User login
AHA on cannabis: No evidence of heart benefits, but potential harms
Evidence for a link between cannabis use and cardiovascular health remains unsupported, and the potential risks outweigh any potential benefits, according to a scientific statement from the American Heart Association.
The increased legalization of cannabis and cannabis products in the United States has driven medical professionals to evaluate the safety and efficacy of cannabis in relation to health conditions, wrote Robert L. Page II, PharmD, of the University of Colorado, Aurora, and colleagues.
In a statement published in Circulation, the researchers noted that although cannabis has been shown to relieve pain and other symptoms in certain conditions, clinicians in the United States have been limited from studying its health effects because of federal law restrictions. “Cannabis remains a schedule I controlled substance, deeming no accepted medical use, a high potential for abuse, and an unacceptable safety profile,” the researchers wrote.
The statement addresses issues with the use of cannabis by individuals with cardiovascular disease or those at increased risk. Observational studies have shown no cardiovascular benefits associated with cannabis, the writers noted. The most common chemicals in cannabis include THC (tetrahydrocannabinolic acid) and CBD (cannabidiol).
Some research has shown associations between CBD cardiovascular features including lower blood pressure and reduced inflammation, the writers noted. However, THC, the component of cannabis associated with a “high” or intoxication, has been associated with heart rhythm abnormalities. The writers cited data suggesting an increased risk of heart attacks, atrial fibrillation and heart failure, although more research is needed.
The statement outlines common cannabis formulations including plant-based, extracts, crystalline forms, edible products, and tinctures. In addition, the statement notes that synthetic cannabis products are marketed and used in the United States without subject to regulation.
“Over the past 5 years, we have seen a surge in cannabis use, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic here in Colorado, especially among adolescents and young adults,” Dr. Page said in an interview. Because of the surge, health care practitioners need to familiarize themselves with not only the benefits, but risks associated with cannabis use regardless of the formulation,” he said. As heart disease remains a leading cause of death in the United States, understanding the cardiovascular risks associated with cannabis is crucial at this time.
Dr. Page noted that popular attitudes about cannabis could pose risks to users’ cardiovascular health. “One leading misconception about cannabis is because it is ‘natural’ it must be safe,” Dr. Page said. “As with all medications, cannabis has side effects, some of which can be cardiovascular in nature,” he said. “Significant drug-drug interactions can occur as CBD and THC, both found in cannabis, inhibit CYP3A4, which metabolizes a large number of medications used to treat many cardiovascular conditions,” he noted.
“Unfortunately, much of the published data is observational in nature due to the federal restrictions on cannabis as a schedule I drug,” said Dr. Page. “Nonetheless, safety signals have emerged regarding cannabis use and adverse cardiovascular outcomes, including myocardial infarction, heart failure, and atrial fibrillation. Carefully designed prospective short- and long-term studies regarding cannabis use and cardiovascular safety are needed,” he emphasized.
Areas in particular need of additional research include the cardiovascular effects of cannabis in several vulnerable populations such as adolescents, older adults, pregnant women, transplant recipients, and those with underlying cardiovascular disease, said Dr. Page.
“Nonetheless, based on the safety signals described within this Clinical Science Statement, an open discussion regarding the risks of using cannabis needs to occur between patient and health care providers,” he said. “Furthermore, patients must be transparent regarding their cannabis use with their cardiologist and primary care provider. The cannabis story will continue to evolve and is a rapidly moving/changing target,” he said.
“Whether cannabis use is a definitive risk factor for cardiovascular disease as with tobacco use is still unknown, and both acute and long-term studies are desperately needed to address this issue,” he said.
Dr. Page had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.
SOURCE: Page et al. Circulation. 2020 Aug 5. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000883.
Evidence for a link between cannabis use and cardiovascular health remains unsupported, and the potential risks outweigh any potential benefits, according to a scientific statement from the American Heart Association.
The increased legalization of cannabis and cannabis products in the United States has driven medical professionals to evaluate the safety and efficacy of cannabis in relation to health conditions, wrote Robert L. Page II, PharmD, of the University of Colorado, Aurora, and colleagues.
In a statement published in Circulation, the researchers noted that although cannabis has been shown to relieve pain and other symptoms in certain conditions, clinicians in the United States have been limited from studying its health effects because of federal law restrictions. “Cannabis remains a schedule I controlled substance, deeming no accepted medical use, a high potential for abuse, and an unacceptable safety profile,” the researchers wrote.
The statement addresses issues with the use of cannabis by individuals with cardiovascular disease or those at increased risk. Observational studies have shown no cardiovascular benefits associated with cannabis, the writers noted. The most common chemicals in cannabis include THC (tetrahydrocannabinolic acid) and CBD (cannabidiol).
Some research has shown associations between CBD cardiovascular features including lower blood pressure and reduced inflammation, the writers noted. However, THC, the component of cannabis associated with a “high” or intoxication, has been associated with heart rhythm abnormalities. The writers cited data suggesting an increased risk of heart attacks, atrial fibrillation and heart failure, although more research is needed.
The statement outlines common cannabis formulations including plant-based, extracts, crystalline forms, edible products, and tinctures. In addition, the statement notes that synthetic cannabis products are marketed and used in the United States without subject to regulation.
“Over the past 5 years, we have seen a surge in cannabis use, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic here in Colorado, especially among adolescents and young adults,” Dr. Page said in an interview. Because of the surge, health care practitioners need to familiarize themselves with not only the benefits, but risks associated with cannabis use regardless of the formulation,” he said. As heart disease remains a leading cause of death in the United States, understanding the cardiovascular risks associated with cannabis is crucial at this time.
Dr. Page noted that popular attitudes about cannabis could pose risks to users’ cardiovascular health. “One leading misconception about cannabis is because it is ‘natural’ it must be safe,” Dr. Page said. “As with all medications, cannabis has side effects, some of which can be cardiovascular in nature,” he said. “Significant drug-drug interactions can occur as CBD and THC, both found in cannabis, inhibit CYP3A4, which metabolizes a large number of medications used to treat many cardiovascular conditions,” he noted.
“Unfortunately, much of the published data is observational in nature due to the federal restrictions on cannabis as a schedule I drug,” said Dr. Page. “Nonetheless, safety signals have emerged regarding cannabis use and adverse cardiovascular outcomes, including myocardial infarction, heart failure, and atrial fibrillation. Carefully designed prospective short- and long-term studies regarding cannabis use and cardiovascular safety are needed,” he emphasized.
Areas in particular need of additional research include the cardiovascular effects of cannabis in several vulnerable populations such as adolescents, older adults, pregnant women, transplant recipients, and those with underlying cardiovascular disease, said Dr. Page.
“Nonetheless, based on the safety signals described within this Clinical Science Statement, an open discussion regarding the risks of using cannabis needs to occur between patient and health care providers,” he said. “Furthermore, patients must be transparent regarding their cannabis use with their cardiologist and primary care provider. The cannabis story will continue to evolve and is a rapidly moving/changing target,” he said.
“Whether cannabis use is a definitive risk factor for cardiovascular disease as with tobacco use is still unknown, and both acute and long-term studies are desperately needed to address this issue,” he said.
Dr. Page had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.
SOURCE: Page et al. Circulation. 2020 Aug 5. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000883.
Evidence for a link between cannabis use and cardiovascular health remains unsupported, and the potential risks outweigh any potential benefits, according to a scientific statement from the American Heart Association.
The increased legalization of cannabis and cannabis products in the United States has driven medical professionals to evaluate the safety and efficacy of cannabis in relation to health conditions, wrote Robert L. Page II, PharmD, of the University of Colorado, Aurora, and colleagues.
In a statement published in Circulation, the researchers noted that although cannabis has been shown to relieve pain and other symptoms in certain conditions, clinicians in the United States have been limited from studying its health effects because of federal law restrictions. “Cannabis remains a schedule I controlled substance, deeming no accepted medical use, a high potential for abuse, and an unacceptable safety profile,” the researchers wrote.
The statement addresses issues with the use of cannabis by individuals with cardiovascular disease or those at increased risk. Observational studies have shown no cardiovascular benefits associated with cannabis, the writers noted. The most common chemicals in cannabis include THC (tetrahydrocannabinolic acid) and CBD (cannabidiol).
Some research has shown associations between CBD cardiovascular features including lower blood pressure and reduced inflammation, the writers noted. However, THC, the component of cannabis associated with a “high” or intoxication, has been associated with heart rhythm abnormalities. The writers cited data suggesting an increased risk of heart attacks, atrial fibrillation and heart failure, although more research is needed.
The statement outlines common cannabis formulations including plant-based, extracts, crystalline forms, edible products, and tinctures. In addition, the statement notes that synthetic cannabis products are marketed and used in the United States without subject to regulation.
“Over the past 5 years, we have seen a surge in cannabis use, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic here in Colorado, especially among adolescents and young adults,” Dr. Page said in an interview. Because of the surge, health care practitioners need to familiarize themselves with not only the benefits, but risks associated with cannabis use regardless of the formulation,” he said. As heart disease remains a leading cause of death in the United States, understanding the cardiovascular risks associated with cannabis is crucial at this time.
Dr. Page noted that popular attitudes about cannabis could pose risks to users’ cardiovascular health. “One leading misconception about cannabis is because it is ‘natural’ it must be safe,” Dr. Page said. “As with all medications, cannabis has side effects, some of which can be cardiovascular in nature,” he said. “Significant drug-drug interactions can occur as CBD and THC, both found in cannabis, inhibit CYP3A4, which metabolizes a large number of medications used to treat many cardiovascular conditions,” he noted.
“Unfortunately, much of the published data is observational in nature due to the federal restrictions on cannabis as a schedule I drug,” said Dr. Page. “Nonetheless, safety signals have emerged regarding cannabis use and adverse cardiovascular outcomes, including myocardial infarction, heart failure, and atrial fibrillation. Carefully designed prospective short- and long-term studies regarding cannabis use and cardiovascular safety are needed,” he emphasized.
Areas in particular need of additional research include the cardiovascular effects of cannabis in several vulnerable populations such as adolescents, older adults, pregnant women, transplant recipients, and those with underlying cardiovascular disease, said Dr. Page.
“Nonetheless, based on the safety signals described within this Clinical Science Statement, an open discussion regarding the risks of using cannabis needs to occur between patient and health care providers,” he said. “Furthermore, patients must be transparent regarding their cannabis use with their cardiologist and primary care provider. The cannabis story will continue to evolve and is a rapidly moving/changing target,” he said.
“Whether cannabis use is a definitive risk factor for cardiovascular disease as with tobacco use is still unknown, and both acute and long-term studies are desperately needed to address this issue,” he said.
Dr. Page had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.
SOURCE: Page et al. Circulation. 2020 Aug 5. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000883.
FROM CIRCULATION
Does stirrup choice influence vaginal surgery outcome?
according to the first randomized controlled trial comparing both types of lithotomy stirrups.
“Participants positioned in candy cane stirrups had greater hip abduction than those positioned in boot stirrups, which could provide a rationale for our findings,” suggested Ankita Gupta, MD, MPH, of the University of Louisville (Ky.), and colleagues. Their report is in Obstetrics & Gynecology.
But one expert questions this interpretation, calling it a major limitation of the study.
“The only difference between the two arms of the study is associated with the angles between the femurs,” said Rosanne M. Kho, MD, a gynecologic surgeon at Cleveland Clinic, who was not involved in the study. “The difference of the angles at the femur is not inherent to the type of stirrup but in the method in which the patients were positioned using the two different types of stirrups,” she said. “The same wide angle between the femurs can be attained with the boot stirrups if the patient is not positioned properly. To determine if the same benefit in physical function is achieved with a lesser angle between the femur, the investigators should use only one type of stirrup (whether the candy cane or the boot stirrups) and change only the angles of the femur.”
The study was a single-masked, randomized controlled trial of women undergoing vaginal surgery at the University of Louisville’s division of urogynecology between March 2018 and Oct. 2019. Surgeries included any combination of vaginal hysterectomy, vaginal vault suspension (uterosacral or sacrospinous ligament fixation), vaginectomy (partial or total), mid-urethral slings, or other surgeries such as urethral diverticulectomy, fistula repair, or mesh excision.
Among the 138 women included in the intention-to-treat analysis, 72 were randomized to candy cane, and 66 to boot (Yellofin) stirrups. They were positioned in the assigned stirrup by the attending surgeon, with assistance from the surgical team, after administration of anesthesia and were not informed of their allocation until the end of the study at 6 weeks post surgery.
On day 1 post surgery, a 100-point visual analog scale (VAS) questionnaire was administered for pain in the lower back, hips, buttocks, thighs, knees, calves, and feet, followed by a series of questionnaires at 6 weeks post surgery, including the PROMIS (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System) forms on physical function, pain intensity, and pain interference, as well as the Pelvic Floor Disability Index (PFDI-20) and the Patient Global Impression of Improvement forms.
While the authors acknowledged that neurologic injuries following vaginal surgery are rare, and therefore difficult to measure, physical function is a “prudent” alternative measurement.
Although the study was designed to compare lithotomy stirrups, patient positioning also was measured. Once the patient was anesthetized, the surgeon used a goniometer to measure flexion at the hip and knee joints, the angle of abduction and external rotation at the hip. The “angle between the femurs” was measured by placing the fulcrum of the goniometer at the anal opening.
While the angles of flexion at the hips and knees were similar between groups, the study found a significant difference between groups in the angle between the femurs (mean ± standard deviation, 88.7 ± 13.4 candy cane vs. 77.2 ± 13.3 boot, P < .01).
In addition, the primary outcome, change in physical function based on the PROMIS physical function shortform-20a, was significantly different between the two groups: While subjects in the candy cane group demonstrated a decline of 1.9 in mean physical function score at 6 weeks compared to baseline, those in the boot stirrup group showed an increase of 1.9 from baseline. The mean 6-week postoperative scores were 45.8 versus 49.8 for the candy cane and boot stirrup groups respectively (P < .01).
Although it was “well executed by a well-respected group of vaginal surgeons at a major academic institution,” the study has other limitations, noted Dr. Kho.
“Though the measurements were obtained with the goniometer at the beginning of the surgery, it does not appear that a repeat measurement was performed at the end of the case. Is it possible that positioning could have shifted and resulted in further change in the angle of the femur/hip/knees compared to the beginning of the surgery?” she asked.
In addition, “compared to the candy canes, the boot stirrup has bulky boots that could limit opportunities for bedside assistants who were standing next to the primary surgeon to lean against the patient’s thighs during the surgery. Were there measures done to ensure that assistants were not leaning against the [candy cane] patients?”
In terms of the 6-week outcome measure, Dr. Kho suggested PROMIS outcomes measured at 2 weeks and at 4 or 6 weeks “would have provided greater insight to the study question.
“The authors acknowledge that neuropathies due to patient positioning manifest soon after surgery and tend to be transient. Incidence of neuropathy is extremely low in both groups and is equivalent. Factors that could impair quick return to normal activity as a result of the neuromuscular effects due to patient positioning should have been measured earlier,” she suggested.
Finally, Dr. Kho noted that the authors “fail to provide any likely rationale for the impaired physical function measured at 6 weeks that can be attributed to the difference in the angles at the femur. The findings of decreased physical function at 6 weeks in the candy cane group may be incidental, and may be different if measured at an earlier time (which would be more pertinent for this study) or at a later time such as 3 months.”
Individual authors acknowledged personal funds from Society of Gynecologic Surgeons, Elsevier publishing, RBI Medical, and AMAG Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Kho had no relevant financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Gupta A et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 July 8. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003954.
according to the first randomized controlled trial comparing both types of lithotomy stirrups.
“Participants positioned in candy cane stirrups had greater hip abduction than those positioned in boot stirrups, which could provide a rationale for our findings,” suggested Ankita Gupta, MD, MPH, of the University of Louisville (Ky.), and colleagues. Their report is in Obstetrics & Gynecology.
But one expert questions this interpretation, calling it a major limitation of the study.
“The only difference between the two arms of the study is associated with the angles between the femurs,” said Rosanne M. Kho, MD, a gynecologic surgeon at Cleveland Clinic, who was not involved in the study. “The difference of the angles at the femur is not inherent to the type of stirrup but in the method in which the patients were positioned using the two different types of stirrups,” she said. “The same wide angle between the femurs can be attained with the boot stirrups if the patient is not positioned properly. To determine if the same benefit in physical function is achieved with a lesser angle between the femur, the investigators should use only one type of stirrup (whether the candy cane or the boot stirrups) and change only the angles of the femur.”
