Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management

Women with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) who experience hypertensive disorders of pregnancy may have a higher rate of cardiovascular outcomes after pregnancy, as well as a higher rate of hypertension later in life, than do those without maternal hypertension, according to findings from a Swedish population-based, longitudinal cohort study.

“Premature CVD [cardiovascular disease] is a well-documented complication in women with SLE, which is likely, at least in part, due to renal disease, prothrombotic [antiphospholipid antibodies], and systemic inflammation. Our data confirm that women who experience a hypertensive disorder in pregnancy [HDP] are at greater risk of developing hypertension after pregnancy, and that this association is also evident for women with SLE. Women with SLE and HDP were also at increased risk of CVD, particularly stroke, at young ages and should be monitored closely and consider treatment to attenuate risk,” wrote first author Julia F. Simard, ScD, of Stanford (Calif.) University and colleagues in Arthritis Care & Research.

To reach those conclusions, the researchers identified 3,340 women in the Swedish Medical Birth Register with their first singleton delivery during 1987-2012. They matched each of the 450 women with prevalent SLE from the Medical Birth Register to 5 women without SLE in the National Patient Register based on sex, birth year, calendar time, and county of residence.

During a median follow-up period of nearly 11 years, women with SLE had an unadjusted incidence rate of incident cardiovascular outcomes of 50 cases per 10,000 person-years versus 7.2 for women without SLE. Cardiovascular outcomes included fatal and nonfatal acute MI, fatal and nonfatal stroke, transient ischemic attacks, unstable angina, and heart failure. A history of HDP in women with SLE, including preeclampsia, was linked with about a twofold higher rate of cardiovascular outcomes regardless of multiple sensitivity analyses, both before and after adjusting for maternal age at delivery, county of birth, education, body mass index, and first-trimester smoking.

The researchers found that the hazard ratio for cardiovascular outcomes in women with SLE and HDP was about eight times higher than the hazard ratio for women without SLE but with HDP, but the relative rarity of cardiovascular events seen during the follow-up period, particularly among women without SLE, made it so that they “could not confirm established associations between HDP and CVD, possibly due to the relatively short follow-up time given that premenopausal CVD is rare among women free of SLE.”

HDP was associated with a threefold higher risk for incident hypertension later in life regardless of SLE status, even though the unadjusted incidence rate was 524 cases per 10,000 person-years among women with both SLE and HDP, compared with 177 per 10,000 person-years among women with HDP in the general population, which sensitivity analyses suggested “was not due to misclassification of antihypertensive use for renal disease in women with SLE nor antihypertensive use for possible HDP in subsequent pregnancies,” the researchers wrote.

Several authors reported research grants from the National Institutes of Health, the Karolinska Institute, the Swedish Research Council, Swedish Heart-Lung Foundation, Stockholm County Council, the King Gustaf V 80th Birthday Fund, the Swedish Rheumatism Association, and Ingegerd Johansson’s Foundation that helped to fund the study. All authors reported having no competing interests.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Simard JF et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2020 Jan 31. doi: 10.1002/acr.24160.

Women with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) who experience hypertensive disorders of pregnancy may have a higher rate of cardiovascular outcomes after pregnancy, as well as a higher rate of hypertension later in life, than do those without maternal hypertension, according to findings from a Swedish population-based, longitudinal cohort study.

“Premature CVD [cardiovascular disease] is a well-documented complication in women with SLE, which is likely, at least in part, due to renal disease, prothrombotic [antiphospholipid antibodies], and systemic inflammation. Our data confirm that women who experience a hypertensive disorder in pregnancy [HDP] are at greater risk of developing hypertension after pregnancy, and that this association is also evident for women with SLE. Women with SLE and HDP were also at increased risk of CVD, particularly stroke, at young ages and should be monitored closely and consider treatment to attenuate risk,” wrote first author Julia F. Simard, ScD, of Stanford (Calif.) University and colleagues in Arthritis Care & Research.

To reach those conclusions, the researchers identified 3,340 women in the Swedish Medical Birth Register with their first singleton delivery during 1987-2012. They matched each of the 450 women with prevalent SLE from the Medical Birth Register to 5 women without SLE in the National Patient Register based on sex, birth year, calendar time, and county of residence.

During a median follow-up period of nearly 11 years, women with SLE had an unadjusted incidence rate of incident cardiovascular outcomes of 50 cases per 10,000 person-years versus 7.2 for women without SLE. Cardiovascular outcomes included fatal and nonfatal acute MI, fatal and nonfatal stroke, transient ischemic attacks, unstable angina, and heart failure. A history of HDP in women with SLE, including preeclampsia, was linked with about a twofold higher rate of cardiovascular outcomes regardless of multiple sensitivity analyses, both before and after adjusting for maternal age at delivery, county of birth, education, body mass index, and first-trimester smoking.

The researchers found that the hazard ratio for cardiovascular outcomes in women with SLE and HDP was about eight times higher than the hazard ratio for women without SLE but with HDP, but the relative rarity of cardiovascular events seen during the follow-up period, particularly among women without SLE, made it so that they “could not confirm established associations between HDP and CVD, possibly due to the relatively short follow-up time given that premenopausal CVD is rare among women free of SLE.”

HDP was associated with a threefold higher risk for incident hypertension later in life regardless of SLE status, even though the unadjusted incidence rate was 524 cases per 10,000 person-years among women with both SLE and HDP, compared with 177 per 10,000 person-years among women with HDP in the general population, which sensitivity analyses suggested “was not due to misclassification of antihypertensive use for renal disease in women with SLE nor antihypertensive use for possible HDP in subsequent pregnancies,” the researchers wrote.

Several authors reported research grants from the National Institutes of Health, the Karolinska Institute, the Swedish Research Council, Swedish Heart-Lung Foundation, Stockholm County Council, the King Gustaf V 80th Birthday Fund, the Swedish Rheumatism Association, and Ingegerd Johansson’s Foundation that helped to fund the study. All authors reported having no competing interests.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Simard JF et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2020 Jan 31. doi: 10.1002/acr.24160.

Women with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) who experience hypertensive disorders of pregnancy may have a higher rate of cardiovascular outcomes after pregnancy, as well as a higher rate of hypertension later in life, than do those without maternal hypertension, according to findings from a Swedish population-based, longitudinal cohort study.

“Premature CVD [cardiovascular disease] is a well-documented complication in women with SLE, which is likely, at least in part, due to renal disease, prothrombotic [antiphospholipid antibodies], and systemic inflammation. Our data confirm that women who experience a hypertensive disorder in pregnancy [HDP] are at greater risk of developing hypertension after pregnancy, and that this association is also evident for women with SLE. Women with SLE and HDP were also at increased risk of CVD, particularly stroke, at young ages and should be monitored closely and consider treatment to attenuate risk,” wrote first author Julia F. Simard, ScD, of Stanford (Calif.) University and colleagues in Arthritis Care & Research.

To reach those conclusions, the researchers identified 3,340 women in the Swedish Medical Birth Register with their first singleton delivery during 1987-2012. They matched each of the 450 women with prevalent SLE from the Medical Birth Register to 5 women without SLE in the National Patient Register based on sex, birth year, calendar time, and county of residence.

During a median follow-up period of nearly 11 years, women with SLE had an unadjusted incidence rate of incident cardiovascular outcomes of 50 cases per 10,000 person-years versus 7.2 for women without SLE. Cardiovascular outcomes included fatal and nonfatal acute MI, fatal and nonfatal stroke, transient ischemic attacks, unstable angina, and heart failure. A history of HDP in women with SLE, including preeclampsia, was linked with about a twofold higher rate of cardiovascular outcomes regardless of multiple sensitivity analyses, both before and after adjusting for maternal age at delivery, county of birth, education, body mass index, and first-trimester smoking.

The researchers found that the hazard ratio for cardiovascular outcomes in women with SLE and HDP was about eight times higher than the hazard ratio for women without SLE but with HDP, but the relative rarity of cardiovascular events seen during the follow-up period, particularly among women without SLE, made it so that they “could not confirm established associations between HDP and CVD, possibly due to the relatively short follow-up time given that premenopausal CVD is rare among women free of SLE.”

HDP was associated with a threefold higher risk for incident hypertension later in life regardless of SLE status, even though the unadjusted incidence rate was 524 cases per 10,000 person-years among women with both SLE and HDP, compared with 177 per 10,000 person-years among women with HDP in the general population, which sensitivity analyses suggested “was not due to misclassification of antihypertensive use for renal disease in women with SLE nor antihypertensive use for possible HDP in subsequent pregnancies,” the researchers wrote.

Several authors reported research grants from the National Institutes of Health, the Karolinska Institute, the Swedish Research Council, Swedish Heart-Lung Foundation, Stockholm County Council, the King Gustaf V 80th Birthday Fund, the Swedish Rheumatism Association, and Ingegerd Johansson’s Foundation that helped to fund the study. All authors reported having no competing interests.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Simard JF et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2020 Jan 31. doi: 10.1002/acr.24160.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the first and only adjuvanted, cell-based pandemic vaccine to provide active immunization against the influenza A virus H5N1 strain.
 

Influenza A (H5N1) monovalent vaccine, adjuvanted (Audenz, Seqirus) is for use in individuals aged 6 months and older.  It’s designed to be rapidly deployed to help protect the U.S. population and can be stockpiled for first responders in the event of a pandemic.

The vaccine and formulated prefilled syringes used in the vaccine are produced in a state-of-the-art production facility built and supported through a multiyear public-private partnership between Seqirus and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), part of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response at the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.

“Pandemic influenza viruses can be deadly and spread rapidly, making production of safe, effective vaccines essential in saving lives,” BARDA Director Rick Bright, PhD, said in a company news release.

“With this licensure – the latest FDA-approved vaccine to prevent H5N1 influenza — we celebrate a decade-long partnership to achieve health security goals set by the National Strategy for Pandemic Influenza and the 2019 Executive Order to speed the availability of influenza vaccine. Ultimately, this latest licensure means we can protect more people in an influenza pandemic,” said Bright.

“The approval of Audenz represents a key advance in influenza prevention and pandemic preparedness, combining leading-edge, cell-based manufacturing and adjuvant technologies,” Russell Basser, MD, chief scientist and senior vice president of research and development at Seqirus, said in the news release. “This pandemic influenza vaccine exemplifies our commitment to developing innovative technologies that can help provide rapid response during a pandemic emergency.”

Audenz had FDA fast track designation, a process designed to facilitate the development and expedite the review of drugs to treat serious conditions and fill an unmet medical need.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the first and only adjuvanted, cell-based pandemic vaccine to provide active immunization against the influenza A virus H5N1 strain.
 

Influenza A (H5N1) monovalent vaccine, adjuvanted (Audenz, Seqirus) is for use in individuals aged 6 months and older.  It’s designed to be rapidly deployed to help protect the U.S. population and can be stockpiled for first responders in the event of a pandemic.

The vaccine and formulated prefilled syringes used in the vaccine are produced in a state-of-the-art production facility built and supported through a multiyear public-private partnership between Seqirus and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), part of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response at the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.

“Pandemic influenza viruses can be deadly and spread rapidly, making production of safe, effective vaccines essential in saving lives,” BARDA Director Rick Bright, PhD, said in a company news release.

“With this licensure – the latest FDA-approved vaccine to prevent H5N1 influenza — we celebrate a decade-long partnership to achieve health security goals set by the National Strategy for Pandemic Influenza and the 2019 Executive Order to speed the availability of influenza vaccine. Ultimately, this latest licensure means we can protect more people in an influenza pandemic,” said Bright.

“The approval of Audenz represents a key advance in influenza prevention and pandemic preparedness, combining leading-edge, cell-based manufacturing and adjuvant technologies,” Russell Basser, MD, chief scientist and senior vice president of research and development at Seqirus, said in the news release. “This pandemic influenza vaccine exemplifies our commitment to developing innovative technologies that can help provide rapid response during a pandemic emergency.”

Audenz had FDA fast track designation, a process designed to facilitate the development and expedite the review of drugs to treat serious conditions and fill an unmet medical need.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the first and only adjuvanted, cell-based pandemic vaccine to provide active immunization against the influenza A virus H5N1 strain.
 

Influenza A (H5N1) monovalent vaccine, adjuvanted (Audenz, Seqirus) is for use in individuals aged 6 months and older.  It’s designed to be rapidly deployed to help protect the U.S. population and can be stockpiled for first responders in the event of a pandemic.

The vaccine and formulated prefilled syringes used in the vaccine are produced in a state-of-the-art production facility built and supported through a multiyear public-private partnership between Seqirus and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), part of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response at the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.

“Pandemic influenza viruses can be deadly and spread rapidly, making production of safe, effective vaccines essential in saving lives,” BARDA Director Rick Bright, PhD, said in a company news release.

“With this licensure – the latest FDA-approved vaccine to prevent H5N1 influenza — we celebrate a decade-long partnership to achieve health security goals set by the National Strategy for Pandemic Influenza and the 2019 Executive Order to speed the availability of influenza vaccine. Ultimately, this latest licensure means we can protect more people in an influenza pandemic,” said Bright.

“The approval of Audenz represents a key advance in influenza prevention and pandemic preparedness, combining leading-edge, cell-based manufacturing and adjuvant technologies,” Russell Basser, MD, chief scientist and senior vice president of research and development at Seqirus, said in the news release. “This pandemic influenza vaccine exemplifies our commitment to developing innovative technologies that can help provide rapid response during a pandemic emergency.”

Audenz had FDA fast track designation, a process designed to facilitate the development and expedite the review of drugs to treat serious conditions and fill an unmet medical need.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

People with neurologic disorders have a higher rate of suicide, compared with people without neurologic conditions, according to a population-based study in Denmark.

The absolute risk difference is small, but statistically significant. “These findings do not necessarily warrant changing the management of treatment for individual patients,” wrote Annette Erlangsen, PhD, a researcher at the Danish Research Institute for Suicide Prevention in Hellerup, and colleagues. “As with all patients, physicians should be aware of the potential for depression, demoralization, and suicide.”

In addition, dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, and intellectual disabilities may be associated with lower suicide rates, according to the study, which was published in JAMA.

