A new study has found that ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and axial psoriatic arthritis (axPsA) may be different diseases with overlapping features rather than entities on the spectrum of the same disease, building on previous research by analyzing AS patients with and without psoriasis and including a longitudinal analysis.

lolostock/Thinkstock

“Our study suggests that axial PsA and AS with psoriasis seem to be two different diseases with different genetics, demographics, and disease expression,” wrote Joy Feld, MD, of the University of Toronto and coauthors. Their findings were published in Rheumatology.

To investigate the similarities and differences between axPsA and AS patients, the researchers compared two adult cohorts recruited from Toronto clinics. The first was made up of AS patients and divided into two groups: with psoriasis (n = 91) and without psoriasis (n = 675). The second was made up of PsA patients and divided into two groups: axPsA (n = 477) and peripheral PsA (n = 826).

In comparing AS patients with and without psoriasis to axPsA patients, AS patients had a younger age at diagnosis (28.7 years and 30.4 years vs. 35.6 years; P less than .001), were more often male (76% and 72% vs. 64%; P less than .001), and were more likely to be HLA-B27 positive (82% and 75% vs. 19%; P less than .001).

At baseline, AS patients had more back pain (90% and 92% vs. 21%; P less than .001) and worse back metrology (Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Metrology Index [BASMI] of 3.1 and 2.3 vs. 1.9; P less than .001).

The mean follow-up periods in the axial and peripheral PsA groups were 12.6 and 6.7 years, respectively, whereas in the AS groups with and without psoriasis the periods were 5.4 and 3.5 years. Over time and after longitudinal analysis, axPsA patients had more tender and swollen joints than AS patients with and without psoriasis (5.2 vs. 1.5 and 0.9; P less than .001) while AS patients with and without psoriasis had a higher BASMI (2.9 and 2.2 vs. 1.8; P less than .001) and worse axial disease activity scores (4.1 and 3.9 vs. 3.5; P = .02) as measured by the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index.

After univariate analysis, AS with psoriasis was found to be more associated with HLA-B27 (odds ratio, 16.37; 95% confidence interval, 8.89-30.13; P less than .0001), a higher adjusted mean BASMI (OR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.21-1.63; P less than .0001), worse sacroiliitis (OR, 7.58; 95% CI, 3.68-15.59; P less than .0001), and greater use of biologics (OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.77-1; P = .37), compared with axPsA. A multivariate analysis produced similar findings, including the lack of association between AS and active arthritis (OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.64-0.86; P less than .0001).

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including the fact that symptoms often dictate which of the two clinics patients will be referred to, which can ultimately define the diagnosis. “Patients with significant back symptoms are more likely to be referred to the AS clinic,” they wrote, “while patients with more prominent peripheral symptoms are more likely to be referred to the PsA clinic.” Patients with AS in the study were also required to have back pain or limitations in spinal range of motion, while PsA patients were accepted even if they were asymptomatic.

Finally, they noted that some milder cases of the two diseases may have been missed in the cohort recruiting process, although they added that mild cases were, in fact, “present in the cohort, which might improve the generalizability of this study to primary rheumatology clinics.”

The University of Toronto Psoriatic Arthritis Program is supported by a grant from the Krembil Foundation, but this study received no specific funding to carry out the research. Dr. Feld reported being supported by a grant from Novartis. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Feld J et al. Rheumatology. 2019 Oct 8. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kez457.

A new study has found that ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and axial psoriatic arthritis (axPsA) may be different diseases with overlapping features rather than entities on the spectrum of the same disease, building on previous research by analyzing AS patients with and without psoriasis and including a longitudinal analysis.

lolostock/Thinkstock

“Our study suggests that axial PsA and AS with psoriasis seem to be two different diseases with different genetics, demographics, and disease expression,” wrote Joy Feld, MD, of the University of Toronto and coauthors. Their findings were published in Rheumatology.

To investigate the similarities and differences between axPsA and AS patients, the researchers compared two adult cohorts recruited from Toronto clinics. The first was made up of AS patients and divided into two groups: with psoriasis (n = 91) and without psoriasis (n = 675). The second was made up of PsA patients and divided into two groups: axPsA (n = 477) and peripheral PsA (n = 826).

In comparing AS patients with and without psoriasis to axPsA patients, AS patients had a younger age at diagnosis (28.7 years and 30.4 years vs. 35.6 years; P less than .001), were more often male (76% and 72% vs. 64%; P less than .001), and were more likely to be HLA-B27 positive (82% and 75% vs. 19%; P less than .001).

At baseline, AS patients had more back pain (90% and 92% vs. 21%; P less than .001) and worse back metrology (Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Metrology Index [BASMI] of 3.1 and 2.3 vs. 1.9; P less than .001).

The mean follow-up periods in the axial and peripheral PsA groups were 12.6 and 6.7 years, respectively, whereas in the AS groups with and without psoriasis the periods were 5.4 and 3.5 years. Over time and after longitudinal analysis, axPsA patients had more tender and swollen joints than AS patients with and without psoriasis (5.2 vs. 1.5 and 0.9; P less than .001) while AS patients with and without psoriasis had a higher BASMI (2.9 and 2.2 vs. 1.8; P less than .001) and worse axial disease activity scores (4.1 and 3.9 vs. 3.5; P = .02) as measured by the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index.

After univariate analysis, AS with psoriasis was found to be more associated with HLA-B27 (odds ratio, 16.37; 95% confidence interval, 8.89-30.13; P less than .0001), a higher adjusted mean BASMI (OR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.21-1.63; P less than .0001), worse sacroiliitis (OR, 7.58; 95% CI, 3.68-15.59; P less than .0001), and greater use of biologics (OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.77-1; P = .37), compared with axPsA. A multivariate analysis produced similar findings, including the lack of association between AS and active arthritis (OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.64-0.86; P less than .0001).

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including the fact that symptoms often dictate which of the two clinics patients will be referred to, which can ultimately define the diagnosis. “Patients with significant back symptoms are more likely to be referred to the AS clinic,” they wrote, “while patients with more prominent peripheral symptoms are more likely to be referred to the PsA clinic.” Patients with AS in the study were also required to have back pain or limitations in spinal range of motion, while PsA patients were accepted even if they were asymptomatic.

Finally, they noted that some milder cases of the two diseases may have been missed in the cohort recruiting process, although they added that mild cases were, in fact, “present in the cohort, which might improve the generalizability of this study to primary rheumatology clinics.”

The University of Toronto Psoriatic Arthritis Program is supported by a grant from the Krembil Foundation, but this study received no specific funding to carry out the research. Dr. Feld reported being supported by a grant from Novartis. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Feld J et al. Rheumatology. 2019 Oct 8. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kez457.

A new study has found that ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and axial psoriatic arthritis (axPsA) may be different diseases with overlapping features rather than entities on the spectrum of the same disease, building on previous research by analyzing AS patients with and without psoriasis and including a longitudinal analysis.

lolostock/Thinkstock

“Our study suggests that axial PsA and AS with psoriasis seem to be two different diseases with different genetics, demographics, and disease expression,” wrote Joy Feld, MD, of the University of Toronto and coauthors. Their findings were published in Rheumatology.

To investigate the similarities and differences between axPsA and AS patients, the researchers compared two adult cohorts recruited from Toronto clinics. The first was made up of AS patients and divided into two groups: with psoriasis (n = 91) and without psoriasis (n = 675). The second was made up of PsA patients and divided into two groups: axPsA (n = 477) and peripheral PsA (n = 826).

In comparing AS patients with and without psoriasis to axPsA patients, AS patients had a younger age at diagnosis (28.7 years and 30.4 years vs. 35.6 years; P less than .001), were more often male (76% and 72% vs. 64%; P less than .001), and were more likely to be HLA-B27 positive (82% and 75% vs. 19%; P less than .001).

At baseline, AS patients had more back pain (90% and 92% vs. 21%; P less than .001) and worse back metrology (Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Metrology Index [BASMI] of 3.1 and 2.3 vs. 1.9; P less than .001).

The mean follow-up periods in the axial and peripheral PsA groups were 12.6 and 6.7 years, respectively, whereas in the AS groups with and without psoriasis the periods were 5.4 and 3.5 years. Over time and after longitudinal analysis, axPsA patients had more tender and swollen joints than AS patients with and without psoriasis (5.2 vs. 1.5 and 0.9; P less than .001) while AS patients with and without psoriasis had a higher BASMI (2.9 and 2.2 vs. 1.8; P less than .001) and worse axial disease activity scores (4.1 and 3.9 vs. 3.5; P = .02) as measured by the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index.

After univariate analysis, AS with psoriasis was found to be more associated with HLA-B27 (odds ratio, 16.37; 95% confidence interval, 8.89-30.13; P less than .0001), a higher adjusted mean BASMI (OR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.21-1.63; P less than .0001), worse sacroiliitis (OR, 7.58; 95% CI, 3.68-15.59; P less than .0001), and greater use of biologics (OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.77-1; P = .37), compared with axPsA. A multivariate analysis produced similar findings, including the lack of association between AS and active arthritis (OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.64-0.86; P less than .0001).

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including the fact that symptoms often dictate which of the two clinics patients will be referred to, which can ultimately define the diagnosis. “Patients with significant back symptoms are more likely to be referred to the AS clinic,” they wrote, “while patients with more prominent peripheral symptoms are more likely to be referred to the PsA clinic.” Patients with AS in the study were also required to have back pain or limitations in spinal range of motion, while PsA patients were accepted even if they were asymptomatic.

Finally, they noted that some milder cases of the two diseases may have been missed in the cohort recruiting process, although they added that mild cases were, in fact, “present in the cohort, which might improve the generalizability of this study to primary rheumatology clinics.”

The University of Toronto Psoriatic Arthritis Program is supported by a grant from the Krembil Foundation, but this study received no specific funding to carry out the research. Dr. Feld reported being supported by a grant from Novartis. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Feld J et al. Rheumatology. 2019 Oct 8. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kez457.

Critics of a Trump administration rule that would make it more difficult for immigrants to remain in the United States if they receive health care assistance are applauding several court orders that temporarily block the regulation from taking effect.

In three separate decisions, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, and the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington temporarily barred the administration’s changes to the public charge rule from moving forward. The judges said lawsuits challenging the rule are likely to prevail in court.

The injunctions are much needed to protect patients and families, said R. Shawn Martin, senior vice president of advocacy, practice advancement, and policy for the American Academy of Family Physicians.

“The court decisions are important,” Mr. Martin said in an interview. “The AAFP believes that the public charge rule, as proposed by the administration, would have an immediate and negative impact on the health of thousands of people, including children. There is evidence that policies such as this create a culture where patients forgo interactions with the health care system out of fear. We should never be a country that compromises the health and well-being of individuals, especially those that are most vulnerable.”

White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham called the court rulings extremely disappointing and said the recent changes to the public charge rule restore integrity to the immigration system.

