Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management

Icosapent ethyl, a highly purified form of the ethyl ester of eicosapentaenoic acid, received unanimous backing from a Food and Drug Administration advisory panel for a new indication for reducing cardiovascular event risk.

Icosapent ethyl (Vascepa) received initial agency approval in 2012 for the indication of cutting triglyceride levels once they reached at least 500 mg/dL.

The target patient population for this new, cardiovascular-event protection role will reflect some or all of the types of patients enrolled in REDUCE-IT (Reduction of Cardiovascular Events with Icosapent Ethyl–Intervention Trial), which tested icosapent ethyl in 8,179 patients with either established cardiovascular disease or diabetes and at least one additional cardiovascular disease risk factor. This study provided the bulk of the data considered by the FDA panel.

REDUCE-IT showed that, during a median of 4.9 years, patients who received icosapent ethyl had a statistically significant 25% relative risk reduction in the trial’s primary, composite endpoint (New Engl J Med. 2019 Jan 3;380[1]:11-22).

Icosapent ethyl “appeared effective and safe,” and would be a “useful, new, added agent for treating patients” like those enrolled in the trial, said Kenneth D. Burman, MD, professor and chief of endocrinology at Medstar Washington (D.C.) Hospital Center and chair of the FDA’s Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee.

The advisory panel members appeared uniformly comfortable with recommending that the FDA add a cardiovascular disease indication based on the REDUCE-IT findings.

But while they agreed that icosapent ethyl should receive some type of indication for cardiovascular event reduction, the committee split over which patients the indication should include. Specifically, they diverged on the issue of primary prevention.

Some said that the patient enrollment that produced a positive result in REDUCE-IT should not be retrospectively subdivided, while others said that combining secondary- and primary-prevention patients in a single large trial inappropriately lumped together patients who would be better considered separately.

Committee members also expressed uncertainty over the appropriate triglyceride level to warrant treatment. The REDUCE-IT trial was designed to enroll patients with triglycerides of 135 mg/dL or greater, but several panel members suggested that, for labeling, the threshold should be at least 150 mg/dL, or even 200 mg/dL.

Safety was another aspect that generated a lot of panel discussion throughout their day-long discussion, with particular focus on a signal of a small but concerning increased rate of incident atrial fibrillation among patients who received icosapent ethyl, as well as a small but nearly significant increase in the rate of serious bleeds.

Further analyses presented during the meeting showed that an increased bleeding rate linked with icosapent ethyl was focused in patients who concurrently received one or more antiplatelet drugs or an anticoagulant.

However, panel members rejected the notion that these safety concerns warranted a boxed warning, agreeing that it could be managed with appropriate labeling information.

Clinician reaction

Clinicians who manage these types of patients viewed the prospect of an expanded indication for icosapent ethyl as an important advance.

The REDUCE-IT results by themselves “were convincing” for patients with established cardiovascular disease without need for a confirmatory trial, Robert H. Eckel, MD, an endocrinologist and professor of medicine at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in an interview. But he remained unconvinced about efficacy for primary-prevention patients, or even for secondary-prevention patients with a triglyceride level below 150 mg/dL.

“Icosapent ethyl will clearly be a mainstay for managing high-risk patients. It gives us another treatment option,” Yehuda Handelsman, MD, an endocrinologist and medical director and principal investigator of the Metabolic Institute of America in Tarzana, Calif., said in an interview. “I do not see the atrial fibrillation or bleeding effects as reasons not to approve this drug. It should be a precaution. Overall, icosapent ethyl is one of the easier drugs for patients to take.”

Dr. Handelsman said it would be unethical to run a confirmatory trial and randomize patients to placebo. “Another trial makes no sense,” he said.

But the data from REDUCE-IT were “not as convincing” for primary-prevention patients, suggesting a need for caution about using icosapent ethyl for patients without established cardiovascular disease, Paul S. Jellinger, MD, an endocrinologist in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., said in an interview.

Cost-effectiveness

An analysis of the cost-effectiveness of icosapent ethyl as used in REDUCE-IT showed that the drug fell into the rare category of being a “dominant” treatment, meaning that it both improved patient outcomes and reduced medical costs. William S. Weintraub, MD, will report findings from this analysis on Nov. 16, 2019, at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.

The analysis used a wholesale acquisition cost for a 1-day dosage of icosapent ethyl of $4.16, derived from a commercial source for prescription-drug pricing and actual hospitalization costs for the patients in the trial.

Based on the REDUCE-IT outcomes, treatment with icosapent ethyl was linked with a boost in quality-adjusted life-years that extrapolated to an average 0.26 increase during the full lifetime of REDUCE-IT participants, at a cost that averaged $1,284 less per treated patient over their lifetime, according to Dr. Weintraub, director of Outcomes Research at Medstar Washington Hospital Center, Washington.

Although the 0.26 lifetime increase in quality-adjusted life-years may sound modest, “in the cost-effectiveness world, 0.26 is actually significant,” Dr. Weintraub said. He also highlighted how unusual it is to find a patented drug that improves quality of life and longevity while also saving money.

“I know of no other on-patent, branded pharmaceutical that is dominant,” he said.

Off-patent pharmaceuticals, like statins, can be quite inexpensive and may also be dominant, he noted. Being dominant for cost-effectiveness means that icosapent ethyl “provides good value and is worth what we pay for it, well within social thresholds of willingness to pay,” Dr. Weintraub said.

REDUCE-IT was sponsored by Amarin, the company that markets icosapent ethyl (Vascepa). Dr. Burman has received research funding from AstraZeneca, Eisai, and IBSA. Dr. Eckel has received personal fees from Kowa Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Novartis, and Sanofi/Regeneron, as well as research funding from Endece, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, and UniQure. Dr. Handelsman has been a consultant to and received research funding from Amarin and several other companies. Dr. Jellinger has been a speaker on behalf of Amarin, Amgen, and Regeneron. Dr. Weintraub has received honoraria and research support from Amarin, and honoraria from AstraZeneca.

[email protected]

Icosapent ethyl, a highly purified form of the ethyl ester of eicosapentaenoic acid, received unanimous backing from a Food and Drug Administration advisory panel for a new indication for reducing cardiovascular event risk.

Icosapent ethyl (Vascepa) received initial agency approval in 2012 for the indication of cutting triglyceride levels once they reached at least 500 mg/dL.

The target patient population for this new, cardiovascular-event protection role will reflect some or all of the types of patients enrolled in REDUCE-IT (Reduction of Cardiovascular Events with Icosapent Ethyl–Intervention Trial), which tested icosapent ethyl in 8,179 patients with either established cardiovascular disease or diabetes and at least one additional cardiovascular disease risk factor. This study provided the bulk of the data considered by the FDA panel.

REDUCE-IT showed that, during a median of 4.9 years, patients who received icosapent ethyl had a statistically significant 25% relative risk reduction in the trial’s primary, composite endpoint (New Engl J Med. 2019 Jan 3;380[1]:11-22).

Icosapent ethyl “appeared effective and safe,” and would be a “useful, new, added agent for treating patients” like those enrolled in the trial, said Kenneth D. Burman, MD, professor and chief of endocrinology at Medstar Washington (D.C.) Hospital Center and chair of the FDA’s Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee.

The advisory panel members appeared uniformly comfortable with recommending that the FDA add a cardiovascular disease indication based on the REDUCE-IT findings.

But while they agreed that icosapent ethyl should receive some type of indication for cardiovascular event reduction, the committee split over which patients the indication should include. Specifically, they diverged on the issue of primary prevention.

Some said that the patient enrollment that produced a positive result in REDUCE-IT should not be retrospectively subdivided, while others said that combining secondary- and primary-prevention patients in a single large trial inappropriately lumped together patients who would be better considered separately.

Committee members also expressed uncertainty over the appropriate triglyceride level to warrant treatment. The REDUCE-IT trial was designed to enroll patients with triglycerides of 135 mg/dL or greater, but several panel members suggested that, for labeling, the threshold should be at least 150 mg/dL, or even 200 mg/dL.

Safety was another aspect that generated a lot of panel discussion throughout their day-long discussion, with particular focus on a signal of a small but concerning increased rate of incident atrial fibrillation among patients who received icosapent ethyl, as well as a small but nearly significant increase in the rate of serious bleeds.

Further analyses presented during the meeting showed that an increased bleeding rate linked with icosapent ethyl was focused in patients who concurrently received one or more antiplatelet drugs or an anticoagulant.

However, panel members rejected the notion that these safety concerns warranted a boxed warning, agreeing that it could be managed with appropriate labeling information.

Clinician reaction

Clinicians who manage these types of patients viewed the prospect of an expanded indication for icosapent ethyl as an important advance.

The REDUCE-IT results by themselves “were convincing” for patients with established cardiovascular disease without need for a confirmatory trial, Robert H. Eckel, MD, an endocrinologist and professor of medicine at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in an interview. But he remained unconvinced about efficacy for primary-prevention patients, or even for secondary-prevention patients with a triglyceride level below 150 mg/dL.

“Icosapent ethyl will clearly be a mainstay for managing high-risk patients. It gives us another treatment option,” Yehuda Handelsman, MD, an endocrinologist and medical director and principal investigator of the Metabolic Institute of America in Tarzana, Calif., said in an interview. “I do not see the atrial fibrillation or bleeding effects as reasons not to approve this drug. It should be a precaution. Overall, icosapent ethyl is one of the easier drugs for patients to take.”

Dr. Handelsman said it would be unethical to run a confirmatory trial and randomize patients to placebo. “Another trial makes no sense,” he said.

But the data from REDUCE-IT were “not as convincing” for primary-prevention patients, suggesting a need for caution about using icosapent ethyl for patients without established cardiovascular disease, Paul S. Jellinger, MD, an endocrinologist in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., said in an interview.

Cost-effectiveness

An analysis of the cost-effectiveness of icosapent ethyl as used in REDUCE-IT showed that the drug fell into the rare category of being a “dominant” treatment, meaning that it both improved patient outcomes and reduced medical costs. William S. Weintraub, MD, will report findings from this analysis on Nov. 16, 2019, at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.

The analysis used a wholesale acquisition cost for a 1-day dosage of icosapent ethyl of $4.16, derived from a commercial source for prescription-drug pricing and actual hospitalization costs for the patients in the trial.

Based on the REDUCE-IT outcomes, treatment with icosapent ethyl was linked with a boost in quality-adjusted life-years that extrapolated to an average 0.26 increase during the full lifetime of REDUCE-IT participants, at a cost that averaged $1,284 less per treated patient over their lifetime, according to Dr. Weintraub, director of Outcomes Research at Medstar Washington Hospital Center, Washington.

Although the 0.26 lifetime increase in quality-adjusted life-years may sound modest, “in the cost-effectiveness world, 0.26 is actually significant,” Dr. Weintraub said. He also highlighted how unusual it is to find a patented drug that improves quality of life and longevity while also saving money.

“I know of no other on-patent, branded pharmaceutical that is dominant,” he said.

Off-patent pharmaceuticals, like statins, can be quite inexpensive and may also be dominant, he noted. Being dominant for cost-effectiveness means that icosapent ethyl “provides good value and is worth what we pay for it, well within social thresholds of willingness to pay,” Dr. Weintraub said.

REDUCE-IT was sponsored by Amarin, the company that markets icosapent ethyl (Vascepa). Dr. Burman has received research funding from AstraZeneca, Eisai, and IBSA. Dr. Eckel has received personal fees from Kowa Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Novartis, and Sanofi/Regeneron, as well as research funding from Endece, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, and UniQure. Dr. Handelsman has been a consultant to and received research funding from Amarin and several other companies. Dr. Jellinger has been a speaker on behalf of Amarin, Amgen, and Regeneron. Dr. Weintraub has received honoraria and research support from Amarin, and honoraria from AstraZeneca.

[email protected]

Icosapent ethyl, a highly purified form of the ethyl ester of eicosapentaenoic acid, received unanimous backing from a Food and Drug Administration advisory panel for a new indication for reducing cardiovascular event risk.

Icosapent ethyl (Vascepa) received initial agency approval in 2012 for the indication of cutting triglyceride levels once they reached at least 500 mg/dL.

The target patient population for this new, cardiovascular-event protection role will reflect some or all of the types of patients enrolled in REDUCE-IT (Reduction of Cardiovascular Events with Icosapent Ethyl–Intervention Trial), which tested icosapent ethyl in 8,179 patients with either established cardiovascular disease or diabetes and at least one additional cardiovascular disease risk factor. This study provided the bulk of the data considered by the FDA panel.

REDUCE-IT showed that, during a median of 4.9 years, patients who received icosapent ethyl had a statistically significant 25% relative risk reduction in the trial’s primary, composite endpoint (New Engl J Med. 2019 Jan 3;380[1]:11-22).

Icosapent ethyl “appeared effective and safe,” and would be a “useful, new, added agent for treating patients” like those enrolled in the trial, said Kenneth D. Burman, MD, professor and chief of endocrinology at Medstar Washington (D.C.) Hospital Center and chair of the FDA’s Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee.

The advisory panel members appeared uniformly comfortable with recommending that the FDA add a cardiovascular disease indication based on the REDUCE-IT findings.

But while they agreed that icosapent ethyl should receive some type of indication for cardiovascular event reduction, the committee split over which patients the indication should include. Specifically, they diverged on the issue of primary prevention.

Some said that the patient enrollment that produced a positive result in REDUCE-IT should not be retrospectively subdivided, while others said that combining secondary- and primary-prevention patients in a single large trial inappropriately lumped together patients who would be better considered separately.

Committee members also expressed uncertainty over the appropriate triglyceride level to warrant treatment. The REDUCE-IT trial was designed to enroll patients with triglycerides of 135 mg/dL or greater, but several panel members suggested that, for labeling, the threshold should be at least 150 mg/dL, or even 200 mg/dL.

Safety was another aspect that generated a lot of panel discussion throughout their day-long discussion, with particular focus on a signal of a small but concerning increased rate of incident atrial fibrillation among patients who received icosapent ethyl, as well as a small but nearly significant increase in the rate of serious bleeds.

Further analyses presented during the meeting showed that an increased bleeding rate linked with icosapent ethyl was focused in patients who concurrently received one or more antiplatelet drugs or an anticoagulant.

However, panel members rejected the notion that these safety concerns warranted a boxed warning, agreeing that it could be managed with appropriate labeling information.

Clinician reaction

Clinicians who manage these types of patients viewed the prospect of an expanded indication for icosapent ethyl as an important advance.

The REDUCE-IT results by themselves “were convincing” for patients with established cardiovascular disease without need for a confirmatory trial, Robert H. Eckel, MD, an endocrinologist and professor of medicine at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in an interview. But he remained unconvinced about efficacy for primary-prevention patients, or even for secondary-prevention patients with a triglyceride level below 150 mg/dL.

“Icosapent ethyl will clearly be a mainstay for managing high-risk patients. It gives us another treatment option,” Yehuda Handelsman, MD, an endocrinologist and medical director and principal investigator of the Metabolic Institute of America in Tarzana, Calif., said in an interview. “I do not see the atrial fibrillation or bleeding effects as reasons not to approve this drug. It should be a precaution. Overall, icosapent ethyl is one of the easier drugs for patients to take.”

Dr. Handelsman said it would be unethical to run a confirmatory trial and randomize patients to placebo. “Another trial makes no sense,” he said.

But the data from REDUCE-IT were “not as convincing” for primary-prevention patients, suggesting a need for caution about using icosapent ethyl for patients without established cardiovascular disease, Paul S. Jellinger, MD, an endocrinologist in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., said in an interview.

Cost-effectiveness

An analysis of the cost-effectiveness of icosapent ethyl as used in REDUCE-IT showed that the drug fell into the rare category of being a “dominant” treatment, meaning that it both improved patient outcomes and reduced medical costs. William S. Weintraub, MD, will report findings from this analysis on Nov. 16, 2019, at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.