“Plausible mechanisms” could underlie the association between neurologic disease and suicide, the authors wrote. A neurologic diagnosis “may constitute a distressing life event,” and the diseases may have psychological, physical, and psychiatric effects. Patients may see themselves as a burden or have less financial security. In addition, the diseases may entail “communication difficulties, poor sleep, and pain.” Neurologic diseases may alter brain circuitry and functioning and influence aggression and impulsivity. “People with neurologic disorders may also have easier access to toxic medication,” they added.
 

More than a dozen conditions examined

Prior studies have found associations between neurologic conditions and rates of suicide, but data have been inconclusive or inconsistent for some of the disorders. To examine whether people with neurologic disorders have higher suicide rates, relative to people without these disorders, the researchers conducted a retrospective study. They analyzed data from more than 7.3 million people aged 15 years or older who lived in Denmark between 1980 and 2016. The cohort included more than 1.2 million people with neurologic disorders. The investigators identified neurologic disorders using ICD codes for head injury, stroke, epilepsy, polyneuropathy, diseases of the myoneural junction, Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis, CNS infections, meningitis, encephalitis, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Huntington’s disease, dementia, intellectual disability, and other brain disorders. They compared incidence rates using a Poisson regression model and adjusted for time period, sex, age, region, socioeconomic status, comorbidity, self-harm or psychiatric hospitalization prior to a neurologic diagnosis, and whether a person lived alone.

In all, 35,483 people in the cohort died by suicide at an average age of about 52 years; 77.4% were male. About 15% of those who died by suicide had a neurologic disorder. The suicide incidence rate among people with a neurologic disorder was 44.0 per 100,000 person-years, whereas the rate among people without a neurologic disorder was 20.1 per 100,000 person-years.

The adjusted incidence rate ratio for people with a neurologic disorder was 1.8. The rate ratio was highest during the 3 months after diagnosis, at 3.1. Huntington’s disease and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis were associated with “the largest excess adjusted [incidence rate ratios] of suicide mortality,” with a rate ratio of 4.9 for each condition, the researchers reported. The adjusted incidence rate ratio was 1.7 for head injury, 1.3 for stroke, 1.7 for epilepsy, 1.4 for intracerebral hemorrhage, 1.3 for cerebral infarction, 1.3 for subarachnoid hemorrhage, 1.7 for polyneuropathy and peripheral neuropathy, 2.2 for Guillain-Barré syndrome, 1.9 for diseases of myoneural junction and muscle, 1.8 for other brain disorders, 1.7 for Parkinson’s disease, 2.2 for multiple sclerosis, and 1.6 for CNS infection.

Compared with people without a neurologic condition, people with dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, and intellectual disabilities had lower suicide rates, with adjusted incidence rate ratios of 0.8, 0.2, and 0.6, respectively. “However, the adjusted [incidence rate ratio] for people with dementia during the first month after diagnosis was 3.0,” the researchers wrote.

In addition, the suicide rate increased with an increasing cumulative number of hospital contacts for neurologic conditions.

Overall incidence rates declined

“Over the study period, the suicide incidence rate for people with neurological disorders decreased from 78.6 per 100,000 person-years during the 1980-1999 years to 27.3 per 100,000 person-years during the 2000-2016 years,” wrote Dr. Erlangsen and colleagues. “The suicide incidence rate for those without a disorder decreased from 26.3 to 12.7 during the same time spans. ... The decline in the overall suicide rate over time did not affect the relative risk pattern.”

The decline in the general suicide rate in Denmark “has largely been attributed to means restriction, such as efforts to limit availability of firearms and particularly toxic medication,” the authors added.

In those time spans, the adjusted incidence rate ratio for suicide among those with dementia decreased from 2.4 to 1.0, and among those with multiple sclerosis from 2.0 to 1.0. “It is possible that the improvements observed for dementia and multiple sclerosis may be related to improvements in treatment and intensified community-based support,” Dr. Erlangsen and coauthors wrote.

When the researchers used people with rheumatoid arthritis as a reference group, those with a neurologic disorder had a higher suicide rate per 100,000 person-years, 30.2 versus 18.4. The adjusted incidence rate ratio for that comparison was 1.4.

In patients with Huntington’s disease, depression mediated by hyperactivity in the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis may contribute to the risk of suicide. “Witnessing the course of the disease in one’s parent” also may contribute the risk, the researchers wrote.

The analysis may have missed people with neurologic disorders diagnosed before 1977 if they did not have subsequent contact with a hospital, the investigators noted. In addition, diagnoses given in primary care were not included, suicide deaths may be underrecorded, and “adjusting for preexisting mental disorders could be viewed as overadjusting,” they wrote.

The study was supported by a grant from the Psychiatric Research Foundation in Denmark. The authors reported that they had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Erlangsen A et al. JAMA. 2020 Feb 4. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.21834.

People with neurologic disorders have a higher rate of suicide, compared with people without neurologic conditions, according to a population-based study in Denmark.

The absolute risk difference is small, but statistically significant. “These findings do not necessarily warrant changing the management of treatment for individual patients,” wrote Annette Erlangsen, PhD, a researcher at the Danish Research Institute for Suicide Prevention in Hellerup, and colleagues. “As with all patients, physicians should be aware of the potential for depression, demoralization, and suicide.”

In addition, dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, and intellectual disabilities may be associated with lower suicide rates, according to the study, which was published in JAMA.

“Plausible mechanisms” could underlie the association between neurologic disease and suicide, the authors wrote. A neurologic diagnosis “may constitute a distressing life event,” and the diseases may have psychological, physical, and psychiatric effects. Patients may see themselves as a burden or have less financial security. In addition, the diseases may entail “communication difficulties, poor sleep, and pain.” Neurologic diseases may alter brain circuitry and functioning and influence aggression and impulsivity. “People with neurologic disorders may also have easier access to toxic medication,” they added.
 

More than a dozen conditions examined

Prior studies have found associations between neurologic conditions and rates of suicide, but data have been inconclusive or inconsistent for some of the disorders. To examine whether people with neurologic disorders have higher suicide rates, relative to people without these disorders, the researchers conducted a retrospective study. They analyzed data from more than 7.3 million people aged 15 years or older who lived in Denmark between 1980 and 2016. The cohort included more than 1.2 million people with neurologic disorders. The investigators identified neurologic disorders using ICD codes for head injury, stroke, epilepsy, polyneuropathy, diseases of the myoneural junction, Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis, CNS infections, meningitis, encephalitis, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Huntington’s disease, dementia, intellectual disability, and other brain disorders. They compared incidence rates using a Poisson regression model and adjusted for time period, sex, age, region, socioeconomic status, comorbidity, self-harm or psychiatric hospitalization prior to a neurologic diagnosis, and whether a person lived alone.

In all, 35,483 people in the cohort died by suicide at an average age of about 52 years; 77.4% were male. About 15% of those who died by suicide had a neurologic disorder. The suicide incidence rate among people with a neurologic disorder was 44.0 per 100,000 person-years, whereas the rate among people without a neurologic disorder was 20.1 per 100,000 person-years.

The adjusted incidence rate ratio for people with a neurologic disorder was 1.8. The rate ratio was highest during the 3 months after diagnosis, at 3.1. Huntington’s disease and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis were associated with “the largest excess adjusted [incidence rate ratios] of suicide mortality,” with a rate ratio of 4.9 for each condition, the researchers reported. The adjusted incidence rate ratio was 1.7 for head injury, 1.3 for stroke, 1.7 for epilepsy, 1.4 for intracerebral hemorrhage, 1.3 for cerebral infarction, 1.3 for subarachnoid hemorrhage, 1.7 for polyneuropathy and peripheral neuropathy, 2.2 for Guillain-Barré syndrome, 1.9 for diseases of myoneural junction and muscle, 1.8 for other brain disorders, 1.7 for Parkinson’s disease, 2.2 for multiple sclerosis, and 1.6 for CNS infection.

Compared with people without a neurologic condition, people with dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, and intellectual disabilities had lower suicide rates, with adjusted incidence rate ratios of 0.8, 0.2, and 0.6, respectively. “However, the adjusted [incidence rate ratio] for people with dementia during the first month after diagnosis was 3.0,” the researchers wrote.

In addition, the suicide rate increased with an increasing cumulative number of hospital contacts for neurologic conditions.

Overall incidence rates declined

“Over the study period, the suicide incidence rate for people with neurological disorders decreased from 78.6 per 100,000 person-years during the 1980-1999 years to 27.3 per 100,000 person-years during the 2000-2016 years,” wrote Dr. Erlangsen and colleagues. “The suicide incidence rate for those without a disorder decreased from 26.3 to 12.7 during the same time spans. ... The decline in the overall suicide rate over time did not affect the relative risk pattern.”

The decline in the general suicide rate in Denmark “has largely been attributed to means restriction, such as efforts to limit availability of firearms and particularly toxic medication,” the authors added.

In those time spans, the adjusted incidence rate ratio for suicide among those with dementia decreased from 2.4 to 1.0, and among those with multiple sclerosis from 2.0 to 1.0. “It is possible that the improvements observed for dementia and multiple sclerosis may be related to improvements in treatment and intensified community-based support,” Dr. Erlangsen and coauthors wrote.

When the researchers used people with rheumatoid arthritis as a reference group, those with a neurologic disorder had a higher suicide rate per 100,000 person-years, 30.2 versus 18.4. The adjusted incidence rate ratio for that comparison was 1.4.

In patients with Huntington’s disease, depression mediated by hyperactivity in the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis may contribute to the risk of suicide. “Witnessing the course of the disease in one’s parent” also may contribute the risk, the researchers wrote.

The analysis may have missed people with neurologic disorders diagnosed before 1977 if they did not have subsequent contact with a hospital, the investigators noted. In addition, diagnoses given in primary care were not included, suicide deaths may be underrecorded, and “adjusting for preexisting mental disorders could be viewed as overadjusting,” they wrote.

The study was supported by a grant from the Psychiatric Research Foundation in Denmark. The authors reported that they had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Erlangsen A et al. JAMA. 2020 Feb 4. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.21834.

People with neurologic disorders have a higher rate of suicide, compared with people without neurologic conditions, according to a population-based study in Denmark.

The absolute risk difference is small, but statistically significant. “These findings do not necessarily warrant changing the management of treatment for individual patients,” wrote Annette Erlangsen, PhD, a researcher at the Danish Research Institute for Suicide Prevention in Hellerup, and colleagues. “As with all patients, physicians should be aware of the potential for depression, demoralization, and suicide.”

In addition, dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, and intellectual disabilities may be associated with lower suicide rates, according to the study, which was published in JAMA.

“Plausible mechanisms” could underlie the association between neurologic disease and suicide, the authors wrote. A neurologic diagnosis “may constitute a distressing life event,” and the diseases may have psychological, physical, and psychiatric effects. Patients may see themselves as a burden or have less financial security. In addition, the diseases may entail “communication difficulties, poor sleep, and pain.” Neurologic diseases may alter brain circuitry and functioning and influence aggression and impulsivity. “People with neurologic disorders may also have easier access to toxic medication,” they added.
 

More than a dozen conditions examined

Prior studies have found associations between neurologic conditions and rates of suicide, but data have been inconclusive or inconsistent for some of the disorders. To examine whether people with neurologic disorders have higher suicide rates, relative to people without these disorders, the researchers conducted a retrospective study. They analyzed data from more than 7.3 million people aged 15 years or older who lived in Denmark between 1980 and 2016. The cohort included more than 1.2 million people with neurologic disorders. The investigators identified neurologic disorders using ICD codes for head injury, stroke, epilepsy, polyneuropathy, diseases of the myoneural junction, Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis, CNS infections, meningitis, encephalitis, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Huntington’s disease, dementia, intellectual disability, and other brain disorders. They compared incidence rates using a Poisson regression model and adjusted for time period, sex, age, region, socioeconomic status, comorbidity, self-harm or psychiatric hospitalization prior to a neurologic diagnosis, and whether a person lived alone.

In all, 35,483 people in the cohort died by suicide at an average age of about 52 years; 77.4% were male. About 15% of those who died by suicide had a neurologic disorder. The suicide incidence rate among people with a neurologic disorder was 44.0 per 100,000 person-years, whereas the rate among people without a neurologic disorder was 20.1 per 100,000 person-years.

The adjusted incidence rate ratio for people with a neurologic disorder was 1.8. The rate ratio was highest during the 3 months after diagnosis, at 3.1. Huntington’s disease and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis were associated with “the largest excess adjusted [incidence rate ratios] of suicide mortality,” with a rate ratio of 4.9 for each condition, the researchers reported. The adjusted incidence rate ratio was 1.7 for head injury, 1.3 for stroke, 1.7 for epilepsy, 1.4 for intracerebral hemorrhage, 1.3 for cerebral infarction, 1.3 for subarachnoid hemorrhage, 1.7 for polyneuropathy and peripheral neuropathy, 2.2 for Guillain-Barré syndrome, 1.9 for diseases of myoneural junction and muscle, 1.8 for other brain disorders, 1.7 for Parkinson’s disease, 2.2 for multiple sclerosis, and 1.6 for CNS infection.

Compared with people without a neurologic condition, people with dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, and intellectual disabilities had lower suicide rates, with adjusted incidence rate ratios of 0.8, 0.2, and 0.6, respectively. “However, the adjusted [incidence rate ratio] for people with dementia during the first month after diagnosis was 3.0,” the researchers wrote.

In addition, the suicide rate increased with an increasing cumulative number of hospital contacts for neurologic conditions.

Overall incidence rates declined

“Over the study period, the suicide incidence rate for people with neurological disorders decreased from 78.6 per 100,000 person-years during the 1980-1999 years to 27.3 per 100,000 person-years during the 2000-2016 years,” wrote Dr. Erlangsen and colleagues. “The suicide incidence rate for those without a disorder decreased from 26.3 to 12.7 during the same time spans. ... The decline in the overall suicide rate over time did not affect the relative risk pattern.”

The decline in the general suicide rate in Denmark “has largely been attributed to means restriction, such as efforts to limit availability of firearms and particularly toxic medication,” the authors added.

In those time spans, the adjusted incidence rate ratio for suicide among those with dementia decreased from 2.4 to 1.0, and among those with multiple sclerosis from 2.0 to 1.0. “It is possible that the improvements observed for dementia and multiple sclerosis may be related to improvements in treatment and intensified community-based support,” Dr. Erlangsen and coauthors wrote.

