

Full effect not yet observed

The researchers used a series of national data sets from sources including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; the U.S. Mortality Files by the National Center of Health Statistics; Survival, Epidemiology and End Results program; and United States Cancer Statistics.

The team calculated age-adjusted cancer mortality rates per year for the 15 most common tumor types and also looked at incident cases of cancer by tumor type, represented as per 100,000 people, for all ages, races, and genders.

The researchers then translated the change in cancer mortality in the U.S. from 2000 to 2016 associated with treatment stocks in each year into deaths averted per year.

Across the 16 years, mortality was down by 1,291,769 deaths. The following cancers had significant reductions in mortality: breast (n = 127,874), colorectal (n = 46,705), lung (n = 375,256), prostate (n = 476,210), gastric (n = 758), and renal (n = 739) cancers, as well as non-Hodgkin lymphoma (n = 48,836) and leukemia (n = 4,011).

Estimated mortality increased by 825 deaths in patients with thyroid cancer and 7,768 deaths for those with bladder cancer. These rises are likely due to the result of sparse drug approvals during this period – five for thyroid cancer and three for bladder cancer – Dr. MacEwan said. There were no approvals in liver or uterine cancer and few approvals in pancreatic and oral cancer.

The full effect of new drug introductions may not have been observed yet, Dr. MacEwan noted.

“There are fewer patients using the treatments for drugs approved in the later years of our study and less follow-up time to measure outcomes,” she said. “Over time, utilization of the newer therapies will likely increase and the full effect on mortality will be observed.”
 

Other factors at play

Multiple factors have led to the declines in mortality, said William G. Cance, MD, chief medical and scientific officer for the ACS, who was not involved in this study. “We are slowly sorting out the explanations in greater granularity.”  

Dr. MacEwan said improved cancer screening may partially explain the decline in mortality in some tumor types.

“If screening in a particular tumor type improved during the study period and tumors were diagnosed earlier, then mortality for that tumor type may decline,” she said. “However, we did not find strong evidence to suggest that there were significant changes in screening during our study period. Breast cancer screening rates, for example, were stable over our study period.”  

Cancer screening is not as strong an influence as it should be, Dr. Cance said.

“The lung cancer screening rate is low. In breast and colorectal cancers, we need to double down on earlier screening,” he said, noting that less than one-quarter of adults between ages 45 and 50 years are currently screened for colorectal cancer. The ACS recommends that people at average risk of colorectal cancer start regular screening at age 45.

More research is necessary to evaluate the relationship between drug approvals and cancer mortality, Dr. MacEwan said.

“Research directly linking utilization of new therapies to improved survival or reduced mortality in the real-world setting would more definitively demonstrate the impact of new treatments,” she said. “New therapies have improved outcomes for many patients and should continue to be considered as key elements of cancer treatment.”

“We need to continue to reduce tobacco smoking and improve on modifiable behaviors at the same time as we work on getting new drugs to cancer patients,” Dr. Cance said. “We are coming into an era of multiple new therapeutics, including targeted therapies, immunotherapies, and cellular therapies. Clinicians need to look closely at the trial data of new drugs and pay close attention to those that have the most mortality impact.”

“We also need equitable distribution of newer drugs,” Dr. Cance added. “They should be distributed to everybody who deserves them. Mortality is often impacted by social determinants of health.”

Funding for this research was provided by Pfizer. Study authors disclosed relationships, including employment, with Pfizer. Dr. Cance had no disclosures.

SOURCE: MacEwan JP et al. J Med Econ. 2020 Nov 9;1-12.

Cancer drug approvals between 2000 and 2016 were associated with a significant reduction in deaths from the most common cancers in the United States, according to a new study.

Reductions in mortality were most notable for tumor types with relatively more approvals, including lung and breast cancer, melanoma, lymphoma, and leukemia.

A report from the American Cancer Society (ACS) estimated that, from 1991 to 2017, there were 2,902,200 total cancer deaths avoided from improvements in mortality from all potential sources.

The new findings, reported in the Journal of Medical Economics, suggest that drugs approved between 2000 and 2016 to treat the 15 most common cancer types helped to reduce mortality by 24% per 100,000 people.

