About a quarter of patients with obstructive sleep apnea also had clinical depression and used antidepressants, recent research has shown.

Although patients in the study associated their sleep disorder with poorer quality of life as well as symptoms of anxiety and depression, it is unclear whether treating their obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) would alleviate these symptoms, said Melinda L. Jackson, PhD, from Monash University in Clayton, Victoria, Australia, and her colleagues.

“OSA is a modifiable factor that, if treated, may reduce the economic, health care, and personal burden of depression,” Dr. Jackson and her colleagues wrote in their study, recently published in the journal Sleep Medicine. “Findings from the treatment phase of this study will help us determine whether clinical depression is alleviated with CPAP use, taking into account antidepressant use; whether there are subgroups of patients who respond better to treatment; and what are the characteristics of patients who respond compared to those who remain depressed.”

The researchers used baseline data from 109 patients in the CPAP for OSA and Depression trial who were diagnosed with OSA. Participants (mean age, 52.6 years; 43.1% female) consecutively presented to a sleep laboratory where they answered interview questions to assess clinical depression and sleep habits. Data were collected using the structured clinical interview for depression (SCID-IV), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), Functional Outcomes of Sleep Questionnaire (FOSQ), Epworth Sleepiness Scale, and Assessment of Quality of Life questionnaire. In addition, the researchers performed a meta-analysis of seven studies, including the current study, to determine the prevalence of clinical depression among patients with untreated OSA.

Overall, SCID-IV scores identified clinical depression in 25 participants (22.7%), and these participants said they had greater sleep disturbance and reported higher depressive, anxiety and stress as well as lower quality of life as a result of their clinical depression. Researchers found these participants also had significantly worse quality of sleep (P less than .05) and daytime dysfunction (P less than .05) as identified by PSQI scores, while FOSQ results showed participants with clinical depression had significantly lower activity levels, social outcomes, and general productivity, compared with patients without clinical depression (P less than .05). In a meta-analysis, Dr. Jackson and her colleagues found a pooled prevalence of 23% for clinical depression among participants with OSA.

Participants using antidepressants were examined separately from participants who had clinical depression. The researchers found 27 participants (24.8%) using antidepressants who also had reported higher symptoms of anxiety, depression and stress, lower quality of life, and poorer sleep outcomes. Participants using antidepressants also were more likely to have bipolar disorder or a condition such as hypertension, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, high cholesterol, or type 2 diabetes, and 75% of these participants reported having some type of comorbid condition.

Dr. Jackson and her colleagues noted they were uncertain whether depression or OSA occurred first, or whether depression exacerbated symptoms of OSA through other factors such as weight gain, sleep disruption, inactivity, or alcohol use. Depression and OSA may also present independently of one another, they added.

“Development of scales to better capture information about when symptoms commenced and the length of time an individual has experienced OSA will provide a clearer understanding of the consequences of OSA on psychological and medical conditions,” the researchers said.

This study was funded by the Austin Medical Research Fund, and one authors reported support from an National Health and Medical Research Council Early Career Fellowship. The authors report no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Jackson ML et al. Sleep Med. 2019 Mar 27. doi: 10.1016/j.sleep.2019.03.011.

About a quarter of patients with obstructive sleep apnea also had clinical depression and used antidepressants, recent research has shown.

Although patients in the study associated their sleep disorder with poorer quality of life as well as symptoms of anxiety and depression, it is unclear whether treating their obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) would alleviate these symptoms, said Melinda L. Jackson, PhD, from Monash University in Clayton, Victoria, Australia, and her colleagues.

“OSA is a modifiable factor that, if treated, may reduce the economic, health care, and personal burden of depression,” Dr. Jackson and her colleagues wrote in their study, recently published in the journal Sleep Medicine. “Findings from the treatment phase of this study will help us determine whether clinical depression is alleviated with CPAP use, taking into account antidepressant use; whether there are subgroups of patients who respond better to treatment; and what are the characteristics of patients who respond compared to those who remain depressed.”

The researchers used baseline data from 109 patients in the CPAP for OSA and Depression trial who were diagnosed with OSA. Participants (mean age, 52.6 years; 43.1% female) consecutively presented to a sleep laboratory where they answered interview questions to assess clinical depression and sleep habits. Data were collected using the structured clinical interview for depression (SCID-IV), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), Functional Outcomes of Sleep Questionnaire (FOSQ), Epworth Sleepiness Scale, and Assessment of Quality of Life questionnaire. In addition, the researchers performed a meta-analysis of seven studies, including the current study, to determine the prevalence of clinical depression among patients with untreated OSA.

Overall, SCID-IV scores identified clinical depression in 25 participants (22.7%), and these participants said they had greater sleep disturbance and reported higher depressive, anxiety and stress as well as lower quality of life as a result of their clinical depression. Researchers found these participants also had significantly worse quality of sleep (P less than .05) and daytime dysfunction (P less than .05) as identified by PSQI scores, while FOSQ results showed participants with clinical depression had significantly lower activity levels, social outcomes, and general productivity, compared with patients without clinical depression (P less than .05). In a meta-analysis, Dr. Jackson and her colleagues found a pooled prevalence of 23% for clinical depression among participants with OSA.

Participants using antidepressants were examined separately from participants who had clinical depression. The researchers found 27 participants (24.8%) using antidepressants who also had reported higher symptoms of anxiety, depression and stress, lower quality of life, and poorer sleep outcomes. Participants using antidepressants also were more likely to have bipolar disorder or a condition such as hypertension, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, high cholesterol, or type 2 diabetes, and 75% of these participants reported having some type of comorbid condition.

Dr. Jackson and her colleagues noted they were uncertain whether depression or OSA occurred first, or whether depression exacerbated symptoms of OSA through other factors such as weight gain, sleep disruption, inactivity, or alcohol use. Depression and OSA may also present independently of one another, they added.

“Development of scales to better capture information about when symptoms commenced and the length of time an individual has experienced OSA will provide a clearer understanding of the consequences of OSA on psychological and medical conditions,” the researchers said.

This study was funded by the Austin Medical Research Fund, and one authors reported support from an National Health and Medical Research Council Early Career Fellowship. The authors report no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Jackson ML et al. Sleep Med. 2019 Mar 27. doi: 10.1016/j.sleep.2019.03.011.

About a quarter of patients with obstructive sleep apnea also had clinical depression and used antidepressants, recent research has shown.

Although patients in the study associated their sleep disorder with poorer quality of life as well as symptoms of anxiety and depression, it is unclear whether treating their obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) would alleviate these symptoms, said Melinda L. Jackson, PhD, from Monash University in Clayton, Victoria, Australia, and her colleagues.

“OSA is a modifiable factor that, if treated, may reduce the economic, health care, and personal burden of depression,” Dr. Jackson and her colleagues wrote in their study, recently published in the journal Sleep Medicine. “Findings from the treatment phase of this study will help us determine whether clinical depression is alleviated with CPAP use, taking into account antidepressant use; whether there are subgroups of patients who respond better to treatment; and what are the characteristics of patients who respond compared to those who remain depressed.”

The researchers used baseline data from 109 patients in the CPAP for OSA and Depression trial who were diagnosed with OSA. Participants (mean age, 52.6 years; 43.1% female) consecutively presented to a sleep laboratory where they answered interview questions to assess clinical depression and sleep habits. Data were collected using the structured clinical interview for depression (SCID-IV), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), Functional Outcomes of Sleep Questionnaire (FOSQ), Epworth Sleepiness Scale, and Assessment of Quality of Life questionnaire. In addition, the researchers performed a meta-analysis of seven studies, including the current study, to determine the prevalence of clinical depression among patients with untreated OSA.

Overall, SCID-IV scores identified clinical depression in 25 participants (22.7%), and these participants said they had greater sleep disturbance and reported higher depressive, anxiety and stress as well as lower quality of life as a result of their clinical depression. Researchers found these participants also had significantly worse quality of sleep (P less than .05) and daytime dysfunction (P less than .05) as identified by PSQI scores, while FOSQ results showed participants with clinical depression had significantly lower activity levels, social outcomes, and general productivity, compared with patients without clinical depression (P less than .05). In a meta-analysis, Dr. Jackson and her colleagues found a pooled prevalence of 23% for clinical depression among participants with OSA.

Participants using antidepressants were examined separately from participants who had clinical depression. The researchers found 27 participants (24.8%) using antidepressants who also had reported higher symptoms of anxiety, depression and stress, lower quality of life, and poorer sleep outcomes. Participants using antidepressants also were more likely to have bipolar disorder or a condition such as hypertension, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, high cholesterol, or type 2 diabetes, and 75% of these participants reported having some type of comorbid condition.

Dr. Jackson and her colleagues noted they were uncertain whether depression or OSA occurred first, or whether depression exacerbated symptoms of OSA through other factors such as weight gain, sleep disruption, inactivity, or alcohol use. Depression and OSA may also present independently of one another, they added.

“Development of scales to better capture information about when symptoms commenced and the length of time an individual has experienced OSA will provide a clearer understanding of the consequences of OSA on psychological and medical conditions,” the researchers said.

This study was funded by the Austin Medical Research Fund, and one authors reported support from an National Health and Medical Research Council Early Career Fellowship. The authors report no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Jackson ML et al. Sleep Med. 2019 Mar 27. doi: 10.1016/j.sleep.2019.03.011.

The Journal of Hospital Medicine^® is committed to continually improving the author experience. Our goal is to allow authors to focus more time on communicating their message and less time on navigating the submission and publication process. We commit to three initial areas of emphasis: (1) Make it easy for authors to submit their work; (2) Make timely disposition decisions; and (3) Facilitate dissemination of work that we publish.

We are pleased to introduce a new “No hassle” process for initial original research and brief report manuscript submissions. There is no universally followed format for manuscript submission to medical journals.^1-3 As a result, authors spend considerable time reformatting manuscripts for submission to meet each journal’s unique requirements before knowing whether or not their manuscript will be accepted for publication—or even sent for peer review. To streamline the submission process and eliminate unnecessary and burdensome reformatting, we have eased formatting requirements for initial manuscript submissions. We will even accept all manuscript elements in a single PDF (portable document format) file in another journal’s format if your manuscript was submitted elsewhere first but not accepted for publication. Tables and figures can be included in the single document or uploaded separately, depending on your preference. Of course, common elements necessary to assess a manuscript, including declaration of funding sources and conflicts of interest, are required on the title page.¹ Journal-specific formatting and signed disclosure and copyright forms will be deferred until a revision request.

We also seek to make timely decisions. Our rapid turnaround allows authors to submit elsewhere expeditiously if not accepted by the Journal of Hospital Medicine. We reject approximately 50% of original research and brief report manuscripts without formal peer review. The rationale for this approach is two-fold. We want to be respectful of how we engage our peer reviewers and we would rather not have them spend time reviewing manuscripts that we are unlikely to publish. We also want to be respectful of our authors’ time. If we are unlikely to publish a manuscript based on lower priority scores assigned by the Editor-in-Chief and other journal editors, we prefer to return the manuscript to authors for timely submission elsewhere. Our average time from submission to rejection without formal peer review is 1.3 days (median, <1 day). If we send a manuscript out for peer review, our time from submission to first decision is 23 days. Further, if we request a manuscript revision, we sincerely hope to publish the manuscript. Thus, most manuscripts for which we request a revision are ultimately accepted for publication. We are also tracking how quickly we can publish accepted manuscripts with a goal of 120 or fewer days from submission to publication and 60 or fewer days from acceptance to publication.

We highlight our published research in many ways to facilitate dissemination. We promote articles through formal press releases, tweets, visual abstracts, and, more recently, graphic medicine abstracts or comics. Select articles are discussed through our online journal club (#JHMChat).⁴ Other synergistic methods of dissemination are being planned and we’ll share these ideas with you in the coming year.

We are grateful to receive a large number of submissions and are honored that authors view the Journal of Hospital Medicine as an important venue to showcase their work. We continually strive to improve the author experience and welcome your input.

The Journal of Hospital Medicine^® is committed to continually improving the author experience. Our goal is to allow authors to focus more time on communicating their message and less time on navigating the submission and publication process. We commit to three initial areas of emphasis: (1) Make it easy for authors to submit their work; (2) Make timely disposition decisions; and (3) Facilitate dissemination of work that we publish.

We are pleased to introduce a new “No hassle” process for initial original research and brief report manuscript submissions. There is no universally followed format for manuscript submission to medical journals.^1-3 As a result, authors spend considerable time reformatting manuscripts for submission to meet each journal’s unique requirements before knowing whether or not their manuscript will be accepted for publication—or even sent for peer review. To streamline the submission process and eliminate unnecessary and burdensome reformatting, we have eased formatting requirements for initial manuscript submissions. We will even accept all manuscript elements in a single PDF (portable document format) file in another journal’s format if your manuscript was submitted elsewhere first but not accepted for publication. Tables and figures can be included in the single document or uploaded separately, depending on your preference. Of course, common elements necessary to assess a manuscript, including declaration of funding sources and conflicts of interest, are required on the title page.¹ Journal-specific formatting and signed disclosure and copyright forms will be deferred until a revision request.

