PCI reduces mortality after STEMI in older adults

Not too old for PCI after STEMI
Article Type
Changed
Tue, 04/16/2019 - 12:28

The use of percutaneous coronary intervention after ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction is increasing in older adults, and is associated with significantly lower in-hospital mortality, new research has found.

“Our study shows that the rates of utilization of PCI in older patients with STEMI and cardiogenic shock is rising. This rise has been paralleled by an equivalent decline in unadjusted mortality rates,” Abdulla A. Damluji, MD, and his coinvestigators wrote in an analysis published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

They looked at outcomes of 317,728 cases of STEMI with cardiogenic shock during 1999-2013, of which 35% occurred in individuals aged 75 years or above.

Over the study period, the proportion of adults aged 75 years and over who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention after STEMI increased from 27% in 1999 to 56% in 2013. At the same time, in-hospital mortality rates in those patients declined from 64% in 1999 to 46% in 2013. Both differences were significant at P less than 0.001.

PCI more than halved the mortality associated with STEMI in older adults, even after adjustment for propensity score, and this was seen across all four U.S. Census Bureau regions in the analysis.


However, mortality rates were slightly higher in patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention and had a bleeding event, compared with those who did not have a bleeding event.

There were some significant differences in the prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors and noncardiovascular diagnoses between those who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention and those who did not. There was around a 20% higher prevalence of obesity, but a lower prevalence of valvular heart disease and heart failure, in individuals who were treated with percutaneous coronary intervention than among those who were not.

Older adults who received percutaneous coronary intervention also had a significantly lower disease burden compared with older adults who did not, and were more likely to be younger, male, and not an underrepresented minority.

“Despite the improvement in survival associated with early revascularization as reported by these studies, many older adults with multiple chronic conditions, worse disease burden, and possibly limited life expectancy as assessed by interventional cardiologists do not receive early revascularization with PCI,” wrote Dr. Damluji of Sinai Hospital of Baltimore and Johns Hopkins University, and his coauthors.

“This study was aimed to address this important selection bias by implementing different methods of propensity matching to understand the influence of early revascularization adjusting for demographic, clinical, and hospital characteristics between older adults with early revascularization versus those without revascularization.”

The study was partly supported by the Jane and Stanley F. Rodbell family. Three authors declared support from the National Institute on Aging. Two authors declared funding from private industry and one declared pharmaceutical stocks. No other conflicts of interest were declared.

SOURCE: Damluji A et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Apr;73(15):1890-900.

Body

Despite recent advances in early revascularization approaches, such as increasing availability and improved safety profile, which have seen a decrease in mortality rates after cardiogenic shock, many of the studies of these advances have excluded elderly patients. This limits the generalizability of the results.

This study is the largest analysis so far to explore the outcomes of cardiogenic shock and percutaneous coronary intervention in older adults. The authors have used a propensity score adjustment in an attempt to account for potentially confounding baseline characteristics, and shown significantly lower mortality after PCI.

However, the analysis is subject to the usual limitations of observational studies. In particular is the fact that patients with cardiogenic shock represent a spectrum of risk, comorbidities, degrees of disease, and coronary anatomy. These comorbid conditions could therefore have affected the selection decision for revascularization, and therefore outcomes. The challenge still remains also to identify older patients who are more likely to benefit from revascularization after STEMI.
 

Dr. Eliano P. Navarese is from Interventional Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine, Mater Dei Hospital and SIRIO MEDICINE Research Network, Italy. Dr. Sunil V. Rao is from the faculty of medicine at the University of Alberta, Edmonton. Dr. Mitchell W. Krucoff is from Duke University Medical Center/Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C. These comments are adapted from their editorial (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Apr;73(15):1901-4). No conflicts of interest were declared.

Publications
Topics
Sections
Body

Despite recent advances in early revascularization approaches, such as increasing availability and improved safety profile, which have seen a decrease in mortality rates after cardiogenic shock, many of the studies of these advances have excluded elderly patients. This limits the generalizability of the results.

This study is the largest analysis so far to explore the outcomes of cardiogenic shock and percutaneous coronary intervention in older adults. The authors have used a propensity score adjustment in an attempt to account for potentially confounding baseline characteristics, and shown significantly lower mortality after PCI.

However, the analysis is subject to the usual limitations of observational studies. In particular is the fact that patients with cardiogenic shock represent a spectrum of risk, comorbidities, degrees of disease, and coronary anatomy. These comorbid conditions could therefore have affected the selection decision for revascularization, and therefore outcomes. The challenge still remains also to identify older patients who are more likely to benefit from revascularization after STEMI.
 

Dr. Eliano P. Navarese is from Interventional Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine, Mater Dei Hospital and SIRIO MEDICINE Research Network, Italy. Dr. Sunil V. Rao is from the faculty of medicine at the University of Alberta, Edmonton. Dr. Mitchell W. Krucoff is from Duke University Medical Center/Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C. These comments are adapted from their editorial (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Apr;73(15):1901-4). No conflicts of interest were declared.

Body

Despite recent advances in early revascularization approaches, such as increasing availability and improved safety profile, which have seen a decrease in mortality rates after cardiogenic shock, many of the studies of these advances have excluded elderly patients. This limits the generalizability of the results.

This study is the largest analysis so far to explore the outcomes of cardiogenic shock and percutaneous coronary intervention in older adults. The authors have used a propensity score adjustment in an attempt to account for potentially confounding baseline characteristics, and shown significantly lower mortality after PCI.

However, the analysis is subject to the usual limitations of observational studies. In particular is the fact that patients with cardiogenic shock represent a spectrum of risk, comorbidities, degrees of disease, and coronary anatomy. These comorbid conditions could therefore have affected the selection decision for revascularization, and therefore outcomes. The challenge still remains also to identify older patients who are more likely to benefit from revascularization after STEMI.
 

Dr. Eliano P. Navarese is from Interventional Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine, Mater Dei Hospital and SIRIO MEDICINE Research Network, Italy. Dr. Sunil V. Rao is from the faculty of medicine at the University of Alberta, Edmonton. Dr. Mitchell W. Krucoff is from Duke University Medical Center/Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, N.C. These comments are adapted from their editorial (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Apr;73(15):1901-4). No conflicts of interest were declared.

Title
Not too old for PCI after STEMI
Not too old for PCI after STEMI

The use of percutaneous coronary intervention after ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction is increasing in older adults, and is associated with significantly lower in-hospital mortality, new research has found.

“Our study shows that the rates of utilization of PCI in older patients with STEMI and cardiogenic shock is rising. This rise has been paralleled by an equivalent decline in unadjusted mortality rates,” Abdulla A. Damluji, MD, and his coinvestigators wrote in an analysis published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

They looked at outcomes of 317,728 cases of STEMI with cardiogenic shock during 1999-2013, of which 35% occurred in individuals aged 75 years or above.

Over the study period, the proportion of adults aged 75 years and over who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention after STEMI increased from 27% in 1999 to 56% in 2013. At the same time, in-hospital mortality rates in those patients declined from 64% in 1999 to 46% in 2013. Both differences were significant at P less than 0.001.

PCI more than halved the mortality associated with STEMI in older adults, even after adjustment for propensity score, and this was seen across all four U.S. Census Bureau regions in the analysis.


However, mortality rates were slightly higher in patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention and had a bleeding event, compared with those who did not have a bleeding event.

There were some significant differences in the prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors and noncardiovascular diagnoses between those who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention and those who did not. There was around a 20% higher prevalence of obesity, but a lower prevalence of valvular heart disease and heart failure, in individuals who were treated with percutaneous coronary intervention than among those who were not.

Older adults who received percutaneous coronary intervention also had a significantly lower disease burden compared with older adults who did not, and were more likely to be younger, male, and not an underrepresented minority.

“Despite the improvement in survival associated with early revascularization as reported by these studies, many older adults with multiple chronic conditions, worse disease burden, and possibly limited life expectancy as assessed by interventional cardiologists do not receive early revascularization with PCI,” wrote Dr. Damluji of Sinai Hospital of Baltimore and Johns Hopkins University, and his coauthors.

“This study was aimed to address this important selection bias by implementing different methods of propensity matching to understand the influence of early revascularization adjusting for demographic, clinical, and hospital characteristics between older adults with early revascularization versus those without revascularization.”

The study was partly supported by the Jane and Stanley F. Rodbell family. Three authors declared support from the National Institute on Aging. Two authors declared funding from private industry and one declared pharmaceutical stocks. No other conflicts of interest were declared.

SOURCE: Damluji A et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Apr;73(15):1890-900.

The use of percutaneous coronary intervention after ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction is increasing in older adults, and is associated with significantly lower in-hospital mortality, new research has found.

“Our study shows that the rates of utilization of PCI in older patients with STEMI and cardiogenic shock is rising. This rise has been paralleled by an equivalent decline in unadjusted mortality rates,” Abdulla A. Damluji, MD, and his coinvestigators wrote in an analysis published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

They looked at outcomes of 317,728 cases of STEMI with cardiogenic shock during 1999-2013, of which 35% occurred in individuals aged 75 years or above.

Over the study period, the proportion of adults aged 75 years and over who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention after STEMI increased from 27% in 1999 to 56% in 2013. At the same time, in-hospital mortality rates in those patients declined from 64% in 1999 to 46% in 2013. Both differences were significant at P less than 0.001.

PCI more than halved the mortality associated with STEMI in older adults, even after adjustment for propensity score, and this was seen across all four U.S. Census Bureau regions in the analysis.


However, mortality rates were slightly higher in patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention and had a bleeding event, compared with those who did not have a bleeding event.

There were some significant differences in the prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors and noncardiovascular diagnoses between those who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention and those who did not. There was around a 20% higher prevalence of obesity, but a lower prevalence of valvular heart disease and heart failure, in individuals who were treated with percutaneous coronary intervention than among those who were not.

Older adults who received percutaneous coronary intervention also had a significantly lower disease burden compared with older adults who did not, and were more likely to be younger, male, and not an underrepresented minority.

“Despite the improvement in survival associated with early revascularization as reported by these studies, many older adults with multiple chronic conditions, worse disease burden, and possibly limited life expectancy as assessed by interventional cardiologists do not receive early revascularization with PCI,” wrote Dr. Damluji of Sinai Hospital of Baltimore and Johns Hopkins University, and his coauthors.

“This study was aimed to address this important selection bias by implementing different methods of propensity matching to understand the influence of early revascularization adjusting for demographic, clinical, and hospital characteristics between older adults with early revascularization versus those without revascularization.”

The study was partly supported by the Jane and Stanley F. Rodbell family. Three authors declared support from the National Institute on Aging. Two authors declared funding from private industry and one declared pharmaceutical stocks. No other conflicts of interest were declared.

SOURCE: Damluji A et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Apr;73(15):1890-900.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Article Source

FROM JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.

More Medicare beneficiaries receiving hospice care services than in previous years

Article Type
Changed
Tue, 04/16/2019 - 11:59

Background: Studies abound on the accelerated cost and health care activities of patients toward the end of life. Previous analyses of Medicare trends of medical care at the time of death have been compiled in 2000, 2005, 2009, and 2011; this study reexamines recent trends.

Study design: Retrospective cohort of a random sample of Medicare Fee-for-Service and Medicare Advantage decedents during 2000-2015.

Setting: Medicare patients in acute care hospitals, home/community, hospice inpatient care units, or nursing homes.

Dr. Willie H. Smith Jr.

