This supplement to The Journal of Family Practice brings together key updates in the field of T2D to help care for patients who have not only T2D, but also other intercon­nected diseases. 

Supplementary Materials: 

Chapter 1: Evolution of Type 2 Diabetes Treatment

Plain Language Patient Summary: 

Infographic:

Chapter 2: A Practical Approach to Managing Kidney Disease in Type 2 Diabetes

Plain Language Patient Summary:

Infographic:

Chapter 3: Heart Failure in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

Plain Language Patient Summary: 

Infographic:

Chapter 4: Overcoming Therapeutic Inertia: Practical Approaches

Plain Language Patient Summary:

Infographic:

Supplemental Materials are joint copyright © 2020 Frontline Medical Communications and Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

This supplement to The Journal of Family Practice brings together key updates in the field of T2D to help care for patients who have not only T2D, but also other intercon­nected diseases. 

Supplementary Materials: 

Chapter 1: Evolution of Type 2 Diabetes Treatment

Plain Language Patient Summary: 

Infographic:

Chapter 2: A Practical Approach to Managing Kidney Disease in Type 2 Diabetes

Plain Language Patient Summary:

Infographic:

Chapter 3: Heart Failure in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

Plain Language Patient Summary: 

Infographic:

Chapter 4: Overcoming Therapeutic Inertia: Practical Approaches

Plain Language Patient Summary:

Infographic:

Supplemental Materials are joint copyright © 2020 Frontline Medical Communications and Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

This supplement to The Journal of Family Practice brings together key updates in the field of T2D to help care for patients who have not only T2D, but also other intercon­nected diseases. 

Supplementary Materials: 

Chapter 1: Evolution of Type 2 Diabetes Treatment

Plain Language Patient Summary: 

Infographic:

Chapter 2: A Practical Approach to Managing Kidney Disease in Type 2 Diabetes

Plain Language Patient Summary:

Infographic:

Chapter 3: Heart Failure in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

Plain Language Patient Summary: 

Infographic:

Chapter 4: Overcoming Therapeutic Inertia: Practical Approaches

Plain Language Patient Summary:

Infographic:

Supplemental Materials are joint copyright © 2020 Frontline Medical Communications and Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

In “Psychiatrist in the Chair,” authors Brendan Kelly and Muiris Houston tell the story of a fellow Irishman, Anthony Clare, MD, who brought intelligence and eloquence to psychiatry. They tell a well-measured, well-referenced story of Anthony Clare’s personal and professional life. They capture his eloquence, wit, charm, and success in psychiatry as well as alluding to Dr. Clare’s self-reported “some kind of Irish darkness.”

In 1983, I was a young Scottish psychiatrist entering a fusty profession. Suddenly, there was Dr. Anthony Clare on the BBC! In “In the Psychiatrist’s Chair,” Dr. Clare interviewed celebrities. In addition to describing his Irish darkness, Brendan Kelly, MD, PhD and Muiris Houston, MD, FRCGP, both of whom are affiliated with Trinity College Dublin, note that Dr. Clare said: “I’m better at destroying systems than I am at putting them together – I do rather look for people to interview who will not live up to the prediction; there’s an element of destructiveness that’s still in me.”

I still listen to his talks on YouTube. His delicate probing questioning of B.F. Skinner, PhD, is one of my favorites, as he expertly and in an ever-so-friendly manner, teases out Dr. Skinner’s views of his upbringing and tags them to his behavorialism. It is this skill as an interviewer that captured us; can psychiatrists really be this clever? Yes, we can. All of the young and hopeful psychiatrists could see a future.

Dr. Clare raised psychiatry up from the depths of the asylums. He showed that a psychiatrist can be kind, charming, and sophisticated – handsome and helpful, not the ghouls of old movies. He did what needed to be done to psychiatry at that time: He set us on a footing that was not scary to the public. His vision for psychiatry was to improve services to those in need, reduce stigma, and show the public that there is a continuum between health and illness. He also took on the push for diagnoses, which he felt separated the normal from the abnormal, us from them.

He wrote his seminal work 10 years after graduating from the University College of Dublin. “Psychiatry in Dissent: Controversial Issues in Thought and Practice” was published in 1976, and is still considered one of the most influential texts in psychiatry. Dr. Clare “legitimized psychiatry not only in the eyes of the public but in the eyes of psychiatrists too,” the authors wrote. He did not support psychoanalysis and eschewed the rigor attached to the learning of new psychotherapies. He took renowned experts to task, but in ever such an elegant way. He successfully took on Hans Eysenck, PhD, I think because Dr. Eysenck insulted the intelligence of the Irish. He had a measured response to the anti-psychiatrists Thomas Szasz, MD, and R.D. Laing, MD, incorporating their ideas into his view of psychiatry. Dr. Clare was a social psychiatrist who highlighted the role of poverty and lack of access to mental health services. He stated that psychiatry was a “shambles, a mess and at a very primitive level.”

I enjoyed learning about his fight to make the membership exam for entrance into the Royal College of Psychiatry worthy of its name. Dr. Clare helped found the Association of Psychiatrists in Training (APIT) and wrote eloquently about the difference between training and indoctrination, which he described as having people fit a predetermined paradigm of how psychiatry should be constructed and practiced, versus education, which he defined as forming the mind. He highlighted the lack of good training facilities, and teaching staff in many parts of the United Kingdom. When Dr. Clare studied candidates in Edinburgh, he found that 70% had no child, forensic, or intellectual disability training. By the time I did my training there, I was able to get experience in all three subspecialties. He opposed the granting of automatic membership to current consultants, many of whom he considered to be “dunderheads.” . I can attest to that!

Dr. Heru is professor of psychiatry at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. She is editor of “Working With Families in Medical Settings: A Multidisciplinary Guide for Psychiatrists and Other Health Professionals” (New York: Routledge, 2013). She has no conflicts of interest.

In “Psychiatrist in the Chair,” authors Brendan Kelly and Muiris Houston tell the story of a fellow Irishman, Anthony Clare, MD, who brought intelligence and eloquence to psychiatry. They tell a well-measured, well-referenced story of Anthony Clare’s personal and professional life. They capture his eloquence, wit, charm, and success in psychiatry as well as alluding to Dr. Clare’s self-reported “some kind of Irish darkness.”

In 1983, I was a young Scottish psychiatrist entering a fusty profession. Suddenly, there was Dr. Anthony Clare on the BBC! In “In the Psychiatrist’s Chair,” Dr. Clare interviewed celebrities. In addition to describing his Irish darkness, Brendan Kelly, MD, PhD and Muiris Houston, MD, FRCGP, both of whom are affiliated with Trinity College Dublin, note that Dr. Clare said: “I’m better at destroying systems than I am at putting them together – I do rather look for people to interview who will not live up to the prediction; there’s an element of destructiveness that’s still in me.”

I still listen to his talks on YouTube. His delicate probing questioning of B.F. Skinner, PhD, is one of my favorites, as he expertly and in an ever-so-friendly manner, teases out Dr. Skinner’s views of his upbringing and tags them to his behavorialism. It is this skill as an interviewer that captured us; can psychiatrists really be this clever? Yes, we can. All of the young and hopeful psychiatrists could see a future.

Dr. Clare raised psychiatry up from the depths of the asylums. He showed that a psychiatrist can be kind, charming, and sophisticated – handsome and helpful, not the ghouls of old movies. He did what needed to be done to psychiatry at that time: He set us on a footing that was not scary to the public. His vision for psychiatry was to improve services to those in need, reduce stigma, and show the public that there is a continuum between health and illness. He also took on the push for diagnoses, which he felt separated the normal from the abnormal, us from them.

He wrote his seminal work 10 years after graduating from the University College of Dublin. “Psychiatry in Dissent: Controversial Issues in Thought and Practice” was published in 1976, and is still considered one of the most influential texts in psychiatry. Dr. Clare “legitimized psychiatry not only in the eyes of the public but in the eyes of psychiatrists too,” the authors wrote. He did not support psychoanalysis and eschewed the rigor attached to the learning of new psychotherapies. He took renowned experts to task, but in ever such an elegant way. He successfully took on Hans Eysenck, PhD, I think because Dr. Eysenck insulted the intelligence of the Irish. He had a measured response to the anti-psychiatrists Thomas Szasz, MD, and R.D. Laing, MD, incorporating their ideas into his view of psychiatry. Dr. Clare was a social psychiatrist who highlighted the role of poverty and lack of access to mental health services. He stated that psychiatry was a “shambles, a mess and at a very primitive level.”

I enjoyed learning about his fight to make the membership exam for entrance into the Royal College of Psychiatry worthy of its name. Dr. Clare helped found the Association of Psychiatrists in Training (APIT) and wrote eloquently about the difference between training and indoctrination, which he described as having people fit a predetermined paradigm of how psychiatry should be constructed and practiced, versus education, which he defined as forming the mind. He highlighted the lack of good training facilities, and teaching staff in many parts of the United Kingdom. When Dr. Clare studied candidates in Edinburgh, he found that 70% had no child, forensic, or intellectual disability training. By the time I did my training there, I was able to get experience in all three subspecialties. He opposed the granting of automatic membership to current consultants, many of whom he considered to be “dunderheads.” . I can attest to that!

Dr. Heru is professor of psychiatry at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. She is editor of “Working With Families in Medical Settings: A Multidisciplinary Guide for Psychiatrists and Other Health Professionals” (New York: Routledge, 2013). She has no conflicts of interest.

In “Psychiatrist in the Chair,” authors Brendan Kelly and Muiris Houston tell the story of a fellow Irishman, Anthony Clare, MD, who brought intelligence and eloquence to psychiatry. They tell a well-measured, well-referenced story of Anthony Clare’s personal and professional life. They capture his eloquence, wit, charm, and success in psychiatry as well as alluding to Dr. Clare’s self-reported “some kind of Irish darkness.”

In 1983, I was a young Scottish psychiatrist entering a fusty profession. Suddenly, there was Dr. Anthony Clare on the BBC! In “In the Psychiatrist’s Chair,” Dr. Clare interviewed celebrities. In addition to describing his Irish darkness, Brendan Kelly, MD, PhD and Muiris Houston, MD, FRCGP, both of whom are affiliated with Trinity College Dublin, note that Dr. Clare said: “I’m better at destroying systems than I am at putting them together – I do rather look for people to interview who will not live up to the prediction; there’s an element of destructiveness that’s still in me.”

I still listen to his talks on YouTube. His delicate probing questioning of B.F. Skinner, PhD, is one of my favorites, as he expertly and in an ever-so-friendly manner, teases out Dr. Skinner’s views of his upbringing and tags them to his behavorialism. It is this skill as an interviewer that captured us; can psychiatrists really be this clever? Yes, we can. All of the young and hopeful psychiatrists could see a future.

Dr. Clare raised psychiatry up from the depths of the asylums. He showed that a psychiatrist can be kind, charming, and sophisticated – handsome and helpful, not the ghouls of old movies. He did what needed to be done to psychiatry at that time: He set us on a footing that was not scary to the public. His vision for psychiatry was to improve services to those in need, reduce stigma, and show the public that there is a continuum between health and illness. He also took on the push for diagnoses, which he felt separated the normal from the abnormal, us from them.

He wrote his seminal work 10 years after graduating from the University College of Dublin. “Psychiatry in Dissent: Controversial Issues in Thought and Practice” was published in 1976, and is still considered one of the most influential texts in psychiatry. Dr. Clare “legitimized psychiatry not only in the eyes of the public but in the eyes of psychiatrists too,” the authors wrote. He did not support psychoanalysis and eschewed the rigor attached to the learning of new psychotherapies. He took renowned experts to task, but in ever such an elegant way. He successfully took on Hans Eysenck, PhD, I think because Dr. Eysenck insulted the intelligence of the Irish. He had a measured response to the anti-psychiatrists Thomas Szasz, MD, and R.D. Laing, MD, incorporating their ideas into his view of psychiatry. Dr. Clare was a social psychiatrist who highlighted the role of poverty and lack of access to mental health services. He stated that psychiatry was a “shambles, a mess and at a very primitive level.”

I enjoyed learning about his fight to make the membership exam for entrance into the Royal College of Psychiatry worthy of its name. Dr. Clare helped found the Association of Psychiatrists in Training (APIT) and wrote eloquently about the difference between training and indoctrination, which he described as having people fit a predetermined paradigm of how psychiatry should be constructed and practiced, versus education, which he defined as forming the mind. He highlighted the lack of good training facilities, and teaching staff in many parts of the United Kingdom. When Dr. Clare studied candidates in Edinburgh, he found that 70% had no child, forensic, or intellectual disability training. By the time I did my training there, I was able to get experience in all three subspecialties. He opposed the granting of automatic membership to current consultants, many of whom he considered to be “dunderheads.” . I can attest to that!

Dr. Heru is professor of psychiatry at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. She is editor of “Working With Families in Medical Settings: A Multidisciplinary Guide for Psychiatrists and Other Health Professionals” (New York: Routledge, 2013). She has no conflicts of interest.

Rare cancers, though individually rare by definition, impose a tremendous burden on adult and pediatric patient populations, especially when considering hematological cancers. In this Rare Diseases Report: Cancers, we bring you the latest information on new and ongoing developments in the treatment of some of these cancers through interviews with frontline researchers in the field.

In this issue:

• Survey reveals special impact of COVID-19 on patients with rare disorders
• New agents boost survival – and complexity – in chronic lymphocytic leukemia
• Targeted therapies may alter the landscape of MCL treatment
• Will CAR T push beyond lymphoma? There’s no guarantee

Read Now

Rare cancers, though individually rare by definition, impose a tremendous burden on adult and pediatric patient populations, especially when considering hematological cancers. In this Rare Diseases Report: Cancers, we bring you the latest information on new and ongoing developments in the treatment of some of these cancers through interviews with frontline researchers in the field.

In this issue:

• Survey reveals special impact of COVID-19 on patients with rare disorders
• New agents boost survival – and complexity – in chronic lymphocytic leukemia
• Targeted therapies may alter the landscape of MCL treatment
• Will CAR T push beyond lymphoma? There’s no guarantee

Read Now

Rare cancers, though individually rare by definition, impose a tremendous burden on adult and pediatric patient populations, especially when considering hematological cancers. In this Rare Diseases Report: Cancers, we bring you the latest information on new and ongoing developments in the treatment of some of these cancers through interviews with frontline researchers in the field.

In this issue:

• Survey reveals special impact of COVID-19 on patients with rare disorders
• New agents boost survival – and complexity – in chronic lymphocytic leukemia
• Targeted therapies may alter the landscape of MCL treatment
• Will CAR T push beyond lymphoma? There’s no guarantee

Read Now

Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors effectively treat certain leukemias and lymphomas, due to their ability to inhibit a protein kinase that is critical for B cell receptor signaling.  These agents can inhibit antigen-triggered activation and maturation of B cells and their release of pro-inflammatory cytokines. BTK is also a key signaling protein that controls activation of monocytes, macrophages and neutrophils and its inhibition reduces the activation of these cells.

Judging from the papers presented at the recent MS Virtual 2020—the 8^th Joint ACTRIMS-ECTRIMS Meeting, BTK inhibitors are showing promise in the management of multiple sclerosis (MS), as well, as researchers eye next-generation treatment options.  They may prove to be effective not only in relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis, but also on progressive disease through their effect on brain macrophages and microglial cells. 

Leading the way at MS Virtual 2020 was a presentation by Patrick Vermersch, MD, PhD, who summarized the results to date of masitinib’s role in primary progressive MS (PPMS) and non-active secondar progressive MS (nSPMS). The professor of neurology at Lille University in Lille, France, and his colleagues conducted a phase 3 study to assess masitinib’s efficacy at two dosage levels – 4.5 mg/kg/day (n=199) and a 6.0 mg/kg/day (n=199) -- vs placebo (n=101). The randomized, double-blinded, placebo controlled, two-parallel group trial involved adult participants with EDSS scores between 2.0 and 6.0 with either PPMS or nSPMS. Investigators looked at overall EDSS change from baseline using a variety of repeated measures, with an emphasis on determining whether participants improved, were stable, or worsened. Among the results

• In the lower-dose contingent, the odds of either a reduction in EDSS progression or increased EDSS improvement improved by 39% for patients taking masitinib, vs those receiving placebo

• Also, among those receiving the lower dose, the odds of experiencing disability progression decreased by 37% in the treatment group, compared with placebo
• Results using the higher dose of masitinib were inconclusive

Based on these results, investigators concluded that masitinib 4.5 mg/kg/day is very likely to emerge as a new treatment option for individuals with for PPMS and nSPMS.

Another MS Virtual 2020 presentation focused on fenebrutinib, an investigational, noncovalent investigational BTK inhibitor being studies as a possible treatment for MS. Investigators assessed the potency, selectivity, and kinetics of inhibition of the BTK enzyme via fenebrutinib, compared with two other BTK inhibitors, evobrutinib and tolebrutinib, in a panel of 219 human kinases.

Fenebrutinib was found to be a more potent inhibitor, compared with the other two BTK inhibitors. Additionally, fenebrutinib effectively blocked B cell and basophil activation. Moreover, fenebrutinib inhibited fewer off target kinases >50%, compared with the other two BTK inhibitors. Investigators concluded that fenebrutinib’s high selectivity and potency shows promise as a drug linked with fewer adverse events and a better treatment profile than other investigational BTK inhibitors.

These encouraging findings are leading to the initiation of three phase 3 clinical trials involving fenebrutinib, announced at MS Virtual 2020 by Stephen L. Hauser, MD, professor of neurology, and director of the UCSF Weill Institute for Neurosciences. The trials will evaluate fenebrutinib’s impact on disease progression in relapsing MS and primary progressive MS. The primary endpoint of the studies will be 12-week composite Confirmed Disability Progression, which investigators hope will provide a stronger, more thorough assessment of disability progression, vs EDSS score alone.

Other BTK inhibitors worth watching include:

• Evobrutinib: An open-label phase 2 study has shown that the drug is linked with reduced annualized relapse rate through 108 weeks
• BIIB091: Safety and tolerability has been demonstrated in phase 1, clearing the way for further investigation
• Tolebrutinib: Under assessment for its ability to inhibit microglia-driven inflammation in murine models

Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors effectively treat certain leukemias and lymphomas, due to their ability to inhibit a protein kinase that is critical for B cell receptor signaling.  These agents can inhibit antigen-triggered activation and maturation of B cells and their release of pro-inflammatory cytokines. BTK is also a key signaling protein that controls activation of monocytes, macrophages and neutrophils and its inhibition reduces the activation of these cells.

Judging from the papers presented at the recent MS Virtual 2020—the 8^th Joint ACTRIMS-ECTRIMS Meeting, BTK inhibitors are showing promise in the management of multiple sclerosis (MS), as well, as researchers eye next-generation treatment options.  They may prove to be effective not only in relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis, but also on progressive disease through their effect on brain macrophages and microglial cells. 

Leading the way at MS Virtual 2020 was a presentation by Patrick Vermersch, MD, PhD, who summarized the results to date of masitinib’s role in primary progressive MS (PPMS) and non-active secondar progressive MS (nSPMS). The professor of neurology at Lille University in Lille, France, and his colleagues conducted a phase 3 study to assess masitinib’s efficacy at two dosage levels – 4.5 mg/kg/day (n=199) and a 6.0 mg/kg/day (n=199) -- vs placebo (n=101). The randomized, double-blinded, placebo controlled, two-parallel group trial involved adult participants with EDSS scores between 2.0 and 6.0 with either PPMS or nSPMS. Investigators looked at overall EDSS change from baseline using a variety of repeated measures, with an emphasis on determining whether participants improved, were stable, or worsened. Among the results

• In the lower-dose contingent, the odds of either a reduction in EDSS progression or increased EDSS improvement improved by 39% for patients taking masitinib, vs those receiving placebo

• Also, among those receiving the lower dose, the odds of experiencing disability progression decreased by 37% in the treatment group, compared with placebo
• Results using the higher dose of masitinib were inconclusive

Based on these results, investigators concluded that masitinib 4.5 mg/kg/day is very likely to emerge as a new treatment option for individuals with for PPMS and nSPMS.