We also seek to make timely decisions. Our rapid turnaround allows authors to submit elsewhere expeditiously if not accepted by the Journal of Hospital Medicine. We reject approximately 50% of original research and brief report manuscripts without formal peer review. The rationale for this approach is two-fold. We want to be respectful of how we engage our peer reviewers and we would rather not have them spend time reviewing manuscripts that we are unlikely to publish. We also want to be respectful of our authors’ time. If we are unlikely to publish a manuscript based on lower priority scores assigned by the Editor-in-Chief and other journal editors, we prefer to return the manuscript to authors for timely submission elsewhere. Our average time from submission to rejection without formal peer review is 1.3 days (median, <1 day). If we send a manuscript out for peer review, our time from submission to first decision is 23 days. Further, if we request a manuscript revision, we sincerely hope to publish the manuscript. Thus, most manuscripts for which we request a revision are ultimately accepted for publication. We are also tracking how quickly we can publish accepted manuscripts with a goal of 120 or fewer days from submission to publication and 60 or fewer days from acceptance to publication.

We highlight our published research in many ways to facilitate dissemination. We promote articles through formal press releases, tweets, visual abstracts, and, more recently, graphic medicine abstracts or comics. Select articles are discussed through our online journal club (#JHMChat).⁴ Other synergistic methods of dissemination are being planned and we’ll share these ideas with you in the coming year.

We are grateful to receive a large number of submissions and are honored that authors view the Journal of Hospital Medicine as an important venue to showcase their work. We continually strive to improve the author experience and welcome your input.

The Journal of Hospital Medicine^® is committed to continually improving the author experience. Our goal is to allow authors to focus more time on communicating their message and less time on navigating the submission and publication process. We commit to three initial areas of emphasis: (1) Make it easy for authors to submit their work; (2) Make timely disposition decisions; and (3) Facilitate dissemination of work that we publish.

We are pleased to introduce a new “No hassle” process for initial original research and brief report manuscript submissions. There is no universally followed format for manuscript submission to medical journals.^1-3 As a result, authors spend considerable time reformatting manuscripts for submission to meet each journal’s unique requirements before knowing whether or not their manuscript will be accepted for publication—or even sent for peer review. To streamline the submission process and eliminate unnecessary and burdensome reformatting, we have eased formatting requirements for initial manuscript submissions. We will even accept all manuscript elements in a single PDF (portable document format) file in another journal’s format if your manuscript was submitted elsewhere first but not accepted for publication. Tables and figures can be included in the single document or uploaded separately, depending on your preference. Of course, common elements necessary to assess a manuscript, including declaration of funding sources and conflicts of interest, are required on the title page.¹ Journal-specific formatting and signed disclosure and copyright forms will be deferred until a revision request.

We also seek to make timely decisions. Our rapid turnaround allows authors to submit elsewhere expeditiously if not accepted by the Journal of Hospital Medicine. We reject approximately 50% of original research and brief report manuscripts without formal peer review. The rationale for this approach is two-fold. We want to be respectful of how we engage our peer reviewers and we would rather not have them spend time reviewing manuscripts that we are unlikely to publish. We also want to be respectful of our authors’ time. If we are unlikely to publish a manuscript based on lower priority scores assigned by the Editor-in-Chief and other journal editors, we prefer to return the manuscript to authors for timely submission elsewhere. Our average time from submission to rejection without formal peer review is 1.3 days (median, <1 day). If we send a manuscript out for peer review, our time from submission to first decision is 23 days. Further, if we request a manuscript revision, we sincerely hope to publish the manuscript. Thus, most manuscripts for which we request a revision are ultimately accepted for publication. We are also tracking how quickly we can publish accepted manuscripts with a goal of 120 or fewer days from submission to publication and 60 or fewer days from acceptance to publication.

We highlight our published research in many ways to facilitate dissemination. We promote articles through formal press releases, tweets, visual abstracts, and, more recently, graphic medicine abstracts or comics. Select articles are discussed through our online journal club (#JHMChat).⁴ Other synergistic methods of dissemination are being planned and we’ll share these ideas with you in the coming year.

We are grateful to receive a large number of submissions and are honored that authors view the Journal of Hospital Medicine as an important venue to showcase their work. We continually strive to improve the author experience and welcome your input.

Spinal cord injuries (SCI) are common in veteran populations.¹ Veterans with spinal cord injuries and disorders (SCI/D) also may have concurrent sleep disturbances. Spinal cord injury typically causes spasticity.^2,3 Hypersensitivity of the flexor reflex pathways is believed to cause painful muscle spasms in patients with SCI.⁴ Neuropathic pain at or below the level of the lesion also is common.

Restless legs syndrome (RLS) is a common sleep disorder that affects sleep quality and can occur concomitantly with spinal cord lesions.⁵ In about 80% of RLS cases, involuntary movements of legs across hip, knee, and ankle joints during sleep, known as periodic limb movement during sleep (PLMS), occurs.⁶ Several studies showed increased prevalence of PLMS in patients with SCI, and some case reports suggest an increased prevalence of RLS in this population.^7,8 One small study showed that 100% of patients with SCI had symptoms of RLS.⁶ Another study found that SCI could trigger PLMS.⁸

The pathophysiology of RLS and PLMS in patients with SCI is not fully understood, but case reports describing PLM in SCI patients points to a possible role of central pattern generators and the flexor reflex afferents in the pathophysiology of PLMS.^9,10 Changes of the tissue microstructure in the midbrain and upper cervical spinal cord have been described in patients with RLS.¹¹The objective of this study was to assess the prevalence of RLS in a veteran population with SCI/D and to determine possible neuroanatomical patterns involved in RLS and SCI/D.

Methods

The institutional review and ethical approval boards of the Minneapolis VA Health Care System approved the study. Within the VA system, 666 patients with SCI/D were identified using a national database. Of the 666 people, 316 were excluded, 199 were included, and 151 were deceased.

Patients aged between 18 and 65 years were included in the study. Charts of patients who had been discharged with the diagnosis of SCI from 2002 to 2008 were studied. All patients met the inclusion criteria of the International Restless Legs Syndrome Study Group diagnosis.

Exclusion criteria were as follows: Patients with evidence of brain pathology (eg, stroke), concurrent neurologic condition associated with RLS (Parkinson disease, spinocerebellar ataxia, peripheral neuropathy), concurrent psychiatric condition within the setting of treatment with dopamine antagonists, secondary causes of RLS (renal failure/uremia, iron deficiency, rheumatoid arthritis, and pregnancy) and a recent history of alcohol or drug misuse or current evidence of substance use of < 1 year.

A patient list was compiled that included the etiology of the SCI (vascular injury, multiple sclerosis [MS], trauma, unknown, and other), the level(s) and completeness of the SCI per radiology report, RLS pharmacotherapies, and pertinent medical history.

Axial T2-weighted images on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans were retrospectively reviewed. Sagittal T1/T2-weighted and axial T2-weighted sequences were performed routinely on all patients with spinal cord lesions. The analysis included the extension of the lesion on both sagittal and axial distributions. The anatomic location of the cord lesion was categorized by the following: (1) pure gray matter (central cord); (2) white matter (dorsal [D], dorsolateral [DL], ventral [V], ventrolateral areas [VL]).

A questionnaire using standard diagnostic criteria for RLS was mailed to the 199 patients who met the inclusion criteria (Appendix A).

All analyses were carried out using StataCorp STATA 13 (College Station, TX). Descriptive statistics were used. The analyses were carried out using chi-square and Fisher exact tests. Differences between the groups were considered statistically significant at P < .05. The data were analyzed to obtain point prevalence among patients with SCI, and comparisons were made among the different subgroups.

Results

Of the 162 patients who chose to participate in the study, the sleep specialists confirmed 31 (19%) to have RLS, 112 (69%) were confirmed negative for RLS, and an additional 19 (12%) screened positive for RLS but were not confirmed to have RLS by the sleep specialists (Figure 1).

The etiology of SCI was subdivided into 4 groups: MS, trauma, vascular, and other/unknown. Within each group (– RLS vs + RLS), MS and trauma were the most common etiologies with 55% MS and 36% trauma in the + RLS group.

When comparing RLS among the spinal cord levels (cervical, thoracic, lumbar and cervical + thoracic), only the cervical + thoracic subgroup (18% + RLS vs 5% – RLS) showed a significant difference (Figure 2).

There was no significant difference found with the prevalence of RLS in the axial plane of the spinal cord lesions (ventral/ventro-lateral/central cord vs dorsal/dorsolateral) or by the completeness of spinal cord lesions, P = .76. There was a higher prevalence of incomplete cord injury, however, within each subgroup of RLS.

The Mann-Whitney test was used to analyze the burden of disease in both groups (+ RLS vs – RLS). Moderate level of burden was most frequently reported with a higher prevalence within the + RLS group. Of those receiving treatment for RLS, 71% were + RLS vs 46% – RLS with a P value of .01. Symptoms of RLS after cord injury were 89% + RLS vs 55% – RLS with a P value of .03.

Discussion

This study represents one of the first studies to determine the prevalence of RLS in veterans with spinal cord disease. Research in this area is important to raise awareness of RLS among the veteran population with and without SCI and disorders. Restless legs syndrome often escapes diagnosis because of difficulty understanding the patient’s descriptions of their sensations. In addition, RLS may cause debilitating symptoms of sleep deprivation, daytime sleepiness, discomfort, and fatigue, which often results in decreased quality of life (QOL). Proper screening and treatment may improve QOL.

A study by Kumru and colleagues showed a similar rate of RLS in patients with SCI and RLS symptoms presented in the first year after SCI as did this study (18% vs 19%, respectively).⁴ In that study, RLS was more common in patients with lesions in lumbosacral area. Kumru and colleagues also showed that a dopaminergic medication improved symptoms of RLS in this population, whereas this study did not explore treatment outcomes.⁴

The pathogenesis of RLS is not fully known, but hereditary factors, iron metabolism, and the brain dopaminergic system are thought to be involved.¹¹ It is hypothesized that spinal cord lesions allow the appearance of RLS symptoms and spinal leg movement generator by blocking descending inhibitory spinal pathways.¹² One hypothesis is that damage to A11 nuclei (the main source of dopamine in the spinal cord or its diencephalospinal tract in animals) causes hyperexcitability of the spinal cord and leads to PLM and RLS symptoms.¹³ As the axons of A11 nuclei are present along the whole span of the spinal cord, SCI/D in patients with RLS might interrupt this dopaminergic tract and produce the RLS symptoms.

Limitations

This study included only veterans, so the prevalence may not apply to the nonveteran SCI population. Also, the population mainly was male, and there was no accurate information on race. Ferritin levels of the patients were not checked and is a major factor in RLS. The reported onset of RLS after the SCI could be due to recall bias.

Conclusion

The prevalence of RLS in veterans with SCI is above that reported in the general population (19% vs 10%, respectively). Furthermore, those with RLS have symptoms that often started after the SCI (suggesting causality) and required therapy due to their level of RLS symptom burden. A spectrum of severity of symptoms is present among those with RLS, with 83% having moderate-to-severe RLS affecting their QOL.

Although there was not a statistically significant relationship between RLS and spinal cord lesion level, there was a slightly higher prevalence of RLS at the cervical and thoracic levels, which may be relevant for future studies. There was no difference found between the RLS subgroups with respect to the location of the lesion within the spinal cord; however, a larger sample size may be needed to determine whether this would reach statistical significance. Prompt search for symptoms of RLS in veterans with SCI is warranted to provide adequate treatment to improve sleep health and QOL in this population.

Spinal cord injuries (SCI) are common in veteran populations.¹ Veterans with spinal cord injuries and disorders (SCI/D) also may have concurrent sleep disturbances. Spinal cord injury typically causes spasticity.^2,3 Hypersensitivity of the flexor reflex pathways is believed to cause painful muscle spasms in patients with SCI.⁴ Neuropathic pain at or below the level of the lesion also is common.

Restless legs syndrome (RLS) is a common sleep disorder that affects sleep quality and can occur concomitantly with spinal cord lesions.⁵ In about 80% of RLS cases, involuntary movements of legs across hip, knee, and ankle joints during sleep, known as periodic limb movement during sleep (PLMS), occurs.⁶ Several studies showed increased prevalence of PLMS in patients with SCI, and some case reports suggest an increased prevalence of RLS in this population.^7,8 One small study showed that 100% of patients with SCI had symptoms of RLS.⁶ Another study found that SCI could trigger PLMS.⁸

The pathophysiology of RLS and PLMS in patients with SCI is not fully understood, but case reports describing PLM in SCI patients points to a possible role of central pattern generators and the flexor reflex afferents in the pathophysiology of PLMS.^9,10 Changes of the tissue microstructure in the midbrain and upper cervical spinal cord have been described in patients with RLS.¹¹The objective of this study was to assess the prevalence of RLS in a veteran population with SCI/D and to determine possible neuroanatomical patterns involved in RLS and SCI/D.