The analysis used a wholesale acquisition cost for a 1-day dosage of icosapent ethyl of $4.16, derived from a commercial source for prescription-drug pricing and actual hospitalization costs for the patients in the trial.

Based on the REDUCE-IT outcomes, treatment with icosapent ethyl was linked with a boost in quality-adjusted life-years that extrapolated to an average 0.26 increase during the full lifetime of REDUCE-IT participants, at a cost that averaged $1,284 less per treated patient over their lifetime, according to Dr. Weintraub, director of Outcomes Research at Medstar Washington Hospital Center, Washington.

Although the 0.26 lifetime increase in quality-adjusted life-years may sound modest, “in the cost-effectiveness world, 0.26 is actually significant,” Dr. Weintraub said. He also highlighted how unusual it is to find a patented drug that improves quality of life and longevity while also saving money.

“I know of no other on-patent, branded pharmaceutical that is dominant,” he said.

Off-patent pharmaceuticals, like statins, can be quite inexpensive and may also be dominant, he noted. Being dominant for cost-effectiveness means that icosapent ethyl “provides good value and is worth what we pay for it, well within social thresholds of willingness to pay,” Dr. Weintraub said.

REDUCE-IT was sponsored by Amarin, the company that markets icosapent ethyl (Vascepa). Dr. Burman has received research funding from AstraZeneca, Eisai, and IBSA. Dr. Eckel has received personal fees from Kowa Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Novartis, and Sanofi/Regeneron, as well as research funding from Endece, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, and UniQure. Dr. Handelsman has been a consultant to and received research funding from Amarin and several other companies. Dr. Jellinger has been a speaker on behalf of Amarin, Amgen, and Regeneron. Dr. Weintraub has received honoraria and research support from Amarin, and honoraria from AstraZeneca.

[email protected]

AUSTIN, TEX. – Neuromuscular complications from immunotherapy for cancer are rare, but they occur often enough that it is helpful to know which ones can result from different immunotherapies and how to distinguish them from non–adverse event conditions, according to Christopher Trevino, MD, a neuro-oncologist at Tulane University in New Orleans.

At the annual meeting of the American Association for Neuromuscular and Electrodiagnostic Medicine, Dr. Trevino reviewed immunotherapy types, particularly immune checkpoint inhibitors, and the most common neuromuscular complications – primarily neuropathy, myasthenia gravis (MG), myositis, and encephalitis or meningitis.

“Timing of onset is a critical component to assist in identifying immune checkpoint inhibitor–associated versus non–immune checkpoint inhibitor–associated neuromuscular disease,” Dr. Trevino told attendees. Prompt recognition can be particularly urgent for MG because crisis and death rates are higher when induced by immunotherapy and require quick treatment. “Understanding the mechanisms of action sets a foundation for treatment approach,” he added.

Any part of the nervous system can be affected by immunotherapy toxicity, he said, and syndromes often overlap, with the peripheral nervous system typically more often affected than the central nervous system. Neurologic immune-related adverse events typically occur within four cycles of therapy – about 12 weeks after therapy initiation – but should always involve a work-up to exclude effects from the cancer itself, other neuromuscular diagnoses unrelated to therapy, and other toxicities from chemotherapy.

Recommended first-line treatment is halting immunotherapy with or without corticosteroids, after which most patients improve, often with “rapid, complete resolution of symptoms,” Dr. Trevino said. Restarting immunotherapy treatment is possible in some patients, though.
 

CAR T-cell and dendritic cell vaccine therapies

Four main types of immunotherapy exist: viral therapy, vaccine therapy, immune checkpoint inhibitors, and adoptive cell transfer, such as chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy. Dr. Trevino focused on checkpoint inhibitors and adoptive cell transfer.

CAR T-cell therapy is a multistep treatment process that involves first removing blood from the patient to obtain their T cells. These are used to create and grow CAR T cells in the lab so that they can be infused back into the patient. The cells then bind to cancer cells and destroy them. Examples of approved CAR T-cell therapy include Yescarta (axicabtagene ciloleucel) for some types of non-Hodgkin lymphoma and Kymriah (tisagenlecleucel) for acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL).

Dendritic cell vaccines are similar to CAR T-cell therapy in that they also use the patient’s own immune cells to create cancer-killing cells that the patient then receives back. The only currently approved dendritic cell vaccine is Provenge (sipuleucel-T) for advanced prostate cancer.

The main toxicity to watch for from CAR T-cell therapy and dendritic cell vaccines is cytokine release syndrome (CRS). It can begin anywhere from 1-14 days after the infusion and involves T-cell expansion in the body that leads to a cytokine storm. Symptoms are wide ranging, including fatigue, fever, loss of appetite, tachycardia, hypotension, pain, rash, diarrhea, headache, confusion, seizures, muscle and joint pain, tachypnea, hypoxia and hallucinations, among others.

Specific central neurotoxicities that can result from CAR T-cell therapy include encephalopathy, cerebral edema, seizures and status epilepticus, cerebral vasospasm, and aphasia.
 

Immune checkpoint inhibitor toxicities

Immune checkpoint inhibitors are drugs that interrupt a cancer’s ability to hijack the immune system; they block the proteins that hold back T-cells from attacking the cancer, thereby releasing the immune system to go after the malignant cells.

The two most common types of immune checkpoint inhibitors are those targeting the programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) and programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) pathways. The three currently approved PD-1 inhibitors are pembrolizumab (Keytruda), nivolumab (Opdivo), and cemiplimab (Libtayo), which can treat nearly a dozen malignancies affecting different organs. Atezolizumab (Tecentriq), avelumab (Bavencio), and durvalumab (Imfinzi) are the three currently approved PD-L1 inhibitors, indicated for urothelial carcinoma and a handful of other cancers, such as small-cell and non–small cell lung cancer and triple negative breast cancer.

The only other type of approved checkpoint inhibitor is ipilimumab (Yervoy), which targets the CTLA-4 protein. A number of other checkpoint inhibitors are in trials, however, such as ones targeting pathways involving OX40, ICOS, TIM3, and LAG-3 (J Hematol Oncol. 2018. doi: 10.1186/s13045-018-0582-8).

Immune-related adverse events are less common with PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors – a rate of 5%-10% – compared with adverse events from CTLA-4 inhibitors, which occur in about 15% of patients. Neurologic complications occur even more rarely – about 1%-4% of all immune checkpoint inhibitor therapies – and primarily include MG, Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS), chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP), and inflammatory myositis (Muscle Nerve. 2018;58[1]:10-22).

Treatment with multiple checkpoint inhibitors increases the likelihood of severe adverse events, with rates of up to 30%-50% of patients with dual treatment.
 

Distinguishing features of neuromuscular immunotherapy-related adverse events

MG is the most common neuromuscular immune-related adverse event from immune checkpoint inhibitors and tends to occur 3-12 weeks after beginning treatment, frequently comorbid with inflammatory myopathy or cardiomyopathy, Dr. Trevino said. About two-thirds of cases are de novo, while the remaining one-third involve preexisting MG; no reports of Lambert-Eaton myasthenic syndrome have been linked to checkpoint inhibitors.

Several characteristics distinguish checkpoint inhibitor–associated MG from standard MG. Standard MG can be ocular with or without bulbar or appendicular weakness, whereas immunotherapy-related MG is rarely only ocular (about 18% of cases). Immunotherapy-related MG involves an MG crisis at diagnosis in up to 50% of cases and has high mortality, both of which are rarer with standard MG.

While standard MG can be seronegative or involve AChR, MuSK, or LRP4 antibodies, about two-thirds of immunotherapy-related MG cases are positive for AChR antibodies. LRP4 antibodies are rare with MG from checkpoint inhibitors, and no MuSK antibodies have been reported in these cases. Creatine kinase (CK) or troponin I (TnI) elevation occurs in about 87% of patients with checkpoint inhibitor-induced MG, but standard MG doesn’t typically involve increased CK levels.

Inflammatory myositis (IM), the second most common neuromuscular adverse event from immunotherapy, tends to occur 2-15 weeks after immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy and can involve polymyositis, necrotizing autoimmune myopathy, dermatomyositis, granulomatous myositis, or other nonspecific myositis and myopathies.

Though proximal weakness occurs with IM both associated with immunotherapy and not, ocular symptoms are unique to cases associated with therapy and occur in about half of them. Myalgia, dyspnea, and dysphagia can all occur with checkpoint inhibitor–associated IM but don’t generally occur with standard IM. Immunotherapy-related IM is usually seronegative for myositis antibodies and doesn’t generally cause abnormalities in electromyography, compared with increased exertional activity and early recruitment of myopathic motor units in electromyography with standard IM.

GBS and CIDP are the third most common cause of neuromuscular complications from checkpoint inhibitors. The main distinguishing feature of these conditions from those not related to immunotherapy is that they occur anywhere from 4 to 68 weeks after therapy begins. Presentation is otherwise similar whether related to checkpoint inhibitors or not.

Aside from GBS and CIDP, other neuropathies that can result from immunotherapy complications include acute cranial neuropathies, axonal or demyelinating neuropathies, motor polyradiculopathy, vasculitic neuropathy, and plexopathy.

Neuromuscular complications other than those described above can also occur from checkpoint inhibitor therapy, such as enteric neuropathy, polyradiculitis, and meningo-radiculo-neuritis, but these are much rarer.

Four organizations have developed consensus guidelines for immune checkpoint inhibitor toxicities: the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO, 2017), Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC, 2017), American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO, 2018), and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN, 2019).

Dr Trevino had no disclosures.

AUSTIN, TEX. – Neuromuscular complications from immunotherapy for cancer are rare, but they occur often enough that it is helpful to know which ones can result from different immunotherapies and how to distinguish them from non–adverse event conditions, according to Christopher Trevino, MD, a neuro-oncologist at Tulane University in New Orleans.

At the annual meeting of the American Association for Neuromuscular and Electrodiagnostic Medicine, Dr. Trevino reviewed immunotherapy types, particularly immune checkpoint inhibitors, and the most common neuromuscular complications – primarily neuropathy, myasthenia gravis (MG), myositis, and encephalitis or meningitis.

“Timing of onset is a critical component to assist in identifying immune checkpoint inhibitor–associated versus non–immune checkpoint inhibitor–associated neuromuscular disease,” Dr. Trevino told attendees. Prompt recognition can be particularly urgent for MG because crisis and death rates are higher when induced by immunotherapy and require quick treatment. “Understanding the mechanisms of action sets a foundation for treatment approach,” he added.

Any part of the nervous system can be affected by immunotherapy toxicity, he said, and syndromes often overlap, with the peripheral nervous system typically more often affected than the central nervous system. Neurologic immune-related adverse events typically occur within four cycles of therapy – about 12 weeks after therapy initiation – but should always involve a work-up to exclude effects from the cancer itself, other neuromuscular diagnoses unrelated to therapy, and other toxicities from chemotherapy.

Recommended first-line treatment is halting immunotherapy with or without corticosteroids, after which most patients improve, often with “rapid, complete resolution of symptoms,” Dr. Trevino said. Restarting immunotherapy treatment is possible in some patients, though.
 

CAR T-cell and dendritic cell vaccine therapies

Four main types of immunotherapy exist: viral therapy, vaccine therapy, immune checkpoint inhibitors, and adoptive cell transfer, such as chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy. Dr. Trevino focused on checkpoint inhibitors and adoptive cell transfer.

CAR T-cell therapy is a multistep treatment process that involves first removing blood from the patient to obtain their T cells. These are used to create and grow CAR T cells in the lab so that they can be infused back into the patient. The cells then bind to cancer cells and destroy them. Examples of approved CAR T-cell therapy include Yescarta (axicabtagene ciloleucel) for some types of non-Hodgkin lymphoma and Kymriah (tisagenlecleucel) for acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL).

Dendritic cell vaccines are similar to CAR T-cell therapy in that they also use the patient’s own immune cells to create cancer-killing cells that the patient then receives back. The only currently approved dendritic cell vaccine is Provenge (sipuleucel-T) for advanced prostate cancer.

The main toxicity to watch for from CAR T-cell therapy and dendritic cell vaccines is cytokine release syndrome (CRS). It can begin anywhere from 1-14 days after the infusion and involves T-cell expansion in the body that leads to a cytokine storm. Symptoms are wide ranging, including fatigue, fever, loss of appetite, tachycardia, hypotension, pain, rash, diarrhea, headache, confusion, seizures, muscle and joint pain, tachypnea, hypoxia and hallucinations, among others.

Specific central neurotoxicities that can result from CAR T-cell therapy include encephalopathy, cerebral edema, seizures and status epilepticus, cerebral vasospasm, and aphasia.
 

Immune checkpoint inhibitor toxicities

Immune checkpoint inhibitors are drugs that interrupt a cancer’s ability to hijack the immune system; they block the proteins that hold back T-cells from attacking the cancer, thereby releasing the immune system to go after the malignant cells.

The two most common types of immune checkpoint inhibitors are those targeting the programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) and programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) pathways. The three currently approved PD-1 inhibitors are pembrolizumab (Keytruda), nivolumab (Opdivo), and cemiplimab (Libtayo), which can treat nearly a dozen malignancies affecting different organs. Atezolizumab (Tecentriq), avelumab (Bavencio), and durvalumab (Imfinzi) are the three currently approved PD-L1 inhibitors, indicated for urothelial carcinoma and a handful of other cancers, such as small-cell and non–small cell lung cancer and triple negative breast cancer.

The only other type of approved checkpoint inhibitor is ipilimumab (Yervoy), which targets the CTLA-4 protein. A number of other checkpoint inhibitors are in trials, however, such as ones targeting pathways involving OX40, ICOS, TIM3, and LAG-3 (J Hematol Oncol. 2018. doi: 10.1186/s13045-018-0582-8).

Immune-related adverse events are less common with PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors – a rate of 5%-10% – compared with adverse events from CTLA-4 inhibitors, which occur in about 15% of patients. Neurologic complications occur even more rarely – about 1%-4% of all immune checkpoint inhibitor therapies – and primarily include MG, Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS), chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP), and inflammatory myositis (Muscle Nerve. 2018;58[1]:10-22).

Treatment with multiple checkpoint inhibitors increases the likelihood of severe adverse events, with rates of up to 30%-50% of patients with dual treatment.
 

Distinguishing features of neuromuscular immunotherapy-related adverse events

MG is the most common neuromuscular immune-related adverse event from immune checkpoint inhibitors and tends to occur 3-12 weeks after beginning treatment, frequently comorbid with inflammatory myopathy or cardiomyopathy, Dr. Trevino said. About two-thirds of cases are de novo, while the remaining one-third involve preexisting MG; no reports of Lambert-Eaton myasthenic syndrome have been linked to checkpoint inhibitors.

Several characteristics distinguish checkpoint inhibitor–associated MG from standard MG. Standard MG can be ocular with or without bulbar or appendicular weakness, whereas immunotherapy-related MG is rarely only ocular (about 18% of cases). Immunotherapy-related MG involves an MG crisis at diagnosis in up to 50% of cases and has high mortality, both of which are rarer with standard MG.

While standard MG can be seronegative or involve AChR, MuSK, or LRP4 antibodies, about two-thirds of immunotherapy-related MG cases are positive for AChR antibodies. LRP4 antibodies are rare with MG from checkpoint inhibitors, and no MuSK antibodies have been reported in these cases. Creatine kinase (CK) or troponin I (TnI) elevation occurs in about 87% of patients with checkpoint inhibitor-induced MG, but standard MG doesn’t typically involve increased CK levels.

Inflammatory myositis (IM), the second most common neuromuscular adverse event from immunotherapy, tends to occur 2-15 weeks after immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy and can involve polymyositis, necrotizing autoimmune myopathy, dermatomyositis, granulomatous myositis, or other nonspecific myositis and myopathies.