“The rulings today prevent our nation’s immigration officers from ensuring that immigrants seeking entry to the United States will be self-sufficient and instead allow noncitizens to continue taking advantage of our generous but limited public resources reserved for vulnerable Americans,” Ms. Graham said in a statement. “These injunctions are the latest inexplicable example of the administration being ordered to comply with the flawed or lawless guidance of a previous administration instead of the actual laws passed by Congress.”

Under the longstanding public charge rule, officials can refuse to admit immigrants into the United States – or to adjust their legal status – if they are deemed likely to become a public charge. Previously, immigration officers considered cash aid, such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families or long-term institutionalized care, as potential public charge reasons for denial.

The revised regulation, which was scheduled to take effect on Oct. 15, 2019, would allow officials to consider previously excluded programs in their determination, including nonemergency Medicaid for nonpregnant adults, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and several housing programs. The revised regulation would continue to allow immigrants to access emergency medical care and disaster relief without public charge repercussions.

Eight legal challenges were immediately filed against the rule changes, including a complaint issued in Washington state by 14 states. On Oct. 11, Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson, U.S. district judge for the Eastern District of Washington, issued a nationwide ban of the revised public charge regulation, ruling that the plaintiff states will suffer irreparable harm if the rule moves forward.

“The plaintiff states have shown a significant threat of irreparable injury as a result of the impending enactment of the public charge rule by numerous individuals disenrolling from benefits for which they or their relatives were qualified, out of fear or confusion, that accepting those noncash public benefits will deprive them of an opportunity for legal permanent residency,” Judge Peterson wrote in her decision. “The plaintiff states have further demonstrated how that chilling effect predictably would cause irreparable injury by creating long-term costs to the plaintiff states from providing ongoing triage for residents who have missed opportunities for timely diagnoses, vaccinations, or building a strong foundation in childhood that will allow U.S. citizen children and future U.S. citizens to flourish and contribute to their communities as taxpaying adults.”

Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton, U.S. district judge for the Northern District of California, ruled similarly on Oct. 11, as did George Benjamin Daniels of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Physician associations previously voiced opposition to the administration’s changes to the public charge rule. In a joint statement, the AAFP, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Osteopathic Association, the American College of Physicians, and the American Psychiatric Association expressed concern that the new regulation will discourage immigrants from seeking needed health care since such assistance may be used to deny green cards and visas, or even lead to deportations.

“Rather than face that threat, impacted patients currently served by our members almost certainly will avoid needed care from their trusted physicians, jeopardizing their own health and that of their communities,” the medical societies stated. “Many of our members have already witnessed this chilling effect among their own patient populations, with patients avoiding health services and programs out of fear.”

[email protected]

Critics of a Trump administration rule that would make it more difficult for immigrants to remain in the United States if they receive health care assistance are applauding several court orders that temporarily block the regulation from taking effect.

In three separate decisions, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, and the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington temporarily barred the administration’s changes to the public charge rule from moving forward. The judges said lawsuits challenging the rule are likely to prevail in court.

The injunctions are much needed to protect patients and families, said R. Shawn Martin, senior vice president of advocacy, practice advancement, and policy for the American Academy of Family Physicians.

“The court decisions are important,” Mr. Martin said in an interview. “The AAFP believes that the public charge rule, as proposed by the administration, would have an immediate and negative impact on the health of thousands of people, including children. There is evidence that policies such as this create a culture where patients forgo interactions with the health care system out of fear. We should never be a country that compromises the health and well-being of individuals, especially those that are most vulnerable.”

White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham called the court rulings extremely disappointing and said the recent changes to the public charge rule restore integrity to the immigration system.

“The rulings today prevent our nation’s immigration officers from ensuring that immigrants seeking entry to the United States will be self-sufficient and instead allow noncitizens to continue taking advantage of our generous but limited public resources reserved for vulnerable Americans,” Ms. Graham said in a statement. “These injunctions are the latest inexplicable example of the administration being ordered to comply with the flawed or lawless guidance of a previous administration instead of the actual laws passed by Congress.”

Under the longstanding public charge rule, officials can refuse to admit immigrants into the United States – or to adjust their legal status – if they are deemed likely to become a public charge. Previously, immigration officers considered cash aid, such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families or long-term institutionalized care, as potential public charge reasons for denial.

The revised regulation, which was scheduled to take effect on Oct. 15, 2019, would allow officials to consider previously excluded programs in their determination, including nonemergency Medicaid for nonpregnant adults, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and several housing programs. The revised regulation would continue to allow immigrants to access emergency medical care and disaster relief without public charge repercussions.

Eight legal challenges were immediately filed against the rule changes, including a complaint issued in Washington state by 14 states. On Oct. 11, Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson, U.S. district judge for the Eastern District of Washington, issued a nationwide ban of the revised public charge regulation, ruling that the plaintiff states will suffer irreparable harm if the rule moves forward.

“The plaintiff states have shown a significant threat of irreparable injury as a result of the impending enactment of the public charge rule by numerous individuals disenrolling from benefits for which they or their relatives were qualified, out of fear or confusion, that accepting those noncash public benefits will deprive them of an opportunity for legal permanent residency,” Judge Peterson wrote in her decision. “The plaintiff states have further demonstrated how that chilling effect predictably would cause irreparable injury by creating long-term costs to the plaintiff states from providing ongoing triage for residents who have missed opportunities for timely diagnoses, vaccinations, or building a strong foundation in childhood that will allow U.S. citizen children and future U.S. citizens to flourish and contribute to their communities as taxpaying adults.”

Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton, U.S. district judge for the Northern District of California, ruled similarly on Oct. 11, as did George Benjamin Daniels of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Physician associations previously voiced opposition to the administration’s changes to the public charge rule. In a joint statement, the AAFP, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Osteopathic Association, the American College of Physicians, and the American Psychiatric Association expressed concern that the new regulation will discourage immigrants from seeking needed health care since such assistance may be used to deny green cards and visas, or even lead to deportations.

“Rather than face that threat, impacted patients currently served by our members almost certainly will avoid needed care from their trusted physicians, jeopardizing their own health and that of their communities,” the medical societies stated. “Many of our members have already witnessed this chilling effect among their own patient populations, with patients avoiding health services and programs out of fear.”

[email protected]

Critics of a Trump administration rule that would make it more difficult for immigrants to remain in the United States if they receive health care assistance are applauding several court orders that temporarily block the regulation from taking effect.

In three separate decisions, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, and the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington temporarily barred the administration’s changes to the public charge rule from moving forward. The judges said lawsuits challenging the rule are likely to prevail in court.

The injunctions are much needed to protect patients and families, said R. Shawn Martin, senior vice president of advocacy, practice advancement, and policy for the American Academy of Family Physicians.

“The court decisions are important,” Mr. Martin said in an interview. “The AAFP believes that the public charge rule, as proposed by the administration, would have an immediate and negative impact on the health of thousands of people, including children. There is evidence that policies such as this create a culture where patients forgo interactions with the health care system out of fear. We should never be a country that compromises the health and well-being of individuals, especially those that are most vulnerable.”

White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham called the court rulings extremely disappointing and said the recent changes to the public charge rule restore integrity to the immigration system.

“The rulings today prevent our nation’s immigration officers from ensuring that immigrants seeking entry to the United States will be self-sufficient and instead allow noncitizens to continue taking advantage of our generous but limited public resources reserved for vulnerable Americans,” Ms. Graham said in a statement. “These injunctions are the latest inexplicable example of the administration being ordered to comply with the flawed or lawless guidance of a previous administration instead of the actual laws passed by Congress.”

Under the longstanding public charge rule, officials can refuse to admit immigrants into the United States – or to adjust their legal status – if they are deemed likely to become a public charge. Previously, immigration officers considered cash aid, such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families or long-term institutionalized care, as potential public charge reasons for denial.

The revised regulation, which was scheduled to take effect on Oct. 15, 2019, would allow officials to consider previously excluded programs in their determination, including nonemergency Medicaid for nonpregnant adults, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and several housing programs. The revised regulation would continue to allow immigrants to access emergency medical care and disaster relief without public charge repercussions.

Eight legal challenges were immediately filed against the rule changes, including a complaint issued in Washington state by 14 states. On Oct. 11, Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson, U.S. district judge for the Eastern District of Washington, issued a nationwide ban of the revised public charge regulation, ruling that the plaintiff states will suffer irreparable harm if the rule moves forward.

“The plaintiff states have shown a significant threat of irreparable injury as a result of the impending enactment of the public charge rule by numerous individuals disenrolling from benefits for which they or their relatives were qualified, out of fear or confusion, that accepting those noncash public benefits will deprive them of an opportunity for legal permanent residency,” Judge Peterson wrote in her decision. “The plaintiff states have further demonstrated how that chilling effect predictably would cause irreparable injury by creating long-term costs to the plaintiff states from providing ongoing triage for residents who have missed opportunities for timely diagnoses, vaccinations, or building a strong foundation in childhood that will allow U.S. citizen children and future U.S. citizens to flourish and contribute to their communities as taxpaying adults.”

Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton, U.S. district judge for the Northern District of California, ruled similarly on Oct. 11, as did George Benjamin Daniels of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Physician associations previously voiced opposition to the administration’s changes to the public charge rule. In a joint statement, the AAFP, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Osteopathic Association, the American College of Physicians, and the American Psychiatric Association expressed concern that the new regulation will discourage immigrants from seeking needed health care since such assistance may be used to deny green cards and visas, or even lead to deportations.

“Rather than face that threat, impacted patients currently served by our members almost certainly will avoid needed care from their trusted physicians, jeopardizing their own health and that of their communities,” the medical societies stated. “Many of our members have already witnessed this chilling effect among their own patient populations, with patients avoiding health services and programs out of fear.”

[email protected]

An international panel of neurologists has drafted a consensus statement on the diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment of stridor in patients with multiple system atrophy (MSA). The statement was published Oct. 1 in Neurology. In addition to reviewing the literature on the topic and providing recommendations, the authors described several areas for future research.

MSA is a rare neurodegenerative disorder that entails autonomic failure, cerebellar ataxia, and parkinsonism. Laryngeal stridor has a high positive predictive value in the diagnosis of MSA, but consensus about its definition and clinical implications had not been established previously. The Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (IRCCS) delle Scienze Neurologiche di Bologna (Italy) convened a consensus conference of experts in 2017 to determine diagnostic criteria for stridor in MSA, define its prognostic value, suggest treatment options, and indicate subjects for future research. The neurologists reviewed studies of any design that reported original data. They based their statements on 34 published articles, most of which were class III or IV.

The authors defined stridor in MSA as “a strained, high-pitched, harsh respiratory sound, mainly inspiratory, caused by laryngeal dysfunction leading to narrowing of the rima glottidis.” Stridor may occur exclusively during sleep or during sleep and wakefulness. It may be recognized during a clinical examination, through witness report, or through an audio recording. Neurologists may consider laryngoscopy to exclude mechanical lesions or functional vocal cord abnormalities related to other neurologic conditions, wrote the authors. Drug-induced sleep endoscopy and video polysomnography also may be considered.