Methods

The institutional review and ethical approval boards of the Minneapolis VA Health Care System approved the study. Within the VA system, 666 patients with SCI/D were identified using a national database. Of the 666 people, 316 were excluded, 199 were included, and 151 were deceased.

Patients aged between 18 and 65 years were included in the study. Charts of patients who had been discharged with the diagnosis of SCI from 2002 to 2008 were studied. All patients met the inclusion criteria of the International Restless Legs Syndrome Study Group diagnosis.

Exclusion criteria were as follows: Patients with evidence of brain pathology (eg, stroke), concurrent neurologic condition associated with RLS (Parkinson disease, spinocerebellar ataxia, peripheral neuropathy), concurrent psychiatric condition within the setting of treatment with dopamine antagonists, secondary causes of RLS (renal failure/uremia, iron deficiency, rheumatoid arthritis, and pregnancy) and a recent history of alcohol or drug misuse or current evidence of substance use of < 1 year.

A patient list was compiled that included the etiology of the SCI (vascular injury, multiple sclerosis [MS], trauma, unknown, and other), the level(s) and completeness of the SCI per radiology report, RLS pharmacotherapies, and pertinent medical history.

Axial T2-weighted images on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans were retrospectively reviewed. Sagittal T1/T2-weighted and axial T2-weighted sequences were performed routinely on all patients with spinal cord lesions. The analysis included the extension of the lesion on both sagittal and axial distributions. The anatomic location of the cord lesion was categorized by the following: (1) pure gray matter (central cord); (2) white matter (dorsal [D], dorsolateral [DL], ventral [V], ventrolateral areas [VL]).

A questionnaire using standard diagnostic criteria for RLS was mailed to the 199 patients who met the inclusion criteria (Appendix A).

All analyses were carried out using StataCorp STATA 13 (College Station, TX). Descriptive statistics were used. The analyses were carried out using chi-square and Fisher exact tests. Differences between the groups were considered statistically significant at P < .05. The data were analyzed to obtain point prevalence among patients with SCI, and comparisons were made among the different subgroups.

Results

Of the 162 patients who chose to participate in the study, the sleep specialists confirmed 31 (19%) to have RLS, 112 (69%) were confirmed negative for RLS, and an additional 19 (12%) screened positive for RLS but were not confirmed to have RLS by the sleep specialists (Figure 1).

The etiology of SCI was subdivided into 4 groups: MS, trauma, vascular, and other/unknown. Within each group (– RLS vs + RLS), MS and trauma were the most common etiologies with 55% MS and 36% trauma in the + RLS group.

When comparing RLS among the spinal cord levels (cervical, thoracic, lumbar and cervical + thoracic), only the cervical + thoracic subgroup (18% + RLS vs 5% – RLS) showed a significant difference (Figure 2).

There was no significant difference found with the prevalence of RLS in the axial plane of the spinal cord lesions (ventral/ventro-lateral/central cord vs dorsal/dorsolateral) or by the completeness of spinal cord lesions, P = .76. There was a higher prevalence of incomplete cord injury, however, within each subgroup of RLS.

The Mann-Whitney test was used to analyze the burden of disease in both groups (+ RLS vs – RLS). Moderate level of burden was most frequently reported with a higher prevalence within the + RLS group. Of those receiving treatment for RLS, 71% were + RLS vs 46% – RLS with a P value of .01. Symptoms of RLS after cord injury were 89% + RLS vs 55% – RLS with a P value of .03.

Discussion

This study represents one of the first studies to determine the prevalence of RLS in veterans with spinal cord disease. Research in this area is important to raise awareness of RLS among the veteran population with and without SCI and disorders. Restless legs syndrome often escapes diagnosis because of difficulty understanding the patient’s descriptions of their sensations. In addition, RLS may cause debilitating symptoms of sleep deprivation, daytime sleepiness, discomfort, and fatigue, which often results in decreased quality of life (QOL). Proper screening and treatment may improve QOL.

A study by Kumru and colleagues showed a similar rate of RLS in patients with SCI and RLS symptoms presented in the first year after SCI as did this study (18% vs 19%, respectively).⁴ In that study, RLS was more common in patients with lesions in lumbosacral area. Kumru and colleagues also showed that a dopaminergic medication improved symptoms of RLS in this population, whereas this study did not explore treatment outcomes.⁴

The pathogenesis of RLS is not fully known, but hereditary factors, iron metabolism, and the brain dopaminergic system are thought to be involved.¹¹ It is hypothesized that spinal cord lesions allow the appearance of RLS symptoms and spinal leg movement generator by blocking descending inhibitory spinal pathways.¹² One hypothesis is that damage to A11 nuclei (the main source of dopamine in the spinal cord or its diencephalospinal tract in animals) causes hyperexcitability of the spinal cord and leads to PLM and RLS symptoms.¹³ As the axons of A11 nuclei are present along the whole span of the spinal cord, SCI/D in patients with RLS might interrupt this dopaminergic tract and produce the RLS symptoms.

Limitations

This study included only veterans, so the prevalence may not apply to the nonveteran SCI population. Also, the population mainly was male, and there was no accurate information on race. Ferritin levels of the patients were not checked and is a major factor in RLS. The reported onset of RLS after the SCI could be due to recall bias.

Conclusion

The prevalence of RLS in veterans with SCI is above that reported in the general population (19% vs 10%, respectively). Furthermore, those with RLS have symptoms that often started after the SCI (suggesting causality) and required therapy due to their level of RLS symptom burden. A spectrum of severity of symptoms is present among those with RLS, with 83% having moderate-to-severe RLS affecting their QOL.

Although there was not a statistically significant relationship between RLS and spinal cord lesion level, there was a slightly higher prevalence of RLS at the cervical and thoracic levels, which may be relevant for future studies. There was no difference found between the RLS subgroups with respect to the location of the lesion within the spinal cord; however, a larger sample size may be needed to determine whether this would reach statistical significance. Prompt search for symptoms of RLS in veterans with SCI is warranted to provide adequate treatment to improve sleep health and QOL in this population.

Spinal cord injuries (SCI) are common in veteran populations.¹ Veterans with spinal cord injuries and disorders (SCI/D) also may have concurrent sleep disturbances. Spinal cord injury typically causes spasticity.^2,3 Hypersensitivity of the flexor reflex pathways is believed to cause painful muscle spasms in patients with SCI.⁴ Neuropathic pain at or below the level of the lesion also is common.

Restless legs syndrome (RLS) is a common sleep disorder that affects sleep quality and can occur concomitantly with spinal cord lesions.⁵ In about 80% of RLS cases, involuntary movements of legs across hip, knee, and ankle joints during sleep, known as periodic limb movement during sleep (PLMS), occurs.⁶ Several studies showed increased prevalence of PLMS in patients with SCI, and some case reports suggest an increased prevalence of RLS in this population.^7,8 One small study showed that 100% of patients with SCI had symptoms of RLS.⁶ Another study found that SCI could trigger PLMS.⁸

The pathophysiology of RLS and PLMS in patients with SCI is not fully understood, but case reports describing PLM in SCI patients points to a possible role of central pattern generators and the flexor reflex afferents in the pathophysiology of PLMS.^9,10 Changes of the tissue microstructure in the midbrain and upper cervical spinal cord have been described in patients with RLS.¹¹The objective of this study was to assess the prevalence of RLS in a veteran population with SCI/D and to determine possible neuroanatomical patterns involved in RLS and SCI/D.

Methods

The institutional review and ethical approval boards of the Minneapolis VA Health Care System approved the study. Within the VA system, 666 patients with SCI/D were identified using a national database. Of the 666 people, 316 were excluded, 199 were included, and 151 were deceased.

Patients aged between 18 and 65 years were included in the study. Charts of patients who had been discharged with the diagnosis of SCI from 2002 to 2008 were studied. All patients met the inclusion criteria of the International Restless Legs Syndrome Study Group diagnosis.

Exclusion criteria were as follows: Patients with evidence of brain pathology (eg, stroke), concurrent neurologic condition associated with RLS (Parkinson disease, spinocerebellar ataxia, peripheral neuropathy), concurrent psychiatric condition within the setting of treatment with dopamine antagonists, secondary causes of RLS (renal failure/uremia, iron deficiency, rheumatoid arthritis, and pregnancy) and a recent history of alcohol or drug misuse or current evidence of substance use of < 1 year.

A patient list was compiled that included the etiology of the SCI (vascular injury, multiple sclerosis [MS], trauma, unknown, and other), the level(s) and completeness of the SCI per radiology report, RLS pharmacotherapies, and pertinent medical history.

Axial T2-weighted images on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans were retrospectively reviewed. Sagittal T1/T2-weighted and axial T2-weighted sequences were performed routinely on all patients with spinal cord lesions. The analysis included the extension of the lesion on both sagittal and axial distributions. The anatomic location of the cord lesion was categorized by the following: (1) pure gray matter (central cord); (2) white matter (dorsal [D], dorsolateral [DL], ventral [V], ventrolateral areas [VL]).

A questionnaire using standard diagnostic criteria for RLS was mailed to the 199 patients who met the inclusion criteria (Appendix A).

All analyses were carried out using StataCorp STATA 13 (College Station, TX). Descriptive statistics were used. The analyses were carried out using chi-square and Fisher exact tests. Differences between the groups were considered statistically significant at P < .05. The data were analyzed to obtain point prevalence among patients with SCI, and comparisons were made among the different subgroups.

Results

Of the 162 patients who chose to participate in the study, the sleep specialists confirmed 31 (19%) to have RLS, 112 (69%) were confirmed negative for RLS, and an additional 19 (12%) screened positive for RLS but were not confirmed to have RLS by the sleep specialists (Figure 1).

The etiology of SCI was subdivided into 4 groups: MS, trauma, vascular, and other/unknown. Within each group (– RLS vs + RLS), MS and trauma were the most common etiologies with 55% MS and 36% trauma in the + RLS group.

When comparing RLS among the spinal cord levels (cervical, thoracic, lumbar and cervical + thoracic), only the cervical + thoracic subgroup (18% + RLS vs 5% – RLS) showed a significant difference (Figure 2).

There was no significant difference found with the prevalence of RLS in the axial plane of the spinal cord lesions (ventral/ventro-lateral/central cord vs dorsal/dorsolateral) or by the completeness of spinal cord lesions, P = .76. There was a higher prevalence of incomplete cord injury, however, within each subgroup of RLS.

The Mann-Whitney test was used to analyze the burden of disease in both groups (+ RLS vs – RLS). Moderate level of burden was most frequently reported with a higher prevalence within the + RLS group. Of those receiving treatment for RLS, 71% were + RLS vs 46% – RLS with a P value of .01. Symptoms of RLS after cord injury were 89% + RLS vs 55% – RLS with a P value of .03.

Discussion

This study represents one of the first studies to determine the prevalence of RLS in veterans with spinal cord disease. Research in this area is important to raise awareness of RLS among the veteran population with and without SCI and disorders. Restless legs syndrome often escapes diagnosis because of difficulty understanding the patient’s descriptions of their sensations. In addition, RLS may cause debilitating symptoms of sleep deprivation, daytime sleepiness, discomfort, and fatigue, which often results in decreased quality of life (QOL). Proper screening and treatment may improve QOL.

A study by Kumru and colleagues showed a similar rate of RLS in patients with SCI and RLS symptoms presented in the first year after SCI as did this study (18% vs 19%, respectively).⁴ In that study, RLS was more common in patients with lesions in lumbosacral area. Kumru and colleagues also showed that a dopaminergic medication improved symptoms of RLS in this population, whereas this study did not explore treatment outcomes.⁴

The pathogenesis of RLS is not fully known, but hereditary factors, iron metabolism, and the brain dopaminergic system are thought to be involved.¹¹ It is hypothesized that spinal cord lesions allow the appearance of RLS symptoms and spinal leg movement generator by blocking descending inhibitory spinal pathways.¹² One hypothesis is that damage to A11 nuclei (the main source of dopamine in the spinal cord or its diencephalospinal tract in animals) causes hyperexcitability of the spinal cord and leads to PLM and RLS symptoms.¹³ As the axons of A11 nuclei are present along the whole span of the spinal cord, SCI/D in patients with RLS might interrupt this dopaminergic tract and produce the RLS symptoms.

Limitations

This study included only veterans, so the prevalence may not apply to the nonveteran SCI population. Also, the population mainly was male, and there was no accurate information on race. Ferritin levels of the patients were not checked and is a major factor in RLS. The reported onset of RLS after the SCI could be due to recall bias.

Conclusion

The prevalence of RLS in veterans with SCI is above that reported in the general population (19% vs 10%, respectively). Furthermore, those with RLS have symptoms that often started after the SCI (suggesting causality) and required therapy due to their level of RLS symptom burden. A spectrum of severity of symptoms is present among those with RLS, with 83% having moderate-to-severe RLS affecting their QOL.