Though proximal weakness occurs with IM both associated with immunotherapy and not, ocular symptoms are unique to cases associated with therapy and occur in about half of them. Myalgia, dyspnea, and dysphagia can all occur with checkpoint inhibitor–associated IM but don’t generally occur with standard IM. Immunotherapy-related IM is usually seronegative for myositis antibodies and doesn’t generally cause abnormalities in electromyography, compared with increased exertional activity and early recruitment of myopathic motor units in electromyography with standard IM.

GBS and CIDP are the third most common cause of neuromuscular complications from checkpoint inhibitors. The main distinguishing feature of these conditions from those not related to immunotherapy is that they occur anywhere from 4 to 68 weeks after therapy begins. Presentation is otherwise similar whether related to checkpoint inhibitors or not.

Aside from GBS and CIDP, other neuropathies that can result from immunotherapy complications include acute cranial neuropathies, axonal or demyelinating neuropathies, motor polyradiculopathy, vasculitic neuropathy, and plexopathy.

Neuromuscular complications other than those described above can also occur from checkpoint inhibitor therapy, such as enteric neuropathy, polyradiculitis, and meningo-radiculo-neuritis, but these are much rarer.

Four organizations have developed consensus guidelines for immune checkpoint inhibitor toxicities: the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO, 2017), Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC, 2017), American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO, 2018), and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN, 2019).

Dr Trevino had no disclosures.

AUSTIN, TEX. – Neuromuscular complications from immunotherapy for cancer are rare, but they occur often enough that it is helpful to know which ones can result from different immunotherapies and how to distinguish them from non–adverse event conditions, according to Christopher Trevino, MD, a neuro-oncologist at Tulane University in New Orleans.

At the annual meeting of the American Association for Neuromuscular and Electrodiagnostic Medicine, Dr. Trevino reviewed immunotherapy types, particularly immune checkpoint inhibitors, and the most common neuromuscular complications – primarily neuropathy, myasthenia gravis (MG), myositis, and encephalitis or meningitis.

“Timing of onset is a critical component to assist in identifying immune checkpoint inhibitor–associated versus non–immune checkpoint inhibitor–associated neuromuscular disease,” Dr. Trevino told attendees. Prompt recognition can be particularly urgent for MG because crisis and death rates are higher when induced by immunotherapy and require quick treatment. “Understanding the mechanisms of action sets a foundation for treatment approach,” he added.

Any part of the nervous system can be affected by immunotherapy toxicity, he said, and syndromes often overlap, with the peripheral nervous system typically more often affected than the central nervous system. Neurologic immune-related adverse events typically occur within four cycles of therapy – about 12 weeks after therapy initiation – but should always involve a work-up to exclude effects from the cancer itself, other neuromuscular diagnoses unrelated to therapy, and other toxicities from chemotherapy.

Recommended first-line treatment is halting immunotherapy with or without corticosteroids, after which most patients improve, often with “rapid, complete resolution of symptoms,” Dr. Trevino said. Restarting immunotherapy treatment is possible in some patients, though.
 

CAR T-cell and dendritic cell vaccine therapies

Four main types of immunotherapy exist: viral therapy, vaccine therapy, immune checkpoint inhibitors, and adoptive cell transfer, such as chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy. Dr. Trevino focused on checkpoint inhibitors and adoptive cell transfer.

CAR T-cell therapy is a multistep treatment process that involves first removing blood from the patient to obtain their T cells. These are used to create and grow CAR T cells in the lab so that they can be infused back into the patient. The cells then bind to cancer cells and destroy them. Examples of approved CAR T-cell therapy include Yescarta (axicabtagene ciloleucel) for some types of non-Hodgkin lymphoma and Kymriah (tisagenlecleucel) for acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL).

Dendritic cell vaccines are similar to CAR T-cell therapy in that they also use the patient’s own immune cells to create cancer-killing cells that the patient then receives back. The only currently approved dendritic cell vaccine is Provenge (sipuleucel-T) for advanced prostate cancer.

The main toxicity to watch for from CAR T-cell therapy and dendritic cell vaccines is cytokine release syndrome (CRS). It can begin anywhere from 1-14 days after the infusion and involves T-cell expansion in the body that leads to a cytokine storm. Symptoms are wide ranging, including fatigue, fever, loss of appetite, tachycardia, hypotension, pain, rash, diarrhea, headache, confusion, seizures, muscle and joint pain, tachypnea, hypoxia and hallucinations, among others.

Specific central neurotoxicities that can result from CAR T-cell therapy include encephalopathy, cerebral edema, seizures and status epilepticus, cerebral vasospasm, and aphasia.
 

Immune checkpoint inhibitor toxicities

Immune checkpoint inhibitors are drugs that interrupt a cancer’s ability to hijack the immune system; they block the proteins that hold back T-cells from attacking the cancer, thereby releasing the immune system to go after the malignant cells.

The two most common types of immune checkpoint inhibitors are those targeting the programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) and programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) pathways. The three currently approved PD-1 inhibitors are pembrolizumab (Keytruda), nivolumab (Opdivo), and cemiplimab (Libtayo), which can treat nearly a dozen malignancies affecting different organs. Atezolizumab (Tecentriq), avelumab (Bavencio), and durvalumab (Imfinzi) are the three currently approved PD-L1 inhibitors, indicated for urothelial carcinoma and a handful of other cancers, such as small-cell and non–small cell lung cancer and triple negative breast cancer.

The only other type of approved checkpoint inhibitor is ipilimumab (Yervoy), which targets the CTLA-4 protein. A number of other checkpoint inhibitors are in trials, however, such as ones targeting pathways involving OX40, ICOS, TIM3, and LAG-3 (J Hematol Oncol. 2018. doi: 10.1186/s13045-018-0582-8).

Immune-related adverse events are less common with PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors – a rate of 5%-10% – compared with adverse events from CTLA-4 inhibitors, which occur in about 15% of patients. Neurologic complications occur even more rarely – about 1%-4% of all immune checkpoint inhibitor therapies – and primarily include MG, Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS), chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP), and inflammatory myositis (Muscle Nerve. 2018;58[1]:10-22).

Treatment with multiple checkpoint inhibitors increases the likelihood of severe adverse events, with rates of up to 30%-50% of patients with dual treatment.
 

Distinguishing features of neuromuscular immunotherapy-related adverse events

MG is the most common neuromuscular immune-related adverse event from immune checkpoint inhibitors and tends to occur 3-12 weeks after beginning treatment, frequently comorbid with inflammatory myopathy or cardiomyopathy, Dr. Trevino said. About two-thirds of cases are de novo, while the remaining one-third involve preexisting MG; no reports of Lambert-Eaton myasthenic syndrome have been linked to checkpoint inhibitors.

Several characteristics distinguish checkpoint inhibitor–associated MG from standard MG. Standard MG can be ocular with or without bulbar or appendicular weakness, whereas immunotherapy-related MG is rarely only ocular (about 18% of cases). Immunotherapy-related MG involves an MG crisis at diagnosis in up to 50% of cases and has high mortality, both of which are rarer with standard MG.

While standard MG can be seronegative or involve AChR, MuSK, or LRP4 antibodies, about two-thirds of immunotherapy-related MG cases are positive for AChR antibodies. LRP4 antibodies are rare with MG from checkpoint inhibitors, and no MuSK antibodies have been reported in these cases. Creatine kinase (CK) or troponin I (TnI) elevation occurs in about 87% of patients with checkpoint inhibitor-induced MG, but standard MG doesn’t typically involve increased CK levels.

Inflammatory myositis (IM), the second most common neuromuscular adverse event from immunotherapy, tends to occur 2-15 weeks after immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy and can involve polymyositis, necrotizing autoimmune myopathy, dermatomyositis, granulomatous myositis, or other nonspecific myositis and myopathies.

Though proximal weakness occurs with IM both associated with immunotherapy and not, ocular symptoms are unique to cases associated with therapy and occur in about half of them. Myalgia, dyspnea, and dysphagia can all occur with checkpoint inhibitor–associated IM but don’t generally occur with standard IM. Immunotherapy-related IM is usually seronegative for myositis antibodies and doesn’t generally cause abnormalities in electromyography, compared with increased exertional activity and early recruitment of myopathic motor units in electromyography with standard IM.

GBS and CIDP are the third most common cause of neuromuscular complications from checkpoint inhibitors. The main distinguishing feature of these conditions from those not related to immunotherapy is that they occur anywhere from 4 to 68 weeks after therapy begins. Presentation is otherwise similar whether related to checkpoint inhibitors or not.

Aside from GBS and CIDP, other neuropathies that can result from immunotherapy complications include acute cranial neuropathies, axonal or demyelinating neuropathies, motor polyradiculopathy, vasculitic neuropathy, and plexopathy.

Neuromuscular complications other than those described above can also occur from checkpoint inhibitor therapy, such as enteric neuropathy, polyradiculitis, and meningo-radiculo-neuritis, but these are much rarer.

Four organizations have developed consensus guidelines for immune checkpoint inhibitor toxicities: the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO, 2017), Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC, 2017), American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO, 2018), and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN, 2019).

Dr Trevino had no disclosures.

“You and I are living in a time when some miracle drugs no longer perform miracles and families are being ripped apart by a microscopic enemy. The time for action is now and we can be part of the solution,” said Robert R. Redfield, MD, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in his foreword to the new CDC report on antibiotic resistance.

In this update of the previous 2013 report, the CDC details how antibiotic-resistant bacteria and fungi cause more than 2.8 million infections and 35,000 deaths in the United States each year. The current report uses EHRs and other data sources obtained by the CDC for relevant infections extrapolated to develop national disease incidence. The report focuses on “the top 18 pathogens that require attention now,” advises specific steps be taken to address these pathogens, and puts into perspective the future of antibiotic development, their use and abuse, and the continuing threat of antibiotic resistance.

The CDC categorizes these 18 pathogens as either an urgent, serious, or concerning threat.

Urgent Threats

• Carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter, which cause pneumonia and wound, bloodstream, and urinary tract infections; they tend to affect patients in ICUs. Of particular concern, some Acinetobacter are resistant to nearly all antibiotics, with few new drugs in development (8,500 hospital infections in 2017; 700 deaths).
• Candida auris, a drug-resistant fungus that was first identified in 2009 in Asia and has quickly become a cause of severe infections around the world; it is extremely difficult to eradicate from health care settings. It began spreading in the United States in 2015, with 323 cases reported in 2018 (90% resistant to at least one antifungal, and 30% resistant to at least two antifungals).
• Clostridioides difficile, which can cause life-threatening diarrhea, most often in people who have taken antibiotics for other conditions. It is the most common health care–associated infection, and although decreasing in the health care system, it has not decreased in community settings (223,900 hospital infections in 2017, and 12,800 estimated deaths).
• Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae, which most frequently infect patients who require devices such as catheters and those taking long courses of some antibiotics. Of particular concern is the fact that these bacteria contain a transmissible plasmid that can transfer their drug resistance to other pathogens (13,100 hospital infections in 2017, and 1,100 estimated deaths).
• Drug-resistant Neisseria gonorrhoeae, which is a sexually transmitted disease that can result in life-threatening ectopic pregnancy, lead to infertility, and can increase the risk of getting and giving HIV; it can also cause cardiovascular and neurological problems. It is resistant to all but one class of antibiotics, and half of all infections are resistant to at least one antibiotic (550,000 drug-resistant infections yearly).

Serious Threats

• Drug-resistant Campylobacter.
• Drug-resistant Candida.
• Extended spectrum beta-lactamase–producing Enterobacteriaceae.
• Vancomycin-resistant Enterococci.
• Multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa.
• Drug-resistant nontyphoidal Salmonella.
• Drug-resistant Salmonella serotype Typhi.
• Drug-resistant Shigella.
• Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA).
• Drug-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae.
• Drug-resistant Tuberculosis.

Concerning Threats

These comprise erythromycin-resistant group A Streptococcus and clindamycin-resistant group B Streptococcus.

In addition, the CDC has established a Watch List of three pathogens to be wary of: azole-resistant Aspergillus fumigatus, drug-resistant Mycoplasma genitalium, and drug-resistant Bordetella pertussis.

Because antibiotic resistance is a global phenomenon caused by and affecting everyone, the CDC provided solutions to the problem of antibiotic resistance at every level of society. This “comprehensive and coordinated response implements the U.S. National Action Plan for Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria” and includes cooperation with the Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of Defense, Department of State, and Department of Agriculture, according to the report.

The key components of this response include using data and new technologies to detect and track antibiotic resistance; infection prevention and containment, especially in terms of outbreak response; improving antibiotic use across populations (one successful example being a 16% decrease of outpatient antibiotic prescribing to children during 2011-2017); improvements in the identification and intervention in the environment including water and soil and in sanitation; and a significant investment in vaccines, diagnostics, and novel therapeutics (the CDC provided nearly $110 million to 96 institutions for work in these areas).

The report also details some hope in the development of new antibiotics. As of June 2019, there were 42 new antibiotics in development, including 4 with new drug applications submitted, 17 with the potential to treat serious gram negative bacteria, and 11 that could address the urgent threats of gonorrhea or C. difficile. Overall, a quarter of these new antibiotics represent a novel drug class or use a novel mechanism of action.

Furthermore, 84% of U.S. hospitals report a stewardship program meeting all seven of CDC’s Core Elements of Hospital Antibiotic Stewardship. Proper stewardship is at the core of preventing the development of new antibiotic resistant pathogen strains.

In addition, the CDC noted a 5% overall decline in antibiotic prescribing in outpatient settings during 2011-2016.

“The problem will get worse if we do not act now, but we can make a difference,” according to Dr. Redfield. “Simply, here’s what works. Preventing infections protects everyone. Improving antibiotic use in people and animals slows the threat and helps preserve today’s drugs and those yet to come. Detecting threats and implementing interventions to keep germs from becoming widespread saves lives.”

In response to the release of the report, the AMA issued a supporting statement and cited its collection of educational resources for physicians focused on antibiotic use, resistance, and stewardship.

Similarly, the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) stated that hospitals were “a bright spot” in the CDC report and offered tools and resources available to educate and inform health care professionals about best practices in infection prevention and control, as well as antibiotic stewardship.

[email protected]

SOURCE: CDC. Antibiotic Resistance Threats in the United States 2019.

“You and I are living in a time when some miracle drugs no longer perform miracles and families are being ripped apart by a microscopic enemy. The time for action is now and we can be part of the solution,” said Robert R. Redfield, MD, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in his foreword to the new CDC report on antibiotic resistance.

In this update of the previous 2013 report, the CDC details how antibiotic-resistant bacteria and fungi cause more than 2.8 million infections and 35,000 deaths in the United States each year. The current report uses EHRs and other data sources obtained by the CDC for relevant infections extrapolated to develop national disease incidence. The report focuses on “the top 18 pathogens that require attention now,” advises specific steps be taken to address these pathogens, and puts into perspective the future of antibiotic development, their use and abuse, and the continuing threat of antibiotic resistance.

The CDC categorizes these 18 pathogens as either an urgent, serious, or concerning threat.