The study was a single-masked, randomized controlled trial of women undergoing vaginal surgery at the University of Louisville’s division of urogynecology between March 2018 and Oct. 2019. Surgeries included any combination of vaginal hysterectomy, vaginal vault suspension (uterosacral or sacrospinous ligament fixation), vaginectomy (partial or total), mid-urethral slings, or other surgeries such as urethral diverticulectomy, fistula repair, or mesh excision.
Among the 138 women included in the intention-to-treat analysis, 72 were randomized to candy cane, and 66 to boot (Yellofin) stirrups. They were positioned in the assigned stirrup by the attending surgeon, with assistance from the surgical team, after administration of anesthesia and were not informed of their allocation until the end of the study at 6 weeks post surgery.
On day 1 post surgery, a 100-point visual analog scale (VAS) questionnaire was administered for pain in the lower back, hips, buttocks, thighs, knees, calves, and feet, followed by a series of questionnaires at 6 weeks post surgery, including the PROMIS (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System) forms on physical function, pain intensity, and pain interference, as well as the Pelvic Floor Disability Index (PFDI-20) and the Patient Global Impression of Improvement forms.
While the authors acknowledged that neurologic injuries following vaginal surgery are rare, and therefore difficult to measure, physical function is a “prudent” alternative measurement.
Although the study was designed to compare lithotomy stirrups, patient positioning also was measured. Once the patient was anesthetized, the surgeon used a goniometer to measure flexion at the hip and knee joints, the angle of abduction and external rotation at the hip. The “angle between the femurs” was measured by placing the fulcrum of the goniometer at the anal opening.
While the angles of flexion at the hips and knees were similar between groups, the study found a significant difference between groups in the angle between the femurs (mean ± standard deviation, 88.7 ± 13.4 candy cane vs. 77.2 ± 13.3 boot, P < .01).
In addition, the primary outcome, change in physical function based on the PROMIS physical function shortform-20a, was significantly different between the two groups: While subjects in the candy cane group demonstrated a decline of 1.9 in mean physical function score at 6 weeks compared to baseline, those in the boot stirrup group showed an increase of 1.9 from baseline. The mean 6-week postoperative scores were 45.8 versus 49.8 for the candy cane and boot stirrup groups respectively (P < .01).
Although it was “well executed by a well-respected group of vaginal surgeons at a major academic institution,” the study has other limitations, noted Dr. Kho.
“Though the measurements were obtained with the goniometer at the beginning of the surgery, it does not appear that a repeat measurement was performed at the end of the case. Is it possible that positioning could have shifted and resulted in further change in the angle of the femur/hip/knees compared to the beginning of the surgery?” she asked.
In addition, “compared to the candy canes, the boot stirrup has bulky boots that could limit opportunities for bedside assistants who were standing next to the primary surgeon to lean against the patient’s thighs during the surgery. Were there measures done to ensure that assistants were not leaning against the [candy cane] patients?”
In terms of the 6-week outcome measure, Dr. Kho suggested PROMIS outcomes measured at 2 weeks and at 4 or 6 weeks “would have provided greater insight to the study question.
“The authors acknowledge that neuropathies due to patient positioning manifest soon after surgery and tend to be transient. Incidence of neuropathy is extremely low in both groups and is equivalent. Factors that could impair quick return to normal activity as a result of the neuromuscular effects due to patient positioning should have been measured earlier,” she suggested.
Finally, Dr. Kho noted that the authors “fail to provide any likely rationale for the impaired physical function measured at 6 weeks that can be attributed to the difference in the angles at the femur. The findings of decreased physical function at 6 weeks in the candy cane group may be incidental, and may be different if measured at an earlier time (which would be more pertinent for this study) or at a later time such as 3 months.”
Individual authors acknowledged personal funds from Society of Gynecologic Surgeons, Elsevier publishing, RBI Medical, and AMAG Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Kho had no relevant financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Gupta A et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 July 8. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003954.
according to the first randomized controlled trial comparing both types of lithotomy stirrups.
“Participants positioned in candy cane stirrups had greater hip abduction than those positioned in boot stirrups, which could provide a rationale for our findings,” suggested Ankita Gupta, MD, MPH, of the University of Louisville (Ky.), and colleagues. Their report is in Obstetrics & Gynecology.
But one expert questions this interpretation, calling it a major limitation of the study.
“The only difference between the two arms of the study is associated with the angles between the femurs,” said Rosanne M. Kho, MD, a gynecologic surgeon at Cleveland Clinic, who was not involved in the study. “The difference of the angles at the femur is not inherent to the type of stirrup but in the method in which the patients were positioned using the two different types of stirrups,” she said. “The same wide angle between the femurs can be attained with the boot stirrups if the patient is not positioned properly. To determine if the same benefit in physical function is achieved with a lesser angle between the femur, the investigators should use only one type of stirrup (whether the candy cane or the boot stirrups) and change only the angles of the femur.”
The study was a single-masked, randomized controlled trial of women undergoing vaginal surgery at the University of Louisville’s division of urogynecology between March 2018 and Oct. 2019. Surgeries included any combination of vaginal hysterectomy, vaginal vault suspension (uterosacral or sacrospinous ligament fixation), vaginectomy (partial or total), mid-urethral slings, or other surgeries such as urethral diverticulectomy, fistula repair, or mesh excision.
Among the 138 women included in the intention-to-treat analysis, 72 were randomized to candy cane, and 66 to boot (Yellofin) stirrups. They were positioned in the assigned stirrup by the attending surgeon, with assistance from the surgical team, after administration of anesthesia and were not informed of their allocation until the end of the study at 6 weeks post surgery.
On day 1 post surgery, a 100-point visual analog scale (VAS) questionnaire was administered for pain in the lower back, hips, buttocks, thighs, knees, calves, and feet, followed by a series of questionnaires at 6 weeks post surgery, including the PROMIS (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System) forms on physical function, pain intensity, and pain interference, as well as the Pelvic Floor Disability Index (PFDI-20) and the Patient Global Impression of Improvement forms.
While the authors acknowledged that neurologic injuries following vaginal surgery are rare, and therefore difficult to measure, physical function is a “prudent” alternative measurement.
Although the study was designed to compare lithotomy stirrups, patient positioning also was measured. Once the patient was anesthetized, the surgeon used a goniometer to measure flexion at the hip and knee joints, the angle of abduction and external rotation at the hip. The “angle between the femurs” was measured by placing the fulcrum of the goniometer at the anal opening.
While the angles of flexion at the hips and knees were similar between groups, the study found a significant difference between groups in the angle between the femurs (mean ± standard deviation, 88.7 ± 13.4 candy cane vs. 77.2 ± 13.3 boot, P < .01).
In addition, the primary outcome, change in physical function based on the PROMIS physical function shortform-20a, was significantly different between the two groups: While subjects in the candy cane group demonstrated a decline of 1.9 in mean physical function score at 6 weeks compared to baseline, those in the boot stirrup group showed an increase of 1.9 from baseline. The mean 6-week postoperative scores were 45.8 versus 49.8 for the candy cane and boot stirrup groups respectively (P < .01).
Although it was “well executed by a well-respected group of vaginal surgeons at a major academic institution,” the study has other limitations, noted Dr. Kho.
“Though the measurements were obtained with the goniometer at the beginning of the surgery, it does not appear that a repeat measurement was performed at the end of the case. Is it possible that positioning could have shifted and resulted in further change in the angle of the femur/hip/knees compared to the beginning of the surgery?” she asked.
In addition, “compared to the candy canes, the boot stirrup has bulky boots that could limit opportunities for bedside assistants who were standing next to the primary surgeon to lean against the patient’s thighs during the surgery. Were there measures done to ensure that assistants were not leaning against the [candy cane] patients?”
In terms of the 6-week outcome measure, Dr. Kho suggested PROMIS outcomes measured at 2 weeks and at 4 or 6 weeks “would have provided greater insight to the study question.
“The authors acknowledge that neuropathies due to patient positioning manifest soon after surgery and tend to be transient. Incidence of neuropathy is extremely low in both groups and is equivalent. Factors that could impair quick return to normal activity as a result of the neuromuscular effects due to patient positioning should have been measured earlier,” she suggested.
Finally, Dr. Kho noted that the authors “fail to provide any likely rationale for the impaired physical function measured at 6 weeks that can be attributed to the difference in the angles at the femur. The findings of decreased physical function at 6 weeks in the candy cane group may be incidental, and may be different if measured at an earlier time (which would be more pertinent for this study) or at a later time such as 3 months.”
Individual authors acknowledged personal funds from Society of Gynecologic Surgeons, Elsevier publishing, RBI Medical, and AMAG Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Kho had no relevant financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Gupta A et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2020 July 8. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003954.
FROM OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
How prostate cancer treatments affect quality of life
according to a presentation at the virtual annual congress of the European Association of Urology (EAU).
Results of EUPROMS – the first patient-driven, international, prostate cancer quality of life study – showed that fatigue, insomnia, urinary incontinence, and sexual function were worse with certain types of treatments.
“Quality of life is negatively impacted by any treatment for prostate cancer other than active surveillance,” said André Deschamps, the chairman of the patient advocacy movement Europa Uomo, which conducted the study with support from Erasmus University Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Active surveillance “should be promoted as the first option for treatment for those men where it can be offered safely,” Mr. Deschamps said when presenting the study at the EAU congress.
The study showed that quality of life related to urinary incontinence was lowest in patients who had undergone radical prostatectomy, and sexual function was greatly affected by radiotherapy. Radiotherapy and chemotherapy had the greatest impact on patients’ levels of fatigue, and chemotherapy was associated with “the worst possible outcomes in quality of life,” Mr. Deschamps said.
Conversely, “reported quality of life scores are the best in patients where the cancer is discovered in an early, curable stage. Hence, efforts toward early detection and awareness are essential to avoid unnecessary deterioration in quality of life,” Mr. Deschamps said.
About the survey and respondents
Between August and November 2019, 2,943 prostate cancer patients from 24 European countries completed a web-based survey made available via the Europa Uomo website. The survey took around 20 minutes to complete and used three validated quality of life questionnaires, the EORTC-QLQ-C30, the EQ-5D-5L, and EPIC-26.
“The questionnaires were available in 19 languages, so every patient could answer in their mother tongue,” Mr. Deschamps pointed out, highlighting that this was a Europe-wide survey and was estimated to account for 0.1% of the patient population in Europe.
Countries with the highest number of respondents were Norway (n = 506), Sweden (n = 386), Belgium (n = 339), Germany (n = 253), Netherlands (n = 244), France (n = 234), Denmark (n = 188), the United Kingdom (n = 187), and Poland (n = 109).
The average age of respondents was 70 years at the time of the survey and 64 years at the time of diagnosis. Most patients (82%) were living with a partner.
Two-thirds of patients had received only one treatment for prostate cancer. This was most often radical prostatectomy, external beam radiotherapy, or active surveillance. Among the 22% of patients who had received two treatments, the therapies were most often a combination of surgery and radiotherapy, androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and radiotherapy or chemotherapy, and active surveillance and surgery.
Fatigue and insomnia
According to the EORTC-QLQ-C30 symptoms questionnaire, fatigue and insomnia were particular problems for men with prostate cancer, as denoted by scores of 25 and 24, respectively, out of a possible 100. Low scores are associated with worse fatigue and insomnia.
The researchers focused their attention on how specific cancer treatments might influence fatigue. They found that radiotherapy doubled and chemotherapy tripled the number of patients reporting fatigue, when compared with active surveillance. The incidence of fatigue was 22% (n = 304), 33% (n = 246), and 11% (n = 179), respectively.
As for insomnia, “it’s bit of a mixed view,” Mr. Deschamps said. “We believe that the progression of disease is more important for insomnia. The only thing you can say is that chemotherapy leads to an increase in reported insomnia.”
Urinary continence and sexual function
The EPIC-26 questionnaire was used to look at the health-related quality of life domains of urinary and sexual function. Sexual function was the most impacted area.
“We often hear that decline in sexual functioning is a relatively small problem for prostate cancer patients, and the effect on their quality of life should not be exaggerated,” Mr. Deschamps said in a press statement.
“We also hear that prostate cancer is typically a disease of ‘old men,’ implying that the loss of sexual function is less relevant. This survey paints a different picture,” he added.
Higher EPIC-26 scores signify better function. For urinary incontinence, the score was 100/100 for active surveillance but 65/100 when active surveillance was combined with surgery and 71/100 for surgery alone. The combination of surgery and radiotherapy carried a score of 73/100 for urinary incontinence. Radiotherapy on its own had a score of 92/100, suggesting it was the addition of the surgery that was having a significant effect. The score for radiotherapy plus ADT was 100/100, and the score for chemotherapy was 86/100.
Chemotherapy appeared to have the worst effect on sexual function, with a score of just 12/100. Radiotherapy was not far behind at 17/100, and surgery alone was 21/100. When radiotherapy and surgery were combined, the score was 15/100.
Sexual function scores were also low for all the other treatments considered – 18/100 for radiotherapy and ADT, 26/100 for active surveillance and surgery, and 57/100 for active surveillance alone.
Implications for practice
“The data collected and the analysis done provide patients and healthcare professionals with a ‘snapshot’ on the impact of treatments based on the experience of fellow patients,” Mr. Deschamps said. “We hope these results will be used to establish and disseminate realistic expectations on the effects of different treatments for prostate cancer on [quality of life].”
“This study is important because it was initiated by patients and meant for patients,” noted Monique Roobol, PhD, professor of decision-making in urology at the Erasmus University Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, where the survey data were analyzed.
“The questionnaires were completed unrelated to a hospital visit, which means respondents had more freedom to answer and provide insight into the effect of treatment on quality of life over a longer period,” she added.
“For me, the key point is that, as health care professionals, we have underestimated the impact on the quality of life for patients treated for prostate cancer,” said Hein van Poppel, MD, PhD, of University Hospitals Leuven (Belgium), who chaired the session in which the data were presented.
Arnulf Stenzl, MD, of Tübingen (Germany) University said in a statement that the survey provided valuable information. “It uses the same questionnaires used in standard clinical settings, but it is both qualitatively and quantitatively different to the kind of study usually undertaken, so it needs to be read alongside these previous studies,” Dr. Stenzl said.
There were several strong points, he said, such as the fact that EUPROMS was the largest study of its kind and thus would “reflect the impact of treatment on a wide range of patients, with different health systems.”
As an official EAU spokesperson, Dr. Stenzl added, “We completely agree that early detection and treatment is essential if we are to avoid problems with quality of life later on. It shows that, for many men, quality of life can be poor after most prostate cancer treatment, especially in advanced disease. This message is clear, and we need to listen to the voices of these patients.”
EUPROMS was conducted by Europa Uomo in conjunction with the Erasmus University Medical Centre in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Funding was received from Bayer, Ipsen, and Janssen. The companies had no influence over any aspect of the study. The commentators did not have conflicts of interest to disclose.
according to a presentation at the virtual annual congress of the European Association of Urology (EAU).
Results of EUPROMS – the first patient-driven, international, prostate cancer quality of life study – showed that fatigue, insomnia, urinary incontinence, and sexual function were worse with certain types of treatments.
“Quality of life is negatively impacted by any treatment for prostate cancer other than active surveillance,” said André Deschamps, the chairman of the patient advocacy movement Europa Uomo, which conducted the study with support from Erasmus University Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Active surveillance “should be promoted as the first option for treatment for those men where it can be offered safely,” Mr. Deschamps said when presenting the study at the EAU congress.
The study showed that quality of life related to urinary incontinence was lowest in patients who had undergone radical prostatectomy, and sexual function was greatly affected by radiotherapy. Radiotherapy and chemotherapy had the greatest impact on patients’ levels of fatigue, and chemotherapy was associated with “the worst possible outcomes in quality of life,” Mr. Deschamps said.
Conversely, “reported quality of life scores are the best in patients where the cancer is discovered in an early, curable stage. Hence, efforts toward early detection and awareness are essential to avoid unnecessary deterioration in quality of life,” Mr. Deschamps said.