“This study provides evidence that a significant share of that reduction from 2000 to 2016 was associated with the introduction of new therapies. The ACS report and other studies demonstrate that the improvements in lung cancer specifically are likely due to new treatments,” said lead study author Joanna P. MacEwan, MD, of PRECISIONheor in Los Angeles.

The findings contribute to a better understanding of whether increased spending on cancer drugs are worth the investment, according to the study authors.

“We provide evidence that the gains in survival measured in clinical trials are translating into health benefits for patients in the real world and confirm previous research that has also shown that new pharmaceutical treatments are associated with improved real-world survival outcomes for patients,” Dr. MacEwan said.
 

Full effect not yet observed

The researchers used a series of national data sets from sources including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; the U.S. Mortality Files by the National Center of Health Statistics; Survival, Epidemiology and End Results program; and United States Cancer Statistics.

The team calculated age-adjusted cancer mortality rates per year for the 15 most common tumor types and also looked at incident cases of cancer by tumor type, represented as per 100,000 people, for all ages, races, and genders.

The researchers then translated the change in cancer mortality in the U.S. from 2000 to 2016 associated with treatment stocks in each year into deaths averted per year.

Across the 16 years, mortality was down by 1,291,769 deaths. The following cancers had significant reductions in mortality: breast (n = 127,874), colorectal (n = 46,705), lung (n = 375,256), prostate (n = 476,210), gastric (n = 758), and renal (n = 739) cancers, as well as non-Hodgkin lymphoma (n = 48,836) and leukemia (n = 4,011).

Estimated mortality increased by 825 deaths in patients with thyroid cancer and 7,768 deaths for those with bladder cancer. These rises are likely due to the result of sparse drug approvals during this period – five for thyroid cancer and three for bladder cancer – Dr. MacEwan said. There were no approvals in liver or uterine cancer and few approvals in pancreatic and oral cancer.

The full effect of new drug introductions may not have been observed yet, Dr. MacEwan noted.

“There are fewer patients using the treatments for drugs approved in the later years of our study and less follow-up time to measure outcomes,” she said. “Over time, utilization of the newer therapies will likely increase and the full effect on mortality will be observed.”
 

Other factors at play

Multiple factors have led to the declines in mortality, said William G. Cance, MD, chief medical and scientific officer for the ACS, who was not involved in this study. “We are slowly sorting out the explanations in greater granularity.”  

Dr. MacEwan said improved cancer screening may partially explain the decline in mortality in some tumor types.

“If screening in a particular tumor type improved during the study period and tumors were diagnosed earlier, then mortality for that tumor type may decline,” she said. “However, we did not find strong evidence to suggest that there were significant changes in screening during our study period. Breast cancer screening rates, for example, were stable over our study period.”  

Cancer screening is not as strong an influence as it should be, Dr. Cance said.

“The lung cancer screening rate is low. In breast and colorectal cancers, we need to double down on earlier screening,” he said, noting that less than one-quarter of adults between ages 45 and 50 years are currently screened for colorectal cancer. The ACS recommends that people at average risk of colorectal cancer start regular screening at age 45.

More research is necessary to evaluate the relationship between drug approvals and cancer mortality, Dr. MacEwan said.

“Research directly linking utilization of new therapies to improved survival or reduced mortality in the real-world setting would more definitively demonstrate the impact of new treatments,” she said. “New therapies have improved outcomes for many patients and should continue to be considered as key elements of cancer treatment.”

“We need to continue to reduce tobacco smoking and improve on modifiable behaviors at the same time as we work on getting new drugs to cancer patients,” Dr. Cance said. “We are coming into an era of multiple new therapeutics, including targeted therapies, immunotherapies, and cellular therapies. Clinicians need to look closely at the trial data of new drugs and pay close attention to those that have the most mortality impact.”

“We also need equitable distribution of newer drugs,” Dr. Cance added. “They should be distributed to everybody who deserves them. Mortality is often impacted by social determinants of health.”

Funding for this research was provided by Pfizer. Study authors disclosed relationships, including employment, with Pfizer. Dr. Cance had no disclosures.

SOURCE: MacEwan JP et al. J Med Econ. 2020 Nov 9;1-12.

Cancer drug approvals between 2000 and 2016 were associated with a significant reduction in deaths from the most common cancers in the United States, according to a new study.

Reductions in mortality were most notable for tumor types with relatively more approvals, including lung and breast cancer, melanoma, lymphoma, and leukemia.

A report from the American Cancer Society (ACS) estimated that, from 1991 to 2017, there were 2,902,200 total cancer deaths avoided from improvements in mortality from all potential sources.

The new findings, reported in the Journal of Medical Economics, suggest that drugs approved between 2000 and 2016 to treat the 15 most common cancer types helped to reduce mortality by 24% per 100,000 people.

“This study provides evidence that a significant share of that reduction from 2000 to 2016 was associated with the introduction of new therapies. The ACS report and other studies demonstrate that the improvements in lung cancer specifically are likely due to new treatments,” said lead study author Joanna P. MacEwan, MD, of PRECISIONheor in Los Angeles.

The findings contribute to a better understanding of whether increased spending on cancer drugs are worth the investment, according to the study authors.

“We provide evidence that the gains in survival measured in clinical trials are translating into health benefits for patients in the real world and confirm previous research that has also shown that new pharmaceutical treatments are associated with improved real-world survival outcomes for patients,” Dr. MacEwan said.
 

Full effect not yet observed

The researchers used a series of national data sets from sources including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; the U.S. Mortality Files by the National Center of Health Statistics; Survival, Epidemiology and End Results program; and United States Cancer Statistics.

The team calculated age-adjusted cancer mortality rates per year for the 15 most common tumor types and also looked at incident cases of cancer by tumor type, represented as per 100,000 people, for all ages, races, and genders.

The researchers then translated the change in cancer mortality in the U.S. from 2000 to 2016 associated with treatment stocks in each year into deaths averted per year.

Across the 16 years, mortality was down by 1,291,769 deaths. The following cancers had significant reductions in mortality: breast (n = 127,874), colorectal (n = 46,705), lung (n = 375,256), prostate (n = 476,210), gastric (n = 758), and renal (n = 739) cancers, as well as non-Hodgkin lymphoma (n = 48,836) and leukemia (n = 4,011).

Estimated mortality increased by 825 deaths in patients with thyroid cancer and 7,768 deaths for those with bladder cancer. These rises are likely due to the result of sparse drug approvals during this period – five for thyroid cancer and three for bladder cancer – Dr. MacEwan said. There were no approvals in liver or uterine cancer and few approvals in pancreatic and oral cancer.

The full effect of new drug introductions may not have been observed yet, Dr. MacEwan noted.

“There are fewer patients using the treatments for drugs approved in the later years of our study and less follow-up time to measure outcomes,” she said. “Over time, utilization of the newer therapies will likely increase and the full effect on mortality will be observed.”
 

Other factors at play

Multiple factors have led to the declines in mortality, said William G. Cance, MD, chief medical and scientific officer for the ACS, who was not involved in this study. “We are slowly sorting out the explanations in greater granularity.”  

Dr. MacEwan said improved cancer screening may partially explain the decline in mortality in some tumor types.

“If screening in a particular tumor type improved during the study period and tumors were diagnosed earlier, then mortality for that tumor type may decline,” she said. “However, we did not find strong evidence to suggest that there were significant changes in screening during our study period. Breast cancer screening rates, for example, were stable over our study period.”  

Cancer screening is not as strong an influence as it should be, Dr. Cance said.

“The lung cancer screening rate is low. In breast and colorectal cancers, we need to double down on earlier screening,” he said, noting that less than one-quarter of adults between ages 45 and 50 years are currently screened for colorectal cancer. The ACS recommends that people at average risk of colorectal cancer start regular screening at age 45.

More research is necessary to evaluate the relationship between drug approvals and cancer mortality, Dr. MacEwan said.

“Research directly linking utilization of new therapies to improved survival or reduced mortality in the real-world setting would more definitively demonstrate the impact of new treatments,” she said. “New therapies have improved outcomes for many patients and should continue to be considered as key elements of cancer treatment.”

“We need to continue to reduce tobacco smoking and improve on modifiable behaviors at the same time as we work on getting new drugs to cancer patients,” Dr. Cance said. “We are coming into an era of multiple new therapeutics, including targeted therapies, immunotherapies, and cellular therapies. Clinicians need to look closely at the trial data of new drugs and pay close attention to those that have the most mortality impact.”

“We also need equitable distribution of newer drugs,” Dr. Cance added. “They should be distributed to everybody who deserves them. Mortality is often impacted by social determinants of health.”

Funding for this research was provided by Pfizer. Study authors disclosed relationships, including employment, with Pfizer. Dr. Cance had no disclosures.

SOURCE: MacEwan JP et al. J Med Econ. 2020 Nov 9;1-12.

About one in eight patients with cancer have inherited genetic mutations that may have contributed to the development of their cancers, but nearly half of these mutations would have been missed using current clinical guidelines.

These findings come from the largest study of its kind so far, conducted in nearly 3,000 patients with a wide range of cancer stages and types, including breast, colorectal, lung, ovarian, pancreatic, bladder, prostate, and endometrial cancers.

“This study tells us that the clinical practice guidelines are not very sensitive for identifying who does or doesn’t have a genetic mutation that is predisposing them to cancer,” commented first author Niloy Jewell Samadder, MD, director of the high-risk cancer clinic at the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix.

Finding a genetic mutation can alter clinical management of the cancer.

“This really does open up treatment and management options that might not have been accessible to these patients,” Dr. Samadder emphasized.

The results were published online on Oct. 30 in JAMA Oncology and were presented simultaneously at the American Society of Human Genetics. Dr. Samadder discussed details of the study in a video posted on YouTube.

A clinician not involved in the study said the new results should lead to changes in practice.

“For cancer patients, I think the debate is over. We should test everybody,” Peter Beitsch, MD, surgical oncologist at the Dallas Surgical Group, said in an interview.

The Mayo Clinic is changing its daily practice at all four of its cancer centers. The changes will begin in the first quarter of 2021 at its Arizona campus.

“Every cancer patient who comes to Mayo Clinic will be offered genomic evaluation that includes genetic testing to identify if they have an underlying genetic mutation that predisposes to their cancer and [helps physicians decide] how to incorporate that knowledge into designing the best surgical and treatment options for that patient and their family,” Dr. Samadder said.
 

Study details

The study included 2,984 patients with cancer who were receiving care for a variety of solid tumor cancers at Mayo Clinic cancer centers in Arizona, Florida, Minnesota, and a community cancer center in Wisconsin.

Patients were tested for about 84 genes using next-generation sequencing provided by Invitae.

Among participants, 13.3% (n = 397) tested positive for pathogenic mutations. Of these, about 70% (282 of 397 patients) carried moderate- and high-penetrance genes that increased their risk for cancer. For almost 28.2% (n = 42) of patients with high-penetrance mutations, changes were made in treatment as a result of genetic testing. These included changes in surgical management, immunotherapy, chemotherapy, or enrollment in a clinical trial for which they may otherwise have not been eligible.

Researchers also compared their universal testing approach with targeted testing recommended in guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, the National Society of Genetic Counselors, and the American College of Medical Genetics.

They identified pathogenic mutations in 192 patients whose mutations would have been missed using guideline-recommended criteria, such as tumor pathology or family history. This represents 6.4% of all participants in the study (192 of 2,984 patients) and 48.4% of patients who tested positive for pathogenic mutations (397 of 2,984 patients).

“Genetic testing is underutilized in cancer care, both for patients and for their families, often due to outdated guidelines that restrict testing to a narrow group of high-risk patients. All cancer patients should have access to complete genetic information that can guide their care and inform their families’ health,” coauthor Robert Nussbaum, MD, chief medical officer of Invitae, said in a statement.

Some clinicians have been pushing for genetic testing of all patients with cancer, including Dr. Beitsch, who was lead author of a similar study in breast cancer patients published last year in the Journal of Oncology. That article made waves when the authors concluded that all breast cancer patients should have expanded panel genetic testing.

This new Mayo Clinic study extends the findings in breast cancer to “all cancer patients, not just breast cancer patients,” Dr. Beitsch said in an interview.
 