Urgent Threats

• Carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter, which cause pneumonia and wound, bloodstream, and urinary tract infections; they tend to affect patients in ICUs. Of particular concern, some Acinetobacter are resistant to nearly all antibiotics, with few new drugs in development (8,500 hospital infections in 2017; 700 deaths).
• Candida auris, a drug-resistant fungus that was first identified in 2009 in Asia and has quickly become a cause of severe infections around the world; it is extremely difficult to eradicate from health care settings. It began spreading in the United States in 2015, with 323 cases reported in 2018 (90% resistant to at least one antifungal, and 30% resistant to at least two antifungals).
• Clostridioides difficile, which can cause life-threatening diarrhea, most often in people who have taken antibiotics for other conditions. It is the most common health care–associated infection, and although decreasing in the health care system, it has not decreased in community settings (223,900 hospital infections in 2017, and 12,800 estimated deaths).
• Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae, which most frequently infect patients who require devices such as catheters and those taking long courses of some antibiotics. Of particular concern is the fact that these bacteria contain a transmissible plasmid that can transfer their drug resistance to other pathogens (13,100 hospital infections in 2017, and 1,100 estimated deaths).
• Drug-resistant Neisseria gonorrhoeae, which is a sexually transmitted disease that can result in life-threatening ectopic pregnancy, lead to infertility, and can increase the risk of getting and giving HIV; it can also cause cardiovascular and neurological problems. It is resistant to all but one class of antibiotics, and half of all infections are resistant to at least one antibiotic (550,000 drug-resistant infections yearly).

Serious Threats

• Drug-resistant Campylobacter.
• Drug-resistant Candida.
• Extended spectrum beta-lactamase–producing Enterobacteriaceae.
• Vancomycin-resistant Enterococci.
• Multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa.
• Drug-resistant nontyphoidal Salmonella.
• Drug-resistant Salmonella serotype Typhi.
• Drug-resistant Shigella.
• Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA).
• Drug-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae.
• Drug-resistant Tuberculosis.

Concerning Threats

These comprise erythromycin-resistant group A Streptococcus and clindamycin-resistant group B Streptococcus.

In addition, the CDC has established a Watch List of three pathogens to be wary of: azole-resistant Aspergillus fumigatus, drug-resistant Mycoplasma genitalium, and drug-resistant Bordetella pertussis.

Because antibiotic resistance is a global phenomenon caused by and affecting everyone, the CDC provided solutions to the problem of antibiotic resistance at every level of society. This “comprehensive and coordinated response implements the U.S. National Action Plan for Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria” and includes cooperation with the Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of Defense, Department of State, and Department of Agriculture, according to the report.

The key components of this response include using data and new technologies to detect and track antibiotic resistance; infection prevention and containment, especially in terms of outbreak response; improving antibiotic use across populations (one successful example being a 16% decrease of outpatient antibiotic prescribing to children during 2011-2017); improvements in the identification and intervention in the environment including water and soil and in sanitation; and a significant investment in vaccines, diagnostics, and novel therapeutics (the CDC provided nearly $110 million to 96 institutions for work in these areas).

The report also details some hope in the development of new antibiotics. As of June 2019, there were 42 new antibiotics in development, including 4 with new drug applications submitted, 17 with the potential to treat serious gram negative bacteria, and 11 that could address the urgent threats of gonorrhea or C. difficile. Overall, a quarter of these new antibiotics represent a novel drug class or use a novel mechanism of action.

Furthermore, 84% of U.S. hospitals report a stewardship program meeting all seven of CDC’s Core Elements of Hospital Antibiotic Stewardship. Proper stewardship is at the core of preventing the development of new antibiotic resistant pathogen strains.

In addition, the CDC noted a 5% overall decline in antibiotic prescribing in outpatient settings during 2011-2016.

“The problem will get worse if we do not act now, but we can make a difference,” according to Dr. Redfield. “Simply, here’s what works. Preventing infections protects everyone. Improving antibiotic use in people and animals slows the threat and helps preserve today’s drugs and those yet to come. Detecting threats and implementing interventions to keep germs from becoming widespread saves lives.”

In response to the release of the report, the AMA issued a supporting statement and cited its collection of educational resources for physicians focused on antibiotic use, resistance, and stewardship.

Similarly, the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) stated that hospitals were “a bright spot” in the CDC report and offered tools and resources available to educate and inform health care professionals about best practices in infection prevention and control, as well as antibiotic stewardship.

[email protected]

SOURCE: CDC. Antibiotic Resistance Threats in the United States 2019.

“You and I are living in a time when some miracle drugs no longer perform miracles and families are being ripped apart by a microscopic enemy. The time for action is now and we can be part of the solution,” said Robert R. Redfield, MD, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in his foreword to the new CDC report on antibiotic resistance.

In this update of the previous 2013 report, the CDC details how antibiotic-resistant bacteria and fungi cause more than 2.8 million infections and 35,000 deaths in the United States each year. The current report uses EHRs and other data sources obtained by the CDC for relevant infections extrapolated to develop national disease incidence. The report focuses on “the top 18 pathogens that require attention now,” advises specific steps be taken to address these pathogens, and puts into perspective the future of antibiotic development, their use and abuse, and the continuing threat of antibiotic resistance.

The CDC categorizes these 18 pathogens as either an urgent, serious, or concerning threat.

Urgent Threats

• Carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter, which cause pneumonia and wound, bloodstream, and urinary tract infections; they tend to affect patients in ICUs. Of particular concern, some Acinetobacter are resistant to nearly all antibiotics, with few new drugs in development (8,500 hospital infections in 2017; 700 deaths).
• Candida auris, a drug-resistant fungus that was first identified in 2009 in Asia and has quickly become a cause of severe infections around the world; it is extremely difficult to eradicate from health care settings. It began spreading in the United States in 2015, with 323 cases reported in 2018 (90% resistant to at least one antifungal, and 30% resistant to at least two antifungals).
• Clostridioides difficile, which can cause life-threatening diarrhea, most often in people who have taken antibiotics for other conditions. It is the most common health care–associated infection, and although decreasing in the health care system, it has not decreased in community settings (223,900 hospital infections in 2017, and 12,800 estimated deaths).
• Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae, which most frequently infect patients who require devices such as catheters and those taking long courses of some antibiotics. Of particular concern is the fact that these bacteria contain a transmissible plasmid that can transfer their drug resistance to other pathogens (13,100 hospital infections in 2017, and 1,100 estimated deaths).
• Drug-resistant Neisseria gonorrhoeae, which is a sexually transmitted disease that can result in life-threatening ectopic pregnancy, lead to infertility, and can increase the risk of getting and giving HIV; it can also cause cardiovascular and neurological problems. It is resistant to all but one class of antibiotics, and half of all infections are resistant to at least one antibiotic (550,000 drug-resistant infections yearly).

Serious Threats

• Drug-resistant Campylobacter.
• Drug-resistant Candida.
• Extended spectrum beta-lactamase–producing Enterobacteriaceae.
• Vancomycin-resistant Enterococci.
• Multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa.
• Drug-resistant nontyphoidal Salmonella.
• Drug-resistant Salmonella serotype Typhi.
• Drug-resistant Shigella.
• Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA).
• Drug-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae.
• Drug-resistant Tuberculosis.

Concerning Threats

These comprise erythromycin-resistant group A Streptococcus and clindamycin-resistant group B Streptococcus.

In addition, the CDC has established a Watch List of three pathogens to be wary of: azole-resistant Aspergillus fumigatus, drug-resistant Mycoplasma genitalium, and drug-resistant Bordetella pertussis.

Because antibiotic resistance is a global phenomenon caused by and affecting everyone, the CDC provided solutions to the problem of antibiotic resistance at every level of society. This “comprehensive and coordinated response implements the U.S. National Action Plan for Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria” and includes cooperation with the Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of Defense, Department of State, and Department of Agriculture, according to the report.

The key components of this response include using data and new technologies to detect and track antibiotic resistance; infection prevention and containment, especially in terms of outbreak response; improving antibiotic use across populations (one successful example being a 16% decrease of outpatient antibiotic prescribing to children during 2011-2017); improvements in the identification and intervention in the environment including water and soil and in sanitation; and a significant investment in vaccines, diagnostics, and novel therapeutics (the CDC provided nearly $110 million to 96 institutions for work in these areas).

The report also details some hope in the development of new antibiotics. As of June 2019, there were 42 new antibiotics in development, including 4 with new drug applications submitted, 17 with the potential to treat serious gram negative bacteria, and 11 that could address the urgent threats of gonorrhea or C. difficile. Overall, a quarter of these new antibiotics represent a novel drug class or use a novel mechanism of action.

Furthermore, 84% of U.S. hospitals report a stewardship program meeting all seven of CDC’s Core Elements of Hospital Antibiotic Stewardship. Proper stewardship is at the core of preventing the development of new antibiotic resistant pathogen strains.

In addition, the CDC noted a 5% overall decline in antibiotic prescribing in outpatient settings during 2011-2016.

“The problem will get worse if we do not act now, but we can make a difference,” according to Dr. Redfield. “Simply, here’s what works. Preventing infections protects everyone. Improving antibiotic use in people and animals slows the threat and helps preserve today’s drugs and those yet to come. Detecting threats and implementing interventions to keep germs from becoming widespread saves lives.”

In response to the release of the report, the AMA issued a supporting statement and cited its collection of educational resources for physicians focused on antibiotic use, resistance, and stewardship.

Similarly, the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) stated that hospitals were “a bright spot” in the CDC report and offered tools and resources available to educate and inform health care professionals about best practices in infection prevention and control, as well as antibiotic stewardship.

[email protected]

SOURCE: CDC. Antibiotic Resistance Threats in the United States 2019.

VANCOUVER – Two new randomized trials demonstrate that pain following minimally invasive gynecologic surgery can be successfully managed using reduced opioid prescriptions.

Ingram Publishing/Thinkstock

In each case, patients were randomized to receive higher or lower numbers of oxycodone tablets. In both trials, the lower amount was five 5-mg oxycodone tablets. The work should reassure surgeons who wish to change their prescribing patterns, but may worry about patient dissatisfaction, at least in the context of prolapse repair and benign minor gynecologic laparoscopy, which were the focus of the two studies.

The ob.gyn. literature cites rates of 4%-6% of persistent opioid use after surgery on opioid-naive patients, and that’s a risk that needs to be addressed. “If we look at this as a risk factor of our surgical process, this is much higher than any other risk in patients undergoing surgery, and it’s not something we routinely talk to patients about,” Kari Plewniak, MD, an ob.gyn. at Montefiore Medical Center, New York, said during her presentation on pain control during benign gynecologic laparoscopy at the meeting sponsored by AAGL.

The trials provide some welcome guidance. “They provide pretty concrete guidelines with strong evidence of safety, so this is really helpful,” said Sean Dowdy, MD, chair of gynecologic oncology at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., while speaking as a discussant for the presentations.

Emily Davidson, MD, and associates at the Cleveland Clinic conducted a single-institution, noninferiority trial of standard- versus reduced-prescription opioids in 116 women undergoing prolapse repair. Half were randomized to receive 28 tablets of 5 mg oxycodone (routine arm) and half were prescribed just 5 tablets (reduced arm). All patients also received multimodal pain therapy featuring acetaminophen and ibuprofen. The mean age of patients was 62 years, 91% were white, and 84% were post menopausal. The most common surgery was hysterectomy combined with native tissue repair (60.2%), followed by vaginal colpopexy (15.3%), hysteropexy (15.3%), and sacrocolpopexy (9.3%).

At their postsurgical visit, patients were asked about their satisfaction with their postoperative pain management; 93% in the reduced arm reported that they were very satisfied or somewhat satisfied, as did 93% in the routine arm, which met the standard for noninferiority with a 15% margin. About 15% of patients in the reduced arm used more opioids than originally prescribed, compared with 2% of patients in the routine arm (P less than .01). The reduced arm had an average of 4 unused opioid tablets, compared with 26 in the routine arm. On average, the reduced arm used one tablet, compared with three in the routine arm (P = .03).

The researchers suggested that clinicians should consider prescribing 5-10 tablets for most patients, and all patients should receive multimodal pain management.

The noninferiority nature of the design was welcome, according to Dr. Dowdy. “I think we need to do more noninferiority trial designs because it allows us to make more observations about other parts of the value equation, so if we have two interventions that are equivalent, we can pick the one that has the best patient experience and the lowest cost, so it simplifies a lot of our management.”

The other study, conducted at Montefiore Medical Center, set out to see if a similar regimen of 5 5-mg oxycodone tablets, combined with acetaminophen and ibuprofen, could adequately manage postoperative pain after minor benign gynecologic laparoscopy (excluding hysterectomy), compared with a 10-tablet regimen. All patients received 25 tablets of 600 mg ibuprofen (1 tablet every 6 hours or as needed), plus 50 tablets of 250 mg acetaminophen (1-2 tablets every 6 hours or as needed).

The median number of opioid tablets taken was 2.0 in the 5-tablet group and 2.5 in the 10-tablet group; 32% and 28% took no tablets, and 68% and 65% took three or fewer tablets in the respective groups. The median number of leftover opioid tablets was 3 in the 5-tablet group and 8 in the 10-tablet group, reported Dr. Plewniak.

The studies are a good first step, but more is needed, according to Dr. Dowdy. It’s important to begin looking at more-challenging patient groups, such as those who are not opioid naive, as well as patients taking buprenorphine. “That creates some unique challenges with postoperative pain management,” he said.

Dr. Dowdy, Dr. Davidson, and Dr. Plewniak have no relevant financial disclosures.*

* This article was updated 11/27/2019.

VANCOUVER – Two new randomized trials demonstrate that pain following minimally invasive gynecologic surgery can be successfully managed using reduced opioid prescriptions.

Ingram Publishing/Thinkstock

In each case, patients were randomized to receive higher or lower numbers of oxycodone tablets. In both trials, the lower amount was five 5-mg oxycodone tablets. The work should reassure surgeons who wish to change their prescribing patterns, but may worry about patient dissatisfaction, at least in the context of prolapse repair and benign minor gynecologic laparoscopy, which were the focus of the two studies.

The ob.gyn. literature cites rates of 4%-6% of persistent opioid use after surgery on opioid-naive patients, and that’s a risk that needs to be addressed. “If we look at this as a risk factor of our surgical process, this is much higher than any other risk in patients undergoing surgery, and it’s not something we routinely talk to patients about,” Kari Plewniak, MD, an ob.gyn. at Montefiore Medical Center, New York, said during her presentation on pain control during benign gynecologic laparoscopy at the meeting sponsored by AAGL.

The trials provide some welcome guidance. “They provide pretty concrete guidelines with strong evidence of safety, so this is really helpful,” said Sean Dowdy, MD, chair of gynecologic oncology at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., while speaking as a discussant for the presentations.

Emily Davidson, MD, and associates at the Cleveland Clinic conducted a single-institution, noninferiority trial of standard- versus reduced-prescription opioids in 116 women undergoing prolapse repair. Half were randomized to receive 28 tablets of 5 mg oxycodone (routine arm) and half were prescribed just 5 tablets (reduced arm). All patients also received multimodal pain therapy featuring acetaminophen and ibuprofen. The mean age of patients was 62 years, 91% were white, and 84% were post menopausal. The most common surgery was hysterectomy combined with native tissue repair (60.2%), followed by vaginal colpopexy (15.3%), hysteropexy (15.3%), and sacrocolpopexy (9.3%).

At their postsurgical visit, patients were asked about their satisfaction with their postoperative pain management; 93% in the reduced arm reported that they were very satisfied or somewhat satisfied, as did 93% in the routine arm, which met the standard for noninferiority with a 15% margin. About 15% of patients in the reduced arm used more opioids than originally prescribed, compared with 2% of patients in the routine arm (P less than .01). The reduced arm had an average of 4 unused opioid tablets, compared with 26 in the routine arm. On average, the reduced arm used one tablet, compared with three in the routine arm (P = .03).

The researchers suggested that clinicians should consider prescribing 5-10 tablets for most patients, and all patients should receive multimodal pain management.

The noninferiority nature of the design was welcome, according to Dr. Dowdy. “I think we need to do more noninferiority trial designs because it allows us to make more observations about other parts of the value equation, so if we have two interventions that are equivalent, we can pick the one that has the best patient experience and the lowest cost, so it simplifies a lot of our management.”