Synopsis: Approximately 1.4 million Medicare Fee-for-Service decedents and 870,000 Medicare Advantage decedents were studied in a random sample that included 20% of Medicare Fee-for-Service recipients in the years 2000, 2005, 2009, 2011, and 2015 and 100% of Medicare Advantage patients in the years 2011 and 2015. Deaths of Medicare Fee-for-Service recipients occurring in acute care hospitals and nursing homes decreased from 32.6% (95% confidence interval, 32.4%-32.8%) in 2000 to 19.8% (95% CI, 19.6%-20.0%) in 2015. Patients who died while receiving hospice services increased from 21.6% (95% CI, 21.5%-21.8%) in 2000 to 50.4% (95% CI, 50.2%-50.6%) in 2015. Review of Medicare Advantage data demonstrated similar shifts.

Although there are concerns about the accuracy of reported location of community deaths and these results may not be generalizable to other, non-Medicare populations, the study overall adds statistical data on death trends and suggests an improvement in the use of palliative and hospice care services.

Bottom line: Compared with previous years, fewer Medicare beneficiaries are dying in acute care settings, and more beneficiaries are receiving hospice care in other settings.

Citation: Teno J et al. Site of death, place of care, and health care transitions among U. S. Medicare beneficiaries between 2000-2015. JAMA. 2018;320(3):264-71.

Dr. Smith is an assistant professor of medicine in the division of hospital medicine at Emory University, Atlanta.

Publications
Topics
Sections

Background: Studies abound on the accelerated cost and health care activities of patients toward the end of life. Previous analyses of Medicare trends of medical care at the time of death have been compiled in 2000, 2005, 2009, and 2011; this study reexamines recent trends.

Study design: Retrospective cohort of a random sample of Medicare Fee-for-Service and Medicare Advantage decedents during 2000-2015.

Setting: Medicare patients in acute care hospitals, home/community, hospice inpatient care units, or nursing homes.

Dr. Willie H. Smith Jr.

Synopsis: Approximately 1.4 million Medicare Fee-for-Service decedents and 870,000 Medicare Advantage decedents were studied in a random sample that included 20% of Medicare Fee-for-Service recipients in the years 2000, 2005, 2009, 2011, and 2015 and 100% of Medicare Advantage patients in the years 2011 and 2015. Deaths of Medicare Fee-for-Service recipients occurring in acute care hospitals and nursing homes decreased from 32.6% (95% confidence interval, 32.4%-32.8%) in 2000 to 19.8% (95% CI, 19.6%-20.0%) in 2015. Patients who died while receiving hospice services increased from 21.6% (95% CI, 21.5%-21.8%) in 2000 to 50.4% (95% CI, 50.2%-50.6%) in 2015. Review of Medicare Advantage data demonstrated similar shifts.

Although there are concerns about the accuracy of reported location of community deaths and these results may not be generalizable to other, non-Medicare populations, the study overall adds statistical data on death trends and suggests an improvement in the use of palliative and hospice care services.

Bottom line: Compared with previous years, fewer Medicare beneficiaries are dying in acute care settings, and more beneficiaries are receiving hospice care in other settings.

Citation: Teno J et al. Site of death, place of care, and health care transitions among U. S. Medicare beneficiaries between 2000-2015. JAMA. 2018;320(3):264-71.

Dr. Smith is an assistant professor of medicine in the division of hospital medicine at Emory University, Atlanta.

Background: Studies abound on the accelerated cost and health care activities of patients toward the end of life. Previous analyses of Medicare trends of medical care at the time of death have been compiled in 2000, 2005, 2009, and 2011; this study reexamines recent trends.

Study design: Retrospective cohort of a random sample of Medicare Fee-for-Service and Medicare Advantage decedents during 2000-2015.

Setting: Medicare patients in acute care hospitals, home/community, hospice inpatient care units, or nursing homes.

Dr. Willie H. Smith Jr.

Synopsis: Approximately 1.4 million Medicare Fee-for-Service decedents and 870,000 Medicare Advantage decedents were studied in a random sample that included 20% of Medicare Fee-for-Service recipients in the years 2000, 2005, 2009, 2011, and 2015 and 100% of Medicare Advantage patients in the years 2011 and 2015. Deaths of Medicare Fee-for-Service recipients occurring in acute care hospitals and nursing homes decreased from 32.6% (95% confidence interval, 32.4%-32.8%) in 2000 to 19.8% (95% CI, 19.6%-20.0%) in 2015. Patients who died while receiving hospice services increased from 21.6% (95% CI, 21.5%-21.8%) in 2000 to 50.4% (95% CI, 50.2%-50.6%) in 2015. Review of Medicare Advantage data demonstrated similar shifts.

Although there are concerns about the accuracy of reported location of community deaths and these results may not be generalizable to other, non-Medicare populations, the study overall adds statistical data on death trends and suggests an improvement in the use of palliative and hospice care services.

Bottom line: Compared with previous years, fewer Medicare beneficiaries are dying in acute care settings, and more beneficiaries are receiving hospice care in other settings.

Citation: Teno J et al. Site of death, place of care, and health care transitions among U. S. Medicare beneficiaries between 2000-2015. JAMA. 2018;320(3):264-71.

Dr. Smith is an assistant professor of medicine in the division of hospital medicine at Emory University, Atlanta.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.

Data from routine lung cancer visits yield research insights

Article Type
Changed
Tue, 04/16/2019 - 11:54

 

A continuously updating database of clinical and genomic details on patients with non–small cell lung cancer accurately represented correlations between genomics and outcomes, based on an analysis of more than 4,000 patients.

“Most efforts to identify clinicogenomic associations currently rely on clinical trials, single-institution series, or national registries,” wrote Gaurav Singal, MD, of Foundation Medicine in Cambridge, Mass., and colleagues in JAMA.

To explore the feasibility of a clinicogenomic database, the researchers combined clinical data from electronic health records with comprehensive genetic profiling data from 28,889 patients; 4,064 adults with non–small cell lung cancer were included in the analysis of associations among tumor genomics, patient characteristics, and clinical outcomes. The data were collected between Jan. 1, 2011, and Jan. 1, 2018, from 275 U.S. oncology practices.

The researchers examined implications of clinical and genomic features for 3,522 patients with advanced disease. Among these, the median overall survival was 10.3 months and the 5-year survival rate was 3.8%. Factors influencing a longer overall survival included never smoking and having nonsquamous pathology; the presence of mutations in genes TP53 and RB1 were associated with shorter survival.

For each patient, researchers calculated the tumor mutational burden (TMB), defined as “a measure of the number of somatic mutations identified per megabase of DNA sequenced.” TMB was significantly higher among smokers, compared with nonsmokers, and “alterations in EGFR, ALK, ROS1, and RET were associated with significantly lower TMB than wild-type cases,” the researchers wrote.

Overall, the results “replicated previously described associations between clinical and genomic characteristics, driver mutations and response to targeted therapy, and TMB and response to immunotherapy,” the researchers wrote.

The findings were limited by several factors, notably the quality and completeness of mortality data, as well as potential biases from the inclusion of comprehensive genetic profiling results and analysis of therapeutic exposures in an unrandomized trial, as well as a study population limited to patients with advanced stage disease, the researchers noted.

However, the results support data from similar studies and further show that clinicogenomic databases can be used in research to augment drug development and improve the design of clinical trials, they wrote.

The study was supported by Flatiron Health and Foundation Medicine, which are both owned by the Roche Group. Dr. Singal and several coauthors are employees of Foundation Medicine.

SOURCE: Singal G et al. JAMA. 2019;321:1391-9.

Publications
Topics
Sections

 

A continuously updating database of clinical and genomic details on patients with non–small cell lung cancer accurately represented correlations between genomics and outcomes, based on an analysis of more than 4,000 patients.

“Most efforts to identify clinicogenomic associations currently rely on clinical trials, single-institution series, or national registries,” wrote Gaurav Singal, MD, of Foundation Medicine in Cambridge, Mass., and colleagues in JAMA.

To explore the feasibility of a clinicogenomic database, the researchers combined clinical data from electronic health records with comprehensive genetic profiling data from 28,889 patients; 4,064 adults with non–small cell lung cancer were included in the analysis of associations among tumor genomics, patient characteristics, and clinical outcomes. The data were collected between Jan. 1, 2011, and Jan. 1, 2018, from 275 U.S. oncology practices.

The researchers examined implications of clinical and genomic features for 3,522 patients with advanced disease. Among these, the median overall survival was 10.3 months and the 5-year survival rate was 3.8%. Factors influencing a longer overall survival included never smoking and having nonsquamous pathology; the presence of mutations in genes TP53 and RB1 were associated with shorter survival.

For each patient, researchers calculated the tumor mutational burden (TMB), defined as “a measure of the number of somatic mutations identified per megabase of DNA sequenced.” TMB was significantly higher among smokers, compared with nonsmokers, and “alterations in EGFR, ALK, ROS1, and RET were associated with significantly lower TMB than wild-type cases,” the researchers wrote.

Overall, the results “replicated previously described associations between clinical and genomic characteristics, driver mutations and response to targeted therapy, and TMB and response to immunotherapy,” the researchers wrote.

The findings were limited by several factors, notably the quality and completeness of mortality data, as well as potential biases from the inclusion of comprehensive genetic profiling results and analysis of therapeutic exposures in an unrandomized trial, as well as a study population limited to patients with advanced stage disease, the researchers noted.

However, the results support data from similar studies and further show that clinicogenomic databases can be used in research to augment drug development and improve the design of clinical trials, they wrote.

The study was supported by Flatiron Health and Foundation Medicine, which are both owned by the Roche Group. Dr. Singal and several coauthors are employees of Foundation Medicine.

SOURCE: Singal G et al. JAMA. 2019;321:1391-9.

 

A continuously updating database of clinical and genomic details on patients with non–small cell lung cancer accurately represented correlations between genomics and outcomes, based on an analysis of more than 4,000 patients.

“Most efforts to identify clinicogenomic associations currently rely on clinical trials, single-institution series, or national registries,” wrote Gaurav Singal, MD, of Foundation Medicine in Cambridge, Mass., and colleagues in JAMA.

To explore the feasibility of a clinicogenomic database, the researchers combined clinical data from electronic health records with comprehensive genetic profiling data from 28,889 patients; 4,064 adults with non–small cell lung cancer were included in the analysis of associations among tumor genomics, patient characteristics, and clinical outcomes. The data were collected between Jan. 1, 2011, and Jan. 1, 2018, from 275 U.S. oncology practices.

The researchers examined implications of clinical and genomic features for 3,522 patients with advanced disease. Among these, the median overall survival was 10.3 months and the 5-year survival rate was 3.8%. Factors influencing a longer overall survival included never smoking and having nonsquamous pathology; the presence of mutations in genes TP53 and RB1 were associated with shorter survival.

For each patient, researchers calculated the tumor mutational burden (TMB), defined as “a measure of the number of somatic mutations identified per megabase of DNA sequenced.” TMB was significantly higher among smokers, compared with nonsmokers, and “alterations in EGFR, ALK, ROS1, and RET were associated with significantly lower TMB than wild-type cases,” the researchers wrote.

Overall, the results “replicated previously described associations between clinical and genomic characteristics, driver mutations and response to targeted therapy, and TMB and response to immunotherapy,” the researchers wrote.

The findings were limited by several factors, notably the quality and completeness of mortality data, as well as potential biases from the inclusion of comprehensive genetic profiling results and analysis of therapeutic exposures in an unrandomized trial, as well as a study population limited to patients with advanced stage disease, the researchers noted.

However, the results support data from similar studies and further show that clinicogenomic databases can be used in research to augment drug development and improve the design of clinical trials, they wrote.