Another MS Virtual 2020 presentation focused on fenebrutinib, an investigational, noncovalent investigational BTK inhibitor being studies as a possible treatment for MS. Investigators assessed the potency, selectivity, and kinetics of inhibition of the BTK enzyme via fenebrutinib, compared with two other BTK inhibitors, evobrutinib and tolebrutinib, in a panel of 219 human kinases.

Fenebrutinib was found to be a more potent inhibitor, compared with the other two BTK inhibitors. Additionally, fenebrutinib effectively blocked B cell and basophil activation. Moreover, fenebrutinib inhibited fewer off target kinases >50%, compared with the other two BTK inhibitors. Investigators concluded that fenebrutinib’s high selectivity and potency shows promise as a drug linked with fewer adverse events and a better treatment profile than other investigational BTK inhibitors.

These encouraging findings are leading to the initiation of three phase 3 clinical trials involving fenebrutinib, announced at MS Virtual 2020 by Stephen L. Hauser, MD, professor of neurology, and director of the UCSF Weill Institute for Neurosciences. The trials will evaluate fenebrutinib’s impact on disease progression in relapsing MS and primary progressive MS. The primary endpoint of the studies will be 12-week composite Confirmed Disability Progression, which investigators hope will provide a stronger, more thorough assessment of disability progression, vs EDSS score alone.

Other BTK inhibitors worth watching include:

• Evobrutinib: An open-label phase 2 study has shown that the drug is linked with reduced annualized relapse rate through 108 weeks
• BIIB091: Safety and tolerability has been demonstrated in phase 1, clearing the way for further investigation
• Tolebrutinib: Under assessment for its ability to inhibit microglia-driven inflammation in murine models

Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors effectively treat certain leukemias and lymphomas, due to their ability to inhibit a protein kinase that is critical for B cell receptor signaling.  These agents can inhibit antigen-triggered activation and maturation of B cells and their release of pro-inflammatory cytokines. BTK is also a key signaling protein that controls activation of monocytes, macrophages and neutrophils and its inhibition reduces the activation of these cells.

Judging from the papers presented at the recent MS Virtual 2020—the 8^th Joint ACTRIMS-ECTRIMS Meeting, BTK inhibitors are showing promise in the management of multiple sclerosis (MS), as well, as researchers eye next-generation treatment options.  They may prove to be effective not only in relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis, but also on progressive disease through their effect on brain macrophages and microglial cells. 

Leading the way at MS Virtual 2020 was a presentation by Patrick Vermersch, MD, PhD, who summarized the results to date of masitinib’s role in primary progressive MS (PPMS) and non-active secondar progressive MS (nSPMS). The professor of neurology at Lille University in Lille, France, and his colleagues conducted a phase 3 study to assess masitinib’s efficacy at two dosage levels – 4.5 mg/kg/day (n=199) and a 6.0 mg/kg/day (n=199) -- vs placebo (n=101). The randomized, double-blinded, placebo controlled, two-parallel group trial involved adult participants with EDSS scores between 2.0 and 6.0 with either PPMS or nSPMS. Investigators looked at overall EDSS change from baseline using a variety of repeated measures, with an emphasis on determining whether participants improved, were stable, or worsened. Among the results

• In the lower-dose contingent, the odds of either a reduction in EDSS progression or increased EDSS improvement improved by 39% for patients taking masitinib, vs those receiving placebo

• Also, among those receiving the lower dose, the odds of experiencing disability progression decreased by 37% in the treatment group, compared with placebo
• Results using the higher dose of masitinib were inconclusive

Based on these results, investigators concluded that masitinib 4.5 mg/kg/day is very likely to emerge as a new treatment option for individuals with for PPMS and nSPMS.

Another MS Virtual 2020 presentation focused on fenebrutinib, an investigational, noncovalent investigational BTK inhibitor being studies as a possible treatment for MS. Investigators assessed the potency, selectivity, and kinetics of inhibition of the BTK enzyme via fenebrutinib, compared with two other BTK inhibitors, evobrutinib and tolebrutinib, in a panel of 219 human kinases.

Fenebrutinib was found to be a more potent inhibitor, compared with the other two BTK inhibitors. Additionally, fenebrutinib effectively blocked B cell and basophil activation. Moreover, fenebrutinib inhibited fewer off target kinases >50%, compared with the other two BTK inhibitors. Investigators concluded that fenebrutinib’s high selectivity and potency shows promise as a drug linked with fewer adverse events and a better treatment profile than other investigational BTK inhibitors.

These encouraging findings are leading to the initiation of three phase 3 clinical trials involving fenebrutinib, announced at MS Virtual 2020 by Stephen L. Hauser, MD, professor of neurology, and director of the UCSF Weill Institute for Neurosciences. The trials will evaluate fenebrutinib’s impact on disease progression in relapsing MS and primary progressive MS. The primary endpoint of the studies will be 12-week composite Confirmed Disability Progression, which investigators hope will provide a stronger, more thorough assessment of disability progression, vs EDSS score alone.

Other BTK inhibitors worth watching include:

• Evobrutinib: An open-label phase 2 study has shown that the drug is linked with reduced annualized relapse rate through 108 weeks
• BIIB091: Safety and tolerability has been demonstrated in phase 1, clearing the way for further investigation
• Tolebrutinib: Under assessment for its ability to inhibit microglia-driven inflammation in murine models

Adding the immune checkpoint inhibitor atezolizumab to first-line therapy for early triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) did not significantly worsen patients’ quality of life, according to new data from the IMpassion031 trial.

In the randomized phase 3 trial, patients received neoadjuvant atezolizumab or placebo plus chemotherapy, followed by surgery and adjuvant atezolizumab or observation.

An analysis of patient-reported outcomes showed that, after a brief decline in health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in both the atezolizumab and control arms, the burden of treatment eased and then remained similar throughout follow-up.

“Treatment-related symptoms in both arms were similar, and the addition of atezolizumab to chemotherapy was tolerable, with no additional treatment side-effect bother reported,” said Elizabeth Mittendorf, MD, PhD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston.

She presented these results in an oral abstract presentation during the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.
 

Initial results

Primary results of the IMpassion031 trial were reported at ESMO 2020 and published in The Lancet.

The trial enrolled patients with treatment-naive early TNBC, and they were randomized to receive chemotherapy plus atezolizumab or placebo. Atezolizumab was given at 840 mg intravenously every 2 weeks.

Chemotherapy consisted of nab-paclitaxel at 125 mg/m² every week for 12 weeks followed by doxorubicin at 60 mg/m² and cyclophosphamide at 600 mg/m² every 2 weeks for 8 weeks. Patients then underwent surgery, which was followed by either atezolizumab maintenance or observation.

The addition of atezolizumab was associated with a 17% improvement in the rate of pathological complete response (pCR) in the intention-to-treat population.

Among patients positive for PD-L1, atezolizumab was associated with a 20% improvement in pCR rate.
 

Patients have their say

At SABCS 2020, Dr. Mittendorf presented patient-reported outcomes (PRO) for 161 patients randomized to atezolizumab plus chemotherapy and 167 assigned to placebo plus chemotherapy.

The outcome measures – including role function (the ability to work or pursue common everyday activities), physical function, emotional and social function, and HRQOL – came from scores on the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30).

The exploratory PRO endpoints were mean function and disease- or treatment-related symptoms as well as mean change from baseline in these symptoms.

At baseline, mean physical function scores were high in both arms, at approximately 90%. They dropped to about 65% in each arm by cycle 5 and rebounded to about 80% by cycle 7.

“The change was clinically meaningful, in that the dip was greater than 10 points,” Dr. Mittendorf said. “As patients completed neoadjuvant therapy and were in the adjuvant phase of the study, there was an increase and stabilization with respect to their physical function.”

Similarly, role function declined from 89% in each arm at baseline to a nadir of about 55% in the placebo arm and 50% in the atezolizumab arm. After cycle 5, role function levels began to increase in both arms and remained above 70% from cycle 7 onward.

Role function did not completely recover or stabilize among patients in the atezolizumab arm, “and we attribute this to the fact that these patients continue to receive atezolizumab, which requires that they come to clinic for that therapy, thereby potentially impacting role function,” Dr. Mittendorf said.

She reported that HRQOL declined from a median of nearly 80% at baseline in both arms to a nadir of 62% in the placebo arm and 52% in the atezolizumab arm by cycle 5. HRQOL rebounded starting at cycle 6 and stabilized thereafter, with little daylight between the treatment arms at the most recent follow-up.

The investigators saw worsening of the treatment-related symptoms fatigue, nausea/vomiting, and diarrhea in each arm, with the highest level of symptoms except pain reported at cycle 5. The highest reported pain level was seen at cycle 4.

In each arm, the symptoms declined and stabilized in the adjuvant setting, with mean values at week 16 similar to those reported at baseline for most symptoms. The exception was fatigue, which remained slightly elevated in both arms.

Regarding side-effect bother, a similar proportion of patients in each arm reported increased level of bother by visit during the neoadjuvant phase. However, no additional side-effect bother was reported by patients receiving maintenance atezolizumab, compared with patients in the placebo arm, who were followed with observation alone.
 

‘Reassuring’ data

“What we can conclude from the PRO in IMpassion031 is that early breast cancer patients are relatively asymptomatic. They do have a good baseline quality of life and very good functioning. The neoadjuvant therapy certainly has deterioration in quality of life and functioning, but this is transient, and there was no evident burden from the atezolizumab,” said invited discussant Sylvia Adams, MD, of New York University.

She said it’s reassuring to see the addition of atezolizumab did not adversely affect HRQOL but added that the study “also shows that chemotherapy has a major impact on well-being, as expected.”

Questions and problems that still need to be addressed regarding the use of immunotherapies in early TNBC include whether every patient needs chemotherapy or immunotherapy, a lack of predictive biomarkers, whether increases in pCR rates after neoadjuvant immunotherapy and chemotherapy will translate into improved survival, and the optimal chemotherapy backbone and schedule, she said.

IMpassion031 is sponsored by F. Hoffman-LaRoche. Dr. Mittendorf disclosed relationships with Roche/Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Physicians’ Education Resource, AstraZeneca, Exact Sciences, Merck, Peregrine Pharmaceuticals, SELLAS Life Sciences, TapImmune, EMD Serono, Galena Biopharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Lilly. Dr. Adams disclosed relationships with Genentech, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Amgen, Celgene, and Novartis.

SOURCE: Mittendorf E at al. SABCS 2020, Abstract GS3-02.

Adding the immune checkpoint inhibitor atezolizumab to first-line therapy for early triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) did not significantly worsen patients’ quality of life, according to new data from the IMpassion031 trial.

In the randomized phase 3 trial, patients received neoadjuvant atezolizumab or placebo plus chemotherapy, followed by surgery and adjuvant atezolizumab or observation.

An analysis of patient-reported outcomes showed that, after a brief decline in health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in both the atezolizumab and control arms, the burden of treatment eased and then remained similar throughout follow-up.

“Treatment-related symptoms in both arms were similar, and the addition of atezolizumab to chemotherapy was tolerable, with no additional treatment side-effect bother reported,” said Elizabeth Mittendorf, MD, PhD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston.

She presented these results in an oral abstract presentation during the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.
 

Initial results

Primary results of the IMpassion031 trial were reported at ESMO 2020 and published in The Lancet.

The trial enrolled patients with treatment-naive early TNBC, and they were randomized to receive chemotherapy plus atezolizumab or placebo. Atezolizumab was given at 840 mg intravenously every 2 weeks.

Chemotherapy consisted of nab-paclitaxel at 125 mg/m² every week for 12 weeks followed by doxorubicin at 60 mg/m² and cyclophosphamide at 600 mg/m² every 2 weeks for 8 weeks. Patients then underwent surgery, which was followed by either atezolizumab maintenance or observation.

The addition of atezolizumab was associated with a 17% improvement in the rate of pathological complete response (pCR) in the intention-to-treat population.

Among patients positive for PD-L1, atezolizumab was associated with a 20% improvement in pCR rate.
 

Patients have their say

At SABCS 2020, Dr. Mittendorf presented patient-reported outcomes (PRO) for 161 patients randomized to atezolizumab plus chemotherapy and 167 assigned to placebo plus chemotherapy.

The outcome measures – including role function (the ability to work or pursue common everyday activities), physical function, emotional and social function, and HRQOL – came from scores on the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30).

The exploratory PRO endpoints were mean function and disease- or treatment-related symptoms as well as mean change from baseline in these symptoms.

At baseline, mean physical function scores were high in both arms, at approximately 90%. They dropped to about 65% in each arm by cycle 5 and rebounded to about 80% by cycle 7.

“The change was clinically meaningful, in that the dip was greater than 10 points,” Dr. Mittendorf said. “As patients completed neoadjuvant therapy and were in the adjuvant phase of the study, there was an increase and stabilization with respect to their physical function.”

Similarly, role function declined from 89% in each arm at baseline to a nadir of about 55% in the placebo arm and 50% in the atezolizumab arm. After cycle 5, role function levels began to increase in both arms and remained above 70% from cycle 7 onward.

Role function did not completely recover or stabilize among patients in the atezolizumab arm, “and we attribute this to the fact that these patients continue to receive atezolizumab, which requires that they come to clinic for that therapy, thereby potentially impacting role function,” Dr. Mittendorf said.

She reported that HRQOL declined from a median of nearly 80% at baseline in both arms to a nadir of 62% in the placebo arm and 52% in the atezolizumab arm by cycle 5. HRQOL rebounded starting at cycle 6 and stabilized thereafter, with little daylight between the treatment arms at the most recent follow-up.

The investigators saw worsening of the treatment-related symptoms fatigue, nausea/vomiting, and diarrhea in each arm, with the highest level of symptoms except pain reported at cycle 5. The highest reported pain level was seen at cycle 4.

In each arm, the symptoms declined and stabilized in the adjuvant setting, with mean values at week 16 similar to those reported at baseline for most symptoms. The exception was fatigue, which remained slightly elevated in both arms.

Regarding side-effect bother, a similar proportion of patients in each arm reported increased level of bother by visit during the neoadjuvant phase. However, no additional side-effect bother was reported by patients receiving maintenance atezolizumab, compared with patients in the placebo arm, who were followed with observation alone.
 

‘Reassuring’ data

“What we can conclude from the PRO in IMpassion031 is that early breast cancer patients are relatively asymptomatic. They do have a good baseline quality of life and very good functioning. The neoadjuvant therapy certainly has deterioration in quality of life and functioning, but this is transient, and there was no evident burden from the atezolizumab,” said invited discussant Sylvia Adams, MD, of New York University.

She said it’s reassuring to see the addition of atezolizumab did not adversely affect HRQOL but added that the study “also shows that chemotherapy has a major impact on well-being, as expected.”

Questions and problems that still need to be addressed regarding the use of immunotherapies in early TNBC include whether every patient needs chemotherapy or immunotherapy, a lack of predictive biomarkers, whether increases in pCR rates after neoadjuvant immunotherapy and chemotherapy will translate into improved survival, and the optimal chemotherapy backbone and schedule, she said.

IMpassion031 is sponsored by F. Hoffman-LaRoche. Dr. Mittendorf disclosed relationships with Roche/Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Physicians’ Education Resource, AstraZeneca, Exact Sciences, Merck, Peregrine Pharmaceuticals, SELLAS Life Sciences, TapImmune, EMD Serono, Galena Biopharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Lilly. Dr. Adams disclosed relationships with Genentech, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Amgen, Celgene, and Novartis.

SOURCE: Mittendorf E at al. SABCS 2020, Abstract GS3-02.

Adding the immune checkpoint inhibitor atezolizumab to first-line therapy for early triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) did not significantly worsen patients’ quality of life, according to new data from the IMpassion031 trial.

In the randomized phase 3 trial, patients received neoadjuvant atezolizumab or placebo plus chemotherapy, followed by surgery and adjuvant atezolizumab or observation.

An analysis of patient-reported outcomes showed that, after a brief decline in health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in both the atezolizumab and control arms, the burden of treatment eased and then remained similar throughout follow-up.

“Treatment-related symptoms in both arms were similar, and the addition of atezolizumab to chemotherapy was tolerable, with no additional treatment side-effect bother reported,” said Elizabeth Mittendorf, MD, PhD, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston.

She presented these results in an oral abstract presentation during the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.
 

Initial results

Primary results of the IMpassion031 trial were reported at ESMO 2020 and published in The Lancet.

The trial enrolled patients with treatment-naive early TNBC, and they were randomized to receive chemotherapy plus atezolizumab or placebo. Atezolizumab was given at 840 mg intravenously every 2 weeks.

Chemotherapy consisted of nab-paclitaxel at 125 mg/m² every week for 12 weeks followed by doxorubicin at 60 mg/m² and cyclophosphamide at 600 mg/m² every 2 weeks for 8 weeks. Patients then underwent surgery, which was followed by either atezolizumab maintenance or observation.

The addition of atezolizumab was associated with a 17% improvement in the rate of pathological complete response (pCR) in the intention-to-treat population.

Among patients positive for PD-L1, atezolizumab was associated with a 20% improvement in pCR rate.
 

Patients have their say

At SABCS 2020, Dr. Mittendorf presented patient-reported outcomes (PRO) for 161 patients randomized to atezolizumab plus chemotherapy and 167 assigned to placebo plus chemotherapy.

The outcome measures – including role function (the ability to work or pursue common everyday activities), physical function, emotional and social function, and HRQOL – came from scores on the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30).

The exploratory PRO endpoints were mean function and disease- or treatment-related symptoms as well as mean change from baseline in these symptoms.

At baseline, mean physical function scores were high in both arms, at approximately 90%. They dropped to about 65% in each arm by cycle 5 and rebounded to about 80% by cycle 7.

“The change was clinically meaningful, in that the dip was greater than 10 points,” Dr. Mittendorf said. “As patients completed neoadjuvant therapy and were in the adjuvant phase of the study, there was an increase and stabilization with respect to their physical function.”

Similarly, role function declined from 89% in each arm at baseline to a nadir of about 55% in the placebo arm and 50% in the atezolizumab arm. After cycle 5, role function levels began to increase in both arms and remained above 70% from cycle 7 onward.

Role function did not completely recover or stabilize among patients in the atezolizumab arm, “and we attribute this to the fact that these patients continue to receive atezolizumab, which requires that they come to clinic for that therapy, thereby potentially impacting role function,” Dr. Mittendorf said.

She reported that HRQOL declined from a median of nearly 80% at baseline in both arms to a nadir of 62% in the placebo arm and 52% in the atezolizumab arm by cycle 5. HRQOL rebounded starting at cycle 6 and stabilized thereafter, with little daylight between the treatment arms at the most recent follow-up.

The investigators saw worsening of the treatment-related symptoms fatigue, nausea/vomiting, and diarrhea in each arm, with the highest level of symptoms except pain reported at cycle 5. The highest reported pain level was seen at cycle 4.

In each arm, the symptoms declined and stabilized in the adjuvant setting, with mean values at week 16 similar to those reported at baseline for most symptoms. The exception was fatigue, which remained slightly elevated in both arms.