When the researchers used people with rheumatoid arthritis as a reference group, those with a neurologic disorder had a higher suicide rate per 100,000 person-years, 30.2 versus 18.4. The adjusted incidence rate ratio for that comparison was 1.4.

In patients with Huntington’s disease, depression mediated by hyperactivity in the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis may contribute to the risk of suicide. “Witnessing the course of the disease in one’s parent” also may contribute the risk, the researchers wrote.

The analysis may have missed people with neurologic disorders diagnosed before 1977 if they did not have subsequent contact with a hospital, the investigators noted. In addition, diagnoses given in primary care were not included, suicide deaths may be underrecorded, and “adjusting for preexisting mental disorders could be viewed as overadjusting,” they wrote.

The study was supported by a grant from the Psychiatric Research Foundation in Denmark. The authors reported that they had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Erlangsen A et al. JAMA. 2020 Feb 4. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.21834.

Considerable differences in ovarian cancer survival exist between high-income countries, especially for older women with advanced disease, according to a recent study.

The findings suggest additional research is needed to evaluate international differences in both treatment- and patient-specific factors affecting survival.

“This study [evaluated] differences in survival by age and stage at diagnosis within and across seven high-income countries,” wrote Citadel J. Cabasag, PhD, of the International Agency for Research on Cancer in Lyon, France, and colleagues. The results were published in Gynecologic Oncology.

The researchers conducted a retrospective analysis of population-based registry data from 2010 to 2014. Data were collected from 21 cancer registries located in Canada, United Kingdom, New Zealand, Norway, Ireland, Australia, and Denmark.

The cohort included 58,161 women with epithelial and nonepithelial ovarian cancer. The majority of cases were advanced stage, with a median age of 63-67 years at diagnosis, depending on the country.

The researchers compared age- and stage-specific net survival between countries at 1 and 3 years post diagnosis.

The 3-year all-ages net survival was highest for Norway (57%) and Australia (56%), followed by Denmark (54%), Canada (50%), United Kingdom (47%), New Zealand (46%), and Ireland (45%).

Most patients were diagnosed with distant disease (range, 64%-71%), with the greatest proportion of women in the 65- to 74- and 75- to 99-year age categories. The lowest 3-year age-specific survival (range, 20%-34%) was observed in the 75- to 99-year age category.

Marked differences in 3-year net survival between countries were found for women in the 75- to 99-year age group with distant disease (range, 12%-25%).

“International survival differences by age groups were less stark for early-stage disease,” the researchers reported. “Interjurisdictional differences within countries were also observed.”

The researchers acknowledged a key limitation of the analysis was the use of registry data. Variability between, and incomplete data within, registries could have lowered the accuracy of the survival estimates.

“[F]urther research investigating international differences in access to and quality of treatment, and prevalence of comorbid conditions particularly in older women with advanced disease [is needed],” the researchers concluded.

The study was supported by funding provided to the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership. The authors reported having no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Cabasag CJ et al. Gynecol Oncol. 2020 Jan 28. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2019.12.047.

Considerable differences in ovarian cancer survival exist between high-income countries, especially for older women with advanced disease, according to a recent study.

The findings suggest additional research is needed to evaluate international differences in both treatment- and patient-specific factors affecting survival.

“This study [evaluated] differences in survival by age and stage at diagnosis within and across seven high-income countries,” wrote Citadel J. Cabasag, PhD, of the International Agency for Research on Cancer in Lyon, France, and colleagues. The results were published in Gynecologic Oncology.

The researchers conducted a retrospective analysis of population-based registry data from 2010 to 2014. Data were collected from 21 cancer registries located in Canada, United Kingdom, New Zealand, Norway, Ireland, Australia, and Denmark.

The cohort included 58,161 women with epithelial and nonepithelial ovarian cancer. The majority of cases were advanced stage, with a median age of 63-67 years at diagnosis, depending on the country.

The researchers compared age- and stage-specific net survival between countries at 1 and 3 years post diagnosis.

The 3-year all-ages net survival was highest for Norway (57%) and Australia (56%), followed by Denmark (54%), Canada (50%), United Kingdom (47%), New Zealand (46%), and Ireland (45%).

Most patients were diagnosed with distant disease (range, 64%-71%), with the greatest proportion of women in the 65- to 74- and 75- to 99-year age categories. The lowest 3-year age-specific survival (range, 20%-34%) was observed in the 75- to 99-year age category.

Marked differences in 3-year net survival between countries were found for women in the 75- to 99-year age group with distant disease (range, 12%-25%).

“International survival differences by age groups were less stark for early-stage disease,” the researchers reported. “Interjurisdictional differences within countries were also observed.”

The researchers acknowledged a key limitation of the analysis was the use of registry data. Variability between, and incomplete data within, registries could have lowered the accuracy of the survival estimates.

“[F]urther research investigating international differences in access to and quality of treatment, and prevalence of comorbid conditions particularly in older women with advanced disease [is needed],” the researchers concluded.

The study was supported by funding provided to the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership. The authors reported having no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Cabasag CJ et al. Gynecol Oncol. 2020 Jan 28. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2019.12.047.

Considerable differences in ovarian cancer survival exist between high-income countries, especially for older women with advanced disease, according to a recent study.

The findings suggest additional research is needed to evaluate international differences in both treatment- and patient-specific factors affecting survival.

“This study [evaluated] differences in survival by age and stage at diagnosis within and across seven high-income countries,” wrote Citadel J. Cabasag, PhD, of the International Agency for Research on Cancer in Lyon, France, and colleagues. The results were published in Gynecologic Oncology.

The researchers conducted a retrospective analysis of population-based registry data from 2010 to 2014. Data were collected from 21 cancer registries located in Canada, United Kingdom, New Zealand, Norway, Ireland, Australia, and Denmark.

The cohort included 58,161 women with epithelial and nonepithelial ovarian cancer. The majority of cases were advanced stage, with a median age of 63-67 years at diagnosis, depending on the country.

The researchers compared age- and stage-specific net survival between countries at 1 and 3 years post diagnosis.

The 3-year all-ages net survival was highest for Norway (57%) and Australia (56%), followed by Denmark (54%), Canada (50%), United Kingdom (47%), New Zealand (46%), and Ireland (45%).

Most patients were diagnosed with distant disease (range, 64%-71%), with the greatest proportion of women in the 65- to 74- and 75- to 99-year age categories. The lowest 3-year age-specific survival (range, 20%-34%) was observed in the 75- to 99-year age category.

Marked differences in 3-year net survival between countries were found for women in the 75- to 99-year age group with distant disease (range, 12%-25%).

“International survival differences by age groups were less stark for early-stage disease,” the researchers reported. “Interjurisdictional differences within countries were also observed.”

The researchers acknowledged a key limitation of the analysis was the use of registry data. Variability between, and incomplete data within, registries could have lowered the accuracy of the survival estimates.

“[F]urther research investigating international differences in access to and quality of treatment, and prevalence of comorbid conditions particularly in older women with advanced disease [is needed],” the researchers concluded.

The study was supported by funding provided to the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership. The authors reported having no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Cabasag CJ et al. Gynecol Oncol. 2020 Jan 28. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2019.12.047.

SAN FRANCISCO – A blood-based test that integrates data from multiple molecular “omes,” such as the genome and proteome, performs well at spotting early-stage colorectal cancer, the AI-EMERGE study suggests.

Susan London/MDedge News

At a specificity of 94%, the multiomics test had a sensitivity of 94% for detecting stage I and II colorectal cancer. Moreover, the test netted better sensitivity than a fecal immunochemical test (FIT), a circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) test, and a carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) test.

These findings were reported in a poster session at the 2020 GI Cancers Symposium, which is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, American Society of Clinical Oncology, American Society for Radiation Oncology, and Society of Surgical Oncology.

“Today, about a third of age-appropriate adults are not up to date with colorectal cancer screening,” lead study investigator Girish Putcha, MD, PhD, chief medical officer of Freenome in San Francisco, noted at the symposium. “A noninvasive blood-based screening test having high sensitivity and specificity for colorectal cancer generally, but especially for early-stage disease, could help improve adherence and ultimately reduce mortality.”

Dr. Putcha and colleagues evaluated a blood-based multiomics test in 32 patients with colorectal cancer of all stages and 539 colonoscopy-confirmed negative control subjects.

The test uses a multiomics platform to pick up both tumor-derived signal and non–tumor-derived signal from the body’s immune response and other sources. The test uses machine learning, and entails whole-genome sequencing, bisulfite sequencing (for assessment of DNA methylation), and protein quantification methods.

At 94% specificity, the test had a 94% sensitivity for spotting stage I and II colorectal cancer, 91% sensitivity for stage III and IV colorectal cancer, and 91% sensitivity for colorectal cancer of any stage. By location, sensitivity was 92% for distal tumors and 88% for proximal tumors.

The multiomics test outperformed a ctDNA test, a CEA test, and a FIT. At a specificity of 96% for both tests, the multiomics test yielded a higher sensitivity than a commercially available FIT stool test (OC-Auto FIT, Polymedco) for stage I and II disease (100% vs. 70%), stage III and IV disease (100% vs. 50%), and any-stage disease (100% vs. 67%).

When set at 100% specificity, the multiomics test outperformed a commercially available plasma ctDNA test (Avenio, Roche) set at 75% specificity. The multiomics test yielded a higher sensitivity for stage I and II disease (94% vs. 38%), stage III and IV disease (91% vs. 55%), and any-stage disease (90% vs. 47%).

At a specificity of 94% for both tests, the multiomics test yielded a higher sensitivity than plasma CEA level for stage I and II disease (94% vs. 18%), stage III and IV disease (91% vs. 45%), and any-stage disease (91% vs. 31%).

“Although there were many exciting aspects to this study, the test’s ability to detect cancers without loss of sensitivity for early-stage cancers was striking to me,” said Michael J. Hall, MD, of Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia, who was not involved in this study. “The loss of sensitivity in early tumors has been a limitation of other tests – FOBT [fecal occult blood test], FIT – so if this is replicable, this is exciting.”

Dr. Hall added that the need for only a blood sample would be a plus in screening healthy people. “When we consider the discomfort and inconvenience of colonoscopy, mammogram, and prostate cancer screening, and how they lead to reduced uptake of screening, the attractiveness of a noninvasive blood-based screening only increases further,” he elaborated.

Although the study was small for a colorectal cancer screening assessment, “the preliminary results presented in the poster were certainly compelling enough to support more research,” Dr. Hall said.

Dr. Putcha said that the test will be validated in a prospective, multicenter trial of roughly 10,000 participants at average risk, expected to open later this year. Further research will also help assess the test’s performance among patients with inflammatory bowel disease, for whom false-positive results with some available screening tests have been problematic.

The current study was sponsored by Freenome. Dr. Putcha is employed by Freenome and has a relationship with Palmetto GBA. Dr. Hall disclosed relationships with Ambry Genetics, AstraZeneca, Caris Life Sciences, Foundation Medicine, Invitae, and Myriad Genetics, and he shares a patent with institutional colleagues for a novel method to investigate hereditary colorectal cancer genes.

*This story was updated on Feb. 4, 2020. 

SOURCE: Putcha G et al. 2020 GI Cancers Symposium, Abstract 66.

SAN FRANCISCO – A blood-based test that integrates data from multiple molecular “omes,” such as the genome and proteome, performs well at spotting early-stage colorectal cancer, the AI-EMERGE study suggests.

Susan London/MDedge News

At a specificity of 94%, the multiomics test had a sensitivity of 94% for detecting stage I and II colorectal cancer. Moreover, the test netted better sensitivity than a fecal immunochemical test (FIT), a circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) test, and a carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) test.

These findings were reported in a poster session at the 2020 GI Cancers Symposium, which is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, American Society of Clinical Oncology, American Society for Radiation Oncology, and Society of Surgical Oncology.

“Today, about a third of age-appropriate adults are not up to date with colorectal cancer screening,” lead study investigator Girish Putcha, MD, PhD, chief medical officer of Freenome in San Francisco, noted at the symposium. “A noninvasive blood-based screening test having high sensitivity and specificity for colorectal cancer generally, but especially for early-stage disease, could help improve adherence and ultimately reduce mortality.”

Dr. Putcha and colleagues evaluated a blood-based multiomics test in 32 patients with colorectal cancer of all stages and 539 colonoscopy-confirmed negative control subjects.

The test uses a multiomics platform to pick up both tumor-derived signal and non–tumor-derived signal from the body’s immune response and other sources. The test uses machine learning, and entails whole-genome sequencing, bisulfite sequencing (for assessment of DNA methylation), and protein quantification methods.

At 94% specificity, the test had a 94% sensitivity for spotting stage I and II colorectal cancer, 91% sensitivity for stage III and IV colorectal cancer, and 91% sensitivity for colorectal cancer of any stage. By location, sensitivity was 92% for distal tumors and 88% for proximal tumors.

The multiomics test outperformed a ctDNA test, a CEA test, and a FIT. At a specificity of 96% for both tests, the multiomics test yielded a higher sensitivity than a commercially available FIT stool test (OC-Auto FIT, Polymedco) for stage I and II disease (100% vs. 70%), stage III and IV disease (100% vs. 50%), and any-stage disease (100% vs. 67%).

When set at 100% specificity, the multiomics test outperformed a commercially available plasma ctDNA test (Avenio, Roche) set at 75% specificity. The multiomics test yielded a higher sensitivity for stage I and II disease (94% vs. 38%), stage III and IV disease (91% vs. 55%), and any-stage disease (90% vs. 47%).

At a specificity of 94% for both tests, the multiomics test yielded a higher sensitivity than plasma CEA level for stage I and II disease (94% vs. 18%), stage III and IV disease (91% vs. 45%), and any-stage disease (91% vs. 31%).

“Although there were many exciting aspects to this study, the test’s ability to detect cancers without loss of sensitivity for early-stage cancers was striking to me,” said Michael J. Hall, MD, of Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia, who was not involved in this study. “The loss of sensitivity in early tumors has been a limitation of other tests – FOBT [fecal occult blood test], FIT – so if this is replicable, this is exciting.”

Dr. Hall added that the need for only a blood sample would be a plus in screening healthy people. “When we consider the discomfort and inconvenience of colonoscopy, mammogram, and prostate cancer screening, and how they lead to reduced uptake of screening, the attractiveness of a noninvasive blood-based screening only increases further,” he elaborated.