About the survey and respondents
Between August and November 2019, 2,943 prostate cancer patients from 24 European countries completed a web-based survey made available via the Europa Uomo website. The survey took around 20 minutes to complete and used three validated quality of life questionnaires, the EORTC-QLQ-C30, the EQ-5D-5L, and EPIC-26.
“The questionnaires were available in 19 languages, so every patient could answer in their mother tongue,” Mr. Deschamps pointed out, highlighting that this was a Europe-wide survey and was estimated to account for 0.1% of the patient population in Europe.
Countries with the highest number of respondents were Norway (n = 506), Sweden (n = 386), Belgium (n = 339), Germany (n = 253), Netherlands (n = 244), France (n = 234), Denmark (n = 188), the United Kingdom (n = 187), and Poland (n = 109).
The average age of respondents was 70 years at the time of the survey and 64 years at the time of diagnosis. Most patients (82%) were living with a partner.
Two-thirds of patients had received only one treatment for prostate cancer. This was most often radical prostatectomy, external beam radiotherapy, or active surveillance. Among the 22% of patients who had received two treatments, the therapies were most often a combination of surgery and radiotherapy, androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and radiotherapy or chemotherapy, and active surveillance and surgery.
Fatigue and insomnia
According to the EORTC-QLQ-C30 symptoms questionnaire, fatigue and insomnia were particular problems for men with prostate cancer, as denoted by scores of 25 and 24, respectively, out of a possible 100. Low scores are associated with worse fatigue and insomnia.
The researchers focused their attention on how specific cancer treatments might influence fatigue. They found that radiotherapy doubled and chemotherapy tripled the number of patients reporting fatigue, when compared with active surveillance. The incidence of fatigue was 22% (n = 304), 33% (n = 246), and 11% (n = 179), respectively.
As for insomnia, “it’s bit of a mixed view,” Mr. Deschamps said. “We believe that the progression of disease is more important for insomnia. The only thing you can say is that chemotherapy leads to an increase in reported insomnia.”
Urinary continence and sexual function
The EPIC-26 questionnaire was used to look at the health-related quality of life domains of urinary and sexual function. Sexual function was the most impacted area.
“We often hear that decline in sexual functioning is a relatively small problem for prostate cancer patients, and the effect on their quality of life should not be exaggerated,” Mr. Deschamps said in a press statement.
“We also hear that prostate cancer is typically a disease of ‘old men,’ implying that the loss of sexual function is less relevant. This survey paints a different picture,” he added.
Higher EPIC-26 scores signify better function. For urinary incontinence, the score was 100/100 for active surveillance but 65/100 when active surveillance was combined with surgery and 71/100 for surgery alone. The combination of surgery and radiotherapy carried a score of 73/100 for urinary incontinence. Radiotherapy on its own had a score of 92/100, suggesting it was the addition of the surgery that was having a significant effect. The score for radiotherapy plus ADT was 100/100, and the score for chemotherapy was 86/100.
Chemotherapy appeared to have the worst effect on sexual function, with a score of just 12/100. Radiotherapy was not far behind at 17/100, and surgery alone was 21/100. When radiotherapy and surgery were combined, the score was 15/100.
Sexual function scores were also low for all the other treatments considered – 18/100 for radiotherapy and ADT, 26/100 for active surveillance and surgery, and 57/100 for active surveillance alone.
Implications for practice
“The data collected and the analysis done provide patients and healthcare professionals with a ‘snapshot’ on the impact of treatments based on the experience of fellow patients,” Mr. Deschamps said. “We hope these results will be used to establish and disseminate realistic expectations on the effects of different treatments for prostate cancer on [quality of life].”
“This study is important because it was initiated by patients and meant for patients,” noted Monique Roobol, PhD, professor of decision-making in urology at the Erasmus University Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, where the survey data were analyzed.
“The questionnaires were completed unrelated to a hospital visit, which means respondents had more freedom to answer and provide insight into the effect of treatment on quality of life over a longer period,” she added.
“For me, the key point is that, as health care professionals, we have underestimated the impact on the quality of life for patients treated for prostate cancer,” said Hein van Poppel, MD, PhD, of University Hospitals Leuven (Belgium), who chaired the session in which the data were presented.
Arnulf Stenzl, MD, of Tübingen (Germany) University said in a statement that the survey provided valuable information. “It uses the same questionnaires used in standard clinical settings, but it is both qualitatively and quantitatively different to the kind of study usually undertaken, so it needs to be read alongside these previous studies,” Dr. Stenzl said.
There were several strong points, he said, such as the fact that EUPROMS was the largest study of its kind and thus would “reflect the impact of treatment on a wide range of patients, with different health systems.”
As an official EAU spokesperson, Dr. Stenzl added, “We completely agree that early detection and treatment is essential if we are to avoid problems with quality of life later on. It shows that, for many men, quality of life can be poor after most prostate cancer treatment, especially in advanced disease. This message is clear, and we need to listen to the voices of these patients.”
EUPROMS was conducted by Europa Uomo in conjunction with the Erasmus University Medical Centre in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Funding was received from Bayer, Ipsen, and Janssen. The companies had no influence over any aspect of the study. The commentators did not have conflicts of interest to disclose.
according to a presentation at the virtual annual congress of the European Association of Urology (EAU).
Results of EUPROMS – the first patient-driven, international, prostate cancer quality of life study – showed that fatigue, insomnia, urinary incontinence, and sexual function were worse with certain types of treatments.
“Quality of life is negatively impacted by any treatment for prostate cancer other than active surveillance,” said André Deschamps, the chairman of the patient advocacy movement Europa Uomo, which conducted the study with support from Erasmus University Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Active surveillance “should be promoted as the first option for treatment for those men where it can be offered safely,” Mr. Deschamps said when presenting the study at the EAU congress.
The study showed that quality of life related to urinary incontinence was lowest in patients who had undergone radical prostatectomy, and sexual function was greatly affected by radiotherapy. Radiotherapy and chemotherapy had the greatest impact on patients’ levels of fatigue, and chemotherapy was associated with “the worst possible outcomes in quality of life,” Mr. Deschamps said.
Conversely, “reported quality of life scores are the best in patients where the cancer is discovered in an early, curable stage. Hence, efforts toward early detection and awareness are essential to avoid unnecessary deterioration in quality of life,” Mr. Deschamps said.
About the survey and respondents
Between August and November 2019, 2,943 prostate cancer patients from 24 European countries completed a web-based survey made available via the Europa Uomo website. The survey took around 20 minutes to complete and used three validated quality of life questionnaires, the EORTC-QLQ-C30, the EQ-5D-5L, and EPIC-26.
“The questionnaires were available in 19 languages, so every patient could answer in their mother tongue,” Mr. Deschamps pointed out, highlighting that this was a Europe-wide survey and was estimated to account for 0.1% of the patient population in Europe.
Countries with the highest number of respondents were Norway (n = 506), Sweden (n = 386), Belgium (n = 339), Germany (n = 253), Netherlands (n = 244), France (n = 234), Denmark (n = 188), the United Kingdom (n = 187), and Poland (n = 109).
The average age of respondents was 70 years at the time of the survey and 64 years at the time of diagnosis. Most patients (82%) were living with a partner.
Two-thirds of patients had received only one treatment for prostate cancer. This was most often radical prostatectomy, external beam radiotherapy, or active surveillance. Among the 22% of patients who had received two treatments, the therapies were most often a combination of surgery and radiotherapy, androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and radiotherapy or chemotherapy, and active surveillance and surgery.
Fatigue and insomnia
According to the EORTC-QLQ-C30 symptoms questionnaire, fatigue and insomnia were particular problems for men with prostate cancer, as denoted by scores of 25 and 24, respectively, out of a possible 100. Low scores are associated with worse fatigue and insomnia.
The researchers focused their attention on how specific cancer treatments might influence fatigue. They found that radiotherapy doubled and chemotherapy tripled the number of patients reporting fatigue, when compared with active surveillance. The incidence of fatigue was 22% (n = 304), 33% (n = 246), and 11% (n = 179), respectively.
As for insomnia, “it’s bit of a mixed view,” Mr. Deschamps said. “We believe that the progression of disease is more important for insomnia. The only thing you can say is that chemotherapy leads to an increase in reported insomnia.”
Urinary continence and sexual function
The EPIC-26 questionnaire was used to look at the health-related quality of life domains of urinary and sexual function. Sexual function was the most impacted area.
“We often hear that decline in sexual functioning is a relatively small problem for prostate cancer patients, and the effect on their quality of life should not be exaggerated,” Mr. Deschamps said in a press statement.
“We also hear that prostate cancer is typically a disease of ‘old men,’ implying that the loss of sexual function is less relevant. This survey paints a different picture,” he added.
Higher EPIC-26 scores signify better function. For urinary incontinence, the score was 100/100 for active surveillance but 65/100 when active surveillance was combined with surgery and 71/100 for surgery alone. The combination of surgery and radiotherapy carried a score of 73/100 for urinary incontinence. Radiotherapy on its own had a score of 92/100, suggesting it was the addition of the surgery that was having a significant effect. The score for radiotherapy plus ADT was 100/100, and the score for chemotherapy was 86/100.
Chemotherapy appeared to have the worst effect on sexual function, with a score of just 12/100. Radiotherapy was not far behind at 17/100, and surgery alone was 21/100. When radiotherapy and surgery were combined, the score was 15/100.
Sexual function scores were also low for all the other treatments considered – 18/100 for radiotherapy and ADT, 26/100 for active surveillance and surgery, and 57/100 for active surveillance alone.
Implications for practice
“The data collected and the analysis done provide patients and healthcare professionals with a ‘snapshot’ on the impact of treatments based on the experience of fellow patients,” Mr. Deschamps said. “We hope these results will be used to establish and disseminate realistic expectations on the effects of different treatments for prostate cancer on [quality of life].”
“This study is important because it was initiated by patients and meant for patients,” noted Monique Roobol, PhD, professor of decision-making in urology at the Erasmus University Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, where the survey data were analyzed.
“The questionnaires were completed unrelated to a hospital visit, which means respondents had more freedom to answer and provide insight into the effect of treatment on quality of life over a longer period,” she added.
“For me, the key point is that, as health care professionals, we have underestimated the impact on the quality of life for patients treated for prostate cancer,” said Hein van Poppel, MD, PhD, of University Hospitals Leuven (Belgium), who chaired the session in which the data were presented.
Arnulf Stenzl, MD, of Tübingen (Germany) University said in a statement that the survey provided valuable information. “It uses the same questionnaires used in standard clinical settings, but it is both qualitatively and quantitatively different to the kind of study usually undertaken, so it needs to be read alongside these previous studies,” Dr. Stenzl said.
There were several strong points, he said, such as the fact that EUPROMS was the largest study of its kind and thus would “reflect the impact of treatment on a wide range of patients, with different health systems.”
As an official EAU spokesperson, Dr. Stenzl added, “We completely agree that early detection and treatment is essential if we are to avoid problems with quality of life later on. It shows that, for many men, quality of life can be poor after most prostate cancer treatment, especially in advanced disease. This message is clear, and we need to listen to the voices of these patients.”
EUPROMS was conducted by Europa Uomo in conjunction with the Erasmus University Medical Centre in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Funding was received from Bayer, Ipsen, and Janssen. The companies had no influence over any aspect of the study. The commentators did not have conflicts of interest to disclose.
FROM EAU20
Order errors not reduced with limiting number of open records
Background: An estimated 600,000 patients in U.S. hospitals had an order placed in their record that was meant for another patient in 2016. The Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology and the Joint Commission recommend that EHRs limit the number of open records to one at a time based on expert opinion only. There is wide variation in the number of open records allowed among EHRs across the United States currently.
Study design: Randomized clinical trial.
Setting: Large health system in New York.
Synopsis: There were 3,356 clinicians (inpatient, outpatient, ED) randomized in a 1:1 ratio into either a restricted group (one open record at a time) or an unrestricted group (up to four open records at a time). In this study, 12,140,298 orders, in 4,486,631 order sessions, were analyzed with the Wrong-Patient Retract-and-Reorder (RAR) measure to identify wrong-patient orders. The proportion of wrong-patient order sessions were 90.7 vs. 88.0 per 100,000 order sessions for the restricted versus unrestricted groups (odds ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 0.90-1.20). There were no statistically significant differences in wrong-patient order sessions between the restricted and unrestricted groups in any clinical setting examined (inpatient, outpatient, ED).
Despite the ability to have up to four open records at one time in the unrestricted group, 66% of the order sessions were completed with only one record open in that group. This limited the power of the study to detect a difference in risk of order errors between the restricted and unrestricted groups.
Bottom line: Limiting clinicians to only one open record did not reduce the proportion of wrong-patient orders, compared with allowing up to four open records concurrently.
Citation: Adelman JS et al. Effect of restriction of the number of concurrently open records in an electronic health record on wrong-patient order errors: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2019;32(18):1780-7.
Dr. Field is a hospitalist at Ochsner Health System, New Orleans.
Background: An estimated 600,000 patients in U.S. hospitals had an order placed in their record that was meant for another patient in 2016. The Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology and the Joint Commission recommend that EHRs limit the number of open records to one at a time based on expert opinion only. There is wide variation in the number of open records allowed among EHRs across the United States currently.
Study design: Randomized clinical trial.
Setting: Large health system in New York.
Synopsis: There were 3,356 clinicians (inpatient, outpatient, ED) randomized in a 1:1 ratio into either a restricted group (one open record at a time) or an unrestricted group (up to four open records at a time). In this study, 12,140,298 orders, in 4,486,631 order sessions, were analyzed with the Wrong-Patient Retract-and-Reorder (RAR) measure to identify wrong-patient orders. The proportion of wrong-patient order sessions were 90.7 vs. 88.0 per 100,000 order sessions for the restricted versus unrestricted groups (odds ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 0.90-1.20). There were no statistically significant differences in wrong-patient order sessions between the restricted and unrestricted groups in any clinical setting examined (inpatient, outpatient, ED).
Despite the ability to have up to four open records at one time in the unrestricted group, 66% of the order sessions were completed with only one record open in that group. This limited the power of the study to detect a difference in risk of order errors between the restricted and unrestricted groups.
Bottom line: Limiting clinicians to only one open record did not reduce the proportion of wrong-patient orders, compared with allowing up to four open records concurrently.
Citation: Adelman JS et al. Effect of restriction of the number of concurrently open records in an electronic health record on wrong-patient order errors: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2019;32(18):1780-7.
Dr. Field is a hospitalist at Ochsner Health System, New Orleans.
Background: An estimated 600,000 patients in U.S. hospitals had an order placed in their record that was meant for another patient in 2016. The Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology and the Joint Commission recommend that EHRs limit the number of open records to one at a time based on expert opinion only. There is wide variation in the number of open records allowed among EHRs across the United States currently.
Study design: Randomized clinical trial.
Setting: Large health system in New York.
Synopsis: There were 3,356 clinicians (inpatient, outpatient, ED) randomized in a 1:1 ratio into either a restricted group (one open record at a time) or an unrestricted group (up to four open records at a time). In this study, 12,140,298 orders, in 4,486,631 order sessions, were analyzed with the Wrong-Patient Retract-and-Reorder (RAR) measure to identify wrong-patient orders. The proportion of wrong-patient order sessions were 90.7 vs. 88.0 per 100,000 order sessions for the restricted versus unrestricted groups (odds ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 0.90-1.20). There were no statistically significant differences in wrong-patient order sessions between the restricted and unrestricted groups in any clinical setting examined (inpatient, outpatient, ED).
Despite the ability to have up to four open records at one time in the unrestricted group, 66% of the order sessions were completed with only one record open in that group. This limited the power of the study to detect a difference in risk of order errors between the restricted and unrestricted groups.
Bottom line: Limiting clinicians to only one open record did not reduce the proportion of wrong-patient orders, compared with allowing up to four open records concurrently.
Citation: Adelman JS et al. Effect of restriction of the number of concurrently open records in an electronic health record on wrong-patient order errors: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2019;32(18):1780-7.
Dr. Field is a hospitalist at Ochsner Health System, New Orleans.
MSBase study validates therapy for relapse in secondary progressive MS
An observational cohort study of a prospective international database of patients with multiple sclerosis has reported that medical therapy can reduce disability progression in patients with active secondary progressive MS (SPMS) who are prone to inflammatory relapses.