Regarding side-effect bother, a similar proportion of patients in each arm reported increased level of bother by visit during the neoadjuvant phase. However, no additional side-effect bother was reported by patients receiving maintenance atezolizumab, compared with patients in the placebo arm, who were followed with observation alone.
 

‘Reassuring’ data

“What we can conclude from the PRO in IMpassion031 is that early breast cancer patients are relatively asymptomatic. They do have a good baseline quality of life and very good functioning. The neoadjuvant therapy certainly has deterioration in quality of life and functioning, but this is transient, and there was no evident burden from the atezolizumab,” said invited discussant Sylvia Adams, MD, of New York University.

She said it’s reassuring to see the addition of atezolizumab did not adversely affect HRQOL but added that the study “also shows that chemotherapy has a major impact on well-being, as expected.”

Questions and problems that still need to be addressed regarding the use of immunotherapies in early TNBC include whether every patient needs chemotherapy or immunotherapy, a lack of predictive biomarkers, whether increases in pCR rates after neoadjuvant immunotherapy and chemotherapy will translate into improved survival, and the optimal chemotherapy backbone and schedule, she said.

IMpassion031 is sponsored by F. Hoffman-LaRoche. Dr. Mittendorf disclosed relationships with Roche/Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Physicians’ Education Resource, AstraZeneca, Exact Sciences, Merck, Peregrine Pharmaceuticals, SELLAS Life Sciences, TapImmune, EMD Serono, Galena Biopharma, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Lilly. Dr. Adams disclosed relationships with Genentech, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Amgen, Celgene, and Novartis.

SOURCE: Mittendorf E at al. SABCS 2020, Abstract GS3-02.

A real-world study has revealed factors associated with longer overall survival (OS) in patients who receive cabozantinib to treat heavily pretreated, metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC).

Starting cabozantinib at 60 mg/day, prior nephrectomy, favorable- or intermediate-risk disease, and body mass index of 25 kg/m2 or higher were all significantly associated with better OS.

These findings were based on data from the early access program of the CABOREAL study and were recently published in the European Journal of Cancer.

“The CABOREAL study describes cabozantinib use in a real-life setting in the largest unselected population to date of patients with mRCC,” lead author Laurence Albiges, MD, PhD, of the Gustave Roussy Cancer Center in Villejuif, France, and colleagues wrote.

The retrospective study enrolled 410 patients with mRCC who were treated with at least one dose of cabozantinib between September 2016 and February 2018. Clinical data were collected from medical records at 26 oncology centers in France.

The researchers evaluated the real-world use of cabozantinib, including duration of therapy, treatment discontinuations, and dose changes. OS and predictive factors of OS were assessed as well.

The median age of study participants was 63.0 years (range, 56.0-70.0 years). Roughly a third of patients (33.4%) received two prior lines of therapy (33.4%), and 41.2% received three or more lines of therapy before cabozantinib. Overall, 85.6% of patients had clear cell histology.

The median duration of cabozantinib treatment was 7.6 months (range, 3.2-15.7 months). The starting dose was 60 mg, 40 mg, and 20 mg in 70.9%, 26.7%, and 2.0% of patients, respectively.

The dose was decreased in 57.0% of patients, 58.7% required a dose modification, and 15.6% required a modified dose schedule. The median average daily dose was 40.0 mg (range, 13.9-60.0 mg).

Adverse events were the main reason for dose modification or treatment interruption. In all, 92.5% of patients had a modification because of an adverse event, and 85.0% had an interruption because of an adverse event.

Upon permanent discontinuation of cabozantinib, more than half of patients (54.4%) received subsequent therapy, including nivolumab (47.8%), axitinib (21.7%), and everolimus (19.0%).

The median OS was 14.4 months (95% confidence interval, 12.4-16.2 months), and the 1-year OS rate was 56.5% (95% CI, 51.5-61.2%).

Factors significantly associated with longer OS included cabozantinib initiation at 60 mg/day (P = .0486), prior nephrectomy (P = .0109), favorable or intermediate risk according to the International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (P < .0001), and body mass index of 25 kg/m2 or higher (P = .0021).

“We report, for the first time, that the daily dose of 60 mg cabozantinib at initiation is an independent predictive factor of OS in a multivariate analysis,” the researchers wrote.

“It is interesting to see real-world studies like this to help to widen our understanding of how to utilize drugs like cabozantinib,” commented Simon Crabb, MBBS, PhD, of the University of Southampton (England).

“In general, we would expect a less favorable prognosis in patients with non-clear cell histology, likely in part part due to the underlying biology of the disease,” he added.

Dr. Albiges and colleagues acknowledged that the retrospective design and lack of a prospective safety evaluation were two key limitations of their study. However, the authors maintain that the reported cabozantinib use and exposure rates are indicative of the real-world setting.

This study was sponsored by Ipsen. Several authors disclosed financial relationships with Amgen, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Exelixis, Ipsen, and numerous other companies. Dr. Crabb reported having no conflicts of interest related to this work.

SOURCE: Albiges L et al. Eur J Cancer. 2020 Nov 27. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2020.09.030.

A real-world study has revealed factors associated with longer overall survival (OS) in patients who receive cabozantinib to treat heavily pretreated, metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC).

Starting cabozantinib at 60 mg/day, prior nephrectomy, favorable- or intermediate-risk disease, and body mass index of 25 kg/m2 or higher were all significantly associated with better OS.

These findings were based on data from the early access program of the CABOREAL study and were recently published in the European Journal of Cancer.

“The CABOREAL study describes cabozantinib use in a real-life setting in the largest unselected population to date of patients with mRCC,” lead author Laurence Albiges, MD, PhD, of the Gustave Roussy Cancer Center in Villejuif, France, and colleagues wrote.

The retrospective study enrolled 410 patients with mRCC who were treated with at least one dose of cabozantinib between September 2016 and February 2018. Clinical data were collected from medical records at 26 oncology centers in France.

The researchers evaluated the real-world use of cabozantinib, including duration of therapy, treatment discontinuations, and dose changes. OS and predictive factors of OS were assessed as well.

The median age of study participants was 63.0 years (range, 56.0-70.0 years). Roughly a third of patients (33.4%) received two prior lines of therapy (33.4%), and 41.2% received three or more lines of therapy before cabozantinib. Overall, 85.6% of patients had clear cell histology.

The median duration of cabozantinib treatment was 7.6 months (range, 3.2-15.7 months). The starting dose was 60 mg, 40 mg, and 20 mg in 70.9%, 26.7%, and 2.0% of patients, respectively.

The dose was decreased in 57.0% of patients, 58.7% required a dose modification, and 15.6% required a modified dose schedule. The median average daily dose was 40.0 mg (range, 13.9-60.0 mg).

Adverse events were the main reason for dose modification or treatment interruption. In all, 92.5% of patients had a modification because of an adverse event, and 85.0% had an interruption because of an adverse event.

Upon permanent discontinuation of cabozantinib, more than half of patients (54.4%) received subsequent therapy, including nivolumab (47.8%), axitinib (21.7%), and everolimus (19.0%).

The median OS was 14.4 months (95% confidence interval, 12.4-16.2 months), and the 1-year OS rate was 56.5% (95% CI, 51.5-61.2%).

Factors significantly associated with longer OS included cabozantinib initiation at 60 mg/day (P = .0486), prior nephrectomy (P = .0109), favorable or intermediate risk according to the International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (P < .0001), and body mass index of 25 kg/m2 or higher (P = .0021).

“We report, for the first time, that the daily dose of 60 mg cabozantinib at initiation is an independent predictive factor of OS in a multivariate analysis,” the researchers wrote.

“It is interesting to see real-world studies like this to help to widen our understanding of how to utilize drugs like cabozantinib,” commented Simon Crabb, MBBS, PhD, of the University of Southampton (England).

“In general, we would expect a less favorable prognosis in patients with non-clear cell histology, likely in part part due to the underlying biology of the disease,” he added.

Dr. Albiges and colleagues acknowledged that the retrospective design and lack of a prospective safety evaluation were two key limitations of their study. However, the authors maintain that the reported cabozantinib use and exposure rates are indicative of the real-world setting.

This study was sponsored by Ipsen. Several authors disclosed financial relationships with Amgen, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Exelixis, Ipsen, and numerous other companies. Dr. Crabb reported having no conflicts of interest related to this work.

SOURCE: Albiges L et al. Eur J Cancer. 2020 Nov 27. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2020.09.030.

A real-world study has revealed factors associated with longer overall survival (OS) in patients who receive cabozantinib to treat heavily pretreated, metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC).

Starting cabozantinib at 60 mg/day, prior nephrectomy, favorable- or intermediate-risk disease, and body mass index of 25 kg/m2 or higher were all significantly associated with better OS.

These findings were based on data from the early access program of the CABOREAL study and were recently published in the European Journal of Cancer.

“The CABOREAL study describes cabozantinib use in a real-life setting in the largest unselected population to date of patients with mRCC,” lead author Laurence Albiges, MD, PhD, of the Gustave Roussy Cancer Center in Villejuif, France, and colleagues wrote.

The retrospective study enrolled 410 patients with mRCC who were treated with at least one dose of cabozantinib between September 2016 and February 2018. Clinical data were collected from medical records at 26 oncology centers in France.

The researchers evaluated the real-world use of cabozantinib, including duration of therapy, treatment discontinuations, and dose changes. OS and predictive factors of OS were assessed as well.

The median age of study participants was 63.0 years (range, 56.0-70.0 years). Roughly a third of patients (33.4%) received two prior lines of therapy (33.4%), and 41.2% received three or more lines of therapy before cabozantinib. Overall, 85.6% of patients had clear cell histology.

The median duration of cabozantinib treatment was 7.6 months (range, 3.2-15.7 months). The starting dose was 60 mg, 40 mg, and 20 mg in 70.9%, 26.7%, and 2.0% of patients, respectively.

The dose was decreased in 57.0% of patients, 58.7% required a dose modification, and 15.6% required a modified dose schedule. The median average daily dose was 40.0 mg (range, 13.9-60.0 mg).

Adverse events were the main reason for dose modification or treatment interruption. In all, 92.5% of patients had a modification because of an adverse event, and 85.0% had an interruption because of an adverse event.

Upon permanent discontinuation of cabozantinib, more than half of patients (54.4%) received subsequent therapy, including nivolumab (47.8%), axitinib (21.7%), and everolimus (19.0%).

The median OS was 14.4 months (95% confidence interval, 12.4-16.2 months), and the 1-year OS rate was 56.5% (95% CI, 51.5-61.2%).

Factors significantly associated with longer OS included cabozantinib initiation at 60 mg/day (P = .0486), prior nephrectomy (P = .0109), favorable or intermediate risk according to the International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (P < .0001), and body mass index of 25 kg/m2 or higher (P = .0021).

“We report, for the first time, that the daily dose of 60 mg cabozantinib at initiation is an independent predictive factor of OS in a multivariate analysis,” the researchers wrote.

“It is interesting to see real-world studies like this to help to widen our understanding of how to utilize drugs like cabozantinib,” commented Simon Crabb, MBBS, PhD, of the University of Southampton (England).

“In general, we would expect a less favorable prognosis in patients with non-clear cell histology, likely in part part due to the underlying biology of the disease,” he added.

Dr. Albiges and colleagues acknowledged that the retrospective design and lack of a prospective safety evaluation were two key limitations of their study. However, the authors maintain that the reported cabozantinib use and exposure rates are indicative of the real-world setting.

This study was sponsored by Ipsen. Several authors disclosed financial relationships with Amgen, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Exelixis, Ipsen, and numerous other companies. Dr. Crabb reported having no conflicts of interest related to this work.

SOURCE: Albiges L et al. Eur J Cancer. 2020 Nov 27. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2020.09.030.

The mainstay of treatment for many musculoskeletal (MSK) complaints is physical or occupational therapy. But often an individual’s underlying biomechanical issue is one that can be easily addressed with a home exercise plan, and, in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, patients may wish to avoid in-person physical therapy. This article describes the rationale for, and methods of providing, home exercises for several MSK conditions commonly seen in the primary care setting.

General rehabilitation principles: First things first

With basic MSK complaints, focus on controlling pain and swelling before undertaking restoration of function. Tailor pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic options to the patient’s needs, using first-line modalities such as ice and compression to reduce inflammation, and prescribing scheduled doses of an anti-inflammatory medication to help with both pain and inflammation.

Once pain is sufficiently controlled, have patients begin basic rehabilitation with simple range-of-motion exercises that move the injured region through normal patterns, as tolerated. Later, the patient can progress through more specific exercises to return the injured region to full functional capacity.

Explain to patients that it takes about 7 to 10 days of consistent care to decrease inflammation, but that they should begin prescribed exercises once they are able to tolerate them. Plan a follow-up visit in 2 to 3 weeks to check on the patient’s response to prescribed care.

Which is better, ice or heat?

Ice and heat are both commonly used to treat MSK injuries and pain, although scrutiny of the use of either intervention has increased. Despite the widespread use of these modalities, there is little evidence to support their effect on patient outcomes. The historical consensus has been that ice decreases pain, inflammation, and edema,while heat can facilitate movement in rehabilitation by improving blood flow and decreasing stiffness.^1-3 In our practice, we encourage use of both topical modalities as a way to start exercise therapy when pain from the acute injury limits participation. Patients often ask which modality they should use. Ice is generally applied in the acute injury phase (48-72 hours after injury), while heat has been thought to be more beneficial in the chronic stages.

Ccontinue to: When and how to apply ice

When and how to apply ice. Applying an ice pack or a bag of frozen vegetables directly to the affected area will help control pain and swelling. Ice should be applied for 15 to 20 minutes at a time, once an hour. If a patient has sensitivity to cold or if the ice pack is a gel-type, have the patient place a layer (eg, towel) between the ice and skin to avoid injury to the skin. Additional caution should be exercised in patients with peripheral vascular disease, cryoglobulinemia, Raynaud disease, or a history of frostbite at the site.⁴

An alternative method we sometimes recommend is ice-cup massage. The patient can fill a small paper cup with water and freeze it. The cup is then used to massage the injured area, providing a more active method of icing whereby the cold can penetrate more quickly. Ice-cup massage should be done for 5 to 10 minutes, 3 to 4 times a day.

When and how to apply heat. Heat will help relax and loosen muscles and is a preferred treatment for older injuries, chronic pain, muscle tension, and spasms.⁵ Because heat can increase blood flow and, likely, inflammation, it should not be used in the acute injury phase. A heating pad or a warm, wet towel can be applied for up to 20 minutes at a time to help relieve pain and tension. Heat is also beneficial before participating in rehab activities as a method of “warming up” a recently injured area.⁶ However, ice should still be used following activity to prevent any new inflammation.

Anti-inflammatory medications

For an acute injury, nonsteroidal anti-­inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) not only can decrease inflammation and aid in healing but can alleviate pain. We typically start with over-the-counter (OTC) NSAIDs taken on a schedule. A good suggestion is to have the patient take the scheduled NSAID with food for 7 to 10 days or until symptoms subside.

Topical analgesics

Because oral medications can occasionally cause adverse effects or be contraindicated in some patients, topical analgesics can be a good substitute due to their minimal adverse effects. Acceptable topical medications include NSAIDs, lidocaine, menthol, and arnica. Other than prescribed topical NSAIDs, these products can be applied directly to the painful area on an as-needed basis. Often, a topical patch is a nice option to recommend for use during work or school, and a topical cream or ointment can be used at bedtime.

Continue to: Graduated rehabilitation

Graduated rehabilitation

The following 4 common MSK injuries are ones that can benefit from a graduated approach to rehabilitation at home.

Lateral ankle sprain

Lateral ankle sprain, usually resulting from an inversion mechanism, is the most common type of acute ankle sprain seen in primary care and sports medicine settings.^7-9 The injury causes lateral ankle pain and swelling, decreased range of motion and strength, and pain with weight-bearing activities.

Have patients avoid using heat in the acute injury phase because it can increase inflammation due to increased blood flow.

Treatment and rehabilitation after this type of injury are critical to restoring normal function and increasing the likelihood of returning to pre-injury levels of activity.^9,10 Goals for an acute ankle sprain include controlling swelling, regaining full range of motion, increasing muscle strength and power, and improving balance.

Phase 1: Immediately following injury, have the patient protect the injured area with rest, ice, compression, and elevation (RICE). This will help to decrease swelling and pain. Exercises to regain range of motion, such as stretching and doing ankle “ABCs,” should begin within 48 to 72 hours of the initial injury (TABLE 1).^9-11

Continue to: Phase 2

Phase 2: Once the patient has achieved full range of motion and pain is controlled, begin the process of regaining strength. The 4-way ankle exercise program (with elastic tubing) is an easy at-home exercise that has been shown to improve strength in plantar flexion, dorsiflexion, eversion, and inversion (TABLE 1).^9-11

Phase 3: Once your patient is able to bear full weight with little to no pain, begin a balance program (TABLE 1^9-11). This is the most frequently neglected component of rehabilitation and the most common reason patients return with chronic ankle pain or repeat ankle injuries. Deficits in postural stability and balance have been reported in unstable ankles following acute ankle sprains,^10,12-15 and studies have shown that individuals with poor stability are at a greater risk of injury.^13-16

For most lateral ankle sprains, patients can expect time to recovery to range from 2 to 8 weeks. Longer recoveries are associated with more severe injuries or those that involve the syndesmosis.

Plantar fasciitis

Plantar fasciitis (PF) of the foot can be frustrating for a patient due to its chronic nature. Most patients will present with pain in the heel that is aggravated by weight-bearing activities. A conservative management program that focuses on reducing pain and inflammation, reducing tissue stress, and restoring strength and flexibility has been shown to be effective for this type of injury.^17,18

Step 1: Reduce pain and inflammation. Deep-tissue massage and cryotherapy are easy ways to help with pain and inflammation. Deep-tissue massage can be accomplished by rolling the bottom of the foot on a golf or lacrosse ball. A favorite recommendation of ours to reduce inflammation is to use the ice-cup massage, mentioned earlier, for 5 minutes. Or rolling the bottom of the foot on a frozen water bottle will accomplish both tasks at once (TABLE 2^17,18).

Step 2: Reduce tissue stress. Management tools commonly used to reduce tissue stress are OTC orthotics and night splints. The night splint has been shown to improve symptoms,but patients often stop using it due to discomfort.¹⁹ Many kinds of night splints are available, but we have found that the sock variety with a strap to keep the foot in dorsiflexion is best tolerated, and it should be covered by most care plans.

Continue to: Step 3

Step 3: Restore muscle strength and flexibility. Restoring flexibility of the gastrocnemius and soleus is most frequently recommended for treating PF. Strengthening exercises that involve intrinsic and extrinsic muscles of the foot and ankle are also essential.^17,18 Helpful exercises include those listed in TABLE 1.^9-11 Additionally, an eccentric heel stretch can help to alleviate PF symptoms (TABLE 2^17,18).

A reasonable timeline for follow-up on newly diagnosed PF is 4 to 6 weeks. While many patients will not have recovered in that time, the goal is to document progress in recovery. If no progress is made, consider other treatment modalities.

Patellofemoral pain syndrome

Patellofemoral pain syndrome (PFPS) is one of the most common orthopedic complaints, estimated to comprise 7.3% of all orthopedic visits.²⁰ Commonly called “runner’s knee,” PFPS is the leading cause of anterior knee pain in active individuals. Studies suggest a gender bias, with PFPS being diagnosed more frequently in females than in males, particularly between the ages of 10 and 19.²⁰ Often, there is vague anterior knee pain, or pain that worsens with activities such as climbing hills or stairs, or with long sitting or when fatigued.