The study was supported by Flatiron Health and Foundation Medicine, which are both owned by the Roche Group. Dr. Singal and several coauthors are employees of Foundation Medicine.

SOURCE: Singal G et al. JAMA. 2019;321:1391-9.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Article Source

FROM JAMA

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.

The type II error and black holes

Article Type
Changed
Wed, 04/17/2019 - 12:23

 

An international group of scientists have announced they have an image of a black hole. This feat of scientific achievement and teamwork is another giant step in humankind’s understanding of the universe. It isn’t easy to find something that isn’t there. Black holes exist and this one is about 6.5 billion times more massive than Earth’s sun. That is a lot of “there.”

Dr. Kevin T. Powell

In medical research, most articles are about discovering something new. Lately, it is also common to publish studies that claim that something doesn’t exist. No difference is found between treatment A and treatment B. Two decades ago those negative studies rarely were published, but there was merit in the idea that more of them should be published. However, that merit presupposed that the negative studies worthy of publication would be well designed, robust, and, most importantly, contain a power calculation showing that the methodology would have detected the phenomenon if the phenomenon were large enough to be clinically important. Alas, the literature has been flooded with negative studies finding no effect because the studies were hopelessly underpowered and never had a realistic chance of detecting anything. This fake news pollutes our medical knowledge.

To clarify, let me provide a simple example. With my myopia, at 100 yards and without my glasses, I can’t detect the difference between Lebron James and Megan Rapinoe, although I know Megan is better at corner kicks.

Now let me give a second, more complex example that obfuscates the same detection issue. Are there moons circling Jupiter? I go out each night, find Jupiter, take a picture with my trusty cell phone, and examine the picture for any evidence of an object(s) circling the planet. I do this many times. How many? Well, if I only do it three times, people will doubt my science, but doing it 1,000 times would take too long. In my experience, most negative studies seem to involve about 30-50 patients. So one picture a week for a year will produce 52 observations. That is a lot of cold nights under the stars. I will use my scientific knowledge and ability to read sky charts to locate Jupiter. (There is an app for that.) I will use my experience to distinguish Jupiter from Venus and Mars. There will be cloudy days, so maybe only 30 clear pictures will be obtained. I will have a second observer examine the photos. We will calculate a kappa statistic for inter-rater agreement. There will be pictures and tables of numbers. When I’m done, I will publish an article saying that Jupiter doesn’t have moons because I didn’t find any. Trust me, I’m a doctor.

Science doesn’t work that way. Science doesn’t care how smart I am, how dedicated I am, how expensive my cell phone is, or how much work I put into the project, science wants empiric proof. My failure to find moons does not refute their existence. A claim that something does NOT exist cannot be correctly made by simply showing that the P value is greater than .05. A statistically insignificant P value also might also mean that my experiment, despite all my time, effort, commitment, and data collection, is simply inadequate to detect the phenomenon. My cell phone has enough pixels to see Jupiter but not its moons. The phone isn’t powerful enough. My claim is a type II error.

Proving zero difference with statistics is impossible. One needs to specify the threshold size of a clinically important effect and then show that your methods and results were powerful enough to have detected something that small. Only then may you correctly publish a conclusion that there is nothing there, a donut hole in the black void of space.

I invite you to do your own survey. As you read journal articles, identify the next 10 times you read a conclusion that claims no effect was found. Scour that article carefully for any indication of the size of effect that those methods and results would have been able to detect. Look for a power calculation. Grade the article with a simple pass/fail on that point. Did the authors provide that information in a way you can understand, or do you just have to trust them? Take President Reagan’s advice, “Trust, but verify.” Most of the 10 articles will lack the calculation and many negative claims are type II errors.

Dr. Powell is a pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. Email him at [email protected].

Publications
Topics
Sections

 

An international group of scientists have announced they have an image of a black hole. This feat of scientific achievement and teamwork is another giant step in humankind’s understanding of the universe. It isn’t easy to find something that isn’t there. Black holes exist and this one is about 6.5 billion times more massive than Earth’s sun. That is a lot of “there.”

Dr. Kevin T. Powell

In medical research, most articles are about discovering something new. Lately, it is also common to publish studies that claim that something doesn’t exist. No difference is found between treatment A and treatment B. Two decades ago those negative studies rarely were published, but there was merit in the idea that more of them should be published. However, that merit presupposed that the negative studies worthy of publication would be well designed, robust, and, most importantly, contain a power calculation showing that the methodology would have detected the phenomenon if the phenomenon were large enough to be clinically important. Alas, the literature has been flooded with negative studies finding no effect because the studies were hopelessly underpowered and never had a realistic chance of detecting anything. This fake news pollutes our medical knowledge.

To clarify, let me provide a simple example. With my myopia, at 100 yards and without my glasses, I can’t detect the difference between Lebron James and Megan Rapinoe, although I know Megan is better at corner kicks.

Now let me give a second, more complex example that obfuscates the same detection issue. Are there moons circling Jupiter? I go out each night, find Jupiter, take a picture with my trusty cell phone, and examine the picture for any evidence of an object(s) circling the planet. I do this many times. How many? Well, if I only do it three times, people will doubt my science, but doing it 1,000 times would take too long. In my experience, most negative studies seem to involve about 30-50 patients. So one picture a week for a year will produce 52 observations. That is a lot of cold nights under the stars. I will use my scientific knowledge and ability to read sky charts to locate Jupiter. (There is an app for that.) I will use my experience to distinguish Jupiter from Venus and Mars. There will be cloudy days, so maybe only 30 clear pictures will be obtained. I will have a second observer examine the photos. We will calculate a kappa statistic for inter-rater agreement. There will be pictures and tables of numbers. When I’m done, I will publish an article saying that Jupiter doesn’t have moons because I didn’t find any. Trust me, I’m a doctor.

Science doesn’t work that way. Science doesn’t care how smart I am, how dedicated I am, how expensive my cell phone is, or how much work I put into the project, science wants empiric proof. My failure to find moons does not refute their existence. A claim that something does NOT exist cannot be correctly made by simply showing that the P value is greater than .05. A statistically insignificant P value also might also mean that my experiment, despite all my time, effort, commitment, and data collection, is simply inadequate to detect the phenomenon. My cell phone has enough pixels to see Jupiter but not its moons. The phone isn’t powerful enough. My claim is a type II error.

Proving zero difference with statistics is impossible. One needs to specify the threshold size of a clinically important effect and then show that your methods and results were powerful enough to have detected something that small. Only then may you correctly publish a conclusion that there is nothing there, a donut hole in the black void of space.

I invite you to do your own survey. As you read journal articles, identify the next 10 times you read a conclusion that claims no effect was found. Scour that article carefully for any indication of the size of effect that those methods and results would have been able to detect. Look for a power calculation. Grade the article with a simple pass/fail on that point. Did the authors provide that information in a way you can understand, or do you just have to trust them? Take President Reagan’s advice, “Trust, but verify.” Most of the 10 articles will lack the calculation and many negative claims are type II errors.

Dr. Powell is a pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. Email him at [email protected].

 

An international group of scientists have announced they have an image of a black hole. This feat of scientific achievement and teamwork is another giant step in humankind’s understanding of the universe. It isn’t easy to find something that isn’t there. Black holes exist and this one is about 6.5 billion times more massive than Earth’s sun. That is a lot of “there.”

Dr. Kevin T. Powell

In medical research, most articles are about discovering something new. Lately, it is also common to publish studies that claim that something doesn’t exist. No difference is found between treatment A and treatment B. Two decades ago those negative studies rarely were published, but there was merit in the idea that more of them should be published. However, that merit presupposed that the negative studies worthy of publication would be well designed, robust, and, most importantly, contain a power calculation showing that the methodology would have detected the phenomenon if the phenomenon were large enough to be clinically important. Alas, the literature has been flooded with negative studies finding no effect because the studies were hopelessly underpowered and never had a realistic chance of detecting anything. This fake news pollutes our medical knowledge.

To clarify, let me provide a simple example. With my myopia, at 100 yards and without my glasses, I can’t detect the difference between Lebron James and Megan Rapinoe, although I know Megan is better at corner kicks.

Now let me give a second, more complex example that obfuscates the same detection issue. Are there moons circling Jupiter? I go out each night, find Jupiter, take a picture with my trusty cell phone, and examine the picture for any evidence of an object(s) circling the planet. I do this many times. How many? Well, if I only do it three times, people will doubt my science, but doing it 1,000 times would take too long. In my experience, most negative studies seem to involve about 30-50 patients. So one picture a week for a year will produce 52 observations. That is a lot of cold nights under the stars. I will use my scientific knowledge and ability to read sky charts to locate Jupiter. (There is an app for that.) I will use my experience to distinguish Jupiter from Venus and Mars. There will be cloudy days, so maybe only 30 clear pictures will be obtained. I will have a second observer examine the photos. We will calculate a kappa statistic for inter-rater agreement. There will be pictures and tables of numbers. When I’m done, I will publish an article saying that Jupiter doesn’t have moons because I didn’t find any. Trust me, I’m a doctor.

Science doesn’t work that way. Science doesn’t care how smart I am, how dedicated I am, how expensive my cell phone is, or how much work I put into the project, science wants empiric proof. My failure to find moons does not refute their existence. A claim that something does NOT exist cannot be correctly made by simply showing that the P value is greater than .05. A statistically insignificant P value also might also mean that my experiment, despite all my time, effort, commitment, and data collection, is simply inadequate to detect the phenomenon. My cell phone has enough pixels to see Jupiter but not its moons. The phone isn’t powerful enough. My claim is a type II error.

Proving zero difference with statistics is impossible. One needs to specify the threshold size of a clinically important effect and then show that your methods and results were powerful enough to have detected something that small. Only then may you correctly publish a conclusion that there is nothing there, a donut hole in the black void of space.

I invite you to do your own survey. As you read journal articles, identify the next 10 times you read a conclusion that claims no effect was found. Scour that article carefully for any indication of the size of effect that those methods and results would have been able to detect. Look for a power calculation. Grade the article with a simple pass/fail on that point. Did the authors provide that information in a way you can understand, or do you just have to trust them? Take President Reagan’s advice, “Trust, but verify.” Most of the 10 articles will lack the calculation and many negative claims are type II errors.

Dr. Powell is a pediatric hospitalist and clinical ethics consultant living in St. Louis. Email him at [email protected].

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.

USPSTF finds the evidence inconclusive for lead screening in young children, pregnant women

Don’t stop screening children for elevated lead levels
Article Type
Changed
Tue, 04/16/2019 - 11:00

More and better research is needed to guide primary care clinicians in screening asymptomatic young children and asymptomatic pregnant women for lead exposure, according to a recommendation from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

KatarzynaBialasiewicz/Thinkstock

Elevated blood lead levels are associated with potentially irreversible neurologic problems in children and with organ system impairment and adverse perinatal effects in pregnant women, according to the statement.

“Thus, the primary benefit of screening may be in preventing future exposures or exposure of others to environmental sources,” the task force members wrote in JAMA Pediatrics.

However, the task force issued I statements, meaning that “the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for elevated blood lead levels” in asymptomatic children aged 5 years and younger and in asymptomatic pregnant women.

The task force cited evidence that questionnaires and other clinical prediction tools are inaccurate at identifying elevated blood lead levels in asymptomatic children and pregnant women. In addition, the task force found adequate evidence that capillary blood testing identified elevated blood lead levels in children, but found inadequate evidence that treating elevated blood lead levels was effective in asymptomatic children aged 5 years and younger or in pregnant women.