The international researchers, led by Nathanial Lizak, MMBS, of the University of Melbourne, conducted the cohort study of 1,621 patients with SPMS from the MSBase international registry, which prospectively collected the information from 1995 to 2018. Their findings were published in JAMA Neurology.
“ wrote Dr. Lizak and colleagues of the MSBase Study Group.
Therapy’s impact on disease progression
To ensure that they had timely data on the early disease course of all study patients, they researchers only included patients whose diagnosis and first documented Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score were no more than 24 months apart. At SPMS conversion, 1,494 patients had an EDSS score of less than 7 (on a scale of 0-10); during the follow-up period, 267 of them (17.9%) crossed over the threshold of 7.
Dr. Lizak and colleagues noted that early treatment during relapsing remitting MS didn’t impact outcomes after SPMS conversion.
For evaluating the MS Severity Score (MSSS), the study split the cohort into three groups depending on the efficacy of therapy: low-efficacy treatments, mostly consisting of interferon-beta and glatiramer acetate; medium-efficacy treatments, mostly fingolimod and dimethyl fumarate; and high-efficacy treatments, predominately natalizumab and mitoxantrone.
The MSSS progression slope in the cohort had an average reduction of 0.02 points per year. “For patients who experienced superimposed relapses during SPMS, a reduced MSSS progression slope during SPMS was observed among those who received disease-modifying therapies for a greater proportion of time during SPMS,” Dr. Lizak and colleagues wrote.
MSSS progression slope reduction was more pronounced in the medium- and high-efficacy groups, with a reduction of beta 0.22 (P = .06) and 0.034 (P = .002), respectively.
“Based on our models, the level of disability in patients with active SPMS who are continuously treated with high-efficacy immunotherapies would progress more slowly in comparison with the general population with MS by a mean (standard deviation) of 1.56 (4.60) deciles over 10 years,” Dr. Lizak and colleagues wrote.
While the researchers cited a number of studies that didn’t support immunotherapy for SPMS, they also did cite the EXPAND trial to support treatment with siponimod in SPMS patients (Lancet. 2018;391:1263-73). The ASCEND trial of natalizumab enrolled a largely relapse-free cohort and found no link between treatment and disability progression in SPMS (Lancet Neurol. 2018;17:405-15), and a previous report by the MSBase Study Group found no benefit of therapy when adjusted for SPMS relapse rates (Neurology. 2017;89:1050-9).
“Together with the present study, the existing data converge on the suggestion that relapses during SPMS provide a therapeutic target and a marker of future response to immunotherapy during SPMS,” Dr. Lizak and colleagues wrote.
Challenging dogma
Commenting on the research, Mark Freedman, HBSc, MSc, MD, said that the MSBase study makes an important contribution to the literature on management of SPMS. “Up until this point we’ve been basing our assumptions on secondary progressive MS on natural history studies, which are actually quite old, dating back 20-30 years.” Dr. Freedman is senior scientist in the Neuroscience Program at the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute and professor of medicine in neurology at the University of Ottawa.
He said “the most damaging” of those studies was by the late Christian Confavreaux, MD, and colleagues in Lyon, France (N Engl J Med. 2000;343:1430-8), that reported relapses didn’t alter the progression of disability. “In other words, once you’re in EDSS of 4, it’s a runaway train; it doesn’t matter what you do,” Dr. Freedman said.
“That was kind of dogma for years,” he said. “The reason this publication is important is because it’s suggesting that’s not the case.” In other words, the MSBase cohort study is validating what neurologists have been doing in the real world for years: treating patients with SPMS who have relapses.
Dr Lizak reported receiving travel compensation from Merck outside the scope of the study. His coauthors reported numerous financial relationships.
SOURCE: Lizak N et al. JAMA Neurol. 2020 Jul 27. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2020.2453
An observational cohort study of a prospective international database of patients with multiple sclerosis has reported that medical therapy can reduce disability progression in patients with active secondary progressive MS (SPMS) who are prone to inflammatory relapses.
The international researchers, led by Nathanial Lizak, MMBS, of the University of Melbourne, conducted the cohort study of 1,621 patients with SPMS from the MSBase international registry, which prospectively collected the information from 1995 to 2018. Their findings were published in JAMA Neurology.
“ wrote Dr. Lizak and colleagues of the MSBase Study Group.
Therapy’s impact on disease progression
To ensure that they had timely data on the early disease course of all study patients, they researchers only included patients whose diagnosis and first documented Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score were no more than 24 months apart. At SPMS conversion, 1,494 patients had an EDSS score of less than 7 (on a scale of 0-10); during the follow-up period, 267 of them (17.9%) crossed over the threshold of 7.
Dr. Lizak and colleagues noted that early treatment during relapsing remitting MS didn’t impact outcomes after SPMS conversion.
For evaluating the MS Severity Score (MSSS), the study split the cohort into three groups depending on the efficacy of therapy: low-efficacy treatments, mostly consisting of interferon-beta and glatiramer acetate; medium-efficacy treatments, mostly fingolimod and dimethyl fumarate; and high-efficacy treatments, predominately natalizumab and mitoxantrone.
The MSSS progression slope in the cohort had an average reduction of 0.02 points per year. “For patients who experienced superimposed relapses during SPMS, a reduced MSSS progression slope during SPMS was observed among those who received disease-modifying therapies for a greater proportion of time during SPMS,” Dr. Lizak and colleagues wrote.
MSSS progression slope reduction was more pronounced in the medium- and high-efficacy groups, with a reduction of beta 0.22 (P = .06) and 0.034 (P = .002), respectively.
“Based on our models, the level of disability in patients with active SPMS who are continuously treated with high-efficacy immunotherapies would progress more slowly in comparison with the general population with MS by a mean (standard deviation) of 1.56 (4.60) deciles over 10 years,” Dr. Lizak and colleagues wrote.
While the researchers cited a number of studies that didn’t support immunotherapy for SPMS, they also did cite the EXPAND trial to support treatment with siponimod in SPMS patients (Lancet. 2018;391:1263-73). The ASCEND trial of natalizumab enrolled a largely relapse-free cohort and found no link between treatment and disability progression in SPMS (Lancet Neurol. 2018;17:405-15), and a previous report by the MSBase Study Group found no benefit of therapy when adjusted for SPMS relapse rates (Neurology. 2017;89:1050-9).
“Together with the present study, the existing data converge on the suggestion that relapses during SPMS provide a therapeutic target and a marker of future response to immunotherapy during SPMS,” Dr. Lizak and colleagues wrote.
Challenging dogma
Commenting on the research, Mark Freedman, HBSc, MSc, MD, said that the MSBase study makes an important contribution to the literature on management of SPMS. “Up until this point we’ve been basing our assumptions on secondary progressive MS on natural history studies, which are actually quite old, dating back 20-30 years.” Dr. Freedman is senior scientist in the Neuroscience Program at the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute and professor of medicine in neurology at the University of Ottawa.
He said “the most damaging” of those studies was by the late Christian Confavreaux, MD, and colleagues in Lyon, France (N Engl J Med. 2000;343:1430-8), that reported relapses didn’t alter the progression of disability. “In other words, once you’re in EDSS of 4, it’s a runaway train; it doesn’t matter what you do,” Dr. Freedman said.
“That was kind of dogma for years,” he said. “The reason this publication is important is because it’s suggesting that’s not the case.” In other words, the MSBase cohort study is validating what neurologists have been doing in the real world for years: treating patients with SPMS who have relapses.
Dr Lizak reported receiving travel compensation from Merck outside the scope of the study. His coauthors reported numerous financial relationships.
SOURCE: Lizak N et al. JAMA Neurol. 2020 Jul 27. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2020.2453
An observational cohort study of a prospective international database of patients with multiple sclerosis has reported that medical therapy can reduce disability progression in patients with active secondary progressive MS (SPMS) who are prone to inflammatory relapses.
The international researchers, led by Nathanial Lizak, MMBS, of the University of Melbourne, conducted the cohort study of 1,621 patients with SPMS from the MSBase international registry, which prospectively collected the information from 1995 to 2018. Their findings were published in JAMA Neurology.
“ wrote Dr. Lizak and colleagues of the MSBase Study Group.
Therapy’s impact on disease progression
To ensure that they had timely data on the early disease course of all study patients, they researchers only included patients whose diagnosis and first documented Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) score were no more than 24 months apart. At SPMS conversion, 1,494 patients had an EDSS score of less than 7 (on a scale of 0-10); during the follow-up period, 267 of them (17.9%) crossed over the threshold of 7.
Dr. Lizak and colleagues noted that early treatment during relapsing remitting MS didn’t impact outcomes after SPMS conversion.
For evaluating the MS Severity Score (MSSS), the study split the cohort into three groups depending on the efficacy of therapy: low-efficacy treatments, mostly consisting of interferon-beta and glatiramer acetate; medium-efficacy treatments, mostly fingolimod and dimethyl fumarate; and high-efficacy treatments, predominately natalizumab and mitoxantrone.
The MSSS progression slope in the cohort had an average reduction of 0.02 points per year. “For patients who experienced superimposed relapses during SPMS, a reduced MSSS progression slope during SPMS was observed among those who received disease-modifying therapies for a greater proportion of time during SPMS,” Dr. Lizak and colleagues wrote.
MSSS progression slope reduction was more pronounced in the medium- and high-efficacy groups, with a reduction of beta 0.22 (P = .06) and 0.034 (P = .002), respectively.
“Based on our models, the level of disability in patients with active SPMS who are continuously treated with high-efficacy immunotherapies would progress more slowly in comparison with the general population with MS by a mean (standard deviation) of 1.56 (4.60) deciles over 10 years,” Dr. Lizak and colleagues wrote.
While the researchers cited a number of studies that didn’t support immunotherapy for SPMS, they also did cite the EXPAND trial to support treatment with siponimod in SPMS patients (Lancet. 2018;391:1263-73). The ASCEND trial of natalizumab enrolled a largely relapse-free cohort and found no link between treatment and disability progression in SPMS (Lancet Neurol. 2018;17:405-15), and a previous report by the MSBase Study Group found no benefit of therapy when adjusted for SPMS relapse rates (Neurology. 2017;89:1050-9).
“Together with the present study, the existing data converge on the suggestion that relapses during SPMS provide a therapeutic target and a marker of future response to immunotherapy during SPMS,” Dr. Lizak and colleagues wrote.
Challenging dogma
Commenting on the research, Mark Freedman, HBSc, MSc, MD, said that the MSBase study makes an important contribution to the literature on management of SPMS. “Up until this point we’ve been basing our assumptions on secondary progressive MS on natural history studies, which are actually quite old, dating back 20-30 years.” Dr. Freedman is senior scientist in the Neuroscience Program at the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute and professor of medicine in neurology at the University of Ottawa.
He said “the most damaging” of those studies was by the late Christian Confavreaux, MD, and colleagues in Lyon, France (N Engl J Med. 2000;343:1430-8), that reported relapses didn’t alter the progression of disability. “In other words, once you’re in EDSS of 4, it’s a runaway train; it doesn’t matter what you do,” Dr. Freedman said.
“That was kind of dogma for years,” he said. “The reason this publication is important is because it’s suggesting that’s not the case.” In other words, the MSBase cohort study is validating what neurologists have been doing in the real world for years: treating patients with SPMS who have relapses.
Dr Lizak reported receiving travel compensation from Merck outside the scope of the study. His coauthors reported numerous financial relationships.
SOURCE: Lizak N et al. JAMA Neurol. 2020 Jul 27. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2020.2453
FROM JAMA NEUROLOGY
All NSAIDs raise post-MI risk but some are safer than others: Next chapter
Patients on antithrombotics after an acute MI will face a greater risk for bleeding and secondary cardiovascular (CV) events if they start taking any nonaspirin NSAID, confirms a large observational study.
Like other research before it, the new study suggests those risks will be much lower for some nonaspirin NSAIDs than others. But it may also challenge at least some conventional thinking about the safety of these drugs, and is based solely on a large cohort in South Korea, a group for which such NSAID data has been in short supply.
“It was intriguing that our study presented better safety profiles with celecoxib and meloxicam versus other subtypes of NSAIDs,” noted the report, published online July 27 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
Most of the NSAIDs included in the analysis, “including naproxen, conferred a significantly higher risk for cardiovascular and bleeding events, compared with celecoxib and meloxicam,” wrote the authors, led by Dong Oh Kang, MD, Korea University Guro Hospital, Seoul, South Korea.
A main contribution of the study “is the thorough and comprehensive evaluation of the Korean population by use of the nationwide prescription claims database that reflects real-world clinical practice,” senior author Cheol Ung Choi, MD, PhD, of the same institution, said in an interview.
“Because we included the largest number of patients of any comparable clinical studies on NSAID treatment after MI thus far, our study may allow the generalizability of the adverse events of NSAIDs to all patients by constituting global evidence encompassing different population groups,” Dr. Choi said.
The analysis has limitations along with its strengths, the authors acknowledged, including its observational design and potential for confounding not addressed in statistical adjustments.
Observers of the study concurred, but some cited evidence pointing to such confounding that is serious enough to question the entire study’s validity.
Among the cohort of more than 100,000 patients followed for an average of about 2.3 years after their MI, the adjusted risk of thromboembolic CV events went up almost 7 times for those who took any NSAID for at least 4 consecutive weeks, compared with those who didn’t take NSAIDs, based on prescription records.
Their adjusted risk of bleeding events – which included gastrointestinal, intracranial, respiratory, or urinary tract bleeding or posthemorrhagic anemia, the group writes – was increased 300%.
There was wide variance in the adjusted hazard ratios for outcomes by type of NSAID. The risk of CV events climbed from a low of about 3 with meloxicam and almost 5 for celecoxib to more than 10 and 12 for naproxen and dexibuprofen, respectively.
The hazard ratios for bleeding ranged from about 3 for both meloxicam and celecoxib to more than 6 for naproxen.
Of note, celecoxib and meloxicam both preferentially target the cyclooxygenase type 2 (COX-2) pathway, and naproxen among NSAIDs once had a reputation for relative cardiac safety, although subsequent studies have challenged that notion.
“On the basis of the contemporary guidelines, NSAID treatment should be limited as much as possible after MI; however, our data suggest that celecoxib and meloxicam could be considered possible alternative choices in patients with MI when NSAID prescription is unavoidable,” the group wrote.
They acknowledged some limitations of the analysis, including an observational design and the possibility of unidentified confounders; that mortality outcomes were not available from the National Health Insurance Service database used in the study; and that the 2009-2013 span for the data didn’t allow consideration of more contemporary antiplatelet agents and direct oral anticoagulants.
Also, NSAID use was based on prescriptions without regard to over-the-counter usage. Although use of over-the-counter NSAIDs is common in Korea, “most MI patients in Korea are prescribed most medications, including NSAIDs, in the hospital. So I think that usage of over-the-counter NSAIDs did not change the results,” Dr. Choi said.
“This study breaks new ground by demonstrating cardiovascular safety of meloxicam (and not only of celecoxib), probably because of its higher COX-2 selectivity,” wrote the authors of an accompanying editorial, Juan J. Badimon, PhD, and Carlos G. Santos-Gallego, MD, both of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.
Notably, “this paper rejects the cardiovascular safety of naproxen, which had been suggested classically and in the previous Danish data, but that was not evident in this study.” The finding is consistent with the PRECISION trial, in which both bleeding and CV risk were increased with naproxen versus other NSAIDs, observed Dr. Badimon and Dr. Santos-Gallego.
They agreed with the authors in recommending that, “although NSAID treatment should be avoided in patients with MI, if the use of NSAIDs is inevitable due to comorbidities, the prescription of celecoxib and meloxicam could be considered as alternative options.”
But, “as no study is perfect, this article also presents some limitations,” the editorial agreed, citing some of the same issues noted by Dr. Kang and associates, along with potential confounding by indication and the lack of “clinical information to adjust (e.g., angiographic features, left ventricular function).”
“There’s undoubtedly residual confounding,” James M. Brophy, MD, PhD, a pharmacoepidemiologist at McGill University, Montreal, said in an interview.
The 400%-900% relative risks for CV events “are just too far in left field, compared to everything else we know,” he said. “There has never been a class of drugs that have shown this sort of magnitude of effect for adverse events.”