The other study, conducted at Montefiore Medical Center, set out to see if a similar regimen of 5 5-mg oxycodone tablets, combined with acetaminophen and ibuprofen, could adequately manage postoperative pain after minor benign gynecologic laparoscopy (excluding hysterectomy), compared with a 10-tablet regimen. All patients received 25 tablets of 600 mg ibuprofen (1 tablet every 6 hours or as needed), plus 50 tablets of 250 mg acetaminophen (1-2 tablets every 6 hours or as needed).

The median number of opioid tablets taken was 2.0 in the 5-tablet group and 2.5 in the 10-tablet group; 32% and 28% took no tablets, and 68% and 65% took three or fewer tablets in the respective groups. The median number of leftover opioid tablets was 3 in the 5-tablet group and 8 in the 10-tablet group, reported Dr. Plewniak.

The studies are a good first step, but more is needed, according to Dr. Dowdy. It’s important to begin looking at more-challenging patient groups, such as those who are not opioid naive, as well as patients taking buprenorphine. “That creates some unique challenges with postoperative pain management,” he said.

Dr. Dowdy, Dr. Davidson, and Dr. Plewniak have no relevant financial disclosures.*

* This article was updated 11/27/2019.

VANCOUVER – Two new randomized trials demonstrate that pain following minimally invasive gynecologic surgery can be successfully managed using reduced opioid prescriptions.

Ingram Publishing/Thinkstock

In each case, patients were randomized to receive higher or lower numbers of oxycodone tablets. In both trials, the lower amount was five 5-mg oxycodone tablets. The work should reassure surgeons who wish to change their prescribing patterns, but may worry about patient dissatisfaction, at least in the context of prolapse repair and benign minor gynecologic laparoscopy, which were the focus of the two studies.

The ob.gyn. literature cites rates of 4%-6% of persistent opioid use after surgery on opioid-naive patients, and that’s a risk that needs to be addressed. “If we look at this as a risk factor of our surgical process, this is much higher than any other risk in patients undergoing surgery, and it’s not something we routinely talk to patients about,” Kari Plewniak, MD, an ob.gyn. at Montefiore Medical Center, New York, said during her presentation on pain control during benign gynecologic laparoscopy at the meeting sponsored by AAGL.

The trials provide some welcome guidance. “They provide pretty concrete guidelines with strong evidence of safety, so this is really helpful,” said Sean Dowdy, MD, chair of gynecologic oncology at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., while speaking as a discussant for the presentations.

Emily Davidson, MD, and associates at the Cleveland Clinic conducted a single-institution, noninferiority trial of standard- versus reduced-prescription opioids in 116 women undergoing prolapse repair. Half were randomized to receive 28 tablets of 5 mg oxycodone (routine arm) and half were prescribed just 5 tablets (reduced arm). All patients also received multimodal pain therapy featuring acetaminophen and ibuprofen. The mean age of patients was 62 years, 91% were white, and 84% were post menopausal. The most common surgery was hysterectomy combined with native tissue repair (60.2%), followed by vaginal colpopexy (15.3%), hysteropexy (15.3%), and sacrocolpopexy (9.3%).

At their postsurgical visit, patients were asked about their satisfaction with their postoperative pain management; 93% in the reduced arm reported that they were very satisfied or somewhat satisfied, as did 93% in the routine arm, which met the standard for noninferiority with a 15% margin. About 15% of patients in the reduced arm used more opioids than originally prescribed, compared with 2% of patients in the routine arm (P less than .01). The reduced arm had an average of 4 unused opioid tablets, compared with 26 in the routine arm. On average, the reduced arm used one tablet, compared with three in the routine arm (P = .03).

The researchers suggested that clinicians should consider prescribing 5-10 tablets for most patients, and all patients should receive multimodal pain management.

The noninferiority nature of the design was welcome, according to Dr. Dowdy. “I think we need to do more noninferiority trial designs because it allows us to make more observations about other parts of the value equation, so if we have two interventions that are equivalent, we can pick the one that has the best patient experience and the lowest cost, so it simplifies a lot of our management.”

The other study, conducted at Montefiore Medical Center, set out to see if a similar regimen of 5 5-mg oxycodone tablets, combined with acetaminophen and ibuprofen, could adequately manage postoperative pain after minor benign gynecologic laparoscopy (excluding hysterectomy), compared with a 10-tablet regimen. All patients received 25 tablets of 600 mg ibuprofen (1 tablet every 6 hours or as needed), plus 50 tablets of 250 mg acetaminophen (1-2 tablets every 6 hours or as needed).

The median number of opioid tablets taken was 2.0 in the 5-tablet group and 2.5 in the 10-tablet group; 32% and 28% took no tablets, and 68% and 65% took three or fewer tablets in the respective groups. The median number of leftover opioid tablets was 3 in the 5-tablet group and 8 in the 10-tablet group, reported Dr. Plewniak.

The studies are a good first step, but more is needed, according to Dr. Dowdy. It’s important to begin looking at more-challenging patient groups, such as those who are not opioid naive, as well as patients taking buprenorphine. “That creates some unique challenges with postoperative pain management,” he said.

Dr. Dowdy, Dr. Davidson, and Dr. Plewniak have no relevant financial disclosures.*

* This article was updated 11/27/2019.

VANCOUVER – Follow-up oncologic data from the UTERUS-11 trial shows advantages to surgical staging over clinical staging in stage IIB-IVA cervical cancer, with little apparent risk.

Courtesy Wikimedia Commons/John Hayman/Creative Commons License

Compared with clinical staging using CT, laparoscopic staging led to an improvement in cancer-specific survival, with no delays in treatment or increases in toxicity. It also prompted surgical up-staging and led to treatment changes in 33% of cases. There was no difference in overall survival, but progression-free survival trended towards better outcomes in the surgical-staging group.

The new study presents 5-year follow-up data from patients randomly assigned to surgical (n = 121) or clinical staging (n = 114). The original study, published in 2017 (Oncology. 2017;92[4]:213-20), reported that 33% of surgical-staging patients in the surgical staging were up-staged as a result, compared with 6% who were revealed to have positive paraaortic lymph nodes through a CT-guided core biopsy after suspicious CT results. After a median follow-up of 90 months in both arms, overall survival was similar between the two groups, and progression-free survival trended towards an improvement in the surgical-staging group (P = .088). Cancer-specific survival was better in the surgical-staging arm, compared with clinical staging (P=.028), Audrey Tsunoda, MD, PhD, reported.

Surgical staging didn’t impact the toxicity profile, said Dr. Tsunoda, a surgical oncologist focused in gynecologic cancer surgery who practices at Hospital Erasto Gaertner in Curitiba, Brazil.

The mean time to initiation of chemoradiotherapy following surgery was 14 days (range, 7-21 days) after surgery: 64% had intensity-modulated radiotherapy and 36% had three-dimensional radiotherapy. There were no grade 5 toxicities during chemoradiotherapy and both groups had similar gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity profiles. About 97% of the surgical staging procedures were conducted laparoscopically. Two patients had a blood loss of more than 500 cc, and two had a delay to primary chemoradiotherapy (4 days and 5 days). One patient had to be converted to an open approach because of obesity and severe adhesions, and there was no intraoperative mortality.

Previous retrospective studies examining surgical staging in these patients led to confusion and disagreements among guidelines. Surgical staging is clearly associated with increased up-staging, but the oncologic benefit is uncertain. The LiLACS study attempted to address the question with prospective data, but failed to accrue enough patients and was later abandoned. That leaves the UTERUS-11 study, the initial results of which were published in 2017, as the first prospective study to examine the benefit of surgical staging.

The new follow-up results suggest a benefit to surgical staging, but they leave an important question unanswered, according to Lois Ramondetta, MD, professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, who served as a discussant at the meeting sponsored by AAGL. “Paraaortic lymph node status does connect to clinical benefit, but the question is really [whether] the removal of the lymph nodes accounts for the benefit, or is the identification of them and the change in treatment plan responsible? [If the latter is the case], a PET scan would have done a better job,” said Dr. Ramondetta. “The question remains unanswered, but I think this was huge progress in trying to answer it. Future studies need to incorporate a PET scan.”

Dr. Tsunoda has received honoraria from AstraZeneca and Roche. Dr. Ramondetta has no relevant financial disclosures.

VANCOUVER – Follow-up oncologic data from the UTERUS-11 trial shows advantages to surgical staging over clinical staging in stage IIB-IVA cervical cancer, with little apparent risk.

Courtesy Wikimedia Commons/John Hayman/Creative Commons License

Compared with clinical staging using CT, laparoscopic staging led to an improvement in cancer-specific survival, with no delays in treatment or increases in toxicity. It also prompted surgical up-staging and led to treatment changes in 33% of cases. There was no difference in overall survival, but progression-free survival trended towards better outcomes in the surgical-staging group.

The new study presents 5-year follow-up data from patients randomly assigned to surgical (n = 121) or clinical staging (n = 114). The original study, published in 2017 (Oncology. 2017;92[4]:213-20), reported that 33% of surgical-staging patients in the surgical staging were up-staged as a result, compared with 6% who were revealed to have positive paraaortic lymph nodes through a CT-guided core biopsy after suspicious CT results. After a median follow-up of 90 months in both arms, overall survival was similar between the two groups, and progression-free survival trended towards an improvement in the surgical-staging group (P = .088). Cancer-specific survival was better in the surgical-staging arm, compared with clinical staging (P=.028), Audrey Tsunoda, MD, PhD, reported.

Surgical staging didn’t impact the toxicity profile, said Dr. Tsunoda, a surgical oncologist focused in gynecologic cancer surgery who practices at Hospital Erasto Gaertner in Curitiba, Brazil.

The mean time to initiation of chemoradiotherapy following surgery was 14 days (range, 7-21 days) after surgery: 64% had intensity-modulated radiotherapy and 36% had three-dimensional radiotherapy. There were no grade 5 toxicities during chemoradiotherapy and both groups had similar gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity profiles. About 97% of the surgical staging procedures were conducted laparoscopically. Two patients had a blood loss of more than 500 cc, and two had a delay to primary chemoradiotherapy (4 days and 5 days). One patient had to be converted to an open approach because of obesity and severe adhesions, and there was no intraoperative mortality.

Previous retrospective studies examining surgical staging in these patients led to confusion and disagreements among guidelines. Surgical staging is clearly associated with increased up-staging, but the oncologic benefit is uncertain. The LiLACS study attempted to address the question with prospective data, but failed to accrue enough patients and was later abandoned. That leaves the UTERUS-11 study, the initial results of which were published in 2017, as the first prospective study to examine the benefit of surgical staging.

The new follow-up results suggest a benefit to surgical staging, but they leave an important question unanswered, according to Lois Ramondetta, MD, professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, who served as a discussant at the meeting sponsored by AAGL. “Paraaortic lymph node status does connect to clinical benefit, but the question is really [whether] the removal of the lymph nodes accounts for the benefit, or is the identification of them and the change in treatment plan responsible? [If the latter is the case], a PET scan would have done a better job,” said Dr. Ramondetta. “The question remains unanswered, but I think this was huge progress in trying to answer it. Future studies need to incorporate a PET scan.”

Dr. Tsunoda has received honoraria from AstraZeneca and Roche. Dr. Ramondetta has no relevant financial disclosures.

VANCOUVER – Follow-up oncologic data from the UTERUS-11 trial shows advantages to surgical staging over clinical staging in stage IIB-IVA cervical cancer, with little apparent risk.

Courtesy Wikimedia Commons/John Hayman/Creative Commons License

Compared with clinical staging using CT, laparoscopic staging led to an improvement in cancer-specific survival, with no delays in treatment or increases in toxicity. It also prompted surgical up-staging and led to treatment changes in 33% of cases. There was no difference in overall survival, but progression-free survival trended towards better outcomes in the surgical-staging group.

The new study presents 5-year follow-up data from patients randomly assigned to surgical (n = 121) or clinical staging (n = 114). The original study, published in 2017 (Oncology. 2017;92[4]:213-20), reported that 33% of surgical-staging patients in the surgical staging were up-staged as a result, compared with 6% who were revealed to have positive paraaortic lymph nodes through a CT-guided core biopsy after suspicious CT results. After a median follow-up of 90 months in both arms, overall survival was similar between the two groups, and progression-free survival trended towards an improvement in the surgical-staging group (P = .088). Cancer-specific survival was better in the surgical-staging arm, compared with clinical staging (P=.028), Audrey Tsunoda, MD, PhD, reported.

Surgical staging didn’t impact the toxicity profile, said Dr. Tsunoda, a surgical oncologist focused in gynecologic cancer surgery who practices at Hospital Erasto Gaertner in Curitiba, Brazil.

The mean time to initiation of chemoradiotherapy following surgery was 14 days (range, 7-21 days) after surgery: 64% had intensity-modulated radiotherapy and 36% had three-dimensional radiotherapy. There were no grade 5 toxicities during chemoradiotherapy and both groups had similar gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity profiles. About 97% of the surgical staging procedures were conducted laparoscopically. Two patients had a blood loss of more than 500 cc, and two had a delay to primary chemoradiotherapy (4 days and 5 days). One patient had to be converted to an open approach because of obesity and severe adhesions, and there was no intraoperative mortality.

Previous retrospective studies examining surgical staging in these patients led to confusion and disagreements among guidelines. Surgical staging is clearly associated with increased up-staging, but the oncologic benefit is uncertain. The LiLACS study attempted to address the question with prospective data, but failed to accrue enough patients and was later abandoned. That leaves the UTERUS-11 study, the initial results of which were published in 2017, as the first prospective study to examine the benefit of surgical staging.

The new follow-up results suggest a benefit to surgical staging, but they leave an important question unanswered, according to Lois Ramondetta, MD, professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, who served as a discussant at the meeting sponsored by AAGL. “Paraaortic lymph node status does connect to clinical benefit, but the question is really [whether] the removal of the lymph nodes accounts for the benefit, or is the identification of them and the change in treatment plan responsible? [If the latter is the case], a PET scan would have done a better job,” said Dr. Ramondetta. “The question remains unanswered, but I think this was huge progress in trying to answer it. Future studies need to incorporate a PET scan.”

Dr. Tsunoda has received honoraria from AstraZeneca and Roche. Dr. Ramondetta has no relevant financial disclosures.

The rising cost of prescription drugs in the United States has prompted new recommendations by the American College of Physicians such as promoting the use of lower-cost generics and introducing annual out-of-pocket spending caps.

Darwin Brandis/Getty Images

Two position papers, published in Annals of Internal Medicine, outlined the College’s concerns about the increasing price of prescription drugs for Medicare and Medicaid, pointing out that the United States has an average annual per capita spend of $1,443 on pharmaceutical drugs and $1,026 on retail prescription drugs.

“The primary differences between health care expenditures in the United States versus other high-income nations are pricing of medical goods and services and the lack of direct price controls or negotiating power by centralized government health care systems,” wrote Hilary Daniel and Sue S. Bornstein, MD, of the Health Public Policy Committee of the American College of Physicians, in one of the papers.

They cited the example of new drugs for hepatitis C which, at more than $80,000 for a treatment course, accounted for 40% of the net growth in prescription drug spending in 2014.

Their first recommendation was to modify the Medicare Part D low-income subsidy (LIS) program, which currently supports approximately 12 million beneficiaries, to encourage the use of lower-cost generic or biosimilar drugs.

The rate of generic drug dispensing among LIS enrollees has been consistently 4%-5% lower than among non-LIS enrollees, they wrote. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services estimated that Medicare could have saved nearly $9 billion, and passed on $3 billion in savings to the Part D program and its beneficiaries, if available equivalent generics were prescribed instead of brand-name drugs.

The authors wrote that zero-copay generics have had the strongest effect on generic drug use, both for LIS and non-LIS enrollees.

“Reducing or eliminating cost sharing for LIS enrollees would not require legislative action, because it would not increase cost sharing, would reduce overall out-of pocket costs for LIS enrollees, and would encourage use of generics among them,” they wrote. They authors of the paper also argued that this move could reduce Medicare spending on reinsurance payments, because most enrollees who reach the ‘catastrophic’ phase of coverage were in the LIS program.