Although there was not a statistically significant relationship between RLS and spinal cord lesion level, there was a slightly higher prevalence of RLS at the cervical and thoracic levels, which may be relevant for future studies. There was no difference found between the RLS subgroups with respect to the location of the lesion within the spinal cord; however, a larger sample size may be needed to determine whether this would reach statistical significance. Prompt search for symptoms of RLS in veterans with SCI is warranted to provide adequate treatment to improve sleep health and QOL in this population.

Nurse practitioners (and PAs, I would submit) have been the most researched group of health care professionals since the inception of the role. Much of that research has focused on evaluating our contributions to primary care. Numerous studies of NP performance in various settings have concluded that we perform as well as physicians with respect to patient outcomes, proper diagnosis, management of specific medical conditions, and patient satisfaction.¹

Over the past 10 years, however, the interest in our roles has shifted from the primary care arena to the emergency department (ED). Even before the introduction of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), two-thirds of all EDs utilized NPs and PAs.² The ACA increased the number of Americans with insurance coverage, resulting in a greater demand for health care services—including ED utilization. Faced with an already strained system, hospital administrators looked for a solution and found one: hiring NPs and PAs to augment the clinician workforce.

This decision to (increasingly) employ NPs and PAs in ED settings was based on a desire to reduce wait times, increase throughput, improve access to care, and control costs. For the most part, these goals have been achieved. A systematic review of the impact of NPs in the ED on quality of care and patient satisfaction demonstrated a reduction in wait times.³ Moreover, in a national survey that included a review of the types of visits made to the ED, NPs and PAs were comparable to MDs in terms of reasons for care, diagnosis, and treatment.⁴

Given these results, I again ask: What was the intent of the research by Bai et al?⁵ Surely proper and prompt care is the goal of every ED provider. So the decision to examine only the billing is confounding.

Are the authors suggesting that hospital administrators prefer employing NPs and PAs over MDs? Are we replacing physicians in certain areas or filling voids where the physician workforce is inadequate to meet the community demands? Maybe yes to both. But, if the goal is to improve access, then we should focus on meeting the needs and on the quality of the care, not on who bills for it.

My cynical self says the goal of Bai et al was to establish that NPs and PAs are taking the jobs of ED physicians, and we must be stopped! Am I tilting at windmills with this train of thought? Next week, we’ll conclude our examination and draw our own conclusions! You can join the conversation by writing to [email protected].

Nurse practitioners (and PAs, I would submit) have been the most researched group of health care professionals since the inception of the role. Much of that research has focused on evaluating our contributions to primary care. Numerous studies of NP performance in various settings have concluded that we perform as well as physicians with respect to patient outcomes, proper diagnosis, management of specific medical conditions, and patient satisfaction.¹

Over the past 10 years, however, the interest in our roles has shifted from the primary care arena to the emergency department (ED). Even before the introduction of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), two-thirds of all EDs utilized NPs and PAs.² The ACA increased the number of Americans with insurance coverage, resulting in a greater demand for health care services—including ED utilization. Faced with an already strained system, hospital administrators looked for a solution and found one: hiring NPs and PAs to augment the clinician workforce.

This decision to (increasingly) employ NPs and PAs in ED settings was based on a desire to reduce wait times, increase throughput, improve access to care, and control costs. For the most part, these goals have been achieved. A systematic review of the impact of NPs in the ED on quality of care and patient satisfaction demonstrated a reduction in wait times.³ Moreover, in a national survey that included a review of the types of visits made to the ED, NPs and PAs were comparable to MDs in terms of reasons for care, diagnosis, and treatment.⁴

Given these results, I again ask: What was the intent of the research by Bai et al?⁵ Surely proper and prompt care is the goal of every ED provider. So the decision to examine only the billing is confounding.

Are the authors suggesting that hospital administrators prefer employing NPs and PAs over MDs? Are we replacing physicians in certain areas or filling voids where the physician workforce is inadequate to meet the community demands? Maybe yes to both. But, if the goal is to improve access, then we should focus on meeting the needs and on the quality of the care, not on who bills for it.

My cynical self says the goal of Bai et al was to establish that NPs and PAs are taking the jobs of ED physicians, and we must be stopped! Am I tilting at windmills with this train of thought? Next week, we’ll conclude our examination and draw our own conclusions! You can join the conversation by writing to [email protected].

Nurse practitioners (and PAs, I would submit) have been the most researched group of health care professionals since the inception of the role. Much of that research has focused on evaluating our contributions to primary care. Numerous studies of NP performance in various settings have concluded that we perform as well as physicians with respect to patient outcomes, proper diagnosis, management of specific medical conditions, and patient satisfaction.¹

Over the past 10 years, however, the interest in our roles has shifted from the primary care arena to the emergency department (ED). Even before the introduction of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), two-thirds of all EDs utilized NPs and PAs.² The ACA increased the number of Americans with insurance coverage, resulting in a greater demand for health care services—including ED utilization. Faced with an already strained system, hospital administrators looked for a solution and found one: hiring NPs and PAs to augment the clinician workforce.

This decision to (increasingly) employ NPs and PAs in ED settings was based on a desire to reduce wait times, increase throughput, improve access to care, and control costs. For the most part, these goals have been achieved. A systematic review of the impact of NPs in the ED on quality of care and patient satisfaction demonstrated a reduction in wait times.³ Moreover, in a national survey that included a review of the types of visits made to the ED, NPs and PAs were comparable to MDs in terms of reasons for care, diagnosis, and treatment.⁴

Given these results, I again ask: What was the intent of the research by Bai et al?⁵ Surely proper and prompt care is the goal of every ED provider. So the decision to examine only the billing is confounding.

Are the authors suggesting that hospital administrators prefer employing NPs and PAs over MDs? Are we replacing physicians in certain areas or filling voids where the physician workforce is inadequate to meet the community demands? Maybe yes to both. But, if the goal is to improve access, then we should focus on meeting the needs and on the quality of the care, not on who bills for it.

My cynical self says the goal of Bai et al was to establish that NPs and PAs are taking the jobs of ED physicians, and we must be stopped! Am I tilting at windmills with this train of thought? Next week, we’ll conclude our examination and draw our own conclusions! You can join the conversation by writing to [email protected].

The findings of two randomized clinical trials indicate that vitamin D supplementation does not improve clinical outcomes in patients with advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer or gastrointestinal cancer. The results of the SUNSHINE and AMATERASU trials were published in JAMA.

The SUNSHINE clinical trial was a double-blind, multicenter, phase 2 study that included 139 patients with metastatic or unresectable advanced colorectal cancer. Participants were randomized to receive either high-dose (8000 IU/day for 2 weeks and 4000 IU/day afterward) or standard-dose (400 IU/day) oral vitamin D₃ that was given concomitantly with standard chemotherapy.

The primary outcome measured was median progression-free survival, while overall survival was measured as a secondary endpoint.

“Participants continued to receive treatment until disease progression, intolerable toxicity, or decision to discontinue treatment,” wrote Kimmie Ng, MD, MPH, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston and her colleagues.

The AMATERASU clinical trial was a double-blind, placebo-controlled study of 417 patients with digestive tract cancers conducted at a single center in Japan. Participants were randomized to receive either oral vitamin D (2000 IU/day) or placebo over a maximum duration of 7.6 years.

The primary outcome measured was relapse-free survival (time to cancer relapse or death); overall survival (time to death of any cause) was also included as a secondary endpoint.

“Safety outcomes comprised bone fractures, urinary stones, serious events requiring admission, and new (de novo) cancer,” Mitsuyoshi Urashima, MD, of Jikei University in Tokyo, Japan, wrote with his colleagues.

After analysis, the results of both trials were found to be comparable because the adjusted measures for progression- or relapse-free survival were similar. In addition, both studies showed no differences in overall survival.

Dr. Ng and her colleagues reported that there was a statistically nonsignificant rise in median progression-free survival in participants given high-dose versus standard dose vitamin D₃ (13 vs. 11 months, respectively; P = .07), according to results from the SUNSHINE study. The overall survival was the same in both arms (median survival, 24.3 months; P = .43).

Dr. Urashima and his colleagues reported that there was no significant improvement in relapse-free survival in patients treated with vitamin D versus those treated with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.50-1.14; P = .18), according to results from the AMATERASU study. In addition, no benefit was seen for overall survival (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.57-1.57).

With respect to safety, neither study reported an increase in toxicity from vitamin D supplementation, and a possible benefit of reduced diarrhea was seen in the SUNSHINE study. Given the preliminary nature of these results, further confirmatory studies that include longer follow-up periods and improved measures of survival are necessary.

“These findings warrant further evaluation in a larger multicenter randomized clinical trial,” Dr. Ng and her colleagues wrote.

“Vitamin D supplementation did not improve relapse-free survival among patients with digestive tract cancer,” Dr. Urashima and his colleagues concluded.

The SUNSHINE clinical trial was supported by grant funding from the National Institutes of Health’s National Cancer Institute. Additional funding was provided by the Gloria Spivak Faculty Advancement Award, Friends of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Award, Project P Fund, Consano, Pharmavite, and Genentech.

The AMATERASU clinical trial was supported by funding from the Japan-Supported Program for the Strategic Research Foundation at Private Universities, the International University of Health and Welfare Hospital, and the Jikei University School of Medicine.

The authors of both studies reported multiple associations with pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Ng K et al. JAMA. 2019 Apr 9. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.2402; Urashima M et al. JAMA. 2019 Apr 9. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.2210.

The findings of two randomized clinical trials indicate that vitamin D supplementation does not improve clinical outcomes in patients with advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer or gastrointestinal cancer. The results of the SUNSHINE and AMATERASU trials were published in JAMA.

The SUNSHINE clinical trial was a double-blind, multicenter, phase 2 study that included 139 patients with metastatic or unresectable advanced colorectal cancer. Participants were randomized to receive either high-dose (8000 IU/day for 2 weeks and 4000 IU/day afterward) or standard-dose (400 IU/day) oral vitamin D₃ that was given concomitantly with standard chemotherapy.

The primary outcome measured was median progression-free survival, while overall survival was measured as a secondary endpoint.

“Participants continued to receive treatment until disease progression, intolerable toxicity, or decision to discontinue treatment,” wrote Kimmie Ng, MD, MPH, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston and her colleagues.

The AMATERASU clinical trial was a double-blind, placebo-controlled study of 417 patients with digestive tract cancers conducted at a single center in Japan. Participants were randomized to receive either oral vitamin D (2000 IU/day) or placebo over a maximum duration of 7.6 years.

The primary outcome measured was relapse-free survival (time to cancer relapse or death); overall survival (time to death of any cause) was also included as a secondary endpoint.

“Safety outcomes comprised bone fractures, urinary stones, serious events requiring admission, and new (de novo) cancer,” Mitsuyoshi Urashima, MD, of Jikei University in Tokyo, Japan, wrote with his colleagues.

After analysis, the results of both trials were found to be comparable because the adjusted measures for progression- or relapse-free survival were similar. In addition, both studies showed no differences in overall survival.

Dr. Ng and her colleagues reported that there was a statistically nonsignificant rise in median progression-free survival in participants given high-dose versus standard dose vitamin D₃ (13 vs. 11 months, respectively; P = .07), according to results from the SUNSHINE study. The overall survival was the same in both arms (median survival, 24.3 months; P = .43).

Dr. Urashima and his colleagues reported that there was no significant improvement in relapse-free survival in patients treated with vitamin D versus those treated with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.50-1.14; P = .18), according to results from the AMATERASU study. In addition, no benefit was seen for overall survival (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.57-1.57).

With respect to safety, neither study reported an increase in toxicity from vitamin D supplementation, and a possible benefit of reduced diarrhea was seen in the SUNSHINE study. Given the preliminary nature of these results, further confirmatory studies that include longer follow-up periods and improved measures of survival are necessary.

“These findings warrant further evaluation in a larger multicenter randomized clinical trial,” Dr. Ng and her colleagues wrote.

“Vitamin D supplementation did not improve relapse-free survival among patients with digestive tract cancer,” Dr. Urashima and his colleagues concluded.

The SUNSHINE clinical trial was supported by grant funding from the National Institutes of Health’s National Cancer Institute. Additional funding was provided by the Gloria Spivak Faculty Advancement Award, Friends of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Award, Project P Fund, Consano, Pharmavite, and Genentech.

The AMATERASU clinical trial was supported by funding from the Japan-Supported Program for the Strategic Research Foundation at Private Universities, the International University of Health and Welfare Hospital, and the Jikei University School of Medicine.

The authors of both studies reported multiple associations with pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Ng K et al. JAMA. 2019 Apr 9. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.2402; Urashima M et al. JAMA. 2019 Apr 9. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.2210.

The findings of two randomized clinical trials indicate that vitamin D supplementation does not improve clinical outcomes in patients with advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer or gastrointestinal cancer. The results of the SUNSHINE and AMATERASU trials were published in JAMA.

The SUNSHINE clinical trial was a double-blind, multicenter, phase 2 study that included 139 patients with metastatic or unresectable advanced colorectal cancer. Participants were randomized to receive either high-dose (8000 IU/day for 2 weeks and 4000 IU/day afterward) or standard-dose (400 IU/day) oral vitamin D₃ that was given concomitantly with standard chemotherapy.