Although the study was small for a colorectal cancer screening assessment, “the preliminary results presented in the poster were certainly compelling enough to support more research,” Dr. Hall said.

Dr. Putcha said that the test will be validated in a prospective, multicenter trial of roughly 10,000 participants at average risk, expected to open later this year. Further research will also help assess the test’s performance among patients with inflammatory bowel disease, for whom false-positive results with some available screening tests have been problematic.

The current study was sponsored by Freenome. Dr. Putcha is employed by Freenome and has a relationship with Palmetto GBA. Dr. Hall disclosed relationships with Ambry Genetics, AstraZeneca, Caris Life Sciences, Foundation Medicine, Invitae, and Myriad Genetics, and he shares a patent with institutional colleagues for a novel method to investigate hereditary colorectal cancer genes.

*This story was updated on Feb. 4, 2020. 

SOURCE: Putcha G et al. 2020 GI Cancers Symposium, Abstract 66.

SAN FRANCISCO – A blood-based test that integrates data from multiple molecular “omes,” such as the genome and proteome, performs well at spotting early-stage colorectal cancer, the AI-EMERGE study suggests.

Susan London/MDedge News

At a specificity of 94%, the multiomics test had a sensitivity of 94% for detecting stage I and II colorectal cancer. Moreover, the test netted better sensitivity than a fecal immunochemical test (FIT), a circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) test, and a carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) test.

These findings were reported in a poster session at the 2020 GI Cancers Symposium, which is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, American Society of Clinical Oncology, American Society for Radiation Oncology, and Society of Surgical Oncology.

“Today, about a third of age-appropriate adults are not up to date with colorectal cancer screening,” lead study investigator Girish Putcha, MD, PhD, chief medical officer of Freenome in San Francisco, noted at the symposium. “A noninvasive blood-based screening test having high sensitivity and specificity for colorectal cancer generally, but especially for early-stage disease, could help improve adherence and ultimately reduce mortality.”

Dr. Putcha and colleagues evaluated a blood-based multiomics test in 32 patients with colorectal cancer of all stages and 539 colonoscopy-confirmed negative control subjects.

The test uses a multiomics platform to pick up both tumor-derived signal and non–tumor-derived signal from the body’s immune response and other sources. The test uses machine learning, and entails whole-genome sequencing, bisulfite sequencing (for assessment of DNA methylation), and protein quantification methods.

At 94% specificity, the test had a 94% sensitivity for spotting stage I and II colorectal cancer, 91% sensitivity for stage III and IV colorectal cancer, and 91% sensitivity for colorectal cancer of any stage. By location, sensitivity was 92% for distal tumors and 88% for proximal tumors.

The multiomics test outperformed a ctDNA test, a CEA test, and a FIT. At a specificity of 96% for both tests, the multiomics test yielded a higher sensitivity than a commercially available FIT stool test (OC-Auto FIT, Polymedco) for stage I and II disease (100% vs. 70%), stage III and IV disease (100% vs. 50%), and any-stage disease (100% vs. 67%).

When set at 100% specificity, the multiomics test outperformed a commercially available plasma ctDNA test (Avenio, Roche) set at 75% specificity. The multiomics test yielded a higher sensitivity for stage I and II disease (94% vs. 38%), stage III and IV disease (91% vs. 55%), and any-stage disease (90% vs. 47%).

At a specificity of 94% for both tests, the multiomics test yielded a higher sensitivity than plasma CEA level for stage I and II disease (94% vs. 18%), stage III and IV disease (91% vs. 45%), and any-stage disease (91% vs. 31%).

“Although there were many exciting aspects to this study, the test’s ability to detect cancers without loss of sensitivity for early-stage cancers was striking to me,” said Michael J. Hall, MD, of Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia, who was not involved in this study. “The loss of sensitivity in early tumors has been a limitation of other tests – FOBT [fecal occult blood test], FIT – so if this is replicable, this is exciting.”

Dr. Hall added that the need for only a blood sample would be a plus in screening healthy people. “When we consider the discomfort and inconvenience of colonoscopy, mammogram, and prostate cancer screening, and how they lead to reduced uptake of screening, the attractiveness of a noninvasive blood-based screening only increases further,” he elaborated.

Although the study was small for a colorectal cancer screening assessment, “the preliminary results presented in the poster were certainly compelling enough to support more research,” Dr. Hall said.

Dr. Putcha said that the test will be validated in a prospective, multicenter trial of roughly 10,000 participants at average risk, expected to open later this year. Further research will also help assess the test’s performance among patients with inflammatory bowel disease, for whom false-positive results with some available screening tests have been problematic.

The current study was sponsored by Freenome. Dr. Putcha is employed by Freenome and has a relationship with Palmetto GBA. Dr. Hall disclosed relationships with Ambry Genetics, AstraZeneca, Caris Life Sciences, Foundation Medicine, Invitae, and Myriad Genetics, and he shares a patent with institutional colleagues for a novel method to investigate hereditary colorectal cancer genes.

*This story was updated on Feb. 4, 2020. 

SOURCE: Putcha G et al. 2020 GI Cancers Symposium, Abstract 66.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has released an updated schedule for adult vaccines. The update includes changes regarding the administration of several vaccines, including those for influenza, human papillomavirus (HPV), hepatitis A and B, and meningitis B, as well as the pneumococcal 13-valent conjugate (PCV13) vaccine.

The schedule, revised annually by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the CDC, was simultaneously published online February 3, 2020, in the Annals of Internal Medicine and on the CDC website.

Perhaps the change most likely to raise questions is that concerning the PCV13 vaccine. “Owing to a decline in prevalence of the types covered by the PCV13 vaccine, this is no longer routinely recommended for all persons age 65 and older,” senior author Mark Freedman, DVM, MPH, of the immunization services division at the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Disease, said in an interview.

For purposes of shared clinical decision, however, it should be discussed with previously unvaccinated seniors who do not have risk factors, such as an immunocompromising condition, a cerebrospinal fluid leak, or a cochlear implant.

“But the circumstances for use of the vaccine are not always clear even based on the detailed list of considerations provided, because it’s impossible to think of every conceivable combination of risk factors,” Mr. Freedman added.

Possible beneficiaries of this vaccine are vulnerable elderly people living in nursing homes and long-term care facilities and those living in or traveling to settings in which the rate of pediatric PCV13 uptake is low or zero.

All adults in this age group should continue to receive a single dose of the pneumococcal 23-valent polysaccharide vaccine.*

HPV

The advisory committee now recommends catch-up immunization for women and men through age 26 years (the previous cutoff for men was 21). And in another new recommendation, the ACIP advises considering vaccination for some patients aged 27-45 years who have not been adequately vaccinated.

“Most people ages 27-45 do not need vaccination, but some may benefit,” Mr. Freedman said. “For example, somebody who’s been in a prior long-term monogamous relationship and suddenly finds himself with a new sexual partner.”

“That makes very good sense for older people who haven’t been vaccinated and might continue to be exposed to HPV,” Daniel M. Musher, MD, a professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine and an infectious diseases physician at the Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, both in Houston, said in an interview.

Here again, the ACIP advises taking a shared decision-making approach, with clinicians discussing the merits of vaccination in this and other scenarios with patients according to the talking points outlined in the HPV section.

Influenza, hepatitis A and B

For the 2019-2020 influenza season, routine influenza vaccination is recommended for all persons aged 6 months or older who have no contraindications. Where more than one appropriate option is available, the ACIP does not recommend any product over another.

Routine hepatitis A vaccination is recommended for all persons aged 1 year or older who have HIV infection regardless of their level of immune suppression.

For hepatitis B, a new addition to the list of vulnerable patients who may possibly benefit from vaccination is pregnant women at risk for infection or an adverse infection-related pregnancy outcome. Whereas older formulations are safe, the ACIP does not recommend the HepB-CpG (Heplisav-B) vaccine during pregnancy, owing to the fact that safety data are lacking.

Meningitis B

Individuals aged 10 years or older who have complement deficiency, who use a complement inhibitor, who have asplenia, or who are microbiologists should receive a meningitis B booster dose 1 year following completion of a primary series. After that, they should receive booster doses every 2-3 years for as long they are at elevated risk.

Vaccination should be discussed with individuals aged 16-23 years even if they are not at increased risk for meningococcal disease. Persons aged 10 years or older whom public health authorities deem to be at increased risk during an outbreak should have a one-time booster dose if at least 1 year has elapsed since completion of a meningitis B primary series.

Td/Tdap, varicella

The ACIP now recommends that either the Td or Tdap vaccine be given in cases in which currently just the Td vaccine is recommended; that is, for the 10-year booster shot as well as for tetanus prophylaxis in wound management and the catch-up immunization schedule, including that for pregnant women.

Vaccination against varicella should be considered for HIV-infected individuals who are without evidence of varicella immunity and whose CD4 counts are at least 200 cells/mL.

Dr. Musher, who was not involved in drafting the recommendations, takes issue generally with the addition of shared clinical decision making on vaccination. “Shared decision making is a problem for anyone practicing medicine. It places a terrible burden [on] the doctors to discuss these options with patients at great length. Most patients want the doctor to make the decision.”

In his view, this approach makes little sense in the case of the PCV13 vaccine because the strains it covers have disappeared from the population through the widespread vaccination of children. “But discussions are important for some vaccines, such as the herpes zoster vaccine, since patients can have a terrible reaction to the first dose and refuse to have the second,” he said.

Some of these new recommendations were released in 2019 after ACIP members met to vote on them in February, June, and October.

As in previous years, the schedule has been streamlined for easier reference. Physicians are reminded to closely read the details in the vaccine notes, as these specify who needs what vaccine, when, and at what dose.

The ACIP develops its recommendations after reviewing vaccine-related data, including the data regarding the epidemiology and burden of the vaccine-preventable disease, vaccine effectiveness and safety, the quality of evidence, implementability, and the economics of immunization policy.

The authors have received grants and expense payments from public and not-for-profit institutions. One coauthor has received fees from ACI Clinical for data and safety monitoring in an immunization trial. Dr. Musher has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Correction, 3/31/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the recommendation for administration of the pneumococcal 23-valent polysaccharide vaccine. All adults in this age group should continue to receive a single dose of this vaccine. 

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has released an updated schedule for adult vaccines. The update includes changes regarding the administration of several vaccines, including those for influenza, human papillomavirus (HPV), hepatitis A and B, and meningitis B, as well as the pneumococcal 13-valent conjugate (PCV13) vaccine.

The schedule, revised annually by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the CDC, was simultaneously published online February 3, 2020, in the Annals of Internal Medicine and on the CDC website.

Perhaps the change most likely to raise questions is that concerning the PCV13 vaccine. “Owing to a decline in prevalence of the types covered by the PCV13 vaccine, this is no longer routinely recommended for all persons age 65 and older,” senior author Mark Freedman, DVM, MPH, of the immunization services division at the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Disease, said in an interview.

For purposes of shared clinical decision, however, it should be discussed with previously unvaccinated seniors who do not have risk factors, such as an immunocompromising condition, a cerebrospinal fluid leak, or a cochlear implant.

“But the circumstances for use of the vaccine are not always clear even based on the detailed list of considerations provided, because it’s impossible to think of every conceivable combination of risk factors,” Mr. Freedman added.

Possible beneficiaries of this vaccine are vulnerable elderly people living in nursing homes and long-term care facilities and those living in or traveling to settings in which the rate of pediatric PCV13 uptake is low or zero.

All adults in this age group should continue to receive a single dose of the pneumococcal 23-valent polysaccharide vaccine.*

HPV

The advisory committee now recommends catch-up immunization for women and men through age 26 years (the previous cutoff for men was 21). And in another new recommendation, the ACIP advises considering vaccination for some patients aged 27-45 years who have not been adequately vaccinated.

“Most people ages 27-45 do not need vaccination, but some may benefit,” Mr. Freedman said. “For example, somebody who’s been in a prior long-term monogamous relationship and suddenly finds himself with a new sexual partner.”

“That makes very good sense for older people who haven’t been vaccinated and might continue to be exposed to HPV,” Daniel M. Musher, MD, a professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine and an infectious diseases physician at the Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, both in Houston, said in an interview.

Here again, the ACIP advises taking a shared decision-making approach, with clinicians discussing the merits of vaccination in this and other scenarios with patients according to the talking points outlined in the HPV section.

Influenza, hepatitis A and B

For the 2019-2020 influenza season, routine influenza vaccination is recommended for all persons aged 6 months or older who have no contraindications. Where more than one appropriate option is available, the ACIP does not recommend any product over another.

Routine hepatitis A vaccination is recommended for all persons aged 1 year or older who have HIV infection regardless of their level of immune suppression.

For hepatitis B, a new addition to the list of vulnerable patients who may possibly benefit from vaccination is pregnant women at risk for infection or an adverse infection-related pregnancy outcome. Whereas older formulations are safe, the ACIP does not recommend the HepB-CpG (Heplisav-B) vaccine during pregnancy, owing to the fact that safety data are lacking.

Meningitis B

Individuals aged 10 years or older who have complement deficiency, who use a complement inhibitor, who have asplenia, or who are microbiologists should receive a meningitis B booster dose 1 year following completion of a primary series. After that, they should receive booster doses every 2-3 years for as long they are at elevated risk.

Vaccination should be discussed with individuals aged 16-23 years even if they are not at increased risk for meningococcal disease. Persons aged 10 years or older whom public health authorities deem to be at increased risk during an outbreak should have a one-time booster dose if at least 1 year has elapsed since completion of a meningitis B primary series.

Td/Tdap, varicella

The ACIP now recommends that either the Td or Tdap vaccine be given in cases in which currently just the Td vaccine is recommended; that is, for the 10-year booster shot as well as for tetanus prophylaxis in wound management and the catch-up immunization schedule, including that for pregnant women.

Vaccination against varicella should be considered for HIV-infected individuals who are without evidence of varicella immunity and whose CD4 counts are at least 200 cells/mL.

Dr. Musher, who was not involved in drafting the recommendations, takes issue generally with the addition of shared clinical decision making on vaccination. “Shared decision making is a problem for anyone practicing medicine. It places a terrible burden [on] the doctors to discuss these options with patients at great length. Most patients want the doctor to make the decision.”

In his view, this approach makes little sense in the case of the PCV13 vaccine because the strains it covers have disappeared from the population through the widespread vaccination of children. “But discussions are important for some vaccines, such as the herpes zoster vaccine, since patients can have a terrible reaction to the first dose and refuse to have the second,” he said.