Whether stridor, or certain features of stridor, affects survival in MSA is uncertain. “Stridor within 3 years of motor or autonomic symptom onset may shorten survival,” according to the statement. “However, identification of stridor onset may be difficult.” Moreover, stridor during wakefulness is considered to reflect a more advanced stage of disease, compared with stridor during sleep. Although stridor can be distressing for the patient and his or her caregivers, its influence on health-related quality of life has yet to be determined, according to the statement.

Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) during sleep can be a useful symptomatic treatment and should be considered a first-line therapy for stridor, wrote the authors. Tracheostomy, another effective symptomatic treatment, bypasses upper-airway obstruction at the larynx. “Persistent and severe stridor may require tracheostomy,” according to the statement. It is not certain whether CPAP improves survival in patients with MSA and stridor, and tracheostomy may improve survival. The literature contains insufficient evidence about whether minimally invasive procedures or botulinum toxin injections are effective symptomatic treatments for stridor, wrote the authors.

During their review of the literature, the authors identified what they considered to be several research gaps. The diagnosis of stridor remains challenging, and investigators should develop a questionnaire for detecting stridor, they wrote. A smartphone application also could be developed to recognize stridor automatically. “The relationship between stridor and other breathing disorders (i.e., central apneas and breathing rate abnormalities) and their respective contributions to disease prognosis and survival should be determined through a multicenter prospective study,” according to the statement. Finally, randomized controlled trials comparing CPAP and tracheostomy for various degrees of stridor could guide physicians’ choice of treatment.

The IRCCS funded the study. One of the authors is a section editor for Neurology, and other authors reported receiving honoraria from various companies such as Novartis, Sanofi, and UCB.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Cortelli P et al. Neurology. 2019;93(14):630-9.

An international panel of neurologists has drafted a consensus statement on the diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment of stridor in patients with multiple system atrophy (MSA). The statement was published Oct. 1 in Neurology. In addition to reviewing the literature on the topic and providing recommendations, the authors described several areas for future research.

MSA is a rare neurodegenerative disorder that entails autonomic failure, cerebellar ataxia, and parkinsonism. Laryngeal stridor has a high positive predictive value in the diagnosis of MSA, but consensus about its definition and clinical implications had not been established previously. The Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (IRCCS) delle Scienze Neurologiche di Bologna (Italy) convened a consensus conference of experts in 2017 to determine diagnostic criteria for stridor in MSA, define its prognostic value, suggest treatment options, and indicate subjects for future research. The neurologists reviewed studies of any design that reported original data. They based their statements on 34 published articles, most of which were class III or IV.

The authors defined stridor in MSA as “a strained, high-pitched, harsh respiratory sound, mainly inspiratory, caused by laryngeal dysfunction leading to narrowing of the rima glottidis.” Stridor may occur exclusively during sleep or during sleep and wakefulness. It may be recognized during a clinical examination, through witness report, or through an audio recording. Neurologists may consider laryngoscopy to exclude mechanical lesions or functional vocal cord abnormalities related to other neurologic conditions, wrote the authors. Drug-induced sleep endoscopy and video polysomnography also may be considered.

Whether stridor, or certain features of stridor, affects survival in MSA is uncertain. “Stridor within 3 years of motor or autonomic symptom onset may shorten survival,” according to the statement. “However, identification of stridor onset may be difficult.” Moreover, stridor during wakefulness is considered to reflect a more advanced stage of disease, compared with stridor during sleep. Although stridor can be distressing for the patient and his or her caregivers, its influence on health-related quality of life has yet to be determined, according to the statement.

Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) during sleep can be a useful symptomatic treatment and should be considered a first-line therapy for stridor, wrote the authors. Tracheostomy, another effective symptomatic treatment, bypasses upper-airway obstruction at the larynx. “Persistent and severe stridor may require tracheostomy,” according to the statement. It is not certain whether CPAP improves survival in patients with MSA and stridor, and tracheostomy may improve survival. The literature contains insufficient evidence about whether minimally invasive procedures or botulinum toxin injections are effective symptomatic treatments for stridor, wrote the authors.

During their review of the literature, the authors identified what they considered to be several research gaps. The diagnosis of stridor remains challenging, and investigators should develop a questionnaire for detecting stridor, they wrote. A smartphone application also could be developed to recognize stridor automatically. “The relationship between stridor and other breathing disorders (i.e., central apneas and breathing rate abnormalities) and their respective contributions to disease prognosis and survival should be determined through a multicenter prospective study,” according to the statement. Finally, randomized controlled trials comparing CPAP and tracheostomy for various degrees of stridor could guide physicians’ choice of treatment.

The IRCCS funded the study. One of the authors is a section editor for Neurology, and other authors reported receiving honoraria from various companies such as Novartis, Sanofi, and UCB.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Cortelli P et al. Neurology. 2019;93(14):630-9.

An international panel of neurologists has drafted a consensus statement on the diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment of stridor in patients with multiple system atrophy (MSA). The statement was published Oct. 1 in Neurology. In addition to reviewing the literature on the topic and providing recommendations, the authors described several areas for future research.

MSA is a rare neurodegenerative disorder that entails autonomic failure, cerebellar ataxia, and parkinsonism. Laryngeal stridor has a high positive predictive value in the diagnosis of MSA, but consensus about its definition and clinical implications had not been established previously. The Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico (IRCCS) delle Scienze Neurologiche di Bologna (Italy) convened a consensus conference of experts in 2017 to determine diagnostic criteria for stridor in MSA, define its prognostic value, suggest treatment options, and indicate subjects for future research. The neurologists reviewed studies of any design that reported original data. They based their statements on 34 published articles, most of which were class III or IV.

The authors defined stridor in MSA as “a strained, high-pitched, harsh respiratory sound, mainly inspiratory, caused by laryngeal dysfunction leading to narrowing of the rima glottidis.” Stridor may occur exclusively during sleep or during sleep and wakefulness. It may be recognized during a clinical examination, through witness report, or through an audio recording. Neurologists may consider laryngoscopy to exclude mechanical lesions or functional vocal cord abnormalities related to other neurologic conditions, wrote the authors. Drug-induced sleep endoscopy and video polysomnography also may be considered.

Whether stridor, or certain features of stridor, affects survival in MSA is uncertain. “Stridor within 3 years of motor or autonomic symptom onset may shorten survival,” according to the statement. “However, identification of stridor onset may be difficult.” Moreover, stridor during wakefulness is considered to reflect a more advanced stage of disease, compared with stridor during sleep. Although stridor can be distressing for the patient and his or her caregivers, its influence on health-related quality of life has yet to be determined, according to the statement.

Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) during sleep can be a useful symptomatic treatment and should be considered a first-line therapy for stridor, wrote the authors. Tracheostomy, another effective symptomatic treatment, bypasses upper-airway obstruction at the larynx. “Persistent and severe stridor may require tracheostomy,” according to the statement. It is not certain whether CPAP improves survival in patients with MSA and stridor, and tracheostomy may improve survival. The literature contains insufficient evidence about whether minimally invasive procedures or botulinum toxin injections are effective symptomatic treatments for stridor, wrote the authors.

During their review of the literature, the authors identified what they considered to be several research gaps. The diagnosis of stridor remains challenging, and investigators should develop a questionnaire for detecting stridor, they wrote. A smartphone application also could be developed to recognize stridor automatically. “The relationship between stridor and other breathing disorders (i.e., central apneas and breathing rate abnormalities) and their respective contributions to disease prognosis and survival should be determined through a multicenter prospective study,” according to the statement. Finally, randomized controlled trials comparing CPAP and tracheostomy for various degrees of stridor could guide physicians’ choice of treatment.

The IRCCS funded the study. One of the authors is a section editor for Neurology, and other authors reported receiving honoraria from various companies such as Novartis, Sanofi, and UCB.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Cortelli P et al. Neurology. 2019;93(14):630-9.

Patients with thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) may have a greater risk of recurrent thrombosis when taking rivaroxaban instead of a vitamin K antagonist, suggests a recent trial conducted in Spain.

Stroke was also more common among those taking rivaroxaban, while major bleeding was slightly less common, reported lead author Josep Ordi-Ros, MD, PhD, of Vall d’Hebrón University Hospital Research Institute in Barcelona, and colleagues in Annals of Internal Medicine.

“Two randomized, controlled trials comparing rivaroxaban with warfarin suggested that rivaroxaban may be efficacious in patients with previous venous thromboembolism who are receiving standard-intensity anticoagulation but showed an increased thrombotic risk in those with triple-positive antiphospholipid antibodies,” the investigators wrote. However, they also noted that these findings required a cautious interpretation because of study limitations, such as premature termination caused by an excess of study events and the use of a laboratory surrogate marker as a primary outcome.

To learn more, the investigators performed an open-label, phase 3 trial involving 190 patients with thrombotic APS. Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either rivaroxaban (20 mg per day, or 15 mg per day for patients with a creatinine clearance of 30-49 mL/min per 1.73 m²) or an adjusted dosage of vitamin K antagonists (target international normalized ratio of 2.0-3.0, or 3.1-4.0 for those with a history of recurrent thrombosis).

Patients underwent evaluations every month for the first 3 months and then every 3 months thereafter, each of which involved a variety of laboratory diagnostics such as checks for antinuclear antibodies and lupus anticoagulant, among others. Statistical analyses aimed to determine if rivaroxaban was noninferior to therapy with vitamin K antagonists based on parameters drawn from previous meta-analyses, as no studies had compared the two types of treatment when the present study was designed.

After 3 years of follow-up, almost twice as many patients in the rivaroxaban group had experienced recurrent thrombosis (11.6% vs. 6.3%), although this finding lacked statistical significance for both noninferiority of rivaroxaban (P = .29) and superiority of vitamin K antagonists (P = .20). Still, supporting a similar trend toward differences in efficacy, stroke was more common in the rivaroxaban group, in which nine events occurred, compared with none in the vitamin K antagonist group. In contrast, major bleeding was slightly less common with rivaroxaban than vitamin K antagonists (6.3% vs. 7.4%).

“In conclusion, rivaroxaban did not demonstrate noninferiority to dose-adjusted vitamin K antagonists for secondary thromboprophylaxis in patients with thrombotic APS,” the investigators wrote. “Instead, our results indicate a recurrent thrombotic rate that is nearly double, albeit without statistical significance.”

The study was funded by Bayer Hispania. One coauthor reported additional relationships with Pfizer, Lilly, Janssen, and others.

SOURCE: Ordi-Ros J et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019 Oct 15. doi: 10.7326/M19-0291.

Patients with thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) may have a greater risk of recurrent thrombosis when taking rivaroxaban instead of a vitamin K antagonist, suggests a recent trial conducted in Spain.

Stroke was also more common among those taking rivaroxaban, while major bleeding was slightly less common, reported lead author Josep Ordi-Ros, MD, PhD, of Vall d’Hebrón University Hospital Research Institute in Barcelona, and colleagues in Annals of Internal Medicine.

“Two randomized, controlled trials comparing rivaroxaban with warfarin suggested that rivaroxaban may be efficacious in patients with previous venous thromboembolism who are receiving standard-intensity anticoagulation but showed an increased thrombotic risk in those with triple-positive antiphospholipid antibodies,” the investigators wrote. However, they also noted that these findings required a cautious interpretation because of study limitations, such as premature termination caused by an excess of study events and the use of a laboratory surrogate marker as a primary outcome.

To learn more, the investigators performed an open-label, phase 3 trial involving 190 patients with thrombotic APS. Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either rivaroxaban (20 mg per day, or 15 mg per day for patients with a creatinine clearance of 30-49 mL/min per 1.73 m²) or an adjusted dosage of vitamin K antagonists (target international normalized ratio of 2.0-3.0, or 3.1-4.0 for those with a history of recurrent thrombosis).

Patients underwent evaluations every month for the first 3 months and then every 3 months thereafter, each of which involved a variety of laboratory diagnostics such as checks for antinuclear antibodies and lupus anticoagulant, among others. Statistical analyses aimed to determine if rivaroxaban was noninferior to therapy with vitamin K antagonists based on parameters drawn from previous meta-analyses, as no studies had compared the two types of treatment when the present study was designed.

After 3 years of follow-up, almost twice as many patients in the rivaroxaban group had experienced recurrent thrombosis (11.6% vs. 6.3%), although this finding lacked statistical significance for both noninferiority of rivaroxaban (P = .29) and superiority of vitamin K antagonists (P = .20). Still, supporting a similar trend toward differences in efficacy, stroke was more common in the rivaroxaban group, in which nine events occurred, compared with none in the vitamin K antagonist group. In contrast, major bleeding was slightly less common with rivaroxaban than vitamin K antagonists (6.3% vs. 7.4%).

“In conclusion, rivaroxaban did not demonstrate noninferiority to dose-adjusted vitamin K antagonists for secondary thromboprophylaxis in patients with thrombotic APS,” the investigators wrote. “Instead, our results indicate a recurrent thrombotic rate that is nearly double, albeit without statistical significance.”

The study was funded by Bayer Hispania. One coauthor reported additional relationships with Pfizer, Lilly, Janssen, and others.

SOURCE: Ordi-Ros J et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019 Oct 15. doi: 10.7326/M19-0291.

Patients with thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) may have a greater risk of recurrent thrombosis when taking rivaroxaban instead of a vitamin K antagonist, suggests a recent trial conducted in Spain.

Stroke was also more common among those taking rivaroxaban, while major bleeding was slightly less common, reported lead author Josep Ordi-Ros, MD, PhD, of Vall d’Hebrón University Hospital Research Institute in Barcelona, and colleagues in Annals of Internal Medicine.

“Two randomized, controlled trials comparing rivaroxaban with warfarin suggested that rivaroxaban may be efficacious in patients with previous venous thromboembolism who are receiving standard-intensity anticoagulation but showed an increased thrombotic risk in those with triple-positive antiphospholipid antibodies,” the investigators wrote. However, they also noted that these findings required a cautious interpretation because of study limitations, such as premature termination caused by an excess of study events and the use of a laboratory surrogate marker as a primary outcome.

To learn more, the investigators performed an open-label, phase 3 trial involving 190 patients with thrombotic APS. Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either rivaroxaban (20 mg per day, or 15 mg per day for patients with a creatinine clearance of 30-49 mL/min per 1.73 m²) or an adjusted dosage of vitamin K antagonists (target international normalized ratio of 2.0-3.0, or 3.1-4.0 for those with a history of recurrent thrombosis).

Patients underwent evaluations every month for the first 3 months and then every 3 months thereafter, each of which involved a variety of laboratory diagnostics such as checks for antinuclear antibodies and lupus anticoagulant, among others. Statistical analyses aimed to determine if rivaroxaban was noninferior to therapy with vitamin K antagonists based on parameters drawn from previous meta-analyses, as no studies had compared the two types of treatment when the present study was designed.

After 3 years of follow-up, almost twice as many patients in the rivaroxaban group had experienced recurrent thrombosis (11.6% vs. 6.3%), although this finding lacked statistical significance for both noninferiority of rivaroxaban (P = .29) and superiority of vitamin K antagonists (P = .20). Still, supporting a similar trend toward differences in efficacy, stroke was more common in the rivaroxaban group, in which nine events occurred, compared with none in the vitamin K antagonist group. In contrast, major bleeding was slightly less common with rivaroxaban than vitamin K antagonists (6.3% vs. 7.4%).

“In conclusion, rivaroxaban did not demonstrate noninferiority to dose-adjusted vitamin K antagonists for secondary thromboprophylaxis in patients with thrombotic APS,” the investigators wrote. “Instead, our results indicate a recurrent thrombotic rate that is nearly double, albeit without statistical significance.”

The study was funded by Bayer Hispania. One coauthor reported additional relationships with Pfizer, Lilly, Janssen, and others.

SOURCE: Ordi-Ros J et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019 Oct 15. doi: 10.7326/M19-0291.

More conservative oxygen therapy during mechanical ventilation in intensive care does not appear to increase the number of ventilator-free days or reduce mortality, according to a study published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Diane Mackle of the Medical Research Institute of New Zealand and her co-authors wrote that hyperoxemia in adults undergoing mechanical ventilation has been associated with increased mortality, as well as fewer days free of ventilation, but there was a lack of data to guide oxygen administration.

In a parallel-group trial, 1,000 adults who were expected to require mechanical ventilation – with an intention-to-treat population of 965 – were randomized either to conservative oxygen therapy or usual therapy. For the conservative therapy, the upper limit of the pulse oximetry alarm would sound when levels reached 97% and the F10₂ was decreased to 0.21 if the pulse oximetry was above the acceptable lower limit, while usual therapy involved no specific limiting measures. In both groups, the default lower limit for oxygen saturation was 90%.

At day 28 after ventilation, there was no significant difference between the conservative and usual care groups in the number of ventilator-free days (21.3 days vs. 22.1 days). The patients in the conservative oxygen group spent a median of 29 hours receiving an F10₂ level of 0.21, compared with 1 hour in the usual care group.

The mortality rate at day 180 was 35.7% in the conservative oxygen group, and 34.5% in the usual-oxygen group (HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.85 – 1.30). Researchers also saw no differences between the two groups in paid employment and cognitive function.

In patients with suspected hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy between-group differences were apparent; At day 28, those in the conservative-oxygen group had a median of 21.1 ventilator-free days, compared with none in the usual-oxygen group. The usual-oxygen group also had a higher 180-day mortality rate than those in the conservative-oxygen group (43% vs. 59%).

“Our data are suggestive of a possible benefit of conservative oxygen therapy in patients with suspected hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy,” the authors wrote. “It is biologically plausible that conservative oxygen therapy reduces the incidence of secondary brain damage after resuscitation from cardiac arrest, and observational data suggest that exposure to hyperoxemia in such patients may be harmful.”

The authors noted that their trial did not rule out the possibility of benefit or harm had they used a more liberal oxygen regimen in their usual-care group, and that different conservative regimens might also have achieved different outcomes.

The study was funded by the New Zealand Health Research Council. Six authors declared research support for the trial from the study funder, and two declared unrelated research grants from private industry. No other conflicts of interest were declared.

SOURCE: Mackle D et al. NJEM 2019, October 14. DOI:10.1056/NEJMoa1903297.

More conservative oxygen therapy during mechanical ventilation in intensive care does not appear to increase the number of ventilator-free days or reduce mortality, according to a study published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Diane Mackle of the Medical Research Institute of New Zealand and her co-authors wrote that hyperoxemia in adults undergoing mechanical ventilation has been associated with increased mortality, as well as fewer days free of ventilation, but there was a lack of data to guide oxygen administration.

In a parallel-group trial, 1,000 adults who were expected to require mechanical ventilation – with an intention-to-treat population of 965 – were randomized either to conservative oxygen therapy or usual therapy. For the conservative therapy, the upper limit of the pulse oximetry alarm would sound when levels reached 97% and the F10₂ was decreased to 0.21 if the pulse oximetry was above the acceptable lower limit, while usual therapy involved no specific limiting measures. In both groups, the default lower limit for oxygen saturation was 90%.

At day 28 after ventilation, there was no significant difference between the conservative and usual care groups in the number of ventilator-free days (21.3 days vs. 22.1 days). The patients in the conservative oxygen group spent a median of 29 hours receiving an F10₂ level of 0.21, compared with 1 hour in the usual care group.

The mortality rate at day 180 was 35.7% in the conservative oxygen group, and 34.5% in the usual-oxygen group (HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.85 – 1.30). Researchers also saw no differences between the two groups in paid employment and cognitive function.

In patients with suspected hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy between-group differences were apparent; At day 28, those in the conservative-oxygen group had a median of 21.1 ventilator-free days, compared with none in the usual-oxygen group. The usual-oxygen group also had a higher 180-day mortality rate than those in the conservative-oxygen group (43% vs. 59%).

“Our data are suggestive of a possible benefit of conservative oxygen therapy in patients with suspected hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy,” the authors wrote. “It is biologically plausible that conservative oxygen therapy reduces the incidence of secondary brain damage after resuscitation from cardiac arrest, and observational data suggest that exposure to hyperoxemia in such patients may be harmful.”

The authors noted that their trial did not rule out the possibility of benefit or harm had they used a more liberal oxygen regimen in their usual-care group, and that different conservative regimens might also have achieved different outcomes.

The study was funded by the New Zealand Health Research Council. Six authors declared research support for the trial from the study funder, and two declared unrelated research grants from private industry. No other conflicts of interest were declared.

SOURCE: Mackle D et al. NJEM 2019, October 14. DOI:10.1056/NEJMoa1903297.

More conservative oxygen therapy during mechanical ventilation in intensive care does not appear to increase the number of ventilator-free days or reduce mortality, according to a study published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Diane Mackle of the Medical Research Institute of New Zealand and her co-authors wrote that hyperoxemia in adults undergoing mechanical ventilation has been associated with increased mortality, as well as fewer days free of ventilation, but there was a lack of data to guide oxygen administration.

In a parallel-group trial, 1,000 adults who were expected to require mechanical ventilation – with an intention-to-treat population of 965 – were randomized either to conservative oxygen therapy or usual therapy. For the conservative therapy, the upper limit of the pulse oximetry alarm would sound when levels reached 97% and the F10₂ was decreased to 0.21 if the pulse oximetry was above the acceptable lower limit, while usual therapy involved no specific limiting measures. In both groups, the default lower limit for oxygen saturation was 90%.

At day 28 after ventilation, there was no significant difference between the conservative and usual care groups in the number of ventilator-free days (21.3 days vs. 22.1 days). The patients in the conservative oxygen group spent a median of 29 hours receiving an F10₂ level of 0.21, compared with 1 hour in the usual care group.

The mortality rate at day 180 was 35.7% in the conservative oxygen group, and 34.5% in the usual-oxygen group (HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.85 – 1.30). Researchers also saw no differences between the two groups in paid employment and cognitive function.

In patients with suspected hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy between-group differences were apparent; At day 28, those in the conservative-oxygen group had a median of 21.1 ventilator-free days, compared with none in the usual-oxygen group. The usual-oxygen group also had a higher 180-day mortality rate than those in the conservative-oxygen group (43% vs. 59%).

“Our data are suggestive of a possible benefit of conservative oxygen therapy in patients with suspected hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy,” the authors wrote. “It is biologically plausible that conservative oxygen therapy reduces the incidence of secondary brain damage after resuscitation from cardiac arrest, and observational data suggest that exposure to hyperoxemia in such patients may be harmful.”

The authors noted that their trial did not rule out the possibility of benefit or harm had they used a more liberal oxygen regimen in their usual-care group, and that different conservative regimens might also have achieved different outcomes.

The study was funded by the New Zealand Health Research Council. Six authors declared research support for the trial from the study funder, and two declared unrelated research grants from private industry. No other conflicts of interest were declared.

SOURCE: Mackle D et al. NJEM 2019, October 14. DOI:10.1056/NEJMoa1903297.

ST. LOUIS – Getting an MRI first for suspected stroke, instead of a CT, saves money by avoiding unnecessary admissions and might lead to better outcomes, according to a review from Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

MRI as the first scan leads to “a definitive diagnoses sooner and helps you manage the person more rapidly and appropriately, without negatively affecting outcomes even in stroke patients who receive endovascular therapy,” said neurologist and senior investigator Argye Hillis, MD, director of the Center of Excellence in Stroke Detection and Diagnosis at Hopkins. “Consider skipping the CT and getting an MRI, and get the MRI while they are still in the emergency room.”

Almost all emergency departments in the United States are set up to get a CT first, but MRI is known to be the better study, according to the researchers. MRI is much more sensitive to stroke, especially in the first 24 hours, and pinpoints the location and extent of the damage. It can detect causes of stroke invisible to CT, with no radiation, and rule out stroke entirely, whereas CT can rule out only intracranial bleeding. Increasingly in Europe, MRI is the first study in suspected stroke, and new EDs in the United States are being designed with an in-house MRI, or one nearby.

The ED at Hopkins’ main campus in downtown Baltimore already has an MRI, and uses it first whenever possible. The problem has been that MRI techs are available only during weekdays, so physicians have to default back to CT at night and on weekends. The impetus for the review, presented at the annual meeting of the American Neurological Association, was to see if savings from unnecessary admissions prevented by MRI would be enough to offset the cost of around-the-clock staffing for the MRI scanner.

Dr. Hillis and her team reviewed 320 patients with suspected ischemic stroke who were seen at the main campus in 2018 and had CT in the ED, and then definitive diagnosis by MRI, which is the usual approach in most U.S. hospitals.

A total of 134 patients had a final diagnosis on MRI that did not justify admission; techs were available to give 75 of them MRIs in the ED after the CT, and those patients were sent home. Techs were not available, however, for 59 patients and since the CT was not able to rule out stroke, those patients were admitted. The cost of those 59 admissions was $814,016.

The cost of the noncontrast CTs for the 75 patients who were sent home after definitive MRI imaging was $28,050, plus an additional $46,072 for those who had CT neck/head angiograms. Altogether, skipping the CT and going straight to the MRI would have saved Hopkins $888,138 in 2018, enough to cover round-the-clock MRI staffing in the ED, which is now the plan at the main campus.

Once the facility moves to 24-and-7 MRI coverage, the next step in the project is to compare stroke outcomes with Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center, also in Baltimore, which will continue to do CT first. “We know MRI first is cheaper. We want to see if we have better outcomes. If we find they’re much better, I think many hospitals will say it’s worth the 5 minutes longer it takes to get to the MRI scanner,” Dr. Hillis said.

Stroke mimics among the 134 patients included peripheral nerve palsy and migraine, but also people simply faking it for a hot meal and a warm bed. “Its pretty common, unfortunately,” she said.

The average age for stroke admissions at Hopkins is 55 years, with as many men as women.

There was no industry funding, and Dr. Hillis didn’t have any relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

ST. LOUIS – Getting an MRI first for suspected stroke, instead of a CT, saves money by avoiding unnecessary admissions and might lead to better outcomes, according to a review from Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

MRI as the first scan leads to “a definitive diagnoses sooner and helps you manage the person more rapidly and appropriately, without negatively affecting outcomes even in stroke patients who receive endovascular therapy,” said neurologist and senior investigator Argye Hillis, MD, director of the Center of Excellence in Stroke Detection and Diagnosis at Hopkins. “Consider skipping the CT and getting an MRI, and get the MRI while they are still in the emergency room.”

Almost all emergency departments in the United States are set up to get a CT first, but MRI is known to be the better study, according to the researchers. MRI is much more sensitive to stroke, especially in the first 24 hours, and pinpoints the location and extent of the damage. It can detect causes of stroke invisible to CT, with no radiation, and rule out stroke entirely, whereas CT can rule out only intracranial bleeding. Increasingly in Europe, MRI is the first study in suspected stroke, and new EDs in the United States are being designed with an in-house MRI, or one nearby.

The ED at Hopkins’ main campus in downtown Baltimore already has an MRI, and uses it first whenever possible. The problem has been that MRI techs are available only during weekdays, so physicians have to default back to CT at night and on weekends. The impetus for the review, presented at the annual meeting of the American Neurological Association, was to see if savings from unnecessary admissions prevented by MRI would be enough to offset the cost of around-the-clock staffing for the MRI scanner.

Dr. Hillis and her team reviewed 320 patients with suspected ischemic stroke who were seen at the main campus in 2018 and had CT in the ED, and then definitive diagnosis by MRI, which is the usual approach in most U.S. hospitals.

A total of 134 patients had a final diagnosis on MRI that did not justify admission; techs were available to give 75 of them MRIs in the ED after the CT, and those patients were sent home. Techs were not available, however, for 59 patients and since the CT was not able to rule out stroke, those patients were admitted. The cost of those 59 admissions was $814,016.

The cost of the noncontrast CTs for the 75 patients who were sent home after definitive MRI imaging was $28,050, plus an additional $46,072 for those who had CT neck/head angiograms. Altogether, skipping the CT and going straight to the MRI would have saved Hopkins $888,138 in 2018, enough to cover round-the-clock MRI staffing in the ED, which is now the plan at the main campus.

Once the facility moves to 24-and-7 MRI coverage, the next step in the project is to compare stroke outcomes with Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center, also in Baltimore, which will continue to do CT first. “We know MRI first is cheaper. We want to see if we have better outcomes. If we find they’re much better, I think many hospitals will say it’s worth the 5 minutes longer it takes to get to the MRI scanner,” Dr. Hillis said.

Stroke mimics among the 134 patients included peripheral nerve palsy and migraine, but also people simply faking it for a hot meal and a warm bed. “Its pretty common, unfortunately,” she said.

The average age for stroke admissions at Hopkins is 55 years, with as many men as women.

There was no industry funding, and Dr. Hillis didn’t have any relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

ST. LOUIS – Getting an MRI first for suspected stroke, instead of a CT, saves money by avoiding unnecessary admissions and might lead to better outcomes, according to a review from Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

MRI as the first scan leads to “a definitive diagnoses sooner and helps you manage the person more rapidly and appropriately, without negatively affecting outcomes even in stroke patients who receive endovascular therapy,” said neurologist and senior investigator Argye Hillis, MD, director of the Center of Excellence in Stroke Detection and Diagnosis at Hopkins. “Consider skipping the CT and getting an MRI, and get the MRI while they are still in the emergency room.”

Almost all emergency departments in the United States are set up to get a CT first, but MRI is known to be the better study, according to the researchers. MRI is much more sensitive to stroke, especially in the first 24 hours, and pinpoints the location and extent of the damage. It can detect causes of stroke invisible to CT, with no radiation, and rule out stroke entirely, whereas CT can rule out only intracranial bleeding. Increasingly in Europe, MRI is the first study in suspected stroke, and new EDs in the United States are being designed with an in-house MRI, or one nearby.

The ED at Hopkins’ main campus in downtown Baltimore already has an MRI, and uses it first whenever possible. The problem has been that MRI techs are available only during weekdays, so physicians have to default back to CT at night and on weekends. The impetus for the review, presented at the annual meeting of the American Neurological Association, was to see if savings from unnecessary admissions prevented by MRI would be enough to offset the cost of around-the-clock staffing for the MRI scanner.

Dr. Hillis and her team reviewed 320 patients with suspected ischemic stroke who were seen at the main campus in 2018 and had CT in the ED, and then definitive diagnosis by MRI, which is the usual approach in most U.S. hospitals.

A total of 134 patients had a final diagnosis on MRI that did not justify admission; techs were available to give 75 of them MRIs in the ED after the CT, and those patients were sent home. Techs were not available, however, for 59 patients and since the CT was not able to rule out stroke, those patients were admitted. The cost of those 59 admissions was $814,016.

The cost of the noncontrast CTs for the 75 patients who were sent home after definitive MRI imaging was $28,050, plus an additional $46,072 for those who had CT neck/head angiograms. Altogether, skipping the CT and going straight to the MRI would have saved Hopkins $888,138 in 2018, enough to cover round-the-clock MRI staffing in the ED, which is now the plan at the main campus.

Once the facility moves to 24-and-7 MRI coverage, the next step in the project is to compare stroke outcomes with Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center, also in Baltimore, which will continue to do CT first. “We know MRI first is cheaper. We want to see if we have better outcomes. If we find they’re much better, I think many hospitals will say it’s worth the 5 minutes longer it takes to get to the MRI scanner,” Dr. Hillis said.

Stroke mimics among the 134 patients included peripheral nerve palsy and migraine, but also people simply faking it for a hot meal and a warm bed. “Its pretty common, unfortunately,” she said.

The average age for stroke admissions at Hopkins is 55 years, with as many men as women.

There was no industry funding, and Dr. Hillis didn’t have any relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

Q)I have a patient with a discharge diagnosis of community-acquired acute kidney injury. What does this mean? What do I do now?

Acute kidney injury (AKI) refers to an abrupt decrease in kidney function that is possibly reversible or in which harm to the kidney can be modified.^1,2 AKI encompasses a broad spectrum of conditions affecting the kidney—including acute renal failure, since even “failure” can sometimes be reversed.¹ Criteria for AKI and its severity can be found in the Table.¹

AKI can be either community-acquired (CA-AKI) or hospital-acquired (HA-AKI).^1,2 In the United States, CA-AKI occurs less frequently than HA-AKI, although cases are likely underreported.¹ Evaluation and management are similar for both.

The etiology of the AKI must be determined before treatment of the cause or precipitating factor can be attempted. Causes of AKI can be classified as prerenal (up to 70% of cases), intrinsic, or postrenal.¹

Most AKI cases have a prerenal origin.³ Prerenal AKI occurs when there is inadequate blood flow to the kidneys, leading to a rise in blood urea nitrogen (BUN) and serum creatinine (SCr) levels. Reduced blood flow can be caused by

• Diuretic dosing
• Polypharmacy (diuretics, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors [ACEIs]/ angiotensin receptor blockers [ARBs], and/or NSAIDs are common culprits)
• Congestive heart failure exacerbation
• Volume depletion through vomiting or diarrhea
• Massive blood loss (trauma).³

Postrenal causes of AKI include any type of obstructive uropathy. Intrinsic causes involve any condition within the kidney, including interstitial nephritis or acute tubular necrosis. Use of antibiotics (eg, high-dose penicillin or vancomycin) is included in this category.

Obtaining an accurate medical history and examining the patient’s fluid status are critical. Although numerous novel biomarkers have been investigated for detection of AKI, none are yet in wide use. The primary assessment measures remain a serum panel to evaluate SCr and BUN levels; an electrolyte panel to assess for abnormalities; a complete blood count to assess for anemia caused by a less likely source; urinalysis; and imaging to assess for abnormalities or structural changes.

Urinalysis. Urine often holds the key to diagnosis of AKI. Notably in a prerenal injury, its specific gravity will be elevated, but the rest of the urine will likely be bland.³

Continue to: Urinalysis is helpful for...

Urinalysis is helpful for ruling out intrinsic causes of AKI. Patients with intrarenal AKI will have abnormal urine sediment; for example, red blood cell casts are found in glomerulonephritis; granular casts in cases of acute tubular necrosis; and white blood cell casts and eosinophils in acute interstitial nephritis.⁴

Imaging. The most commonly used imaging for AKI is retroperitoneal ultrasonography of the kidneys, ureters, and bladder, which provides information on the size and shape of the kidneys and can detect stones or masses. It also detects the presence or absence of hydronephrosis, which can occur in postrenal injuries.

Currently, no definitive therapy or pharmacologic agent is approved for AKI; treatment focuses on reversing the cause of the injury. In the immediate aftermath of AKI, it is important to avoid potentially nephrotoxic medications, including NSAIDs. Minimize the use of diuretics and avoid ACEIs and ARB therapy; these can be reintroduced after lab results confirm that the AKI has resolved with a stabilized SCr.

Practice guidelines recommend prompt follow-up at 3 months in most cases of AKI.¹ Providers should obtain a metabolic panel and perform a urinalysis to evaluate for chronic kidney disease (CKD), because almost one-third of patients with an AKI episode are newly classified with CKD in the following year.⁵ Earlier follow-up (< 3 months) is warranted if the patient has a significant comorbidity, such as congestive heart failure.^1,2—CS

Christopher Sjoberg, CNN-NP
Idaho Nephrology Associates, Boise
Adjunct Faculty, Boise State University

Q)I have a patient with a discharge diagnosis of community-acquired acute kidney injury. What does this mean? What do I do now?

Acute kidney injury (AKI) refers to an abrupt decrease in kidney function that is possibly reversible or in which harm to the kidney can be modified.^1,2 AKI encompasses a broad spectrum of conditions affecting the kidney—including acute renal failure, since even “failure” can sometimes be reversed.¹ Criteria for AKI and its severity can be found in the Table.¹

AKI can be either community-acquired (CA-AKI) or hospital-acquired (HA-AKI).^1,2 In the United States, CA-AKI occurs less frequently than HA-AKI, although cases are likely underreported.¹ Evaluation and management are similar for both.

The etiology of the AKI must be determined before treatment of the cause or precipitating factor can be attempted. Causes of AKI can be classified as prerenal (up to 70% of cases), intrinsic, or postrenal.¹

Most AKI cases have a prerenal origin.³ Prerenal AKI occurs when there is inadequate blood flow to the kidneys, leading to a rise in blood urea nitrogen (BUN) and serum creatinine (SCr) levels. Reduced blood flow can be caused by

• Diuretic dosing
• Polypharmacy (diuretics, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors [ACEIs]/ angiotensin receptor blockers [ARBs], and/or NSAIDs are common culprits)
• Congestive heart failure exacerbation
• Volume depletion through vomiting or diarrhea
• Massive blood loss (trauma).³

Postrenal causes of AKI include any type of obstructive uropathy. Intrinsic causes involve any condition within the kidney, including interstitial nephritis or acute tubular necrosis. Use of antibiotics (eg, high-dose penicillin or vancomycin) is included in this category.

Obtaining an accurate medical history and examining the patient’s fluid status are critical. Although numerous novel biomarkers have been investigated for detection of AKI, none are yet in wide use. The primary assessment measures remain a serum panel to evaluate SCr and BUN levels; an electrolyte panel to assess for abnormalities; a complete blood count to assess for anemia caused by a less likely source; urinalysis; and imaging to assess for abnormalities or structural changes.

Urinalysis. Urine often holds the key to diagnosis of AKI. Notably in a prerenal injury, its specific gravity will be elevated, but the rest of the urine will likely be bland.³

Continue to: Urinalysis is helpful for...

Urinalysis is helpful for ruling out intrinsic causes of AKI. Patients with intrarenal AKI will have abnormal urine sediment; for example, red blood cell casts are found in glomerulonephritis; granular casts in cases of acute tubular necrosis; and white blood cell casts and eosinophils in acute interstitial nephritis.⁴

Imaging. The most commonly used imaging for AKI is retroperitoneal ultrasonography of the kidneys, ureters, and bladder, which provides information on the size and shape of the kidneys and can detect stones or masses. It also detects the presence or absence of hydronephrosis, which can occur in postrenal injuries.

Currently, no definitive therapy or pharmacologic agent is approved for AKI; treatment focuses on reversing the cause of the injury. In the immediate aftermath of AKI, it is important to avoid potentially nephrotoxic medications, including NSAIDs. Minimize the use of diuretics and avoid ACEIs and ARB therapy; these can be reintroduced after lab results confirm that the AKI has resolved with a stabilized SCr.

Practice guidelines recommend prompt follow-up at 3 months in most cases of AKI.¹ Providers should obtain a metabolic panel and perform a urinalysis to evaluate for chronic kidney disease (CKD), because almost one-third of patients with an AKI episode are newly classified with CKD in the following year.⁵ Earlier follow-up (< 3 months) is warranted if the patient has a significant comorbidity, such as congestive heart failure.^1,2—CS

Christopher Sjoberg, CNN-NP
Idaho Nephrology Associates, Boise
Adjunct Faculty, Boise State University

Q)I have a patient with a discharge diagnosis of community-acquired acute kidney injury. What does this mean? What do I do now?

Acute kidney injury (AKI) refers to an abrupt decrease in kidney function that is possibly reversible or in which harm to the kidney can be modified.^1,2 AKI encompasses a broad spectrum of conditions affecting the kidney—including acute renal failure, since even “failure” can sometimes be reversed.¹ Criteria for AKI and its severity can be found in the Table.¹

AKI can be either community-acquired (CA-AKI) or hospital-acquired (HA-AKI).^1,2 In the United States, CA-AKI occurs less frequently than HA-AKI, although cases are likely underreported.¹ Evaluation and management are similar for both.

The etiology of the AKI must be determined before treatment of the cause or precipitating factor can be attempted. Causes of AKI can be classified as prerenal (up to 70% of cases), intrinsic, or postrenal.¹

Most AKI cases have a prerenal origin.³ Prerenal AKI occurs when there is inadequate blood flow to the kidneys, leading to a rise in blood urea nitrogen (BUN) and serum creatinine (SCr) levels. Reduced blood flow can be caused by

• Diuretic dosing
• Polypharmacy (diuretics, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors [ACEIs]/ angiotensin receptor blockers [ARBs], and/or NSAIDs are common culprits)
• Congestive heart failure exacerbation
• Volume depletion through vomiting or diarrhea
• Massive blood loss (trauma).³

Postrenal causes of AKI include any type of obstructive uropathy. Intrinsic causes involve any condition within the kidney, including interstitial nephritis or acute tubular necrosis. Use of antibiotics (eg, high-dose penicillin or vancomycin) is included in this category.

Obtaining an accurate medical history and examining the patient’s fluid status are critical. Although numerous novel biomarkers have been investigated for detection of AKI, none are yet in wide use. The primary assessment measures remain a serum panel to evaluate SCr and BUN levels; an electrolyte panel to assess for abnormalities; a complete blood count to assess for anemia caused by a less likely source; urinalysis; and imaging to assess for abnormalities or structural changes.

Urinalysis. Urine often holds the key to diagnosis of AKI. Notably in a prerenal injury, its specific gravity will be elevated, but the rest of the urine will likely be bland.³

Continue to: Urinalysis is helpful for...

Urinalysis is helpful for ruling out intrinsic causes of AKI. Patients with intrarenal AKI will have abnormal urine sediment; for example, red blood cell casts are found in glomerulonephritis; granular casts in cases of acute tubular necrosis; and white blood cell casts and eosinophils in acute interstitial nephritis.⁴

Imaging. The most commonly used imaging for AKI is retroperitoneal ultrasonography of the kidneys, ureters, and bladder, which provides information on the size and shape of the kidneys and can detect stones or masses. It also detects the presence or absence of hydronephrosis, which can occur in postrenal injuries.

Currently, no definitive therapy or pharmacologic agent is approved for AKI; treatment focuses on reversing the cause of the injury. In the immediate aftermath of AKI, it is important to avoid potentially nephrotoxic medications, including NSAIDs. Minimize the use of diuretics and avoid ACEIs and ARB therapy; these can be reintroduced after lab results confirm that the AKI has resolved with a stabilized SCr.

Practice guidelines recommend prompt follow-up at 3 months in most cases of AKI.¹ Providers should obtain a metabolic panel and perform a urinalysis to evaluate for chronic kidney disease (CKD), because almost one-third of patients with an AKI episode are newly classified with CKD in the following year.⁵ Earlier follow-up (< 3 months) is warranted if the patient has a significant comorbidity, such as congestive heart failure.^1,2—CS

Christopher Sjoberg, CNN-NP
Idaho Nephrology Associates, Boise
Adjunct Faculty, Boise State University

CHICAGO – Although advanced renal dysfunction is a major contraindication for open repair of complex thoracoabdominal aneurysms (TAAA) and pararenal aneurysms (PRA), a single-center study of patients who had branched-fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (B-FEVAR) found that those with severe or moderate dysfunction and those with normal kidney function had similar results, according to a study reported at the annual meeting of the Midwestern Vascular Surgery Society.

“In our series of patients with stage 4 and 5 chronic kidney disease, branched-fenestration aneurysm repair for pararenal and thoracoabdominal aneurysm was associated with acceptable morbidity and mortality,” said Luis C. Cajas-Monson, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. “Although often a contraindication for open repair, B-FEVAR could be a safe alternative for TAAA patients with poor renal function.”

The study evaluated 231 patients who had B-FEVAR for the following etiologies: 80 for PRA; 89 for Type I to III TAAA; and 62 for type IV TAAA. The patients had at least 1 year of follow-up. A small percentage of patients (4%; n = 9) had stage IV or V chronic kidney disease; the remainder had stage I to III CKD. The study compared results in the lower- and higher-stage CKD groups.

“The frequency of endovascular aortic aneurysm repair continues to increase, and it has advanced to treating more complex aortic pathology,” Dr. Cajas-Monson said. “There appears to be no significant decline in renal function with complex EVAR.” He noted that in open TAAA repair, the more severe the chronic kidney disease state, the worse the outcomes.

The Mayo researchers set out to evaluate the impact of renal function on survival after B-FEVAR for TAAA and PRA. “We hypothesized that renal function is not a significant factor in early and late survival after B-FEVAR,” Dr. Cajas-Monson said. TAAA patients represented 65% of the study population, with 59% having Extent I to III and 41% having Extent IV disease.

Dr. Cajas-Monson noted that demographics were comparable between the higher- and lower-stage CKD groups, with the exception of higher baseline creatinine levels in the CKD 4/5 patients: 3.14 vs. 1.13 (P less than .001). Operative outcomes and length of stay were also similar.

The higher-stage group had a higher overall rate of major adverse events, but given the small sample size this was not found to be significantly different (44% vs. 29%; P = .26). However, there were no events of perioperative death, stroke, paraplegia or estimated blood loss greater than 1 L in the higher-stage patients, while the lower-stage group had low percentages of these events.

Three-year survival was 84% in the lower-stage group and 75% in the higher-stage group.

Dr. Cajas-Monson acknowledged that the small sample size was a limitation of the study. “Further evaluation of patients with renal dysfunction is needed to validate our initial findings,” he said.

This abstract of this study was published in the Journal of Vascular Surgery (2019. 70 [3]:e67).

Dr. Cajas-Monson had no financial relationships to disclose.

SOURCE: Cajas-Monson LC et al. Midwestern Vascular 2019, Abstract 19.

CHICAGO – Although advanced renal dysfunction is a major contraindication for open repair of complex thoracoabdominal aneurysms (TAAA) and pararenal aneurysms (PRA), a single-center study of patients who had branched-fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (B-FEVAR) found that those with severe or moderate dysfunction and those with normal kidney function had similar results, according to a study reported at the annual meeting of the Midwestern Vascular Surgery Society.

“In our series of patients with stage 4 and 5 chronic kidney disease, branched-fenestration aneurysm repair for pararenal and thoracoabdominal aneurysm was associated with acceptable morbidity and mortality,” said Luis C. Cajas-Monson, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. “Although often a contraindication for open repair, B-FEVAR could be a safe alternative for TAAA patients with poor renal function.”

The study evaluated 231 patients who had B-FEVAR for the following etiologies: 80 for PRA; 89 for Type I to III TAAA; and 62 for type IV TAAA. The patients had at least 1 year of follow-up. A small percentage of patients (4%; n = 9) had stage IV or V chronic kidney disease; the remainder had stage I to III CKD. The study compared results in the lower- and higher-stage CKD groups.

“The frequency of endovascular aortic aneurysm repair continues to increase, and it has advanced to treating more complex aortic pathology,” Dr. Cajas-Monson said. “There appears to be no significant decline in renal function with complex EVAR.” He noted that in open TAAA repair, the more severe the chronic kidney disease state, the worse the outcomes.

The Mayo researchers set out to evaluate the impact of renal function on survival after B-FEVAR for TAAA and PRA. “We hypothesized that renal function is not a significant factor in early and late survival after B-FEVAR,” Dr. Cajas-Monson said. TAAA patients represented 65% of the study population, with 59% having Extent I to III and 41% having Extent IV disease.

Dr. Cajas-Monson noted that demographics were comparable between the higher- and lower-stage CKD groups, with the exception of higher baseline creatinine levels in the CKD 4/5 patients: 3.14 vs. 1.13 (P less than .001). Operative outcomes and length of stay were also similar.

The higher-stage group had a higher overall rate of major adverse events, but given the small sample size this was not found to be significantly different (44% vs. 29%; P = .26). However, there were no events of perioperative death, stroke, paraplegia or estimated blood loss greater than 1 L in the higher-stage patients, while the lower-stage group had low percentages of these events.

Three-year survival was 84% in the lower-stage group and 75% in the higher-stage group.

Dr. Cajas-Monson acknowledged that the small sample size was a limitation of the study. “Further evaluation of patients with renal dysfunction is needed to validate our initial findings,” he said.

This abstract of this study was published in the Journal of Vascular Surgery (2019. 70 [3]:e67).

Dr. Cajas-Monson had no financial relationships to disclose.

SOURCE: Cajas-Monson LC et al. Midwestern Vascular 2019, Abstract 19.

CHICAGO – Although advanced renal dysfunction is a major contraindication for open repair of complex thoracoabdominal aneurysms (TAAA) and pararenal aneurysms (PRA), a single-center study of patients who had branched-fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (B-FEVAR) found that those with severe or moderate dysfunction and those with normal kidney function had similar results, according to a study reported at the annual meeting of the Midwestern Vascular Surgery Society.

“In our series of patients with stage 4 and 5 chronic kidney disease, branched-fenestration aneurysm repair for pararenal and thoracoabdominal aneurysm was associated with acceptable morbidity and mortality,” said Luis C. Cajas-Monson, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. “Although often a contraindication for open repair, B-FEVAR could be a safe alternative for TAAA patients with poor renal function.”

The study evaluated 231 patients who had B-FEVAR for the following etiologies: 80 for PRA; 89 for Type I to III TAAA; and 62 for type IV TAAA. The patients had at least 1 year of follow-up. A small percentage of patients (4%; n = 9) had stage IV or V chronic kidney disease; the remainder had stage I to III CKD. The study compared results in the lower- and higher-stage CKD groups.

“The frequency of endovascular aortic aneurysm repair continues to increase, and it has advanced to treating more complex aortic pathology,” Dr. Cajas-Monson said. “There appears to be no significant decline in renal function with complex EVAR.” He noted that in open TAAA repair, the more severe the chronic kidney disease state, the worse the outcomes.

The Mayo researchers set out to evaluate the impact of renal function on survival after B-FEVAR for TAAA and PRA. “We hypothesized that renal function is not a significant factor in early and late survival after B-FEVAR,” Dr. Cajas-Monson said. TAAA patients represented 65% of the study population, with 59% having Extent I to III and 41% having Extent IV disease.

Dr. Cajas-Monson noted that demographics were comparable between the higher- and lower-stage CKD groups, with the exception of higher baseline creatinine levels in the CKD 4/5 patients: 3.14 vs. 1.13 (P less than .001). Operative outcomes and length of stay were also similar.

The higher-stage group had a higher overall rate of major adverse events, but given the small sample size this was not found to be significantly different (44% vs. 29%; P = .26). However, there were no events of perioperative death, stroke, paraplegia or estimated blood loss greater than 1 L in the higher-stage patients, while the lower-stage group had low percentages of these events.

Three-year survival was 84% in the lower-stage group and 75% in the higher-stage group.

Dr. Cajas-Monson acknowledged that the small sample size was a limitation of the study. “Further evaluation of patients with renal dysfunction is needed to validate our initial findings,” he said.

This abstract of this study was published in the Journal of Vascular Surgery (2019. 70 [3]:e67).

Dr. Cajas-Monson had no financial relationships to disclose.

SOURCE: Cajas-Monson LC et al. Midwestern Vascular 2019, Abstract 19.

BARCELONA – Checkpoint inhibition with nivolumab led to a clinically meaningful, but not statistically significant, improvement in overall survival, compared with sorafenib for the first-line treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in the phase 3 CheckMate 459 study.

Median overall survival (OS), the primary study endpoint, was 16.4 months in 371 patients randomized to receive the programmed death-1 (PD-1) inhibitor nivolumab, and 14.7 months in 372 patients who received the tyrosine kinase inhibitor sorafenib – the current standard for advanced HCC therapy (hazard ratio, 0.85; P = .0752), Thomas Yau, MD, reported at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.

The median OS seen with nivolumab is the longest ever reported in a first-line phase 3 HCC trial, but the difference between the arms did not meet the predefined threshold for statistical significance (HR, 0.84 and P = .419). However, clinical benefit was observed across predefined subgroups of patients, including those with hepatitis infection and those with vascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread, said Dr. Yau of the University of Hong Kong.

The overall response rates (ORR) were 15% and 7% in the nivolumab and sorafenib arms, with 14 and 5 patients in each group experiencing a complete response (CR), respectively, he said.

At 12 and 24 months, the OS rates in the groups were 59.7% vs. 55.1%, and 36.5% vs. 33.1%, respectively. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was similar in the groups, at 3.7 and 3.8 months, respectively, and analysis by baseline tumor programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression showed that ORR was 28% vs. 9% with PD-L1 expression of 1% or greater in the groups, respectively, and 12% vs. 7% among those with PD-L1 expression less than 1%.

Additionally, nivolumab had a more tolerable safety profile; grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events were reported in 22% and 49% of patients in the groups, respectively, and led to discontinuation in 4% and 8%, respectively. No new safety signals were observed, Dr. Yau said.

Participants in the multicenter study were systemic therapy–naive adults with advanced disease. They were randomized 1:1 to receive intravenous nivolumab at a dose of 240 mg every 2 weeks or oral sorafenib at a dose of 400 mg twice daily, and were followed for at least 22.8 months.

“These results are important in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma, as there have been no significant advances over sorafenib in the first-line setting in more than a decade,” Dr. Yau said in an ESMO press release. “HCC is often diagnosed in the advanced stage, where effective treatment options are limited. The encouraging efficacy and favorable safety profile seen with nivolumab demonstrates the potential benefit of immunotherapy as a first-line treatment for patients with this aggressive cancer.”

He further noted that the OS benefit seen in this study is “particularly impactful considering the high frequency of subsequent use of systemic therapy, including immunotherapy, in the sorafenib arm,” and that the OS impact is bolstered by patient-reported outcomes suggesting improved quality of life in the nivolumab arm.

Nevertheless, the fact that CheckMate 459 did not meet its primary OS endpoint means the findings are unlikely to change the current standard of care, according to Angela Lamarca, MD, PhD, consultant medical oncologist and honorary senior lecturer at the Christie NHS Foundation Trust, University of Manchester (England).

She added, however, that the findings do underscore a potential role for immunotherapy in the first-line treatment of advanced HCC and noted that the clinically meaningful improvement in response rates with nivolumab, along with the checkpoint inhibitor’s favorable safety profile in this study, raise the possibility of its selection in this setting.

“In a hypothetical scenario in which both options ... were available and reimbursed, and if quality of life was shown to be better with nivolumab ... clinicians and patients may favor the option with a more tolerable safety profile,” she said in the press release.

She added, however, that at this point conclusions should be made cautiously and the high cost of immunotherapy should be considered.

Dr. Lamarca also highlighted the finding that patients with high PD-L1 expression had an increased response rate only in the nivolumab arm. This suggests a potential role for PD-L1 expression as a predictive biomarker in advanced HCC, but more research is needed to better understand how to select patients for immunotherapy, she said, adding that the lack of a reliable biomarker may have contributed to the study’s failure to show improved OS with nivolumab.

“In addition, the study design with a ‘high’ predefined threshold of statistical significance is generating confusion in the community, with potentially beneficial therapies generating statistically negative studies,” she noted.

CheckMate 459 was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Yau is an advisor and/or consultant to Bristol-Myers Squibb, and reported honoraria from the company to his institution. Dr. Lamarca reported honoraria, consultation fees, travel funding, and/or education funding from Eisai, Nutricia, Ipsen, Pfizer, Bayer, AAA, Sirtex, Delcath, Novartis, and Mylan, as well as participation in company-sponsored speaker bureaus for Pfizer, Ipsen, Merck, and Incyte.

SOURCE: Yau T et al. ESMO 2019, Abstract LBA38-PR
 

BARCELONA – Checkpoint inhibition with nivolumab led to a clinically meaningful, but not statistically significant, improvement in overall survival, compared with sorafenib for the first-line treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in the phase 3 CheckMate 459 study.

Median overall survival (OS), the primary study endpoint, was 16.4 months in 371 patients randomized to receive the programmed death-1 (PD-1) inhibitor nivolumab, and 14.7 months in 372 patients who received the tyrosine kinase inhibitor sorafenib – the current standard for advanced HCC therapy (hazard ratio, 0.85; P = .0752), Thomas Yau, MD, reported at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.

The median OS seen with nivolumab is the longest ever reported in a first-line phase 3 HCC trial, but the difference between the arms did not meet the predefined threshold for statistical significance (HR, 0.84 and P = .419). However, clinical benefit was observed across predefined subgroups of patients, including those with hepatitis infection and those with vascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread, said Dr. Yau of the University of Hong Kong.

The overall response rates (ORR) were 15% and 7% in the nivolumab and sorafenib arms, with 14 and 5 patients in each group experiencing a complete response (CR), respectively, he said.

At 12 and 24 months, the OS rates in the groups were 59.7% vs. 55.1%, and 36.5% vs. 33.1%, respectively. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was similar in the groups, at 3.7 and 3.8 months, respectively, and analysis by baseline tumor programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression showed that ORR was 28% vs. 9% with PD-L1 expression of 1% or greater in the groups, respectively, and 12% vs. 7% among those with PD-L1 expression less than 1%.

Additionally, nivolumab had a more tolerable safety profile; grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events were reported in 22% and 49% of patients in the groups, respectively, and led to discontinuation in 4% and 8%, respectively. No new safety signals were observed, Dr. Yau said.

Participants in the multicenter study were systemic therapy–naive adults with advanced disease. They were randomized 1:1 to receive intravenous nivolumab at a dose of 240 mg every 2 weeks or oral sorafenib at a dose of 400 mg twice daily, and were followed for at least 22.8 months.

“These results are important in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma, as there have been no significant advances over sorafenib in the first-line setting in more than a decade,” Dr. Yau said in an ESMO press release. “HCC is often diagnosed in the advanced stage, where effective treatment options are limited. The encouraging efficacy and favorable safety profile seen with nivolumab demonstrates the potential benefit of immunotherapy as a first-line treatment for patients with this aggressive cancer.”

He further noted that the OS benefit seen in this study is “particularly impactful considering the high frequency of subsequent use of systemic therapy, including immunotherapy, in the sorafenib arm,” and that the OS impact is bolstered by patient-reported outcomes suggesting improved quality of life in the nivolumab arm.

Nevertheless, the fact that CheckMate 459 did not meet its primary OS endpoint means the findings are unlikely to change the current standard of care, according to Angela Lamarca, MD, PhD, consultant medical oncologist and honorary senior lecturer at the Christie NHS Foundation Trust, University of Manchester (England).

She added, however, that the findings do underscore a potential role for immunotherapy in the first-line treatment of advanced HCC and noted that the clinically meaningful improvement in response rates with nivolumab, along with the checkpoint inhibitor’s favorable safety profile in this study, raise the possibility of its selection in this setting.

“In a hypothetical scenario in which both options ... were available and reimbursed, and if quality of life was shown to be better with nivolumab ... clinicians and patients may favor the option with a more tolerable safety profile,” she said in the press release.

She added, however, that at this point conclusions should be made cautiously and the high cost of immunotherapy should be considered.

Dr. Lamarca also highlighted the finding that patients with high PD-L1 expression had an increased response rate only in the nivolumab arm. This suggests a potential role for PD-L1 expression as a predictive biomarker in advanced HCC, but more research is needed to better understand how to select patients for immunotherapy, she said, adding that the lack of a reliable biomarker may have contributed to the study’s failure to show improved OS with nivolumab.

“In addition, the study design with a ‘high’ predefined threshold of statistical significance is generating confusion in the community, with potentially beneficial therapies generating statistically negative studies,” she noted.

CheckMate 459 was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Yau is an advisor and/or consultant to Bristol-Myers Squibb, and reported honoraria from the company to his institution. Dr. Lamarca reported honoraria, consultation fees, travel funding, and/or education funding from Eisai, Nutricia, Ipsen, Pfizer, Bayer, AAA, Sirtex, Delcath, Novartis, and Mylan, as well as participation in company-sponsored speaker bureaus for Pfizer, Ipsen, Merck, and Incyte.

SOURCE: Yau T et al. ESMO 2019, Abstract LBA38-PR
 

BARCELONA – Checkpoint inhibition with nivolumab led to a clinically meaningful, but not statistically significant, improvement in overall survival, compared with sorafenib for the first-line treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in the phase 3 CheckMate 459 study.

Median overall survival (OS), the primary study endpoint, was 16.4 months in 371 patients randomized to receive the programmed death-1 (PD-1) inhibitor nivolumab, and 14.7 months in 372 patients who received the tyrosine kinase inhibitor sorafenib – the current standard for advanced HCC therapy (hazard ratio, 0.85; P = .0752), Thomas Yau, MD, reported at the European Society for Medical Oncology Congress.

The median OS seen with nivolumab is the longest ever reported in a first-line phase 3 HCC trial, but the difference between the arms did not meet the predefined threshold for statistical significance (HR, 0.84 and P = .419). However, clinical benefit was observed across predefined subgroups of patients, including those with hepatitis infection and those with vascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread, said Dr. Yau of the University of Hong Kong.

The overall response rates (ORR) were 15% and 7% in the nivolumab and sorafenib arms, with 14 and 5 patients in each group experiencing a complete response (CR), respectively, he said.

At 12 and 24 months, the OS rates in the groups were 59.7% vs. 55.1%, and 36.5% vs. 33.1%, respectively. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was similar in the groups, at 3.7 and 3.8 months, respectively, and analysis by baseline tumor programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression showed that ORR was 28% vs. 9% with PD-L1 expression of 1% or greater in the groups, respectively, and 12% vs. 7% among those with PD-L1 expression less than 1%.

Additionally, nivolumab had a more tolerable safety profile; grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events were reported in 22% and 49% of patients in the groups, respectively, and led to discontinuation in 4% and 8%, respectively. No new safety signals were observed, Dr. Yau said.

Participants in the multicenter study were systemic therapy–naive adults with advanced disease. They were randomized 1:1 to receive intravenous nivolumab at a dose of 240 mg every 2 weeks or oral sorafenib at a dose of 400 mg twice daily, and were followed for at least 22.8 months.

“These results are important in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma, as there have been no significant advances over sorafenib in the first-line setting in more than a decade,” Dr. Yau said in an ESMO press release. “HCC is often diagnosed in the advanced stage, where effective treatment options are limited. The encouraging efficacy and favorable safety profile seen with nivolumab demonstrates the potential benefit of immunotherapy as a first-line treatment for patients with this aggressive cancer.”

He further noted that the OS benefit seen in this study is “particularly impactful considering the high frequency of subsequent use of systemic therapy, including immunotherapy, in the sorafenib arm,” and that the OS impact is bolstered by patient-reported outcomes suggesting improved quality of life in the nivolumab arm.

Nevertheless, the fact that CheckMate 459 did not meet its primary OS endpoint means the findings are unlikely to change the current standard of care, according to Angela Lamarca, MD, PhD, consultant medical oncologist and honorary senior lecturer at the Christie NHS Foundation Trust, University of Manchester (England).

She added, however, that the findings do underscore a potential role for immunotherapy in the first-line treatment of advanced HCC and noted that the clinically meaningful improvement in response rates with nivolumab, along with the checkpoint inhibitor’s favorable safety profile in this study, raise the possibility of its selection in this setting.

“In a hypothetical scenario in which both options ... were available and reimbursed, and if quality of life was shown to be better with nivolumab ... clinicians and patients may favor the option with a more tolerable safety profile,” she said in the press release.

She added, however, that at this point conclusions should be made cautiously and the high cost of immunotherapy should be considered.

Dr. Lamarca also highlighted the finding that patients with high PD-L1 expression had an increased response rate only in the nivolumab arm. This suggests a potential role for PD-L1 expression as a predictive biomarker in advanced HCC, but more research is needed to better understand how to select patients for immunotherapy, she said, adding that the lack of a reliable biomarker may have contributed to the study’s failure to show improved OS with nivolumab.

“In addition, the study design with a ‘high’ predefined threshold of statistical significance is generating confusion in the community, with potentially beneficial therapies generating statistically negative studies,” she noted.

CheckMate 459 was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Yau is an advisor and/or consultant to Bristol-Myers Squibb, and reported honoraria from the company to his institution. Dr. Lamarca reported honoraria, consultation fees, travel funding, and/or education funding from Eisai, Nutricia, Ipsen, Pfizer, Bayer, AAA, Sirtex, Delcath, Novartis, and Mylan, as well as participation in company-sponsored speaker bureaus for Pfizer, Ipsen, Merck, and Incyte.

SOURCE: Yau T et al. ESMO 2019, Abstract LBA38-PR