The primary outcome measured was median progression-free survival, while overall survival was measured as a secondary endpoint.

“Participants continued to receive treatment until disease progression, intolerable toxicity, or decision to discontinue treatment,” wrote Kimmie Ng, MD, MPH, of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston and her colleagues.

The AMATERASU clinical trial was a double-blind, placebo-controlled study of 417 patients with digestive tract cancers conducted at a single center in Japan. Participants were randomized to receive either oral vitamin D (2000 IU/day) or placebo over a maximum duration of 7.6 years.

The primary outcome measured was relapse-free survival (time to cancer relapse or death); overall survival (time to death of any cause) was also included as a secondary endpoint.

“Safety outcomes comprised bone fractures, urinary stones, serious events requiring admission, and new (de novo) cancer,” Mitsuyoshi Urashima, MD, of Jikei University in Tokyo, Japan, wrote with his colleagues.

After analysis, the results of both trials were found to be comparable because the adjusted measures for progression- or relapse-free survival were similar. In addition, both studies showed no differences in overall survival.

Dr. Ng and her colleagues reported that there was a statistically nonsignificant rise in median progression-free survival in participants given high-dose versus standard dose vitamin D₃ (13 vs. 11 months, respectively; P = .07), according to results from the SUNSHINE study. The overall survival was the same in both arms (median survival, 24.3 months; P = .43).

Dr. Urashima and his colleagues reported that there was no significant improvement in relapse-free survival in patients treated with vitamin D versus those treated with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.50-1.14; P = .18), according to results from the AMATERASU study. In addition, no benefit was seen for overall survival (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.57-1.57).

With respect to safety, neither study reported an increase in toxicity from vitamin D supplementation, and a possible benefit of reduced diarrhea was seen in the SUNSHINE study. Given the preliminary nature of these results, further confirmatory studies that include longer follow-up periods and improved measures of survival are necessary.

“These findings warrant further evaluation in a larger multicenter randomized clinical trial,” Dr. Ng and her colleagues wrote.

“Vitamin D supplementation did not improve relapse-free survival among patients with digestive tract cancer,” Dr. Urashima and his colleagues concluded.

The SUNSHINE clinical trial was supported by grant funding from the National Institutes of Health’s National Cancer Institute. Additional funding was provided by the Gloria Spivak Faculty Advancement Award, Friends of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Award, Project P Fund, Consano, Pharmavite, and Genentech.

The AMATERASU clinical trial was supported by funding from the Japan-Supported Program for the Strategic Research Foundation at Private Universities, the International University of Health and Welfare Hospital, and the Jikei University School of Medicine.

The authors of both studies reported multiple associations with pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Ng K et al. JAMA. 2019 Apr 9. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.2402; Urashima M et al. JAMA. 2019 Apr 9. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.2210.

I have been amazed at psychiatrists who could see a patient who was obviously acutely psychotic and tell whether they had schizophrenia or bipolar disorder while the patient was acutely psychotic. I am amazed because I cannot do it, although I used to think I could.

Earlier in my career, I would see patients who were floridly psychotic who would have all the symptoms of schizophrenia, and I would think “Yep, they have schizophrenia, all right.” After all, when I was starting out in psychiatry, I thought that Schneiderian first-rank symptoms were pathognomonic of schizophrenia, but research later showed that these first-rank symptoms could also be characteristic of dissociative disorder.

I quickly learned that some of the patients I thought had schizophrenia would recover and return to their premorbid level of functioning after the psychotic episode. Accordingly, by definition – for example, there was not a deterioration of psychosocial functioning after their psychotic episode – I would have to revise their diagnosis to bipolar disorder.

Finally, I got hip and realized that I could not determine patients’ diagnoses when they were acutely psychotic, and I started diagnosing patients as having a psychosis not otherwise specified (NOS).

Of course, using the NOS designation made many of my academic colleagues scoff at my diagnostic skills, but then I read the DSM-IV Guidebook by Frances, First, and Pincus (1995), and it was explained the NOS designation was wrongly maligned. Apparently, it was learned that there was extensive comorbidity between various diagnostic categories, and, it was explicated, approximately 50% of patients could not fit neatly into any specific diagnostic category. In fact, regarding psychotic and affective disorders, depending on how good a history patients and/or their family could deliver, it would sometimes take the resolution of the patients’ psychosis before it became clear that they were or were not going to return to premorbid functioning or continue to show significant psychosocial deterioration.

Since psychiatrists do not yet have objective diagnostic tests to determine whether a psychotic patient has some form of schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, it seems to me that we should be more prudent about diagnosing a patient with either two diagnoses, because I do not think we can tell the patients’ post psychotic outcomes.

I recently had one patient who had been hospitalized for 39 days, and, who was so acutely floridly psychotic, I did not think she was going to recover. She was on antipsychotic medication at bedtime and other mood stabilizers during the day, but she had to be in soft restraints for a significant period of time and was getting several antipsychotic medication injections daily because she was extremely rambunctious and dangerously disruptive on the medical-surgical/psychiatric floor. Finally, when I reluctantly added lithium to her treatment regimen (I was unenthusiastic about putting her on lithium, which had worked for her in the past, because her kidneys were not functioning well and she had arrived at the hospital with lithium toxicity), she recovered. The transformation was remarkable.

So, it seems to me that a functional outcome assessment should determine the difference between patients who have bipolar disorder and schizophrenia as, by definition, if you do not have a deterioration in your psychosocial functioning you probably have bipolar disorder, and if you do have a deterioration in your psychosocial functioning you probably have schizophrenia. From a practical standpoint, post psychotic functioning is a major distinction between these two diagnoses by definition, and, since we don’t have objective measures to delineate bipolar disorder from schizophrenia (some studies have shown there is remarkable overlap between these two disorders), it seems to me we should give more consideration to post psychotic functioning, instead of trying to nail the patients’ diagnoses when they are acutely psychotic.

Dr. Bell is a staff psychiatrist at Jackson Park Hospital’s medical/surgical-psychiatry inpatient unit in Chicago, clinical psychiatrist emeritus in the department of psychiatry at the University of Illinois at Chicago, former president/CEO of Community Mental Health Council, and former director of the Institute for Juvenile Research (birthplace of child psychiatry), also in Chicago. Be sure to check out Dr. Bell’s new book Fetal Alcohol Exposure in the African-American Community.

I have been amazed at psychiatrists who could see a patient who was obviously acutely psychotic and tell whether they had schizophrenia or bipolar disorder while the patient was acutely psychotic. I am amazed because I cannot do it, although I used to think I could.

Earlier in my career, I would see patients who were floridly psychotic who would have all the symptoms of schizophrenia, and I would think “Yep, they have schizophrenia, all right.” After all, when I was starting out in psychiatry, I thought that Schneiderian first-rank symptoms were pathognomonic of schizophrenia, but research later showed that these first-rank symptoms could also be characteristic of dissociative disorder.

I quickly learned that some of the patients I thought had schizophrenia would recover and return to their premorbid level of functioning after the psychotic episode. Accordingly, by definition – for example, there was not a deterioration of psychosocial functioning after their psychotic episode – I would have to revise their diagnosis to bipolar disorder.

Finally, I got hip and realized that I could not determine patients’ diagnoses when they were acutely psychotic, and I started diagnosing patients as having a psychosis not otherwise specified (NOS).

Of course, using the NOS designation made many of my academic colleagues scoff at my diagnostic skills, but then I read the DSM-IV Guidebook by Frances, First, and Pincus (1995), and it was explained the NOS designation was wrongly maligned. Apparently, it was learned that there was extensive comorbidity between various diagnostic categories, and, it was explicated, approximately 50% of patients could not fit neatly into any specific diagnostic category. In fact, regarding psychotic and affective disorders, depending on how good a history patients and/or their family could deliver, it would sometimes take the resolution of the patients’ psychosis before it became clear that they were or were not going to return to premorbid functioning or continue to show significant psychosocial deterioration.

Since psychiatrists do not yet have objective diagnostic tests to determine whether a psychotic patient has some form of schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, it seems to me that we should be more prudent about diagnosing a patient with either two diagnoses, because I do not think we can tell the patients’ post psychotic outcomes.

I recently had one patient who had been hospitalized for 39 days, and, who was so acutely floridly psychotic, I did not think she was going to recover. She was on antipsychotic medication at bedtime and other mood stabilizers during the day, but she had to be in soft restraints for a significant period of time and was getting several antipsychotic medication injections daily because she was extremely rambunctious and dangerously disruptive on the medical-surgical/psychiatric floor. Finally, when I reluctantly added lithium to her treatment regimen (I was unenthusiastic about putting her on lithium, which had worked for her in the past, because her kidneys were not functioning well and she had arrived at the hospital with lithium toxicity), she recovered. The transformation was remarkable.

So, it seems to me that a functional outcome assessment should determine the difference between patients who have bipolar disorder and schizophrenia as, by definition, if you do not have a deterioration in your psychosocial functioning you probably have bipolar disorder, and if you do have a deterioration in your psychosocial functioning you probably have schizophrenia. From a practical standpoint, post psychotic functioning is a major distinction between these two diagnoses by definition, and, since we don’t have objective measures to delineate bipolar disorder from schizophrenia (some studies have shown there is remarkable overlap between these two disorders), it seems to me we should give more consideration to post psychotic functioning, instead of trying to nail the patients’ diagnoses when they are acutely psychotic.

Dr. Bell is a staff psychiatrist at Jackson Park Hospital’s medical/surgical-psychiatry inpatient unit in Chicago, clinical psychiatrist emeritus in the department of psychiatry at the University of Illinois at Chicago, former president/CEO of Community Mental Health Council, and former director of the Institute for Juvenile Research (birthplace of child psychiatry), also in Chicago. Be sure to check out Dr. Bell’s new book Fetal Alcohol Exposure in the African-American Community.

I have been amazed at psychiatrists who could see a patient who was obviously acutely psychotic and tell whether they had schizophrenia or bipolar disorder while the patient was acutely psychotic. I am amazed because I cannot do it, although I used to think I could.

Earlier in my career, I would see patients who were floridly psychotic who would have all the symptoms of schizophrenia, and I would think “Yep, they have schizophrenia, all right.” After all, when I was starting out in psychiatry, I thought that Schneiderian first-rank symptoms were pathognomonic of schizophrenia, but research later showed that these first-rank symptoms could also be characteristic of dissociative disorder.

I quickly learned that some of the patients I thought had schizophrenia would recover and return to their premorbid level of functioning after the psychotic episode. Accordingly, by definition – for example, there was not a deterioration of psychosocial functioning after their psychotic episode – I would have to revise their diagnosis to bipolar disorder.

Finally, I got hip and realized that I could not determine patients’ diagnoses when they were acutely psychotic, and I started diagnosing patients as having a psychosis not otherwise specified (NOS).

Of course, using the NOS designation made many of my academic colleagues scoff at my diagnostic skills, but then I read the DSM-IV Guidebook by Frances, First, and Pincus (1995), and it was explained the NOS designation was wrongly maligned. Apparently, it was learned that there was extensive comorbidity between various diagnostic categories, and, it was explicated, approximately 50% of patients could not fit neatly into any specific diagnostic category. In fact, regarding psychotic and affective disorders, depending on how good a history patients and/or their family could deliver, it would sometimes take the resolution of the patients’ psychosis before it became clear that they were or were not going to return to premorbid functioning or continue to show significant psychosocial deterioration.

Since psychiatrists do not yet have objective diagnostic tests to determine whether a psychotic patient has some form of schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, it seems to me that we should be more prudent about diagnosing a patient with either two diagnoses, because I do not think we can tell the patients’ post psychotic outcomes.

I recently had one patient who had been hospitalized for 39 days, and, who was so acutely floridly psychotic, I did not think she was going to recover. She was on antipsychotic medication at bedtime and other mood stabilizers during the day, but she had to be in soft restraints for a significant period of time and was getting several antipsychotic medication injections daily because she was extremely rambunctious and dangerously disruptive on the medical-surgical/psychiatric floor. Finally, when I reluctantly added lithium to her treatment regimen (I was unenthusiastic about putting her on lithium, which had worked for her in the past, because her kidneys were not functioning well and she had arrived at the hospital with lithium toxicity), she recovered. The transformation was remarkable.

So, it seems to me that a functional outcome assessment should determine the difference between patients who have bipolar disorder and schizophrenia as, by definition, if you do not have a deterioration in your psychosocial functioning you probably have bipolar disorder, and if you do have a deterioration in your psychosocial functioning you probably have schizophrenia. From a practical standpoint, post psychotic functioning is a major distinction between these two diagnoses by definition, and, since we don’t have objective measures to delineate bipolar disorder from schizophrenia (some studies have shown there is remarkable overlap between these two disorders), it seems to me we should give more consideration to post psychotic functioning, instead of trying to nail the patients’ diagnoses when they are acutely psychotic.