In the evidence report accompanying the recommendation statement in JAMA Pediatrics, Amy G. Cantor, MD, MPH, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and her colleagues reviewed data from a total of 24 studies including 11,433 individuals.

None of the studies evaluated the risks or benefits of blood lead screening in children. However, in three of four studies, capillary blood lead testing showed sensitivities ranging from 87% to 91% and specificities from 92% to 99%, based on a blood lead level cutoff of 10 mcg/dL or less.

“Evidence indicates that capillary sampling is slightly less sensitive than venous sampling, with comparable specificity,” Dr. Cantor and her colleagues wrote. “Both methods require confirmation.”

There is only limited evidence on whether intervening when children present with elevated blood lead levels results in better neurodevelopmental outcomes. One trial showed beneficial effects of dimercaptosuccinic acid chelation of lowering elevated blood lead levels (20-44 mcg/dL) at 1 year versus placebo, but no clear effect on longer term blood lead levels or neurodevelopmental outcomes, they reported.

For residential interventions, again evidence is limited and blood lead concentrations were not clearly affected. Evidence on calcium and iron interventions was poor quality and insufficient to tell if there was an effect on blood lead levels or clinical outcomes, Dr. Cantor and her colleagues wrote.

No studies of screening for elevated lead levels in pregnant women were identified, nor were studies of health outcomes after interventions to reduce blood lead levels in asymptomatic pregnant women, they noted.

Studies involving pregnant women were limited, and included data on the diagnostic accuracy of a clinical questionnaire and the effects of nutritional intervention during pregnancy, Dr. Cantor and her colleagues wrote.

“This update confirms there are no clear effects of interventions for lowering elevated blood levels in affected children or to improve neurodevelopmental outcomes,” they concluded. “Evidence to determine benefits and harms of screening or treating elevated lead levels during pregnancy remains extremely limited.”

The recommendation updates the last version issued in 2006. The USPSTF is supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The researchers for both articles reported no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Curry SJ et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2019 Apr 16. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.3326; Cantor AG et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2019 Apr 16. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.1004.

Body

“The inconclusive findings of the new USPSTF [U.S. Preventive Services Task Force] recommendation does not mean that screening children for elevated lead levels is not necessary, nor does it shed light on whether screening should be targeted to children at high risk or whether it should be universally done,” Michael Weitzman, MD, wrote in an editorial in response to the USPSTF recommendations.

Dr. Weitzman noted that the recommendation is a consequence of the lack of quality studies on lead level screening, and wrote that, although the recommendations apply to asymptomatic children at both average risk and increased risk, the USPSTF does not recommend for or against screening or that screening be abandoned.

It is standard pediatric practice to counsel parents on lead exposure and screening for elevated blood lead levels in children aged 1-5 years, he wrote, adding that “the American Academy of Pediatrics, Bright Futures, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Medicaid all recommend universal blood lead screening or the screening of selected children believed to be at especially high risk of exposure at approximately age 1 and 2 years.”

More rigorous research is needed to make definitive recommendations, but in the meantime, clinicians should continue to work with local health departments, housing authorities, and schools to provide care for children with elevated lead levels while continuing with the screening practices recommended by the AAP and other organizations, and advocating for prevention of lead exposure, Dr. Weitzman wrote.

Dr. Weitzman is professor of pediatrics and professor of environmental medicine at New York University. This is a summary of the editorial Dr. Weitzman wrote to accompany the published USPSTF recommendation (JAMA Pediatr. 2019 Apr 16. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.0855). He reported no relevant financial disclosures.

Publications
Topics
Sections
Body

“The inconclusive findings of the new USPSTF [U.S. Preventive Services Task Force] recommendation does not mean that screening children for elevated lead levels is not necessary, nor does it shed light on whether screening should be targeted to children at high risk or whether it should be universally done,” Michael Weitzman, MD, wrote in an editorial in response to the USPSTF recommendations.

Dr. Weitzman noted that the recommendation is a consequence of the lack of quality studies on lead level screening, and wrote that, although the recommendations apply to asymptomatic children at both average risk and increased risk, the USPSTF does not recommend for or against screening or that screening be abandoned.

It is standard pediatric practice to counsel parents on lead exposure and screening for elevated blood lead levels in children aged 1-5 years, he wrote, adding that “the American Academy of Pediatrics, Bright Futures, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Medicaid all recommend universal blood lead screening or the screening of selected children believed to be at especially high risk of exposure at approximately age 1 and 2 years.”

More rigorous research is needed to make definitive recommendations, but in the meantime, clinicians should continue to work with local health departments, housing authorities, and schools to provide care for children with elevated lead levels while continuing with the screening practices recommended by the AAP and other organizations, and advocating for prevention of lead exposure, Dr. Weitzman wrote.

Dr. Weitzman is professor of pediatrics and professor of environmental medicine at New York University. This is a summary of the editorial Dr. Weitzman wrote to accompany the published USPSTF recommendation (JAMA Pediatr. 2019 Apr 16. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.0855). He reported no relevant financial disclosures.

Body

“The inconclusive findings of the new USPSTF [U.S. Preventive Services Task Force] recommendation does not mean that screening children for elevated lead levels is not necessary, nor does it shed light on whether screening should be targeted to children at high risk or whether it should be universally done,” Michael Weitzman, MD, wrote in an editorial in response to the USPSTF recommendations.

Dr. Weitzman noted that the recommendation is a consequence of the lack of quality studies on lead level screening, and wrote that, although the recommendations apply to asymptomatic children at both average risk and increased risk, the USPSTF does not recommend for or against screening or that screening be abandoned.

It is standard pediatric practice to counsel parents on lead exposure and screening for elevated blood lead levels in children aged 1-5 years, he wrote, adding that “the American Academy of Pediatrics, Bright Futures, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Medicaid all recommend universal blood lead screening or the screening of selected children believed to be at especially high risk of exposure at approximately age 1 and 2 years.”

More rigorous research is needed to make definitive recommendations, but in the meantime, clinicians should continue to work with local health departments, housing authorities, and schools to provide care for children with elevated lead levels while continuing with the screening practices recommended by the AAP and other organizations, and advocating for prevention of lead exposure, Dr. Weitzman wrote.

Dr. Weitzman is professor of pediatrics and professor of environmental medicine at New York University. This is a summary of the editorial Dr. Weitzman wrote to accompany the published USPSTF recommendation (JAMA Pediatr. 2019 Apr 16. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.0855). He reported no relevant financial disclosures.

Title
Don’t stop screening children for elevated lead levels
Don’t stop screening children for elevated lead levels

More and better research is needed to guide primary care clinicians in screening asymptomatic young children and asymptomatic pregnant women for lead exposure, according to a recommendation from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

KatarzynaBialasiewicz/Thinkstock

Elevated blood lead levels are associated with potentially irreversible neurologic problems in children and with organ system impairment and adverse perinatal effects in pregnant women, according to the statement.

“Thus, the primary benefit of screening may be in preventing future exposures or exposure of others to environmental sources,” the task force members wrote in JAMA Pediatrics.

However, the task force issued I statements, meaning that “the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for elevated blood lead levels” in asymptomatic children aged 5 years and younger and in asymptomatic pregnant women.

The task force cited evidence that questionnaires and other clinical prediction tools are inaccurate at identifying elevated blood lead levels in asymptomatic children and pregnant women. In addition, the task force found adequate evidence that capillary blood testing identified elevated blood lead levels in children, but found inadequate evidence that treating elevated blood lead levels was effective in asymptomatic children aged 5 years and younger or in pregnant women.

In the evidence report accompanying the recommendation statement in JAMA Pediatrics, Amy G. Cantor, MD, MPH, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and her colleagues reviewed data from a total of 24 studies including 11,433 individuals.

None of the studies evaluated the risks or benefits of blood lead screening in children. However, in three of four studies, capillary blood lead testing showed sensitivities ranging from 87% to 91% and specificities from 92% to 99%, based on a blood lead level cutoff of 10 mcg/dL or less.

“Evidence indicates that capillary sampling is slightly less sensitive than venous sampling, with comparable specificity,” Dr. Cantor and her colleagues wrote. “Both methods require confirmation.”

There is only limited evidence on whether intervening when children present with elevated blood lead levels results in better neurodevelopmental outcomes. One trial showed beneficial effects of dimercaptosuccinic acid chelation of lowering elevated blood lead levels (20-44 mcg/dL) at 1 year versus placebo, but no clear effect on longer term blood lead levels or neurodevelopmental outcomes, they reported.

For residential interventions, again evidence is limited and blood lead concentrations were not clearly affected. Evidence on calcium and iron interventions was poor quality and insufficient to tell if there was an effect on blood lead levels or clinical outcomes, Dr. Cantor and her colleagues wrote.

No studies of screening for elevated lead levels in pregnant women were identified, nor were studies of health outcomes after interventions to reduce blood lead levels in asymptomatic pregnant women, they noted.

Studies involving pregnant women were limited, and included data on the diagnostic accuracy of a clinical questionnaire and the effects of nutritional intervention during pregnancy, Dr. Cantor and her colleagues wrote.

“This update confirms there are no clear effects of interventions for lowering elevated blood levels in affected children or to improve neurodevelopmental outcomes,” they concluded. “Evidence to determine benefits and harms of screening or treating elevated lead levels during pregnancy remains extremely limited.”

The recommendation updates the last version issued in 2006. The USPSTF is supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The researchers for both articles reported no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Curry SJ et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2019 Apr 16. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.3326; Cantor AG et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2019 Apr 16. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.1004.

More and better research is needed to guide primary care clinicians in screening asymptomatic young children and asymptomatic pregnant women for lead exposure, according to a recommendation from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

KatarzynaBialasiewicz/Thinkstock

Elevated blood lead levels are associated with potentially irreversible neurologic problems in children and with organ system impairment and adverse perinatal effects in pregnant women, according to the statement.

“Thus, the primary benefit of screening may be in preventing future exposures or exposure of others to environmental sources,” the task force members wrote in JAMA Pediatrics.

However, the task force issued I statements, meaning that “the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for elevated blood lead levels” in asymptomatic children aged 5 years and younger and in asymptomatic pregnant women.

The task force cited evidence that questionnaires and other clinical prediction tools are inaccurate at identifying elevated blood lead levels in asymptomatic children and pregnant women. In addition, the task force found adequate evidence that capillary blood testing identified elevated blood lead levels in children, but found inadequate evidence that treating elevated blood lead levels was effective in asymptomatic children aged 5 years and younger or in pregnant women.

In the evidence report accompanying the recommendation statement in JAMA Pediatrics, Amy G. Cantor, MD, MPH, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and her colleagues reviewed data from a total of 24 studies including 11,433 individuals.

None of the studies evaluated the risks or benefits of blood lead screening in children. However, in three of four studies, capillary blood lead testing showed sensitivities ranging from 87% to 91% and specificities from 92% to 99%, based on a blood lead level cutoff of 10 mcg/dL or less.

“Evidence indicates that capillary sampling is slightly less sensitive than venous sampling, with comparable specificity,” Dr. Cantor and her colleagues wrote. “Both methods require confirmation.”

There is only limited evidence on whether intervening when children present with elevated blood lead levels results in better neurodevelopmental outcomes. One trial showed beneficial effects of dimercaptosuccinic acid chelation of lowering elevated blood lead levels (20-44 mcg/dL) at 1 year versus placebo, but no clear effect on longer term blood lead levels or neurodevelopmental outcomes, they reported.

For residential interventions, again evidence is limited and blood lead concentrations were not clearly affected. Evidence on calcium and iron interventions was poor quality and insufficient to tell if there was an effect on blood lead levels or clinical outcomes, Dr. Cantor and her colleagues wrote.