The second recommendation was for annual out-of-pocket spending caps for Medicare Part D beneficiaries who reach the catastrophic phase of coverage. During 2007-2015, the number of seniors in Medicare Part D who reached this catastrophic limit of coverage doubled to more than 1 million, with those enrollees paying an average of more than $3,000 out of pocket in 2015 alone, the authors noted.

“Caps have been proposed in other areas of Medicare; a 2016 resolution from the House Committee on the Budget included a Medicare proposal with a catastrophic coverage cap on annual out-of-pocket expenses, which it called, ‘an important aspect of the private insurance market currently absent from Medicare that would safeguard the sickest and poorest beneficiaries,’ ” they wrote.

In an accompanying editorial, Shelley A. Jazowski of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and coauthor Stacie B. Dusetzina, PhD, of Vanderbilt University, in Nashville, Tenn., said that, while a cap would improve financial protection for beneficiaries, it could result in trade-offs such as increased premiums to accommodate lower spending by some beneficiaries.

The American College of Physicians (ACP) supports a full repeal of the noninterference clause in the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, wrote the position paper’s authors. This Act prohibits Medicare from negotiating directly with pharmaceutical manufacturers over the price of drugs.

The position paper also advocated for interim approaches, such as allowing the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate on the price of a limited set of high-cost or sole-source drugs.

“Although negotiation alone may not be enough to rein in drug prices, this approach would allow the government to leverage its purchasing power to reduce Medicare program costs while also allowing plan sponsors to maintain the power to negotiate for the vast majority of drugs covered in the program,” they wrote.

The editorial’s authors pointed out that the success of these negotiations would rely on the ability of Medicare to walk away from a bad deal, which could delay or limit the availability of some drugs with limited competitors.

The ACP also called for efforts to minimize the financial impact of misclassifications of prescription drugs in the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program on the federal government. One study found that these misclassifications occurred in 885 of the 30,000 drugs in the program. The EpiPen and EpiPen Jr autoinjectors, for example, were improperly classified as generic drugs, the paper states.

The authors’ final recommendation in the position paper was for further study of payment models that could reduce incentives to prescribe higher-priced drugs instead of lower-cost and similarly effective options.

In the second position paper, Ms. Daniel and Dr. Bornstein made policy recommendations targeted at pharmacy benefit managers. The first was to improve transparency for pharmacy benefit managers, such as by banning gag clauses that might prevent pharmacies from sharing pricing information with consumers.

“The continued lack of transparency from [pharmacy benefit managers] and insurers can hinder how patients, physicians, and others view the drug supply chain and can make it difficult to identify whether a particular entity is inappropriately driving up drug prices,” the authors wrote in the second position paper.

This was accompanied by a recommendation that accurate, understandable and actionable information on the price of prescription medication should be made available to physicians and patients at the point of prescription. They also called for health plans, pharmacy benefit managers and pharmaceutical manufacturers to share information on the amount paid for prescription drugs, aggregate amount of rebates, and pricing decisions to the Department of Health & Human Services and make that information publicly available, with exceptions for confidential data.

The editorial’s authors commented that many of the policy recommendations raised in the position paper were currently being debated in Congress, and there was clear support from physician groups to address drug pricing, out-of-pocket spending, and access.

“Although trade-offs will need to be considered before selection or implementation of policy solutions, policymakers must act to ensure that patients have access to the prescription drugs they need at a price that reflects the benefits to patients and society,” they wrote.

One author declared book royalties but no other conflicts of interest were declared.

SOURCES: Daniel H et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019 Nov 12. doi. 10.7326/M19-0013; doi. 10.7326/M19-0035.

The rising cost of prescription drugs in the United States has prompted new recommendations by the American College of Physicians such as promoting the use of lower-cost generics and introducing annual out-of-pocket spending caps.

Darwin Brandis/Getty Images

Two position papers, published in Annals of Internal Medicine, outlined the College’s concerns about the increasing price of prescription drugs for Medicare and Medicaid, pointing out that the United States has an average annual per capita spend of $1,443 on pharmaceutical drugs and $1,026 on retail prescription drugs.

“The primary differences between health care expenditures in the United States versus other high-income nations are pricing of medical goods and services and the lack of direct price controls or negotiating power by centralized government health care systems,” wrote Hilary Daniel and Sue S. Bornstein, MD, of the Health Public Policy Committee of the American College of Physicians, in one of the papers.

They cited the example of new drugs for hepatitis C which, at more than $80,000 for a treatment course, accounted for 40% of the net growth in prescription drug spending in 2014.

Their first recommendation was to modify the Medicare Part D low-income subsidy (LIS) program, which currently supports approximately 12 million beneficiaries, to encourage the use of lower-cost generic or biosimilar drugs.

The rate of generic drug dispensing among LIS enrollees has been consistently 4%-5% lower than among non-LIS enrollees, they wrote. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services estimated that Medicare could have saved nearly $9 billion, and passed on $3 billion in savings to the Part D program and its beneficiaries, if available equivalent generics were prescribed instead of brand-name drugs.

The authors wrote that zero-copay generics have had the strongest effect on generic drug use, both for LIS and non-LIS enrollees.

“Reducing or eliminating cost sharing for LIS enrollees would not require legislative action, because it would not increase cost sharing, would reduce overall out-of pocket costs for LIS enrollees, and would encourage use of generics among them,” they wrote. They authors of the paper also argued that this move could reduce Medicare spending on reinsurance payments, because most enrollees who reach the ‘catastrophic’ phase of coverage were in the LIS program.

The second recommendation was for annual out-of-pocket spending caps for Medicare Part D beneficiaries who reach the catastrophic phase of coverage. During 2007-2015, the number of seniors in Medicare Part D who reached this catastrophic limit of coverage doubled to more than 1 million, with those enrollees paying an average of more than $3,000 out of pocket in 2015 alone, the authors noted.

“Caps have been proposed in other areas of Medicare; a 2016 resolution from the House Committee on the Budget included a Medicare proposal with a catastrophic coverage cap on annual out-of-pocket expenses, which it called, ‘an important aspect of the private insurance market currently absent from Medicare that would safeguard the sickest and poorest beneficiaries,’ ” they wrote.

In an accompanying editorial, Shelley A. Jazowski of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and coauthor Stacie B. Dusetzina, PhD, of Vanderbilt University, in Nashville, Tenn., said that, while a cap would improve financial protection for beneficiaries, it could result in trade-offs such as increased premiums to accommodate lower spending by some beneficiaries.

The American College of Physicians (ACP) supports a full repeal of the noninterference clause in the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, wrote the position paper’s authors. This Act prohibits Medicare from negotiating directly with pharmaceutical manufacturers over the price of drugs.

The position paper also advocated for interim approaches, such as allowing the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate on the price of a limited set of high-cost or sole-source drugs.

“Although negotiation alone may not be enough to rein in drug prices, this approach would allow the government to leverage its purchasing power to reduce Medicare program costs while also allowing plan sponsors to maintain the power to negotiate for the vast majority of drugs covered in the program,” they wrote.

The editorial’s authors pointed out that the success of these negotiations would rely on the ability of Medicare to walk away from a bad deal, which could delay or limit the availability of some drugs with limited competitors.

The ACP also called for efforts to minimize the financial impact of misclassifications of prescription drugs in the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program on the federal government. One study found that these misclassifications occurred in 885 of the 30,000 drugs in the program. The EpiPen and EpiPen Jr autoinjectors, for example, were improperly classified as generic drugs, the paper states.

The authors’ final recommendation in the position paper was for further study of payment models that could reduce incentives to prescribe higher-priced drugs instead of lower-cost and similarly effective options.

In the second position paper, Ms. Daniel and Dr. Bornstein made policy recommendations targeted at pharmacy benefit managers. The first was to improve transparency for pharmacy benefit managers, such as by banning gag clauses that might prevent pharmacies from sharing pricing information with consumers.

“The continued lack of transparency from [pharmacy benefit managers] and insurers can hinder how patients, physicians, and others view the drug supply chain and can make it difficult to identify whether a particular entity is inappropriately driving up drug prices,” the authors wrote in the second position paper.

This was accompanied by a recommendation that accurate, understandable and actionable information on the price of prescription medication should be made available to physicians and patients at the point of prescription. They also called for health plans, pharmacy benefit managers and pharmaceutical manufacturers to share information on the amount paid for prescription drugs, aggregate amount of rebates, and pricing decisions to the Department of Health & Human Services and make that information publicly available, with exceptions for confidential data.

The editorial’s authors commented that many of the policy recommendations raised in the position paper were currently being debated in Congress, and there was clear support from physician groups to address drug pricing, out-of-pocket spending, and access.

“Although trade-offs will need to be considered before selection or implementation of policy solutions, policymakers must act to ensure that patients have access to the prescription drugs they need at a price that reflects the benefits to patients and society,” they wrote.

One author declared book royalties but no other conflicts of interest were declared.

SOURCES: Daniel H et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019 Nov 12. doi. 10.7326/M19-0013; doi. 10.7326/M19-0035.

The rising cost of prescription drugs in the United States has prompted new recommendations by the American College of Physicians such as promoting the use of lower-cost generics and introducing annual out-of-pocket spending caps.

Darwin Brandis/Getty Images

Two position papers, published in Annals of Internal Medicine, outlined the College’s concerns about the increasing price of prescription drugs for Medicare and Medicaid, pointing out that the United States has an average annual per capita spend of $1,443 on pharmaceutical drugs and $1,026 on retail prescription drugs.

“The primary differences between health care expenditures in the United States versus other high-income nations are pricing of medical goods and services and the lack of direct price controls or negotiating power by centralized government health care systems,” wrote Hilary Daniel and Sue S. Bornstein, MD, of the Health Public Policy Committee of the American College of Physicians, in one of the papers.

They cited the example of new drugs for hepatitis C which, at more than $80,000 for a treatment course, accounted for 40% of the net growth in prescription drug spending in 2014.

Their first recommendation was to modify the Medicare Part D low-income subsidy (LIS) program, which currently supports approximately 12 million beneficiaries, to encourage the use of lower-cost generic or biosimilar drugs.

The rate of generic drug dispensing among LIS enrollees has been consistently 4%-5% lower than among non-LIS enrollees, they wrote. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services estimated that Medicare could have saved nearly $9 billion, and passed on $3 billion in savings to the Part D program and its beneficiaries, if available equivalent generics were prescribed instead of brand-name drugs.

The authors wrote that zero-copay generics have had the strongest effect on generic drug use, both for LIS and non-LIS enrollees.

“Reducing or eliminating cost sharing for LIS enrollees would not require legislative action, because it would not increase cost sharing, would reduce overall out-of pocket costs for LIS enrollees, and would encourage use of generics among them,” they wrote. They authors of the paper also argued that this move could reduce Medicare spending on reinsurance payments, because most enrollees who reach the ‘catastrophic’ phase of coverage were in the LIS program.

The second recommendation was for annual out-of-pocket spending caps for Medicare Part D beneficiaries who reach the catastrophic phase of coverage. During 2007-2015, the number of seniors in Medicare Part D who reached this catastrophic limit of coverage doubled to more than 1 million, with those enrollees paying an average of more than $3,000 out of pocket in 2015 alone, the authors noted.

“Caps have been proposed in other areas of Medicare; a 2016 resolution from the House Committee on the Budget included a Medicare proposal with a catastrophic coverage cap on annual out-of-pocket expenses, which it called, ‘an important aspect of the private insurance market currently absent from Medicare that would safeguard the sickest and poorest beneficiaries,’ ” they wrote.

In an accompanying editorial, Shelley A. Jazowski of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and coauthor Stacie B. Dusetzina, PhD, of Vanderbilt University, in Nashville, Tenn., said that, while a cap would improve financial protection for beneficiaries, it could result in trade-offs such as increased premiums to accommodate lower spending by some beneficiaries.

The American College of Physicians (ACP) supports a full repeal of the noninterference clause in the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, wrote the position paper’s authors. This Act prohibits Medicare from negotiating directly with pharmaceutical manufacturers over the price of drugs.

The position paper also advocated for interim approaches, such as allowing the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate on the price of a limited set of high-cost or sole-source drugs.

“Although negotiation alone may not be enough to rein in drug prices, this approach would allow the government to leverage its purchasing power to reduce Medicare program costs while also allowing plan sponsors to maintain the power to negotiate for the vast majority of drugs covered in the program,” they wrote.

The editorial’s authors pointed out that the success of these negotiations would rely on the ability of Medicare to walk away from a bad deal, which could delay or limit the availability of some drugs with limited competitors.

The ACP also called for efforts to minimize the financial impact of misclassifications of prescription drugs in the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program on the federal government. One study found that these misclassifications occurred in 885 of the 30,000 drugs in the program. The EpiPen and EpiPen Jr autoinjectors, for example, were improperly classified as generic drugs, the paper states.

The authors’ final recommendation in the position paper was for further study of payment models that could reduce incentives to prescribe higher-priced drugs instead of lower-cost and similarly effective options.

In the second position paper, Ms. Daniel and Dr. Bornstein made policy recommendations targeted at pharmacy benefit managers. The first was to improve transparency for pharmacy benefit managers, such as by banning gag clauses that might prevent pharmacies from sharing pricing information with consumers.

“The continued lack of transparency from [pharmacy benefit managers] and insurers can hinder how patients, physicians, and others view the drug supply chain and can make it difficult to identify whether a particular entity is inappropriately driving up drug prices,” the authors wrote in the second position paper.

This was accompanied by a recommendation that accurate, understandable and actionable information on the price of prescription medication should be made available to physicians and patients at the point of prescription. They also called for health plans, pharmacy benefit managers and pharmaceutical manufacturers to share information on the amount paid for prescription drugs, aggregate amount of rebates, and pricing decisions to the Department of Health & Human Services and make that information publicly available, with exceptions for confidential data.

The editorial’s authors commented that many of the policy recommendations raised in the position paper were currently being debated in Congress, and there was clear support from physician groups to address drug pricing, out-of-pocket spending, and access.

“Although trade-offs will need to be considered before selection or implementation of policy solutions, policymakers must act to ensure that patients have access to the prescription drugs they need at a price that reflects the benefits to patients and society,” they wrote.

One author declared book royalties but no other conflicts of interest were declared.

SOURCES: Daniel H et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019 Nov 12. doi. 10.7326/M19-0013; doi. 10.7326/M19-0035.

SAN FRANCISCO – Volume matters when it comes to mitral valve repair/replacement for primary mitral regurgitation. The more cases a physician and hospital do, the better the outcomes, according to a review of 55,311 cases in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database.

Investigators “found a clear inflection point at approximately 75 cases” for hospitals and 35 cases for individual surgeons when the curves for successful mitral repair and 30-day operative mortality start to level out. Nationwide, 148 hospitals (14%) in the analysis did 75 or more mitral cases a year, and 303 surgeons (13%) did at least 35.

Lead investigator Vinay Badhwar, MD, professor and chair of cardiovascular and thoracic surgery at West Virginia University, Morgantown, estimated that about 90% of Americans have access to a regional hospital that does at least 25 mitral procedures annually, and about 82% can use a regional hospital that does at least 40. Meanwhile, the rate of mitral valve repair for primary mitral regurgitation was 81% (44,692/55,311) in the study, up from about 60% a decade ago.

“We are getting there; we are getting better,” Dr. Badhwar said at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting. By defining volume cut points, he said the findings could be useful in future guidelines to steer referrals to higher-volume centers.

“We really needed these data, because we’ve had so many other pieces pointing to the volume repair rates and technical success, which clearly is related to volume. Now we have the outcome data we’ve been looking for; this ties it together. There really is an impact on patient outcomes,” Robert Bonow, MD, a professor of cardiology at Northwestern University, Chicago, commented.

The team divided annual case volume into quartiles. The lowest hospital quartile did fewer than 11 cases a year, and the highest more than 46. The lowest-quartile surgeons did fewer than 6 cases a year, and the highest more than 20. Lowest-quartile surgeons and hospitals, versus the highest, had higher operative mortality and 30-day morbidity and mortality, and lower 1-year survival.

Patients in the lowest quartile were also more likely to be black or Hispanic (14.8% versus 10.2%); have no insurance (4.0% versus 2.4%); and more severe symptom presentation (31.9% versus 23.8% class III or IV heart failure). The differences were highly statistically significant.

Study moderator Ajay Kirtane, MD, an interventional cardiologist and associate professor of medicine at Columbia University, New York, said there’s a role for advocacy to get more people to high-volume centers. “Just because you live in an area that has a good program doesn’t mean that you are actually going to get referred to that program. We find a lot that it’s advocacy that is important,” especially with the disparities noted in the study. “Not everybody has an advocate who says, ‘Don’t do it here; do it someplace else,’ ” he said at the meeting sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

And not everyone has an advocate to get them to the right surgeon, even if they get to the right program. “There are cardiac procedures that most surgeons can do well. Mitral valve surgery is one of those that should be super specialized,” said cardiothoracic surgeon Michael Mack, MD, director of the cardiovascular service line at Baylor Scott and White Health System, Dallas.

No industry funding was reported. Dr. Badhwar had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Badhwar V et al. TCT 2019.

SAN FRANCISCO – Volume matters when it comes to mitral valve repair/replacement for primary mitral regurgitation. The more cases a physician and hospital do, the better the outcomes, according to a review of 55,311 cases in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database.

Investigators “found a clear inflection point at approximately 75 cases” for hospitals and 35 cases for individual surgeons when the curves for successful mitral repair and 30-day operative mortality start to level out. Nationwide, 148 hospitals (14%) in the analysis did 75 or more mitral cases a year, and 303 surgeons (13%) did at least 35.

Lead investigator Vinay Badhwar, MD, professor and chair of cardiovascular and thoracic surgery at West Virginia University, Morgantown, estimated that about 90% of Americans have access to a regional hospital that does at least 25 mitral procedures annually, and about 82% can use a regional hospital that does at least 40. Meanwhile, the rate of mitral valve repair for primary mitral regurgitation was 81% (44,692/55,311) in the study, up from about 60% a decade ago.

“We are getting there; we are getting better,” Dr. Badhwar said at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting. By defining volume cut points, he said the findings could be useful in future guidelines to steer referrals to higher-volume centers.

“We really needed these data, because we’ve had so many other pieces pointing to the volume repair rates and technical success, which clearly is related to volume. Now we have the outcome data we’ve been looking for; this ties it together. There really is an impact on patient outcomes,” Robert Bonow, MD, a professor of cardiology at Northwestern University, Chicago, commented.

The team divided annual case volume into quartiles. The lowest hospital quartile did fewer than 11 cases a year, and the highest more than 46. The lowest-quartile surgeons did fewer than 6 cases a year, and the highest more than 20. Lowest-quartile surgeons and hospitals, versus the highest, had higher operative mortality and 30-day morbidity and mortality, and lower 1-year survival.

Patients in the lowest quartile were also more likely to be black or Hispanic (14.8% versus 10.2%); have no insurance (4.0% versus 2.4%); and more severe symptom presentation (31.9% versus 23.8% class III or IV heart failure). The differences were highly statistically significant.

Study moderator Ajay Kirtane, MD, an interventional cardiologist and associate professor of medicine at Columbia University, New York, said there’s a role for advocacy to get more people to high-volume centers. “Just because you live in an area that has a good program doesn’t mean that you are actually going to get referred to that program. We find a lot that it’s advocacy that is important,” especially with the disparities noted in the study. “Not everybody has an advocate who says, ‘Don’t do it here; do it someplace else,’ ” he said at the meeting sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

And not everyone has an advocate to get them to the right surgeon, even if they get to the right program. “There are cardiac procedures that most surgeons can do well. Mitral valve surgery is one of those that should be super specialized,” said cardiothoracic surgeon Michael Mack, MD, director of the cardiovascular service line at Baylor Scott and White Health System, Dallas.

No industry funding was reported. Dr. Badhwar had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Badhwar V et al. TCT 2019.

SAN FRANCISCO – Volume matters when it comes to mitral valve repair/replacement for primary mitral regurgitation. The more cases a physician and hospital do, the better the outcomes, according to a review of 55,311 cases in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database.

Investigators “found a clear inflection point at approximately 75 cases” for hospitals and 35 cases for individual surgeons when the curves for successful mitral repair and 30-day operative mortality start to level out. Nationwide, 148 hospitals (14%) in the analysis did 75 or more mitral cases a year, and 303 surgeons (13%) did at least 35.

Lead investigator Vinay Badhwar, MD, professor and chair of cardiovascular and thoracic surgery at West Virginia University, Morgantown, estimated that about 90% of Americans have access to a regional hospital that does at least 25 mitral procedures annually, and about 82% can use a regional hospital that does at least 40. Meanwhile, the rate of mitral valve repair for primary mitral regurgitation was 81% (44,692/55,311) in the study, up from about 60% a decade ago.

“We are getting there; we are getting better,” Dr. Badhwar said at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting. By defining volume cut points, he said the findings could be useful in future guidelines to steer referrals to higher-volume centers.

“We really needed these data, because we’ve had so many other pieces pointing to the volume repair rates and technical success, which clearly is related to volume. Now we have the outcome data we’ve been looking for; this ties it together. There really is an impact on patient outcomes,” Robert Bonow, MD, a professor of cardiology at Northwestern University, Chicago, commented.

The team divided annual case volume into quartiles. The lowest hospital quartile did fewer than 11 cases a year, and the highest more than 46. The lowest-quartile surgeons did fewer than 6 cases a year, and the highest more than 20. Lowest-quartile surgeons and hospitals, versus the highest, had higher operative mortality and 30-day morbidity and mortality, and lower 1-year survival.

Patients in the lowest quartile were also more likely to be black or Hispanic (14.8% versus 10.2%); have no insurance (4.0% versus 2.4%); and more severe symptom presentation (31.9% versus 23.8% class III or IV heart failure). The differences were highly statistically significant.

Study moderator Ajay Kirtane, MD, an interventional cardiologist and associate professor of medicine at Columbia University, New York, said there’s a role for advocacy to get more people to high-volume centers. “Just because you live in an area that has a good program doesn’t mean that you are actually going to get referred to that program. We find a lot that it’s advocacy that is important,” especially with the disparities noted in the study. “Not everybody has an advocate who says, ‘Don’t do it here; do it someplace else,’ ” he said at the meeting sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

And not everyone has an advocate to get them to the right surgeon, even if they get to the right program. “There are cardiac procedures that most surgeons can do well. Mitral valve surgery is one of those that should be super specialized,” said cardiothoracic surgeon Michael Mack, MD, director of the cardiovascular service line at Baylor Scott and White Health System, Dallas.

No industry funding was reported. Dr. Badhwar had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Badhwar V et al. TCT 2019.

Medicare beneficiaries charged the standard premium for Medicare Part B coverage will be paying $144.60 each month in 2020, up $9.10 from 2019.

anttohoho/Thinkstock

Deductibles also will increase to $198 next year, up $13 from the current year.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services said in a statement announcing the hikes that the increases are “largely due to rising spending on physician administered drugs. These higher costs have a ripple effect and result in higher Part B premiums and deductibles.”

The formal details on the premium and deductible increases have been posted online and are scheduled for publication in the Federal Register on Nov. 13.

The CMS and Congress are looking into a number of options to help contain the spending on drugs, including the use of an international pricing index to put U.S. spending more in line with the lower prices offered in foreign countries, automatic rebates when drug prices rise faster than the rate of inflation, and a modern take on the failed competitive acquisition program.

The agency also announced increases in the inpatient hospital deductible that will be paid under Medicare Part A when beneficiaries are admitted into a hospital in 2020. The deductible increases to $1,408 next year, up from $1,364 this year. The daily coinsurance for the 61st-90th day increases to $352 from $341, while the daily coinsurance for lifetime reserve days increases to $704 from $682.

Skilled nursing facility coinsurance also rises during this same time period to $176 from $170.50.

More information on Part A deductibles can be found here, while information on Part A premiums can be found here.

[email protected]

Medicare beneficiaries charged the standard premium for Medicare Part B coverage will be paying $144.60 each month in 2020, up $9.10 from 2019.

anttohoho/Thinkstock

Deductibles also will increase to $198 next year, up $13 from the current year.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services said in a statement announcing the hikes that the increases are “largely due to rising spending on physician administered drugs. These higher costs have a ripple effect and result in higher Part B premiums and deductibles.”

The formal details on the premium and deductible increases have been posted online and are scheduled for publication in the Federal Register on Nov. 13.

The CMS and Congress are looking into a number of options to help contain the spending on drugs, including the use of an international pricing index to put U.S. spending more in line with the lower prices offered in foreign countries, automatic rebates when drug prices rise faster than the rate of inflation, and a modern take on the failed competitive acquisition program.

The agency also announced increases in the inpatient hospital deductible that will be paid under Medicare Part A when beneficiaries are admitted into a hospital in 2020. The deductible increases to $1,408 next year, up from $1,364 this year. The daily coinsurance for the 61st-90th day increases to $352 from $341, while the daily coinsurance for lifetime reserve days increases to $704 from $682.

Skilled nursing facility coinsurance also rises during this same time period to $176 from $170.50.

More information on Part A deductibles can be found here, while information on Part A premiums can be found here.

[email protected]

Medicare beneficiaries charged the standard premium for Medicare Part B coverage will be paying $144.60 each month in 2020, up $9.10 from 2019.

anttohoho/Thinkstock

Deductibles also will increase to $198 next year, up $13 from the current year.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services said in a statement announcing the hikes that the increases are “largely due to rising spending on physician administered drugs. These higher costs have a ripple effect and result in higher Part B premiums and deductibles.”

The formal details on the premium and deductible increases have been posted online and are scheduled for publication in the Federal Register on Nov. 13.

The CMS and Congress are looking into a number of options to help contain the spending on drugs, including the use of an international pricing index to put U.S. spending more in line with the lower prices offered in foreign countries, automatic rebates when drug prices rise faster than the rate of inflation, and a modern take on the failed competitive acquisition program.

The agency also announced increases in the inpatient hospital deductible that will be paid under Medicare Part A when beneficiaries are admitted into a hospital in 2020. The deductible increases to $1,408 next year, up from $1,364 this year. The daily coinsurance for the 61st-90th day increases to $352 from $341, while the daily coinsurance for lifetime reserve days increases to $704 from $682.

Skilled nursing facility coinsurance also rises during this same time period to $176 from $170.50.

More information on Part A deductibles can be found here, while information on Part A premiums can be found here.

[email protected]

COPENHAGEN – The traditional treatment paradigm for patients with comorbid depression and insomnia has been to focus on the depression in expectation that the sleep problems will fade away with the depressive symptoms.

Big mistake, Kerstin Blom, PhD, said during the annual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.

That treatment strategy is insufficient, because untreated insomnia seldom improves. It hinders recovery from depression, increases the risk of new depressive episodes, and causes continued suffering because of poor sleep, asserted Dr. Blom, a clinical psychologist and researcher at the Internet Psychiatry Clinic at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm.

She presented highlights of a series of three randomized, controlled trials for which she was first author. The take-home message: Insomnia with comorbid depression is not merely a symptom of depression; it requires specific treatment.

“Insomnia needs to be treated according to guidelines – that is, with cognitive-behavioral therapy – when it’s comorbid with depression,” she declared. “Insomnia therapy also treats comorbid depression, but it’s not so much the other way around. There are some effects on insomnia when you treat depression, but they’re not very large.”

The first study in her series included 43 adults with psychiatrist-diagnosed comorbid insomnia and major depression who were randomized to an 8-week course of psychologist-guided, Internet-delivered cognitive-behavioral therapy (ICBT) for one disorder or the other. At 6- and 12-month follow-up, patients who received ICBT for insomnia had significantly greater improvement in their insomnia as measured by the self-rated Insomnia Severity Index than did those who got ICBT for depression, while both forms of treatment were similarly effective in reducing depression severity as reflected in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) scores (Sleep. 2015 Feb 1;38[2]:267-77).

At 3-year follow-up, the beneficial impact of ICBT for insomnia remained strong, with recipients reporting less need for additional sleep treatment and less use of sleep medication than did the patients who got ICBT for depression. Both groups were left with mild depression, pointing to the need to develop a combined form of CBT that would simultaneously address both disorders in patients with comorbid depression and insomnia (Sleep. 2017 Aug 1;40[8]. doi. 10.1093/sleep/zsx108).

The Swedish investigators went on to create a 9-week course of psychologist-guided combination ICBT for both insomnia and depression. Then they randomized 126 dual-diagnosis patients to that treatment program or to therapist-guided ICBT for depression plus a placebo sleep intervention, which included education about sleep hygiene, stress management, and use of a sleep diary. At 6 months of follow-up, the dual-target ICBT group had a significantly greater reduction in Insomnia Severity Index scores than those who got ICBT for depression plus placebo. No between-group difference were found in the reduction in MADRS scores.

“This means treating patients with insomnia therapy was as effective for the treatment of depression as was depression therapy,” Dr. Blom observed. Follow-up out to 36 months is ongoing.

The third study included 148 nondepressed adults with insomnia who were randomized to the 8-week ICBT insomnia intervention or an active control treatment, which again included patient education, stress management, and a sleep diary. At 6 months, the active CBT-insomnia group had significantly lower Insomnia Severity Index scores than controls. However, at 12 and 36 months, the control group caught up, and there was no longer a between-group difference, with 74% of participants no longer meeting diagnostic criteria for insomnia at 36 months. The explanation for the catch-up? The control group used significantly more hypnotic sleep medications and more frequently sought additional insomnia treatments, including yoga and mindfulness, outside of the study setting during follow-up (Sleep. 2016 Jun 1;39[6]:1267-74).

It was Dr. Blom’s intent to also use this randomized, controlled trials to test the hypothesis that improving insomnia in nondepressed patients prevents future episodes of depression. She was thwarted in this attempt.

“After they got our low-intensity control version of a sleep intervention, they went out and got more treatment and that seems to have helped them, which is great,” Dr. Blom said. “But it sort of ruined our prediction study.”

However, in a post hoc analysis, study participants who were poor sleepers at 12 months had significantly more depressive symptoms at 36 months than did those with improved sleep at 12 months. The effect size was quite large, with a between-group 5.5-point difference in MADRS scores at 36 months in a study population that was nondepressed at baseline.

“So improved sleep may prevent depression long term,” Dr. Blom said. “The jury is still out on that one.”

She reported having no financial conflicts regarding her studies, which were supported by government research funding.

[email protected]

COPENHAGEN – The traditional treatment paradigm for patients with comorbid depression and insomnia has been to focus on the depression in expectation that the sleep problems will fade away with the depressive symptoms.

Big mistake, Kerstin Blom, PhD, said during the annual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.

That treatment strategy is insufficient, because untreated insomnia seldom improves. It hinders recovery from depression, increases the risk of new depressive episodes, and causes continued suffering because of poor sleep, asserted Dr. Blom, a clinical psychologist and researcher at the Internet Psychiatry Clinic at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm.

She presented highlights of a series of three randomized, controlled trials for which she was first author. The take-home message: Insomnia with comorbid depression is not merely a symptom of depression; it requires specific treatment.

“Insomnia needs to be treated according to guidelines – that is, with cognitive-behavioral therapy – when it’s comorbid with depression,” she declared. “Insomnia therapy also treats comorbid depression, but it’s not so much the other way around. There are some effects on insomnia when you treat depression, but they’re not very large.”