Dr. Bell is a staff psychiatrist at Jackson Park Hospital’s medical/surgical-psychiatry inpatient unit in Chicago, clinical psychiatrist emeritus in the department of psychiatry at the University of Illinois at Chicago, former president/CEO of Community Mental Health Council, and former director of the Institute for Juvenile Research (birthplace of child psychiatry), also in Chicago. Be sure to check out Dr. Bell’s new book Fetal Alcohol Exposure in the African-American Community.

The Food and Drug Administration has ordered companies to immediately cease selling transvaginal mesh intended for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) repair.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

The mandate came after Boston Scientific and Coloplast failed to provide adequate safety and efficacy information to the federal regulatory body in the wake of a 2016 reclassification to Class III (high-risk) devices, according to an FDA press statement. Both companies were required to submit a premarket approval application to continue marketing the mesh in the United States. Boston Scientific did file two PMAs, one for each of its transvaginal mesh products, but the FDA said the applications did not contain the required efficacy and safety data.

Both companies will have 10 days to submit their plan to withdraw these products from the market.

“In order for these mesh devices to stay on the market, we determined that we needed evidence that they worked better than surgery without the use of mesh to repair POP. That evidence was lacking in these premarket applications, and we couldn’t assure women that these devices were safe and effective long term,” said Jeffrey Shuren, MD, director of FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health. “Patient safety is our highest priority, and women must have access to safe medical devices that provide relief from symptoms and better management of their medical conditions. The FDA has committed to taking forceful new actions to enhance device safety and encourage innovations that lead to safer medical devices, so that patients have access to safe and effective medical devices and the information they need to make informed decisions about their care.”

The deadline for submitting premarket approval applications for POP repair with transvaginal mesh was July 5, 2018. Manufacturers that did not file PMAs were required to pull their devices from the market. Those that did could keep selling the mesh while FDA reviewed their PMAs.

Boston Scientific submitted PMAs for its two devices, the Uphold LITE Vaginal Support System and the Xenform Soft Tissue Repair System. Coloplast filed a PMA for its device, Restorelle DirectFix Anterior. But in February, the FDA convened an advisory panel to discuss just how to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the products.

To prove efficacy, the panel concluded, transvaginal POP repair with mesh should be better than repair with native tissue at 36 months, and the safety should be superior to repair with native tissue repair. The FDA agreed. However, the submitted premarket approval application did not include these kinds of data. Therefore, the agency declined to approve the devices.

In addition to stopping U.S. sales, FDA has required Boston Scientific and Coloplast to continue safety and efficacy follow-up of all women included in their 522 studies.

Coloplast did not have a press or public statement on its website as of April 16. Boston Scientific did have one.

“Up to 50% of women in the U.S. will suffer from POP during their lives, and we believe these women should have access to safe and effective treatment options,” according to the statement. “As a global leader in the pelvic floor space, we remain steadfast in our commitment to helping women live better and healthier lives. We also remain confident in the benefits and safety of our treatments for POP, and we look forward to continuing to work with the FDA on our PMAs for the Uphold LITE Vaginal Support System and the Xenform Soft Tissue Repair Matrix, which are currently under review.”

The FDA statement also included advice to women who have had the mesh procedure for POP, and for their physicians

“Women who have had transvaginal mesh placed for the surgical repair of POP should continue with their annual and other routine check-ups and follow-up care. There is no need to take additional action if they are satisfied with their surgery and are not having complications or symptoms. Patients should notify their health care professionals if they have complications or symptoms, including persistent vaginal bleeding or discharge, pelvic or groin pain, or pain with sex. They should also let their health care professional know if they have surgical mesh, especially if they plan to have another surgery or other medical procedures. Women who were planning to have mesh placed transvaginally for the repair of POP should discuss other treatment options with their doctors.”

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has ordered companies to immediately cease selling transvaginal mesh intended for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) repair.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

The mandate came after Boston Scientific and Coloplast failed to provide adequate safety and efficacy information to the federal regulatory body in the wake of a 2016 reclassification to Class III (high-risk) devices, according to an FDA press statement. Both companies were required to submit a premarket approval application to continue marketing the mesh in the United States. Boston Scientific did file two PMAs, one for each of its transvaginal mesh products, but the FDA said the applications did not contain the required efficacy and safety data.

Both companies will have 10 days to submit their plan to withdraw these products from the market.

“In order for these mesh devices to stay on the market, we determined that we needed evidence that they worked better than surgery without the use of mesh to repair POP. That evidence was lacking in these premarket applications, and we couldn’t assure women that these devices were safe and effective long term,” said Jeffrey Shuren, MD, director of FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health. “Patient safety is our highest priority, and women must have access to safe medical devices that provide relief from symptoms and better management of their medical conditions. The FDA has committed to taking forceful new actions to enhance device safety and encourage innovations that lead to safer medical devices, so that patients have access to safe and effective medical devices and the information they need to make informed decisions about their care.”

The deadline for submitting premarket approval applications for POP repair with transvaginal mesh was July 5, 2018. Manufacturers that did not file PMAs were required to pull their devices from the market. Those that did could keep selling the mesh while FDA reviewed their PMAs.

Boston Scientific submitted PMAs for its two devices, the Uphold LITE Vaginal Support System and the Xenform Soft Tissue Repair System. Coloplast filed a PMA for its device, Restorelle DirectFix Anterior. But in February, the FDA convened an advisory panel to discuss just how to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the products.

To prove efficacy, the panel concluded, transvaginal POP repair with mesh should be better than repair with native tissue at 36 months, and the safety should be superior to repair with native tissue repair. The FDA agreed. However, the submitted premarket approval application did not include these kinds of data. Therefore, the agency declined to approve the devices.

In addition to stopping U.S. sales, FDA has required Boston Scientific and Coloplast to continue safety and efficacy follow-up of all women included in their 522 studies.

Coloplast did not have a press or public statement on its website as of April 16. Boston Scientific did have one.

“Up to 50% of women in the U.S. will suffer from POP during their lives, and we believe these women should have access to safe and effective treatment options,” according to the statement. “As a global leader in the pelvic floor space, we remain steadfast in our commitment to helping women live better and healthier lives. We also remain confident in the benefits and safety of our treatments for POP, and we look forward to continuing to work with the FDA on our PMAs for the Uphold LITE Vaginal Support System and the Xenform Soft Tissue Repair Matrix, which are currently under review.”

The FDA statement also included advice to women who have had the mesh procedure for POP, and for their physicians

“Women who have had transvaginal mesh placed for the surgical repair of POP should continue with their annual and other routine check-ups and follow-up care. There is no need to take additional action if they are satisfied with their surgery and are not having complications or symptoms. Patients should notify their health care professionals if they have complications or symptoms, including persistent vaginal bleeding or discharge, pelvic or groin pain, or pain with sex. They should also let their health care professional know if they have surgical mesh, especially if they plan to have another surgery or other medical procedures. Women who were planning to have mesh placed transvaginally for the repair of POP should discuss other treatment options with their doctors.”

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has ordered companies to immediately cease selling transvaginal mesh intended for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) repair.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/Creative Commons License

The mandate came after Boston Scientific and Coloplast failed to provide adequate safety and efficacy information to the federal regulatory body in the wake of a 2016 reclassification to Class III (high-risk) devices, according to an FDA press statement. Both companies were required to submit a premarket approval application to continue marketing the mesh in the United States. Boston Scientific did file two PMAs, one for each of its transvaginal mesh products, but the FDA said the applications did not contain the required efficacy and safety data.

Both companies will have 10 days to submit their plan to withdraw these products from the market.

“In order for these mesh devices to stay on the market, we determined that we needed evidence that they worked better than surgery without the use of mesh to repair POP. That evidence was lacking in these premarket applications, and we couldn’t assure women that these devices were safe and effective long term,” said Jeffrey Shuren, MD, director of FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health. “Patient safety is our highest priority, and women must have access to safe medical devices that provide relief from symptoms and better management of their medical conditions. The FDA has committed to taking forceful new actions to enhance device safety and encourage innovations that lead to safer medical devices, so that patients have access to safe and effective medical devices and the information they need to make informed decisions about their care.”

The deadline for submitting premarket approval applications for POP repair with transvaginal mesh was July 5, 2018. Manufacturers that did not file PMAs were required to pull their devices from the market. Those that did could keep selling the mesh while FDA reviewed their PMAs.

Boston Scientific submitted PMAs for its two devices, the Uphold LITE Vaginal Support System and the Xenform Soft Tissue Repair System. Coloplast filed a PMA for its device, Restorelle DirectFix Anterior. But in February, the FDA convened an advisory panel to discuss just how to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the products.

To prove efficacy, the panel concluded, transvaginal POP repair with mesh should be better than repair with native tissue at 36 months, and the safety should be superior to repair with native tissue repair. The FDA agreed. However, the submitted premarket approval application did not include these kinds of data. Therefore, the agency declined to approve the devices.

In addition to stopping U.S. sales, FDA has required Boston Scientific and Coloplast to continue safety and efficacy follow-up of all women included in their 522 studies.

Coloplast did not have a press or public statement on its website as of April 16. Boston Scientific did have one.

“Up to 50% of women in the U.S. will suffer from POP during their lives, and we believe these women should have access to safe and effective treatment options,” according to the statement. “As a global leader in the pelvic floor space, we remain steadfast in our commitment to helping women live better and healthier lives. We also remain confident in the benefits and safety of our treatments for POP, and we look forward to continuing to work with the FDA on our PMAs for the Uphold LITE Vaginal Support System and the Xenform Soft Tissue Repair Matrix, which are currently under review.”

The FDA statement also included advice to women who have had the mesh procedure for POP, and for their physicians

“Women who have had transvaginal mesh placed for the surgical repair of POP should continue with their annual and other routine check-ups and follow-up care. There is no need to take additional action if they are satisfied with their surgery and are not having complications or symptoms. Patients should notify their health care professionals if they have complications or symptoms, including persistent vaginal bleeding or discharge, pelvic or groin pain, or pain with sex. They should also let their health care professional know if they have surgical mesh, especially if they plan to have another surgery or other medical procedures. Women who were planning to have mesh placed transvaginally for the repair of POP should discuss other treatment options with their doctors.”

[email protected]

TUCSON, ARIZ. – Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) has been demonstrated to improve patient outcomes after hysterectomy, but physicians should be prepared for a significant uptick in unscheduled patient encounters. A retrospective study at the Mayo Clinic Arizona found a near doubling in the percentage of patients who had contact with the medical system in the 2 weeks following surgery.

“That’s a big change and a burden for the clinician, so they need to anticipate that,” Rachael Haverland, MD, a fellow at Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, said in an interview at the annual scientific meeting of the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons.

“A lot of research has gone into the safety profile of ERAS, the cost-effectiveness of ERAS, and the effects on the patient, but there has not been a lot of research on how it affects the clinician’s practice. I think it’s very important for physicians to know that so that they can plan ahead, maybe add more clinical staff to help with some of these phone calls, and maybe setting aside special clinic time for unscheduled visits to address some of these patient concerns,” she added.

The most common issues revolve around pain management – how to take medications and how to manage pain in the context of few restrictions – suggesting that preoperative counseling could help. “Setting expectations for pain, going through their medication regimen after surgery so they know what medications they can take, how to control their pain, and their restrictions. We don’t have many restrictions. We want them walking even the same day, and there are no dietary restrictions. Just reiterating some of those facts, because it’s still new, especially to patients. They’re not used to having limited restrictions,” Dr. Haverland said.

Other patient concerns included dysuria and frequency of urination following surgery. The least common questions were related to activity restrictions, according to Dr. Haverland.

The researchers are developing a preoperative video for ERAS that they hope will improve matters. It aims to anticipate patient questions before and after surgery, and they plan to track its impact on clinician burden. “I’m hoping that when we do our next set of data that it cuts down on some of those unscheduled patient hours,” she said.

The researchers examined data from 200 hysterectomy patients. A total of 90 underwent surgery in 2012, before ERAS was implemented, and 110 in 2014, 1 year after ERAS was begun. They looked at patient phone calls, ED visits, and unscheduled postoperative visits.

Before ERAS, in the 2 weeks after surgery, 42.2% of patients had any medical care. That rose to 74.5% after ERAS. The difference seemed to be driven by phone calls, which rose from 38.9% before ERAS to 68.2% after (P less than .0001). There also was a trend toward more in-person visits (12.2% vs. 21.8%; odds ratio, 2.00; P = .08) and unscheduled office visits (10.0% vs. 18.2%; P = .01).

Patients undergoing a concomitant sling procedure were more likely to seek in-person medical care within 2 weeks regardless of ERAS protocol (OR, 3.16; P = .04). The researchers found no significant differences in readmission rates, operative time, blood loss, or ED visits.

The study received no funding. Dr. Haverland reported no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Haverland R et al. SGS 2019, Oral Poster 05.

TUCSON, ARIZ. – Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) has been demonstrated to improve patient outcomes after hysterectomy, but physicians should be prepared for a significant uptick in unscheduled patient encounters. A retrospective study at the Mayo Clinic Arizona found a near doubling in the percentage of patients who had contact with the medical system in the 2 weeks following surgery.