Even in PRECISION with its more than 24,000 high-coronary-risk patients randomized and followed for 5 years, Dr. Brophy observed, relative risks for the different NSAIDs varied by an order of magnitude of only 1-2.
“You should be interpreting things in the context of what is already known,” Dr. Brophy said. “The only conclusion I would draw is the paper is fatally flawed.”
The registry included 108,232 primarily male patients followed from their first diagnosed MI for CV and bleeding events. About 1.9% were prescribed at least one NSAID for 4 or more consecutive weeks during the follow-up period averaging 2.3 years, the group reported.
The most frequently prescribed NSAID was diclofenac, at about 72% of prescribed NSAIDs in the analysis for CV events and about 69% in the bleeding-event analysis.
Adding any NSAID to post-MI antithrombotic therapy led to an adjusted HR of 6.96 (P < .001) for CV events and 4.08 (P < .001) for bleeding events, compared with no NSAID treatment.
The 88% of the cohort who were on dual-antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel showed very nearly the same risk increases for both endpoints.
Further studies are needed to confirm the results “and ensure their generalizability to other populations,” Dr. Choi said. They should be validated especially using the claims data bases of countries near Korea, “such as Japan and Taiwan, to examine the reproducibility of the results in similar ethnic populations.”
That the study focused on a cohort in Korea is a strength, contended the authors as well as Dr. Badimon and Dr. Santos-Gallego, given “that most data about NSAIDs were extracted from Western populations, but the risk of thrombosis/bleeding post-MI varies according to ethnicity,” according to the editorial
Dr. Brophy agreed, but doubted that ethnic differences are responsible for variation in relative risks between the current results and other studies. “There are pharmacogenomic differences between different ethnicities as to how they activate these drugs. But I suspect that sort of difference is really minor. Maybe it leads to a 2% or a 5% difference in risks.”
Dr. Kang and associates, Dr. Badimon, Dr. Santos-Gallego, and Dr. Brophy disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Patients on antithrombotics after an acute MI will face a greater risk for bleeding and secondary cardiovascular (CV) events if they start taking any nonaspirin NSAID, confirms a large observational study.
Like other research before it, the new study suggests those risks will be much lower for some nonaspirin NSAIDs than others. But it may also challenge at least some conventional thinking about the safety of these drugs, and is based solely on a large cohort in South Korea, a group for which such NSAID data has been in short supply.
“It was intriguing that our study presented better safety profiles with celecoxib and meloxicam versus other subtypes of NSAIDs,” noted the report, published online July 27 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
Most of the NSAIDs included in the analysis, “including naproxen, conferred a significantly higher risk for cardiovascular and bleeding events, compared with celecoxib and meloxicam,” wrote the authors, led by Dong Oh Kang, MD, Korea University Guro Hospital, Seoul, South Korea.
A main contribution of the study “is the thorough and comprehensive evaluation of the Korean population by use of the nationwide prescription claims database that reflects real-world clinical practice,” senior author Cheol Ung Choi, MD, PhD, of the same institution, said in an interview.
“Because we included the largest number of patients of any comparable clinical studies on NSAID treatment after MI thus far, our study may allow the generalizability of the adverse events of NSAIDs to all patients by constituting global evidence encompassing different population groups,” Dr. Choi said.
The analysis has limitations along with its strengths, the authors acknowledged, including its observational design and potential for confounding not addressed in statistical adjustments.
Observers of the study concurred, but some cited evidence pointing to such confounding that is serious enough to question the entire study’s validity.
Among the cohort of more than 100,000 patients followed for an average of about 2.3 years after their MI, the adjusted risk of thromboembolic CV events went up almost 7 times for those who took any NSAID for at least 4 consecutive weeks, compared with those who didn’t take NSAIDs, based on prescription records.
Their adjusted risk of bleeding events – which included gastrointestinal, intracranial, respiratory, or urinary tract bleeding or posthemorrhagic anemia, the group writes – was increased 300%.
There was wide variance in the adjusted hazard ratios for outcomes by type of NSAID. The risk of CV events climbed from a low of about 3 with meloxicam and almost 5 for celecoxib to more than 10 and 12 for naproxen and dexibuprofen, respectively.
The hazard ratios for bleeding ranged from about 3 for both meloxicam and celecoxib to more than 6 for naproxen.
Of note, celecoxib and meloxicam both preferentially target the cyclooxygenase type 2 (COX-2) pathway, and naproxen among NSAIDs once had a reputation for relative cardiac safety, although subsequent studies have challenged that notion.
“On the basis of the contemporary guidelines, NSAID treatment should be limited as much as possible after MI; however, our data suggest that celecoxib and meloxicam could be considered possible alternative choices in patients with MI when NSAID prescription is unavoidable,” the group wrote.
They acknowledged some limitations of the analysis, including an observational design and the possibility of unidentified confounders; that mortality outcomes were not available from the National Health Insurance Service database used in the study; and that the 2009-2013 span for the data didn’t allow consideration of more contemporary antiplatelet agents and direct oral anticoagulants.
Also, NSAID use was based on prescriptions without regard to over-the-counter usage. Although use of over-the-counter NSAIDs is common in Korea, “most MI patients in Korea are prescribed most medications, including NSAIDs, in the hospital. So I think that usage of over-the-counter NSAIDs did not change the results,” Dr. Choi said.
“This study breaks new ground by demonstrating cardiovascular safety of meloxicam (and not only of celecoxib), probably because of its higher COX-2 selectivity,” wrote the authors of an accompanying editorial, Juan J. Badimon, PhD, and Carlos G. Santos-Gallego, MD, both of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.
Notably, “this paper rejects the cardiovascular safety of naproxen, which had been suggested classically and in the previous Danish data, but that was not evident in this study.” The finding is consistent with the PRECISION trial, in which both bleeding and CV risk were increased with naproxen versus other NSAIDs, observed Dr. Badimon and Dr. Santos-Gallego.
They agreed with the authors in recommending that, “although NSAID treatment should be avoided in patients with MI, if the use of NSAIDs is inevitable due to comorbidities, the prescription of celecoxib and meloxicam could be considered as alternative options.”
But, “as no study is perfect, this article also presents some limitations,” the editorial agreed, citing some of the same issues noted by Dr. Kang and associates, along with potential confounding by indication and the lack of “clinical information to adjust (e.g., angiographic features, left ventricular function).”
“There’s undoubtedly residual confounding,” James M. Brophy, MD, PhD, a pharmacoepidemiologist at McGill University, Montreal, said in an interview.
The 400%-900% relative risks for CV events “are just too far in left field, compared to everything else we know,” he said. “There has never been a class of drugs that have shown this sort of magnitude of effect for adverse events.”
Even in PRECISION with its more than 24,000 high-coronary-risk patients randomized and followed for 5 years, Dr. Brophy observed, relative risks for the different NSAIDs varied by an order of magnitude of only 1-2.
“You should be interpreting things in the context of what is already known,” Dr. Brophy said. “The only conclusion I would draw is the paper is fatally flawed.”
The registry included 108,232 primarily male patients followed from their first diagnosed MI for CV and bleeding events. About 1.9% were prescribed at least one NSAID for 4 or more consecutive weeks during the follow-up period averaging 2.3 years, the group reported.
The most frequently prescribed NSAID was diclofenac, at about 72% of prescribed NSAIDs in the analysis for CV events and about 69% in the bleeding-event analysis.
Adding any NSAID to post-MI antithrombotic therapy led to an adjusted HR of 6.96 (P < .001) for CV events and 4.08 (P < .001) for bleeding events, compared with no NSAID treatment.
The 88% of the cohort who were on dual-antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel showed very nearly the same risk increases for both endpoints.
Further studies are needed to confirm the results “and ensure their generalizability to other populations,” Dr. Choi said. They should be validated especially using the claims data bases of countries near Korea, “such as Japan and Taiwan, to examine the reproducibility of the results in similar ethnic populations.”
That the study focused on a cohort in Korea is a strength, contended the authors as well as Dr. Badimon and Dr. Santos-Gallego, given “that most data about NSAIDs were extracted from Western populations, but the risk of thrombosis/bleeding post-MI varies according to ethnicity,” according to the editorial
Dr. Brophy agreed, but doubted that ethnic differences are responsible for variation in relative risks between the current results and other studies. “There are pharmacogenomic differences between different ethnicities as to how they activate these drugs. But I suspect that sort of difference is really minor. Maybe it leads to a 2% or a 5% difference in risks.”
Dr. Kang and associates, Dr. Badimon, Dr. Santos-Gallego, and Dr. Brophy disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Patients on antithrombotics after an acute MI will face a greater risk for bleeding and secondary cardiovascular (CV) events if they start taking any nonaspirin NSAID, confirms a large observational study.
Like other research before it, the new study suggests those risks will be much lower for some nonaspirin NSAIDs than others. But it may also challenge at least some conventional thinking about the safety of these drugs, and is based solely on a large cohort in South Korea, a group for which such NSAID data has been in short supply.
“It was intriguing that our study presented better safety profiles with celecoxib and meloxicam versus other subtypes of NSAIDs,” noted the report, published online July 27 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
Most of the NSAIDs included in the analysis, “including naproxen, conferred a significantly higher risk for cardiovascular and bleeding events, compared with celecoxib and meloxicam,” wrote the authors, led by Dong Oh Kang, MD, Korea University Guro Hospital, Seoul, South Korea.
A main contribution of the study “is the thorough and comprehensive evaluation of the Korean population by use of the nationwide prescription claims database that reflects real-world clinical practice,” senior author Cheol Ung Choi, MD, PhD, of the same institution, said in an interview.
“Because we included the largest number of patients of any comparable clinical studies on NSAID treatment after MI thus far, our study may allow the generalizability of the adverse events of NSAIDs to all patients by constituting global evidence encompassing different population groups,” Dr. Choi said.
The analysis has limitations along with its strengths, the authors acknowledged, including its observational design and potential for confounding not addressed in statistical adjustments.
Observers of the study concurred, but some cited evidence pointing to such confounding that is serious enough to question the entire study’s validity.
Among the cohort of more than 100,000 patients followed for an average of about 2.3 years after their MI, the adjusted risk of thromboembolic CV events went up almost 7 times for those who took any NSAID for at least 4 consecutive weeks, compared with those who didn’t take NSAIDs, based on prescription records.
Their adjusted risk of bleeding events – which included gastrointestinal, intracranial, respiratory, or urinary tract bleeding or posthemorrhagic anemia, the group writes – was increased 300%.
There was wide variance in the adjusted hazard ratios for outcomes by type of NSAID. The risk of CV events climbed from a low of about 3 with meloxicam and almost 5 for celecoxib to more than 10 and 12 for naproxen and dexibuprofen, respectively.
The hazard ratios for bleeding ranged from about 3 for both meloxicam and celecoxib to more than 6 for naproxen.
Of note, celecoxib and meloxicam both preferentially target the cyclooxygenase type 2 (COX-2) pathway, and naproxen among NSAIDs once had a reputation for relative cardiac safety, although subsequent studies have challenged that notion.
“On the basis of the contemporary guidelines, NSAID treatment should be limited as much as possible after MI; however, our data suggest that celecoxib and meloxicam could be considered possible alternative choices in patients with MI when NSAID prescription is unavoidable,” the group wrote.
They acknowledged some limitations of the analysis, including an observational design and the possibility of unidentified confounders; that mortality outcomes were not available from the National Health Insurance Service database used in the study; and that the 2009-2013 span for the data didn’t allow consideration of more contemporary antiplatelet agents and direct oral anticoagulants.
Also, NSAID use was based on prescriptions without regard to over-the-counter usage. Although use of over-the-counter NSAIDs is common in Korea, “most MI patients in Korea are prescribed most medications, including NSAIDs, in the hospital. So I think that usage of over-the-counter NSAIDs did not change the results,” Dr. Choi said.
“This study breaks new ground by demonstrating cardiovascular safety of meloxicam (and not only of celecoxib), probably because of its higher COX-2 selectivity,” wrote the authors of an accompanying editorial, Juan J. Badimon, PhD, and Carlos G. Santos-Gallego, MD, both of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.
Notably, “this paper rejects the cardiovascular safety of naproxen, which had been suggested classically and in the previous Danish data, but that was not evident in this study.” The finding is consistent with the PRECISION trial, in which both bleeding and CV risk were increased with naproxen versus other NSAIDs, observed Dr. Badimon and Dr. Santos-Gallego.
They agreed with the authors in recommending that, “although NSAID treatment should be avoided in patients with MI, if the use of NSAIDs is inevitable due to comorbidities, the prescription of celecoxib and meloxicam could be considered as alternative options.”
But, “as no study is perfect, this article also presents some limitations,” the editorial agreed, citing some of the same issues noted by Dr. Kang and associates, along with potential confounding by indication and the lack of “clinical information to adjust (e.g., angiographic features, left ventricular function).”
“There’s undoubtedly residual confounding,” James M. Brophy, MD, PhD, a pharmacoepidemiologist at McGill University, Montreal, said in an interview.
The 400%-900% relative risks for CV events “are just too far in left field, compared to everything else we know,” he said. “There has never been a class of drugs that have shown this sort of magnitude of effect for adverse events.”
Even in PRECISION with its more than 24,000 high-coronary-risk patients randomized and followed for 5 years, Dr. Brophy observed, relative risks for the different NSAIDs varied by an order of magnitude of only 1-2.
“You should be interpreting things in the context of what is already known,” Dr. Brophy said. “The only conclusion I would draw is the paper is fatally flawed.”
The registry included 108,232 primarily male patients followed from their first diagnosed MI for CV and bleeding events. About 1.9% were prescribed at least one NSAID for 4 or more consecutive weeks during the follow-up period averaging 2.3 years, the group reported.
The most frequently prescribed NSAID was diclofenac, at about 72% of prescribed NSAIDs in the analysis for CV events and about 69% in the bleeding-event analysis.
Adding any NSAID to post-MI antithrombotic therapy led to an adjusted HR of 6.96 (P < .001) for CV events and 4.08 (P < .001) for bleeding events, compared with no NSAID treatment.
The 88% of the cohort who were on dual-antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel showed very nearly the same risk increases for both endpoints.
Further studies are needed to confirm the results “and ensure their generalizability to other populations,” Dr. Choi said. They should be validated especially using the claims data bases of countries near Korea, “such as Japan and Taiwan, to examine the reproducibility of the results in similar ethnic populations.”
That the study focused on a cohort in Korea is a strength, contended the authors as well as Dr. Badimon and Dr. Santos-Gallego, given “that most data about NSAIDs were extracted from Western populations, but the risk of thrombosis/bleeding post-MI varies according to ethnicity,” according to the editorial
Dr. Brophy agreed, but doubted that ethnic differences are responsible for variation in relative risks between the current results and other studies. “There are pharmacogenomic differences between different ethnicities as to how they activate these drugs. But I suspect that sort of difference is really minor. Maybe it leads to a 2% or a 5% difference in risks.”
Dr. Kang and associates, Dr. Badimon, Dr. Santos-Gallego, and Dr. Brophy disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Study finds no link between platelet count, surgery bleed risk in cirrhosis
The findings raise questions about current recommendations that call for transfusing platelet concentrates to reduce bleeding risk during surgery in cirrhosis patients with extremely low platelet counts, Gian Marco Podda, MD, PhD, said at the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis virtual congress.
The overall rate of perioperative bleeding was 8.9% in 996 patients who underwent excision of hepatocellular carcinoma by resection (42%) or radiofrequency ablation (58%) without platelet transfusion between 1998 and 2018. The rates were slightly higher among 65 patients with platelet count of fewer than 50 × 109/L indicating severe thrombocytopenia, and in 292 patients with counts of 50-100 × 109/L, indicating moderate thrombocytopenia (10.8% and 10.2%, respectively), compared with those with a platelet count of higher than 100 × 109/L (8.1%), but the differences were not statistically significant, said Dr. Podda of the University of Milan (Italy).
The corresponding rates among those who underwent radiofrequency ablation were 8.6%, 5.9%, and 5%, and among those who underwent resection, they were 18.8%, 17.7%, and 15.9%.