The first study in her series included 43 adults with psychiatrist-diagnosed comorbid insomnia and major depression who were randomized to an 8-week course of psychologist-guided, Internet-delivered cognitive-behavioral therapy (ICBT) for one disorder or the other. At 6- and 12-month follow-up, patients who received ICBT for insomnia had significantly greater improvement in their insomnia as measured by the self-rated Insomnia Severity Index than did those who got ICBT for depression, while both forms of treatment were similarly effective in reducing depression severity as reflected in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) scores (Sleep. 2015 Feb 1;38[2]:267-77).

At 3-year follow-up, the beneficial impact of ICBT for insomnia remained strong, with recipients reporting less need for additional sleep treatment and less use of sleep medication than did the patients who got ICBT for depression. Both groups were left with mild depression, pointing to the need to develop a combined form of CBT that would simultaneously address both disorders in patients with comorbid depression and insomnia (Sleep. 2017 Aug 1;40[8]. doi. 10.1093/sleep/zsx108).

The Swedish investigators went on to create a 9-week course of psychologist-guided combination ICBT for both insomnia and depression. Then they randomized 126 dual-diagnosis patients to that treatment program or to therapist-guided ICBT for depression plus a placebo sleep intervention, which included education about sleep hygiene, stress management, and use of a sleep diary. At 6 months of follow-up, the dual-target ICBT group had a significantly greater reduction in Insomnia Severity Index scores than those who got ICBT for depression plus placebo. No between-group difference were found in the reduction in MADRS scores.

“This means treating patients with insomnia therapy was as effective for the treatment of depression as was depression therapy,” Dr. Blom observed. Follow-up out to 36 months is ongoing.

The third study included 148 nondepressed adults with insomnia who were randomized to the 8-week ICBT insomnia intervention or an active control treatment, which again included patient education, stress management, and a sleep diary. At 6 months, the active CBT-insomnia group had significantly lower Insomnia Severity Index scores than controls. However, at 12 and 36 months, the control group caught up, and there was no longer a between-group difference, with 74% of participants no longer meeting diagnostic criteria for insomnia at 36 months. The explanation for the catch-up? The control group used significantly more hypnotic sleep medications and more frequently sought additional insomnia treatments, including yoga and mindfulness, outside of the study setting during follow-up (Sleep. 2016 Jun 1;39[6]:1267-74).

It was Dr. Blom’s intent to also use this randomized, controlled trials to test the hypothesis that improving insomnia in nondepressed patients prevents future episodes of depression. She was thwarted in this attempt.

“After they got our low-intensity control version of a sleep intervention, they went out and got more treatment and that seems to have helped them, which is great,” Dr. Blom said. “But it sort of ruined our prediction study.”

However, in a post hoc analysis, study participants who were poor sleepers at 12 months had significantly more depressive symptoms at 36 months than did those with improved sleep at 12 months. The effect size was quite large, with a between-group 5.5-point difference in MADRS scores at 36 months in a study population that was nondepressed at baseline.

“So improved sleep may prevent depression long term,” Dr. Blom said. “The jury is still out on that one.”

She reported having no financial conflicts regarding her studies, which were supported by government research funding.

[email protected]

COPENHAGEN – The traditional treatment paradigm for patients with comorbid depression and insomnia has been to focus on the depression in expectation that the sleep problems will fade away with the depressive symptoms.

Big mistake, Kerstin Blom, PhD, said during the annual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.

That treatment strategy is insufficient, because untreated insomnia seldom improves. It hinders recovery from depression, increases the risk of new depressive episodes, and causes continued suffering because of poor sleep, asserted Dr. Blom, a clinical psychologist and researcher at the Internet Psychiatry Clinic at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm.

She presented highlights of a series of three randomized, controlled trials for which she was first author. The take-home message: Insomnia with comorbid depression is not merely a symptom of depression; it requires specific treatment.

“Insomnia needs to be treated according to guidelines – that is, with cognitive-behavioral therapy – when it’s comorbid with depression,” she declared. “Insomnia therapy also treats comorbid depression, but it’s not so much the other way around. There are some effects on insomnia when you treat depression, but they’re not very large.”

The first study in her series included 43 adults with psychiatrist-diagnosed comorbid insomnia and major depression who were randomized to an 8-week course of psychologist-guided, Internet-delivered cognitive-behavioral therapy (ICBT) for one disorder or the other. At 6- and 12-month follow-up, patients who received ICBT for insomnia had significantly greater improvement in their insomnia as measured by the self-rated Insomnia Severity Index than did those who got ICBT for depression, while both forms of treatment were similarly effective in reducing depression severity as reflected in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) scores (Sleep. 2015 Feb 1;38[2]:267-77).

At 3-year follow-up, the beneficial impact of ICBT for insomnia remained strong, with recipients reporting less need for additional sleep treatment and less use of sleep medication than did the patients who got ICBT for depression. Both groups were left with mild depression, pointing to the need to develop a combined form of CBT that would simultaneously address both disorders in patients with comorbid depression and insomnia (Sleep. 2017 Aug 1;40[8]. doi. 10.1093/sleep/zsx108).

The Swedish investigators went on to create a 9-week course of psychologist-guided combination ICBT for both insomnia and depression. Then they randomized 126 dual-diagnosis patients to that treatment program or to therapist-guided ICBT for depression plus a placebo sleep intervention, which included education about sleep hygiene, stress management, and use of a sleep diary. At 6 months of follow-up, the dual-target ICBT group had a significantly greater reduction in Insomnia Severity Index scores than those who got ICBT for depression plus placebo. No between-group difference were found in the reduction in MADRS scores.

“This means treating patients with insomnia therapy was as effective for the treatment of depression as was depression therapy,” Dr. Blom observed. Follow-up out to 36 months is ongoing.

The third study included 148 nondepressed adults with insomnia who were randomized to the 8-week ICBT insomnia intervention or an active control treatment, which again included patient education, stress management, and a sleep diary. At 6 months, the active CBT-insomnia group had significantly lower Insomnia Severity Index scores than controls. However, at 12 and 36 months, the control group caught up, and there was no longer a between-group difference, with 74% of participants no longer meeting diagnostic criteria for insomnia at 36 months. The explanation for the catch-up? The control group used significantly more hypnotic sleep medications and more frequently sought additional insomnia treatments, including yoga and mindfulness, outside of the study setting during follow-up (Sleep. 2016 Jun 1;39[6]:1267-74).

It was Dr. Blom’s intent to also use this randomized, controlled trials to test the hypothesis that improving insomnia in nondepressed patients prevents future episodes of depression. She was thwarted in this attempt.

“After they got our low-intensity control version of a sleep intervention, they went out and got more treatment and that seems to have helped them, which is great,” Dr. Blom said. “But it sort of ruined our prediction study.”

However, in a post hoc analysis, study participants who were poor sleepers at 12 months had significantly more depressive symptoms at 36 months than did those with improved sleep at 12 months. The effect size was quite large, with a between-group 5.5-point difference in MADRS scores at 36 months in a study population that was nondepressed at baseline.

“So improved sleep may prevent depression long term,” Dr. Blom said. “The jury is still out on that one.”

She reported having no financial conflicts regarding her studies, which were supported by government research funding.

[email protected]

SAN FRANCISCO – A “Best Case/Worst Case” (BCWC) framework tool has been adapted for use with geriatric trauma patients in the ICU, where it can help track a patient’s progress and enable better communication with patients and loved ones. The tool relies on a combination of graphics and text that surgeons update daily during rounds, and creates a longitudinal view of a patient’s trajectory during their stay in the ICU.

Andrei Malov/Thinkstock

The aim is to have surgeons incorporate story telling into care, by updating the best-case scenario in light of new clinical developments – for example, after a complication has arisen.

“Each day during rounds, the ICU team records important events on the graphic aid that change the patient’s course. The team draws a star to represent the best case, and a line to represent prognostic uncertainty. The attending trauma surgeon then uses the geriatric trauma outcome score, their knowledge of the health state of the patient, and their own clinical experience to tell a story about treatments, recovery, and outcomes if everything goes as well as we might hope. This story is written down in the best-case scenario box,” Christopher Zimmerman, MD, a general surgery resident at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, said during a presentation about the BCWC tool at the annual clinical congress of the American College of Surgeons

“We often like to talk to patients and their families [about best- and worst-case scenarios] anyway, but [the research team] have tried to formalize it,” said Tam Pham, MD, professor of surgery at the University of Washington, in an interview. Dr. Pham comoderated the session where the research was presented.

“When we’re able to communicate where the uncertainty is and where the boundaries are around the course of care and possible outcomes, we can build an alliance with patients and families that will be helpful when there is a big decision to make, say about a laparotomy for a perforated viscus,” said Dr. Zimmerman.

Dr. Zimmerman gave an example of a patient who came into the ICU after suffering multiple fractures from falling down a set of stairs. The team created an initial BCWC with a hoped-for best-case scenario. Later, the patient developed hypoxemic respiratory failure and had to be intubated overnight. “This event is recorded on the graphic, and her star representing the best case has changed position, the line representing uncertainty has shortened, and the contents of her best-case scenario has changed. Each day in rounds, this process is repeated,” said Dr. Zimmerman.

Palliative care physicians, education experts, and surgeons at the University of Wisconsin–Madison developed the tool in an effort to reduce unwanted care at the end of life, in the context of high-risk surgeries. The researchers adapted the tool to the trauma setting by gathering six focus groups of trauma practitioners at the University of Wisconsin; University of Texas, Dallas; and Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. They modified the tool after incorporating comments, and then iteratively modified it through tasks carried out in the ICU as part of a qualitative improvement initiative at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. They generated a change to the tool, implemented it in the ICU during subsequent rounds, then collected observations and field notes, then revised and repeated the process, streamlining it to fit into the ICU environment, according to Dr. Zimmerman.

The back side of the tool is available for family members to write important details about their loved ones, leading insight into the patient’s personality and desires, such as favorite music or affection for a family pet.

The work was supported by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Zimmerman and Dr. Pham have no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Zimmerman C et al. Clinical Congress 2019, Abstract.

SAN FRANCISCO – A “Best Case/Worst Case” (BCWC) framework tool has been adapted for use with geriatric trauma patients in the ICU, where it can help track a patient’s progress and enable better communication with patients and loved ones. The tool relies on a combination of graphics and text that surgeons update daily during rounds, and creates a longitudinal view of a patient’s trajectory during their stay in the ICU.

Andrei Malov/Thinkstock

The aim is to have surgeons incorporate story telling into care, by updating the best-case scenario in light of new clinical developments – for example, after a complication has arisen.

“Each day during rounds, the ICU team records important events on the graphic aid that change the patient’s course. The team draws a star to represent the best case, and a line to represent prognostic uncertainty. The attending trauma surgeon then uses the geriatric trauma outcome score, their knowledge of the health state of the patient, and their own clinical experience to tell a story about treatments, recovery, and outcomes if everything goes as well as we might hope. This story is written down in the best-case scenario box,” Christopher Zimmerman, MD, a general surgery resident at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, said during a presentation about the BCWC tool at the annual clinical congress of the American College of Surgeons

“We often like to talk to patients and their families [about best- and worst-case scenarios] anyway, but [the research team] have tried to formalize it,” said Tam Pham, MD, professor of surgery at the University of Washington, in an interview. Dr. Pham comoderated the session where the research was presented.

“When we’re able to communicate where the uncertainty is and where the boundaries are around the course of care and possible outcomes, we can build an alliance with patients and families that will be helpful when there is a big decision to make, say about a laparotomy for a perforated viscus,” said Dr. Zimmerman.

Dr. Zimmerman gave an example of a patient who came into the ICU after suffering multiple fractures from falling down a set of stairs. The team created an initial BCWC with a hoped-for best-case scenario. Later, the patient developed hypoxemic respiratory failure and had to be intubated overnight. “This event is recorded on the graphic, and her star representing the best case has changed position, the line representing uncertainty has shortened, and the contents of her best-case scenario has changed. Each day in rounds, this process is repeated,” said Dr. Zimmerman.

Palliative care physicians, education experts, and surgeons at the University of Wisconsin–Madison developed the tool in an effort to reduce unwanted care at the end of life, in the context of high-risk surgeries. The researchers adapted the tool to the trauma setting by gathering six focus groups of trauma practitioners at the University of Wisconsin; University of Texas, Dallas; and Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. They modified the tool after incorporating comments, and then iteratively modified it through tasks carried out in the ICU as part of a qualitative improvement initiative at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. They generated a change to the tool, implemented it in the ICU during subsequent rounds, then collected observations and field notes, then revised and repeated the process, streamlining it to fit into the ICU environment, according to Dr. Zimmerman.

The back side of the tool is available for family members to write important details about their loved ones, leading insight into the patient’s personality and desires, such as favorite music or affection for a family pet.

The work was supported by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Zimmerman and Dr. Pham have no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Zimmerman C et al. Clinical Congress 2019, Abstract.

SAN FRANCISCO – A “Best Case/Worst Case” (BCWC) framework tool has been adapted for use with geriatric trauma patients in the ICU, where it can help track a patient’s progress and enable better communication with patients and loved ones. The tool relies on a combination of graphics and text that surgeons update daily during rounds, and creates a longitudinal view of a patient’s trajectory during their stay in the ICU.

Andrei Malov/Thinkstock

The aim is to have surgeons incorporate story telling into care, by updating the best-case scenario in light of new clinical developments – for example, after a complication has arisen.

“Each day during rounds, the ICU team records important events on the graphic aid that change the patient’s course. The team draws a star to represent the best case, and a line to represent prognostic uncertainty. The attending trauma surgeon then uses the geriatric trauma outcome score, their knowledge of the health state of the patient, and their own clinical experience to tell a story about treatments, recovery, and outcomes if everything goes as well as we might hope. This story is written down in the best-case scenario box,” Christopher Zimmerman, MD, a general surgery resident at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, said during a presentation about the BCWC tool at the annual clinical congress of the American College of Surgeons

“We often like to talk to patients and their families [about best- and worst-case scenarios] anyway, but [the research team] have tried to formalize it,” said Tam Pham, MD, professor of surgery at the University of Washington, in an interview. Dr. Pham comoderated the session where the research was presented.

“When we’re able to communicate where the uncertainty is and where the boundaries are around the course of care and possible outcomes, we can build an alliance with patients and families that will be helpful when there is a big decision to make, say about a laparotomy for a perforated viscus,” said Dr. Zimmerman.

Dr. Zimmerman gave an example of a patient who came into the ICU after suffering multiple fractures from falling down a set of stairs. The team created an initial BCWC with a hoped-for best-case scenario. Later, the patient developed hypoxemic respiratory failure and had to be intubated overnight. “This event is recorded on the graphic, and her star representing the best case has changed position, the line representing uncertainty has shortened, and the contents of her best-case scenario has changed. Each day in rounds, this process is repeated,” said Dr. Zimmerman.

Palliative care physicians, education experts, and surgeons at the University of Wisconsin–Madison developed the tool in an effort to reduce unwanted care at the end of life, in the context of high-risk surgeries. The researchers adapted the tool to the trauma setting by gathering six focus groups of trauma practitioners at the University of Wisconsin; University of Texas, Dallas; and Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. They modified the tool after incorporating comments, and then iteratively modified it through tasks carried out in the ICU as part of a qualitative improvement initiative at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. They generated a change to the tool, implemented it in the ICU during subsequent rounds, then collected observations and field notes, then revised and repeated the process, streamlining it to fit into the ICU environment, according to Dr. Zimmerman.

The back side of the tool is available for family members to write important details about their loved ones, leading insight into the patient’s personality and desires, such as favorite music or affection for a family pet.

The work was supported by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Zimmerman and Dr. Pham have no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Zimmerman C et al. Clinical Congress 2019, Abstract.