“That’s a big change and a burden for the clinician, so they need to anticipate that,” Rachael Haverland, MD, a fellow at Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, said in an interview at the annual scientific meeting of the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons.

“A lot of research has gone into the safety profile of ERAS, the cost-effectiveness of ERAS, and the effects on the patient, but there has not been a lot of research on how it affects the clinician’s practice. I think it’s very important for physicians to know that so that they can plan ahead, maybe add more clinical staff to help with some of these phone calls, and maybe setting aside special clinic time for unscheduled visits to address some of these patient concerns,” she added.

The most common issues revolve around pain management – how to take medications and how to manage pain in the context of few restrictions – suggesting that preoperative counseling could help. “Setting expectations for pain, going through their medication regimen after surgery so they know what medications they can take, how to control their pain, and their restrictions. We don’t have many restrictions. We want them walking even the same day, and there are no dietary restrictions. Just reiterating some of those facts, because it’s still new, especially to patients. They’re not used to having limited restrictions,” Dr. Haverland said.

Other patient concerns included dysuria and frequency of urination following surgery. The least common questions were related to activity restrictions, according to Dr. Haverland.

The researchers are developing a preoperative video for ERAS that they hope will improve matters. It aims to anticipate patient questions before and after surgery, and they plan to track its impact on clinician burden. “I’m hoping that when we do our next set of data that it cuts down on some of those unscheduled patient hours,” she said.

The researchers examined data from 200 hysterectomy patients. A total of 90 underwent surgery in 2012, before ERAS was implemented, and 110 in 2014, 1 year after ERAS was begun. They looked at patient phone calls, ED visits, and unscheduled postoperative visits.

Before ERAS, in the 2 weeks after surgery, 42.2% of patients had any medical care. That rose to 74.5% after ERAS. The difference seemed to be driven by phone calls, which rose from 38.9% before ERAS to 68.2% after (P less than .0001). There also was a trend toward more in-person visits (12.2% vs. 21.8%; odds ratio, 2.00; P = .08) and unscheduled office visits (10.0% vs. 18.2%; P = .01).

Patients undergoing a concomitant sling procedure were more likely to seek in-person medical care within 2 weeks regardless of ERAS protocol (OR, 3.16; P = .04). The researchers found no significant differences in readmission rates, operative time, blood loss, or ED visits.

The study received no funding. Dr. Haverland reported no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Haverland R et al. SGS 2019, Oral Poster 05.

TUCSON, ARIZ. – Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) has been demonstrated to improve patient outcomes after hysterectomy, but physicians should be prepared for a significant uptick in unscheduled patient encounters. A retrospective study at the Mayo Clinic Arizona found a near doubling in the percentage of patients who had contact with the medical system in the 2 weeks following surgery.

“That’s a big change and a burden for the clinician, so they need to anticipate that,” Rachael Haverland, MD, a fellow at Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, said in an interview at the annual scientific meeting of the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons.

“A lot of research has gone into the safety profile of ERAS, the cost-effectiveness of ERAS, and the effects on the patient, but there has not been a lot of research on how it affects the clinician’s practice. I think it’s very important for physicians to know that so that they can plan ahead, maybe add more clinical staff to help with some of these phone calls, and maybe setting aside special clinic time for unscheduled visits to address some of these patient concerns,” she added.

The most common issues revolve around pain management – how to take medications and how to manage pain in the context of few restrictions – suggesting that preoperative counseling could help. “Setting expectations for pain, going through their medication regimen after surgery so they know what medications they can take, how to control their pain, and their restrictions. We don’t have many restrictions. We want them walking even the same day, and there are no dietary restrictions. Just reiterating some of those facts, because it’s still new, especially to patients. They’re not used to having limited restrictions,” Dr. Haverland said.

Other patient concerns included dysuria and frequency of urination following surgery. The least common questions were related to activity restrictions, according to Dr. Haverland.

The researchers are developing a preoperative video for ERAS that they hope will improve matters. It aims to anticipate patient questions before and after surgery, and they plan to track its impact on clinician burden. “I’m hoping that when we do our next set of data that it cuts down on some of those unscheduled patient hours,” she said.

The researchers examined data from 200 hysterectomy patients. A total of 90 underwent surgery in 2012, before ERAS was implemented, and 110 in 2014, 1 year after ERAS was begun. They looked at patient phone calls, ED visits, and unscheduled postoperative visits.

Before ERAS, in the 2 weeks after surgery, 42.2% of patients had any medical care. That rose to 74.5% after ERAS. The difference seemed to be driven by phone calls, which rose from 38.9% before ERAS to 68.2% after (P less than .0001). There also was a trend toward more in-person visits (12.2% vs. 21.8%; odds ratio, 2.00; P = .08) and unscheduled office visits (10.0% vs. 18.2%; P = .01).

Patients undergoing a concomitant sling procedure were more likely to seek in-person medical care within 2 weeks regardless of ERAS protocol (OR, 3.16; P = .04). The researchers found no significant differences in readmission rates, operative time, blood loss, or ED visits.

The study received no funding. Dr. Haverland reported no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Haverland R et al. SGS 2019, Oral Poster 05.

BALTIMORE – Most male surgeons welcome and support their female colleagues in the workplace, but a survey of male surgeons reports that bias against women in surgery persists, and may be even more acute among younger surgeons, according to a presentation at the annual meeting of the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons.

“Is there a bias against women in surgery?” asked Michalina Jadick, who presented the results on behalf of AdventHealth Hospital Tampa. “Yes, there is, and understanding this problem is imperative when learning how to fix it.”

A freshman at Boston University who conducted the survey of male surgeons as part of a mentoring program for young women at AdventHealth, Ms. Jadick reported on results of an online survey completed by 190 male surgeons. She noted that, while women represent more than 50% of medical school students, they constitute only 19% of general surgeons in the United States. “Especially in the face of a projected shortage of practicing surgeons, it is more important now than ever to investigate, understand, and work to eliminate the barriers encountered by this large and unique talent pool,” she said.

The anonymous survey was extensive, including 70 five-point Likert-scale questions and 63 multiple choice and binary answers. Regarding the male surgeons who completed the survey, 84% were attendings with more than 5 years of experience, and 8% had less than 5 years in surgery. The remainder were residents, fellows and interns.

When asked if women are as capable as their male counterparts, 80% agreed, with the remainder split between “disagree” or “no opinion.”

“Although this is very small in comparison, that’s actually pretty significant,” Ms. Jadick said of the 10% who disagreed.

When asked if women make good surgeons, 67% agreed, 10% disagreed, and 23% selected neither. “We found that older male surgeons were more likely to believe women make successful surgeons, as opposed to younger male doctors,” Ms. Jadick said. She called this finding “surprising” because younger doctors are expected to have more progressive ideas. “However, this response seems to indicate otherwise, and that’s an important part of the conversation.”

When asked if women have the same advancement opportunities as men, 75% agreed and 9% disagreed. When the question was flipped – that is, if men have more opportunities than women – 32% agreed and 43% disagreed. Half of responders concurred that women are discouraged from entering surgery because program directors question their ability to complete surgical training, yet 95% agreed that men and women residents receive equal training. “This is especially a problem,” Ms. Jadick said of the latter finding.

The survey also found wide disparities in how male surgeons feel about family roles. A high percentage – 80% – agreed that a woman can be both a good surgeon and a good parent. But an even higher percentage – 96% – said a man could be good in both roles. “When looking at the disagreement to these statements, 13% said it is not possible for a woman to be both a good surgeon and a good parent, while not one single male respondent said the same for men,” Ms. Jadick said. Of the men surveyed, 84% agreed that female surgeons are under greater pressure than men to balance work and family life.

Exploring the family issue even deeper, 46% of the respondents said that having children adversely affects a female surgeon professionally, whereas only 9% said the same of men. Conversely, 31% said children do not affect a female surgeon’s career, but 81% said children do not affect a male surgeon’s career.

“Clearly the topic of family obligations is a huge issue in the context of gender discrimination against women in surgery, and this is the case even though many have indicated that women and men have similar commitment to families outside of work,” Ms. Jadick said. “This has proven to be a big part of the issue in the past and likely moving forward as well. That’s why it’s of paramount importance for us to take this into consideration and understand that it’s happening.”

When asked about working with women in the operating room, 20% of male respondents agreed that women surgeons are aggressive coworkers, and 19% said that it’s easier to work with male colleagues. This attitude may be a function of the stereotype of women being deferential to leadership rather than assuming it, she said.

When asked frankly if discrimination exists in surgery today, 43% answered “yes” – but 57% said “no” or “unsure.”

“This finding clearly portrays the problem does persist in surgery, and therefore, it’s very important for [male] surgeons in particular to remain aware of that problem and actively work to eliminate that disparity within that work environment,” Ms. Jadick said.

However, the 57% who said discrimination is not a problem is more unsettling, she said. “That’s incredibly significant because the first step to solving any problem is recognizing that there is one,” Ms. Jadick said. “However, then we must commit to solving it. Only by promoting an equitable and inclusive work environment that promotes the engagement of women can we improve the future of surgery for the betterment of all of its stakeholders, especially patients.”

Ms. Jadick had no financial relationships to disclose.

BALTIMORE – Most male surgeons welcome and support their female colleagues in the workplace, but a survey of male surgeons reports that bias against women in surgery persists, and may be even more acute among younger surgeons, according to a presentation at the annual meeting of the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons.

“Is there a bias against women in surgery?” asked Michalina Jadick, who presented the results on behalf of AdventHealth Hospital Tampa. “Yes, there is, and understanding this problem is imperative when learning how to fix it.”

A freshman at Boston University who conducted the survey of male surgeons as part of a mentoring program for young women at AdventHealth, Ms. Jadick reported on results of an online survey completed by 190 male surgeons. She noted that, while women represent more than 50% of medical school students, they constitute only 19% of general surgeons in the United States. “Especially in the face of a projected shortage of practicing surgeons, it is more important now than ever to investigate, understand, and work to eliminate the barriers encountered by this large and unique talent pool,” she said.

The anonymous survey was extensive, including 70 five-point Likert-scale questions and 63 multiple choice and binary answers. Regarding the male surgeons who completed the survey, 84% were attendings with more than 5 years of experience, and 8% had less than 5 years in surgery. The remainder were residents, fellows and interns.

When asked if women are as capable as their male counterparts, 80% agreed, with the remainder split between “disagree” or “no opinion.”

“Although this is very small in comparison, that’s actually pretty significant,” Ms. Jadick said of the 10% who disagreed.

When asked if women make good surgeons, 67% agreed, 10% disagreed, and 23% selected neither. “We found that older male surgeons were more likely to believe women make successful surgeons, as opposed to younger male doctors,” Ms. Jadick said. She called this finding “surprising” because younger doctors are expected to have more progressive ideas. “However, this response seems to indicate otherwise, and that’s an important part of the conversation.”

When asked if women have the same advancement opportunities as men, 75% agreed and 9% disagreed. When the question was flipped – that is, if men have more opportunities than women – 32% agreed and 43% disagreed. Half of responders concurred that women are discouraged from entering surgery because program directors question their ability to complete surgical training, yet 95% agreed that men and women residents receive equal training. “This is especially a problem,” Ms. Jadick said of the latter finding.

The survey also found wide disparities in how male surgeons feel about family roles. A high percentage – 80% – agreed that a woman can be both a good surgeon and a good parent. But an even higher percentage – 96% – said a man could be good in both roles. “When looking at the disagreement to these statements, 13% said it is not possible for a woman to be both a good surgeon and a good parent, while not one single male respondent said the same for men,” Ms. Jadick said. Of the men surveyed, 84% agreed that female surgeons are under greater pressure than men to balance work and family life.

Exploring the family issue even deeper, 46% of the respondents said that having children adversely affects a female surgeon professionally, whereas only 9% said the same of men. Conversely, 31% said children do not affect a female surgeon’s career, but 81% said children do not affect a male surgeon’s career.

“Clearly the topic of family obligations is a huge issue in the context of gender discrimination against women in surgery, and this is the case even though many have indicated that women and men have similar commitment to families outside of work,” Ms. Jadick said. “This has proven to be a big part of the issue in the past and likely moving forward as well. That’s why it’s of paramount importance for us to take this into consideration and understand that it’s happening.”

When asked about working with women in the operating room, 20% of male respondents agreed that women surgeons are aggressive coworkers, and 19% said that it’s easier to work with male colleagues. This attitude may be a function of the stereotype of women being deferential to leadership rather than assuming it, she said.

When asked frankly if discrimination exists in surgery today, 43% answered “yes” – but 57% said “no” or “unsure.”

“This finding clearly portrays the problem does persist in surgery, and therefore, it’s very important for [male] surgeons in particular to remain aware of that problem and actively work to eliminate that disparity within that work environment,” Ms. Jadick said.

However, the 57% who said discrimination is not a problem is more unsettling, she said. “That’s incredibly significant because the first step to solving any problem is recognizing that there is one,” Ms. Jadick said. “However, then we must commit to solving it. Only by promoting an equitable and inclusive work environment that promotes the engagement of women can we improve the future of surgery for the betterment of all of its stakeholders, especially patients.”