On multivariate analysis, factors associated with an increased incidence of major bleeding were low hemoglobin level (odds ratio, 0.57), age over 65 years (OR, 1.19), aspartate aminotransferase level greater than twice the upper limit of normal (OR, 2.12), hepatitis B or C cirrhosis versus cryptogenic cirrhosis (OR, 0.08), and resection versus radiofrequency ablation (OR, 3.74), he noted. Logistic regression analysis showed no significant association between platelet count and major bleeding events.
Mortality, a secondary outcome measure, was significantly higher among those with moderate or severe thrombocytopenia (rate of 5.5% for each), compared with those with mild or no thrombocytopenia (2.4%), Dr. Podda said.
Factors associated with mortality on multivariate analysis were severe liver dysfunction as demonstrated by Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score of 10 or greater versus less than 10 (OR, 3.13) and Child-Pugh B and C score versus Child-Pugh A score (OR, 16.72), advanced tumor status as measured by Barcelona-Clínic Liver Cancer staging greater than A4 versus A1 (OR, 5.78), major bleeding (OR, 4.59), and resection versus radiofrequency ablation (OR, 3.31).
“Low platelet count was associated with an increased risk of mortality at 3 months. However, this association disappeared at the multivariate analysis, which took into account markers of severity of liver cirrhosis,” he said.
Dr. Podda and his colleagues conducted the study in light of a recommendation from a consensus conference of the Italian Association for the Study of Liver Disease and the Italian Society of Internal Medicine that called for increasing platelet count by platelet transfusions in patients with cirrhosis who undergo an invasive procedure and who have a platelet count lower than 50 × 109/L.
“This recommendation mostly stemmed from consideration of biological plausibility prospects rather than being based on hard experimental evidence,” he explained, noting that such severe thrombocytopenia affects about 10% of patients with liver cirrhosis.
Based on the findings of this study, the practice is not supported, he concluded.
Dr. Podda reported honoraria from Sanofi, Boehringer Ingelheim.
SOURCE: Ronca V et al. ISTH 2020, Abstract OC 13.4.
The findings raise questions about current recommendations that call for transfusing platelet concentrates to reduce bleeding risk during surgery in cirrhosis patients with extremely low platelet counts, Gian Marco Podda, MD, PhD, said at the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis virtual congress.
The overall rate of perioperative bleeding was 8.9% in 996 patients who underwent excision of hepatocellular carcinoma by resection (42%) or radiofrequency ablation (58%) without platelet transfusion between 1998 and 2018. The rates were slightly higher among 65 patients with platelet count of fewer than 50 × 109/L indicating severe thrombocytopenia, and in 292 patients with counts of 50-100 × 109/L, indicating moderate thrombocytopenia (10.8% and 10.2%, respectively), compared with those with a platelet count of higher than 100 × 109/L (8.1%), but the differences were not statistically significant, said Dr. Podda of the University of Milan (Italy).
The corresponding rates among those who underwent radiofrequency ablation were 8.6%, 5.9%, and 5%, and among those who underwent resection, they were 18.8%, 17.7%, and 15.9%.
On multivariate analysis, factors associated with an increased incidence of major bleeding were low hemoglobin level (odds ratio, 0.57), age over 65 years (OR, 1.19), aspartate aminotransferase level greater than twice the upper limit of normal (OR, 2.12), hepatitis B or C cirrhosis versus cryptogenic cirrhosis (OR, 0.08), and resection versus radiofrequency ablation (OR, 3.74), he noted. Logistic regression analysis showed no significant association between platelet count and major bleeding events.
Mortality, a secondary outcome measure, was significantly higher among those with moderate or severe thrombocytopenia (rate of 5.5% for each), compared with those with mild or no thrombocytopenia (2.4%), Dr. Podda said.
Factors associated with mortality on multivariate analysis were severe liver dysfunction as demonstrated by Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score of 10 or greater versus less than 10 (OR, 3.13) and Child-Pugh B and C score versus Child-Pugh A score (OR, 16.72), advanced tumor status as measured by Barcelona-Clínic Liver Cancer staging greater than A4 versus A1 (OR, 5.78), major bleeding (OR, 4.59), and resection versus radiofrequency ablation (OR, 3.31).
“Low platelet count was associated with an increased risk of mortality at 3 months. However, this association disappeared at the multivariate analysis, which took into account markers of severity of liver cirrhosis,” he said.
Dr. Podda and his colleagues conducted the study in light of a recommendation from a consensus conference of the Italian Association for the Study of Liver Disease and the Italian Society of Internal Medicine that called for increasing platelet count by platelet transfusions in patients with cirrhosis who undergo an invasive procedure and who have a platelet count lower than 50 × 109/L.
“This recommendation mostly stemmed from consideration of biological plausibility prospects rather than being based on hard experimental evidence,” he explained, noting that such severe thrombocytopenia affects about 10% of patients with liver cirrhosis.
Based on the findings of this study, the practice is not supported, he concluded.
Dr. Podda reported honoraria from Sanofi, Boehringer Ingelheim.
SOURCE: Ronca V et al. ISTH 2020, Abstract OC 13.4.
The findings raise questions about current recommendations that call for transfusing platelet concentrates to reduce bleeding risk during surgery in cirrhosis patients with extremely low platelet counts, Gian Marco Podda, MD, PhD, said at the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis virtual congress.
The overall rate of perioperative bleeding was 8.9% in 996 patients who underwent excision of hepatocellular carcinoma by resection (42%) or radiofrequency ablation (58%) without platelet transfusion between 1998 and 2018. The rates were slightly higher among 65 patients with platelet count of fewer than 50 × 109/L indicating severe thrombocytopenia, and in 292 patients with counts of 50-100 × 109/L, indicating moderate thrombocytopenia (10.8% and 10.2%, respectively), compared with those with a platelet count of higher than 100 × 109/L (8.1%), but the differences were not statistically significant, said Dr. Podda of the University of Milan (Italy).
The corresponding rates among those who underwent radiofrequency ablation were 8.6%, 5.9%, and 5%, and among those who underwent resection, they were 18.8%, 17.7%, and 15.9%.
On multivariate analysis, factors associated with an increased incidence of major bleeding were low hemoglobin level (odds ratio, 0.57), age over 65 years (OR, 1.19), aspartate aminotransferase level greater than twice the upper limit of normal (OR, 2.12), hepatitis B or C cirrhosis versus cryptogenic cirrhosis (OR, 0.08), and resection versus radiofrequency ablation (OR, 3.74), he noted. Logistic regression analysis showed no significant association between platelet count and major bleeding events.
Mortality, a secondary outcome measure, was significantly higher among those with moderate or severe thrombocytopenia (rate of 5.5% for each), compared with those with mild or no thrombocytopenia (2.4%), Dr. Podda said.
Factors associated with mortality on multivariate analysis were severe liver dysfunction as demonstrated by Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score of 10 or greater versus less than 10 (OR, 3.13) and Child-Pugh B and C score versus Child-Pugh A score (OR, 16.72), advanced tumor status as measured by Barcelona-Clínic Liver Cancer staging greater than A4 versus A1 (OR, 5.78), major bleeding (OR, 4.59), and resection versus radiofrequency ablation (OR, 3.31).
“Low platelet count was associated with an increased risk of mortality at 3 months. However, this association disappeared at the multivariate analysis, which took into account markers of severity of liver cirrhosis,” he said.
Dr. Podda and his colleagues conducted the study in light of a recommendation from a consensus conference of the Italian Association for the Study of Liver Disease and the Italian Society of Internal Medicine that called for increasing platelet count by platelet transfusions in patients with cirrhosis who undergo an invasive procedure and who have a platelet count lower than 50 × 109/L.
“This recommendation mostly stemmed from consideration of biological plausibility prospects rather than being based on hard experimental evidence,” he explained, noting that such severe thrombocytopenia affects about 10% of patients with liver cirrhosis.
Based on the findings of this study, the practice is not supported, he concluded.
Dr. Podda reported honoraria from Sanofi, Boehringer Ingelheim.
SOURCE: Ronca V et al. ISTH 2020, Abstract OC 13.4.
REPORTING FROM THE 2020 ISTH CONGRESS
Anti-CD8a, anti-IL-17A antibodies improved immune disruption in mice with history of NASH
Changes in a variety of T cells in the liver and visceral adipose tissue play a key role in the pathogenesis of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, according to the results of a murine study.
Mikhaïl A. Van Herck, of the University of Antwerp (Belgium), and associates fed 8-week old mice a high-fat, high-fructose diet for 20 weeks, and then switched the mice to standard mouse chow for 12 weeks. The high-fat, high-fructose diet induced the metabolic syndrome and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), accompanied by shifts in T cells. Interleukin-17–producing (Th17 cells increased in the liver, visceral adipose tissue, and blood, while regulatory T cells decreased in visceral adipose tissue, and cytotoxic T (Tc) cells rose in visceral adipose tissue while dropping in the blood and spleen.
These are “important immune disruptions,” the researchers wrote in Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “In particular, visceral adipose tissue Tc cells are critically involved in NASH pathogenesis, linking adipose tissue inflammation to liver disease.”
After the mice were switched from the high-fat, high-fructose diet to standard mouse chow, their body weight, body fat, and plasma cholesterol significantly decreased and their glucose tolerance and insulin sensitivity improved to resemble the metrics of mice fed standard mouse chow throughout the study. Mice who underwent diet reversal also had significantly decreased liver weight and levels of plasma ALT, compared with mice that remained on the high-fat, high-fructose diet. Diet reversal also improved liver histology (nonalcoholic fatty liver disease activity scores), compared with the high-fat, high-fructose diet, the researchers wrote. “Importantly, the NASH was not significantly different between diet-reversal mice and mice fed the control diet for 32 weeks.”
Genetic tests supported these findings. On multiplex RNA analysis, hepatic expression of Acta2, Col1a1, and Col1a3 reverted to normal with diet reversal, indicating a normalization of hepatic collagen. Hepatic expression of the metabolic genes Ppara, Pparg, and Fgf21 also returned to normal, while visceral adipose tissue showed a decrease in Lep and Fgf21 expression and resolution of adipocyte hypertrophy.
However, diet reversal did not reverse inflammatory changes in T-cell subsets. Administering anti-CD8a antibodies after diet reversal decreased Tc cells in all tissue types that were tested, signifying “a biochemical and histologic attenuation of the high-fat, high-fructose diet-induced NASH,” the investigators wrote. Treating the mice with antibodies targeting IL-17A did not attenuate NASH but did reduce hepatic inflammation.
The fact that “the most pronounced effect” on NASH resulted from correcting immune disruption in visceral adipose tissue underscored “the immense importance of adipose tissue inflammation in [NASH] pathogenesis,” the researchers wrote. The finding that diet reversal alone did not reverse inflammation in hepatic or visceral adipose tissue “challeng[es] our current understanding of the reversibility of NASH and other obesity-related conditions.” They called for studies of underlying mechanisms as part of “the search for a medical treatment for NASH.”
Funders included the University Research Fund, University of Antwerp, and Research Foundation Flanders. The researchers reported having no conflicts of interest except that one coinvestigator is the chief science officer at Biocellvia, which performed some histologic analyses.
SOURCE: Van Herck MA et al. Cell Molec Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020 Apr 20. doi: 10.1016/j.jcmgh.2020.04.010.
The trajectory of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) is a public health watershed moment in gastroenterology and hepatology causing unparalleled morbidity, mortality, and societal costs. This study by Van Herck et al. advances our understanding of just how important a two-pronged environmental and biologic approach is to turn the NASH tide. The authors demonstrate that both dietary environmental exposure and biologic tissue-specific T-cell responses are involved in NASH pathogenesis, and that targeting one part of the equation is insufficient to fully mitigate disease. They observed that mice with more severe diet-induced NASH had more Th17 cells in the liver and visceral adipose tissue and more cytotoxic T cells in VAT. Conversely, there were fewer VAT T-regulatory cells in mice with more liver inflammation. The major novelty of this study is that simply changing the diet to a metabolically healthier and weight-reducing diet failed to correct T-cell dysregulation. Only T cell–directed therapies improved this abnormality.
Rotonya M. Carr, MD, is an assistant professor of medicine in the division of gastroenterology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. She is a hepatologist, director of the liver metabolism and fatty liver program, and codirector of the human metabolic tissue resource. Dr. Carr receives research and salary support from Intercept Pharmaceuticals.
The trajectory of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) is a public health watershed moment in gastroenterology and hepatology causing unparalleled morbidity, mortality, and societal costs. This study by Van Herck et al. advances our understanding of just how important a two-pronged environmental and biologic approach is to turn the NASH tide. The authors demonstrate that both dietary environmental exposure and biologic tissue-specific T-cell responses are involved in NASH pathogenesis, and that targeting one part of the equation is insufficient to fully mitigate disease. They observed that mice with more severe diet-induced NASH had more Th17 cells in the liver and visceral adipose tissue and more cytotoxic T cells in VAT. Conversely, there were fewer VAT T-regulatory cells in mice with more liver inflammation. The major novelty of this study is that simply changing the diet to a metabolically healthier and weight-reducing diet failed to correct T-cell dysregulation. Only T cell–directed therapies improved this abnormality.
Rotonya M. Carr, MD, is an assistant professor of medicine in the division of gastroenterology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. She is a hepatologist, director of the liver metabolism and fatty liver program, and codirector of the human metabolic tissue resource. Dr. Carr receives research and salary support from Intercept Pharmaceuticals.
The trajectory of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) is a public health watershed moment in gastroenterology and hepatology causing unparalleled morbidity, mortality, and societal costs. This study by Van Herck et al. advances our understanding of just how important a two-pronged environmental and biologic approach is to turn the NASH tide. The authors demonstrate that both dietary environmental exposure and biologic tissue-specific T-cell responses are involved in NASH pathogenesis, and that targeting one part of the equation is insufficient to fully mitigate disease. They observed that mice with more severe diet-induced NASH had more Th17 cells in the liver and visceral adipose tissue and more cytotoxic T cells in VAT. Conversely, there were fewer VAT T-regulatory cells in mice with more liver inflammation. The major novelty of this study is that simply changing the diet to a metabolically healthier and weight-reducing diet failed to correct T-cell dysregulation. Only T cell–directed therapies improved this abnormality.
Rotonya M. Carr, MD, is an assistant professor of medicine in the division of gastroenterology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. She is a hepatologist, director of the liver metabolism and fatty liver program, and codirector of the human metabolic tissue resource. Dr. Carr receives research and salary support from Intercept Pharmaceuticals.
Changes in a variety of T cells in the liver and visceral adipose tissue play a key role in the pathogenesis of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, according to the results of a murine study.
Mikhaïl A. Van Herck, of the University of Antwerp (Belgium), and associates fed 8-week old mice a high-fat, high-fructose diet for 20 weeks, and then switched the mice to standard mouse chow for 12 weeks. The high-fat, high-fructose diet induced the metabolic syndrome and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), accompanied by shifts in T cells. Interleukin-17–producing (Th17 cells increased in the liver, visceral adipose tissue, and blood, while regulatory T cells decreased in visceral adipose tissue, and cytotoxic T (Tc) cells rose in visceral adipose tissue while dropping in the blood and spleen.
These are “important immune disruptions,” the researchers wrote in Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “In particular, visceral adipose tissue Tc cells are critically involved in NASH pathogenesis, linking adipose tissue inflammation to liver disease.”
After the mice were switched from the high-fat, high-fructose diet to standard mouse chow, their body weight, body fat, and plasma cholesterol significantly decreased and their glucose tolerance and insulin sensitivity improved to resemble the metrics of mice fed standard mouse chow throughout the study. Mice who underwent diet reversal also had significantly decreased liver weight and levels of plasma ALT, compared with mice that remained on the high-fat, high-fructose diet. Diet reversal also improved liver histology (nonalcoholic fatty liver disease activity scores), compared with the high-fat, high-fructose diet, the researchers wrote. “Importantly, the NASH was not significantly different between diet-reversal mice and mice fed the control diet for 32 weeks.”
Genetic tests supported these findings. On multiplex RNA analysis, hepatic expression of Acta2, Col1a1, and Col1a3 reverted to normal with diet reversal, indicating a normalization of hepatic collagen. Hepatic expression of the metabolic genes Ppara, Pparg, and Fgf21 also returned to normal, while visceral adipose tissue showed a decrease in Lep and Fgf21 expression and resolution of adipocyte hypertrophy.