No studies of screening for elevated lead levels in pregnant women were identified, nor were studies of health outcomes after interventions to reduce blood lead levels in asymptomatic pregnant women, they noted.

Studies involving pregnant women were limited, and included data on the diagnostic accuracy of a clinical questionnaire and the effects of nutritional intervention during pregnancy, Dr. Cantor and her colleagues wrote.

“This update confirms there are no clear effects of interventions for lowering elevated blood levels in affected children or to improve neurodevelopmental outcomes,” they concluded. “Evidence to determine benefits and harms of screening or treating elevated lead levels during pregnancy remains extremely limited.”

The recommendation updates the last version issued in 2006. The USPSTF is supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The researchers for both articles reported no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Curry SJ et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2019 Apr 16. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.3326; Cantor AG et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2019 Apr 16. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.1004.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Article Source

FROM JAMA PEDIATRICS

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.

Psychosis drug development persists amid snags

Article Type
Changed
Tue, 04/16/2019 - 10:14

 

ORLANDO – The landscape for drug development in schizophrenia includes several new promising targets as the field tries to regain its footing after a series of disappointments in recent years, a group of experts said in a session preceding the annual congress of the Schizophrenia International Research Society.

However, the experts also expressed a sense of urgency that trial design and better patient selection have to be improved. Some recent trial failures are likely because of faulty design rather than choosing the wrong target, they said in a satellite session that was funded and organized by Sunovion Pharmaceuticals.

“The question is really critical, because we’ve seen too many major pharma [companies] completely withdraw from this field because of their costly failures,” said Herbert Y. Meltzer, MD, director of the translational neuropharmacology program at Northwestern University, Chicago. “We’ve got to get it right.”

Some of the more prominent, recent trials that were embarked on with hope only to end with unfavorable results include pomaglumetad, a metabotropic glutamate receptor agonist that tried but failed to reduce residual positive and negative schizophrenia symptoms; bitopertin, a glycine transporter 1 inhibitor, for similar symptoms; several phosphodiesterase-10 inhibitors targeting acutely exacerbated schizophrenia symptoms; encenicline, a nicotinic receptor agonist for cognition; and Lu AF35700, a dopamine-and serotonin-receptor agonist, which the manufacturer recently announced failed to reduce positive and negative symptom scores.

Chrisoph U. Correll, MD, professor of psychiatry and molecular medicine at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y., said it’s possible that the phosphodiesterase-10 inhibitors could be looked at again.

“Maybe there is an approach to treat negative symptoms,” he said, adding that some trials might not have chosen patients effectively. “They may have had the wrong patients. They might have had also the wrong prior treatment and not having washed out patients enough.”

Dr. Meltzer said it’s clear to him that the encenicline trial, in particular, involved a problem of design. “There’s no way increasing cholinergic activity through the nicotinic receptor agonist is not going to improve cognition.”

He said embracing genetics is the best way forward, saying that the “shotgun approach” of the past has siphoned money and time away from more important work. “The future of the field is in the genetics – we’re going to have to get the right people into the right trials for the right drug and design them accordingly. If we don’t get into the genetic era very quickly, we’re not going to have a lot of new successful drugs.”

Dr. Oliver Howes

Oliver Howes, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry at King’s College London, described new areas of interest in the disease pathway, ahead of the dopamine receptor, which has long been a dominant focus of research and treatment efforts.

“How might we target these upstream factors that might regulate dopamine synthesis and release capacity?” is a key research question at the moment, he said.

A drug – called SEP-363856 – that targets the trace amine-associated receptor 1, which has a role in neurotransmission, significantly improved Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale scores in phase 2 trials. Researchers are also making progress in employing parvalbumin interneurons to dampen dopamine synthesis, Dr. Howes said.

Drugmakers halted development of a drug that targeted dopamine firing regulated by the muscarinic receptors M4 and M1 because of gastrointestinal side effects. But there is renewed hope of a more refined approach that targets only M4, rather than M1, which was thought to be responsible for the effects. Some preclinical efforts have been encouraging in this regard, Dr. Howes said.

“This more selective M4 agonist,” he said, “could manipulate the dopamine system in the way that we want.”

Dr. Meltzer, Dr. Correll, and Dr. Howes reported financial relationships with Sunovion, Alkermes, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lundbeck, Takeda, and other companies.

Meeting/Event
Publications
Topics
Sections
Meeting/Event
Meeting/Event

 

ORLANDO – The landscape for drug development in schizophrenia includes several new promising targets as the field tries to regain its footing after a series of disappointments in recent years, a group of experts said in a session preceding the annual congress of the Schizophrenia International Research Society.

However, the experts also expressed a sense of urgency that trial design and better patient selection have to be improved. Some recent trial failures are likely because of faulty design rather than choosing the wrong target, they said in a satellite session that was funded and organized by Sunovion Pharmaceuticals.

“The question is really critical, because we’ve seen too many major pharma [companies] completely withdraw from this field because of their costly failures,” said Herbert Y. Meltzer, MD, director of the translational neuropharmacology program at Northwestern University, Chicago. “We’ve got to get it right.”

Some of the more prominent, recent trials that were embarked on with hope only to end with unfavorable results include pomaglumetad, a metabotropic glutamate receptor agonist that tried but failed to reduce residual positive and negative schizophrenia symptoms; bitopertin, a glycine transporter 1 inhibitor, for similar symptoms; several phosphodiesterase-10 inhibitors targeting acutely exacerbated schizophrenia symptoms; encenicline, a nicotinic receptor agonist for cognition; and Lu AF35700, a dopamine-and serotonin-receptor agonist, which the manufacturer recently announced failed to reduce positive and negative symptom scores.

Chrisoph U. Correll, MD, professor of psychiatry and molecular medicine at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y., said it’s possible that the phosphodiesterase-10 inhibitors could be looked at again.

“Maybe there is an approach to treat negative symptoms,” he said, adding that some trials might not have chosen patients effectively. “They may have had the wrong patients. They might have had also the wrong prior treatment and not having washed out patients enough.”

Dr. Meltzer said it’s clear to him that the encenicline trial, in particular, involved a problem of design. “There’s no way increasing cholinergic activity through the nicotinic receptor agonist is not going to improve cognition.”

He said embracing genetics is the best way forward, saying that the “shotgun approach” of the past has siphoned money and time away from more important work. “The future of the field is in the genetics – we’re going to have to get the right people into the right trials for the right drug and design them accordingly. If we don’t get into the genetic era very quickly, we’re not going to have a lot of new successful drugs.”

Dr. Oliver Howes

Oliver Howes, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry at King’s College London, described new areas of interest in the disease pathway, ahead of the dopamine receptor, which has long been a dominant focus of research and treatment efforts.

“How might we target these upstream factors that might regulate dopamine synthesis and release capacity?” is a key research question at the moment, he said.

A drug – called SEP-363856 – that targets the trace amine-associated receptor 1, which has a role in neurotransmission, significantly improved Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale scores in phase 2 trials. Researchers are also making progress in employing parvalbumin interneurons to dampen dopamine synthesis, Dr. Howes said.

Drugmakers halted development of a drug that targeted dopamine firing regulated by the muscarinic receptors M4 and M1 because of gastrointestinal side effects. But there is renewed hope of a more refined approach that targets only M4, rather than M1, which was thought to be responsible for the effects. Some preclinical efforts have been encouraging in this regard, Dr. Howes said.

“This more selective M4 agonist,” he said, “could manipulate the dopamine system in the way that we want.”

Dr. Meltzer, Dr. Correll, and Dr. Howes reported financial relationships with Sunovion, Alkermes, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lundbeck, Takeda, and other companies.

 

ORLANDO – The landscape for drug development in schizophrenia includes several new promising targets as the field tries to regain its footing after a series of disappointments in recent years, a group of experts said in a session preceding the annual congress of the Schizophrenia International Research Society.

However, the experts also expressed a sense of urgency that trial design and better patient selection have to be improved. Some recent trial failures are likely because of faulty design rather than choosing the wrong target, they said in a satellite session that was funded and organized by Sunovion Pharmaceuticals.

“The question is really critical, because we’ve seen too many major pharma [companies] completely withdraw from this field because of their costly failures,” said Herbert Y. Meltzer, MD, director of the translational neuropharmacology program at Northwestern University, Chicago. “We’ve got to get it right.”

Some of the more prominent, recent trials that were embarked on with hope only to end with unfavorable results include pomaglumetad, a metabotropic glutamate receptor agonist that tried but failed to reduce residual positive and negative schizophrenia symptoms; bitopertin, a glycine transporter 1 inhibitor, for similar symptoms; several phosphodiesterase-10 inhibitors targeting acutely exacerbated schizophrenia symptoms; encenicline, a nicotinic receptor agonist for cognition; and Lu AF35700, a dopamine-and serotonin-receptor agonist, which the manufacturer recently announced failed to reduce positive and negative symptom scores.

Chrisoph U. Correll, MD, professor of psychiatry and molecular medicine at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y., said it’s possible that the phosphodiesterase-10 inhibitors could be looked at again.

“Maybe there is an approach to treat negative symptoms,” he said, adding that some trials might not have chosen patients effectively. “They may have had the wrong patients. They might have had also the wrong prior treatment and not having washed out patients enough.”

Dr. Meltzer said it’s clear to him that the encenicline trial, in particular, involved a problem of design. “There’s no way increasing cholinergic activity through the nicotinic receptor agonist is not going to improve cognition.”

He said embracing genetics is the best way forward, saying that the “shotgun approach” of the past has siphoned money and time away from more important work. “The future of the field is in the genetics – we’re going to have to get the right people into the right trials for the right drug and design them accordingly. If we don’t get into the genetic era very quickly, we’re not going to have a lot of new successful drugs.”

Dr. Oliver Howes

Oliver Howes, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry at King’s College London, described new areas of interest in the disease pathway, ahead of the dopamine receptor, which has long been a dominant focus of research and treatment efforts.

“How might we target these upstream factors that might regulate dopamine synthesis and release capacity?” is a key research question at the moment, he said.

A drug – called SEP-363856 – that targets the trace amine-associated receptor 1, which has a role in neurotransmission, significantly improved Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale scores in phase 2 trials. Researchers are also making progress in employing parvalbumin interneurons to dampen dopamine synthesis, Dr. Howes said.

Drugmakers halted development of a drug that targeted dopamine firing regulated by the muscarinic receptors M4 and M1 because of gastrointestinal side effects. But there is renewed hope of a more refined approach that targets only M4, rather than M1, which was thought to be responsible for the effects. Some preclinical efforts have been encouraging in this regard, Dr. Howes said.

“This more selective M4 agonist,” he said, “could manipulate the dopamine system in the way that we want.”

Dr. Meltzer, Dr. Correll, and Dr. Howes reported financial relationships with Sunovion, Alkermes, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lundbeck, Takeda, and other companies.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Article Source

EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM SIRS 2019

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.

Diagnosing endometriosis: Is laparoscopy the gold standard?

Article Type
Changed
Thu, 04/25/2019 - 11:50
Display Headline
Diagnosing endometriosis: Is laparoscopy the gold standard?

Click to Read.

This CME supplement to OBG Management provides readers with an understanding of the following topics: 

  • The relationship between chronic pelvic pain and endometriosis
  • The limitations of laparocopy in the diagnosis of endometriosis
  • The emerging role of imaging in the diagnosis of endometriosis

Click Here to read the full supplement and access a posttest and evaluation for CME credit.

 

Sponsor
This activity is supported by an educational grant from AbbVie.
Sponsor Teaser Title Override
Sponsored CME Supplement
Publications
Topics
Sections
Sponsor
This activity is supported by an educational grant from AbbVie.
Sponsor
This activity is supported by an educational grant from AbbVie.

Click to Read.

This CME supplement to OBG Management provides readers with an understanding of the following topics: 

  • The relationship between chronic pelvic pain and endometriosis
  • The limitations of laparocopy in the diagnosis of endometriosis
  • The emerging role of imaging in the diagnosis of endometriosis

Click Here to read the full supplement and access a posttest and evaluation for CME credit.

 

Click to Read.

This CME supplement to OBG Management provides readers with an understanding of the following topics: 

  • The relationship between chronic pelvic pain and endometriosis
  • The limitations of laparocopy in the diagnosis of endometriosis
  • The emerging role of imaging in the diagnosis of endometriosis

Click Here to read the full supplement and access a posttest and evaluation for CME credit.

 

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Diagnosing endometriosis: Is laparoscopy the gold standard?
Display Headline
Diagnosing endometriosis: Is laparoscopy the gold standard?
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Gate On Date
Thu, 03/28/2019 - 09:15
Un-Gate On Date
Thu, 03/28/2019 - 09:15
Use ProPublica
CFC Schedule Remove Status
Thu, 03/28/2019 - 09:15
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Sponsor Teaser Title Override
Sponsored CME Supplement

Anxiety can impact patient satisfaction after GERD surgery

Article Type
Changed
Wed, 05/22/2019 - 10:24

BALTIMORE – Patients who take benzodiazepines for anxiety and have laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication for gastroesophageal reflux disease achieve similar outcomes as other patients, but also have much lower rates of postop satisfaction, according to a study from the Ohio State University presented at the annual meeting of the Society of American Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Surgeons.

DAJ/Thinkstock

Carla Holcomb, MD, a minimally invasive surgery/bariatric fellow at the Ohio State’s Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, reported the upshot of the study findings. “Preoperative counseling is especially important regarding postoperative expectations in patients with anxiety,” she said.

The retrospective study evaluated 271 patients who had laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication (LNF) during 2011-2016 at the medical center, comparing outcomes in patients who were on serotonin-modulating medication for depression (n = 103), benzodiazepines for anxiety (n = 44), or neither (n = 124). The researchers evaluated a number of metrics – DeMeester score of esophageal acid exposure, pre- and postoperative health-related quality of life, and postoperative antacid use and need for endoscopic dilation – across all cohorts. While some scores among the anxiety cohort trended higher (DeMeester score of 43 vs. 38 for the no-anxiety patients) they were not statistically significant, Dr. Holcomb noted. Patients taking antidepressants reported similar subjective outcomes and satisfaction rates to those not taking antidepressants.

However, when patients were queried about their overall satisfaction after laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication 77%-87% in the no-depression, depression, and no-anxiety groups reported they were satisfied, while only 37% of those in the anxiety group did so. That is based on a response rate of 53% to a telephone inquiry 15 months after LNF.

“The patients who had anxiety looked vastly different from the rest of the population,” said Dr. Holcomb. “Patients taking antidepressants reported similar objective outcomes and high satisfaction rates, [compared with] patients not taking antidepressants after LNF, and although LNF does improve gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms in patients taking anxiolytics, they rarely achieve satisfaction in long-term follow-up.”

Among the study limitations Dr. Holcomb acknowledged were the 53% long-term response rate and not knowing if an anatomical reason may explain the higher health-related quality of life scores in the anxiety group – 7 vs. 4 in the no-anxiety group – at long-term follow-up, although the overall score was low at 5.

Dr. Holcomb had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Holcomb CN et al. SAGES 2019, Session SS04.

Meeting/Event
Publications
Topics
Sections
Meeting/Event
Meeting/Event

BALTIMORE – Patients who take benzodiazepines for anxiety and have laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication for gastroesophageal reflux disease achieve similar outcomes as other patients, but also have much lower rates of postop satisfaction, according to a study from the Ohio State University presented at the annual meeting of the Society of American Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Surgeons.

DAJ/Thinkstock

Carla Holcomb, MD, a minimally invasive surgery/bariatric fellow at the Ohio State’s Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, reported the upshot of the study findings. “Preoperative counseling is especially important regarding postoperative expectations in patients with anxiety,” she said.

The retrospective study evaluated 271 patients who had laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication (LNF) during 2011-2016 at the medical center, comparing outcomes in patients who were on serotonin-modulating medication for depression (n = 103), benzodiazepines for anxiety (n = 44), or neither (n = 124). The researchers evaluated a number of metrics – DeMeester score of esophageal acid exposure, pre- and postoperative health-related quality of life, and postoperative antacid use and need for endoscopic dilation – across all cohorts. While some scores among the anxiety cohort trended higher (DeMeester score of 43 vs. 38 for the no-anxiety patients) they were not statistically significant, Dr. Holcomb noted. Patients taking antidepressants reported similar subjective outcomes and satisfaction rates to those not taking antidepressants.

However, when patients were queried about their overall satisfaction after laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication 77%-87% in the no-depression, depression, and no-anxiety groups reported they were satisfied, while only 37% of those in the anxiety group did so. That is based on a response rate of 53% to a telephone inquiry 15 months after LNF.

“The patients who had anxiety looked vastly different from the rest of the population,” said Dr. Holcomb. “Patients taking antidepressants reported similar objective outcomes and high satisfaction rates, [compared with] patients not taking antidepressants after LNF, and although LNF does improve gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms in patients taking anxiolytics, they rarely achieve satisfaction in long-term follow-up.”

Among the study limitations Dr. Holcomb acknowledged were the 53% long-term response rate and not knowing if an anatomical reason may explain the higher health-related quality of life scores in the anxiety group – 7 vs. 4 in the no-anxiety group – at long-term follow-up, although the overall score was low at 5.

Dr. Holcomb had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Holcomb CN et al. SAGES 2019, Session SS04.

BALTIMORE – Patients who take benzodiazepines for anxiety and have laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication for gastroesophageal reflux disease achieve similar outcomes as other patients, but also have much lower rates of postop satisfaction, according to a study from the Ohio State University presented at the annual meeting of the Society of American Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Surgeons.

DAJ/Thinkstock

Carla Holcomb, MD, a minimally invasive surgery/bariatric fellow at the Ohio State’s Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, reported the upshot of the study findings. “Preoperative counseling is especially important regarding postoperative expectations in patients with anxiety,” she said.

The retrospective study evaluated 271 patients who had laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication (LNF) during 2011-2016 at the medical center, comparing outcomes in patients who were on serotonin-modulating medication for depression (n = 103), benzodiazepines for anxiety (n = 44), or neither (n = 124). The researchers evaluated a number of metrics – DeMeester score of esophageal acid exposure, pre- and postoperative health-related quality of life, and postoperative antacid use and need for endoscopic dilation – across all cohorts. While some scores among the anxiety cohort trended higher (DeMeester score of 43 vs. 38 for the no-anxiety patients) they were not statistically significant, Dr. Holcomb noted. Patients taking antidepressants reported similar subjective outcomes and satisfaction rates to those not taking antidepressants.

However, when patients were queried about their overall satisfaction after laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication 77%-87% in the no-depression, depression, and no-anxiety groups reported they were satisfied, while only 37% of those in the anxiety group did so. That is based on a response rate of 53% to a telephone inquiry 15 months after LNF.

“The patients who had anxiety looked vastly different from the rest of the population,” said Dr. Holcomb. “Patients taking antidepressants reported similar objective outcomes and high satisfaction rates, [compared with] patients not taking antidepressants after LNF, and although LNF does improve gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms in patients taking anxiolytics, they rarely achieve satisfaction in long-term follow-up.”

Among the study limitations Dr. Holcomb acknowledged were the 53% long-term response rate and not knowing if an anatomical reason may explain the higher health-related quality of life scores in the anxiety group – 7 vs. 4 in the no-anxiety group – at long-term follow-up, although the overall score was low at 5.

Dr. Holcomb had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Holcomb CN et al. SAGES 2019, Session SS04.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Article Source

REPORTING FROM SAGES 2019

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Vitals

 

Key clinical point: Patients on anxiolytics for anxiety would benefit from counseling before laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication.

Major finding: Fewer than 40% of patients with anxiety reported satisfaction after LNF despite vast improvement in reflux symptoms.

Study details: Retrospective cohort, single-center study with a prospectively maintained database of 271 patients who had laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication during 2011-2016.

Disclosures: Dr. Holcomb had no financial relationships to disclose

Source: Holcomb CN et al. SAGES 2019, Session SS04.

Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.

Gout Drug May Help in Metabolic Syndrome

Article Type
Changed
Tue, 05/03/2022 - 15:14
Colchicine, used to suppress or prevent inflammation in gout and pericarditis, may have a role in treating metabolic syndrome, according to an NIH pilot study.

Colchicine inhibits the formation of the Nod-like Receptor Family Pyrin Domain Containing 3 (NLRP3) inflammasome, a key component in the obesity-associated inflammatory cascade. In a retrospective study, long-term colchicine treatment had glycemic benefit in patients with gout. Other research has suggested that suppressing NLRP3 could improve peripheral insulin resistance as well as β-cell insulin production. However, no randomized controlled trial had yet investigated colchicine’s long-term effects on glucose metabolism in adults with obesity and metabolic syndrome (MetS).

The NIH researchers enrolled 40 adults to receive either colchicine or placebo; 37 completed the 3-month study. Adherence was high in both groups.

Colchicine significantly reduced multiple markers of obesity-associated inflammation, including high sensitivity C-reactive protein and erythrocyte sedimentation rate. The colchicine group also had moderate but statistically significant reductions in white blood cell count, monocytes, neutrophils, and platelets, without significant effects on lymphocyte count.

Although colchicine’s effects on the primary outcome of insulin sensitivity were not significant, some of the secondary outcomes related to glucose homeostasis—eg, insulin resistance and fasting insulin—suggest colchicine treatment may improve hepatic insulin sensitivity. Moreover, the researchers say, a trend toward improvement in disposition index suggests that the drug might potentially delay the onset of diabetes in people at risk. 

While some small, short-term studies had suggested that colchicine might worsen metabolic variables by inhibiting insulin secretion, other recent retrospective studies found long-term colchicine use did not negatively affect insulin secretion or glycemic control. In this study, similarly, the researchers say, chronic colchicine use did not impair first-phase insulin response or insulin sensitivity, and other markers of metabolic health, such as hemoglobin A1c and cholesterol, were not significantly changed. However, the researchers acknowledge that their study may have been too small to confirm those differences, and say larger studies are warranted.

Publications
Topics
Sections
Colchicine, used to suppress or prevent inflammation in gout and pericarditis, may have a role in treating metabolic syndrome, according to an NIH pilot study.
Colchicine, used to suppress or prevent inflammation in gout and pericarditis, may have a role in treating metabolic syndrome, according to an NIH pilot study.

Colchicine inhibits the formation of the Nod-like Receptor Family Pyrin Domain Containing 3 (NLRP3) inflammasome, a key component in the obesity-associated inflammatory cascade. In a retrospective study, long-term colchicine treatment had glycemic benefit in patients with gout. Other research has suggested that suppressing NLRP3 could improve peripheral insulin resistance as well as β-cell insulin production. However, no randomized controlled trial had yet investigated colchicine’s long-term effects on glucose metabolism in adults with obesity and metabolic syndrome (MetS).

The NIH researchers enrolled 40 adults to receive either colchicine or placebo; 37 completed the 3-month study. Adherence was high in both groups.

Colchicine significantly reduced multiple markers of obesity-associated inflammation, including high sensitivity C-reactive protein and erythrocyte sedimentation rate. The colchicine group also had moderate but statistically significant reductions in white blood cell count, monocytes, neutrophils, and platelets, without significant effects on lymphocyte count.

Although colchicine’s effects on the primary outcome of insulin sensitivity were not significant, some of the secondary outcomes related to glucose homeostasis—eg, insulin resistance and fasting insulin—suggest colchicine treatment may improve hepatic insulin sensitivity. Moreover, the researchers say, a trend toward improvement in disposition index suggests that the drug might potentially delay the onset of diabetes in people at risk. 

While some small, short-term studies had suggested that colchicine might worsen metabolic variables by inhibiting insulin secretion, other recent retrospective studies found long-term colchicine use did not negatively affect insulin secretion or glycemic control. In this study, similarly, the researchers say, chronic colchicine use did not impair first-phase insulin response or insulin sensitivity, and other markers of metabolic health, such as hemoglobin A1c and cholesterol, were not significantly changed. However, the researchers acknowledge that their study may have been too small to confirm those differences, and say larger studies are warranted.

Colchicine inhibits the formation of the Nod-like Receptor Family Pyrin Domain Containing 3 (NLRP3) inflammasome, a key component in the obesity-associated inflammatory cascade. In a retrospective study, long-term colchicine treatment had glycemic benefit in patients with gout. Other research has suggested that suppressing NLRP3 could improve peripheral insulin resistance as well as β-cell insulin production. However, no randomized controlled trial had yet investigated colchicine’s long-term effects on glucose metabolism in adults with obesity and metabolic syndrome (MetS).

The NIH researchers enrolled 40 adults to receive either colchicine or placebo; 37 completed the 3-month study. Adherence was high in both groups.

Colchicine significantly reduced multiple markers of obesity-associated inflammation, including high sensitivity C-reactive protein and erythrocyte sedimentation rate. The colchicine group also had moderate but statistically significant reductions in white blood cell count, monocytes, neutrophils, and platelets, without significant effects on lymphocyte count.

Although colchicine’s effects on the primary outcome of insulin sensitivity were not significant, some of the secondary outcomes related to glucose homeostasis—eg, insulin resistance and fasting insulin—suggest colchicine treatment may improve hepatic insulin sensitivity. Moreover, the researchers say, a trend toward improvement in disposition index suggests that the drug might potentially delay the onset of diabetes in people at risk. 

While some small, short-term studies had suggested that colchicine might worsen metabolic variables by inhibiting insulin secretion, other recent retrospective studies found long-term colchicine use did not negatively affect insulin secretion or glycemic control. In this study, similarly, the researchers say, chronic colchicine use did not impair first-phase insulin response or insulin sensitivity, and other markers of metabolic health, such as hemoglobin A1c and cholesterol, were not significantly changed. However, the researchers acknowledge that their study may have been too small to confirm those differences, and say larger studies are warranted.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Gate On Date
Mon, 04/15/2019 - 15:15
Un-Gate On Date
Mon, 04/15/2019 - 15:15
Use ProPublica
CFC Schedule Remove Status
Mon, 04/15/2019 - 15:15
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.

2018 at a glance: Recently approved therapies in oncology

Article Type
Changed
Wed, 05/01/2019 - 15:23

 

Advances in genomics and technology perpetually change and improve therapies in oncology. Enhanced comprehension of cellular signaling, division, and replication has created a platform to selectively restrict neoplastic growth while preserving the integrity of benign cells.

This article reviews therapies that were newly approved in 2018, as well as those previously approved whose indications were expanded this past year. The list highlights the most clinically important approvals, as well as adverse events that are unique or especially severe.

Click on the PDF above to download the full article and charts in an easy-to-print format. 

Apalutamide (Erleada)

Class: Androgen receptor inhibitor.

Disease: Nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

Dose: 240 mg orally, once daily.

Adverse Events (AEs): Hyperkalemia and increased risks of seizures, falls, and fractures.

Phase 3 SPARTAN trial (NCT01946204): 40.5-month metastasis-free survival rate, compared with 16.2 months in the placebo group.



Cemiplimab (Libtayo)

Class: Antibody against programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1).

Disease: Metastatic cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC) or locally advanced CSCC that is ineligible for curative surgery/radiation.

Dose: 350 mg intravenous infusion every 3 weeks.

AEs: Pneumonitis, autoimmune myocarditis, hepatitis, and aseptic meningitis.

1423 and 1540 trials (NCT02383212 and NCT02760498): 47.2% of patients who received cemiplimab had complete disappearance of the tumor or a decrease in tumor size.



Dacomitinib (Vizimpro)

Class: Second-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitor.

Disease: Metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R substitution mutation.

Dose: 45 mg orally once daily.

AEs: Dermatotoxicity and diarrhea.

ARCHER1050 trial (NCT01774721): Patients who received dacomitinib demonstrated an improved overall survival, with a median of 34.1 months, compared with 26.8 months with gefitinib.



Duvelisib (Copiktra)

Class: Dual inhibitor of phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase delta and gamma.

Disease: Relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), small lymphocytic lymphoma, or relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma after at least two prior systemic therapies.

Dose: 25 mg orally twice daily.

AEs: Infection, diarrhea or colitis, and pneumonia.

Phase 3 DUO trial (NCT02004522): Progression-free survival in the duvelisib arm was 7.3 months longer than that in the ofatumumab arm. The overall response rate for patients receiving duvelisib was 78%, compared with 39% for those receiving ofatumumab.

 

 



Gilteritinib (Xospata)

Class: Inhibits the FLT3 internal tandem duplication (ITD) and FLT3 tyrosine kinase domain (TKD).

Disease: Relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia (AML) with an FLT3 mutation.

Dose: 120 mg orally daily.

ADMIRAL trial (NCT02421939): 21% of the patients who received gilteritinib exhibited complete remission or complete remission with partial hematologic recovery.



Glasdegib (Daurismo)

Class: Hedgehog pathway inhibitor.

Disease: Adults over age 75 years with newly diagnosed AML and other medical comorbidities that preclude them from intensive chemotherapy.

Dose: The recommended dose is 100 mg orally continuously in 28-day cycles.

AE: QT prolongation and embryo-fetal toxicity

Phase 2 BRIGHT 1003 trial (NCT01546038): 3.9-month overall survival advantage for glasdegib plus cytarabine, compared with cytarabine alone. Overall, 15% of the glasdegib plus low dose cytarabine arm achieved complete remission, compared with the 1% complete remission rate in patients who received cytarabine alone.



Iobenguane I 131 (Azedra)

Class: Radiopharmaceutical agent; induces cell death within the noradrenaline transporter.

Disease: Iobenguane scan–positive, unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic pheochromocytoma or paraganglioma

Dose: Initial intravenous dosimetric dose, followed by two therapeutic doses.

AE: Pancytopenia and elevated international normalized ratio (INR).

IB12B trial (NCT00874614): One-quarter of patients receiving this therapy had at least a 50% reduction in the dose and number of antihypertensives for at least 6 months; almost all patients had a tumor response.



Ivosidenib (Tibsovo)

Class: Small-molecule inhibitor of mutant isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH1).

Disease: Refractory AML and an IDH1 mutation

Dose: 500 mg orally daily.

AG120-C-001 trial (NCT02074839): Overall response rate of 41.6% in patients who received ivosidenib, with a 30.4% rate of complete remission or complete remission with partial hematologic recovery.



Larotrectinib (Vitrakvi)

Class: Oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor.

Disease: Advanced solid tumors harboring a neurotrophic tyrosine receptor kinase (NTRK) gene fusion.

Dose: 100 mg orally twice daily.

LOXO-TRK-14001, SCOUT, and NAVIGATE trials (NCT02122913, NCT02637687, and NCT02576431): Patients who received larotrectinib had durable responses regardless of patient age, tumor type, and fusion status.



Lutetium Lu 177 dotatate (Lutathera)

Class: Radiolabeled somatostatin analogue.

Disease: Somatostatin receptor–positive gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs).

Dose: Intravenous infusion 7.4 GBq (200 mCi) every 8 weeks for a total of four doses.

NETTER-1 trial (NCT01578239): 65% of adults who received lutetium Lu 177 showed improved progression-free survival at 20 months, compared with just 10.8% in the control group.

 

 



Mogamulizumab (Poteligeo)

Class: Monoclonal antibody that binds to a protein (CC chemokine receptor type 4).

Disease: Relapsed or refractory mycosis fungoides or Sézary syndrome.

Dose: Intravenous infusion 1 mg/kg.

AE: Dermatologic toxicity.

MAVORIC trial (NCT01728805): Patients who received mogamulizumab had improved progression-free survival (median 7.7 months), compared with those taking vorinostat (median 3.1 months).



Moxetumomab pasudotox-tdfk (Lumoxiti)

Class: CD22-directed cytotoxin fused with a fragment of Pseudomonas exotoxin A.

Disease: Relapsed or refractory hairy cell leukemia previously treated with at least two prior systemic therapies, including a purine nucleoside analogue.

Dose: Intravenously as 0.04 mg/kg.

AE: Hemolytic uremic syndrome.

1053 trial (NCT01829711): 30% of the patients who received moxetumomab pasudotox-tdfk had a durable complete response confirmed by maintenance hematologic remission.



Talazoparib (Talzenna)

Class: Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor.

Disease: gBRCAm HER2-negative locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer.

Dose: 1 mg orally per day.

EMBRACA trial (NCT01945775): Patients who received talazoparib demonstrated significantly longer progression-free survival, with a median of 8.6 months versis 5.6 months in the control arm.

Dr. Bryer is a resident in the department of internal medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Dr. Mentzer is chief of hematology-oncology at Pennsylvania Hospital and professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania. Dr. Henry is a hematologist-oncologist at Pennsylvania Hospital and a professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania.

Article PDF
Publications
Topics
Sections
Article PDF
Article PDF

 

Advances in genomics and technology perpetually change and improve therapies in oncology. Enhanced comprehension of cellular signaling, division, and replication has created a platform to selectively restrict neoplastic growth while preserving the integrity of benign cells.

This article reviews therapies that were newly approved in 2018, as well as those previously approved whose indications were expanded this past year. The list highlights the most clinically important approvals, as well as adverse events that are unique or especially severe.

Click on the PDF above to download the full article and charts in an easy-to-print format. 

Apalutamide (Erleada)

Class: Androgen receptor inhibitor.

Disease: Nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

Dose: 240 mg orally, once daily.

Adverse Events (AEs): Hyperkalemia and increased risks of seizures, falls, and fractures.

Phase 3 SPARTAN trial (NCT01946204): 40.5-month metastasis-free survival rate, compared with 16.2 months in the placebo group.



Cemiplimab (Libtayo)

Class: Antibody against programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1).

Disease: Metastatic cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC) or locally advanced CSCC that is ineligible for curative surgery/radiation.

Dose: 350 mg intravenous infusion every 3 weeks.

AEs: Pneumonitis, autoimmune myocarditis, hepatitis, and aseptic meningitis.

1423 and 1540 trials (NCT02383212 and NCT02760498): 47.2% of patients who received cemiplimab had complete disappearance of the tumor or a decrease in tumor size.



Dacomitinib (Vizimpro)

Class: Second-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitor.

Disease: Metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R substitution mutation.

Dose: 45 mg orally once daily.

AEs: Dermatotoxicity and diarrhea.

ARCHER1050 trial (NCT01774721): Patients who received dacomitinib demonstrated an improved overall survival, with a median of 34.1 months, compared with 26.8 months with gefitinib.



Duvelisib (Copiktra)

Class: Dual inhibitor of phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase delta and gamma.

Disease: Relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), small lymphocytic lymphoma, or relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma after at least two prior systemic therapies.

Dose: 25 mg orally twice daily.

AEs: Infection, diarrhea or colitis, and pneumonia.

Phase 3 DUO trial (NCT02004522): Progression-free survival in the duvelisib arm was 7.3 months longer than that in the ofatumumab arm. The overall response rate for patients receiving duvelisib was 78%, compared with 39% for those receiving ofatumumab.

 

 



Gilteritinib (Xospata)

Class: Inhibits the FLT3 internal tandem duplication (ITD) and FLT3 tyrosine kinase domain (TKD).

Disease: Relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia (AML) with an FLT3 mutation.

Dose: 120 mg orally daily.

ADMIRAL trial (NCT02421939): 21% of the patients who received gilteritinib exhibited complete remission or complete remission with partial hematologic recovery.



Glasdegib (Daurismo)

Class: Hedgehog pathway inhibitor.

Disease: Adults over age 75 years with newly diagnosed AML and other medical comorbidities that preclude them from intensive chemotherapy.

Dose: The recommended dose is 100 mg orally continuously in 28-day cycles.

AE: QT prolongation and embryo-fetal toxicity

Phase 2 BRIGHT 1003 trial (NCT01546038): 3.9-month overall survival advantage for glasdegib plus cytarabine, compared with cytarabine alone. Overall, 15% of the glasdegib plus low dose cytarabine arm achieved complete remission, compared with the 1% complete remission rate in patients who received cytarabine alone.



Iobenguane I 131 (Azedra)

Class: Radiopharmaceutical agent; induces cell death within the noradrenaline transporter.

Disease: Iobenguane scan–positive, unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic pheochromocytoma or paraganglioma

Dose: Initial intravenous dosimetric dose, followed by two therapeutic doses.

AE: Pancytopenia and elevated international normalized ratio (INR).

IB12B trial (NCT00874614): One-quarter of patients receiving this therapy had at least a 50% reduction in the dose and number of antihypertensives for at least 6 months; almost all patients had a tumor response.



Ivosidenib (Tibsovo)

Class: Small-molecule inhibitor of mutant isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH1).

Disease: Refractory AML and an IDH1 mutation

Dose: 500 mg orally daily.

AG120-C-001 trial (NCT02074839): Overall response rate of 41.6% in patients who received ivosidenib, with a 30.4% rate of complete remission or complete remission with partial hematologic recovery.



Larotrectinib (Vitrakvi)

Class: Oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor.

Disease: Advanced solid tumors harboring a neurotrophic tyrosine receptor kinase (NTRK) gene fusion.

Dose: 100 mg orally twice daily.

LOXO-TRK-14001, SCOUT, and NAVIGATE trials (NCT02122913, NCT02637687, and NCT02576431): Patients who received larotrectinib had durable responses regardless of patient age, tumor type, and fusion status.



Lutetium Lu 177 dotatate (Lutathera)

Class: Radiolabeled somatostatin analogue.

Disease: Somatostatin receptor–positive gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs).

Dose: Intravenous infusion 7.4 GBq (200 mCi) every 8 weeks for a total of four doses.

NETTER-1 trial (NCT01578239): 65% of adults who received lutetium Lu 177 showed improved progression-free survival at 20 months, compared with just 10.8% in the control group.

 

 



Mogamulizumab (Poteligeo)

Class: Monoclonal antibody that binds to a protein (CC chemokine receptor type 4).

Disease: Relapsed or refractory mycosis fungoides or Sézary syndrome.

Dose: Intravenous infusion 1 mg/kg.

AE: Dermatologic toxicity.

MAVORIC trial (NCT01728805): Patients who received mogamulizumab had improved progression-free survival (median 7.7 months), compared with those taking vorinostat (median 3.1 months).



Moxetumomab pasudotox-tdfk (Lumoxiti)

Class: CD22-directed cytotoxin fused with a fragment of Pseudomonas exotoxin A.

Disease: Relapsed or refractory hairy cell leukemia previously treated with at least two prior systemic therapies, including a purine nucleoside analogue.

Dose: Intravenously as 0.04 mg/kg.

AE: Hemolytic uremic syndrome.

1053 trial (NCT01829711): 30% of the patients who received moxetumomab pasudotox-tdfk had a durable complete response confirmed by maintenance hematologic remission.



Talazoparib (Talzenna)

Class: Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor.

Disease: gBRCAm HER2-negative locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer.

Dose: 1 mg orally per day.

EMBRACA trial (NCT01945775): Patients who received talazoparib demonstrated significantly longer progression-free survival, with a median of 8.6 months versis 5.6 months in the control arm.

Dr. Bryer is a resident in the department of internal medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Dr. Mentzer is chief of hematology-oncology at Pennsylvania Hospital and professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania. Dr. Henry is a hematologist-oncologist at Pennsylvania Hospital and a professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania.

 

Advances in genomics and technology perpetually change and improve therapies in oncology. Enhanced comprehension of cellular signaling, division, and replication has created a platform to selectively restrict neoplastic growth while preserving the integrity of benign cells.

This article reviews therapies that were newly approved in 2018, as well as those previously approved whose indications were expanded this past year. The list highlights the most clinically important approvals, as well as adverse events that are unique or especially severe.

Click on the PDF above to download the full article and charts in an easy-to-print format. 

Apalutamide (Erleada)

Class: Androgen receptor inhibitor.

Disease: Nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

Dose: 240 mg orally, once daily.

Adverse Events (AEs): Hyperkalemia and increased risks of seizures, falls, and fractures.

Phase 3 SPARTAN trial (NCT01946204): 40.5-month metastasis-free survival rate, compared with 16.2 months in the placebo group.



Cemiplimab (Libtayo)

Class: Antibody against programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1).

Disease: Metastatic cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC) or locally advanced CSCC that is ineligible for curative surgery/radiation.

Dose: 350 mg intravenous infusion every 3 weeks.

AEs: Pneumonitis, autoimmune myocarditis, hepatitis, and aseptic meningitis.

1423 and 1540 trials (NCT02383212 and NCT02760498): 47.2% of patients who received cemiplimab had complete disappearance of the tumor or a decrease in tumor size.



Dacomitinib (Vizimpro)

Class: Second-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitor.

Disease: Metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R substitution mutation.

Dose: 45 mg orally once daily.

AEs: Dermatotoxicity and diarrhea.

ARCHER1050 trial (NCT01774721): Patients who received dacomitinib demonstrated an improved overall survival, with a median of 34.1 months, compared with 26.8 months with gefitinib.



Duvelisib (Copiktra)

Class: Dual inhibitor of phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase delta and gamma.

Disease: Relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), small lymphocytic lymphoma, or relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma after at least two prior systemic therapies.

Dose: 25 mg orally twice daily.

AEs: Infection, diarrhea or colitis, and pneumonia.

Phase 3 DUO trial (NCT02004522): Progression-free survival in the duvelisib arm was 7.3 months longer than that in the ofatumumab arm. The overall response rate for patients receiving duvelisib was 78%, compared with 39% for those receiving ofatumumab.

 

 



Gilteritinib (Xospata)

Class: Inhibits the FLT3 internal tandem duplication (ITD) and FLT3 tyrosine kinase domain (TKD).

Disease: Relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia (AML) with an FLT3 mutation.

Dose: 120 mg orally daily.

ADMIRAL trial (NCT02421939): 21% of the patients who received gilteritinib exhibited complete remission or complete remission with partial hematologic recovery.



Glasdegib (Daurismo)

Class: Hedgehog pathway inhibitor.

Disease: Adults over age 75 years with newly diagnosed AML and other medical comorbidities that preclude them from intensive chemotherapy.

Dose: The recommended dose is 100 mg orally continuously in 28-day cycles.

AE: QT prolongation and embryo-fetal toxicity

Phase 2 BRIGHT 1003 trial (NCT01546038): 3.9-month overall survival advantage for glasdegib plus cytarabine, compared with cytarabine alone. Overall, 15% of the glasdegib plus low dose cytarabine arm achieved complete remission, compared with the 1% complete remission rate in patients who received cytarabine alone.



Iobenguane I 131 (Azedra)

Class: Radiopharmaceutical agent; induces cell death within the noradrenaline transporter.

Disease: Iobenguane scan–positive, unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic pheochromocytoma or paraganglioma

Dose: Initial intravenous dosimetric dose, followed by two therapeutic doses.

AE: Pancytopenia and elevated international normalized ratio (INR).

IB12B trial (NCT00874614): One-quarter of patients receiving this therapy had at least a 50% reduction in the dose and number of antihypertensives for at least 6 months; almost all patients had a tumor response.



Ivosidenib (Tibsovo)

Class: Small-molecule inhibitor of mutant isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH1).

Disease: Refractory AML and an IDH1 mutation

Dose: 500 mg orally daily.

AG120-C-001 trial (NCT02074839): Overall response rate of 41.6% in patients who received ivosidenib, with a 30.4% rate of complete remission or complete remission with partial hematologic recovery.



Larotrectinib (Vitrakvi)

Class: Oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor.

Disease: Advanced solid tumors harboring a neurotrophic tyrosine receptor kinase (NTRK) gene fusion.

Dose: 100 mg orally twice daily.

LOXO-TRK-14001, SCOUT, and NAVIGATE trials (NCT02122913, NCT02637687, and NCT02576431): Patients who received larotrectinib had durable responses regardless of patient age, tumor type, and fusion status.



Lutetium Lu 177 dotatate (Lutathera)

Class: Radiolabeled somatostatin analogue.

Disease: Somatostatin receptor–positive gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs).

Dose: Intravenous infusion 7.4 GBq (200 mCi) every 8 weeks for a total of four doses.

NETTER-1 trial (NCT01578239): 65% of adults who received lutetium Lu 177 showed improved progression-free survival at 20 months, compared with just 10.8% in the control group.

 

 



Mogamulizumab (Poteligeo)

Class: Monoclonal antibody that binds to a protein (CC chemokine receptor type 4).

Disease: Relapsed or refractory mycosis fungoides or Sézary syndrome.

Dose: Intravenous infusion 1 mg/kg.

AE: Dermatologic toxicity.

MAVORIC trial (NCT01728805): Patients who received mogamulizumab had improved progression-free survival (median 7.7 months), compared with those taking vorinostat (median 3.1 months).



Moxetumomab pasudotox-tdfk (Lumoxiti)

Class: CD22-directed cytotoxin fused with a fragment of Pseudomonas exotoxin A.

Disease: Relapsed or refractory hairy cell leukemia previously treated with at least two prior systemic therapies, including a purine nucleoside analogue.

Dose: Intravenously as 0.04 mg/kg.

AE: Hemolytic uremic syndrome.

1053 trial (NCT01829711): 30% of the patients who received moxetumomab pasudotox-tdfk had a durable complete response confirmed by maintenance hematologic remission.



Talazoparib (Talzenna)

Class: Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor.

Disease: gBRCAm HER2-negative locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer.

Dose: 1 mg orally per day.

EMBRACA trial (NCT01945775): Patients who received talazoparib demonstrated significantly longer progression-free survival, with a median of 8.6 months versis 5.6 months in the control arm.

Dr. Bryer is a resident in the department of internal medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Dr. Mentzer is chief of hematology-oncology at Pennsylvania Hospital and professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania. Dr. Henry is a hematologist-oncologist at Pennsylvania Hospital and a professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Article PDF Media