Some of these new recommendations were released in 2019 after ACIP members met to vote on them in February, June, and October.

As in previous years, the schedule has been streamlined for easier reference. Physicians are reminded to closely read the details in the vaccine notes, as these specify who needs what vaccine, when, and at what dose.

The ACIP develops its recommendations after reviewing vaccine-related data, including the data regarding the epidemiology and burden of the vaccine-preventable disease, vaccine effectiveness and safety, the quality of evidence, implementability, and the economics of immunization policy.

The authors have received grants and expense payments from public and not-for-profit institutions. One coauthor has received fees from ACI Clinical for data and safety monitoring in an immunization trial. Dr. Musher has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Correction, 3/31/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the recommendation for administration of the pneumococcal 23-valent polysaccharide vaccine. All adults in this age group should continue to receive a single dose of this vaccine. 

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has released an updated schedule for adult vaccines. The update includes changes regarding the administration of several vaccines, including those for influenza, human papillomavirus (HPV), hepatitis A and B, and meningitis B, as well as the pneumococcal 13-valent conjugate (PCV13) vaccine.

The schedule, revised annually by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the CDC, was simultaneously published online February 3, 2020, in the Annals of Internal Medicine and on the CDC website.

Perhaps the change most likely to raise questions is that concerning the PCV13 vaccine. “Owing to a decline in prevalence of the types covered by the PCV13 vaccine, this is no longer routinely recommended for all persons age 65 and older,” senior author Mark Freedman, DVM, MPH, of the immunization services division at the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Disease, said in an interview.

For purposes of shared clinical decision, however, it should be discussed with previously unvaccinated seniors who do not have risk factors, such as an immunocompromising condition, a cerebrospinal fluid leak, or a cochlear implant.

“But the circumstances for use of the vaccine are not always clear even based on the detailed list of considerations provided, because it’s impossible to think of every conceivable combination of risk factors,” Mr. Freedman added.

Possible beneficiaries of this vaccine are vulnerable elderly people living in nursing homes and long-term care facilities and those living in or traveling to settings in which the rate of pediatric PCV13 uptake is low or zero.

All adults in this age group should continue to receive a single dose of the pneumococcal 23-valent polysaccharide vaccine.*

HPV

The advisory committee now recommends catch-up immunization for women and men through age 26 years (the previous cutoff for men was 21). And in another new recommendation, the ACIP advises considering vaccination for some patients aged 27-45 years who have not been adequately vaccinated.

“Most people ages 27-45 do not need vaccination, but some may benefit,” Mr. Freedman said. “For example, somebody who’s been in a prior long-term monogamous relationship and suddenly finds himself with a new sexual partner.”

“That makes very good sense for older people who haven’t been vaccinated and might continue to be exposed to HPV,” Daniel M. Musher, MD, a professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine and an infectious diseases physician at the Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, both in Houston, said in an interview.

Here again, the ACIP advises taking a shared decision-making approach, with clinicians discussing the merits of vaccination in this and other scenarios with patients according to the talking points outlined in the HPV section.

Influenza, hepatitis A and B

For the 2019-2020 influenza season, routine influenza vaccination is recommended for all persons aged 6 months or older who have no contraindications. Where more than one appropriate option is available, the ACIP does not recommend any product over another.

Routine hepatitis A vaccination is recommended for all persons aged 1 year or older who have HIV infection regardless of their level of immune suppression.

For hepatitis B, a new addition to the list of vulnerable patients who may possibly benefit from vaccination is pregnant women at risk for infection or an adverse infection-related pregnancy outcome. Whereas older formulations are safe, the ACIP does not recommend the HepB-CpG (Heplisav-B) vaccine during pregnancy, owing to the fact that safety data are lacking.

Meningitis B

Individuals aged 10 years or older who have complement deficiency, who use a complement inhibitor, who have asplenia, or who are microbiologists should receive a meningitis B booster dose 1 year following completion of a primary series. After that, they should receive booster doses every 2-3 years for as long they are at elevated risk.

Vaccination should be discussed with individuals aged 16-23 years even if they are not at increased risk for meningococcal disease. Persons aged 10 years or older whom public health authorities deem to be at increased risk during an outbreak should have a one-time booster dose if at least 1 year has elapsed since completion of a meningitis B primary series.

Td/Tdap, varicella

The ACIP now recommends that either the Td or Tdap vaccine be given in cases in which currently just the Td vaccine is recommended; that is, for the 10-year booster shot as well as for tetanus prophylaxis in wound management and the catch-up immunization schedule, including that for pregnant women.

Vaccination against varicella should be considered for HIV-infected individuals who are without evidence of varicella immunity and whose CD4 counts are at least 200 cells/mL.

Dr. Musher, who was not involved in drafting the recommendations, takes issue generally with the addition of shared clinical decision making on vaccination. “Shared decision making is a problem for anyone practicing medicine. It places a terrible burden [on] the doctors to discuss these options with patients at great length. Most patients want the doctor to make the decision.”

In his view, this approach makes little sense in the case of the PCV13 vaccine because the strains it covers have disappeared from the population through the widespread vaccination of children. “But discussions are important for some vaccines, such as the herpes zoster vaccine, since patients can have a terrible reaction to the first dose and refuse to have the second,” he said.

Some of these new recommendations were released in 2019 after ACIP members met to vote on them in February, June, and October.

As in previous years, the schedule has been streamlined for easier reference. Physicians are reminded to closely read the details in the vaccine notes, as these specify who needs what vaccine, when, and at what dose.

The ACIP develops its recommendations after reviewing vaccine-related data, including the data regarding the epidemiology and burden of the vaccine-preventable disease, vaccine effectiveness and safety, the quality of evidence, implementability, and the economics of immunization policy.

The authors have received grants and expense payments from public and not-for-profit institutions. One coauthor has received fees from ACI Clinical for data and safety monitoring in an immunization trial. Dr. Musher has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Correction, 3/31/20: An earlier version of this article misstated the recommendation for administration of the pneumococcal 23-valent polysaccharide vaccine. All adults in this age group should continue to receive a single dose of this vaccine. 

LOS ANGELES – The way Christos S. Mantzoros, MD, DSc, PhD, sees it, nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) is an epidemic of the 21st century that can trigger a cascade of reactions.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

“If more than 5.8% of fat is in the liver, we call it nonalcoholic fatty liver disease [NAFLD],” Dr. Mantzoros, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and Boston University, explained at the World Congress on Insulin Resistance, Diabetes, and Cardiovascular Disease. “If inflammation develops to remove the fat, we call it NASH. If this progresses to decompensated reaction and fibrosis and cirrhosis, then we call it nonalcoholic steatohepatitis with fibrosis. That can lead to liver cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma, and liver failure.”

The underlying problem stems from the rise in obesity prevalence, according to Dr. Mantzoros, who is also chief of endocrinology at the Boston Veterans Affairs Healthcare System. For 75%-80% of individuals with metabolically unhealthy obesity, the storage space in their adipose tissue is exceeded. “Fat is deposited into muscle, causing insulin resistance, and into the liver,” he explained. “If it’s more than 5.8%, it causes NAFLD. Most of us don’t realize that most of the patients with diabetes we have in our clinics also have nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. That’s because we don’t have an easy diagnostic tool or an easy treatment. It’s an unmet clinical need.” (There are currently no drugs approved for the treatment of NASH or NAFLD. Current recommended first-line treatment is weight loss through diet and exercise and control of diabetes, if it is present.)

“Assuming the rate of increase in cost due to NAFLD parallels the growth in obesity, the 10-year projection for direct cost is $1.005 trillion,” said Dr. Mantzoros, who is also editor in chief of the journal Metabolism. “Obesity, NAFLD, and insulin resistance are each independently associated with a twofold risk for diabetes. If all three are present, there is a 14-fold risk for diabetes. Insulin resistance promotes an increase in free fatty acid traffic to the liver, which can trigger hepatic lipotoxicity. Hyperinsulinemia enhances free fatty acid uptake and activates de novo lipogenesis. Hyperglycemia can also activate de novo lipogenesis.”

About 85 million Americans have NAFLD, he continued. Most (80%) are cases of steatosis, but 20% have NASH. Of those, 20% develop advanced fibrosis, which leads to liver failure and transplantation or death. A study of data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey found that diabetes was the strongest predictor of advanced fibrosis in patients with NAFLD (odds ratio, 18.20), followed by a body mass index of 30 kg/m² or greater (OR, 9.10), hypertension (OR, 1.20), and age (OR, 1.08; Ailment Pharmacol Ther. 2017;46:974-80). “Most of the patients who come to our clinics with diabetes have nonalcoholic fatty liver disease – 75%-80% in our clinics, and about 10% have advanced fibrosis,” Dr. Mantzoros said. “Most of them go undiagnosed.”

Patients with type 2 diabetes and NAFLD progress faster to fibrosis and end-stage liver disease, compared with those who do not have diabetes. One study of 108 patients with biopsy-proven NALFD showed that 84% of those with fibrosis progression had type 2 diabetes (J Hepatol. 2015;62:1148-55). Other findings have shown that patients with type 2 diabetes are at increased risk of chronic NAFLD and hepatocellular carcinoma (Gastroenterol. 2001;126:460-8). “We are doing more liver transplantations because of NAFLD and NASH than because of hepatitis C,” Dr. Mantzoros said. “What we need to keep in mind is that, although liver morbidity and mortality is important, this is a component of the cardiometabolic syndrome. So, people have all the risk factors for cardiovascular disease. Because CVD is much more common, people with NAFLD suffer from and die from CVD. The more advanced the NAFLD, the higher the risk of death from cardiovascular disease.”

Multiple risk factors can help identify patients with advanced fibrosis because of NASH, he continued, including having features of the metabolic syndrome, being over 50 years of age, being Hispanic, having high levels of ALT/AST, low platelets, and having low albumin. “These are frequent tests that we can find in the EMR,” Dr. Mantzoros said. “The problem with ALT is that, in many stages of the disease, ALT goes up. But after a certain stage of the disease, when most of the liver is controlled by fibrosis and cirrhosis, most of the hepatocytes are dead and don’t secrete ALT, so ALT in end-stage renal disease goes up.”

Recent guidelines recognize the association between diabetes, NAFLD, and NASH, and call for increased vigilance and screening tests. According to guidelines from the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the Fibrosis-4 Index or the NAFLD Fibrosis Score are clinically useful tools for identifying NAFLD in patients with higher likelihood of having bridging fibrosis or cirrhosis (Hepatology. 2018;67[1]:328-57). Vibration-controlled transient elastography or MRI are clinically useful tools for identifying advanced fibrosis in patients with NAFLD, whereas clinical decision aids, such as Fibrosis-4, NAFLD Fibrosis Score, or vibration-controlled transient elastography, can be used to identify patients at low or high risk for advanced fibrosis.

“If we have a patient with suspected NAFLD, we need to rule out alcohol use, we need to confirm NAFLD, and we need to risk stratify, and classify as low, intermediate, or high risk,” Dr. Mantzoros said. Most of his patients who meet criteria for high-risk NASH do not elect to undergo a liver biopsy. “I don’t blame them for that,” he said. “There is a 0.1 per 1,000 mortality risk, even in the best hands. If 80 million people who have fatty liver were to undergo a liver biopsy, we would have 16,000 deaths every year just because of that. We would not tolerate that.”

Recently, Dr. Mantzoros and colleagues published a proof-of-concept study that proposes novel models using lipids, hormones, and glycans that can diagnose the presence of NASH, NAFLD, or healthy status with high accuracy (Metabolism. 2019 Nov 8. doi: 10.1016/j.metabol.2019.154005). “We are now working with companies to validate it and expand it, not only as a diagnostic marker, but as a prognostic marker, and to try to commercialize it in the future,” he said.

Current pharmacotherapies are limited to patients with biopsy-confirmed NASH and fibrosis. Pioglitazone is a first-line, off-label pharmacologic treatment, while vitamin E may be used in patients with biopsy-confirmed NASH without diabetes. Metformin, glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonists, and sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitors are either not recommended or have insufficient evidence to recommend their use. More than 60 phase 2 trials are planned or ongoing, Dr. Mantzoros added, with phase trials underway for cenicriviroc, elafibranor, obeticholic acid, and selonsertib.

The role of lifestyle management is also important. “The Mediterranean diet has the best evidence, along with exercise, to improve early stages of NAFLD,” he said. “Weight loss is very important. If the patient loses 10% of their weight or more, there is NASH resolution 90% of the time. With less weight loss, we have less resolution. The problem is that only 10% of patients or less can sustain a more than 90% weight loss over a year.”

Dr. Mantzoros reported being a shareholder of Coherus BioSciences and Pangea Therapeutics, having served as an adviser to Coherus, Novo Nordisk, and Genfit and having received research grants through his institution from Coherus, Eisai, and Novo Nordisk.

[email protected]

LOS ANGELES – The way Christos S. Mantzoros, MD, DSc, PhD, sees it, nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) is an epidemic of the 21st century that can trigger a cascade of reactions.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

“If more than 5.8% of fat is in the liver, we call it nonalcoholic fatty liver disease [NAFLD],” Dr. Mantzoros, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and Boston University, explained at the World Congress on Insulin Resistance, Diabetes, and Cardiovascular Disease. “If inflammation develops to remove the fat, we call it NASH. If this progresses to decompensated reaction and fibrosis and cirrhosis, then we call it nonalcoholic steatohepatitis with fibrosis. That can lead to liver cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma, and liver failure.”

The underlying problem stems from the rise in obesity prevalence, according to Dr. Mantzoros, who is also chief of endocrinology at the Boston Veterans Affairs Healthcare System. For 75%-80% of individuals with metabolically unhealthy obesity, the storage space in their adipose tissue is exceeded. “Fat is deposited into muscle, causing insulin resistance, and into the liver,” he explained. “If it’s more than 5.8%, it causes NAFLD. Most of us don’t realize that most of the patients with diabetes we have in our clinics also have nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. That’s because we don’t have an easy diagnostic tool or an easy treatment. It’s an unmet clinical need.” (There are currently no drugs approved for the treatment of NASH or NAFLD. Current recommended first-line treatment is weight loss through diet and exercise and control of diabetes, if it is present.)