In general, unbalanced patellar tracking within the trochlear groove likely leads to this pain. Multiple contributory factors have been described; however, evidence increasingly has shown that deficiencies in hip strength may contribute significantly to maltracking of the patella with resultant pain. Specifically, weakness in hip external rotators and abductors is associated with abnormal lower extremity mechanics.²¹ One randomized controlled trial by Ferber et al found that therapy protocols directed at hip and core strength showed earlier resolution of pain and greater strength when compared with knee protocols alone.²²

We routinely talk to patients about how the knee is the “victim” caught between weak hips and/or flat feet. It is prudent to look for both in the office visit. This can be done with one simple maneuver: Ask your patient to do a squat followed by 3 or 4 single-leg squats on each side. This will often reveal dysfunction at the foot/ankle or weakness in the hips/core as demonstrated by pronated feet (along with valgus tracking of the knees inward) or loss of balance upon squatting.

There is general consensus that a nonsurgical approach is the mainstay of treatment for PFPS.²³ Pelvic stabilization and hip strengthening are standard components along with treatment protocols of exercises tailored to one’s individual weaknesses.

Numerous types of exercises do not require specialized equipment and can be taught in the office (TABLE 3²⁴). Explain to patients that the recovery process may take several months. Monthly follow-up to document progress is essential and helps to ensure compliance with one’s home program.

Continue to : Neck pain

Neck pain

The annual prevalence of nonspecific neck pain ranges from 27% to 48%, with 70% of individuals being afflicted at some time in their lives.²⁵ First rule out any neurologic factors that might suggest cervical disc disease or spinal stenosis. If a patient describes weakness or sensory changes along one or both upper extremities, obtain imaging and consider more formalized therapy with a physical therapist.

In patients without any red flags, investigate possible biomechanical causes. It is essential to review the patient’s work and home habits, particularly in light of COVID-19, to determine if adjustments may be needed. Factors to consider are desk and computer setups at work or home, reading or laptop use in bed, sleep habits, and frequency of cellular phone calls/texting.²⁶ A formal ergonomic assessment of the patient’s workplace may be helpful.

A mainstay in treating mechanical neck pain is alleviating trapezial tightness or spasm. Manipulative therapies such as osteopathic manipulation, massage, and chiropractic care can provide pain relief in the acute setting as well as help with control of chronic symptoms.²⁷ A simple self-care tool is using a tennis ball to massage the trapezial muscles. This can be accomplished by having the patient position the tennis ball along the upper trapezial muscles, holding it in place by leaning against a wall, and initiating self-massage. Another method of self-massage is to put 2 tennis balls in an athletic tube sock and tie off the end, place the sock on the floor, and lie on it in the supine position.

There is also evidence that exercise of any kind can help control neck pain.^28,29 The easiest exercises one can offer a patient with neck stiffness, or even mild cervical strains, is self-directed stretching through gentle pressure applied in all 4 directions on the neck. This technique can be repeated hourly both at work and at home (TABLE 4).

Reminders that can help ensure success

You can use the approaches described here for numerous other MSK conditions in helping patients on the road to recovery.

After the acute phase, advise patients to

• apply heat to the affected area before exercising. This can help bring blood flow to the region and promote ease of movement.

• continue icing the area following rehabilitation exercises in order to control exercise-induced inflammation.

• report any changing symptoms such as worsening pain, numbness, or weakness.


These techniques are one step in the recovery process. A home program can benefit the patient either alone or in combination with more advanced techniques that are best accomplished under the watchful eye of a physical or occupational therapist.
 

CORRESPONDENCE

Carrie A. Jaworski, MD, FAAFP, FACSM, 2180 Pfingsten Road, Suite 3100, Glenview, IL 60026; [email protected]

The mainstay of treatment for many musculoskeletal (MSK) complaints is physical or occupational therapy. But often an individual’s underlying biomechanical issue is one that can be easily addressed with a home exercise plan, and, in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, patients may wish to avoid in-person physical therapy. This article describes the rationale for, and methods of providing, home exercises for several MSK conditions commonly seen in the primary care setting.

General rehabilitation principles: First things first

With basic MSK complaints, focus on controlling pain and swelling before undertaking restoration of function. Tailor pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic options to the patient’s needs, using first-line modalities such as ice and compression to reduce inflammation, and prescribing scheduled doses of an anti-inflammatory medication to help with both pain and inflammation.

Once pain is sufficiently controlled, have patients begin basic rehabilitation with simple range-of-motion exercises that move the injured region through normal patterns, as tolerated. Later, the patient can progress through more specific exercises to return the injured region to full functional capacity.

Explain to patients that it takes about 7 to 10 days of consistent care to decrease inflammation, but that they should begin prescribed exercises once they are able to tolerate them. Plan a follow-up visit in 2 to 3 weeks to check on the patient’s response to prescribed care.

Which is better, ice or heat?

Ice and heat are both commonly used to treat MSK injuries and pain, although scrutiny of the use of either intervention has increased. Despite the widespread use of these modalities, there is little evidence to support their effect on patient outcomes. The historical consensus has been that ice decreases pain, inflammation, and edema,while heat can facilitate movement in rehabilitation by improving blood flow and decreasing stiffness.^1-3 In our practice, we encourage use of both topical modalities as a way to start exercise therapy when pain from the acute injury limits participation. Patients often ask which modality they should use. Ice is generally applied in the acute injury phase (48-72 hours after injury), while heat has been thought to be more beneficial in the chronic stages.

Ccontinue to: When and how to apply ice

When and how to apply ice. Applying an ice pack or a bag of frozen vegetables directly to the affected area will help control pain and swelling. Ice should be applied for 15 to 20 minutes at a time, once an hour. If a patient has sensitivity to cold or if the ice pack is a gel-type, have the patient place a layer (eg, towel) between the ice and skin to avoid injury to the skin. Additional caution should be exercised in patients with peripheral vascular disease, cryoglobulinemia, Raynaud disease, or a history of frostbite at the site.⁴

An alternative method we sometimes recommend is ice-cup massage. The patient can fill a small paper cup with water and freeze it. The cup is then used to massage the injured area, providing a more active method of icing whereby the cold can penetrate more quickly. Ice-cup massage should be done for 5 to 10 minutes, 3 to 4 times a day.

When and how to apply heat. Heat will help relax and loosen muscles and is a preferred treatment for older injuries, chronic pain, muscle tension, and spasms.⁵ Because heat can increase blood flow and, likely, inflammation, it should not be used in the acute injury phase. A heating pad or a warm, wet towel can be applied for up to 20 minutes at a time to help relieve pain and tension. Heat is also beneficial before participating in rehab activities as a method of “warming up” a recently injured area.⁶ However, ice should still be used following activity to prevent any new inflammation.

Anti-inflammatory medications

For an acute injury, nonsteroidal anti-­inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) not only can decrease inflammation and aid in healing but can alleviate pain. We typically start with over-the-counter (OTC) NSAIDs taken on a schedule. A good suggestion is to have the patient take the scheduled NSAID with food for 7 to 10 days or until symptoms subside.

Topical analgesics

Because oral medications can occasionally cause adverse effects or be contraindicated in some patients, topical analgesics can be a good substitute due to their minimal adverse effects. Acceptable topical medications include NSAIDs, lidocaine, menthol, and arnica. Other than prescribed topical NSAIDs, these products can be applied directly to the painful area on an as-needed basis. Often, a topical patch is a nice option to recommend for use during work or school, and a topical cream or ointment can be used at bedtime.

Continue to: Graduated rehabilitation

Graduated rehabilitation

The following 4 common MSK injuries are ones that can benefit from a graduated approach to rehabilitation at home.

Lateral ankle sprain

Lateral ankle sprain, usually resulting from an inversion mechanism, is the most common type of acute ankle sprain seen in primary care and sports medicine settings.^7-9 The injury causes lateral ankle pain and swelling, decreased range of motion and strength, and pain with weight-bearing activities.

Have patients avoid using heat in the acute injury phase because it can increase inflammation due to increased blood flow.

Treatment and rehabilitation after this type of injury are critical to restoring normal function and increasing the likelihood of returning to pre-injury levels of activity.^9,10 Goals for an acute ankle sprain include controlling swelling, regaining full range of motion, increasing muscle strength and power, and improving balance.

Phase 1: Immediately following injury, have the patient protect the injured area with rest, ice, compression, and elevation (RICE). This will help to decrease swelling and pain. Exercises to regain range of motion, such as stretching and doing ankle “ABCs,” should begin within 48 to 72 hours of the initial injury (TABLE 1).^9-11

Continue to: Phase 2

Phase 2: Once the patient has achieved full range of motion and pain is controlled, begin the process of regaining strength. The 4-way ankle exercise program (with elastic tubing) is an easy at-home exercise that has been shown to improve strength in plantar flexion, dorsiflexion, eversion, and inversion (TABLE 1).^9-11

Phase 3: Once your patient is able to bear full weight with little to no pain, begin a balance program (TABLE 1^9-11). This is the most frequently neglected component of rehabilitation and the most common reason patients return with chronic ankle pain or repeat ankle injuries. Deficits in postural stability and balance have been reported in unstable ankles following acute ankle sprains,^10,12-15 and studies have shown that individuals with poor stability are at a greater risk of injury.^13-16

For most lateral ankle sprains, patients can expect time to recovery to range from 2 to 8 weeks. Longer recoveries are associated with more severe injuries or those that involve the syndesmosis.

Plantar fasciitis

Plantar fasciitis (PF) of the foot can be frustrating for a patient due to its chronic nature. Most patients will present with pain in the heel that is aggravated by weight-bearing activities. A conservative management program that focuses on reducing pain and inflammation, reducing tissue stress, and restoring strength and flexibility has been shown to be effective for this type of injury.^17,18

Step 1: Reduce pain and inflammation. Deep-tissue massage and cryotherapy are easy ways to help with pain and inflammation. Deep-tissue massage can be accomplished by rolling the bottom of the foot on a golf or lacrosse ball. A favorite recommendation of ours to reduce inflammation is to use the ice-cup massage, mentioned earlier, for 5 minutes. Or rolling the bottom of the foot on a frozen water bottle will accomplish both tasks at once (TABLE 2^17,18).

Step 2: Reduce tissue stress. Management tools commonly used to reduce tissue stress are OTC orthotics and night splints. The night splint has been shown to improve symptoms,but patients often stop using it due to discomfort.¹⁹ Many kinds of night splints are available, but we have found that the sock variety with a strap to keep the foot in dorsiflexion is best tolerated, and it should be covered by most care plans.

Continue to: Step 3

Step 3: Restore muscle strength and flexibility. Restoring flexibility of the gastrocnemius and soleus is most frequently recommended for treating PF. Strengthening exercises that involve intrinsic and extrinsic muscles of the foot and ankle are also essential.^17,18 Helpful exercises include those listed in TABLE 1.^9-11 Additionally, an eccentric heel stretch can help to alleviate PF symptoms (TABLE 2^17,18).

A reasonable timeline for follow-up on newly diagnosed PF is 4 to 6 weeks. While many patients will not have recovered in that time, the goal is to document progress in recovery. If no progress is made, consider other treatment modalities.

Patellofemoral pain syndrome

Patellofemoral pain syndrome (PFPS) is one of the most common orthopedic complaints, estimated to comprise 7.3% of all orthopedic visits.²⁰ Commonly called “runner’s knee,” PFPS is the leading cause of anterior knee pain in active individuals. Studies suggest a gender bias, with PFPS being diagnosed more frequently in females than in males, particularly between the ages of 10 and 19.²⁰ Often, there is vague anterior knee pain, or pain that worsens with activities such as climbing hills or stairs, or with long sitting or when fatigued.

In general, unbalanced patellar tracking within the trochlear groove likely leads to this pain. Multiple contributory factors have been described; however, evidence increasingly has shown that deficiencies in hip strength may contribute significantly to maltracking of the patella with resultant pain. Specifically, weakness in hip external rotators and abductors is associated with abnormal lower extremity mechanics.²¹ One randomized controlled trial by Ferber et al found that therapy protocols directed at hip and core strength showed earlier resolution of pain and greater strength when compared with knee protocols alone.²²

We routinely talk to patients about how the knee is the “victim” caught between weak hips and/or flat feet. It is prudent to look for both in the office visit. This can be done with one simple maneuver: Ask your patient to do a squat followed by 3 or 4 single-leg squats on each side. This will often reveal dysfunction at the foot/ankle or weakness in the hips/core as demonstrated by pronated feet (along with valgus tracking of the knees inward) or loss of balance upon squatting.

There is general consensus that a nonsurgical approach is the mainstay of treatment for PFPS.²³ Pelvic stabilization and hip strengthening are standard components along with treatment protocols of exercises tailored to one’s individual weaknesses.

Numerous types of exercises do not require specialized equipment and can be taught in the office (TABLE 3²⁴). Explain to patients that the recovery process may take several months. Monthly follow-up to document progress is essential and helps to ensure compliance with one’s home program.

Continue to : Neck pain

Neck pain

The annual prevalence of nonspecific neck pain ranges from 27% to 48%, with 70% of individuals being afflicted at some time in their lives.²⁵ First rule out any neurologic factors that might suggest cervical disc disease or spinal stenosis. If a patient describes weakness or sensory changes along one or both upper extremities, obtain imaging and consider more formalized therapy with a physical therapist.

In patients without any red flags, investigate possible biomechanical causes. It is essential to review the patient’s work and home habits, particularly in light of COVID-19, to determine if adjustments may be needed. Factors to consider are desk and computer setups at work or home, reading or laptop use in bed, sleep habits, and frequency of cellular phone calls/texting.²⁶ A formal ergonomic assessment of the patient’s workplace may be helpful.

A mainstay in treating mechanical neck pain is alleviating trapezial tightness or spasm. Manipulative therapies such as osteopathic manipulation, massage, and chiropractic care can provide pain relief in the acute setting as well as help with control of chronic symptoms.²⁷ A simple self-care tool is using a tennis ball to massage the trapezial muscles. This can be accomplished by having the patient position the tennis ball along the upper trapezial muscles, holding it in place by leaning against a wall, and initiating self-massage. Another method of self-massage is to put 2 tennis balls in an athletic tube sock and tie off the end, place the sock on the floor, and lie on it in the supine position.

There is also evidence that exercise of any kind can help control neck pain.^28,29 The easiest exercises one can offer a patient with neck stiffness, or even mild cervical strains, is self-directed stretching through gentle pressure applied in all 4 directions on the neck. This technique can be repeated hourly both at work and at home (TABLE 4).

Reminders that can help ensure success

You can use the approaches described here for numerous other MSK conditions in helping patients on the road to recovery.

After the acute phase, advise patients to

• apply heat to the affected area before exercising. This can help bring blood flow to the region and promote ease of movement.

• continue icing the area following rehabilitation exercises in order to control exercise-induced inflammation.

• report any changing symptoms such as worsening pain, numbness, or weakness.


These techniques are one step in the recovery process. A home program can benefit the patient either alone or in combination with more advanced techniques that are best accomplished under the watchful eye of a physical or occupational therapist.
 

CORRESPONDENCE

Carrie A. Jaworski, MD, FAAFP, FACSM, 2180 Pfingsten Road, Suite 3100, Glenview, IL 60026; [email protected]

The mainstay of treatment for many musculoskeletal (MSK) complaints is physical or occupational therapy. But often an individual’s underlying biomechanical issue is one that can be easily addressed with a home exercise plan, and, in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, patients may wish to avoid in-person physical therapy. This article describes the rationale for, and methods of providing, home exercises for several MSK conditions commonly seen in the primary care setting.

General rehabilitation principles: First things first

With basic MSK complaints, focus on controlling pain and swelling before undertaking restoration of function. Tailor pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic options to the patient’s needs, using first-line modalities such as ice and compression to reduce inflammation, and prescribing scheduled doses of an anti-inflammatory medication to help with both pain and inflammation.

Once pain is sufficiently controlled, have patients begin basic rehabilitation with simple range-of-motion exercises that move the injured region through normal patterns, as tolerated. Later, the patient can progress through more specific exercises to return the injured region to full functional capacity.

Explain to patients that it takes about 7 to 10 days of consistent care to decrease inflammation, but that they should begin prescribed exercises once they are able to tolerate them. Plan a follow-up visit in 2 to 3 weeks to check on the patient’s response to prescribed care.

Which is better, ice or heat?

Ice and heat are both commonly used to treat MSK injuries and pain, although scrutiny of the use of either intervention has increased. Despite the widespread use of these modalities, there is little evidence to support their effect on patient outcomes. The historical consensus has been that ice decreases pain, inflammation, and edema,while heat can facilitate movement in rehabilitation by improving blood flow and decreasing stiffness.^1-3 In our practice, we encourage use of both topical modalities as a way to start exercise therapy when pain from the acute injury limits participation. Patients often ask which modality they should use. Ice is generally applied in the acute injury phase (48-72 hours after injury), while heat has been thought to be more beneficial in the chronic stages.

Ccontinue to: When and how to apply ice

When and how to apply ice. Applying an ice pack or a bag of frozen vegetables directly to the affected area will help control pain and swelling. Ice should be applied for 15 to 20 minutes at a time, once an hour. If a patient has sensitivity to cold or if the ice pack is a gel-type, have the patient place a layer (eg, towel) between the ice and skin to avoid injury to the skin. Additional caution should be exercised in patients with peripheral vascular disease, cryoglobulinemia, Raynaud disease, or a history of frostbite at the site.⁴

An alternative method we sometimes recommend is ice-cup massage. The patient can fill a small paper cup with water and freeze it. The cup is then used to massage the injured area, providing a more active method of icing whereby the cold can penetrate more quickly. Ice-cup massage should be done for 5 to 10 minutes, 3 to 4 times a day.

When and how to apply heat. Heat will help relax and loosen muscles and is a preferred treatment for older injuries, chronic pain, muscle tension, and spasms.⁵ Because heat can increase blood flow and, likely, inflammation, it should not be used in the acute injury phase. A heating pad or a warm, wet towel can be applied for up to 20 minutes at a time to help relieve pain and tension. Heat is also beneficial before participating in rehab activities as a method of “warming up” a recently injured area.⁶ However, ice should still be used following activity to prevent any new inflammation.

Anti-inflammatory medications

For an acute injury, nonsteroidal anti-­inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) not only can decrease inflammation and aid in healing but can alleviate pain. We typically start with over-the-counter (OTC) NSAIDs taken on a schedule. A good suggestion is to have the patient take the scheduled NSAID with food for 7 to 10 days or until symptoms subside.

Topical analgesics

Because oral medications can occasionally cause adverse effects or be contraindicated in some patients, topical analgesics can be a good substitute due to their minimal adverse effects. Acceptable topical medications include NSAIDs, lidocaine, menthol, and arnica. Other than prescribed topical NSAIDs, these products can be applied directly to the painful area on an as-needed basis. Often, a topical patch is a nice option to recommend for use during work or school, and a topical cream or ointment can be used at bedtime.

Continue to: Graduated rehabilitation

Graduated rehabilitation

The following 4 common MSK injuries are ones that can benefit from a graduated approach to rehabilitation at home.

Lateral ankle sprain

Lateral ankle sprain, usually resulting from an inversion mechanism, is the most common type of acute ankle sprain seen in primary care and sports medicine settings.^7-9 The injury causes lateral ankle pain and swelling, decreased range of motion and strength, and pain with weight-bearing activities.

Have patients avoid using heat in the acute injury phase because it can increase inflammation due to increased blood flow.

Treatment and rehabilitation after this type of injury are critical to restoring normal function and increasing the likelihood of returning to pre-injury levels of activity.^9,10 Goals for an acute ankle sprain include controlling swelling, regaining full range of motion, increasing muscle strength and power, and improving balance.