However, diet reversal did not reverse inflammatory changes in T-cell subsets. Administering anti-CD8a antibodies after diet reversal decreased Tc cells in all tissue types that were tested, signifying “a biochemical and histologic attenuation of the high-fat, high-fructose diet-induced NASH,” the investigators wrote. Treating the mice with antibodies targeting IL-17A did not attenuate NASH but did reduce hepatic inflammation.
The fact that “the most pronounced effect” on NASH resulted from correcting immune disruption in visceral adipose tissue underscored “the immense importance of adipose tissue inflammation in [NASH] pathogenesis,” the researchers wrote. The finding that diet reversal alone did not reverse inflammation in hepatic or visceral adipose tissue “challeng[es] our current understanding of the reversibility of NASH and other obesity-related conditions.” They called for studies of underlying mechanisms as part of “the search for a medical treatment for NASH.”
Funders included the University Research Fund, University of Antwerp, and Research Foundation Flanders. The researchers reported having no conflicts of interest except that one coinvestigator is the chief science officer at Biocellvia, which performed some histologic analyses.
SOURCE: Van Herck MA et al. Cell Molec Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020 Apr 20. doi: 10.1016/j.jcmgh.2020.04.010.
Changes in a variety of T cells in the liver and visceral adipose tissue play a key role in the pathogenesis of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, according to the results of a murine study.
Mikhaïl A. Van Herck, of the University of Antwerp (Belgium), and associates fed 8-week old mice a high-fat, high-fructose diet for 20 weeks, and then switched the mice to standard mouse chow for 12 weeks. The high-fat, high-fructose diet induced the metabolic syndrome and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), accompanied by shifts in T cells. Interleukin-17–producing (Th17 cells increased in the liver, visceral adipose tissue, and blood, while regulatory T cells decreased in visceral adipose tissue, and cytotoxic T (Tc) cells rose in visceral adipose tissue while dropping in the blood and spleen.
These are “important immune disruptions,” the researchers wrote in Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “In particular, visceral adipose tissue Tc cells are critically involved in NASH pathogenesis, linking adipose tissue inflammation to liver disease.”
After the mice were switched from the high-fat, high-fructose diet to standard mouse chow, their body weight, body fat, and plasma cholesterol significantly decreased and their glucose tolerance and insulin sensitivity improved to resemble the metrics of mice fed standard mouse chow throughout the study. Mice who underwent diet reversal also had significantly decreased liver weight and levels of plasma ALT, compared with mice that remained on the high-fat, high-fructose diet. Diet reversal also improved liver histology (nonalcoholic fatty liver disease activity scores), compared with the high-fat, high-fructose diet, the researchers wrote. “Importantly, the NASH was not significantly different between diet-reversal mice and mice fed the control diet for 32 weeks.”
Genetic tests supported these findings. On multiplex RNA analysis, hepatic expression of Acta2, Col1a1, and Col1a3 reverted to normal with diet reversal, indicating a normalization of hepatic collagen. Hepatic expression of the metabolic genes Ppara, Pparg, and Fgf21 also returned to normal, while visceral adipose tissue showed a decrease in Lep and Fgf21 expression and resolution of adipocyte hypertrophy.
However, diet reversal did not reverse inflammatory changes in T-cell subsets. Administering anti-CD8a antibodies after diet reversal decreased Tc cells in all tissue types that were tested, signifying “a biochemical and histologic attenuation of the high-fat, high-fructose diet-induced NASH,” the investigators wrote. Treating the mice with antibodies targeting IL-17A did not attenuate NASH but did reduce hepatic inflammation.
The fact that “the most pronounced effect” on NASH resulted from correcting immune disruption in visceral adipose tissue underscored “the immense importance of adipose tissue inflammation in [NASH] pathogenesis,” the researchers wrote. The finding that diet reversal alone did not reverse inflammation in hepatic or visceral adipose tissue “challeng[es] our current understanding of the reversibility of NASH and other obesity-related conditions.” They called for studies of underlying mechanisms as part of “the search for a medical treatment for NASH.”
Funders included the University Research Fund, University of Antwerp, and Research Foundation Flanders. The researchers reported having no conflicts of interest except that one coinvestigator is the chief science officer at Biocellvia, which performed some histologic analyses.
SOURCE: Van Herck MA et al. Cell Molec Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020 Apr 20. doi: 10.1016/j.jcmgh.2020.04.010.
FROM CELLULAR AND MOLECULAR GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY
Exploring cannabis use by older adults
Older Americans – people aged 65 or older – make up 15% of the U.S. population, according to the Census Bureau. By the end of this decade, or the year 2030, this proportion will increase to 21% – and all “baby boomers,” those born between 1946 and 1964, will be older than 65.1 Those demographic developments are occurring alongside a change in societal, legal, and public attitudes on cannabis.
Liberalization of cannabis laws across the United States allows for ever easier access to medicinal and recreational cannabis. Traditionally, cannabis use, its effects, and related considerations in the adolescent and young adult populations have commanded significant research attention. Cannabis use in older adults, however, is not as well studied.2 An exploration of trends in cannabis use by older adults and potential impact in terms of health is timely and important.
According to data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, cannabis use in adults aged 65 years and older appears to have been increasing steadily over the past 2 decades. Use among this group rose from 0.4% in 2006 and 2007, to 2.9% in 2015 and 2016.2 And, most recently, use climbed from 3.7% in 2017 to 4.2% in 2018.2
Cannabis use also has risen among other adults. For those aged 50-64, cannabis use increased from 2.8% in 2006-2007 to 4.8% in 2012-2013.2,3 Meanwhile, from 2015 to 2016, that number increased to 9.0%.3,4
Past-year cannabis use in the groups of those aged 50-64 and those aged 65 and older appears to be higher in individuals with mental health problems, alcohol use disorder, and nicotine dependence.5,6 Being male and being unmarried appear to be correlated with past-year cannabis use. Multimorbidity does not appear to be associated with past-year cannabis use. Those using cannabis tend to be long-term users and have first use at a much younger age, typically before age 21.
Older adults use cannabis for both recreational and perceived medical benefits. Arthritis, chronic back pain, anxiety, depression, relaxation, stress reduction, and enhancement in terms of creativity are all purported reasons for use. However, there is limited to no evidence for the efficacy of cannabis in helping with those conditions and purposes. Clinical trials have shown that cannabis can be beneficial in managing pain and nausea, but those trials have not been conducted in older adults.7,8
There is a real risk of cannabis use having a negative impact on the health of older adults. To begin with, the cannabis consumed today is significantly higher in potency than the cannabis that baby boomers were introduced to in their youth. The higher potency, combined with an age-related decline in function experienced by some older adults, makes them vulnerable to its known side effects, such as anxiety, dry mouth, tachycardia, high blood pressure, palpitations, wheezing, confusion, and dizziness.
Cannabis use is reported to bring a fourfold increase in cardiac events within the first hour of ingestion.9 Cognitive decline and memory impairment are well known adverse effects of cannabis use. Research has shown significant self-reported cognitive decline in older adults in relation to cannabis use.Cannabis metabolites are known to have an effect on cytochrome P450 enzymes, affecting the metabolism of medication, and increasing the susceptibility of older adults who use cannabis to adverse effects of polypharmacy. Finally, as research on emergency department visits by older adults shows, cannabis use can increase the risk of injury among this cohort.
As in the United States, cannabis use among older adults in Canada has increased significantly. The percentage of older adults who use cannabis in the Canadian province of Ontario, for example, reportedly doubled from 2005 to 2015. In response to this increase, and in anticipation of a rise in problematic use of cannabis and cannabis use disorder in older adults, the Canadian Coalition for Seniors’ Mental Health (through financial support from Substance Use and Addictions Program of Health Canada) has created guidelines on the prevention, assessment, and management of cannabis use disorder in older adults.
In the absence of a set of guidelines specific to the United States, the recommendations made by the coalition should be helpful in the care of older Americans. Among other recommendations, the guidelines highlight the needs for primary care physicians to build a better knowledge base around the use of cannabis in older adults, to screen older adults for cannabis use, and to educate older adults and their families about the risk of cannabis use.9
Cannabis use is increasingly popular among older adults10 for both medicinal and recreational purposes. Research and data supporting its medical benefits are limited, and the potential of harm from its use among older adults is present and significant. Importantly, many older adults who use marijuana have co-occurring mental health issues and substance use disorder(s).
Often, our older patients learn about benefits and harms of cannabis from friends and the Internet rather than from physicians and other clinicians.9 We must do our part to make sure that older patients understand the potential negative health impact that cannabis can have on their health. Physicians should screen older adults for marijuana use. Building a better knowledge base around changing trends and views in/on the use and accessibility of cannabis will help physicians better address cannabis use in older adults.
Mr. Kaleka is a medical student in the class of 2021 at Central Michigan University College of Medicine, Mount Pleasant. He has no disclosures. Mr. Kaleka would like to thank his mentor, Furhut Janssen, DO, for her continued guidance and support in research on mental health in vulnerable populations.
References
1. Vespa J et al. Demographic turning points for the United States: Population projections for 2020 to 2060. Current Population Reports. Washington: U.S. Census Bureau. 2020 Feb.
2. Han BH et al. Addiction. 2016 Oct 21. doi: 10.1111/add.13670.
3. Han BH and Palamar JJ. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2018 Oct;191:374-81.
4. Han BH and Palamar JJ. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Feb 4;180(4):609-11.
5. Choi NG et al. Drug Alcohol Abuse. 2018;44(2):215-23.
6. Reynolds IR et al. J Am Griatr Soc. 2018 Nov;66(11):2167-71.
7. Ahmed AIA et al. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2014 Feb;62(2):410-1.
8. Lum HD et al. Gerontol Geriatr Med. 2019 Jan-Dec;5:2333721419843707.
9. Bertram JR et al. Can Geriatr J. 2020 Mar;23(1):135-42.
10. Baumbusch J and Yip IS. Clin Gerontol. 2020 Mar 29;1-7.
Older Americans – people aged 65 or older – make up 15% of the U.S. population, according to the Census Bureau. By the end of this decade, or the year 2030, this proportion will increase to 21% – and all “baby boomers,” those born between 1946 and 1964, will be older than 65.1 Those demographic developments are occurring alongside a change in societal, legal, and public attitudes on cannabis.
Liberalization of cannabis laws across the United States allows for ever easier access to medicinal and recreational cannabis. Traditionally, cannabis use, its effects, and related considerations in the adolescent and young adult populations have commanded significant research attention. Cannabis use in older adults, however, is not as well studied.2 An exploration of trends in cannabis use by older adults and potential impact in terms of health is timely and important.
According to data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, cannabis use in adults aged 65 years and older appears to have been increasing steadily over the past 2 decades. Use among this group rose from 0.4% in 2006 and 2007, to 2.9% in 2015 and 2016.2 And, most recently, use climbed from 3.7% in 2017 to 4.2% in 2018.2
Cannabis use also has risen among other adults. For those aged 50-64, cannabis use increased from 2.8% in 2006-2007 to 4.8% in 2012-2013.2,3 Meanwhile, from 2015 to 2016, that number increased to 9.0%.3,4
Past-year cannabis use in the groups of those aged 50-64 and those aged 65 and older appears to be higher in individuals with mental health problems, alcohol use disorder, and nicotine dependence.5,6 Being male and being unmarried appear to be correlated with past-year cannabis use. Multimorbidity does not appear to be associated with past-year cannabis use. Those using cannabis tend to be long-term users and have first use at a much younger age, typically before age 21.
Older adults use cannabis for both recreational and perceived medical benefits. Arthritis, chronic back pain, anxiety, depression, relaxation, stress reduction, and enhancement in terms of creativity are all purported reasons for use. However, there is limited to no evidence for the efficacy of cannabis in helping with those conditions and purposes. Clinical trials have shown that cannabis can be beneficial in managing pain and nausea, but those trials have not been conducted in older adults.7,8
There is a real risk of cannabis use having a negative impact on the health of older adults. To begin with, the cannabis consumed today is significantly higher in potency than the cannabis that baby boomers were introduced to in their youth. The higher potency, combined with an age-related decline in function experienced by some older adults, makes them vulnerable to its known side effects, such as anxiety, dry mouth, tachycardia, high blood pressure, palpitations, wheezing, confusion, and dizziness.
Cannabis use is reported to bring a fourfold increase in cardiac events within the first hour of ingestion.9 Cognitive decline and memory impairment are well known adverse effects of cannabis use. Research has shown significant self-reported cognitive decline in older adults in relation to cannabis use.Cannabis metabolites are known to have an effect on cytochrome P450 enzymes, affecting the metabolism of medication, and increasing the susceptibility of older adults who use cannabis to adverse effects of polypharmacy. Finally, as research on emergency department visits by older adults shows, cannabis use can increase the risk of injury among this cohort.
As in the United States, cannabis use among older adults in Canada has increased significantly. The percentage of older adults who use cannabis in the Canadian province of Ontario, for example, reportedly doubled from 2005 to 2015. In response to this increase, and in anticipation of a rise in problematic use of cannabis and cannabis use disorder in older adults, the Canadian Coalition for Seniors’ Mental Health (through financial support from Substance Use and Addictions Program of Health Canada) has created guidelines on the prevention, assessment, and management of cannabis use disorder in older adults.
In the absence of a set of guidelines specific to the United States, the recommendations made by the coalition should be helpful in the care of older Americans. Among other recommendations, the guidelines highlight the needs for primary care physicians to build a better knowledge base around the use of cannabis in older adults, to screen older adults for cannabis use, and to educate older adults and their families about the risk of cannabis use.9
Cannabis use is increasingly popular among older adults10 for both medicinal and recreational purposes. Research and data supporting its medical benefits are limited, and the potential of harm from its use among older adults is present and significant. Importantly, many older adults who use marijuana have co-occurring mental health issues and substance use disorder(s).
Often, our older patients learn about benefits and harms of cannabis from friends and the Internet rather than from physicians and other clinicians.9 We must do our part to make sure that older patients understand the potential negative health impact that cannabis can have on their health. Physicians should screen older adults for marijuana use. Building a better knowledge base around changing trends and views in/on the use and accessibility of cannabis will help physicians better address cannabis use in older adults.
Mr. Kaleka is a medical student in the class of 2021 at Central Michigan University College of Medicine, Mount Pleasant. He has no disclosures. Mr. Kaleka would like to thank his mentor, Furhut Janssen, DO, for her continued guidance and support in research on mental health in vulnerable populations.
References
1. Vespa J et al. Demographic turning points for the United States: Population projections for 2020 to 2060. Current Population Reports. Washington: U.S. Census Bureau. 2020 Feb.
2. Han BH et al. Addiction. 2016 Oct 21. doi: 10.1111/add.13670.
3. Han BH and Palamar JJ. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2018 Oct;191:374-81.
4. Han BH and Palamar JJ. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Feb 4;180(4):609-11.
5. Choi NG et al. Drug Alcohol Abuse. 2018;44(2):215-23.
6. Reynolds IR et al. J Am Griatr Soc. 2018 Nov;66(11):2167-71.
7. Ahmed AIA et al. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2014 Feb;62(2):410-1.
8. Lum HD et al. Gerontol Geriatr Med. 2019 Jan-Dec;5:2333721419843707.
9. Bertram JR et al. Can Geriatr J. 2020 Mar;23(1):135-42.
10. Baumbusch J and Yip IS. Clin Gerontol. 2020 Mar 29;1-7.
Older Americans – people aged 65 or older – make up 15% of the U.S. population, according to the Census Bureau. By the end of this decade, or the year 2030, this proportion will increase to 21% – and all “baby boomers,” those born between 1946 and 1964, will be older than 65.1 Those demographic developments are occurring alongside a change in societal, legal, and public attitudes on cannabis.
Liberalization of cannabis laws across the United States allows for ever easier access to medicinal and recreational cannabis. Traditionally, cannabis use, its effects, and related considerations in the adolescent and young adult populations have commanded significant research attention. Cannabis use in older adults, however, is not as well studied.2 An exploration of trends in cannabis use by older adults and potential impact in terms of health is timely and important.