“Assuming the rate of increase in cost due to NAFLD parallels the growth in obesity, the 10-year projection for direct cost is $1.005 trillion,” said Dr. Mantzoros, who is also editor in chief of the journal Metabolism. “Obesity, NAFLD, and insulin resistance are each independently associated with a twofold risk for diabetes. If all three are present, there is a 14-fold risk for diabetes. Insulin resistance promotes an increase in free fatty acid traffic to the liver, which can trigger hepatic lipotoxicity. Hyperinsulinemia enhances free fatty acid uptake and activates de novo lipogenesis. Hyperglycemia can also activate de novo lipogenesis.”

About 85 million Americans have NAFLD, he continued. Most (80%) are cases of steatosis, but 20% have NASH. Of those, 20% develop advanced fibrosis, which leads to liver failure and transplantation or death. A study of data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey found that diabetes was the strongest predictor of advanced fibrosis in patients with NAFLD (odds ratio, 18.20), followed by a body mass index of 30 kg/m² or greater (OR, 9.10), hypertension (OR, 1.20), and age (OR, 1.08; Ailment Pharmacol Ther. 2017;46:974-80). “Most of the patients who come to our clinics with diabetes have nonalcoholic fatty liver disease – 75%-80% in our clinics, and about 10% have advanced fibrosis,” Dr. Mantzoros said. “Most of them go undiagnosed.”

Patients with type 2 diabetes and NAFLD progress faster to fibrosis and end-stage liver disease, compared with those who do not have diabetes. One study of 108 patients with biopsy-proven NALFD showed that 84% of those with fibrosis progression had type 2 diabetes (J Hepatol. 2015;62:1148-55). Other findings have shown that patients with type 2 diabetes are at increased risk of chronic NAFLD and hepatocellular carcinoma (Gastroenterol. 2001;126:460-8). “We are doing more liver transplantations because of NAFLD and NASH than because of hepatitis C,” Dr. Mantzoros said. “What we need to keep in mind is that, although liver morbidity and mortality is important, this is a component of the cardiometabolic syndrome. So, people have all the risk factors for cardiovascular disease. Because CVD is much more common, people with NAFLD suffer from and die from CVD. The more advanced the NAFLD, the higher the risk of death from cardiovascular disease.”

Multiple risk factors can help identify patients with advanced fibrosis because of NASH, he continued, including having features of the metabolic syndrome, being over 50 years of age, being Hispanic, having high levels of ALT/AST, low platelets, and having low albumin. “These are frequent tests that we can find in the EMR,” Dr. Mantzoros said. “The problem with ALT is that, in many stages of the disease, ALT goes up. But after a certain stage of the disease, when most of the liver is controlled by fibrosis and cirrhosis, most of the hepatocytes are dead and don’t secrete ALT, so ALT in end-stage renal disease goes up.”

Recent guidelines recognize the association between diabetes, NAFLD, and NASH, and call for increased vigilance and screening tests. According to guidelines from the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the Fibrosis-4 Index or the NAFLD Fibrosis Score are clinically useful tools for identifying NAFLD in patients with higher likelihood of having bridging fibrosis or cirrhosis (Hepatology. 2018;67[1]:328-57). Vibration-controlled transient elastography or MRI are clinically useful tools for identifying advanced fibrosis in patients with NAFLD, whereas clinical decision aids, such as Fibrosis-4, NAFLD Fibrosis Score, or vibration-controlled transient elastography, can be used to identify patients at low or high risk for advanced fibrosis.

“If we have a patient with suspected NAFLD, we need to rule out alcohol use, we need to confirm NAFLD, and we need to risk stratify, and classify as low, intermediate, or high risk,” Dr. Mantzoros said. Most of his patients who meet criteria for high-risk NASH do not elect to undergo a liver biopsy. “I don’t blame them for that,” he said. “There is a 0.1 per 1,000 mortality risk, even in the best hands. If 80 million people who have fatty liver were to undergo a liver biopsy, we would have 16,000 deaths every year just because of that. We would not tolerate that.”

Recently, Dr. Mantzoros and colleagues published a proof-of-concept study that proposes novel models using lipids, hormones, and glycans that can diagnose the presence of NASH, NAFLD, or healthy status with high accuracy (Metabolism. 2019 Nov 8. doi: 10.1016/j.metabol.2019.154005). “We are now working with companies to validate it and expand it, not only as a diagnostic marker, but as a prognostic marker, and to try to commercialize it in the future,” he said.

Current pharmacotherapies are limited to patients with biopsy-confirmed NASH and fibrosis. Pioglitazone is a first-line, off-label pharmacologic treatment, while vitamin E may be used in patients with biopsy-confirmed NASH without diabetes. Metformin, glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonists, and sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitors are either not recommended or have insufficient evidence to recommend their use. More than 60 phase 2 trials are planned or ongoing, Dr. Mantzoros added, with phase trials underway for cenicriviroc, elafibranor, obeticholic acid, and selonsertib.

The role of lifestyle management is also important. “The Mediterranean diet has the best evidence, along with exercise, to improve early stages of NAFLD,” he said. “Weight loss is very important. If the patient loses 10% of their weight or more, there is NASH resolution 90% of the time. With less weight loss, we have less resolution. The problem is that only 10% of patients or less can sustain a more than 90% weight loss over a year.”

Dr. Mantzoros reported being a shareholder of Coherus BioSciences and Pangea Therapeutics, having served as an adviser to Coherus, Novo Nordisk, and Genfit and having received research grants through his institution from Coherus, Eisai, and Novo Nordisk.

[email protected]

LOS ANGELES – The way Christos S. Mantzoros, MD, DSc, PhD, sees it, nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) is an epidemic of the 21st century that can trigger a cascade of reactions.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

“If more than 5.8% of fat is in the liver, we call it nonalcoholic fatty liver disease [NAFLD],” Dr. Mantzoros, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and Boston University, explained at the World Congress on Insulin Resistance, Diabetes, and Cardiovascular Disease. “If inflammation develops to remove the fat, we call it NASH. If this progresses to decompensated reaction and fibrosis and cirrhosis, then we call it nonalcoholic steatohepatitis with fibrosis. That can lead to liver cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma, and liver failure.”

The underlying problem stems from the rise in obesity prevalence, according to Dr. Mantzoros, who is also chief of endocrinology at the Boston Veterans Affairs Healthcare System. For 75%-80% of individuals with metabolically unhealthy obesity, the storage space in their adipose tissue is exceeded. “Fat is deposited into muscle, causing insulin resistance, and into the liver,” he explained. “If it’s more than 5.8%, it causes NAFLD. Most of us don’t realize that most of the patients with diabetes we have in our clinics also have nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. That’s because we don’t have an easy diagnostic tool or an easy treatment. It’s an unmet clinical need.” (There are currently no drugs approved for the treatment of NASH or NAFLD. Current recommended first-line treatment is weight loss through diet and exercise and control of diabetes, if it is present.)

“Assuming the rate of increase in cost due to NAFLD parallels the growth in obesity, the 10-year projection for direct cost is $1.005 trillion,” said Dr. Mantzoros, who is also editor in chief of the journal Metabolism. “Obesity, NAFLD, and insulin resistance are each independently associated with a twofold risk for diabetes. If all three are present, there is a 14-fold risk for diabetes. Insulin resistance promotes an increase in free fatty acid traffic to the liver, which can trigger hepatic lipotoxicity. Hyperinsulinemia enhances free fatty acid uptake and activates de novo lipogenesis. Hyperglycemia can also activate de novo lipogenesis.”

About 85 million Americans have NAFLD, he continued. Most (80%) are cases of steatosis, but 20% have NASH. Of those, 20% develop advanced fibrosis, which leads to liver failure and transplantation or death. A study of data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey found that diabetes was the strongest predictor of advanced fibrosis in patients with NAFLD (odds ratio, 18.20), followed by a body mass index of 30 kg/m² or greater (OR, 9.10), hypertension (OR, 1.20), and age (OR, 1.08; Ailment Pharmacol Ther. 2017;46:974-80). “Most of the patients who come to our clinics with diabetes have nonalcoholic fatty liver disease – 75%-80% in our clinics, and about 10% have advanced fibrosis,” Dr. Mantzoros said. “Most of them go undiagnosed.”

Patients with type 2 diabetes and NAFLD progress faster to fibrosis and end-stage liver disease, compared with those who do not have diabetes. One study of 108 patients with biopsy-proven NALFD showed that 84% of those with fibrosis progression had type 2 diabetes (J Hepatol. 2015;62:1148-55). Other findings have shown that patients with type 2 diabetes are at increased risk of chronic NAFLD and hepatocellular carcinoma (Gastroenterol. 2001;126:460-8). “We are doing more liver transplantations because of NAFLD and NASH than because of hepatitis C,” Dr. Mantzoros said. “What we need to keep in mind is that, although liver morbidity and mortality is important, this is a component of the cardiometabolic syndrome. So, people have all the risk factors for cardiovascular disease. Because CVD is much more common, people with NAFLD suffer from and die from CVD. The more advanced the NAFLD, the higher the risk of death from cardiovascular disease.”

Multiple risk factors can help identify patients with advanced fibrosis because of NASH, he continued, including having features of the metabolic syndrome, being over 50 years of age, being Hispanic, having high levels of ALT/AST, low platelets, and having low albumin. “These are frequent tests that we can find in the EMR,” Dr. Mantzoros said. “The problem with ALT is that, in many stages of the disease, ALT goes up. But after a certain stage of the disease, when most of the liver is controlled by fibrosis and cirrhosis, most of the hepatocytes are dead and don’t secrete ALT, so ALT in end-stage renal disease goes up.”

Recent guidelines recognize the association between diabetes, NAFLD, and NASH, and call for increased vigilance and screening tests. According to guidelines from the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the Fibrosis-4 Index or the NAFLD Fibrosis Score are clinically useful tools for identifying NAFLD in patients with higher likelihood of having bridging fibrosis or cirrhosis (Hepatology. 2018;67[1]:328-57). Vibration-controlled transient elastography or MRI are clinically useful tools for identifying advanced fibrosis in patients with NAFLD, whereas clinical decision aids, such as Fibrosis-4, NAFLD Fibrosis Score, or vibration-controlled transient elastography, can be used to identify patients at low or high risk for advanced fibrosis.

“If we have a patient with suspected NAFLD, we need to rule out alcohol use, we need to confirm NAFLD, and we need to risk stratify, and classify as low, intermediate, or high risk,” Dr. Mantzoros said. Most of his patients who meet criteria for high-risk NASH do not elect to undergo a liver biopsy. “I don’t blame them for that,” he said. “There is a 0.1 per 1,000 mortality risk, even in the best hands. If 80 million people who have fatty liver were to undergo a liver biopsy, we would have 16,000 deaths every year just because of that. We would not tolerate that.”

Recently, Dr. Mantzoros and colleagues published a proof-of-concept study that proposes novel models using lipids, hormones, and glycans that can diagnose the presence of NASH, NAFLD, or healthy status with high accuracy (Metabolism. 2019 Nov 8. doi: 10.1016/j.metabol.2019.154005). “We are now working with companies to validate it and expand it, not only as a diagnostic marker, but as a prognostic marker, and to try to commercialize it in the future,” he said.

Current pharmacotherapies are limited to patients with biopsy-confirmed NASH and fibrosis. Pioglitazone is a first-line, off-label pharmacologic treatment, while vitamin E may be used in patients with biopsy-confirmed NASH without diabetes. Metformin, glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonists, and sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitors are either not recommended or have insufficient evidence to recommend their use. More than 60 phase 2 trials are planned or ongoing, Dr. Mantzoros added, with phase trials underway for cenicriviroc, elafibranor, obeticholic acid, and selonsertib.

The role of lifestyle management is also important. “The Mediterranean diet has the best evidence, along with exercise, to improve early stages of NAFLD,” he said. “Weight loss is very important. If the patient loses 10% of their weight or more, there is NASH resolution 90% of the time. With less weight loss, we have less resolution. The problem is that only 10% of patients or less can sustain a more than 90% weight loss over a year.”

Dr. Mantzoros reported being a shareholder of Coherus BioSciences and Pangea Therapeutics, having served as an adviser to Coherus, Novo Nordisk, and Genfit and having received research grants through his institution from Coherus, Eisai, and Novo Nordisk.

[email protected]

SNOWMASS, COLO. – The number of transcatheter aortic valve replacements (TAVRs) performed annually in the United States is forecast to rocket up from 75,000 in 2019 to 100,000 in 2020 in response to the procedure’s recent approval in low-surgical-risk patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis, Michael J. Mack, MD, said at the annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“In 2020, TAVR seems like a tsunami that’s totally overwhelming SAVR [surgical aortic valve replacement]. And the question is, after the wave hits shore, is there going to be anything left in the surgical arena?” asked Dr. Mack, who is medical director of cardiothoracic surgery and chairman of the Baylor Scott & White The Heart Hospital – Plano (Tex.) Research Center.

He answered his own question with a quote from Mark Twain: “Reports of my death are greatly exaggerated.”

The trend is clear: TAVR will take over the market for isolated aortic valve replacement in much the same way that endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) has come to dominate open surgical repair by an 80:20 margin. And with the recent expansion of TAVR indications to include low-risk patients, the pool of potential candidates for TAVR has grown staggeringly large. By one estimate, it could include some 270,000 individuals per year in North America and the European Union (Eur Heart J. 2018 Jul 21;39[28]:2635-42).

But there’s no need to shed a tear at the prospect of SAVR surgeons standing in unemployment lines. They will continue to have their hands full performing combined SAVR plus coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) procedures, SAVR plus mitral or tricuspid valve operations, and Bentall procedures, Dr. Mack predicted.

Who should get SAVR for aortic stenosis in 2020? For starters, he said, the sorts of patients who were excluded from the major TAVR-versus-SAVR randomized trials. The low-surgical-risk trials were restricted to patients who had symptomatic aortic stenosis involving a tricuspid valve, no left ventricular outflow tract calcium, no or minimal coronary artery disease (CAD), a relatively normal left ventricular ejection fraction, and an aortic valve anatomy suitable for TAVR. And, 92% of study participants were over age 65 years.