Phase 1: Immediately following injury, have the patient protect the injured area with rest, ice, compression, and elevation (RICE). This will help to decrease swelling and pain. Exercises to regain range of motion, such as stretching and doing ankle “ABCs,” should begin within 48 to 72 hours of the initial injury (TABLE 1).^9-11

Continue to: Phase 2

Phase 2: Once the patient has achieved full range of motion and pain is controlled, begin the process of regaining strength. The 4-way ankle exercise program (with elastic tubing) is an easy at-home exercise that has been shown to improve strength in plantar flexion, dorsiflexion, eversion, and inversion (TABLE 1).^9-11

Phase 3: Once your patient is able to bear full weight with little to no pain, begin a balance program (TABLE 1^9-11). This is the most frequently neglected component of rehabilitation and the most common reason patients return with chronic ankle pain or repeat ankle injuries. Deficits in postural stability and balance have been reported in unstable ankles following acute ankle sprains,^10,12-15 and studies have shown that individuals with poor stability are at a greater risk of injury.^13-16

For most lateral ankle sprains, patients can expect time to recovery to range from 2 to 8 weeks. Longer recoveries are associated with more severe injuries or those that involve the syndesmosis.

Plantar fasciitis

Plantar fasciitis (PF) of the foot can be frustrating for a patient due to its chronic nature. Most patients will present with pain in the heel that is aggravated by weight-bearing activities. A conservative management program that focuses on reducing pain and inflammation, reducing tissue stress, and restoring strength and flexibility has been shown to be effective for this type of injury.^17,18

Step 1: Reduce pain and inflammation. Deep-tissue massage and cryotherapy are easy ways to help with pain and inflammation. Deep-tissue massage can be accomplished by rolling the bottom of the foot on a golf or lacrosse ball. A favorite recommendation of ours to reduce inflammation is to use the ice-cup massage, mentioned earlier, for 5 minutes. Or rolling the bottom of the foot on a frozen water bottle will accomplish both tasks at once (TABLE 2^17,18).

Step 2: Reduce tissue stress. Management tools commonly used to reduce tissue stress are OTC orthotics and night splints. The night splint has been shown to improve symptoms,but patients often stop using it due to discomfort.¹⁹ Many kinds of night splints are available, but we have found that the sock variety with a strap to keep the foot in dorsiflexion is best tolerated, and it should be covered by most care plans.

Continue to: Step 3

Step 3: Restore muscle strength and flexibility. Restoring flexibility of the gastrocnemius and soleus is most frequently recommended for treating PF. Strengthening exercises that involve intrinsic and extrinsic muscles of the foot and ankle are also essential.^17,18 Helpful exercises include those listed in TABLE 1.^9-11 Additionally, an eccentric heel stretch can help to alleviate PF symptoms (TABLE 2^17,18).

A reasonable timeline for follow-up on newly diagnosed PF is 4 to 6 weeks. While many patients will not have recovered in that time, the goal is to document progress in recovery. If no progress is made, consider other treatment modalities.

Patellofemoral pain syndrome

Patellofemoral pain syndrome (PFPS) is one of the most common orthopedic complaints, estimated to comprise 7.3% of all orthopedic visits.²⁰ Commonly called “runner’s knee,” PFPS is the leading cause of anterior knee pain in active individuals. Studies suggest a gender bias, with PFPS being diagnosed more frequently in females than in males, particularly between the ages of 10 and 19.²⁰ Often, there is vague anterior knee pain, or pain that worsens with activities such as climbing hills or stairs, or with long sitting or when fatigued.

In general, unbalanced patellar tracking within the trochlear groove likely leads to this pain. Multiple contributory factors have been described; however, evidence increasingly has shown that deficiencies in hip strength may contribute significantly to maltracking of the patella with resultant pain. Specifically, weakness in hip external rotators and abductors is associated with abnormal lower extremity mechanics.²¹ One randomized controlled trial by Ferber et al found that therapy protocols directed at hip and core strength showed earlier resolution of pain and greater strength when compared with knee protocols alone.²²

We routinely talk to patients about how the knee is the “victim” caught between weak hips and/or flat feet. It is prudent to look for both in the office visit. This can be done with one simple maneuver: Ask your patient to do a squat followed by 3 or 4 single-leg squats on each side. This will often reveal dysfunction at the foot/ankle or weakness in the hips/core as demonstrated by pronated feet (along with valgus tracking of the knees inward) or loss of balance upon squatting.

There is general consensus that a nonsurgical approach is the mainstay of treatment for PFPS.²³ Pelvic stabilization and hip strengthening are standard components along with treatment protocols of exercises tailored to one’s individual weaknesses.

Numerous types of exercises do not require specialized equipment and can be taught in the office (TABLE 3²⁴). Explain to patients that the recovery process may take several months. Monthly follow-up to document progress is essential and helps to ensure compliance with one’s home program.

Continue to : Neck pain

Neck pain

The annual prevalence of nonspecific neck pain ranges from 27% to 48%, with 70% of individuals being afflicted at some time in their lives.²⁵ First rule out any neurologic factors that might suggest cervical disc disease or spinal stenosis. If a patient describes weakness or sensory changes along one or both upper extremities, obtain imaging and consider more formalized therapy with a physical therapist.

In patients without any red flags, investigate possible biomechanical causes. It is essential to review the patient’s work and home habits, particularly in light of COVID-19, to determine if adjustments may be needed. Factors to consider are desk and computer setups at work or home, reading or laptop use in bed, sleep habits, and frequency of cellular phone calls/texting.²⁶ A formal ergonomic assessment of the patient’s workplace may be helpful.

A mainstay in treating mechanical neck pain is alleviating trapezial tightness or spasm. Manipulative therapies such as osteopathic manipulation, massage, and chiropractic care can provide pain relief in the acute setting as well as help with control of chronic symptoms.²⁷ A simple self-care tool is using a tennis ball to massage the trapezial muscles. This can be accomplished by having the patient position the tennis ball along the upper trapezial muscles, holding it in place by leaning against a wall, and initiating self-massage. Another method of self-massage is to put 2 tennis balls in an athletic tube sock and tie off the end, place the sock on the floor, and lie on it in the supine position.

There is also evidence that exercise of any kind can help control neck pain.^28,29 The easiest exercises one can offer a patient with neck stiffness, or even mild cervical strains, is self-directed stretching through gentle pressure applied in all 4 directions on the neck. This technique can be repeated hourly both at work and at home (TABLE 4).

Reminders that can help ensure success

You can use the approaches described here for numerous other MSK conditions in helping patients on the road to recovery.

After the acute phase, advise patients to

• apply heat to the affected area before exercising. This can help bring blood flow to the region and promote ease of movement.

• continue icing the area following rehabilitation exercises in order to control exercise-induced inflammation.

• report any changing symptoms such as worsening pain, numbness, or weakness.


These techniques are one step in the recovery process. A home program can benefit the patient either alone or in combination with more advanced techniques that are best accomplished under the watchful eye of a physical or occupational therapist.
 

CORRESPONDENCE

Carrie A. Jaworski, MD, FAAFP, FACSM, 2180 Pfingsten Road, Suite 3100, Glenview, IL 60026; [email protected]

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) advisory committee recommended on December 12 the recently authorized Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for people age 16 and over in the United States, stating they found it was safe and effective.

The agency said it will quickly issue guidance to clinicians so they can determine when and when not to give the vaccine, and to help them communicate the risks and benefits to patients.

CDC staff gave a preview of those clinical considerations at the agency’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) meeting on December 12 and said it would be holding calls with clinicians on December 13 and 14.

The CDC will also issue guidance December 13 on how organizations can handle the workforce problems that might arise as health care workers experience side effects from vaccination.

ACIP voted 11-0, with three recusals, to recommend use of the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine in individuals 16 years or older according to the guidelines of the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) emergency use authorization issued December 11.

The panel also voted unanimously to include the vaccine in 2021 immunization schedules. All panel members said the recommendation should go hand-in-hand with ACIP’s previous recommendation on December 1 that allocation of the vaccine be phased-in, with health care workers and residents and staff of long-term care facilities in phase 1a.

Allergies, pregnant women?

ACIP panelists said clinicians need more guidance on whether to use the vaccine in pregnant or breastfeeding women, the immunocompromised, or those who have a history of allergies.

The FDA health care provider information sheet said there is not enough data to recommend vaccinating those women or the immunocompromised, and also advises against giving the vaccine to individuals who have a history of serious allergic reaction to any component of the vaccine.

Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologic Evaluation and Research (CBER) clarified this in a briefing on December 12, noting that women who are pregnant or lactating can make the decision in consultation with their physician. And, he said, patients with any other history of allergy should be able to safely get the vaccine.

The CDC — in its soon-to-be-released guidance — will make the same recommendations. For any woman considering vaccination, she should consider the level of COVID-19 in the community, her personal risk of contracting the virus, the risks to her or her fetus of developing the disease, and the vaccine’s known side effects, Sarah Mbaeyi, MD, MPH, a medical officer at the agency, said during the panel meeting December 12.

She added that the CDC will also urge physicians to advise women to take acetaminophen if they develop a fever after vaccination — to protect the developing fetus from fever.

Sandra Fryhofer, MD, representing the American Medical Association, commended the CDC for these recommendations. But she also called on Pfizer, the FDA, and the CDC to make data from the developmental and reproductive toxicity (DART) studies public as soon as possible.

“We really need to put those results on warp speed and get them out there to give our physicians and pregnant women more information,” said Fryhofer, an adjunct associate professor of medicine at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) will also soon release guidance for vaccinating pregnant and breastfeeding women, said Linda Eckert, MD, FACOG, an ACOG representative on the panel.

ACOG and the CDC met the morning of December 12 to discuss risks and benefits with experts in immunology, placental pathology, and vaccine kinetics, she said.

“The overall complete consensus was that we don’t see biological plausibility at this time for placental transfer of the mRNA and that we see that direct fetal exposure or the possibility of fetal inflammatory response is extremely unlikely,” said Eckert, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Washington, Seattle. “Clearly we are waiting on the data.”

A Pfizer official told the ACIP panel that preliminary data “show no indication of either developmental or reproductive toxicity,” and that the company plans to send the final DART data to the FDA at the end of December.

On the potential for allergic reactions, the CDC concurred with the FDA that the vaccine should not be given to people with a history of serious reactions. The agency added that the category should include anyone who has had a reaction to any vaccine or injectable drug product because injectables may contain the same ingredients as the Pfizer vaccine, said Mbaeyi.

The CDC will also urge clinicians to observe patients with a history of anaphylaxis for 30 minutes after vaccination and all patients for at least 15 minutes afterward.

Should teens be a special population?

At least one ACIP panel member — Henry Bernstein, DO, MHCM, FAAP — said he was concerned that backing use of the vaccine in 16- and 17-year-olds was a leap of faith, given that Pfizer had extremely limited data on this cohort.

Bernstein, professor of pediatrics at the Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York, also said that systemic reactions were more common in that age group.

He argued for making the 16- and 17-year-olds a “special population” that would get specific attention and guidance for vaccination from the federal agencies and professional societies.

Bernstein said he did not want to sow any more doubts in parents’ minds about vaccination, noting that hesitancy was a growing concern. “A successful pediatric vaccination program depends on creating and sustaining parental confidence in both the safety and effectiveness of this vaccine,” he said.

Many panelists, however, noted that there has been no evidence to suggest that the vaccine is not safe or less effective in that younger age group.

Yvonne Maldonado, MD, the American Academy of Pediatrics representative on the panel, said that this age group should not be denied the vaccine as they often have essential or front-line jobs that put them at higher risk for infection.

“I am very concerned about this message being sent out that this vaccine will not be safe in children,” said Maldonado, professor of pediatrics and health research and policy at Stanford University School of Medicine in California.

“We currently have no evidence that that is the case,” she said, adding there is also no indication younger children are biologically or physiologically different in their response or safety risk than 18-year-olds.

Vaccine = hope

Committee members breathed a sigh of relief at the end of the 2-day meeting, saying that although the Pfizer vaccine is not perfect, it represents a scientific milestone and a significant advance against the continuing march of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

“This vaccine and future vaccines do provide a promise for a lot of progress in the future,” said panelist Beth P. Bell, MD, MPH, clinical professor of global health at the University of Washington School of Public Health in Seattle.

Peter Szilagyi, MD, MPH, executive vice-chair and vice-chair for research at the University of California, Los Angeles pediatrics department, said, “I’m really hopeful that this is the beginning of the end of the coronavirus pandemic.”

“The need for this vaccine is profound,” said Veronica McNally, president and CEO of the Franny Strong Foundation in West Bloomfield, Michigan.

The ACIP panel also made the argument that while the at least $10 billion spent on vaccine development by the federal government’s Operation Warp Speed alone has been a good investment, more spending is needed to actually get Americans vaccinated.

The imbalance between the two is “shocking and needs to be corrected,” said Bell. “We are not going to be able to protect the American public if we don’t have a way to deliver the vaccine to them.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) advisory committee recommended on December 12 the recently authorized Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for people age 16 and over in the United States, stating they found it was safe and effective.

The agency said it will quickly issue guidance to clinicians so they can determine when and when not to give the vaccine, and to help them communicate the risks and benefits to patients.

CDC staff gave a preview of those clinical considerations at the agency’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) meeting on December 12 and said it would be holding calls with clinicians on December 13 and 14.

The CDC will also issue guidance December 13 on how organizations can handle the workforce problems that might arise as health care workers experience side effects from vaccination.

ACIP voted 11-0, with three recusals, to recommend use of the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine in individuals 16 years or older according to the guidelines of the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) emergency use authorization issued December 11.

The panel also voted unanimously to include the vaccine in 2021 immunization schedules. All panel members said the recommendation should go hand-in-hand with ACIP’s previous recommendation on December 1 that allocation of the vaccine be phased-in, with health care workers and residents and staff of long-term care facilities in phase 1a.

Allergies, pregnant women?

ACIP panelists said clinicians need more guidance on whether to use the vaccine in pregnant or breastfeeding women, the immunocompromised, or those who have a history of allergies.

The FDA health care provider information sheet said there is not enough data to recommend vaccinating those women or the immunocompromised, and also advises against giving the vaccine to individuals who have a history of serious allergic reaction to any component of the vaccine.

Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologic Evaluation and Research (CBER) clarified this in a briefing on December 12, noting that women who are pregnant or lactating can make the decision in consultation with their physician. And, he said, patients with any other history of allergy should be able to safely get the vaccine.

The CDC — in its soon-to-be-released guidance — will make the same recommendations. For any woman considering vaccination, she should consider the level of COVID-19 in the community, her personal risk of contracting the virus, the risks to her or her fetus of developing the disease, and the vaccine’s known side effects, Sarah Mbaeyi, MD, MPH, a medical officer at the agency, said during the panel meeting December 12.

She added that the CDC will also urge physicians to advise women to take acetaminophen if they develop a fever after vaccination — to protect the developing fetus from fever.

Sandra Fryhofer, MD, representing the American Medical Association, commended the CDC for these recommendations. But she also called on Pfizer, the FDA, and the CDC to make data from the developmental and reproductive toxicity (DART) studies public as soon as possible.

“We really need to put those results on warp speed and get them out there to give our physicians and pregnant women more information,” said Fryhofer, an adjunct associate professor of medicine at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) will also soon release guidance for vaccinating pregnant and breastfeeding women, said Linda Eckert, MD, FACOG, an ACOG representative on the panel.

ACOG and the CDC met the morning of December 12 to discuss risks and benefits with experts in immunology, placental pathology, and vaccine kinetics, she said.

“The overall complete consensus was that we don’t see biological plausibility at this time for placental transfer of the mRNA and that we see that direct fetal exposure or the possibility of fetal inflammatory response is extremely unlikely,” said Eckert, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Washington, Seattle. “Clearly we are waiting on the data.”

A Pfizer official told the ACIP panel that preliminary data “show no indication of either developmental or reproductive toxicity,” and that the company plans to send the final DART data to the FDA at the end of December.

On the potential for allergic reactions, the CDC concurred with the FDA that the vaccine should not be given to people with a history of serious reactions. The agency added that the category should include anyone who has had a reaction to any vaccine or injectable drug product because injectables may contain the same ingredients as the Pfizer vaccine, said Mbaeyi.

The CDC will also urge clinicians to observe patients with a history of anaphylaxis for 30 minutes after vaccination and all patients for at least 15 minutes afterward.

Should teens be a special population?

At least one ACIP panel member — Henry Bernstein, DO, MHCM, FAAP — said he was concerned that backing use of the vaccine in 16- and 17-year-olds was a leap of faith, given that Pfizer had extremely limited data on this cohort.

Bernstein, professor of pediatrics at the Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York, also said that systemic reactions were more common in that age group.

He argued for making the 16- and 17-year-olds a “special population” that would get specific attention and guidance for vaccination from the federal agencies and professional societies.

Bernstein said he did not want to sow any more doubts in parents’ minds about vaccination, noting that hesitancy was a growing concern. “A successful pediatric vaccination program depends on creating and sustaining parental confidence in both the safety and effectiveness of this vaccine,” he said.

Many panelists, however, noted that there has been no evidence to suggest that the vaccine is not safe or less effective in that younger age group.

Yvonne Maldonado, MD, the American Academy of Pediatrics representative on the panel, said that this age group should not be denied the vaccine as they often have essential or front-line jobs that put them at higher risk for infection.

“I am very concerned about this message being sent out that this vaccine will not be safe in children,” said Maldonado, professor of pediatrics and health research and policy at Stanford University School of Medicine in California.

“We currently have no evidence that that is the case,” she said, adding there is also no indication younger children are biologically or physiologically different in their response or safety risk than 18-year-olds.

Vaccine = hope

Committee members breathed a sigh of relief at the end of the 2-day meeting, saying that although the Pfizer vaccine is not perfect, it represents a scientific milestone and a significant advance against the continuing march of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

“This vaccine and future vaccines do provide a promise for a lot of progress in the future,” said panelist Beth P. Bell, MD, MPH, clinical professor of global health at the University of Washington School of Public Health in Seattle.

Peter Szilagyi, MD, MPH, executive vice-chair and vice-chair for research at the University of California, Los Angeles pediatrics department, said, “I’m really hopeful that this is the beginning of the end of the coronavirus pandemic.”

“The need for this vaccine is profound,” said Veronica McNally, president and CEO of the Franny Strong Foundation in West Bloomfield, Michigan.

The ACIP panel also made the argument that while the at least $10 billion spent on vaccine development by the federal government’s Operation Warp Speed alone has been a good investment, more spending is needed to actually get Americans vaccinated.

The imbalance between the two is “shocking and needs to be corrected,” said Bell. “We are not going to be able to protect the American public if we don’t have a way to deliver the vaccine to them.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) advisory committee recommended on December 12 the recently authorized Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for people age 16 and over in the United States, stating they found it was safe and effective.

The agency said it will quickly issue guidance to clinicians so they can determine when and when not to give the vaccine, and to help them communicate the risks and benefits to patients.

CDC staff gave a preview of those clinical considerations at the agency’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) meeting on December 12 and said it would be holding calls with clinicians on December 13 and 14.

The CDC will also issue guidance December 13 on how organizations can handle the workforce problems that might arise as health care workers experience side effects from vaccination.

ACIP voted 11-0, with three recusals, to recommend use of the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine in individuals 16 years or older according to the guidelines of the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) emergency use authorization issued December 11.

The panel also voted unanimously to include the vaccine in 2021 immunization schedules. All panel members said the recommendation should go hand-in-hand with ACIP’s previous recommendation on December 1 that allocation of the vaccine be phased-in, with health care workers and residents and staff of long-term care facilities in phase 1a.