According to data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, cannabis use in adults aged 65 years and older appears to have been increasing steadily over the past 2 decades. Use among this group rose from 0.4% in 2006 and 2007, to 2.9% in 2015 and 2016.2 And, most recently, use climbed from 3.7% in 2017 to 4.2% in 2018.2
Cannabis use also has risen among other adults. For those aged 50-64, cannabis use increased from 2.8% in 2006-2007 to 4.8% in 2012-2013.2,3 Meanwhile, from 2015 to 2016, that number increased to 9.0%.3,4
Past-year cannabis use in the groups of those aged 50-64 and those aged 65 and older appears to be higher in individuals with mental health problems, alcohol use disorder, and nicotine dependence.5,6 Being male and being unmarried appear to be correlated with past-year cannabis use. Multimorbidity does not appear to be associated with past-year cannabis use. Those using cannabis tend to be long-term users and have first use at a much younger age, typically before age 21.
Older adults use cannabis for both recreational and perceived medical benefits. Arthritis, chronic back pain, anxiety, depression, relaxation, stress reduction, and enhancement in terms of creativity are all purported reasons for use. However, there is limited to no evidence for the efficacy of cannabis in helping with those conditions and purposes. Clinical trials have shown that cannabis can be beneficial in managing pain and nausea, but those trials have not been conducted in older adults.7,8
There is a real risk of cannabis use having a negative impact on the health of older adults. To begin with, the cannabis consumed today is significantly higher in potency than the cannabis that baby boomers were introduced to in their youth. The higher potency, combined with an age-related decline in function experienced by some older adults, makes them vulnerable to its known side effects, such as anxiety, dry mouth, tachycardia, high blood pressure, palpitations, wheezing, confusion, and dizziness.
Cannabis use is reported to bring a fourfold increase in cardiac events within the first hour of ingestion.9 Cognitive decline and memory impairment are well known adverse effects of cannabis use. Research has shown significant self-reported cognitive decline in older adults in relation to cannabis use.Cannabis metabolites are known to have an effect on cytochrome P450 enzymes, affecting the metabolism of medication, and increasing the susceptibility of older adults who use cannabis to adverse effects of polypharmacy. Finally, as research on emergency department visits by older adults shows, cannabis use can increase the risk of injury among this cohort.
As in the United States, cannabis use among older adults in Canada has increased significantly. The percentage of older adults who use cannabis in the Canadian province of Ontario, for example, reportedly doubled from 2005 to 2015. In response to this increase, and in anticipation of a rise in problematic use of cannabis and cannabis use disorder in older adults, the Canadian Coalition for Seniors’ Mental Health (through financial support from Substance Use and Addictions Program of Health Canada) has created guidelines on the prevention, assessment, and management of cannabis use disorder in older adults.
In the absence of a set of guidelines specific to the United States, the recommendations made by the coalition should be helpful in the care of older Americans. Among other recommendations, the guidelines highlight the needs for primary care physicians to build a better knowledge base around the use of cannabis in older adults, to screen older adults for cannabis use, and to educate older adults and their families about the risk of cannabis use.9
Cannabis use is increasingly popular among older adults10 for both medicinal and recreational purposes. Research and data supporting its medical benefits are limited, and the potential of harm from its use among older adults is present and significant. Importantly, many older adults who use marijuana have co-occurring mental health issues and substance use disorder(s).
Often, our older patients learn about benefits and harms of cannabis from friends and the Internet rather than from physicians and other clinicians.9 We must do our part to make sure that older patients understand the potential negative health impact that cannabis can have on their health. Physicians should screen older adults for marijuana use. Building a better knowledge base around changing trends and views in/on the use and accessibility of cannabis will help physicians better address cannabis use in older adults.
Mr. Kaleka is a medical student in the class of 2021 at Central Michigan University College of Medicine, Mount Pleasant. He has no disclosures. Mr. Kaleka would like to thank his mentor, Furhut Janssen, DO, for her continued guidance and support in research on mental health in vulnerable populations.
References
1. Vespa J et al. Demographic turning points for the United States: Population projections for 2020 to 2060. Current Population Reports. Washington: U.S. Census Bureau. 2020 Feb.
2. Han BH et al. Addiction. 2016 Oct 21. doi: 10.1111/add.13670.
3. Han BH and Palamar JJ. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2018 Oct;191:374-81.
4. Han BH and Palamar JJ. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Feb 4;180(4):609-11.
5. Choi NG et al. Drug Alcohol Abuse. 2018;44(2):215-23.
6. Reynolds IR et al. J Am Griatr Soc. 2018 Nov;66(11):2167-71.
7. Ahmed AIA et al. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2014 Feb;62(2):410-1.
8. Lum HD et al. Gerontol Geriatr Med. 2019 Jan-Dec;5:2333721419843707.
9. Bertram JR et al. Can Geriatr J. 2020 Mar;23(1):135-42.
10. Baumbusch J and Yip IS. Clin Gerontol. 2020 Mar 29;1-7.
IBD: Anti-TNF doses often increased without evidence of inflammation
Clinicians frequently increase doses of anti–tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) agents for patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) without objective evidence of active inflammation, based on a retrospective study.
This strategy may be ineffective and expensive, according to lead author Evan D. Elias, MD, of the University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada, and colleagues, who noted that worsening symptoms may have noninflammatory causes, such as coexisting functional disorders.
“Objective evidence of active inflammation is a key part of [the dose escalation] process,” the investigators wrote in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology, “however, there are no data assessing whether an adequate evaluation of the cause of persistent gastrointestinal symptoms is routinely undertaken in clinical practice.”
To address this knowledge gap, Dr. Elias and colleagues conducted a retrospective study involving 23 physicians in Manitoba who initiated anti-TNF therapy in 838 patients with IBD during 2005-2016. The primary outcome was rate of dose escalation within 1 year. Secondarily, the investigators audited 11 out of 23 prescribers to determine how frequently patients receiving increased doses underwent objective assessment of inflammation, both in general and in the 90 days preceding dose escalation.
Of note, therapeutic drug monitoring, fecal calprotectin testing, and transabdominal ultrasound were not commonly available to prescribers during the study period.
Within 1 year, almost one-third of patients (32.9%) received increased doses of either adalimumab or infliximab, with no significant difference in escalation practices between the two agents. After approximately 2 years, increased doses were prescribed for almost half of the patients (49%), with a median time to dose increase of 17.4 months.
Patients with ulcerative colitis were 83% more likely to receive increased doses than were those with Crohn’s disease (P = .0001), and doses were typically escalated at an earlier date (7.1 vs. 11.1 months). In contrast, dose escalation was not associated with a variety of other patient factors, such as sex, age, or baseline laboratory values.
Comprehensive data from 11 prescribers showed that 70.8% of patients who received increased doses underwent some form of testing to assess inflammation, but only 24.7% of them had objective evidence of inflammatory activity that supported the dose increase.
Raymond K. Cross Jr., MD, MS, AGAF, FACG, director of the IBD program at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, said that the findings were “not surprising.”
Dr. Cross said that patients with IBD should ideally undergo testing for drug levels and inflammatory activity prior to dose escalation, but this one-size-fits-all approach doesn’t always translate to real-world practice.
“There’s the science, and there’s the practical,” he said, noting that dose escalation may precede testing “in an effort to be efficient and decrease suffering.” This includes cases in which patients receive an earlier or increased dose to bridge the gap between worsening of symptoms and completion of diagnostics.
Dr. Cross also pointed out that patients with ulcerative colitis typically have a strong correlation between symptoms and level of inflammation.
“If [a patient with ulcerative colitis] has bloody diarrhea, it’s 90% or so that they’re going to have active inflammation in their colon, so I feel less obligated to do those checks in an ulcerative colitis patient who has classic symptoms,” he said.
Byron Vaughn, MD, codirector of the IBD program at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, suggested that the study by Elias and colleagues “serves as an important reminder to follow the tenets of a treat-to-target strategy, which include regular assessment of objective markers of inflammation specific to IBD before and after a dose adjustment.”
Still, like Dr. Cross, Dr. Vaughn noted that dose escalation without additional testing “may be reasonable” in certain scenarios, such as when patients with ulcerative colitis have bloody diarrhea and tenesmus or for patients with perianal Crohn’s disease.
“A key limitation of this study is the lack of drug concentration monitoring,” Dr. Vaughn said. “Due to the immunogenicity of anti-TNF medications there is a strong rationale for proactive dose adjustments to avoid low or undetectable concentrations and subsequent antibody formation. However, as the authors point out, this is unlikely to be a major factor in this particular study as drug concentration measurement was not routinely available over the study period.”
The investigators disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Ferring, Janssen, and others. Dr. Vaughn disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Celgene, Genentech, Takeda, and others. Dr. Cross disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Janssen, and Samsung Bioepis.
SOURCE: Elias ED et al. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2020 Jul 17. doi: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000001391.
Clinicians frequently increase doses of anti–tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) agents for patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) without objective evidence of active inflammation, based on a retrospective study.
This strategy may be ineffective and expensive, according to lead author Evan D. Elias, MD, of the University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada, and colleagues, who noted that worsening symptoms may have noninflammatory causes, such as coexisting functional disorders.
“Objective evidence of active inflammation is a key part of [the dose escalation] process,” the investigators wrote in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology, “however, there are no data assessing whether an adequate evaluation of the cause of persistent gastrointestinal symptoms is routinely undertaken in clinical practice.”
To address this knowledge gap, Dr. Elias and colleagues conducted a retrospective study involving 23 physicians in Manitoba who initiated anti-TNF therapy in 838 patients with IBD during 2005-2016. The primary outcome was rate of dose escalation within 1 year. Secondarily, the investigators audited 11 out of 23 prescribers to determine how frequently patients receiving increased doses underwent objective assessment of inflammation, both in general and in the 90 days preceding dose escalation.
Of note, therapeutic drug monitoring, fecal calprotectin testing, and transabdominal ultrasound were not commonly available to prescribers during the study period.
Within 1 year, almost one-third of patients (32.9%) received increased doses of either adalimumab or infliximab, with no significant difference in escalation practices between the two agents. After approximately 2 years, increased doses were prescribed for almost half of the patients (49%), with a median time to dose increase of 17.4 months.
Patients with ulcerative colitis were 83% more likely to receive increased doses than were those with Crohn’s disease (P = .0001), and doses were typically escalated at an earlier date (7.1 vs. 11.1 months). In contrast, dose escalation was not associated with a variety of other patient factors, such as sex, age, or baseline laboratory values.
Comprehensive data from 11 prescribers showed that 70.8% of patients who received increased doses underwent some form of testing to assess inflammation, but only 24.7% of them had objective evidence of inflammatory activity that supported the dose increase.
Raymond K. Cross Jr., MD, MS, AGAF, FACG, director of the IBD program at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, said that the findings were “not surprising.”
Dr. Cross said that patients with IBD should ideally undergo testing for drug levels and inflammatory activity prior to dose escalation, but this one-size-fits-all approach doesn’t always translate to real-world practice.
“There’s the science, and there’s the practical,” he said, noting that dose escalation may precede testing “in an effort to be efficient and decrease suffering.” This includes cases in which patients receive an earlier or increased dose to bridge the gap between worsening of symptoms and completion of diagnostics.
Dr. Cross also pointed out that patients with ulcerative colitis typically have a strong correlation between symptoms and level of inflammation.
“If [a patient with ulcerative colitis] has bloody diarrhea, it’s 90% or so that they’re going to have active inflammation in their colon, so I feel less obligated to do those checks in an ulcerative colitis patient who has classic symptoms,” he said.
Byron Vaughn, MD, codirector of the IBD program at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, suggested that the study by Elias and colleagues “serves as an important reminder to follow the tenets of a treat-to-target strategy, which include regular assessment of objective markers of inflammation specific to IBD before and after a dose adjustment.”
Still, like Dr. Cross, Dr. Vaughn noted that dose escalation without additional testing “may be reasonable” in certain scenarios, such as when patients with ulcerative colitis have bloody diarrhea and tenesmus or for patients with perianal Crohn’s disease.
“A key limitation of this study is the lack of drug concentration monitoring,” Dr. Vaughn said. “Due to the immunogenicity of anti-TNF medications there is a strong rationale for proactive dose adjustments to avoid low or undetectable concentrations and subsequent antibody formation. However, as the authors point out, this is unlikely to be a major factor in this particular study as drug concentration measurement was not routinely available over the study period.”
The investigators disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Ferring, Janssen, and others. Dr. Vaughn disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Celgene, Genentech, Takeda, and others. Dr. Cross disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Janssen, and Samsung Bioepis.
SOURCE: Elias ED et al. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2020 Jul 17. doi: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000001391.
Clinicians frequently increase doses of anti–tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) agents for patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) without objective evidence of active inflammation, based on a retrospective study.
This strategy may be ineffective and expensive, according to lead author Evan D. Elias, MD, of the University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada, and colleagues, who noted that worsening symptoms may have noninflammatory causes, such as coexisting functional disorders.
“Objective evidence of active inflammation is a key part of [the dose escalation] process,” the investigators wrote in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology, “however, there are no data assessing whether an adequate evaluation of the cause of persistent gastrointestinal symptoms is routinely undertaken in clinical practice.”
To address this knowledge gap, Dr. Elias and colleagues conducted a retrospective study involving 23 physicians in Manitoba who initiated anti-TNF therapy in 838 patients with IBD during 2005-2016. The primary outcome was rate of dose escalation within 1 year. Secondarily, the investigators audited 11 out of 23 prescribers to determine how frequently patients receiving increased doses underwent objective assessment of inflammation, both in general and in the 90 days preceding dose escalation.
Of note, therapeutic drug monitoring, fecal calprotectin testing, and transabdominal ultrasound were not commonly available to prescribers during the study period.
Within 1 year, almost one-third of patients (32.9%) received increased doses of either adalimumab or infliximab, with no significant difference in escalation practices between the two agents. After approximately 2 years, increased doses were prescribed for almost half of the patients (49%), with a median time to dose increase of 17.4 months.
Patients with ulcerative colitis were 83% more likely to receive increased doses than were those with Crohn’s disease (P = .0001), and doses were typically escalated at an earlier date (7.1 vs. 11.1 months). In contrast, dose escalation was not associated with a variety of other patient factors, such as sex, age, or baseline laboratory values.
Comprehensive data from 11 prescribers showed that 70.8% of patients who received increased doses underwent some form of testing to assess inflammation, but only 24.7% of them had objective evidence of inflammatory activity that supported the dose increase.
Raymond K. Cross Jr., MD, MS, AGAF, FACG, director of the IBD program at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, said that the findings were “not surprising.”
Dr. Cross said that patients with IBD should ideally undergo testing for drug levels and inflammatory activity prior to dose escalation, but this one-size-fits-all approach doesn’t always translate to real-world practice.
“There’s the science, and there’s the practical,” he said, noting that dose escalation may precede testing “in an effort to be efficient and decrease suffering.” This includes cases in which patients receive an earlier or increased dose to bridge the gap between worsening of symptoms and completion of diagnostics.
Dr. Cross also pointed out that patients with ulcerative colitis typically have a strong correlation between symptoms and level of inflammation.
“If [a patient with ulcerative colitis] has bloody diarrhea, it’s 90% or so that they’re going to have active inflammation in their colon, so I feel less obligated to do those checks in an ulcerative colitis patient who has classic symptoms,” he said.
Byron Vaughn, MD, codirector of the IBD program at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, suggested that the study by Elias and colleagues “serves as an important reminder to follow the tenets of a treat-to-target strategy, which include regular assessment of objective markers of inflammation specific to IBD before and after a dose adjustment.”
Still, like Dr. Cross, Dr. Vaughn noted that dose escalation without additional testing “may be reasonable” in certain scenarios, such as when patients with ulcerative colitis have bloody diarrhea and tenesmus or for patients with perianal Crohn’s disease.
“A key limitation of this study is the lack of drug concentration monitoring,” Dr. Vaughn said. “Due to the immunogenicity of anti-TNF medications there is a strong rationale for proactive dose adjustments to avoid low or undetectable concentrations and subsequent antibody formation. However, as the authors point out, this is unlikely to be a major factor in this particular study as drug concentration measurement was not routinely available over the study period.”
The investigators disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Ferring, Janssen, and others. Dr. Vaughn disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Celgene, Genentech, Takeda, and others. Dr. Cross disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Janssen, and Samsung Bioepis.
SOURCE: Elias ED et al. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2020 Jul 17. doi: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000001391.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY