SAN FRANCISCO – Maintenance therapy with avelumab does not prolong survival in patients with advanced gastric cancer relative to continued chemotherapy, results of the JAVELIN Gastric 100 trial suggest.

Susan London/MDedge News

However, it may not be end of the line for avelumab in this setting, as the checkpoint inhibitor may benefit certain subgroups of patients, according to Markus H. Moehler, MD, PhD, of the Johannes Gutenberg-University Clinic in Mainz, Germany, who presented results from the trial at the symposium.

In the phase 3 trial, investigators enrolled 805 patients with untreated locally advanced or metastatic HER2-negative gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer. All patients received first-line chemotherapy.

The 499 patients (62%) who did not experience progression were randomized to receive the anti– programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) antibody avelumab (n = 249) or continued chemotherapy (n = 250). There were 6 patients in the avelumab arm and 12 in the chemotherapy arm who did not receive maintenance treatment, and 7 patients in the chemotherapy arm received best supportive care as maintenance.
 

Efficacy and safety

The minimum follow-up was 18 months. The median overall survival in the entire population was about the same for both treatment groups, 10.4 months with avelumab and 10.9 months with chemotherapy (P = .1779).

Findings were similar among the 12.3% of patients whose tumors were PD-L1 positive as defined by staining of at least 1% of tumor cells. The median overall survival in this group was 16.2 months with avelumab and 17.7 months with chemotherapy (P = .6352).

On exploratory analysis, results with avelumab were more favorable among the 64.3% of patients whose tumors were PD-L1 positive as defined by a combined positive score (CPS) of 1 or greater. The median overall survival in this group was 14.9 months with avelumab and 11.6 months with chemotherapy.

In subgroup analyses by other characteristics, avelumab appeared to have the edge among patients free of metastases at baseline. In this group, the median overall survival was 16.3 months with avelumab, compared with 10.7 months with chemotherapy (hazard ratio for death, 0.52).

Among all patients, the pattern comparing avelumab with chemotherapy was similar for median progression-free survival (3.2 months vs. 4.4 months) and objective response rate (13.3% vs. 14.4%). The median duration of response was not reached.

“JAVELIN Gastric 100 did not meet its primary objective of demonstrating superior overall survival with avelumab maintenance versus chemotherapy or best supportive care in gastric cancer, either in all randomized patients or in the PD-L1–positive population,” Dr. Moehler said. “However, avelumab maintenance showed clear clinical activity. Further studies are needed to identify patients who can derive benefit from checkpoint inhibitor therapy across the continuum of care with gastric and gastroesophageal junction cancer.”

The avelumab and chemotherapy groups had similar rates of any grade 3 or higher adverse events (54.3% vs. 53.8%), but the avelumab group had a lower rate of treatment-related grade 3 or higher adverse events (12.8% vs. 32.8%).
 

A ‘yin-yang’ pattern of survival

“Monotherapy checkpoint blockade with anti–programmed death-1 (PD-1) and anti–PD-L1 inhibitors has had relatively unimpressive results in gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma as a whole,” said invited discussant Daniel V. T. Catenacci, MD, of University of Chicago Medicine.

He added that the JAVELIN Gastric 100 survival analysis was noteworthy for the presence of a “yin-yang” pattern, whereby the avelumab curve during follow-up was lower than the chemotherapy curve initially but came out on top eventually.

The 12-month overall survival rate was 43.6% with avelumab and 45.3% with chemotherapy. The 24-month overall survival rates were 22.1% and 15.5%, respectively.

This type of pattern is seen in many similar gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma trials of checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy, even among patients selected for higher CPS, Dr. Catenacci noted.

“This tells us that standard chemotherapy is better in a large subgroup of patients and worse in a separate subgroup: those with MSI-high [microsatellite instability–high], and then MSS [microsatellite stable] with even higher PD-L1 scores like CPS greater than 50, low burden of disease (few metastatic sites), preserved performance status, EBV [Epstein-Barr virus] positivity, Asians within global studies compared with non-Asians, and other unknown factors,” Dr. Catenacci explained.

He commended the design of the JAVELIN Gastric 100 trial, whereby the 38% of patients having rapidly progressive disease were excluded, as this subset is known to fare poorly on checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy.

“This could be potentially a great way to select for those patients most likely to benefit,” Dr. Catenacci said. “Unfortunately, even despite that large fallout, the yin-yang curve was still observed in the intention-to-treat population (unselected by any biomarker). This tells us that, even among the most stable and best prognostic patients, checkpoint blockade is still inferior to standard chemotherapy in a large subgroup of patients.”

However, among patients with a CPS of at least 1, the overall survival curve was consistently higher with avelumab.

“So perhaps by excluding patients with rapid disease progression (about 40% of patients) and then those that are CPS 0 (about 33% more of the total), you can then safely switch to monotherapy checkpoint blockade to first do no harm, and also to do better than standard chemotherapy,” Dr. Catenacci proposed.

“However, we have to be careful, as this was an unplanned retrospective analysis and so should be confirmed prospectively. We might also argue that a higher CPS cut off of greater than or equal to 10 could enrich for the benefit observed. Future ongoing phase 3 studies may help to further increase our understanding of where and where not to implement checkpoint monotherapy or combination therapy with standard chemotherapy.”

The JAVELIN Gastric 100 trial was sponsored by EMD Serono and Merck KGaA, which market avelumab in collaboration with Pfizer. Dr. Moehler disclosed relationships with these companies and many others. Dr. Catenacci disclosed relationships with Merck and other companies.

The 2020 GI Cancers Symposium is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.

SOURCE: Moehler MH et al. 2020 GI Cancers Symposium, Abstract 278.

SAN FRANCISCO – Maintenance therapy with avelumab does not prolong survival in patients with advanced gastric cancer relative to continued chemotherapy, results of the JAVELIN Gastric 100 trial suggest.

Susan London/MDedge News

However, it may not be end of the line for avelumab in this setting, as the checkpoint inhibitor may benefit certain subgroups of patients, according to Markus H. Moehler, MD, PhD, of the Johannes Gutenberg-University Clinic in Mainz, Germany, who presented results from the trial at the symposium.

In the phase 3 trial, investigators enrolled 805 patients with untreated locally advanced or metastatic HER2-negative gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer. All patients received first-line chemotherapy.

The 499 patients (62%) who did not experience progression were randomized to receive the anti– programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) antibody avelumab (n = 249) or continued chemotherapy (n = 250). There were 6 patients in the avelumab arm and 12 in the chemotherapy arm who did not receive maintenance treatment, and 7 patients in the chemotherapy arm received best supportive care as maintenance.
 

Efficacy and safety

The minimum follow-up was 18 months. The median overall survival in the entire population was about the same for both treatment groups, 10.4 months with avelumab and 10.9 months with chemotherapy (P = .1779).

Findings were similar among the 12.3% of patients whose tumors were PD-L1 positive as defined by staining of at least 1% of tumor cells. The median overall survival in this group was 16.2 months with avelumab and 17.7 months with chemotherapy (P = .6352).

On exploratory analysis, results with avelumab were more favorable among the 64.3% of patients whose tumors were PD-L1 positive as defined by a combined positive score (CPS) of 1 or greater. The median overall survival in this group was 14.9 months with avelumab and 11.6 months with chemotherapy.

In subgroup analyses by other characteristics, avelumab appeared to have the edge among patients free of metastases at baseline. In this group, the median overall survival was 16.3 months with avelumab, compared with 10.7 months with chemotherapy (hazard ratio for death, 0.52).

Among all patients, the pattern comparing avelumab with chemotherapy was similar for median progression-free survival (3.2 months vs. 4.4 months) and objective response rate (13.3% vs. 14.4%). The median duration of response was not reached.

“JAVELIN Gastric 100 did not meet its primary objective of demonstrating superior overall survival with avelumab maintenance versus chemotherapy or best supportive care in gastric cancer, either in all randomized patients or in the PD-L1–positive population,” Dr. Moehler said. “However, avelumab maintenance showed clear clinical activity. Further studies are needed to identify patients who can derive benefit from checkpoint inhibitor therapy across the continuum of care with gastric and gastroesophageal junction cancer.”

The avelumab and chemotherapy groups had similar rates of any grade 3 or higher adverse events (54.3% vs. 53.8%), but the avelumab group had a lower rate of treatment-related grade 3 or higher adverse events (12.8% vs. 32.8%).
 

A ‘yin-yang’ pattern of survival

“Monotherapy checkpoint blockade with anti–programmed death-1 (PD-1) and anti–PD-L1 inhibitors has had relatively unimpressive results in gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma as a whole,” said invited discussant Daniel V. T. Catenacci, MD, of University of Chicago Medicine.

He added that the JAVELIN Gastric 100 survival analysis was noteworthy for the presence of a “yin-yang” pattern, whereby the avelumab curve during follow-up was lower than the chemotherapy curve initially but came out on top eventually.

The 12-month overall survival rate was 43.6% with avelumab and 45.3% with chemotherapy. The 24-month overall survival rates were 22.1% and 15.5%, respectively.

This type of pattern is seen in many similar gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma trials of checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy, even among patients selected for higher CPS, Dr. Catenacci noted.

“This tells us that standard chemotherapy is better in a large subgroup of patients and worse in a separate subgroup: those with MSI-high [microsatellite instability–high], and then MSS [microsatellite stable] with even higher PD-L1 scores like CPS greater than 50, low burden of disease (few metastatic sites), preserved performance status, EBV [Epstein-Barr virus] positivity, Asians within global studies compared with non-Asians, and other unknown factors,” Dr. Catenacci explained.

He commended the design of the JAVELIN Gastric 100 trial, whereby the 38% of patients having rapidly progressive disease were excluded, as this subset is known to fare poorly on checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy.

“This could be potentially a great way to select for those patients most likely to benefit,” Dr. Catenacci said. “Unfortunately, even despite that large fallout, the yin-yang curve was still observed in the intention-to-treat population (unselected by any biomarker). This tells us that, even among the most stable and best prognostic patients, checkpoint blockade is still inferior to standard chemotherapy in a large subgroup of patients.”

However, among patients with a CPS of at least 1, the overall survival curve was consistently higher with avelumab.

“So perhaps by excluding patients with rapid disease progression (about 40% of patients) and then those that are CPS 0 (about 33% more of the total), you can then safely switch to monotherapy checkpoint blockade to first do no harm, and also to do better than standard chemotherapy,” Dr. Catenacci proposed.

“However, we have to be careful, as this was an unplanned retrospective analysis and so should be confirmed prospectively. We might also argue that a higher CPS cut off of greater than or equal to 10 could enrich for the benefit observed. Future ongoing phase 3 studies may help to further increase our understanding of where and where not to implement checkpoint monotherapy or combination therapy with standard chemotherapy.”

The JAVELIN Gastric 100 trial was sponsored by EMD Serono and Merck KGaA, which market avelumab in collaboration with Pfizer. Dr. Moehler disclosed relationships with these companies and many others. Dr. Catenacci disclosed relationships with Merck and other companies.

The 2020 GI Cancers Symposium is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.

SOURCE: Moehler MH et al. 2020 GI Cancers Symposium, Abstract 278.

SAN FRANCISCO – Maintenance therapy with avelumab does not prolong survival in patients with advanced gastric cancer relative to continued chemotherapy, results of the JAVELIN Gastric 100 trial suggest.

Susan London/MDedge News

However, it may not be end of the line for avelumab in this setting, as the checkpoint inhibitor may benefit certain subgroups of patients, according to Markus H. Moehler, MD, PhD, of the Johannes Gutenberg-University Clinic in Mainz, Germany, who presented results from the trial at the symposium.

In the phase 3 trial, investigators enrolled 805 patients with untreated locally advanced or metastatic HER2-negative gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer. All patients received first-line chemotherapy.

The 499 patients (62%) who did not experience progression were randomized to receive the anti– programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) antibody avelumab (n = 249) or continued chemotherapy (n = 250). There were 6 patients in the avelumab arm and 12 in the chemotherapy arm who did not receive maintenance treatment, and 7 patients in the chemotherapy arm received best supportive care as maintenance.
 

Efficacy and safety

The minimum follow-up was 18 months. The median overall survival in the entire population was about the same for both treatment groups, 10.4 months with avelumab and 10.9 months with chemotherapy (P = .1779).

Findings were similar among the 12.3% of patients whose tumors were PD-L1 positive as defined by staining of at least 1% of tumor cells. The median overall survival in this group was 16.2 months with avelumab and 17.7 months with chemotherapy (P = .6352).

On exploratory analysis, results with avelumab were more favorable among the 64.3% of patients whose tumors were PD-L1 positive as defined by a combined positive score (CPS) of 1 or greater. The median overall survival in this group was 14.9 months with avelumab and 11.6 months with chemotherapy.

In subgroup analyses by other characteristics, avelumab appeared to have the edge among patients free of metastases at baseline. In this group, the median overall survival was 16.3 months with avelumab, compared with 10.7 months with chemotherapy (hazard ratio for death, 0.52).

Among all patients, the pattern comparing avelumab with chemotherapy was similar for median progression-free survival (3.2 months vs. 4.4 months) and objective response rate (13.3% vs. 14.4%). The median duration of response was not reached.

“JAVELIN Gastric 100 did not meet its primary objective of demonstrating superior overall survival with avelumab maintenance versus chemotherapy or best supportive care in gastric cancer, either in all randomized patients or in the PD-L1–positive population,” Dr. Moehler said. “However, avelumab maintenance showed clear clinical activity. Further studies are needed to identify patients who can derive benefit from checkpoint inhibitor therapy across the continuum of care with gastric and gastroesophageal junction cancer.”

The avelumab and chemotherapy groups had similar rates of any grade 3 or higher adverse events (54.3% vs. 53.8%), but the avelumab group had a lower rate of treatment-related grade 3 or higher adverse events (12.8% vs. 32.8%).
 

A ‘yin-yang’ pattern of survival

“Monotherapy checkpoint blockade with anti–programmed death-1 (PD-1) and anti–PD-L1 inhibitors has had relatively unimpressive results in gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma as a whole,” said invited discussant Daniel V. T. Catenacci, MD, of University of Chicago Medicine.

He added that the JAVELIN Gastric 100 survival analysis was noteworthy for the presence of a “yin-yang” pattern, whereby the avelumab curve during follow-up was lower than the chemotherapy curve initially but came out on top eventually.

The 12-month overall survival rate was 43.6% with avelumab and 45.3% with chemotherapy. The 24-month overall survival rates were 22.1% and 15.5%, respectively.

This type of pattern is seen in many similar gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma trials of checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy, even among patients selected for higher CPS, Dr. Catenacci noted.

“This tells us that standard chemotherapy is better in a large subgroup of patients and worse in a separate subgroup: those with MSI-high [microsatellite instability–high], and then MSS [microsatellite stable] with even higher PD-L1 scores like CPS greater than 50, low burden of disease (few metastatic sites), preserved performance status, EBV [Epstein-Barr virus] positivity, Asians within global studies compared with non-Asians, and other unknown factors,” Dr. Catenacci explained.

He commended the design of the JAVELIN Gastric 100 trial, whereby the 38% of patients having rapidly progressive disease were excluded, as this subset is known to fare poorly on checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy.

“This could be potentially a great way to select for those patients most likely to benefit,” Dr. Catenacci said. “Unfortunately, even despite that large fallout, the yin-yang curve was still observed in the intention-to-treat population (unselected by any biomarker). This tells us that, even among the most stable and best prognostic patients, checkpoint blockade is still inferior to standard chemotherapy in a large subgroup of patients.”

However, among patients with a CPS of at least 1, the overall survival curve was consistently higher with avelumab.

“So perhaps by excluding patients with rapid disease progression (about 40% of patients) and then those that are CPS 0 (about 33% more of the total), you can then safely switch to monotherapy checkpoint blockade to first do no harm, and also to do better than standard chemotherapy,” Dr. Catenacci proposed.

“However, we have to be careful, as this was an unplanned retrospective analysis and so should be confirmed prospectively. We might also argue that a higher CPS cut off of greater than or equal to 10 could enrich for the benefit observed. Future ongoing phase 3 studies may help to further increase our understanding of where and where not to implement checkpoint monotherapy or combination therapy with standard chemotherapy.”

The JAVELIN Gastric 100 trial was sponsored by EMD Serono and Merck KGaA, which market avelumab in collaboration with Pfizer. Dr. Moehler disclosed relationships with these companies and many others. Dr. Catenacci disclosed relationships with Merck and other companies.

The 2020 GI Cancers Symposium is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.

SOURCE: Moehler MH et al. 2020 GI Cancers Symposium, Abstract 278.

A new line of Barbie dolls unveiled by Mattel earlier this month includes one with vitiligo, much to the delight of clinicians who treat children and adolescents with the condition.

Mattel, Inc.

“When I see young children and adolescents with vitiligo, it is very common for me to feel their emotional suffering from their skin condition,” Seemal R. Desai, MD, a dermatologist at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas said in an interview. “Kids can be cruel. Name calling, social ostracizing, [and] effects on self-esteem are all things I have seen amongst my patients and their families in their own struggles with vitiligo.”

According to a brand communications representative from toymaker Mattel, which began manufacturing Barbie dolls in 1959, the company worked with a board-certified dermatologist to include a doll with vitiligo in its 2020 “Fashionistas” line. “As we continue to redefine what it means to be a ‘Barbie’ or look like Barbie, offering a doll with vitiligo in our main doll line allows kids to play out even more stories they see in the world around them,” the representative wrote in an email message. Other dolls debuting as part of the lineup include one with no hair, one with a darker skin tone that uses a gold prosthetic limb, and a Ken doll with long rooted hair (think Jeff Spicoli in “Fast Times at Ridgemont High,” but about six inches longer).

Such efforts to celebrate diversity and inclusiveness go far in helping children and young adults to embrace their skin and their own identities, said Dr. Desai, the immediate past president of the Skin of Color Society and a member of the American Academy of Dermatology board of directors. “One nuance, perhaps even more important, is that the Barbie can help to break down barriers, create awareness, and potentially even reduce bullying, stigma, and lack of knowledge about vitiligo amongst the general public who don’t understand vitiligo,” he said. “I hope the public and social media will embrace this new Barbie. Who knows? Pretty soon, vitiligo may no longer be a ‘thing’ that causes ‘stares’ and ‘glares.’ ”

Referring to the Barbie with no hair in the new line of dolls, the Mattel statement said, “ if a girl is experiencing hair loss for any reason, she can see herself reflected in the line.”

Mattel, Inc.

In 2019, Mattel introduced a lineup of Barbie dolls reflecting permanent disabilities, including one with a prosthetic limb. For that effort, the company collaborated with then-12-year-old Jordan Reeves, the “Born Just Right” coauthor “who is on a mission to build creative solutions that help kids with disabilities, to create a play experience that is as representative as possible,” the Mattel representative wrote.

[email protected]

A new line of Barbie dolls unveiled by Mattel earlier this month includes one with vitiligo, much to the delight of clinicians who treat children and adolescents with the condition.

Mattel, Inc.

“When I see young children and adolescents with vitiligo, it is very common for me to feel their emotional suffering from their skin condition,” Seemal R. Desai, MD, a dermatologist at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas said in an interview. “Kids can be cruel. Name calling, social ostracizing, [and] effects on self-esteem are all things I have seen amongst my patients and their families in their own struggles with vitiligo.”

According to a brand communications representative from toymaker Mattel, which began manufacturing Barbie dolls in 1959, the company worked with a board-certified dermatologist to include a doll with vitiligo in its 2020 “Fashionistas” line. “As we continue to redefine what it means to be a ‘Barbie’ or look like Barbie, offering a doll with vitiligo in our main doll line allows kids to play out even more stories they see in the world around them,” the representative wrote in an email message. Other dolls debuting as part of the lineup include one with no hair, one with a darker skin tone that uses a gold prosthetic limb, and a Ken doll with long rooted hair (think Jeff Spicoli in “Fast Times at Ridgemont High,” but about six inches longer).

Such efforts to celebrate diversity and inclusiveness go far in helping children and young adults to embrace their skin and their own identities, said Dr. Desai, the immediate past president of the Skin of Color Society and a member of the American Academy of Dermatology board of directors. “One nuance, perhaps even more important, is that the Barbie can help to break down barriers, create awareness, and potentially even reduce bullying, stigma, and lack of knowledge about vitiligo amongst the general public who don’t understand vitiligo,” he said. “I hope the public and social media will embrace this new Barbie. Who knows? Pretty soon, vitiligo may no longer be a ‘thing’ that causes ‘stares’ and ‘glares.’ ”

Referring to the Barbie with no hair in the new line of dolls, the Mattel statement said, “ if a girl is experiencing hair loss for any reason, she can see herself reflected in the line.”

Mattel, Inc.

In 2019, Mattel introduced a lineup of Barbie dolls reflecting permanent disabilities, including one with a prosthetic limb. For that effort, the company collaborated with then-12-year-old Jordan Reeves, the “Born Just Right” coauthor “who is on a mission to build creative solutions that help kids with disabilities, to create a play experience that is as representative as possible,” the Mattel representative wrote.

[email protected]

A new line of Barbie dolls unveiled by Mattel earlier this month includes one with vitiligo, much to the delight of clinicians who treat children and adolescents with the condition.

Mattel, Inc.

“When I see young children and adolescents with vitiligo, it is very common for me to feel their emotional suffering from their skin condition,” Seemal R. Desai, MD, a dermatologist at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas said in an interview. “Kids can be cruel. Name calling, social ostracizing, [and] effects on self-esteem are all things I have seen amongst my patients and their families in their own struggles with vitiligo.”

According to a brand communications representative from toymaker Mattel, which began manufacturing Barbie dolls in 1959, the company worked with a board-certified dermatologist to include a doll with vitiligo in its 2020 “Fashionistas” line. “As we continue to redefine what it means to be a ‘Barbie’ or look like Barbie, offering a doll with vitiligo in our main doll line allows kids to play out even more stories they see in the world around them,” the representative wrote in an email message. Other dolls debuting as part of the lineup include one with no hair, one with a darker skin tone that uses a gold prosthetic limb, and a Ken doll with long rooted hair (think Jeff Spicoli in “Fast Times at Ridgemont High,” but about six inches longer).

Such efforts to celebrate diversity and inclusiveness go far in helping children and young adults to embrace their skin and their own identities, said Dr. Desai, the immediate past president of the Skin of Color Society and a member of the American Academy of Dermatology board of directors. “One nuance, perhaps even more important, is that the Barbie can help to break down barriers, create awareness, and potentially even reduce bullying, stigma, and lack of knowledge about vitiligo amongst the general public who don’t understand vitiligo,” he said. “I hope the public and social media will embrace this new Barbie. Who knows? Pretty soon, vitiligo may no longer be a ‘thing’ that causes ‘stares’ and ‘glares.’ ”

Referring to the Barbie with no hair in the new line of dolls, the Mattel statement said, “ if a girl is experiencing hair loss for any reason, she can see herself reflected in the line.”

Mattel, Inc.

In 2019, Mattel introduced a lineup of Barbie dolls reflecting permanent disabilities, including one with a prosthetic limb. For that effort, the company collaborated with then-12-year-old Jordan Reeves, the “Born Just Right” coauthor “who is on a mission to build creative solutions that help kids with disabilities, to create a play experience that is as representative as possible,” the Mattel representative wrote.

[email protected]

An additional 5 cases of 2019 novel coronavirus (2109-nCoV) have been confirmed in the United States, bringing the total number of confirmed cases to 11, Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, said during a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention press briefing.

Four of the new cases are in California, and one in Massachusetts. Although four of the new cases have recent travel history to Wuhan, China, the epicenter of the 2019-nCoV outbreak, the fifth is a close household contact of one of the other California patients, said Dr. Messonnier. This last case is the second instance of person-to-person spread of 2019-nCoV in the United States.

“We expect to find additional cases of the novel coronavirus in the United States,” she said. “We expect to see more cases of person-to-person spread among close contacts. And we continue to expect this will happen given the explosive nature of this outbreak in China.”

As of the morning of Feb. 3, 167 persons under investigation, or PUIs, for possible 2019-nCoV have tested negative for the virus, and an additional 82 PUIs have testing pending – this latter figure includes some tests that are still in transit to the CDC, said Dr. Messonnier.

During the briefing, Dr. Messonnier emphasized both the aggressive nature of the U.S. public health response and the rationale for quick and assertive action. “The goal of our public health response is to protect and contain,” she said. “Strong measures now may blunt the impact of this virus on the United States.”

She cited the intensity of transmission in Hubei Province, the expansion of transmission to other provinces in China, the expansion of cases outside of China, and sporadic ongoing deaths from 2019-nCoV as drivers of the aggressive U.S. public health response.

A presidential proclamation is currently in place that bars U.S. entry to foreign nationals who have visited mainland China within the past 14 days; the ban does not apply to travelers from Hong Kong and Macao. Immediate family members of U.S. citizens and individuals who have U.S. permanent resident status are exempted from the entry ban and will be allowed entry into the United States.

However, explained Dr. Messonnier, those who have traveled to China recently and are permitted entry will be subject to screening. All passengers with such recent travel will be directed to one of 11 U.S. airports set up to perform additional screening.

As of Feb 3, the list of airports includes:

• San Francisco International Airport in California.
• Los Angeles International Airport in California.
• Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport in Georgia.
• Daniel K. Inouye International Airport in Hawaii.
• O’Hare International Airport in Illinois.
• Detroit Metropolitan Airport in Michigan.
• Newark Liberty International Airport in New Jersey.
• John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York.
• Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport in Texas.
• Washington Dulles International Airport in Virginia.
• Seattle-Tacoma International Airport in Washington.

Travelers who have been to Hubei Province in the previous 14 days will have an additional health assessment at which they will be screened for fever, cough, or difficulty breathing. Any American citizens or exempt individuals who are symptomatic would then be transferred for further medical evaluation. Asymptomatic travelers in this category will be subject to a mandatory 14-day quarantine near their point of entry, rather than continuing on to their final destinations.

Dr. Messonnier emphasized that the mandatory 14-day quarantine is specifically for Americans or exempt individuals returning from Hubei Province, adding that the CDC is presently working with individual states to determine the exact venues for quarantine.

American citizens and exempt individuals returning from other parts of mainland China will be routed to one of the 11 airports and will also receive additional health screening. Symptomatic individuals in this travel category would be referred for further evaluation before being able to complete their itinerary.

Asymptomatic American citizens and exempt individuals who are returning from mainland China – but not Hubei Province – will be allowed to travel on to their final destinations, but will be asked to stay home as much as possible and to monitor their health during the 14 days after their return.

The U.S. Department of State is bringing back more Americans from Wuhan province this week, and these individuals will also be kept under federal quarantine for 14 days.

“There are likely to be confirmed infections among returning travelers,” said Dr. Messonnier. “It is important to note that this strategy is not meant to catch every single traveler returning from China with novel coronavirus; given the nature of this virus and how it’s spreading, that would be impossible, but working together we can catch the majority of them.

“The goal here is to slow the entry of this virus into the United States,” she said, adding that the nation’s health care and public health systems stand on high alert to detect the virus in community settings. In response to questioning from the press, Dr. Messonnier defended the stringent quarantine measures, noting that they are in line with those taken by some other nations, and with the aggressive action being taken by the Chinese government itself. “These actions are science based and aimed at protecting the health of all Americans,” she said.

The real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) assay that the CDC has developed detects 2019-nCoV in both respiratory and serum specimens. Dr. Messonnier reported that the CDC is today filing an emergency use authorization (EUA) application to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to expedite access to the assay for public health laboratories across the country. “This will greatly enhance our capacity to test for this virus,” she said, noting that EUA approval may come as soon as the end of this week.

Although the CDC is poised to send an expert team to China, it’s still awaiting favorable results from the international negotiations currently underway. “This is a horrible situation in China,” said Dr. Messonnier. “Our presence on the ground in China would be a help to China. ... Science should trump everything else; that’s what we’re hoping – that the scientific expertise of the global community can be brought to bear on the incredibly complicated, difficult situation that our colleagues in China are dealing with.”

[email protected]

An additional 5 cases of 2019 novel coronavirus (2109-nCoV) have been confirmed in the United States, bringing the total number of confirmed cases to 11, Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, said during a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention press briefing.

Four of the new cases are in California, and one in Massachusetts. Although four of the new cases have recent travel history to Wuhan, China, the epicenter of the 2019-nCoV outbreak, the fifth is a close household contact of one of the other California patients, said Dr. Messonnier. This last case is the second instance of person-to-person spread of 2019-nCoV in the United States.

“We expect to find additional cases of the novel coronavirus in the United States,” she said. “We expect to see more cases of person-to-person spread among close contacts. And we continue to expect this will happen given the explosive nature of this outbreak in China.”

As of the morning of Feb. 3, 167 persons under investigation, or PUIs, for possible 2019-nCoV have tested negative for the virus, and an additional 82 PUIs have testing pending – this latter figure includes some tests that are still in transit to the CDC, said Dr. Messonnier.

During the briefing, Dr. Messonnier emphasized both the aggressive nature of the U.S. public health response and the rationale for quick and assertive action. “The goal of our public health response is to protect and contain,” she said. “Strong measures now may blunt the impact of this virus on the United States.”

She cited the intensity of transmission in Hubei Province, the expansion of transmission to other provinces in China, the expansion of cases outside of China, and sporadic ongoing deaths from 2019-nCoV as drivers of the aggressive U.S. public health response.

A presidential proclamation is currently in place that bars U.S. entry to foreign nationals who have visited mainland China within the past 14 days; the ban does not apply to travelers from Hong Kong and Macao. Immediate family members of U.S. citizens and individuals who have U.S. permanent resident status are exempted from the entry ban and will be allowed entry into the United States.

However, explained Dr. Messonnier, those who have traveled to China recently and are permitted entry will be subject to screening. All passengers with such recent travel will be directed to one of 11 U.S. airports set up to perform additional screening.

As of Feb 3, the list of airports includes:

• San Francisco International Airport in California.
• Los Angeles International Airport in California.
• Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport in Georgia.
• Daniel K. Inouye International Airport in Hawaii.
• O’Hare International Airport in Illinois.
• Detroit Metropolitan Airport in Michigan.
• Newark Liberty International Airport in New Jersey.
• John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York.
• Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport in Texas.
• Washington Dulles International Airport in Virginia.
• Seattle-Tacoma International Airport in Washington.

Travelers who have been to Hubei Province in the previous 14 days will have an additional health assessment at which they will be screened for fever, cough, or difficulty breathing. Any American citizens or exempt individuals who are symptomatic would then be transferred for further medical evaluation. Asymptomatic travelers in this category will be subject to a mandatory 14-day quarantine near their point of entry, rather than continuing on to their final destinations.

Dr. Messonnier emphasized that the mandatory 14-day quarantine is specifically for Americans or exempt individuals returning from Hubei Province, adding that the CDC is presently working with individual states to determine the exact venues for quarantine.

American citizens and exempt individuals returning from other parts of mainland China will be routed to one of the 11 airports and will also receive additional health screening. Symptomatic individuals in this travel category would be referred for further evaluation before being able to complete their itinerary.

Asymptomatic American citizens and exempt individuals who are returning from mainland China – but not Hubei Province – will be allowed to travel on to their final destinations, but will be asked to stay home as much as possible and to monitor their health during the 14 days after their return.

The U.S. Department of State is bringing back more Americans from Wuhan province this week, and these individuals will also be kept under federal quarantine for 14 days.

“There are likely to be confirmed infections among returning travelers,” said Dr. Messonnier. “It is important to note that this strategy is not meant to catch every single traveler returning from China with novel coronavirus; given the nature of this virus and how it’s spreading, that would be impossible, but working together we can catch the majority of them.

“The goal here is to slow the entry of this virus into the United States,” she said, adding that the nation’s health care and public health systems stand on high alert to detect the virus in community settings. In response to questioning from the press, Dr. Messonnier defended the stringent quarantine measures, noting that they are in line with those taken by some other nations, and with the aggressive action being taken by the Chinese government itself. “These actions are science based and aimed at protecting the health of all Americans,” she said.

The real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) assay that the CDC has developed detects 2019-nCoV in both respiratory and serum specimens. Dr. Messonnier reported that the CDC is today filing an emergency use authorization (EUA) application to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to expedite access to the assay for public health laboratories across the country. “This will greatly enhance our capacity to test for this virus,” she said, noting that EUA approval may come as soon as the end of this week.

Although the CDC is poised to send an expert team to China, it’s still awaiting favorable results from the international negotiations currently underway. “This is a horrible situation in China,” said Dr. Messonnier. “Our presence on the ground in China would be a help to China. ... Science should trump everything else; that’s what we’re hoping – that the scientific expertise of the global community can be brought to bear on the incredibly complicated, difficult situation that our colleagues in China are dealing with.”

[email protected]

An additional 5 cases of 2019 novel coronavirus (2109-nCoV) have been confirmed in the United States, bringing the total number of confirmed cases to 11, Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, said during a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention press briefing.

Four of the new cases are in California, and one in Massachusetts. Although four of the new cases have recent travel history to Wuhan, China, the epicenter of the 2019-nCoV outbreak, the fifth is a close household contact of one of the other California patients, said Dr. Messonnier. This last case is the second instance of person-to-person spread of 2019-nCoV in the United States.

“We expect to find additional cases of the novel coronavirus in the United States,” she said. “We expect to see more cases of person-to-person spread among close contacts. And we continue to expect this will happen given the explosive nature of this outbreak in China.”

As of the morning of Feb. 3, 167 persons under investigation, or PUIs, for possible 2019-nCoV have tested negative for the virus, and an additional 82 PUIs have testing pending – this latter figure includes some tests that are still in transit to the CDC, said Dr. Messonnier.

During the briefing, Dr. Messonnier emphasized both the aggressive nature of the U.S. public health response and the rationale for quick and assertive action. “The goal of our public health response is to protect and contain,” she said. “Strong measures now may blunt the impact of this virus on the United States.”

She cited the intensity of transmission in Hubei Province, the expansion of transmission to other provinces in China, the expansion of cases outside of China, and sporadic ongoing deaths from 2019-nCoV as drivers of the aggressive U.S. public health response.

A presidential proclamation is currently in place that bars U.S. entry to foreign nationals who have visited mainland China within the past 14 days; the ban does not apply to travelers from Hong Kong and Macao. Immediate family members of U.S. citizens and individuals who have U.S. permanent resident status are exempted from the entry ban and will be allowed entry into the United States.

However, explained Dr. Messonnier, those who have traveled to China recently and are permitted entry will be subject to screening. All passengers with such recent travel will be directed to one of 11 U.S. airports set up to perform additional screening.

As of Feb 3, the list of airports includes:

• San Francisco International Airport in California.
• Los Angeles International Airport in California.
• Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport in Georgia.
• Daniel K. Inouye International Airport in Hawaii.
• O’Hare International Airport in Illinois.
• Detroit Metropolitan Airport in Michigan.
• Newark Liberty International Airport in New Jersey.
• John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York.
• Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport in Texas.
• Washington Dulles International Airport in Virginia.
• Seattle-Tacoma International Airport in Washington.

Travelers who have been to Hubei Province in the previous 14 days will have an additional health assessment at which they will be screened for fever, cough, or difficulty breathing. Any American citizens or exempt individuals who are symptomatic would then be transferred for further medical evaluation. Asymptomatic travelers in this category will be subject to a mandatory 14-day quarantine near their point of entry, rather than continuing on to their final destinations.

Dr. Messonnier emphasized that the mandatory 14-day quarantine is specifically for Americans or exempt individuals returning from Hubei Province, adding that the CDC is presently working with individual states to determine the exact venues for quarantine.

American citizens and exempt individuals returning from other parts of mainland China will be routed to one of the 11 airports and will also receive additional health screening. Symptomatic individuals in this travel category would be referred for further evaluation before being able to complete their itinerary.

Asymptomatic American citizens and exempt individuals who are returning from mainland China – but not Hubei Province – will be allowed to travel on to their final destinations, but will be asked to stay home as much as possible and to monitor their health during the 14 days after their return.

The U.S. Department of State is bringing back more Americans from Wuhan province this week, and these individuals will also be kept under federal quarantine for 14 days.

“There are likely to be confirmed infections among returning travelers,” said Dr. Messonnier. “It is important to note that this strategy is not meant to catch every single traveler returning from China with novel coronavirus; given the nature of this virus and how it’s spreading, that would be impossible, but working together we can catch the majority of them.

“The goal here is to slow the entry of this virus into the United States,” she said, adding that the nation’s health care and public health systems stand on high alert to detect the virus in community settings. In response to questioning from the press, Dr. Messonnier defended the stringent quarantine measures, noting that they are in line with those taken by some other nations, and with the aggressive action being taken by the Chinese government itself. “These actions are science based and aimed at protecting the health of all Americans,” she said.

The real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) assay that the CDC has developed detects 2019-nCoV in both respiratory and serum specimens. Dr. Messonnier reported that the CDC is today filing an emergency use authorization (EUA) application to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to expedite access to the assay for public health laboratories across the country. “This will greatly enhance our capacity to test for this virus,” she said, noting that EUA approval may come as soon as the end of this week.

Although the CDC is poised to send an expert team to China, it’s still awaiting favorable results from the international negotiations currently underway. “This is a horrible situation in China,” said Dr. Messonnier. “Our presence on the ground in China would be a help to China. ... Science should trump everything else; that’s what we’re hoping – that the scientific expertise of the global community can be brought to bear on the incredibly complicated, difficult situation that our colleagues in China are dealing with.”

[email protected]

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

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[email protected]

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

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[email protected]

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

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[email protected]

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – Cardiac electrophysiologists are at a loss about how to manage people who bring them smart-watch ECG recordings or other warnings that flagged a possible cardiac arrhythmia.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

While the clinical community has yet to reach an evidence-based consensus on how to deal with this information, or even asymptomatic arrhythmias identified by more standard means, the American public is voting with their wrists. People seem to like collecting and reviewing readouts on their heart rhythm and other vital data, and then they often take their numbers to a physician, especially when their device suggests a possible problem.

“The whole paradigm of ordering a test only if you intend to act on the result has been flipped. People now get what they want directly, and our job is to guide them” after the fact. “You need to teach people what’s actionable and what’s not,” Mintu P. Turakhia, MD, said at the annual International AF Symposium.

“We’re in a situation where the ability of a sensor to detect things is separate from access to the health care system. They are no longer coupled; they are disjointed. People can create their own ICU in their house just by shopping online, but what do we do with this information, whether it’s an irregular heart rhythm or their whole genome?” asked Dr. Turakhia, executive director of the Center for Digital Health at Stanford (Calif.) University and director of cardiac electrophysiology at the VA Palo Alto (Calif.) Health Care System.

“The main challenge is people without a diagnosis who get a notification. How much monitoring should you do until you can say it was a false positive? We don’t know what to do, so we monitor them. People are trying to figure this out.” Dr. Turakhia said. Some people who seek out electrophysiologists this way “may not even have a primary care physician,” he noted.

The potential implications of widespread monitoring for heartbeat irregularities in the general public began to surface in a study that Dr. Turakhia helped run that collected wearable data from nearly 420,000 Americans. Results from the Apple Heart Study showed that, during a median 117 days of monitoring with a smart watch, 2,161 people (0.5%) received a report of an irregular pulse, which led to further investigations that eventually diagnosed atrial fibrillation (AFib) in 153 people of the 450 who underwent follow-up assessment (N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 14;381[20]:1909-17). These results “raise questions” about the large number of people who underwent follow-up testing who did not have arrhythmia, Dr. Turakhia noted.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“The dissemination of wearables has been quite dramatic, and electrophysiologists end up owning this,” commented Jeremy N. Ruskin, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and director emeritus of the cardiac arrhythmia service at Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston. “I get a ton of calls from people whom I wish never bought a smart watch, and they say ‘I have atrial fibrillation. What do I do?’ ”

To document the growth of this trend, Dr. Turakhia cited results from a survey he collaborated on, run by Stanford and Rock Health, that found a 33% ownership rate among American adults of a wearable device capable of collecting health data, and a 42% rate of people who tracked their health data with a device, app, journal, or log. Both of these rates more than doubled what a similar survey found in 2015.

The cardiac electrophysiology community took a first step toward addressing one aspect of this evolving situation. In early 2020, the Heart Rhythm Society and the Consumer Technology Association jointly issued a guidance document targeted at consumers that walks them through the kinds of information their wearable devices might collect and how to approach this information. The main message: If you have questions or concerns about your data, consult a clinician. What remains in short supply is guidance to clinicians on what to do when they see these patients.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“Until recently, device-detected AFib was the sole purview of electrophysiologists using implanted rhythm-monitoring devices. Now mobile and other devices raise issues [of asymptomatic AFib] for a much broader population,” noted Daniel E. Singer, MD, professor of medicine and epidemiology at Harvard and Massachusetts General Hospital. “The world of device-detected AFib now includes watches.”

Researchers have tried for years to better understand the stroke risk faced by patients with asymptomatic or subclinical AFib that’s detected by an implanted device, as in the ASSERT study of nearly 2,600 patients followed for a median of 2.5 years that found an increased stroke risk when the duration of individual, subclinical AFib episodes surpassed 24 hours (Eur Heart J. 2017 May 1;38[17]:1339-44). More recently, a study of AFib duration collected by implanted cardiac devices in nearly 22,000 Americans showed a relationship between stroke risk and both the duration of AFib episodes and the underlying risk of a person for stroke as measured by their CHA2DS2-VAScscore (Circulation. 2019 Nov 12;140[20]:1639-46). Just under 30% of patients in the study were diagnosed with AFib at entry.

The implications of asymptomatic episodes of AFib have so far been largely studied in people with an implanted cardiac device, which may have limited applicability to wearable users. In addition, the field has not yet fully sorted out the relationships between the duration of individual AFib episodes and overall AFib burden, and a person’s stroke risk and the window of time when the potential stroke-preventing benefits of anticoagulation outweigh its bleeding risk.

The results of trials now in progress that are examining the safety and efficacy of medical interventions designed to avert strokes in patients with asymptomatic AFib “will bear on the use of anticoagulants in a large group of patients,” including people with AFib detected by a wearable, Dr. Singer predicted.

The Apple Heart Study was sponsored Apple. Dr. Turakhia has received funding from Apple, and he has received honoraria or research funding from several other companies. Dr. Ruskin has been a consultant or adviser to several companies, is a steering committee member for Pfizer, and holds equity or options in Portola, Element Science, NewPace, Gilead, and InfoBionic. Dr. Singer has been a consultant and adviser to Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, and Pfizer, and he has received research grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb.

[email protected]

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – Cardiac electrophysiologists are at a loss about how to manage people who bring them smart-watch ECG recordings or other warnings that flagged a possible cardiac arrhythmia.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

While the clinical community has yet to reach an evidence-based consensus on how to deal with this information, or even asymptomatic arrhythmias identified by more standard means, the American public is voting with their wrists. People seem to like collecting and reviewing readouts on their heart rhythm and other vital data, and then they often take their numbers to a physician, especially when their device suggests a possible problem.

“The whole paradigm of ordering a test only if you intend to act on the result has been flipped. People now get what they want directly, and our job is to guide them” after the fact. “You need to teach people what’s actionable and what’s not,” Mintu P. Turakhia, MD, said at the annual International AF Symposium.

“We’re in a situation where the ability of a sensor to detect things is separate from access to the health care system. They are no longer coupled; they are disjointed. People can create their own ICU in their house just by shopping online, but what do we do with this information, whether it’s an irregular heart rhythm or their whole genome?” asked Dr. Turakhia, executive director of the Center for Digital Health at Stanford (Calif.) University and director of cardiac electrophysiology at the VA Palo Alto (Calif.) Health Care System.

“The main challenge is people without a diagnosis who get a notification. How much monitoring should you do until you can say it was a false positive? We don’t know what to do, so we monitor them. People are trying to figure this out.” Dr. Turakhia said. Some people who seek out electrophysiologists this way “may not even have a primary care physician,” he noted.

The potential implications of widespread monitoring for heartbeat irregularities in the general public began to surface in a study that Dr. Turakhia helped run that collected wearable data from nearly 420,000 Americans. Results from the Apple Heart Study showed that, during a median 117 days of monitoring with a smart watch, 2,161 people (0.5%) received a report of an irregular pulse, which led to further investigations that eventually diagnosed atrial fibrillation (AFib) in 153 people of the 450 who underwent follow-up assessment (N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 14;381[20]:1909-17). These results “raise questions” about the large number of people who underwent follow-up testing who did not have arrhythmia, Dr. Turakhia noted.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“The dissemination of wearables has been quite dramatic, and electrophysiologists end up owning this,” commented Jeremy N. Ruskin, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and director emeritus of the cardiac arrhythmia service at Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston. “I get a ton of calls from people whom I wish never bought a smart watch, and they say ‘I have atrial fibrillation. What do I do?’ ”

To document the growth of this trend, Dr. Turakhia cited results from a survey he collaborated on, run by Stanford and Rock Health, that found a 33% ownership rate among American adults of a wearable device capable of collecting health data, and a 42% rate of people who tracked their health data with a device, app, journal, or log. Both of these rates more than doubled what a similar survey found in 2015.

The cardiac electrophysiology community took a first step toward addressing one aspect of this evolving situation. In early 2020, the Heart Rhythm Society and the Consumer Technology Association jointly issued a guidance document targeted at consumers that walks them through the kinds of information their wearable devices might collect and how to approach this information. The main message: If you have questions or concerns about your data, consult a clinician. What remains in short supply is guidance to clinicians on what to do when they see these patients.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“Until recently, device-detected AFib was the sole purview of electrophysiologists using implanted rhythm-monitoring devices. Now mobile and other devices raise issues [of asymptomatic AFib] for a much broader population,” noted Daniel E. Singer, MD, professor of medicine and epidemiology at Harvard and Massachusetts General Hospital. “The world of device-detected AFib now includes watches.”

Researchers have tried for years to better understand the stroke risk faced by patients with asymptomatic or subclinical AFib that’s detected by an implanted device, as in the ASSERT study of nearly 2,600 patients followed for a median of 2.5 years that found an increased stroke risk when the duration of individual, subclinical AFib episodes surpassed 24 hours (Eur Heart J. 2017 May 1;38[17]:1339-44). More recently, a study of AFib duration collected by implanted cardiac devices in nearly 22,000 Americans showed a relationship between stroke risk and both the duration of AFib episodes and the underlying risk of a person for stroke as measured by their CHA2DS2-VAScscore (Circulation. 2019 Nov 12;140[20]:1639-46). Just under 30% of patients in the study were diagnosed with AFib at entry.

The implications of asymptomatic episodes of AFib have so far been largely studied in people with an implanted cardiac device, which may have limited applicability to wearable users. In addition, the field has not yet fully sorted out the relationships between the duration of individual AFib episodes and overall AFib burden, and a person’s stroke risk and the window of time when the potential stroke-preventing benefits of anticoagulation outweigh its bleeding risk.

The results of trials now in progress that are examining the safety and efficacy of medical interventions designed to avert strokes in patients with asymptomatic AFib “will bear on the use of anticoagulants in a large group of patients,” including people with AFib detected by a wearable, Dr. Singer predicted.

The Apple Heart Study was sponsored Apple. Dr. Turakhia has received funding from Apple, and he has received honoraria or research funding from several other companies. Dr. Ruskin has been a consultant or adviser to several companies, is a steering committee member for Pfizer, and holds equity or options in Portola, Element Science, NewPace, Gilead, and InfoBionic. Dr. Singer has been a consultant and adviser to Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, and Pfizer, and he has received research grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb.

[email protected]

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – Cardiac electrophysiologists are at a loss about how to manage people who bring them smart-watch ECG recordings or other warnings that flagged a possible cardiac arrhythmia.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

While the clinical community has yet to reach an evidence-based consensus on how to deal with this information, or even asymptomatic arrhythmias identified by more standard means, the American public is voting with their wrists. People seem to like collecting and reviewing readouts on their heart rhythm and other vital data, and then they often take their numbers to a physician, especially when their device suggests a possible problem.

“The whole paradigm of ordering a test only if you intend to act on the result has been flipped. People now get what they want directly, and our job is to guide them” after the fact. “You need to teach people what’s actionable and what’s not,” Mintu P. Turakhia, MD, said at the annual International AF Symposium.

“We’re in a situation where the ability of a sensor to detect things is separate from access to the health care system. They are no longer coupled; they are disjointed. People can create their own ICU in their house just by shopping online, but what do we do with this information, whether it’s an irregular heart rhythm or their whole genome?” asked Dr. Turakhia, executive director of the Center for Digital Health at Stanford (Calif.) University and director of cardiac electrophysiology at the VA Palo Alto (Calif.) Health Care System.

“The main challenge is people without a diagnosis who get a notification. How much monitoring should you do until you can say it was a false positive? We don’t know what to do, so we monitor them. People are trying to figure this out.” Dr. Turakhia said. Some people who seek out electrophysiologists this way “may not even have a primary care physician,” he noted.

The potential implications of widespread monitoring for heartbeat irregularities in the general public began to surface in a study that Dr. Turakhia helped run that collected wearable data from nearly 420,000 Americans. Results from the Apple Heart Study showed that, during a median 117 days of monitoring with a smart watch, 2,161 people (0.5%) received a report of an irregular pulse, which led to further investigations that eventually diagnosed atrial fibrillation (AFib) in 153 people of the 450 who underwent follow-up assessment (N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 14;381[20]:1909-17). These results “raise questions” about the large number of people who underwent follow-up testing who did not have arrhythmia, Dr. Turakhia noted.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“The dissemination of wearables has been quite dramatic, and electrophysiologists end up owning this,” commented Jeremy N. Ruskin, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and director emeritus of the cardiac arrhythmia service at Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston. “I get a ton of calls from people whom I wish never bought a smart watch, and they say ‘I have atrial fibrillation. What do I do?’ ”

To document the growth of this trend, Dr. Turakhia cited results from a survey he collaborated on, run by Stanford and Rock Health, that found a 33% ownership rate among American adults of a wearable device capable of collecting health data, and a 42% rate of people who tracked their health data with a device, app, journal, or log. Both of these rates more than doubled what a similar survey found in 2015.

The cardiac electrophysiology community took a first step toward addressing one aspect of this evolving situation. In early 2020, the Heart Rhythm Society and the Consumer Technology Association jointly issued a guidance document targeted at consumers that walks them through the kinds of information their wearable devices might collect and how to approach this information. The main message: If you have questions or concerns about your data, consult a clinician. What remains in short supply is guidance to clinicians on what to do when they see these patients.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“Until recently, device-detected AFib was the sole purview of electrophysiologists using implanted rhythm-monitoring devices. Now mobile and other devices raise issues [of asymptomatic AFib] for a much broader population,” noted Daniel E. Singer, MD, professor of medicine and epidemiology at Harvard and Massachusetts General Hospital. “The world of device-detected AFib now includes watches.”

Researchers have tried for years to better understand the stroke risk faced by patients with asymptomatic or subclinical AFib that’s detected by an implanted device, as in the ASSERT study of nearly 2,600 patients followed for a median of 2.5 years that found an increased stroke risk when the duration of individual, subclinical AFib episodes surpassed 24 hours (Eur Heart J. 2017 May 1;38[17]:1339-44). More recently, a study of AFib duration collected by implanted cardiac devices in nearly 22,000 Americans showed a relationship between stroke risk and both the duration of AFib episodes and the underlying risk of a person for stroke as measured by their CHA2DS2-VAScscore (Circulation. 2019 Nov 12;140[20]:1639-46). Just under 30% of patients in the study were diagnosed with AFib at entry.

The implications of asymptomatic episodes of AFib have so far been largely studied in people with an implanted cardiac device, which may have limited applicability to wearable users. In addition, the field has not yet fully sorted out the relationships between the duration of individual AFib episodes and overall AFib burden, and a person’s stroke risk and the window of time when the potential stroke-preventing benefits of anticoagulation outweigh its bleeding risk.

The results of trials now in progress that are examining the safety and efficacy of medical interventions designed to avert strokes in patients with asymptomatic AFib “will bear on the use of anticoagulants in a large group of patients,” including people with AFib detected by a wearable, Dr. Singer predicted.

The Apple Heart Study was sponsored Apple. Dr. Turakhia has received funding from Apple, and he has received honoraria or research funding from several other companies. Dr. Ruskin has been a consultant or adviser to several companies, is a steering committee member for Pfizer, and holds equity or options in Portola, Element Science, NewPace, Gilead, and InfoBionic. Dr. Singer has been a consultant and adviser to Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, and Pfizer, and he has received research grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb.

[email protected]

Endobronchial ultrasound with transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) had the highest diagnostic yield of lung lesions, compared with other bronchoscopic approaches, according to a multisite study of current and former smokers with suspected lung cancer.

Bronchoscopy has long played a role in the identification of lung lesions, but the yield varies according to many factors associated with the lesion and the type of bronchoscopy, and recent studies suggest that the yield may be lower than previously thought, wrote Gerard A. Silvestri, MD, of Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, and colleagues.

In a study published in Chest, the researchers sought to assess the yield of bronchoscopy based on procedure and characteristics, as well as the physician-calculated pretest probability of cancer.

They conducted a secondary analysis of 687 patients from the AEGIS trial, a prospective 28-site study of current and former smokers who underwent bronchoscopy for suspected lung cancer. Patients under 21, those without a history of smoking, and those with a concurrent cancer or history of lung cancer were excluded. The average age of the participants was 63 years, and two-thirds were male. Of these, 474 had diagnostic bronchoscopies and 213 had nondiagnostic bronchoscopies.

The overall diagnostic yield was 69%. However, the diagnostic yield significantly higher (80%) with the use of EBUS-TBNA, compared with 55% for standard bronchoscopy with biopsy +/– fluoroscopy, 57% for electromagnetic navigation, and 74% for combination procedures.

Patients with diagnostic bronchoscopies were significantly more likely than were those who had nondiagnostic bronchoscopies to have lesions greater than 3 cm (67% vs. 45%), to have central locations (75% vs. 50%), and to have lymphadenopathy (57% vs. 55%).

In addition, yields were significantly higher (77%) for patients whose preprocedure physician-assessed probability of cancer was at least 60%, compared with yields in those whose preprocedure physician-assessed probability of cancer was less than 10% or 10%-60% (44% and 42%, respectively).

The study findings were limited by several factors including the high prevalence of cancer in the study population, a 1-year follow-up that may have missed slow-growing cancers, and lack of data on the presence or absence of a bronchus sign, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the large size, mixture of sites, and use of multiple technologies and presentations, they said.

The study is the largest to assess diagnostic yields and various bronchoscopy techniques and supports EBUS-TBNA as the most reliable, but patient selection and improved procedural training can help improve diagnostic yields, the researchers emphasized.

“While the overall yield of bronchoscopy is reasonable, EBUS-TBNA is the only technique that reliably provides a diagnosis in those suspected of having lung cancer, likely because the biopsy is targeting a central lymph node and there is direct visualization of the needle passing into the target,” they said. However,“better bronchoscopic technology is needed and there are devices in the development pipeline that promise improved diagnostic yield, though these products will require evaluation through prospective comparative effectiveness trials prior to widespread adoption,” they noted. Clinicians should be prepared to pursue alternatives to bronchoscopy if a diagnosis is unlikely, they concluded.

Dr. Silvestri disclosed research grant awards to his university from Olympus America, Auris robotics, Veracyte, and Veran Medical, as well as consulting fees from Olympus and Auris robotics.

SOURCE: Silvestri GA et al. CHEST. 2020 Jan 21. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2019.12.024.

Endobronchial ultrasound with transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) had the highest diagnostic yield of lung lesions, compared with other bronchoscopic approaches, according to a multisite study of current and former smokers with suspected lung cancer.

Bronchoscopy has long played a role in the identification of lung lesions, but the yield varies according to many factors associated with the lesion and the type of bronchoscopy, and recent studies suggest that the yield may be lower than previously thought, wrote Gerard A. Silvestri, MD, of Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, and colleagues.

In a study published in Chest, the researchers sought to assess the yield of bronchoscopy based on procedure and characteristics, as well as the physician-calculated pretest probability of cancer.

They conducted a secondary analysis of 687 patients from the AEGIS trial, a prospective 28-site study of current and former smokers who underwent bronchoscopy for suspected lung cancer. Patients under 21, those without a history of smoking, and those with a concurrent cancer or history of lung cancer were excluded. The average age of the participants was 63 years, and two-thirds were male. Of these, 474 had diagnostic bronchoscopies and 213 had nondiagnostic bronchoscopies.

The overall diagnostic yield was 69%. However, the diagnostic yield significantly higher (80%) with the use of EBUS-TBNA, compared with 55% for standard bronchoscopy with biopsy +/– fluoroscopy, 57% for electromagnetic navigation, and 74% for combination procedures.

Patients with diagnostic bronchoscopies were significantly more likely than were those who had nondiagnostic bronchoscopies to have lesions greater than 3 cm (67% vs. 45%), to have central locations (75% vs. 50%), and to have lymphadenopathy (57% vs. 55%).

In addition, yields were significantly higher (77%) for patients whose preprocedure physician-assessed probability of cancer was at least 60%, compared with yields in those whose preprocedure physician-assessed probability of cancer was less than 10% or 10%-60% (44% and 42%, respectively).

The study findings were limited by several factors including the high prevalence of cancer in the study population, a 1-year follow-up that may have missed slow-growing cancers, and lack of data on the presence or absence of a bronchus sign, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the large size, mixture of sites, and use of multiple technologies and presentations, they said.

The study is the largest to assess diagnostic yields and various bronchoscopy techniques and supports EBUS-TBNA as the most reliable, but patient selection and improved procedural training can help improve diagnostic yields, the researchers emphasized.

“While the overall yield of bronchoscopy is reasonable, EBUS-TBNA is the only technique that reliably provides a diagnosis in those suspected of having lung cancer, likely because the biopsy is targeting a central lymph node and there is direct visualization of the needle passing into the target,” they said. However,“better bronchoscopic technology is needed and there are devices in the development pipeline that promise improved diagnostic yield, though these products will require evaluation through prospective comparative effectiveness trials prior to widespread adoption,” they noted. Clinicians should be prepared to pursue alternatives to bronchoscopy if a diagnosis is unlikely, they concluded.

Dr. Silvestri disclosed research grant awards to his university from Olympus America, Auris robotics, Veracyte, and Veran Medical, as well as consulting fees from Olympus and Auris robotics.

SOURCE: Silvestri GA et al. CHEST. 2020 Jan 21. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2019.12.024.

Endobronchial ultrasound with transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) had the highest diagnostic yield of lung lesions, compared with other bronchoscopic approaches, according to a multisite study of current and former smokers with suspected lung cancer.

Bronchoscopy has long played a role in the identification of lung lesions, but the yield varies according to many factors associated with the lesion and the type of bronchoscopy, and recent studies suggest that the yield may be lower than previously thought, wrote Gerard A. Silvestri, MD, of Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, and colleagues.

In a study published in Chest, the researchers sought to assess the yield of bronchoscopy based on procedure and characteristics, as well as the physician-calculated pretest probability of cancer.

They conducted a secondary analysis of 687 patients from the AEGIS trial, a prospective 28-site study of current and former smokers who underwent bronchoscopy for suspected lung cancer. Patients under 21, those without a history of smoking, and those with a concurrent cancer or history of lung cancer were excluded. The average age of the participants was 63 years, and two-thirds were male. Of these, 474 had diagnostic bronchoscopies and 213 had nondiagnostic bronchoscopies.

The overall diagnostic yield was 69%. However, the diagnostic yield significantly higher (80%) with the use of EBUS-TBNA, compared with 55% for standard bronchoscopy with biopsy +/– fluoroscopy, 57% for electromagnetic navigation, and 74% for combination procedures.

Patients with diagnostic bronchoscopies were significantly more likely than were those who had nondiagnostic bronchoscopies to have lesions greater than 3 cm (67% vs. 45%), to have central locations (75% vs. 50%), and to have lymphadenopathy (57% vs. 55%).

In addition, yields were significantly higher (77%) for patients whose preprocedure physician-assessed probability of cancer was at least 60%, compared with yields in those whose preprocedure physician-assessed probability of cancer was less than 10% or 10%-60% (44% and 42%, respectively).

The study findings were limited by several factors including the high prevalence of cancer in the study population, a 1-year follow-up that may have missed slow-growing cancers, and lack of data on the presence or absence of a bronchus sign, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the large size, mixture of sites, and use of multiple technologies and presentations, they said.

The study is the largest to assess diagnostic yields and various bronchoscopy techniques and supports EBUS-TBNA as the most reliable, but patient selection and improved procedural training can help improve diagnostic yields, the researchers emphasized.

“While the overall yield of bronchoscopy is reasonable, EBUS-TBNA is the only technique that reliably provides a diagnosis in those suspected of having lung cancer, likely because the biopsy is targeting a central lymph node and there is direct visualization of the needle passing into the target,” they said. However,“better bronchoscopic technology is needed and there are devices in the development pipeline that promise improved diagnostic yield, though these products will require evaluation through prospective comparative effectiveness trials prior to widespread adoption,” they noted. Clinicians should be prepared to pursue alternatives to bronchoscopy if a diagnosis is unlikely, they concluded.

Dr. Silvestri disclosed research grant awards to his university from Olympus America, Auris robotics, Veracyte, and Veran Medical, as well as consulting fees from Olympus and Auris robotics.

SOURCE: Silvestri GA et al. CHEST. 2020 Jan 21. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2019.12.024.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The American Medical Association concurred.

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

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

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

[email protected]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The American Medical Association concurred.

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

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

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

[email protected]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The American Medical Association concurred.

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

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

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

[email protected]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For lung cancer patients with moderately decreased lung function, the 6-minute walk test may be a useful tool to help predict postoperative cardiopulmonary complications, researchers have found.

Risk of cardiopulmonary complications increased nearly eightfold in patients with moderate lung function decreases who failed to walk 400 m or more, according to the study, which included data on 416 patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who underwent lobectomy.

This is believed to be the first large study evaluating the utility of the 6-minute walk test (6MWT) to predict postoperative cardiopulmonary complications in this surgical setting, according to researchers led by Hyun Lee, MD, of Hanyang University in Seoul, South Korea. 

“Our findings suggest that 6-minute walk distance would provide additional information in lung cancer patients with moderately decreased lung function who plan to undergo surgical resection,” said Dr. Lee and coauthors of the study report, which appears in CHEST.

More specifically, the option of curative resection should be considered in those lung cancer patients with moderately decreased lung function but a longer 6-minute walk distance, they added.

Exercise testing is currently recommended to further stratify risk of postoperative complications among patient with moderately decreased lung function, according to the researchers. The 6-minute walk test might be a good tool to evaluate feasibility for moderate risk patients, according to one recent review. However, studies so far have been limited by small numbers of patients, and larger studies have not specifically looked at predicted postoperative lung function status, they said.

Accordingly, the researchers evaluated data from patients expected to undergo curative lung cancer surgery who were enrolled in a prospective cohort study in Korea. They were classified as low or moderate risk based on pulmonary function tests, and further classified into short distance (less than 400 m) and long distance (400 m or more) groups based on their performance on the 6-minute walk test. 

Postoperative cardiopulmonary complications were seen in 42.9% of the moderate-risk, short-distance group, versus 14.4% of patients in the moderate-risk, long-distance group. In the low-risk patients, those complications were seen in 9.5% and 8.3% of those in the long and short distance groups.

Odds for postoperative cardiopulmonary complications were significantly increased in the moderate-risk, short-distance group, compared with the low-risk, long-distance group (adjusted odds ratio, 7.84; 95% confidence interval, 2.24-27.46).

By contrast, odds for complications were not significantly increased in the moderate-risk, long-distance group, nor in the low-risk, short-distance groups, investigators said.

Dr. Lee and coauthors said they had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

SOURCE: Lee H et al. CHEST. 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2019.12.039.

For lung cancer patients with moderately decreased lung function, the 6-minute walk test may be a useful tool to help predict postoperative cardiopulmonary complications, researchers have found.

Risk of cardiopulmonary complications increased nearly eightfold in patients with moderate lung function decreases who failed to walk 400 m or more, according to the study, which included data on 416 patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who underwent lobectomy.

This is believed to be the first large study evaluating the utility of the 6-minute walk test (6MWT) to predict postoperative cardiopulmonary complications in this surgical setting, according to researchers led by Hyun Lee, MD, of Hanyang University in Seoul, South Korea. 

“Our findings suggest that 6-minute walk distance would provide additional information in lung cancer patients with moderately decreased lung function who plan to undergo surgical resection,” said Dr. Lee and coauthors of the study report, which appears in CHEST.

More specifically, the option of curative resection should be considered in those lung cancer patients with moderately decreased lung function but a longer 6-minute walk distance, they added.

Exercise testing is currently recommended to further stratify risk of postoperative complications among patient with moderately decreased lung function, according to the researchers. The 6-minute walk test might be a good tool to evaluate feasibility for moderate risk patients, according to one recent review. However, studies so far have been limited by small numbers of patients, and larger studies have not specifically looked at predicted postoperative lung function status, they said.

Accordingly, the researchers evaluated data from patients expected to undergo curative lung cancer surgery who were enrolled in a prospective cohort study in Korea. They were classified as low or moderate risk based on pulmonary function tests, and further classified into short distance (less than 400 m) and long distance (400 m or more) groups based on their performance on the 6-minute walk test. 

Postoperative cardiopulmonary complications were seen in 42.9% of the moderate-risk, short-distance group, versus 14.4% of patients in the moderate-risk, long-distance group. In the low-risk patients, those complications were seen in 9.5% and 8.3% of those in the long and short distance groups.

Odds for postoperative cardiopulmonary complications were significantly increased in the moderate-risk, short-distance group, compared with the low-risk, long-distance group (adjusted odds ratio, 7.84; 95% confidence interval, 2.24-27.46).

By contrast, odds for complications were not significantly increased in the moderate-risk, long-distance group, nor in the low-risk, short-distance groups, investigators said.

Dr. Lee and coauthors said they had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

SOURCE: Lee H et al. CHEST. 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2019.12.039.

For lung cancer patients with moderately decreased lung function, the 6-minute walk test may be a useful tool to help predict postoperative cardiopulmonary complications, researchers have found.

Risk of cardiopulmonary complications increased nearly eightfold in patients with moderate lung function decreases who failed to walk 400 m or more, according to the study, which included data on 416 patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who underwent lobectomy.

This is believed to be the first large study evaluating the utility of the 6-minute walk test (6MWT) to predict postoperative cardiopulmonary complications in this surgical setting, according to researchers led by Hyun Lee, MD, of Hanyang University in Seoul, South Korea. 

“Our findings suggest that 6-minute walk distance would provide additional information in lung cancer patients with moderately decreased lung function who plan to undergo surgical resection,” said Dr. Lee and coauthors of the study report, which appears in CHEST.

More specifically, the option of curative resection should be considered in those lung cancer patients with moderately decreased lung function but a longer 6-minute walk distance, they added.

Exercise testing is currently recommended to further stratify risk of postoperative complications among patient with moderately decreased lung function, according to the researchers. The 6-minute walk test might be a good tool to evaluate feasibility for moderate risk patients, according to one recent review. However, studies so far have been limited by small numbers of patients, and larger studies have not specifically looked at predicted postoperative lung function status, they said.

Accordingly, the researchers evaluated data from patients expected to undergo curative lung cancer surgery who were enrolled in a prospective cohort study in Korea. They were classified as low or moderate risk based on pulmonary function tests, and further classified into short distance (less than 400 m) and long distance (400 m or more) groups based on their performance on the 6-minute walk test. 

Postoperative cardiopulmonary complications were seen in 42.9% of the moderate-risk, short-distance group, versus 14.4% of patients in the moderate-risk, long-distance group. In the low-risk patients, those complications were seen in 9.5% and 8.3% of those in the long and short distance groups.

Odds for postoperative cardiopulmonary complications were significantly increased in the moderate-risk, short-distance group, compared with the low-risk, long-distance group (adjusted odds ratio, 7.84; 95% confidence interval, 2.24-27.46).

By contrast, odds for complications were not significantly increased in the moderate-risk, long-distance group, nor in the low-risk, short-distance groups, investigators said.

Dr. Lee and coauthors said they had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

SOURCE: Lee H et al. CHEST. 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2019.12.039.

After 2 weeks of declines at the beginning of the year, flu activity has now increased for 2 consecutive weeks, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Nationally, an estimated 5.7% of all outpatients visiting health care providers had influenza-like illness (ILI) for the week ending Jan. 25, which was up from 5.1% the previous week but still lower than the current seasonal high of 7.1% recorded during the week of Dec. 22-28, the CDC’s influenza division reported.

Another key indicator of influenza activity, the percentage of respiratory specimens testing positive, also remains high as it rose from 25.7% the week before to 27.7% for the week ending Jan. 25, the influenza division said. That is the highest rate of the 2019-2020 season so far, surpassing the 26.8% reached during Dec. 22-28.

Another new seasonal high involves the number of states, 33 plus Puerto Rico, at the highest level of ILI activity on the CDC’s 1-10 scale for the latest reporting week, topping the 32 jurisdictions from the last full week of December. Another eight states and the District of Columbia were in the “high” range with activity levels of 8 and 9, and no state with available data was lower than level 6, the CDC data show.

Going along with the recent 2-week increase in activity is a large increase in the number of ILI-related pediatric deaths, which rose from 39 on Jan. 11 to the current count of 68, the CDC said. At the same point last year, there had been 36 pediatric deaths.

Other indicators of ILI severity, however, “are not high at this point in the season,” the influenza division noted. “Overall, hospitalization rates remain similar to what has been seen at this time during recent seasons, but rates among children and young adults are higher at this time than in recent seasons.” Overall pneumonia and influenza mortality is also low, the CDC added.

[email protected]

After 2 weeks of declines at the beginning of the year, flu activity has now increased for 2 consecutive weeks, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Nationally, an estimated 5.7% of all outpatients visiting health care providers had influenza-like illness (ILI) for the week ending Jan. 25, which was up from 5.1% the previous week but still lower than the current seasonal high of 7.1% recorded during the week of Dec. 22-28, the CDC’s influenza division reported.

Another key indicator of influenza activity, the percentage of respiratory specimens testing positive, also remains high as it rose from 25.7% the week before to 27.7% for the week ending Jan. 25, the influenza division said. That is the highest rate of the 2019-2020 season so far, surpassing the 26.8% reached during Dec. 22-28.

Another new seasonal high involves the number of states, 33 plus Puerto Rico, at the highest level of ILI activity on the CDC’s 1-10 scale for the latest reporting week, topping the 32 jurisdictions from the last full week of December. Another eight states and the District of Columbia were in the “high” range with activity levels of 8 and 9, and no state with available data was lower than level 6, the CDC data show.

Going along with the recent 2-week increase in activity is a large increase in the number of ILI-related pediatric deaths, which rose from 39 on Jan. 11 to the current count of 68, the CDC said. At the same point last year, there had been 36 pediatric deaths.

Other indicators of ILI severity, however, “are not high at this point in the season,” the influenza division noted. “Overall, hospitalization rates remain similar to what has been seen at this time during recent seasons, but rates among children and young adults are higher at this time than in recent seasons.” Overall pneumonia and influenza mortality is also low, the CDC added.

[email protected]

After 2 weeks of declines at the beginning of the year, flu activity has now increased for 2 consecutive weeks, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Nationally, an estimated 5.7% of all outpatients visiting health care providers had influenza-like illness (ILI) for the week ending Jan. 25, which was up from 5.1% the previous week but still lower than the current seasonal high of 7.1% recorded during the week of Dec. 22-28, the CDC’s influenza division reported.

Another key indicator of influenza activity, the percentage of respiratory specimens testing positive, also remains high as it rose from 25.7% the week before to 27.7% for the week ending Jan. 25, the influenza division said. That is the highest rate of the 2019-2020 season so far, surpassing the 26.8% reached during Dec. 22-28.

Another new seasonal high involves the number of states, 33 plus Puerto Rico, at the highest level of ILI activity on the CDC’s 1-10 scale for the latest reporting week, topping the 32 jurisdictions from the last full week of December. Another eight states and the District of Columbia were in the “high” range with activity levels of 8 and 9, and no state with available data was lower than level 6, the CDC data show.

Going along with the recent 2-week increase in activity is a large increase in the number of ILI-related pediatric deaths, which rose from 39 on Jan. 11 to the current count of 68, the CDC said. At the same point last year, there had been 36 pediatric deaths.

Other indicators of ILI severity, however, “are not high at this point in the season,” the influenza division noted. “Overall, hospitalization rates remain similar to what has been seen at this time during recent seasons, but rates among children and young adults are higher at this time than in recent seasons.” Overall pneumonia and influenza mortality is also low, the CDC added.

[email protected]