Allergies, pregnant women?

ACIP panelists said clinicians need more guidance on whether to use the vaccine in pregnant or breastfeeding women, the immunocompromised, or those who have a history of allergies.

The FDA health care provider information sheet said there is not enough data to recommend vaccinating those women or the immunocompromised, and also advises against giving the vaccine to individuals who have a history of serious allergic reaction to any component of the vaccine.

Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologic Evaluation and Research (CBER) clarified this in a briefing on December 12, noting that women who are pregnant or lactating can make the decision in consultation with their physician. And, he said, patients with any other history of allergy should be able to safely get the vaccine.

The CDC — in its soon-to-be-released guidance — will make the same recommendations. For any woman considering vaccination, she should consider the level of COVID-19 in the community, her personal risk of contracting the virus, the risks to her or her fetus of developing the disease, and the vaccine’s known side effects, Sarah Mbaeyi, MD, MPH, a medical officer at the agency, said during the panel meeting December 12.

She added that the CDC will also urge physicians to advise women to take acetaminophen if they develop a fever after vaccination — to protect the developing fetus from fever.

Sandra Fryhofer, MD, representing the American Medical Association, commended the CDC for these recommendations. But she also called on Pfizer, the FDA, and the CDC to make data from the developmental and reproductive toxicity (DART) studies public as soon as possible.

“We really need to put those results on warp speed and get them out there to give our physicians and pregnant women more information,” said Fryhofer, an adjunct associate professor of medicine at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) will also soon release guidance for vaccinating pregnant and breastfeeding women, said Linda Eckert, MD, FACOG, an ACOG representative on the panel.

ACOG and the CDC met the morning of December 12 to discuss risks and benefits with experts in immunology, placental pathology, and vaccine kinetics, she said.

“The overall complete consensus was that we don’t see biological plausibility at this time for placental transfer of the mRNA and that we see that direct fetal exposure or the possibility of fetal inflammatory response is extremely unlikely,” said Eckert, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Washington, Seattle. “Clearly we are waiting on the data.”

A Pfizer official told the ACIP panel that preliminary data “show no indication of either developmental or reproductive toxicity,” and that the company plans to send the final DART data to the FDA at the end of December.

On the potential for allergic reactions, the CDC concurred with the FDA that the vaccine should not be given to people with a history of serious reactions. The agency added that the category should include anyone who has had a reaction to any vaccine or injectable drug product because injectables may contain the same ingredients as the Pfizer vaccine, said Mbaeyi.

The CDC will also urge clinicians to observe patients with a history of anaphylaxis for 30 minutes after vaccination and all patients for at least 15 minutes afterward.

Should teens be a special population?

At least one ACIP panel member — Henry Bernstein, DO, MHCM, FAAP — said he was concerned that backing use of the vaccine in 16- and 17-year-olds was a leap of faith, given that Pfizer had extremely limited data on this cohort.

Bernstein, professor of pediatrics at the Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York, also said that systemic reactions were more common in that age group.

He argued for making the 16- and 17-year-olds a “special population” that would get specific attention and guidance for vaccination from the federal agencies and professional societies.

Bernstein said he did not want to sow any more doubts in parents’ minds about vaccination, noting that hesitancy was a growing concern. “A successful pediatric vaccination program depends on creating and sustaining parental confidence in both the safety and effectiveness of this vaccine,” he said.

Many panelists, however, noted that there has been no evidence to suggest that the vaccine is not safe or less effective in that younger age group.

Yvonne Maldonado, MD, the American Academy of Pediatrics representative on the panel, said that this age group should not be denied the vaccine as they often have essential or front-line jobs that put them at higher risk for infection.

“I am very concerned about this message being sent out that this vaccine will not be safe in children,” said Maldonado, professor of pediatrics and health research and policy at Stanford University School of Medicine in California.

“We currently have no evidence that that is the case,” she said, adding there is also no indication younger children are biologically or physiologically different in their response or safety risk than 18-year-olds.

Vaccine = hope

Committee members breathed a sigh of relief at the end of the 2-day meeting, saying that although the Pfizer vaccine is not perfect, it represents a scientific milestone and a significant advance against the continuing march of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

“This vaccine and future vaccines do provide a promise for a lot of progress in the future,” said panelist Beth P. Bell, MD, MPH, clinical professor of global health at the University of Washington School of Public Health in Seattle.

Peter Szilagyi, MD, MPH, executive vice-chair and vice-chair for research at the University of California, Los Angeles pediatrics department, said, “I’m really hopeful that this is the beginning of the end of the coronavirus pandemic.”

“The need for this vaccine is profound,” said Veronica McNally, president and CEO of the Franny Strong Foundation in West Bloomfield, Michigan.

The ACIP panel also made the argument that while the at least $10 billion spent on vaccine development by the federal government’s Operation Warp Speed alone has been a good investment, more spending is needed to actually get Americans vaccinated.

The imbalance between the two is “shocking and needs to be corrected,” said Bell. “We are not going to be able to protect the American public if we don’t have a way to deliver the vaccine to them.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has authorized Pfizer/BioNTech’s COVID-19 vaccine for emergency use in people 16 years of age and older. 

The much-anticipated emergency use authorization (EUA) of this vaccine — the first such approval in the United States — was greeted with optimism by infectious disease and pulmonary experts, although unanswered questions remain regarding use in people with allergic hypersensitivity, safety in pregnant women, and how smooth distribution will be.

“I am delighted. This is a first, firm step on a long path to getting this COVID pandemic under control,” William Schaffner, MD, professor of infectious diseases at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in Nashville, Tennessee, said in an interview.

The FDA gave the green light after the December 10 recommendation from the agency’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) meeting. The committee voted 17-4 in favor of the emergency authorization.

Allergic reactions reported in the UK

After vaccinations with the Pfizer vaccine began in the UK on December 8, reports surfaced of two healthcare workers who experienced allergic reactions. They have since recovered, but officials warned that people with a history of severe allergic reactions should not receive the Pfizer vaccine at this time.

“For the moment, they are asking people who have had notable allergic reactions to step aside while this is investigated. It shows you that the system is working,” Schaffner said.

Both vaccine recipients who experienced anaphylaxis carried EpiPens, as they were at high risk for allergic reactions, Hewlett said. Also, if other COVID-19 vaccines are approved for use in the future, people allergic to the Pfizer vaccine might have another option, he added.

Reassuring role models

Schaffner supports the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) decision to start vaccinations with healthcare workers and residents of long-term care facilities.

“Vaccinating healthcare workers, in particular, will be a model for the general public,” said Schaffner, who is also a former member of the IDSA board of directors. “If they see those of us in white coats and blue scrubs lining up for the vaccine, that will provide confidence.”

To further increase acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccine, public health officials need to provide information and reassure the general public, Schaffner said.

Hewlett agreed. “I know there are a lot of people in the population who are very hesitant about vaccines. As infection disease specialists and people in public health, we are trying to allay a lot of concerns people have.”

Reassurance will be especially important in minority communities. “They have been disproportionately affected by the virus, and they have a traditional history of not being optimally vaccinated,” Schaffner said. “We need to reach them in particular with good information and reassurance…so they can make good decisions for themselves and their families.”

No vaccine is 100% effective or completely free of side effects. “There is always a chance there can be adverse reactions, but we think for the most part this is going to be a safe and effective vaccine,” said Hewlett, medical director at the Division of Disease Control and deputy to commissioner of health at the Westchester County Department of Health in White Plains, New York.

Distribution: Smooth or full of strife?

In addition to the concern that some people will not take advantage of vaccination against COVID-19, there could be vaccine supply issues down the road, Schaffner said.

Culver agreed. “In the early phases, I expect that there will be some kinks to work out, but because the numbers are relatively small, this should be okay,” he said.

“I think when we start to get into larger-scale vaccination programs — the supply chain, transport, and storage will be a Herculean undertaking,” Culver added. “It will take careful coordination between healthcare providers, distributors, suppliers, and public health officials to pull this off.”

Planning and distribution also should focus beyond US borders. Any issues in vaccine distribution or administration in the United States “will only be multiplied in several other parts of the world,” Culver said. Because COVID-19 is a pandemic, “we need to think about vaccinating globally.”

Investigating adverse events

Adverse events common to vaccinations in general — injection site pain, headaches, and fever — would not be unexpected with the COVID-19 vaccines. However, experts remain concerned that other, unrelated adverse events might be erroneously attributed to vaccination. For example, if a fall, heart attack, or death occurs within days of immunization, some might immediately blame the vaccine product.

“It’s important to remember that any new, highly touted medical therapy like this will receive a lot of scrutiny, so it would be unusual not to hear about something happening to somebody,” Culver said. Vaccine companies and health agencies will be carefully evaluating any reported adverse events to ensure no safety signal was missed in the trials.

“Fortunately, there are systems in place to investigate these events immediately,” Schaffner said.

Pregnancy recommendations pending

One question still looms: Is the COVID-19 vaccination safe for pregnant women? This isn’t just a question for the general public, either, Schaffner said. He estimated that about 70 percent of healthcare workers are women, and data suggests about 300,000 of these healthcare workers are pregnant.

“The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will speak to that just as soon as the EUA is issued,” he added.

Patients are asking Culver about the priority order for vaccination. He said it’s difficult to provide firm guidance at this point.

People also have “lingering skepticism” about whether vaccine development was done in a prudent way, Culver said. Some people question whether the Pfizer vaccine and others were rushed to market. “So we try to spend time with the patients, reassuring them that all the usual safety evaluations were carefully done,” he said.

Another concern is whether mRNA vaccines can interact with human DNA. “The quick, short, and definitive answer is no,” Schaffner said. The m stands for messenger — the vaccines transmit information. "Once it gets into a cell, the mRNA does not go anywhere near the DNA, and once it transmits its information to the cell appropriately, it gets metabolized, and we excrete all the remnants."

Hewlett pointed out that investigations and surveillance will continue. Because this is an EUA and not full approval, “that essentially means they will still be obligated to collect a lot more data than they would ordinarily,” he said.

How long immunoprotection will last also remains an unknown. “The big question left on the table now is the durability,” Culver said. “Of course, we won’t know the answer to that for quite some time.”

Schaffner and Culver have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Hewlett was an employee of Pfizer until mid-2019. His previous work as Pfizer’s senior medical director of global medical product evaluation was not associated with development of the COVID-19 vaccine.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has authorized Pfizer/BioNTech’s COVID-19 vaccine for emergency use in people 16 years of age and older. 

The much-anticipated emergency use authorization (EUA) of this vaccine — the first such approval in the United States — was greeted with optimism by infectious disease and pulmonary experts, although unanswered questions remain regarding use in people with allergic hypersensitivity, safety in pregnant women, and how smooth distribution will be.

“I am delighted. This is a first, firm step on a long path to getting this COVID pandemic under control,” William Schaffner, MD, professor of infectious diseases at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in Nashville, Tennessee, said in an interview.

The FDA gave the green light after the December 10 recommendation from the agency’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) meeting. The committee voted 17-4 in favor of the emergency authorization.

Allergic reactions reported in the UK

After vaccinations with the Pfizer vaccine began in the UK on December 8, reports surfaced of two healthcare workers who experienced allergic reactions. They have since recovered, but officials warned that people with a history of severe allergic reactions should not receive the Pfizer vaccine at this time.

“For the moment, they are asking people who have had notable allergic reactions to step aside while this is investigated. It shows you that the system is working,” Schaffner said.

Both vaccine recipients who experienced anaphylaxis carried EpiPens, as they were at high risk for allergic reactions, Hewlett said. Also, if other COVID-19 vaccines are approved for use in the future, people allergic to the Pfizer vaccine might have another option, he added.

Reassuring role models

Schaffner supports the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) decision to start vaccinations with healthcare workers and residents of long-term care facilities.

“Vaccinating healthcare workers, in particular, will be a model for the general public,” said Schaffner, who is also a former member of the IDSA board of directors. “If they see those of us in white coats and blue scrubs lining up for the vaccine, that will provide confidence.”

To further increase acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccine, public health officials need to provide information and reassure the general public, Schaffner said.

Hewlett agreed. “I know there are a lot of people in the population who are very hesitant about vaccines. As infection disease specialists and people in public health, we are trying to allay a lot of concerns people have.”

Reassurance will be especially important in minority communities. “They have been disproportionately affected by the virus, and they have a traditional history of not being optimally vaccinated,” Schaffner said. “We need to reach them in particular with good information and reassurance…so they can make good decisions for themselves and their families.”

No vaccine is 100% effective or completely free of side effects. “There is always a chance there can be adverse reactions, but we think for the most part this is going to be a safe and effective vaccine,” said Hewlett, medical director at the Division of Disease Control and deputy to commissioner of health at the Westchester County Department of Health in White Plains, New York.

Distribution: Smooth or full of strife?

In addition to the concern that some people will not take advantage of vaccination against COVID-19, there could be vaccine supply issues down the road, Schaffner said.

Culver agreed. “In the early phases, I expect that there will be some kinks to work out, but because the numbers are relatively small, this should be okay,” he said.

“I think when we start to get into larger-scale vaccination programs — the supply chain, transport, and storage will be a Herculean undertaking,” Culver added. “It will take careful coordination between healthcare providers, distributors, suppliers, and public health officials to pull this off.”

Planning and distribution also should focus beyond US borders. Any issues in vaccine distribution or administration in the United States “will only be multiplied in several other parts of the world,” Culver said. Because COVID-19 is a pandemic, “we need to think about vaccinating globally.”

Investigating adverse events

Adverse events common to vaccinations in general — injection site pain, headaches, and fever — would not be unexpected with the COVID-19 vaccines. However, experts remain concerned that other, unrelated adverse events might be erroneously attributed to vaccination. For example, if a fall, heart attack, or death occurs within days of immunization, some might immediately blame the vaccine product.

“It’s important to remember that any new, highly touted medical therapy like this will receive a lot of scrutiny, so it would be unusual not to hear about something happening to somebody,” Culver said. Vaccine companies and health agencies will be carefully evaluating any reported adverse events to ensure no safety signal was missed in the trials.

“Fortunately, there are systems in place to investigate these events immediately,” Schaffner said.

Pregnancy recommendations pending

One question still looms: Is the COVID-19 vaccination safe for pregnant women? This isn’t just a question for the general public, either, Schaffner said. He estimated that about 70 percent of healthcare workers are women, and data suggests about 300,000 of these healthcare workers are pregnant.

“The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will speak to that just as soon as the EUA is issued,” he added.

Patients are asking Culver about the priority order for vaccination. He said it’s difficult to provide firm guidance at this point.

People also have “lingering skepticism” about whether vaccine development was done in a prudent way, Culver said. Some people question whether the Pfizer vaccine and others were rushed to market. “So we try to spend time with the patients, reassuring them that all the usual safety evaluations were carefully done,” he said.

Another concern is whether mRNA vaccines can interact with human DNA. “The quick, short, and definitive answer is no,” Schaffner said. The m stands for messenger — the vaccines transmit information. "Once it gets into a cell, the mRNA does not go anywhere near the DNA, and once it transmits its information to the cell appropriately, it gets metabolized, and we excrete all the remnants."

Hewlett pointed out that investigations and surveillance will continue. Because this is an EUA and not full approval, “that essentially means they will still be obligated to collect a lot more data than they would ordinarily,” he said.

How long immunoprotection will last also remains an unknown. “The big question left on the table now is the durability,” Culver said. “Of course, we won’t know the answer to that for quite some time.”

Schaffner and Culver have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Hewlett was an employee of Pfizer until mid-2019. His previous work as Pfizer’s senior medical director of global medical product evaluation was not associated with development of the COVID-19 vaccine.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has authorized Pfizer/BioNTech’s COVID-19 vaccine for emergency use in people 16 years of age and older. 

The much-anticipated emergency use authorization (EUA) of this vaccine — the first such approval in the United States — was greeted with optimism by infectious disease and pulmonary experts, although unanswered questions remain regarding use in people with allergic hypersensitivity, safety in pregnant women, and how smooth distribution will be.

“I am delighted. This is a first, firm step on a long path to getting this COVID pandemic under control,” William Schaffner, MD, professor of infectious diseases at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in Nashville, Tennessee, said in an interview.

The FDA gave the green light after the December 10 recommendation from the agency’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) meeting. The committee voted 17-4 in favor of the emergency authorization.

Allergic reactions reported in the UK

After vaccinations with the Pfizer vaccine began in the UK on December 8, reports surfaced of two healthcare workers who experienced allergic reactions. They have since recovered, but officials warned that people with a history of severe allergic reactions should not receive the Pfizer vaccine at this time.

“For the moment, they are asking people who have had notable allergic reactions to step aside while this is investigated. It shows you that the system is working,” Schaffner said.

Both vaccine recipients who experienced anaphylaxis carried EpiPens, as they were at high risk for allergic reactions, Hewlett said. Also, if other COVID-19 vaccines are approved for use in the future, people allergic to the Pfizer vaccine might have another option, he added.

Reassuring role models

Schaffner supports the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) decision to start vaccinations with healthcare workers and residents of long-term care facilities.

“Vaccinating healthcare workers, in particular, will be a model for the general public,” said Schaffner, who is also a former member of the IDSA board of directors. “If they see those of us in white coats and blue scrubs lining up for the vaccine, that will provide confidence.”

To further increase acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccine, public health officials need to provide information and reassure the general public, Schaffner said.

Hewlett agreed. “I know there are a lot of people in the population who are very hesitant about vaccines. As infection disease specialists and people in public health, we are trying to allay a lot of concerns people have.”

Reassurance will be especially important in minority communities. “They have been disproportionately affected by the virus, and they have a traditional history of not being optimally vaccinated,” Schaffner said. “We need to reach them in particular with good information and reassurance…so they can make good decisions for themselves and their families.”

No vaccine is 100% effective or completely free of side effects. “There is always a chance there can be adverse reactions, but we think for the most part this is going to be a safe and effective vaccine,” said Hewlett, medical director at the Division of Disease Control and deputy to commissioner of health at the Westchester County Department of Health in White Plains, New York.

Distribution: Smooth or full of strife?

In addition to the concern that some people will not take advantage of vaccination against COVID-19, there could be vaccine supply issues down the road, Schaffner said.

Culver agreed. “In the early phases, I expect that there will be some kinks to work out, but because the numbers are relatively small, this should be okay,” he said.

“I think when we start to get into larger-scale vaccination programs — the supply chain, transport, and storage will be a Herculean undertaking,” Culver added. “It will take careful coordination between healthcare providers, distributors, suppliers, and public health officials to pull this off.”

Planning and distribution also should focus beyond US borders. Any issues in vaccine distribution or administration in the United States “will only be multiplied in several other parts of the world,” Culver said. Because COVID-19 is a pandemic, “we need to think about vaccinating globally.”

Investigating adverse events

Adverse events common to vaccinations in general — injection site pain, headaches, and fever — would not be unexpected with the COVID-19 vaccines. However, experts remain concerned that other, unrelated adverse events might be erroneously attributed to vaccination. For example, if a fall, heart attack, or death occurs within days of immunization, some might immediately blame the vaccine product.

“It’s important to remember that any new, highly touted medical therapy like this will receive a lot of scrutiny, so it would be unusual not to hear about something happening to somebody,” Culver said. Vaccine companies and health agencies will be carefully evaluating any reported adverse events to ensure no safety signal was missed in the trials.

“Fortunately, there are systems in place to investigate these events immediately,” Schaffner said.

Pregnancy recommendations pending

One question still looms: Is the COVID-19 vaccination safe for pregnant women? This isn’t just a question for the general public, either, Schaffner said. He estimated that about 70 percent of healthcare workers are women, and data suggests about 300,000 of these healthcare workers are pregnant.

“The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will speak to that just as soon as the EUA is issued,” he added.

Patients are asking Culver about the priority order for vaccination. He said it’s difficult to provide firm guidance at this point.

People also have “lingering skepticism” about whether vaccine development was done in a prudent way, Culver said. Some people question whether the Pfizer vaccine and others were rushed to market. “So we try to spend time with the patients, reassuring them that all the usual safety evaluations were carefully done,” he said.

Another concern is whether mRNA vaccines can interact with human DNA. “The quick, short, and definitive answer is no,” Schaffner said. The m stands for messenger — the vaccines transmit information. "Once it gets into a cell, the mRNA does not go anywhere near the DNA, and once it transmits its information to the cell appropriately, it gets metabolized, and we excrete all the remnants."

Hewlett pointed out that investigations and surveillance will continue. Because this is an EUA and not full approval, “that essentially means they will still be obligated to collect a lot more data than they would ordinarily,” he said.

How long immunoprotection will last also remains an unknown. “The big question left on the table now is the durability,” Culver said. “Of course, we won’t know the answer to that for quite some time.”

Schaffner and Culver have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Hewlett was an employee of Pfizer until mid-2019. His previous work as Pfizer’s senior medical director of global medical product evaluation was not associated with development of the COVID-19 vaccine.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Peripheral arterial disease (PAD), the progressive disorder that results in ischemia to distal vascular territories as a result of atherosclerosis, spans a wide range of presentations, from minimally symptomatic disease to limb ischemia secondary to acute or chronic occlusion.

The prevalence of PAD is variable, due to differing diagnostic criteria used in studies, but PAD appears to affect 1 in every 22 people older than age 40.¹ However, since PAD incidence increases with age, it is increasing in prevalence as the US population ages.^1-3

PAD is associated with increased hospitalizations and decreased quality of life.⁴ Patients with PAD have an estimated 30% 5-year risk for myocardial infarction, stroke, or death from a vascular cause.³

Screening. Although PAD is underdiagnosed and appears to be undertreated,³ population-based screening for PAD in asymptomatic patients is not recommended. A Cochrane review found no studies evaluating the benefit of ­asymptomatic population-based screening.⁵ Similarly, in 2018, the USPSTF performed a comprehensive review and found no studies to support routine screening and determined there was insufficient evidence to recommend it.^6,7

Risk factors and associated comorbidities

PAD risk factors, like the ones detailed below, have a potentiating effect. The presence of 2 risk factors doubles PAD risk, while 3 or more risk factors increase PAD risk by a factor of 10.¹

Increasing age is the greatest single risk factor for PAD.^1,2,8,9 Researchers using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) found that the prevalence of PAD increased from 1.4% in individuals ages 40 to 49 years to almost 17% in those age 70 or older.¹

© kostudios

Patients with PAD have an estimated 30% 5-year risk for myocardial infarction, stroke, or death from a vascular cause.

Demographic characteristics. Most studies demonstrate a higher risk for PAD in men.^1-3,10 African-American patients have more than twice the risk for PAD, compared with Whites, even after adjustment for the increased prevalence of associated diseases such as hypertension and diabetes in this population.^1-3,10

Continue to: Genetics...

Genetics. A study performed by the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute suggested that genetic correlations between twins were more important than environmental factors in the development of PAD.¹¹

Smoking. Most population studies show smoking to be the greatest modifiable risk factor for PAD. An analysis of the NHANES data yielded an odds ratio (OR) of 4.1 for current smokers and of 1.8 for former smokers.¹ Risk increases linearly with cumulative years of smoking.^1,2,9,10

Diabetes is another significant modifiable risk factor, increasing PAD risk by 2.5 times.² Diabetes is also associated with increases in functional limitation from claudication, risk for acute coronary syndrome, and progression to amputation.¹

Hypertension nearly doubles the risk for PAD, and poor control further increases this risk.^2,9,10

Chronic kidney disease (CKD). Patients with CKD have a progressively higher prevalence of PAD with worsening renal function.¹ There is also an association between CKD and increased morbidity, revascularization failure, and increased mortality.¹

Two additional risk factors that are less well understood are dyslipidemia and chronic inflammation. There is conflicting data regarding the role of individual components of cholesterol and their effect on PAD, although lipoprotein (a) has been shown to be an independent risk factor for both the development and progression of PAD.¹² Similarly, chronic inflammation has been shown to play a role in the initiation and progression of the disease, although the role of inflammatory markers in evaluation and treatment is unclear and assessment for these purposes is not currently recommended.^12,13

Continue to: Diagnosis...

Diagnosis

Clinical presentation

Lower extremity pain is the hallmark symptom of PAD, but presentation varies. The classic presentation is claudication, pain within a defined muscle group that occurs with exertion and is relieved by rest. Claudication is most common in the calf but also occurs in the buttock/thigh and the foot.

African- American patients have more than twice the risk for PAD, compared with Whites, even after adjustment for the increased prevalence of associated diseases in this population.

However, most patients with PAD present with pain that does not fit the definition of claudication. Patients with comorbidities, physical inactivity, and neuropathy are more likely to present with atypical pain.¹⁴ These patients may demonstrate critical or acute limb ischemia, characterized by pain at rest and most often localized to the forefoot and toes. Patients with critical limb ischemia may also present with nonhealing wounds/ulcers or gangrene.¹⁵

Physical exam findings can support the diagnosis of PAD, but none are reliable enough to rule the diagnosis in or out. Findings suggestive of PAD include cool skin, presence of a bruit (iliac, femoral, or popliteal), and palpable pulse abnormality. Multiple abnormal physical exam findings increase the likelihood of PAD, while the absence of a bruit or palpable pulse abnormality makes PAD less likely.¹⁶ In patients with PAD, an associated wound/ulcer is most often distal in the foot and usually appears dry.¹⁷

The differential diagnosis for intermittent leg pain is broad and includes neurologic, musculoskeletal, and venous etiologies. Table 1¹⁸ lists some common alternate diagnoses for patients presenting with leg pain or claudication.

Continue to: Diagnostic testing...

Diagnostic testing

An ankle-brachial index (ABI) test should be performed in patients with history or physical exam findings suggestive of PAD. A resting ABI is performed with the patient in the supine position, with measurement of systolic blood pressure in both arms and ankles using a Doppler ultrasound device. Table 2¹³ outlines ABI scoring and interpretation.

An ABI > 1.4 is an invalid measurement, indicating that the arteries are too calcified to be compressed. These highly elevated ABI measurements are common in patients with diabetes and/or advanced CKD. In these patients, a toe-brachial index (TBI) test should be performed, because the digital arteries are almost always compressible.¹³

Patients with symptomatic PAD who are under consideration for revascularization may benefit from radiologic imaging of the lower extremities with duplex ultrasound, computed tomography angiography, or magnetic resonance angiography to determine the anatomic location and severity of stenosis.¹³

Management of PAD

Lifestyle interventions

For patients with PAD, lifestyle modifications are an essential—but challenging—component of disease management.

Continue to: Smoking cessation...

Smoking cessation. As with other atherosclerotic diseases, PAD progression is strongly correlated with smoking. A trial involving 204 active smokers with PAD showed that 5-year mortality and amputation rates dropped by more than half in those who quit smoking within a year, with numbers needed to treat (NNT) of 6 for mortality and 5 for amputation.¹⁹ Because of this dramatic effect, American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guidelines encourage providers to address smoking at every visit and use cessation programs and medication to increase quit rates.¹³

Exercise may be the most important intervention for PAD. A 2017 Cochrane review found that supervised, structured exercise programs increase pain-free and maximal walking distances by at least 20% and also improve physical and mental quality of life.²⁰ In a trial involving 111 patients with aortoiliac PAD, supervised exercise plus medical care led to greater functional improvement than either revascularization plus medical care or medical care alone.²¹ In a 2018 Cochrane review, neither revascularization or revascularization added to supervised exercise were better than supervised exercise alone.²² ACC/AHA guidelines recommend supervised exercise programs for claudication prior to considering revascularization.¹³TABLE 3¹³ outlines the components of a structured exercise program.

Unfortunately, the benefit of these programs has been difficult to reproduce without supervision. Another 2018 Cochrane review demonstrated significant improvement with supervised exercise and no clear improvement in patients given home exercise or advice to walk.²³ A recent study examined the effect of having patients use a wearable fitness tracker for home exercise and demonstrated no benefit over usual care.²⁴

Diet. There is some evidence that dietary interventions can prevent and possibly improve PAD. A large randomized controlled trial showed that a Mediterranean diet lowered rates of PAD over 1 year compared to a low-fat diet, with an NNT of 336 if supplemented with extra-virgin olive oil and 448 if supplemented with nuts.²⁵ A small trial of 25 patients who consumed non-soy legumes daily for 8 weeks showed average ABI improvement of 6%, although there was no control group.²⁶

Medical therapy to address peripheral and cardiovascular events

Standard medical therapy for coronary artery disease (CAD) is recommended for patients with PAD to reduce cardiovascular and limb events. For example, treatment of hypertension reduces cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events, and studies verify that lowering blood pressure does not worsen claudication or limb perfusion.

A trial involving 204 active smokers with PAD showed that 5-year mortality and amputation rates dropped by more than half in those who quit smoking within a year.

¹³TABLE 4^13,27-30 outlines the options for medical therapy.

Continue to: Statins...

Statins reduce cardiovascular events in PAD patients. A large study demonstrated that 40 mg of simvastatin has an NNT of 21 to prevent a coronary or cerebrovascular event in PAD, similar to the NNT of 23 seen in treatment of CAD.²⁷ Statins also reduce adverse limb outcomes. A registry of atherosclerosis patients showed that statins have an NNT of 56 to prevent amputation in PAD and an NNT of 28 to prevent worsening claudication, critical limb ischemia, revascularization, or amputation.²⁸

Antiplatelet therapy with low-dose aspirin or clopidogrel is recommended for symptomatic patients and for asymptomatic patients with an ABI ≤ 0.9.¹³ A Cochrane review demonstrated significantly reduced mortality with nonaspirin antiplatelet agents vs aspirin (NNT = 94) without increase in major bleeding.²⁹ Only British guidelines specifically recommend clopidogrel over aspirin.³¹

Dual antiplatelet therapy has not shown consistent benefits over aspirin alone. ACC/AHA guidelines state that dual antiplatelet therapy is not well established for PAD but may be reasonable after revascularization.¹³

Voraxapar is a novel antiplatelet agent that targets the thrombin-binding receptor on platelets. However, trials show no significant coronary benefit, and slight reductions in acute limb ischemia are offset by increases in major bleeding.¹³

For patients receiving medical therapy, ongoing evaluation and treatment should be based on claudication symptoms and clinical assessment.

Medical therapy for claudication

Several medications have been proposed for symptomatic treatment of intermittent claudication. Cilostazol is a phosphodiesterase inhibitor with the best risk-benefit ratio. A Cochrane review showed improvements in maximal and pain-free walking distances compared to placebo and improvements in quality of life with cilostazol 100 mg taken twice daily.³² Adverse effects included headache, dizziness, palpitations, and diarrhea.²⁹

Continue to: Pentoxifylline...

Pentoxifylline is another phosphodiesterase inhibitor with less evidence of improvement, higher adverse effect rates, and more frequent dosing. It is not recommended for treatment of intermittent claudication.^13,33

Supplements. Padma 28, a Tibetan herbal formulation, appears to improve maximal walking distance with adverse effect rates similar to placebo.³⁴ Other supplements, including vitamin E, ginkgo biloba, and omega-3 fatty acids, have no evidence of benefit.^35-37

When revascularizationis needed

Patients who develop limb ischemia or lifestyle-limiting claudication despite conservative therapy are candidates for revascularization. Endovascular techniques include angioplasty, stenting, atherectomy, and precise medication delivery. Surgical approaches mainly consist of thrombectomy and bypass grafting. For intermittent claudication despite conservative care, ACC/AHA guidelines state endovascular procedures are appropriate for aortoiliac disease and reasonable for femoropopliteal disease, but unproven for infrapopliteal disease.¹³

Acute limb ischemia is an emergency requiring immediate intervention. Two trials revealed identical overall and amputation-free survival rates for percutaneous thrombolysis and surgical thrombectomy.^38,39 ACC/AHA guidelines recommend anticoagulation with heparin followed by the revascularization technique that will most rapidly restore arterial flow.¹³

For chronic limb ischemia, a large trial showed angioplasty had lower initial morbidity, length of hospitalization, and cost than surgical repair. However, surgical mortality was lower after 2 years.⁴⁰ ACC/AHA guidelines recommend either surgery or endovascular procedures and propose initial endovascular treatment followed by surgery if needed.¹³ After revascularization, the patient should be followed periodically with a clinical evaluation and ABI measurement with further consideration for routine duplex ultrasound surveillance.¹³

For chronic limb ischemia, a large trial showed angioplasty had lower initial morbidity, length of hospitalization, and cost than surgical repair. Surgical mortality was lower after 2 years.

Outcomes

Patients with PAD have variable outcomes. About 70% to 80% of patients with this diagnosis will have a stable disease process with no worsening of symptoms, 10% to 20% will experience worsening symptoms over time, 5% to 10% will require revascularization within 5 years of diagnosis, and 1% to 5% will progress to critical limb ischemia, which has a 5-year amputation rate of 1% to 4%.² Patients who require amputation have poor outcomes: Within 2 years, 30% are dead and 15% have had further amputations.¹⁸

In addition to the morbidity and mortality from its own progression, PAD is an important predictor of CAD and is associated with a significant elevation in morbidity and mortality from CAD. One small but well-designed prospective cohort study found that patients with PAD had a more than 6-fold increased risk of death from CAD than did patients without PAD.⁴¹

Acknowledgement
The authors thank Francesca Cimino, MD, FAAFP, for her help in reviewing this manuscript.

CORRESPONDENCE
Dustin K. Smith, DO, 2080 Child Street, Jacksonville, FL 32214; [email protected]

Peripheral arterial disease (PAD), the progressive disorder that results in ischemia to distal vascular territories as a result of atherosclerosis, spans a wide range of presentations, from minimally symptomatic disease to limb ischemia secondary to acute or chronic occlusion.

The prevalence of PAD is variable, due to differing diagnostic criteria used in studies, but PAD appears to affect 1 in every 22 people older than age 40.¹ However, since PAD incidence increases with age, it is increasing in prevalence as the US population ages.^1-3

PAD is associated with increased hospitalizations and decreased quality of life.⁴ Patients with PAD have an estimated 30% 5-year risk for myocardial infarction, stroke, or death from a vascular cause.³

Screening. Although PAD is underdiagnosed and appears to be undertreated,³ population-based screening for PAD in asymptomatic patients is not recommended. A Cochrane review found no studies evaluating the benefit of ­asymptomatic population-based screening.⁵ Similarly, in 2018, the USPSTF performed a comprehensive review and found no studies to support routine screening and determined there was insufficient evidence to recommend it.^6,7

Risk factors and associated comorbidities

PAD risk factors, like the ones detailed below, have a potentiating effect. The presence of 2 risk factors doubles PAD risk, while 3 or more risk factors increase PAD risk by a factor of 10.¹

Increasing age is the greatest single risk factor for PAD.^1,2,8,9 Researchers using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) found that the prevalence of PAD increased from 1.4% in individuals ages 40 to 49 years to almost 17% in those age 70 or older.¹

© kostudios

Patients with PAD have an estimated 30% 5-year risk for myocardial infarction, stroke, or death from a vascular cause.

Demographic characteristics. Most studies demonstrate a higher risk for PAD in men.^1-3,10 African-American patients have more than twice the risk for PAD, compared with Whites, even after adjustment for the increased prevalence of associated diseases such as hypertension and diabetes in this population.^1-3,10

Continue to: Genetics...

Genetics. A study performed by the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute suggested that genetic correlations between twins were more important than environmental factors in the development of PAD.¹¹

Smoking. Most population studies show smoking to be the greatest modifiable risk factor for PAD. An analysis of the NHANES data yielded an odds ratio (OR) of 4.1 for current smokers and of 1.8 for former smokers.¹ Risk increases linearly with cumulative years of smoking.^1,2,9,10

Diabetes is another significant modifiable risk factor, increasing PAD risk by 2.5 times.² Diabetes is also associated with increases in functional limitation from claudication, risk for acute coronary syndrome, and progression to amputation.¹

Hypertension nearly doubles the risk for PAD, and poor control further increases this risk.^2,9,10

Chronic kidney disease (CKD). Patients with CKD have a progressively higher prevalence of PAD with worsening renal function.¹ There is also an association between CKD and increased morbidity, revascularization failure, and increased mortality.¹

Two additional risk factors that are less well understood are dyslipidemia and chronic inflammation. There is conflicting data regarding the role of individual components of cholesterol and their effect on PAD, although lipoprotein (a) has been shown to be an independent risk factor for both the development and progression of PAD.¹² Similarly, chronic inflammation has been shown to play a role in the initiation and progression of the disease, although the role of inflammatory markers in evaluation and treatment is unclear and assessment for these purposes is not currently recommended.^12,13

Continue to: Diagnosis...

Diagnosis

Clinical presentation

Lower extremity pain is the hallmark symptom of PAD, but presentation varies. The classic presentation is claudication, pain within a defined muscle group that occurs with exertion and is relieved by rest. Claudication is most common in the calf but also occurs in the buttock/thigh and the foot.

African- American patients have more than twice the risk for PAD, compared with Whites, even after adjustment for the increased prevalence of associated diseases in this population.

However, most patients with PAD present with pain that does not fit the definition of claudication. Patients with comorbidities, physical inactivity, and neuropathy are more likely to present with atypical pain.¹⁴ These patients may demonstrate critical or acute limb ischemia, characterized by pain at rest and most often localized to the forefoot and toes. Patients with critical limb ischemia may also present with nonhealing wounds/ulcers or gangrene.¹⁵

Physical exam findings can support the diagnosis of PAD, but none are reliable enough to rule the diagnosis in or out. Findings suggestive of PAD include cool skin, presence of a bruit (iliac, femoral, or popliteal), and palpable pulse abnormality. Multiple abnormal physical exam findings increase the likelihood of PAD, while the absence of a bruit or palpable pulse abnormality makes PAD less likely.¹⁶ In patients with PAD, an associated wound/ulcer is most often distal in the foot and usually appears dry.¹⁷

The differential diagnosis for intermittent leg pain is broad and includes neurologic, musculoskeletal, and venous etiologies. Table 1¹⁸ lists some common alternate diagnoses for patients presenting with leg pain or claudication.

Continue to: Diagnostic testing...

Diagnostic testing

An ankle-brachial index (ABI) test should be performed in patients with history or physical exam findings suggestive of PAD. A resting ABI is performed with the patient in the supine position, with measurement of systolic blood pressure in both arms and ankles using a Doppler ultrasound device. Table 2¹³ outlines ABI scoring and interpretation.

An ABI > 1.4 is an invalid measurement, indicating that the arteries are too calcified to be compressed. These highly elevated ABI measurements are common in patients with diabetes and/or advanced CKD. In these patients, a toe-brachial index (TBI) test should be performed, because the digital arteries are almost always compressible.¹³

Patients with symptomatic PAD who are under consideration for revascularization may benefit from radiologic imaging of the lower extremities with duplex ultrasound, computed tomography angiography, or magnetic resonance angiography to determine the anatomic location and severity of stenosis.¹³

Management of PAD

Lifestyle interventions

For patients with PAD, lifestyle modifications are an essential—but challenging—component of disease management.

Continue to: Smoking cessation...

Smoking cessation. As with other atherosclerotic diseases, PAD progression is strongly correlated with smoking. A trial involving 204 active smokers with PAD showed that 5-year mortality and amputation rates dropped by more than half in those who quit smoking within a year, with numbers needed to treat (NNT) of 6 for mortality and 5 for amputation.¹⁹ Because of this dramatic effect, American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guidelines encourage providers to address smoking at every visit and use cessation programs and medication to increase quit rates.¹³

Exercise may be the most important intervention for PAD. A 2017 Cochrane review found that supervised, structured exercise programs increase pain-free and maximal walking distances by at least 20% and also improve physical and mental quality of life.²⁰ In a trial involving 111 patients with aortoiliac PAD, supervised exercise plus medical care led to greater functional improvement than either revascularization plus medical care or medical care alone.²¹ In a 2018 Cochrane review, neither revascularization or revascularization added to supervised exercise were better than supervised exercise alone.²² ACC/AHA guidelines recommend supervised exercise programs for claudication prior to considering revascularization.¹³TABLE 3¹³ outlines the components of a structured exercise program.

Unfortunately, the benefit of these programs has been difficult to reproduce without supervision. Another 2018 Cochrane review demonstrated significant improvement with supervised exercise and no clear improvement in patients given home exercise or advice to walk.²³ A recent study examined the effect of having patients use a wearable fitness tracker for home exercise and demonstrated no benefit over usual care.²⁴

Diet. There is some evidence that dietary interventions can prevent and possibly improve PAD. A large randomized controlled trial showed that a Mediterranean diet lowered rates of PAD over 1 year compared to a low-fat diet, with an NNT of 336 if supplemented with extra-virgin olive oil and 448 if supplemented with nuts.²⁵ A small trial of 25 patients who consumed non-soy legumes daily for 8 weeks showed average ABI improvement of 6%, although there was no control group.²⁶

Medical therapy to address peripheral and cardiovascular events

Standard medical therapy for coronary artery disease (CAD) is recommended for patients with PAD to reduce cardiovascular and limb events. For example, treatment of hypertension reduces cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events, and studies verify that lowering blood pressure does not worsen claudication or limb perfusion.

A trial involving 204 active smokers with PAD showed that 5-year mortality and amputation rates dropped by more than half in those who quit smoking within a year.

¹³TABLE 4^13,27-30 outlines the options for medical therapy.

Continue to: Statins...

Statins reduce cardiovascular events in PAD patients. A large study demonstrated that 40 mg of simvastatin has an NNT of 21 to prevent a coronary or cerebrovascular event in PAD, similar to the NNT of 23 seen in treatment of CAD.²⁷ Statins also reduce adverse limb outcomes. A registry of atherosclerosis patients showed that statins have an NNT of 56 to prevent amputation in PAD and an NNT of 28 to prevent worsening claudication, critical limb ischemia, revascularization, or amputation.²⁸

Antiplatelet therapy with low-dose aspirin or clopidogrel is recommended for symptomatic patients and for asymptomatic patients with an ABI ≤ 0.9.¹³ A Cochrane review demonstrated significantly reduced mortality with nonaspirin antiplatelet agents vs aspirin (NNT = 94) without increase in major bleeding.²⁹ Only British guidelines specifically recommend clopidogrel over aspirin.³¹

Dual antiplatelet therapy has not shown consistent benefits over aspirin alone. ACC/AHA guidelines state that dual antiplatelet therapy is not well established for PAD but may be reasonable after revascularization.¹³

Voraxapar is a novel antiplatelet agent that targets the thrombin-binding receptor on platelets. However, trials show no significant coronary benefit, and slight reductions in acute limb ischemia are offset by increases in major bleeding.¹³

For patients receiving medical therapy, ongoing evaluation and treatment should be based on claudication symptoms and clinical assessment.

Medical therapy for claudication

Several medications have been proposed for symptomatic treatment of intermittent claudication. Cilostazol is a phosphodiesterase inhibitor with the best risk-benefit ratio. A Cochrane review showed improvements in maximal and pain-free walking distances compared to placebo and improvements in quality of life with cilostazol 100 mg taken twice daily.³² Adverse effects included headache, dizziness, palpitations, and diarrhea.²⁹

Continue to: Pentoxifylline...

Pentoxifylline is another phosphodiesterase inhibitor with less evidence of improvement, higher adverse effect rates, and more frequent dosing. It is not recommended for treatment of intermittent claudication.^13,33

Supplements. Padma 28, a Tibetan herbal formulation, appears to improve maximal walking distance with adverse effect rates similar to placebo.³⁴ Other supplements, including vitamin E, ginkgo biloba, and omega-3 fatty acids, have no evidence of benefit.^35-37

When revascularizationis needed

Patients who develop limb ischemia or lifestyle-limiting claudication despite conservative therapy are candidates for revascularization. Endovascular techniques include angioplasty, stenting, atherectomy, and precise medication delivery. Surgical approaches mainly consist of thrombectomy and bypass grafting. For intermittent claudication despite conservative care, ACC/AHA guidelines state endovascular procedures are appropriate for aortoiliac disease and reasonable for femoropopliteal disease, but unproven for infrapopliteal disease.¹³

Acute limb ischemia is an emergency requiring immediate intervention. Two trials revealed identical overall and amputation-free survival rates for percutaneous thrombolysis and surgical thrombectomy.^38,39 ACC/AHA guidelines recommend anticoagulation with heparin followed by the revascularization technique that will most rapidly restore arterial flow.¹³

For chronic limb ischemia, a large trial showed angioplasty had lower initial morbidity, length of hospitalization, and cost than surgical repair. However, surgical mortality was lower after 2 years.⁴⁰ ACC/AHA guidelines recommend either surgery or endovascular procedures and propose initial endovascular treatment followed by surgery if needed.¹³ After revascularization, the patient should be followed periodically with a clinical evaluation and ABI measurement with further consideration for routine duplex ultrasound surveillance.¹³

For chronic limb ischemia, a large trial showed angioplasty had lower initial morbidity, length of hospitalization, and cost than surgical repair. Surgical mortality was lower after 2 years.

Outcomes

Patients with PAD have variable outcomes. About 70% to 80% of patients with this diagnosis will have a stable disease process with no worsening of symptoms, 10% to 20% will experience worsening symptoms over time, 5% to 10% will require revascularization within 5 years of diagnosis, and 1% to 5% will progress to critical limb ischemia, which has a 5-year amputation rate of 1% to 4%.² Patients who require amputation have poor outcomes: Within 2 years, 30% are dead and 15% have had further amputations.¹⁸

In addition to the morbidity and mortality from its own progression, PAD is an important predictor of CAD and is associated with a significant elevation in morbidity and mortality from CAD. One small but well-designed prospective cohort study found that patients with PAD had a more than 6-fold increased risk of death from CAD than did patients without PAD.⁴¹

Acknowledgement
The authors thank Francesca Cimino, MD, FAAFP, for her help in reviewing this manuscript.

CORRESPONDENCE
Dustin K. Smith, DO, 2080 Child Street, Jacksonville, FL 32214; [email protected]

Peripheral arterial disease (PAD), the progressive disorder that results in ischemia to distal vascular territories as a result of atherosclerosis, spans a wide range of presentations, from minimally symptomatic disease to limb ischemia secondary to acute or chronic occlusion.

The prevalence of PAD is variable, due to differing diagnostic criteria used in studies, but PAD appears to affect 1 in every 22 people older than age 40.¹ However, since PAD incidence increases with age, it is increasing in prevalence as the US population ages.^1-3

PAD is associated with increased hospitalizations and decreased quality of life.⁴ Patients with PAD have an estimated 30% 5-year risk for myocardial infarction, stroke, or death from a vascular cause.³

Screening. Although PAD is underdiagnosed and appears to be undertreated,³ population-based screening for PAD in asymptomatic patients is not recommended. A Cochrane review found no studies evaluating the benefit of ­asymptomatic population-based screening.⁵ Similarly, in 2018, the USPSTF performed a comprehensive review and found no studies to support routine screening and determined there was insufficient evidence to recommend it.^6,7

Risk factors and associated comorbidities

PAD risk factors, like the ones detailed below, have a potentiating effect. The presence of 2 risk factors doubles PAD risk, while 3 or more risk factors increase PAD risk by a factor of 10.¹

Increasing age is the greatest single risk factor for PAD.^1,2,8,9 Researchers using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) found that the prevalence of PAD increased from 1.4% in individuals ages 40 to 49 years to almost 17% in those age 70 or older.¹

© kostudios

Patients with PAD have an estimated 30% 5-year risk for myocardial infarction, stroke, or death from a vascular cause.

Demographic characteristics. Most studies demonstrate a higher risk for PAD in men.^1-3,10 African-American patients have more than twice the risk for PAD, compared with Whites, even after adjustment for the increased prevalence of associated diseases such as hypertension and diabetes in this population.^1-3,10

Continue to: Genetics...

Genetics. A study performed by the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute suggested that genetic correlations between twins were more important than environmental factors in the development of PAD.¹¹

Smoking. Most population studies show smoking to be the greatest modifiable risk factor for PAD. An analysis of the NHANES data yielded an odds ratio (OR) of 4.1 for current smokers and of 1.8 for former smokers.¹ Risk increases linearly with cumulative years of smoking.^1,2,9,10

Diabetes is another significant modifiable risk factor, increasing PAD risk by 2.5 times.² Diabetes is also associated with increases in functional limitation from claudication, risk for acute coronary syndrome, and progression to amputation.¹

Hypertension nearly doubles the risk for PAD, and poor control further increases this risk.^2,9,10

Chronic kidney disease (CKD). Patients with CKD have a progressively higher prevalence of PAD with worsening renal function.¹ There is also an association between CKD and increased morbidity, revascularization failure, and increased mortality.¹

Two additional risk factors that are less well understood are dyslipidemia and chronic inflammation. There is conflicting data regarding the role of individual components of cholesterol and their effect on PAD, although lipoprotein (a) has been shown to be an independent risk factor for both the development and progression of PAD.¹² Similarly, chronic inflammation has been shown to play a role in the initiation and progression of the disease, although the role of inflammatory markers in evaluation and treatment is unclear and assessment for these purposes is not currently recommended.^12,13

Continue to: Diagnosis...

Diagnosis

Clinical presentation

Lower extremity pain is the hallmark symptom of PAD, but presentation varies. The classic presentation is claudication, pain within a defined muscle group that occurs with exertion and is relieved by rest. Claudication is most common in the calf but also occurs in the buttock/thigh and the foot.

African- American patients have more than twice the risk for PAD, compared with Whites, even after adjustment for the increased prevalence of associated diseases in this population.

However, most patients with PAD present with pain that does not fit the definition of claudication. Patients with comorbidities, physical inactivity, and neuropathy are more likely to present with atypical pain.¹⁴ These patients may demonstrate critical or acute limb ischemia, characterized by pain at rest and most often localized to the forefoot and toes. Patients with critical limb ischemia may also present with nonhealing wounds/ulcers or gangrene.¹⁵

Physical exam findings can support the diagnosis of PAD, but none are reliable enough to rule the diagnosis in or out. Findings suggestive of PAD include cool skin, presence of a bruit (iliac, femoral, or popliteal), and palpable pulse abnormality. Multiple abnormal physical exam findings increase the likelihood of PAD, while the absence of a bruit or palpable pulse abnormality makes PAD less likely.¹⁶ In patients with PAD, an associated wound/ulcer is most often distal in the foot and usually appears dry.¹⁷

The differential diagnosis for intermittent leg pain is broad and includes neurologic, musculoskeletal, and venous etiologies. Table 1¹⁸ lists some common alternate diagnoses for patients presenting with leg pain or claudication.

Continue to: Diagnostic testing...

Diagnostic testing

An ankle-brachial index (ABI) test should be performed in patients with history or physical exam findings suggestive of PAD. A resting ABI is performed with the patient in the supine position, with measurement of systolic blood pressure in both arms and ankles using a Doppler ultrasound device. Table 2¹³ outlines ABI scoring and interpretation.

An ABI > 1.4 is an invalid measurement, indicating that the arteries are too calcified to be compressed. These highly elevated ABI measurements are common in patients with diabetes and/or advanced CKD. In these patients, a toe-brachial index (TBI) test should be performed, because the digital arteries are almost always compressible.¹³

Patients with symptomatic PAD who are under consideration for revascularization may benefit from radiologic imaging of the lower extremities with duplex ultrasound, computed tomography angiography, or magnetic resonance angiography to determine the anatomic location and severity of stenosis.¹³

Management of PAD

Lifestyle interventions

For patients with PAD, lifestyle modifications are an essential—but challenging—component of disease management.

Continue to: Smoking cessation...

Smoking cessation. As with other atherosclerotic diseases, PAD progression is strongly correlated with smoking. A trial involving 204 active smokers with PAD showed that 5-year mortality and amputation rates dropped by more than half in those who quit smoking within a year, with numbers needed to treat (NNT) of 6 for mortality and 5 for amputation.¹⁹ Because of this dramatic effect, American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guidelines encourage providers to address smoking at every visit and use cessation programs and medication to increase quit rates.¹³

Exercise may be the most important intervention for PAD. A 2017 Cochrane review found that supervised, structured exercise programs increase pain-free and maximal walking distances by at least 20% and also improve physical and mental quality of life.²⁰ In a trial involving 111 patients with aortoiliac PAD, supervised exercise plus medical care led to greater functional improvement than either revascularization plus medical care or medical care alone.²¹ In a 2018 Cochrane review, neither revascularization or revascularization added to supervised exercise were better than supervised exercise alone.²² ACC/AHA guidelines recommend supervised exercise programs for claudication prior to considering revascularization.¹³TABLE 3¹³ outlines the components of a structured exercise program.

Unfortunately, the benefit of these programs has been difficult to reproduce without supervision. Another 2018 Cochrane review demonstrated significant improvement with supervised exercise and no clear improvement in patients given home exercise or advice to walk.²³ A recent study examined the effect of having patients use a wearable fitness tracker for home exercise and demonstrated no benefit over usual care.²⁴

Diet. There is some evidence that dietary interventions can prevent and possibly improve PAD. A large randomized controlled trial showed that a Mediterranean diet lowered rates of PAD over 1 year compared to a low-fat diet, with an NNT of 336 if supplemented with extra-virgin olive oil and 448 if supplemented with nuts.²⁵ A small trial of 25 patients who consumed non-soy legumes daily for 8 weeks showed average ABI improvement of 6%, although there was no control group.²⁶

Medical therapy to address peripheral and cardiovascular events

Standard medical therapy for coronary artery disease (CAD) is recommended for patients with PAD to reduce cardiovascular and limb events. For example, treatment of hypertension reduces cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events, and studies verify that lowering blood pressure does not worsen claudication or limb perfusion.

A trial involving 204 active smokers with PAD showed that 5-year mortality and amputation rates dropped by more than half in those who quit smoking within a year.

¹³TABLE 4^13,27-30 outlines the options for medical therapy.

Continue to: Statins...

Statins reduce cardiovascular events in PAD patients. A large study demonstrated that 40 mg of simvastatin has an NNT of 21 to prevent a coronary or cerebrovascular event in PAD, similar to the NNT of 23 seen in treatment of CAD.²⁷ Statins also reduce adverse limb outcomes. A registry of atherosclerosis patients showed that statins have an NNT of 56 to prevent amputation in PAD and an NNT of 28 to prevent worsening claudication, critical limb ischemia, revascularization, or amputation.²⁸

Antiplatelet therapy with low-dose aspirin or clopidogrel is recommended for symptomatic patients and for asymptomatic patients with an ABI ≤ 0.9.¹³ A Cochrane review demonstrated significantly reduced mortality with nonaspirin antiplatelet agents vs aspirin (NNT = 94) without increase in major bleeding.²⁹ Only British guidelines specifically recommend clopidogrel over aspirin.³¹

Dual antiplatelet therapy has not shown consistent benefits over aspirin alone. ACC/AHA guidelines state that dual antiplatelet therapy is not well established for PAD but may be reasonable after revascularization.¹³

Voraxapar is a novel antiplatelet agent that targets the thrombin-binding receptor on platelets. However, trials show no significant coronary benefit, and slight reductions in acute limb ischemia are offset by increases in major bleeding.¹³

For patients receiving medical therapy, ongoing evaluation and treatment should be based on claudication symptoms and clinical assessment.

Medical therapy for claudication

Several medications have been proposed for symptomatic treatment of intermittent claudication. Cilostazol is a phosphodiesterase inhibitor with the best risk-benefit ratio. A Cochrane review showed improvements in maximal and pain-free walking distances compared to placebo and improvements in quality of life with cilostazol 100 mg taken twice daily.³² Adverse effects included headache, dizziness, palpitations, and diarrhea.²⁹

Continue to: Pentoxifylline...

Pentoxifylline is another phosphodiesterase inhibitor with less evidence of improvement, higher adverse effect rates, and more frequent dosing. It is not recommended for treatment of intermittent claudication.^13,33

Supplements. Padma 28, a Tibetan herbal formulation, appears to improve maximal walking distance with adverse effect rates similar to placebo.³⁴ Other supplements, including vitamin E, ginkgo biloba, and omega-3 fatty acids, have no evidence of benefit.^35-37

When revascularizationis needed

Patients who develop limb ischemia or lifestyle-limiting claudication despite conservative therapy are candidates for revascularization. Endovascular techniques include angioplasty, stenting, atherectomy, and precise medication delivery. Surgical approaches mainly consist of thrombectomy and bypass grafting. For intermittent claudication despite conservative care, ACC/AHA guidelines state endovascular procedures are appropriate for aortoiliac disease and reasonable for femoropopliteal disease, but unproven for infrapopliteal disease.¹³

Acute limb ischemia is an emergency requiring immediate intervention. Two trials revealed identical overall and amputation-free survival rates for percutaneous thrombolysis and surgical thrombectomy.^38,39 ACC/AHA guidelines recommend anticoagulation with heparin followed by the revascularization technique that will most rapidly restore arterial flow.¹³

For chronic limb ischemia, a large trial showed angioplasty had lower initial morbidity, length of hospitalization, and cost than surgical repair. However, surgical mortality was lower after 2 years.⁴⁰ ACC/AHA guidelines recommend either surgery or endovascular procedures and propose initial endovascular treatment followed by surgery if needed.¹³ After revascularization, the patient should be followed periodically with a clinical evaluation and ABI measurement with further consideration for routine duplex ultrasound surveillance.¹³

For chronic limb ischemia, a large trial showed angioplasty had lower initial morbidity, length of hospitalization, and cost than surgical repair. Surgical mortality was lower after 2 years.

Outcomes

Patients with PAD have variable outcomes. About 70% to 80% of patients with this diagnosis will have a stable disease process with no worsening of symptoms, 10% to 20% will experience worsening symptoms over time, 5% to 10% will require revascularization within 5 years of diagnosis, and 1% to 5% will progress to critical limb ischemia, which has a 5-year amputation rate of 1% to 4%.² Patients who require amputation have poor outcomes: Within 2 years, 30% are dead and 15% have had further amputations.¹⁸

In addition to the morbidity and mortality from its own progression, PAD is an important predictor of CAD and is associated with a significant elevation in morbidity and mortality from CAD. One small but well-designed prospective cohort study found that patients with PAD had a more than 6-fold increased risk of death from CAD than did patients without PAD.⁴¹

Acknowledgement
The authors thank Francesca Cimino, MD, FAAFP, for her help in reviewing this manuscript.

CORRESPONDENCE
Dustin K. Smith, DO, 2080 Child Street, Jacksonville, FL 32214; [email protected]