Ms. Jadick had no financial relationships to disclose.

BALTIMORE – Most male surgeons welcome and support their female colleagues in the workplace, but a survey of male surgeons reports that bias against women in surgery persists, and may be even more acute among younger surgeons, according to a presentation at the annual meeting of the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons.

“Is there a bias against women in surgery?” asked Michalina Jadick, who presented the results on behalf of AdventHealth Hospital Tampa. “Yes, there is, and understanding this problem is imperative when learning how to fix it.”

A freshman at Boston University who conducted the survey of male surgeons as part of a mentoring program for young women at AdventHealth, Ms. Jadick reported on results of an online survey completed by 190 male surgeons. She noted that, while women represent more than 50% of medical school students, they constitute only 19% of general surgeons in the United States. “Especially in the face of a projected shortage of practicing surgeons, it is more important now than ever to investigate, understand, and work to eliminate the barriers encountered by this large and unique talent pool,” she said.

The anonymous survey was extensive, including 70 five-point Likert-scale questions and 63 multiple choice and binary answers. Regarding the male surgeons who completed the survey, 84% were attendings with more than 5 years of experience, and 8% had less than 5 years in surgery. The remainder were residents, fellows and interns.

When asked if women are as capable as their male counterparts, 80% agreed, with the remainder split between “disagree” or “no opinion.”

“Although this is very small in comparison, that’s actually pretty significant,” Ms. Jadick said of the 10% who disagreed.

When asked if women make good surgeons, 67% agreed, 10% disagreed, and 23% selected neither. “We found that older male surgeons were more likely to believe women make successful surgeons, as opposed to younger male doctors,” Ms. Jadick said. She called this finding “surprising” because younger doctors are expected to have more progressive ideas. “However, this response seems to indicate otherwise, and that’s an important part of the conversation.”

When asked if women have the same advancement opportunities as men, 75% agreed and 9% disagreed. When the question was flipped – that is, if men have more opportunities than women – 32% agreed and 43% disagreed. Half of responders concurred that women are discouraged from entering surgery because program directors question their ability to complete surgical training, yet 95% agreed that men and women residents receive equal training. “This is especially a problem,” Ms. Jadick said of the latter finding.

The survey also found wide disparities in how male surgeons feel about family roles. A high percentage – 80% – agreed that a woman can be both a good surgeon and a good parent. But an even higher percentage – 96% – said a man could be good in both roles. “When looking at the disagreement to these statements, 13% said it is not possible for a woman to be both a good surgeon and a good parent, while not one single male respondent said the same for men,” Ms. Jadick said. Of the men surveyed, 84% agreed that female surgeons are under greater pressure than men to balance work and family life.

Exploring the family issue even deeper, 46% of the respondents said that having children adversely affects a female surgeon professionally, whereas only 9% said the same of men. Conversely, 31% said children do not affect a female surgeon’s career, but 81% said children do not affect a male surgeon’s career.

“Clearly the topic of family obligations is a huge issue in the context of gender discrimination against women in surgery, and this is the case even though many have indicated that women and men have similar commitment to families outside of work,” Ms. Jadick said. “This has proven to be a big part of the issue in the past and likely moving forward as well. That’s why it’s of paramount importance for us to take this into consideration and understand that it’s happening.”

When asked about working with women in the operating room, 20% of male respondents agreed that women surgeons are aggressive coworkers, and 19% said that it’s easier to work with male colleagues. This attitude may be a function of the stereotype of women being deferential to leadership rather than assuming it, she said.

When asked frankly if discrimination exists in surgery today, 43% answered “yes” – but 57% said “no” or “unsure.”

“This finding clearly portrays the problem does persist in surgery, and therefore, it’s very important for [male] surgeons in particular to remain aware of that problem and actively work to eliminate that disparity within that work environment,” Ms. Jadick said.

However, the 57% who said discrimination is not a problem is more unsettling, she said. “That’s incredibly significant because the first step to solving any problem is recognizing that there is one,” Ms. Jadick said. “However, then we must commit to solving it. Only by promoting an equitable and inclusive work environment that promotes the engagement of women can we improve the future of surgery for the betterment of all of its stakeholders, especially patients.”

Ms. Jadick had no financial relationships to disclose.

GENEVA – For EGFR TKI-naive patients with EGFR-positive non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), afatinib appears safe and effective in a “real-world” setting, based on results of a phase 3b study.

Across a diverse population of patients, including those with brain metastases, uncommon mutations, multiple lines of prior therapy, and/or an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 2, afatinib delivered “encouraging” responses, reported lead author Antonio Passaro, MD, PhD, of the European Institute of Oncology in Milan. During his presentation at the European Lung Cancer Conference, Dr. Passaro described the safety profile as “predictable and manageable.”

The findings follow on the heels of the LUX-Lung trials, which showed that afatinib could match the progression-free survival (PFS) achieved with gefitinib, at about 11 months, while beating chemotherapy, which was associated with a PFS of approximately 5-7 months.

“However,” the investigators noted in their abstract, “in real-world practice chemotherapy remains a first-line choice.”

The present study aimed to demonstrate the real-world potential of afatinib across treatment lines, Dr. Passaro said at the meeting, presented by the European Society for Medical Oncology.

The patient population was diverse, with multiple treatment lines represented. The majority of patients (78%) received afatinib as first-line treatment, while smaller groups received the treatment as second-line (17%), or third-line or greater (5%). About one-third of the patients (36%) had an ECOG score of 0, about half (57%) had a score of 1, and a small group (8%) had a score of 2. A minority of patients had brain metastases (17%) and/or uncommon mutations (13%). Patients received 40 mg of afatinib daily; dose reduction to 20 mg was allowed if necessary.

Analysis showed that patients received afatinib for a median of almost 1 year (359 days). Slightly more than half of the patients (54%) got reduced doses because of adverse events, most commonly, diarrhea (25%) and rash (11%). About one out of five patients (22%) discontinued treatment entirely.

Secondarily, the investigators analyzed efficacy, reporting that the objective response rate was 46% and the disease control rate was 86%. During his presentation, Dr. Passaro focused on median time to symptomatic progression (TTSP) and median progression-free survival (PFS), describing these outcomes in relation to patient subgroups. Across all patients, TTSP was 14.9 months and PFS was 13.4 months. Among subgroups, patients receiving afatinib as first-line therapy had the best median PFS, at 13.8 months, which was comparable with those who received the treatment second-line (13.2 months). In contrast, patients receiving afatinib as a third-line treatment or later had noticeably shorter PFS, at 6.6 months. Baseline ECOG performance status showed a similar trend; patients with scores of 0 had a median PFS of 15.4 months, compared with 12.9 months for those with a score of 1, and 6.2 months with a score of 2. Patients with brain metastases fared worse than did those without (PFS 10.1 months vs. 13.9 months), and patients with uncommon mutations had shorter PFS than that of those with common mutations (6.0 months vs. 14.1 months). TTSP durations paralleled the above PFS trends.Boehringer Ingelheim funded the study. The investigators reported financial relationships with Roche, MSD, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, and others.

SOURCE: Passaro et al. ELCC 2019. Abstract 115O.

GENEVA – For EGFR TKI-naive patients with EGFR-positive non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), afatinib appears safe and effective in a “real-world” setting, based on results of a phase 3b study.

Across a diverse population of patients, including those with brain metastases, uncommon mutations, multiple lines of prior therapy, and/or an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 2, afatinib delivered “encouraging” responses, reported lead author Antonio Passaro, MD, PhD, of the European Institute of Oncology in Milan. During his presentation at the European Lung Cancer Conference, Dr. Passaro described the safety profile as “predictable and manageable.”

The findings follow on the heels of the LUX-Lung trials, which showed that afatinib could match the progression-free survival (PFS) achieved with gefitinib, at about 11 months, while beating chemotherapy, which was associated with a PFS of approximately 5-7 months.

“However,” the investigators noted in their abstract, “in real-world practice chemotherapy remains a first-line choice.”

The present study aimed to demonstrate the real-world potential of afatinib across treatment lines, Dr. Passaro said at the meeting, presented by the European Society for Medical Oncology.

The patient population was diverse, with multiple treatment lines represented. The majority of patients (78%) received afatinib as first-line treatment, while smaller groups received the treatment as second-line (17%), or third-line or greater (5%). About one-third of the patients (36%) had an ECOG score of 0, about half (57%) had a score of 1, and a small group (8%) had a score of 2. A minority of patients had brain metastases (17%) and/or uncommon mutations (13%). Patients received 40 mg of afatinib daily; dose reduction to 20 mg was allowed if necessary.

Analysis showed that patients received afatinib for a median of almost 1 year (359 days). Slightly more than half of the patients (54%) got reduced doses because of adverse events, most commonly, diarrhea (25%) and rash (11%). About one out of five patients (22%) discontinued treatment entirely.

Secondarily, the investigators analyzed efficacy, reporting that the objective response rate was 46% and the disease control rate was 86%. During his presentation, Dr. Passaro focused on median time to symptomatic progression (TTSP) and median progression-free survival (PFS), describing these outcomes in relation to patient subgroups. Across all patients, TTSP was 14.9 months and PFS was 13.4 months. Among subgroups, patients receiving afatinib as first-line therapy had the best median PFS, at 13.8 months, which was comparable with those who received the treatment second-line (13.2 months). In contrast, patients receiving afatinib as a third-line treatment or later had noticeably shorter PFS, at 6.6 months. Baseline ECOG performance status showed a similar trend; patients with scores of 0 had a median PFS of 15.4 months, compared with 12.9 months for those with a score of 1, and 6.2 months with a score of 2. Patients with brain metastases fared worse than did those without (PFS 10.1 months vs. 13.9 months), and patients with uncommon mutations had shorter PFS than that of those with common mutations (6.0 months vs. 14.1 months). TTSP durations paralleled the above PFS trends.Boehringer Ingelheim funded the study. The investigators reported financial relationships with Roche, MSD, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, and others.

SOURCE: Passaro et al. ELCC 2019. Abstract 115O.

GENEVA – For EGFR TKI-naive patients with EGFR-positive non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), afatinib appears safe and effective in a “real-world” setting, based on results of a phase 3b study.

Across a diverse population of patients, including those with brain metastases, uncommon mutations, multiple lines of prior therapy, and/or an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 2, afatinib delivered “encouraging” responses, reported lead author Antonio Passaro, MD, PhD, of the European Institute of Oncology in Milan. During his presentation at the European Lung Cancer Conference, Dr. Passaro described the safety profile as “predictable and manageable.”

The findings follow on the heels of the LUX-Lung trials, which showed that afatinib could match the progression-free survival (PFS) achieved with gefitinib, at about 11 months, while beating chemotherapy, which was associated with a PFS of approximately 5-7 months.

“However,” the investigators noted in their abstract, “in real-world practice chemotherapy remains a first-line choice.”

The present study aimed to demonstrate the real-world potential of afatinib across treatment lines, Dr. Passaro said at the meeting, presented by the European Society for Medical Oncology.

The patient population was diverse, with multiple treatment lines represented. The majority of patients (78%) received afatinib as first-line treatment, while smaller groups received the treatment as second-line (17%), or third-line or greater (5%). About one-third of the patients (36%) had an ECOG score of 0, about half (57%) had a score of 1, and a small group (8%) had a score of 2. A minority of patients had brain metastases (17%) and/or uncommon mutations (13%). Patients received 40 mg of afatinib daily; dose reduction to 20 mg was allowed if necessary.

Analysis showed that patients received afatinib for a median of almost 1 year (359 days). Slightly more than half of the patients (54%) got reduced doses because of adverse events, most commonly, diarrhea (25%) and rash (11%). About one out of five patients (22%) discontinued treatment entirely.

Secondarily, the investigators analyzed efficacy, reporting that the objective response rate was 46% and the disease control rate was 86%. During his presentation, Dr. Passaro focused on median time to symptomatic progression (TTSP) and median progression-free survival (PFS), describing these outcomes in relation to patient subgroups. Across all patients, TTSP was 14.9 months and PFS was 13.4 months. Among subgroups, patients receiving afatinib as first-line therapy had the best median PFS, at 13.8 months, which was comparable with those who received the treatment second-line (13.2 months). In contrast, patients receiving afatinib as a third-line treatment or later had noticeably shorter PFS, at 6.6 months. Baseline ECOG performance status showed a similar trend; patients with scores of 0 had a median PFS of 15.4 months, compared with 12.9 months for those with a score of 1, and 6.2 months with a score of 2. Patients with brain metastases fared worse than did those without (PFS 10.1 months vs. 13.9 months), and patients with uncommon mutations had shorter PFS than that of those with common mutations (6.0 months vs. 14.1 months). TTSP durations paralleled the above PFS trends.Boehringer Ingelheim funded the study. The investigators reported financial relationships with Roche, MSD, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, and others.

SOURCE: Passaro et al. ELCC 2019. Abstract 115O.