Long-running debate

The new findings and opinions add to a long-running debate in oncology over the role of genetic testing and screening for pathogenic mutations.

Part of the debate about genetic testing has hinged on the question of costs, said Dr. Beitsch. When genetic testing first became available, it was conducted by hand, and costs were often prohibitive. Since then, genetic testing has been automated using next-generation sequencing, and the cost has decreased considerably.

“The Invitae cash price for an 80-plus gene panel is $250. That’s [the cost of] a mani-pedi in Dallas. I don’t discount that it’s a lot of money for a lot of people. Yes, it’s expensive, but it’s a lot less expensive than it used to be,” Dr. Beitsch said.

Another issue is that doctors are not entirely sure how to manage variants of uncertain significance (VUSs) when they are found. In the Mayo Clinic study, about half (47.4%; n = 1415) of participants had VUSs. The authors noted that these results are consistent with past studies.

Dr. Beitsch said that VUSs are a matter of education. To date, only about 2% of VUSs have been associated with cancer. The remainder, about 98%, do not affect treatment for patients who have already been diagnosed with cancer.

“We all have VUSs. They’re just minor variations in a gene. The vast majority of them have no consequence and don’t alter the function of the gene,” he said. “I tell everybody to ignore the VUSs [when found in patients with cancer]. Do not act on them at all. We just need to educate everybody to make sure they don’t get stressed about it.”

These comments echo guidance from the American Society of Breast Surgeons, which says that VUSs are DNA sequences that are not clinically actionable. This type of result needs to be considered as inconclusive, and patient management should not be influenced by such results.

However, VUSs are more significant if they are found in individuals who do not have cancer but who have a strong family history of cancer. In such cases, clinicians should be more aware, Dr. Beitsch emphasized.

“Patients who have a VUS and don’t have a cancer should absolutely pay more attention to their health. They got tested for a reason, and that reason is usually strong family history,” Dr. Beitsch said.

He added that a major advantage of genetic testing is that it can enable cascade genetic testing of family members. Identifying pathogenic mutations in family members can lead them to undergo screening to detect early cancers, and preventive measures can be taken that may be lifesaving.

In the Mayo Clinic study, researchers offered genetic testing to family members of patients who tested positive for a pathogenic mutation. Testing was available free of charge for up to 90 days after a participant tested positive. In addition, family members were shown an educational video.

Nevertheless, only 17.6% (n = 70) of patients with pathogenic mutations had family members who underwent testing. Among these, 45% (79 of 176) of family members who were tested were found to carry pathogenic mutations.

“This really told us that financial barriers are not the only barrier to families understanding and undergoing preventive testing,” Dr. Samadder said. “There are probably a number of other barriers – socioeconomic or emotional – that we have to deal with.”

Genetic testing was provided by Invitae. The study was supported by several grants, including a Mayo Transform the Practice Grant, and by Mayo Clinic’s Center for Individualized Medicine. Two coauthors are employees of Invitae. Dr. Beitsch reported participating in a study 2 years ago that was funded by Invitae. He currently receives no financial support from Invitae. Several authors report receiving fees from one or more of the following companies: Pfizer, Maze Therapeutics, Genome Medical, Astellas, and Merck.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

About one in eight patients with cancer have inherited genetic mutations that may have contributed to the development of their cancers, but nearly half of these mutations would have been missed using current clinical guidelines.

These findings come from the largest study of its kind so far, conducted in nearly 3,000 patients with a wide range of cancer stages and types, including breast, colorectal, lung, ovarian, pancreatic, bladder, prostate, and endometrial cancers.

“This study tells us that the clinical practice guidelines are not very sensitive for identifying who does or doesn’t have a genetic mutation that is predisposing them to cancer,” commented first author Niloy Jewell Samadder, MD, director of the high-risk cancer clinic at the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix.

Finding a genetic mutation can alter clinical management of the cancer.

“This really does open up treatment and management options that might not have been accessible to these patients,” Dr. Samadder emphasized.

The results were published online on Oct. 30 in JAMA Oncology and were presented simultaneously at the American Society of Human Genetics. Dr. Samadder discussed details of the study in a video posted on YouTube.

A clinician not involved in the study said the new results should lead to changes in practice.

“For cancer patients, I think the debate is over. We should test everybody,” Peter Beitsch, MD, surgical oncologist at the Dallas Surgical Group, said in an interview.

The Mayo Clinic is changing its daily practice at all four of its cancer centers. The changes will begin in the first quarter of 2021 at its Arizona campus.

“Every cancer patient who comes to Mayo Clinic will be offered genomic evaluation that includes genetic testing to identify if they have an underlying genetic mutation that predisposes to their cancer and [helps physicians decide] how to incorporate that knowledge into designing the best surgical and treatment options for that patient and their family,” Dr. Samadder said.
 

Study details

The study included 2,984 patients with cancer who were receiving care for a variety of solid tumor cancers at Mayo Clinic cancer centers in Arizona, Florida, Minnesota, and a community cancer center in Wisconsin.

Patients were tested for about 84 genes using next-generation sequencing provided by Invitae.

Among participants, 13.3% (n = 397) tested positive for pathogenic mutations. Of these, about 70% (282 of 397 patients) carried moderate- and high-penetrance genes that increased their risk for cancer. For almost 28.2% (n = 42) of patients with high-penetrance mutations, changes were made in treatment as a result of genetic testing. These included changes in surgical management, immunotherapy, chemotherapy, or enrollment in a clinical trial for which they may otherwise have not been eligible.

Researchers also compared their universal testing approach with targeted testing recommended in guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, the National Society of Genetic Counselors, and the American College of Medical Genetics.

They identified pathogenic mutations in 192 patients whose mutations would have been missed using guideline-recommended criteria, such as tumor pathology or family history. This represents 6.4% of all participants in the study (192 of 2,984 patients) and 48.4% of patients who tested positive for pathogenic mutations (397 of 2,984 patients).

“Genetic testing is underutilized in cancer care, both for patients and for their families, often due to outdated guidelines that restrict testing to a narrow group of high-risk patients. All cancer patients should have access to complete genetic information that can guide their care and inform their families’ health,” coauthor Robert Nussbaum, MD, chief medical officer of Invitae, said in a statement.

Some clinicians have been pushing for genetic testing of all patients with cancer, including Dr. Beitsch, who was lead author of a similar study in breast cancer patients published last year in the Journal of Oncology. That article made waves when the authors concluded that all breast cancer patients should have expanded panel genetic testing.

This new Mayo Clinic study extends the findings in breast cancer to “all cancer patients, not just breast cancer patients,” Dr. Beitsch said in an interview.
 

Long-running debate

The new findings and opinions add to a long-running debate in oncology over the role of genetic testing and screening for pathogenic mutations.

Part of the debate about genetic testing has hinged on the question of costs, said Dr. Beitsch. When genetic testing first became available, it was conducted by hand, and costs were often prohibitive. Since then, genetic testing has been automated using next-generation sequencing, and the cost has decreased considerably.

“The Invitae cash price for an 80-plus gene panel is $250. That’s [the cost of] a mani-pedi in Dallas. I don’t discount that it’s a lot of money for a lot of people. Yes, it’s expensive, but it’s a lot less expensive than it used to be,” Dr. Beitsch said.

Another issue is that doctors are not entirely sure how to manage variants of uncertain significance (VUSs) when they are found. In the Mayo Clinic study, about half (47.4%; n = 1415) of participants had VUSs. The authors noted that these results are consistent with past studies.

Dr. Beitsch said that VUSs are a matter of education. To date, only about 2% of VUSs have been associated with cancer. The remainder, about 98%, do not affect treatment for patients who have already been diagnosed with cancer.

“We all have VUSs. They’re just minor variations in a gene. The vast majority of them have no consequence and don’t alter the function of the gene,” he said. “I tell everybody to ignore the VUSs [when found in patients with cancer]. Do not act on them at all. We just need to educate everybody to make sure they don’t get stressed about it.”

These comments echo guidance from the American Society of Breast Surgeons, which says that VUSs are DNA sequences that are not clinically actionable. This type of result needs to be considered as inconclusive, and patient management should not be influenced by such results.

However, VUSs are more significant if they are found in individuals who do not have cancer but who have a strong family history of cancer. In such cases, clinicians should be more aware, Dr. Beitsch emphasized.

“Patients who have a VUS and don’t have a cancer should absolutely pay more attention to their health. They got tested for a reason, and that reason is usually strong family history,” Dr. Beitsch said.

He added that a major advantage of genetic testing is that it can enable cascade genetic testing of family members. Identifying pathogenic mutations in family members can lead them to undergo screening to detect early cancers, and preventive measures can be taken that may be lifesaving.

In the Mayo Clinic study, researchers offered genetic testing to family members of patients who tested positive for a pathogenic mutation. Testing was available free of charge for up to 90 days after a participant tested positive. In addition, family members were shown an educational video.

Nevertheless, only 17.6% (n = 70) of patients with pathogenic mutations had family members who underwent testing. Among these, 45% (79 of 176) of family members who were tested were found to carry pathogenic mutations.

“This really told us that financial barriers are not the only barrier to families understanding and undergoing preventive testing,” Dr. Samadder said. “There are probably a number of other barriers – socioeconomic or emotional – that we have to deal with.”

Genetic testing was provided by Invitae. The study was supported by several grants, including a Mayo Transform the Practice Grant, and by Mayo Clinic’s Center for Individualized Medicine. Two coauthors are employees of Invitae. Dr. Beitsch reported participating in a study 2 years ago that was funded by Invitae. He currently receives no financial support from Invitae. Several authors report receiving fees from one or more of the following companies: Pfizer, Maze Therapeutics, Genome Medical, Astellas, and Merck.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

About one in eight patients with cancer have inherited genetic mutations that may have contributed to the development of their cancers, but nearly half of these mutations would have been missed using current clinical guidelines.

These findings come from the largest study of its kind so far, conducted in nearly 3,000 patients with a wide range of cancer stages and types, including breast, colorectal, lung, ovarian, pancreatic, bladder, prostate, and endometrial cancers.

“This study tells us that the clinical practice guidelines are not very sensitive for identifying who does or doesn’t have a genetic mutation that is predisposing them to cancer,” commented first author Niloy Jewell Samadder, MD, director of the high-risk cancer clinic at the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix.

Finding a genetic mutation can alter clinical management of the cancer.

“This really does open up treatment and management options that might not have been accessible to these patients,” Dr. Samadder emphasized.

The results were published online on Oct. 30 in JAMA Oncology and were presented simultaneously at the American Society of Human Genetics. Dr. Samadder discussed details of the study in a video posted on YouTube.

A clinician not involved in the study said the new results should lead to changes in practice.

“For cancer patients, I think the debate is over. We should test everybody,” Peter Beitsch, MD, surgical oncologist at the Dallas Surgical Group, said in an interview.

The Mayo Clinic is changing its daily practice at all four of its cancer centers. The changes will begin in the first quarter of 2021 at its Arizona campus.

“Every cancer patient who comes to Mayo Clinic will be offered genomic evaluation that includes genetic testing to identify if they have an underlying genetic mutation that predisposes to their cancer and [helps physicians decide] how to incorporate that knowledge into designing the best surgical and treatment options for that patient and their family,” Dr. Samadder said.
 

Study details

The study included 2,984 patients with cancer who were receiving care for a variety of solid tumor cancers at Mayo Clinic cancer centers in Arizona, Florida, Minnesota, and a community cancer center in Wisconsin.

Patients were tested for about 84 genes using next-generation sequencing provided by Invitae.

Among participants, 13.3% (n = 397) tested positive for pathogenic mutations. Of these, about 70% (282 of 397 patients) carried moderate- and high-penetrance genes that increased their risk for cancer. For almost 28.2% (n = 42) of patients with high-penetrance mutations, changes were made in treatment as a result of genetic testing. These included changes in surgical management, immunotherapy, chemotherapy, or enrollment in a clinical trial for which they may otherwise have not been eligible.

Researchers also compared their universal testing approach with targeted testing recommended in guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, the National Society of Genetic Counselors, and the American College of Medical Genetics.