Dr. Mack called the evidence for the safety and effectiveness of TAVR “the most robust evidence base in the history of medical devices,” backed by nine U.S. trials and 8,000 randomized patients during the last dozen years. He has played a major role in developing that evidence base, having served most recently as cochair of the landmark PARTNER 3 trial, which demonstrated superiority for TAVR over SAVR in low-surgical-risk patients. But the evidence base doesn’t apply to patients not enrolled in the trials. So for the foreseeable future, patients younger than age 65 years should probably stick with SAVR, mainly because of the still-open question of tissue valve durability and TAVR’s high rate of associated conduction system impairment and need for new pacemaker implantation. Younger patients find permanent pacemakers particularly problematic, he noted.

Others who should stick with surgery include patients with bicuspid valves, especially when aortopathy is present, individuals with low-lying coronary arteries, patients with heavy calcium deposits at the left ventricular outflow tract, those with infective endocarditis or rheumatic valve disease, and patients with structural valve deterioration after a valve-in-valve TAVR.

“Once you get beyond the first valve-in-valve, the outcomes are not going to be good. Those patients should preferentially be considered for surgery. The results for valve-in-valve have been very disappointing, with a 33% all-cause mortality at 3 years in the PARTNER Aortic Valve-in-Valve Registry,” according to the surgeon.

In patients with aortic stenosis and CAD, the clinical decision making should be based on the coronary disease. In a patient with triple-vessel disease, diabetes, and/or a high Syntax score for whom the collaborative multidisciplinary heart team would recommend surgical revascularization if aortic stenosis wasn’t present, the most appropriate option is SAVR plus CABG. On the other hand, if the CAD is amenable to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and the Syntax score is low, TAVR plus PCI is a safe and solid strategy, he continued.

In addition to the unresolved issue of tissue valve durability, another unanswered question pushing against universal adoption of TAVR involves the clinical implications of bioprosthetic valve leaflet thrombosis and the optimal antithrombotic therapy, both early and late. Leaflet thrombosis post-TAVR is common – as well as post-SAVR with bioprosthetic valves, albeit less so – but the lesions often come and go. Although there is a theoretical concern that they might be a precursor to leaflet destruction, at this point, their clinical significance remains unclear. In the recent GALILEO trial, TAVR patients randomized to low-dose rivaroxaban (Xarelto) plus aspirin showed fewer leaflet motion abnormalities and less leaflet thickening than did those on dual-antiplatelet therapy, but a significantly higher all-cause mortality (N Engl J Med 2020 Jan 9;382:120-9).

“I know that nowhere else in the body is thrombus a good thing, so thrombus in the valve can’t be a good thing. The only question is, how bad is it? And right now all we know is, some of our treatments for it are worse than the disease,” the surgeon commented.

Dr. Mack indicated that, at this time, clinical decision making in aortic stenosis should begin on the basis of patient age, which influences the key decision of whether to opt for a mechanical versus tissue replacement valve. For patients aged 50-70 years, shared decision making between the heart team and patient is appropriate. The evidence suggests SAVR with a mechanical valve is the better option, but many patients in this intermediate age group loathe the ideal of lifelong oral anticoagulation and favor a tissue valve.

For patients under age 50 years, the best evidence indicates that SAVR with a mechanical valve is clearly the best option; however, most young patients are instead opting for a tissue valve, even after being cautioned about the lingering uncertainty surrounding tissue valve durability, be it SAVR or TAVR. For patients over age 70 years, a tissue valve is the best choice based on the outcomes in PARTNER 3 and other low-surgical-risk trials. If the patient is younger than 65 years and wants a tissue valve, Dr. Mack thinks the best evidence-based option is SAVR. Above age 80 years, TAVR is the clear choice. Age 65-80 years is shared–decision making territory regarding TAVR versus SAVR.

Dr. Mack reported serving as a consultant to Gore and receiving research grants from Abbott Vascular, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic.

[email protected]

SNOWMASS, COLO. – The number of transcatheter aortic valve replacements (TAVRs) performed annually in the United States is forecast to rocket up from 75,000 in 2019 to 100,000 in 2020 in response to the procedure’s recent approval in low-surgical-risk patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis, Michael J. Mack, MD, said at the annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“In 2020, TAVR seems like a tsunami that’s totally overwhelming SAVR [surgical aortic valve replacement]. And the question is, after the wave hits shore, is there going to be anything left in the surgical arena?” asked Dr. Mack, who is medical director of cardiothoracic surgery and chairman of the Baylor Scott & White The Heart Hospital – Plano (Tex.) Research Center.

He answered his own question with a quote from Mark Twain: “Reports of my death are greatly exaggerated.”

The trend is clear: TAVR will take over the market for isolated aortic valve replacement in much the same way that endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) has come to dominate open surgical repair by an 80:20 margin. And with the recent expansion of TAVR indications to include low-risk patients, the pool of potential candidates for TAVR has grown staggeringly large. By one estimate, it could include some 270,000 individuals per year in North America and the European Union (Eur Heart J. 2018 Jul 21;39[28]:2635-42).

But there’s no need to shed a tear at the prospect of SAVR surgeons standing in unemployment lines. They will continue to have their hands full performing combined SAVR plus coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) procedures, SAVR plus mitral or tricuspid valve operations, and Bentall procedures, Dr. Mack predicted.

Who should get SAVR for aortic stenosis in 2020? For starters, he said, the sorts of patients who were excluded from the major TAVR-versus-SAVR randomized trials. The low-surgical-risk trials were restricted to patients who had symptomatic aortic stenosis involving a tricuspid valve, no left ventricular outflow tract calcium, no or minimal coronary artery disease (CAD), a relatively normal left ventricular ejection fraction, and an aortic valve anatomy suitable for TAVR. And, 92% of study participants were over age 65 years.

Dr. Mack called the evidence for the safety and effectiveness of TAVR “the most robust evidence base in the history of medical devices,” backed by nine U.S. trials and 8,000 randomized patients during the last dozen years. He has played a major role in developing that evidence base, having served most recently as cochair of the landmark PARTNER 3 trial, which demonstrated superiority for TAVR over SAVR in low-surgical-risk patients. But the evidence base doesn’t apply to patients not enrolled in the trials. So for the foreseeable future, patients younger than age 65 years should probably stick with SAVR, mainly because of the still-open question of tissue valve durability and TAVR’s high rate of associated conduction system impairment and need for new pacemaker implantation. Younger patients find permanent pacemakers particularly problematic, he noted.

Others who should stick with surgery include patients with bicuspid valves, especially when aortopathy is present, individuals with low-lying coronary arteries, patients with heavy calcium deposits at the left ventricular outflow tract, those with infective endocarditis or rheumatic valve disease, and patients with structural valve deterioration after a valve-in-valve TAVR.

“Once you get beyond the first valve-in-valve, the outcomes are not going to be good. Those patients should preferentially be considered for surgery. The results for valve-in-valve have been very disappointing, with a 33% all-cause mortality at 3 years in the PARTNER Aortic Valve-in-Valve Registry,” according to the surgeon.

In patients with aortic stenosis and CAD, the clinical decision making should be based on the coronary disease. In a patient with triple-vessel disease, diabetes, and/or a high Syntax score for whom the collaborative multidisciplinary heart team would recommend surgical revascularization if aortic stenosis wasn’t present, the most appropriate option is SAVR plus CABG. On the other hand, if the CAD is amenable to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and the Syntax score is low, TAVR plus PCI is a safe and solid strategy, he continued.

In addition to the unresolved issue of tissue valve durability, another unanswered question pushing against universal adoption of TAVR involves the clinical implications of bioprosthetic valve leaflet thrombosis and the optimal antithrombotic therapy, both early and late. Leaflet thrombosis post-TAVR is common – as well as post-SAVR with bioprosthetic valves, albeit less so – but the lesions often come and go. Although there is a theoretical concern that they might be a precursor to leaflet destruction, at this point, their clinical significance remains unclear. In the recent GALILEO trial, TAVR patients randomized to low-dose rivaroxaban (Xarelto) plus aspirin showed fewer leaflet motion abnormalities and less leaflet thickening than did those on dual-antiplatelet therapy, but a significantly higher all-cause mortality (N Engl J Med 2020 Jan 9;382:120-9).

“I know that nowhere else in the body is thrombus a good thing, so thrombus in the valve can’t be a good thing. The only question is, how bad is it? And right now all we know is, some of our treatments for it are worse than the disease,” the surgeon commented.

Dr. Mack indicated that, at this time, clinical decision making in aortic stenosis should begin on the basis of patient age, which influences the key decision of whether to opt for a mechanical versus tissue replacement valve. For patients aged 50-70 years, shared decision making between the heart team and patient is appropriate. The evidence suggests SAVR with a mechanical valve is the better option, but many patients in this intermediate age group loathe the ideal of lifelong oral anticoagulation and favor a tissue valve.

For patients under age 50 years, the best evidence indicates that SAVR with a mechanical valve is clearly the best option; however, most young patients are instead opting for a tissue valve, even after being cautioned about the lingering uncertainty surrounding tissue valve durability, be it SAVR or TAVR. For patients over age 70 years, a tissue valve is the best choice based on the outcomes in PARTNER 3 and other low-surgical-risk trials. If the patient is younger than 65 years and wants a tissue valve, Dr. Mack thinks the best evidence-based option is SAVR. Above age 80 years, TAVR is the clear choice. Age 65-80 years is shared–decision making territory regarding TAVR versus SAVR.

Dr. Mack reported serving as a consultant to Gore and receiving research grants from Abbott Vascular, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic.

[email protected]

SNOWMASS, COLO. – The number of transcatheter aortic valve replacements (TAVRs) performed annually in the United States is forecast to rocket up from 75,000 in 2019 to 100,000 in 2020 in response to the procedure’s recent approval in low-surgical-risk patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis, Michael J. Mack, MD, said at the annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“In 2020, TAVR seems like a tsunami that’s totally overwhelming SAVR [surgical aortic valve replacement]. And the question is, after the wave hits shore, is there going to be anything left in the surgical arena?” asked Dr. Mack, who is medical director of cardiothoracic surgery and chairman of the Baylor Scott & White The Heart Hospital – Plano (Tex.) Research Center.

He answered his own question with a quote from Mark Twain: “Reports of my death are greatly exaggerated.”

The trend is clear: TAVR will take over the market for isolated aortic valve replacement in much the same way that endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) has come to dominate open surgical repair by an 80:20 margin. And with the recent expansion of TAVR indications to include low-risk patients, the pool of potential candidates for TAVR has grown staggeringly large. By one estimate, it could include some 270,000 individuals per year in North America and the European Union (Eur Heart J. 2018 Jul 21;39[28]:2635-42).

But there’s no need to shed a tear at the prospect of SAVR surgeons standing in unemployment lines. They will continue to have their hands full performing combined SAVR plus coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) procedures, SAVR plus mitral or tricuspid valve operations, and Bentall procedures, Dr. Mack predicted.

Who should get SAVR for aortic stenosis in 2020? For starters, he said, the sorts of patients who were excluded from the major TAVR-versus-SAVR randomized trials. The low-surgical-risk trials were restricted to patients who had symptomatic aortic stenosis involving a tricuspid valve, no left ventricular outflow tract calcium, no or minimal coronary artery disease (CAD), a relatively normal left ventricular ejection fraction, and an aortic valve anatomy suitable for TAVR. And, 92% of study participants were over age 65 years.

Dr. Mack called the evidence for the safety and effectiveness of TAVR “the most robust evidence base in the history of medical devices,” backed by nine U.S. trials and 8,000 randomized patients during the last dozen years. He has played a major role in developing that evidence base, having served most recently as cochair of the landmark PARTNER 3 trial, which demonstrated superiority for TAVR over SAVR in low-surgical-risk patients. But the evidence base doesn’t apply to patients not enrolled in the trials. So for the foreseeable future, patients younger than age 65 years should probably stick with SAVR, mainly because of the still-open question of tissue valve durability and TAVR’s high rate of associated conduction system impairment and need for new pacemaker implantation. Younger patients find permanent pacemakers particularly problematic, he noted.

Others who should stick with surgery include patients with bicuspid valves, especially when aortopathy is present, individuals with low-lying coronary arteries, patients with heavy calcium deposits at the left ventricular outflow tract, those with infective endocarditis or rheumatic valve disease, and patients with structural valve deterioration after a valve-in-valve TAVR.

“Once you get beyond the first valve-in-valve, the outcomes are not going to be good. Those patients should preferentially be considered for surgery. The results for valve-in-valve have been very disappointing, with a 33% all-cause mortality at 3 years in the PARTNER Aortic Valve-in-Valve Registry,” according to the surgeon.

In patients with aortic stenosis and CAD, the clinical decision making should be based on the coronary disease. In a patient with triple-vessel disease, diabetes, and/or a high Syntax score for whom the collaborative multidisciplinary heart team would recommend surgical revascularization if aortic stenosis wasn’t present, the most appropriate option is SAVR plus CABG. On the other hand, if the CAD is amenable to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and the Syntax score is low, TAVR plus PCI is a safe and solid strategy, he continued.

In addition to the unresolved issue of tissue valve durability, another unanswered question pushing against universal adoption of TAVR involves the clinical implications of bioprosthetic valve leaflet thrombosis and the optimal antithrombotic therapy, both early and late. Leaflet thrombosis post-TAVR is common – as well as post-SAVR with bioprosthetic valves, albeit less so – but the lesions often come and go. Although there is a theoretical concern that they might be a precursor to leaflet destruction, at this point, their clinical significance remains unclear. In the recent GALILEO trial, TAVR patients randomized to low-dose rivaroxaban (Xarelto) plus aspirin showed fewer leaflet motion abnormalities and less leaflet thickening than did those on dual-antiplatelet therapy, but a significantly higher all-cause mortality (N Engl J Med 2020 Jan 9;382:120-9).

“I know that nowhere else in the body is thrombus a good thing, so thrombus in the valve can’t be a good thing. The only question is, how bad is it? And right now all we know is, some of our treatments for it are worse than the disease,” the surgeon commented.

Dr. Mack indicated that, at this time, clinical decision making in aortic stenosis should begin on the basis of patient age, which influences the key decision of whether to opt for a mechanical versus tissue replacement valve. For patients aged 50-70 years, shared decision making between the heart team and patient is appropriate. The evidence suggests SAVR with a mechanical valve is the better option, but many patients in this intermediate age group loathe the ideal of lifelong oral anticoagulation and favor a tissue valve.