They identified pathogenic mutations in 192 patients whose mutations would have been missed using guideline-recommended criteria, such as tumor pathology or family history. This represents 6.4% of all participants in the study (192 of 2,984 patients) and 48.4% of patients who tested positive for pathogenic mutations (397 of 2,984 patients).

“Genetic testing is underutilized in cancer care, both for patients and for their families, often due to outdated guidelines that restrict testing to a narrow group of high-risk patients. All cancer patients should have access to complete genetic information that can guide their care and inform their families’ health,” coauthor Robert Nussbaum, MD, chief medical officer of Invitae, said in a statement.

Some clinicians have been pushing for genetic testing of all patients with cancer, including Dr. Beitsch, who was lead author of a similar study in breast cancer patients published last year in the Journal of Oncology. That article made waves when the authors concluded that all breast cancer patients should have expanded panel genetic testing.

This new Mayo Clinic study extends the findings in breast cancer to “all cancer patients, not just breast cancer patients,” Dr. Beitsch said in an interview.
 

Long-running debate

The new findings and opinions add to a long-running debate in oncology over the role of genetic testing and screening for pathogenic mutations.

Part of the debate about genetic testing has hinged on the question of costs, said Dr. Beitsch. When genetic testing first became available, it was conducted by hand, and costs were often prohibitive. Since then, genetic testing has been automated using next-generation sequencing, and the cost has decreased considerably.

“The Invitae cash price for an 80-plus gene panel is $250. That’s [the cost of] a mani-pedi in Dallas. I don’t discount that it’s a lot of money for a lot of people. Yes, it’s expensive, but it’s a lot less expensive than it used to be,” Dr. Beitsch said.

Another issue is that doctors are not entirely sure how to manage variants of uncertain significance (VUSs) when they are found. In the Mayo Clinic study, about half (47.4%; n = 1415) of participants had VUSs. The authors noted that these results are consistent with past studies.

Dr. Beitsch said that VUSs are a matter of education. To date, only about 2% of VUSs have been associated with cancer. The remainder, about 98%, do not affect treatment for patients who have already been diagnosed with cancer.

“We all have VUSs. They’re just minor variations in a gene. The vast majority of them have no consequence and don’t alter the function of the gene,” he said. “I tell everybody to ignore the VUSs [when found in patients with cancer]. Do not act on them at all. We just need to educate everybody to make sure they don’t get stressed about it.”

These comments echo guidance from the American Society of Breast Surgeons, which says that VUSs are DNA sequences that are not clinically actionable. This type of result needs to be considered as inconclusive, and patient management should not be influenced by such results.

However, VUSs are more significant if they are found in individuals who do not have cancer but who have a strong family history of cancer. In such cases, clinicians should be more aware, Dr. Beitsch emphasized.

“Patients who have a VUS and don’t have a cancer should absolutely pay more attention to their health. They got tested for a reason, and that reason is usually strong family history,” Dr. Beitsch said.

He added that a major advantage of genetic testing is that it can enable cascade genetic testing of family members. Identifying pathogenic mutations in family members can lead them to undergo screening to detect early cancers, and preventive measures can be taken that may be lifesaving.

In the Mayo Clinic study, researchers offered genetic testing to family members of patients who tested positive for a pathogenic mutation. Testing was available free of charge for up to 90 days after a participant tested positive. In addition, family members were shown an educational video.

Nevertheless, only 17.6% (n = 70) of patients with pathogenic mutations had family members who underwent testing. Among these, 45% (79 of 176) of family members who were tested were found to carry pathogenic mutations.

“This really told us that financial barriers are not the only barrier to families understanding and undergoing preventive testing,” Dr. Samadder said. “There are probably a number of other barriers – socioeconomic or emotional – that we have to deal with.”

Genetic testing was provided by Invitae. The study was supported by several grants, including a Mayo Transform the Practice Grant, and by Mayo Clinic’s Center for Individualized Medicine. Two coauthors are employees of Invitae. Dr. Beitsch reported participating in a study 2 years ago that was funded by Invitae. He currently receives no financial support from Invitae. Several authors report receiving fees from one or more of the following companies: Pfizer, Maze Therapeutics, Genome Medical, Astellas, and Merck.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.