For patients under age 50 years, the best evidence indicates that SAVR with a mechanical valve is clearly the best option; however, most young patients are instead opting for a tissue valve, even after being cautioned about the lingering uncertainty surrounding tissue valve durability, be it SAVR or TAVR. For patients over age 70 years, a tissue valve is the best choice based on the outcomes in PARTNER 3 and other low-surgical-risk trials. If the patient is younger than 65 years and wants a tissue valve, Dr. Mack thinks the best evidence-based option is SAVR. Above age 80 years, TAVR is the clear choice. Age 65-80 years is shared–decision making territory regarding TAVR versus SAVR.

Dr. Mack reported serving as a consultant to Gore and receiving research grants from Abbott Vascular, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic.

[email protected]

It took less than a day for physician groups to start pushing back at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services over its new Medicaid block grant plan, which was introduced on Jan. 30.

Dubbed “Healthy Adult Opportunity,” the agency is offering all states the chance to participate in a block grant program through the 1115 waiver process.

According to a fact sheet issued by the agency, the program will focus on “adults under age 65 who are not eligible for Medicaid on the basis of disability or their need for long term care services and supports, and who are not eligible under a state plan. Other very low-income parents, children, pregnant women, elderly adults, and people eligible on the basis of a disability will not be directly affected – except from the improvement that results from states reinvesting savings into strengthening their overall programs.”

States will be operating within a defined budget when participating in the program and expenditures exceeding that defined budget will not be eligible for additional federal funding. Budgets will be based on a state’s historic costs, as well as national and regional trends, and will be tied to inflation with the potential to have adjustments made for extraordinary events. States can set their baseline using the prior year’s total spending or a per-enrollee spending model.

A Jan. 30 letter to state Medicaid directors notes that states participating in the program “will be granted extensive flexibility to test alternative approaches to implementing their Medicaid programs, including the ability to make many ongoing program adjustments without the need for demonstration or state plan amendments that require prior approval.”

Among the activities states can engage in under this plan are adjusting cost-sharing requirements, adopting a closed formulary, and applying additional conditions of eligibility. Requests, if approved, will be approved for a 5-year initial period, with a renewal option of up to 10 years.

But physician groups are not seeing a benefit with this new block grant program.

“Moving to a block grant system will likely limit the ability of Medicaid patients to receive preventive and needed medical care from their family physicians, and it will only increase the health disparities that exist in these communities, worsen overall health outcomes, and ultimately increase costs,” Gary LeRoy, MD, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, said in a statement.

The American Medical Association concurred.

“The AMA opposes caps on federal Medicaid funding, such as block grants, because they would increase the number of uninsured and undermine Medicaid’s role as an indispensable safety net,” Patrice Harris, MD, the AMA’s president, said in a statement. “The AMA supports flexibility in Medicaid and encourages CMS to work with states to develop and test new Medicaid models that best meet the needs and priorities of low-income patients. While encouraging flexibility, the AMA is mindful that expanding Medicaid has been a literal lifesaver for low-income patients. We need to find ways to build on this success. We look forward to reviewing the proposal in detail.”

Officials at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said the changes have the potential to harm women and children’s health, as well as negatively impact physician reimbursement and ultimately access to care.

“Limits on the federal contribution to the Medicaid program would negatively impact patients by forcing states to reduce the number of people who are eligible for Medicaid coverage, eliminate covered services, and increase beneficiary cost-sharing,” ACOG President Ted Anderson, MD, said in a statement. “ACOG is also concerned that this block grant opportunity could lower physician reimbursement for certain services, forcing providers out of the program and jeopardizing patients’ ability to access health care services. Given our nation’s stark rates of maternal mortality and severe maternal morbidity, we are alarmed by the Administration’s willingness to weaken physician payment in Medicaid.”

[email protected]

It took less than a day for physician groups to start pushing back at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services over its new Medicaid block grant plan, which was introduced on Jan. 30.

Dubbed “Healthy Adult Opportunity,” the agency is offering all states the chance to participate in a block grant program through the 1115 waiver process.

According to a fact sheet issued by the agency, the program will focus on “adults under age 65 who are not eligible for Medicaid on the basis of disability or their need for long term care services and supports, and who are not eligible under a state plan. Other very low-income parents, children, pregnant women, elderly adults, and people eligible on the basis of a disability will not be directly affected – except from the improvement that results from states reinvesting savings into strengthening their overall programs.”

States will be operating within a defined budget when participating in the program and expenditures exceeding that defined budget will not be eligible for additional federal funding. Budgets will be based on a state’s historic costs, as well as national and regional trends, and will be tied to inflation with the potential to have adjustments made for extraordinary events. States can set their baseline using the prior year’s total spending or a per-enrollee spending model.

A Jan. 30 letter to state Medicaid directors notes that states participating in the program “will be granted extensive flexibility to test alternative approaches to implementing their Medicaid programs, including the ability to make many ongoing program adjustments without the need for demonstration or state plan amendments that require prior approval.”

Among the activities states can engage in under this plan are adjusting cost-sharing requirements, adopting a closed formulary, and applying additional conditions of eligibility. Requests, if approved, will be approved for a 5-year initial period, with a renewal option of up to 10 years.

But physician groups are not seeing a benefit with this new block grant program.

“Moving to a block grant system will likely limit the ability of Medicaid patients to receive preventive and needed medical care from their family physicians, and it will only increase the health disparities that exist in these communities, worsen overall health outcomes, and ultimately increase costs,” Gary LeRoy, MD, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, said in a statement.

The American Medical Association concurred.

“The AMA opposes caps on federal Medicaid funding, such as block grants, because they would increase the number of uninsured and undermine Medicaid’s role as an indispensable safety net,” Patrice Harris, MD, the AMA’s president, said in a statement. “The AMA supports flexibility in Medicaid and encourages CMS to work with states to develop and test new Medicaid models that best meet the needs and priorities of low-income patients. While encouraging flexibility, the AMA is mindful that expanding Medicaid has been a literal lifesaver for low-income patients. We need to find ways to build on this success. We look forward to reviewing the proposal in detail.”

Officials at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said the changes have the potential to harm women and children’s health, as well as negatively impact physician reimbursement and ultimately access to care.

“Limits on the federal contribution to the Medicaid program would negatively impact patients by forcing states to reduce the number of people who are eligible for Medicaid coverage, eliminate covered services, and increase beneficiary cost-sharing,” ACOG President Ted Anderson, MD, said in a statement. “ACOG is also concerned that this block grant opportunity could lower physician reimbursement for certain services, forcing providers out of the program and jeopardizing patients’ ability to access health care services. Given our nation’s stark rates of maternal mortality and severe maternal morbidity, we are alarmed by the Administration’s willingness to weaken physician payment in Medicaid.”

[email protected]

It took less than a day for physician groups to start pushing back at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services over its new Medicaid block grant plan, which was introduced on Jan. 30.

Dubbed “Healthy Adult Opportunity,” the agency is offering all states the chance to participate in a block grant program through the 1115 waiver process.

According to a fact sheet issued by the agency, the program will focus on “adults under age 65 who are not eligible for Medicaid on the basis of disability or their need for long term care services and supports, and who are not eligible under a state plan. Other very low-income parents, children, pregnant women, elderly adults, and people eligible on the basis of a disability will not be directly affected – except from the improvement that results from states reinvesting savings into strengthening their overall programs.”

States will be operating within a defined budget when participating in the program and expenditures exceeding that defined budget will not be eligible for additional federal funding. Budgets will be based on a state’s historic costs, as well as national and regional trends, and will be tied to inflation with the potential to have adjustments made for extraordinary events. States can set their baseline using the prior year’s total spending or a per-enrollee spending model.

A Jan. 30 letter to state Medicaid directors notes that states participating in the program “will be granted extensive flexibility to test alternative approaches to implementing their Medicaid programs, including the ability to make many ongoing program adjustments without the need for demonstration or state plan amendments that require prior approval.”

Among the activities states can engage in under this plan are adjusting cost-sharing requirements, adopting a closed formulary, and applying additional conditions of eligibility. Requests, if approved, will be approved for a 5-year initial period, with a renewal option of up to 10 years.

But physician groups are not seeing a benefit with this new block grant program.

“Moving to a block grant system will likely limit the ability of Medicaid patients to receive preventive and needed medical care from their family physicians, and it will only increase the health disparities that exist in these communities, worsen overall health outcomes, and ultimately increase costs,” Gary LeRoy, MD, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, said in a statement.

The American Medical Association concurred.

“The AMA opposes caps on federal Medicaid funding, such as block grants, because they would increase the number of uninsured and undermine Medicaid’s role as an indispensable safety net,” Patrice Harris, MD, the AMA’s president, said in a statement. “The AMA supports flexibility in Medicaid and encourages CMS to work with states to develop and test new Medicaid models that best meet the needs and priorities of low-income patients. While encouraging flexibility, the AMA is mindful that expanding Medicaid has been a literal lifesaver for low-income patients. We need to find ways to build on this success. We look forward to reviewing the proposal in detail.”

Officials at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said the changes have the potential to harm women and children’s health, as well as negatively impact physician reimbursement and ultimately access to care.

“Limits on the federal contribution to the Medicaid program would negatively impact patients by forcing states to reduce the number of people who are eligible for Medicaid coverage, eliminate covered services, and increase beneficiary cost-sharing,” ACOG President Ted Anderson, MD, said in a statement. “ACOG is also concerned that this block grant opportunity could lower physician reimbursement for certain services, forcing providers out of the program and jeopardizing patients’ ability to access health care services. Given our nation’s stark rates of maternal mortality and severe maternal morbidity, we are alarmed by the Administration’s willingness to weaken physician payment in Medicaid.”

[email protected]

Incidence of colorectal cancer spiked among adults in the United States between the ages of 49 and 50 years, the age when many have routine screening colonoscopies, based on data from a cross-sectional study of 165,160 patients.

“We would expect to see some degree of CRC incidence increase from 49 to 50 years of age owing to screening uptake and diagnosis of preexisting CRCs that may have been clinically undetected,” wrote Wesal H. Abualkhair, MD, of Tulane University, New Orleans, and colleagues.

In a study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers reviewed data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registries from 2000 to 2015 on colorectal cancer incidence in 1-year intervals for adults aged 30-60 years, focusing on the year between ages 49 and 50.

Overall, the incidence of colorectal cancer increased by 46.1% from 49 to 50 years of age, and 93% of these cases were invasive.

The increase in cancer rates occurred across geographical regions, sex, and race, and likely reflects the impact of screening rather than advancing age, the researchers said.

They also found a significant increase in 5-year relative survival (6.9% absolute increase, 10% relative increase) for the transition between 49 and 50 years of age; no other age transitions showed a significant change.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the lack of specific outcomes data and inability to determine the number of years that the cancers existed before diagnosis, the researchers said. However, the results were strengthened by the large study population and detailed yearly assessment.

“Our analysis of the transition from 49 to 50 years provides new, registry-based data regarding risk among individuals younger than 50 years, which can add to preexisting modeling studies to help inform decision-making on the age at which to initiate screening,” the researchers said.

The study did not receive outside funding. Lead author Dr. Abualkhair had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Abualkhair WH et al. JAMA Network Open. 2020 Jan 31. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.20407.

Incidence of colorectal cancer spiked among adults in the United States between the ages of 49 and 50 years, the age when many have routine screening colonoscopies, based on data from a cross-sectional study of 165,160 patients.

“We would expect to see some degree of CRC incidence increase from 49 to 50 years of age owing to screening uptake and diagnosis of preexisting CRCs that may have been clinically undetected,” wrote Wesal H. Abualkhair, MD, of Tulane University, New Orleans, and colleagues.

In a study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers reviewed data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registries from 2000 to 2015 on colorectal cancer incidence in 1-year intervals for adults aged 30-60 years, focusing on the year between ages 49 and 50.

Overall, the incidence of colorectal cancer increased by 46.1% from 49 to 50 years of age, and 93% of these cases were invasive.

The increase in cancer rates occurred across geographical regions, sex, and race, and likely reflects the impact of screening rather than advancing age, the researchers said.

They also found a significant increase in 5-year relative survival (6.9% absolute increase, 10% relative increase) for the transition between 49 and 50 years of age; no other age transitions showed a significant change.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the lack of specific outcomes data and inability to determine the number of years that the cancers existed before diagnosis, the researchers said. However, the results were strengthened by the large study population and detailed yearly assessment.

“Our analysis of the transition from 49 to 50 years provides new, registry-based data regarding risk among individuals younger than 50 years, which can add to preexisting modeling studies to help inform decision-making on the age at which to initiate screening,” the researchers said.

The study did not receive outside funding. Lead author Dr. Abualkhair had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Abualkhair WH et al. JAMA Network Open. 2020 Jan 31. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.20407.

Incidence of colorectal cancer spiked among adults in the United States between the ages of 49 and 50 years, the age when many have routine screening colonoscopies, based on data from a cross-sectional study of 165,160 patients.

“We would expect to see some degree of CRC incidence increase from 49 to 50 years of age owing to screening uptake and diagnosis of preexisting CRCs that may have been clinically undetected,” wrote Wesal H. Abualkhair, MD, of Tulane University, New Orleans, and colleagues.

In a study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers reviewed data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registries from 2000 to 2015 on colorectal cancer incidence in 1-year intervals for adults aged 30-60 years, focusing on the year between ages 49 and 50.

Overall, the incidence of colorectal cancer increased by 46.1% from 49 to 50 years of age, and 93% of these cases were invasive.

The increase in cancer rates occurred across geographical regions, sex, and race, and likely reflects the impact of screening rather than advancing age, the researchers said.

They also found a significant increase in 5-year relative survival (6.9% absolute increase, 10% relative increase) for the transition between 49 and 50 years of age; no other age transitions showed a significant change.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the lack of specific outcomes data and inability to determine the number of years that the cancers existed before diagnosis, the researchers said. However, the results were strengthened by the large study population and detailed yearly assessment.

“Our analysis of the transition from 49 to 50 years provides new, registry-based data regarding risk among individuals younger than 50 years, which can add to preexisting modeling studies to help inform decision-making on the age at which to initiate screening,” the researchers said.

The study did not receive outside funding. Lead author Dr. Abualkhair had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Abualkhair WH et al. JAMA Network Open. 2020 Jan 31. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.20407.