Modifiable chronic health conditions and socioeconomic factors may raise the risk for death in adult survivors of childhood cancer, according to new data from the St. Jude Lifetime Cohort.

Survivors with a greater number and severity of modifiable chronic health conditions as well as those living in the most versus least resource-deprived areas had a significantly higher risk of all-cause and health-related late death.

Finding ways to mitigate these factors “will be important to improving health outcomes and developing risk-stratification strategies to optimize care delivery to survivors at varying risk of adverse health events,” the researchers wrote.

The study indicates that treating chronic health conditions alone may not be enough to increase a cancer survivor’s lifespan; improving local environments matters too.

“It is important for clinicians to ask patients about their specific situation,” first author Matthew J. Ehrhardt, MD, department of oncology, St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, said in a news release. “It’s easy to prescribe medications or to tell people to exercise. It takes more time and more thoughtfulness to sit and understand environments in which they are residing.”

“As clinicians, we may have limited ability to modify some of those factors. But we can work closely with the rest of the health care team, such as social workers, for example, to help survivors to identify and access local resources,” Dr. Ehrhardt added.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

A growing population of childhood cancer survivors faces an increased risk for premature death in the years following their diagnosis. However, associations between social determinants of health, modifiable health conditions, and late mortality in childhood cancer survivors remain unclear.

To assess late mortality, the study team analyzed data on 9,440 participants (median age at assessment, 27.5 years; range, 5.3-71.9 years) who lived at least 5 years after being diagnosed with a childhood cancer between 1962 and 2012.

During a median follow-up of about 18 years, childhood cancer survivors had an increased rate of both all-cause and health-related late mortality (standardized mortality rate, 7.6 for both). Among specific health-related causes of death, SMRs were 16.0 for subsequent neoplasms, 9.0 for pulmonary causes, 4.2 for cardiac causes, and 4.3 for other health-related causes.

To evaluate ties between modifiable chronic health conditions, social determinants, and late mortality, the researchers restricted their analysis to 3,407 adult study participants for whom relevant data were available. Modifiable chronic health conditions included dyslipidemia, hypertension, diabetes, underweight or obesity, bone mineral deficiency, and hypothyroidism.

After adjusting for individual factors, including age at diagnosis and treatment, as well as neighborhood-level factors, the researchers observed a significantly increased risk for death among survivors with one or more modifiable chronic health conditions of grade 2 or higher (relative risk, 2.2), two chronic health conditions of grade 2 or higher (RR, 2.6) or three chronic health conditions of grade 2 or higher (RR, 3.6).

These findings suggest that “increased late mortality experienced by childhood cancer survivors in adulthood may not be predetermined by treatment-related risk factors alone,” the researchers said.

In addition, survivors living in the most disadvantaged areas, as measured by the area deprivation index (ADI), had a five- to eightfold increased risk of late death from any cause compared with those living in the least disadvantaged areas, even after adjusting for modifiable chronic health conditions, cancer treatment, demographics, and individual socioeconomic factors.

The findings have important public health implications, Dr. Ehrhardt and colleagues said. The results can, for instance, help identify and stratify cancer survivors at higher lifetime risk for specific chronic conditions and late death. 

This risk-stratified approach to care, however, is “relatively static” and does not account for risk factors acquired after cancer diagnosis and treatment, such as social determinants of health.

That is why also focusing on socioeconomic factors is important, and transitional care services following cancer treatment should consider that survivors in disadvantaged neighborhoods may lack supportive resources to address health issues, potentially leading to increased risk for death, the researchers said.

The knowledge that living in a resource-poor neighborhood may raise the risk for late death in childhood cancer survivors “strengthens support for public health policies that will direct resources to such regions and facilitate a multipronged approach to risk mitigation,” the authors concluded.

This study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health and the American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Modifiable chronic health conditions and socioeconomic factors may raise the risk for death in adult survivors of childhood cancer, according to new data from the St. Jude Lifetime Cohort.

Survivors with a greater number and severity of modifiable chronic health conditions as well as those living in the most versus least resource-deprived areas had a significantly higher risk of all-cause and health-related late death.

Finding ways to mitigate these factors “will be important to improving health outcomes and developing risk-stratification strategies to optimize care delivery to survivors at varying risk of adverse health events,” the researchers wrote.

The study indicates that treating chronic health conditions alone may not be enough to increase a cancer survivor’s lifespan; improving local environments matters too.

“It is important for clinicians to ask patients about their specific situation,” first author Matthew J. Ehrhardt, MD, department of oncology, St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, said in a news release. “It’s easy to prescribe medications or to tell people to exercise. It takes more time and more thoughtfulness to sit and understand environments in which they are residing.”

“As clinicians, we may have limited ability to modify some of those factors. But we can work closely with the rest of the health care team, such as social workers, for example, to help survivors to identify and access local resources,” Dr. Ehrhardt added.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

A growing population of childhood cancer survivors faces an increased risk for premature death in the years following their diagnosis. However, associations between social determinants of health, modifiable health conditions, and late mortality in childhood cancer survivors remain unclear.

To assess late mortality, the study team analyzed data on 9,440 participants (median age at assessment, 27.5 years; range, 5.3-71.9 years) who lived at least 5 years after being diagnosed with a childhood cancer between 1962 and 2012.

During a median follow-up of about 18 years, childhood cancer survivors had an increased rate of both all-cause and health-related late mortality (standardized mortality rate, 7.6 for both). Among specific health-related causes of death, SMRs were 16.0 for subsequent neoplasms, 9.0 for pulmonary causes, 4.2 for cardiac causes, and 4.3 for other health-related causes.

To evaluate ties between modifiable chronic health conditions, social determinants, and late mortality, the researchers restricted their analysis to 3,407 adult study participants for whom relevant data were available. Modifiable chronic health conditions included dyslipidemia, hypertension, diabetes, underweight or obesity, bone mineral deficiency, and hypothyroidism.

After adjusting for individual factors, including age at diagnosis and treatment, as well as neighborhood-level factors, the researchers observed a significantly increased risk for death among survivors with one or more modifiable chronic health conditions of grade 2 or higher (relative risk, 2.2), two chronic health conditions of grade 2 or higher (RR, 2.6) or three chronic health conditions of grade 2 or higher (RR, 3.6).

These findings suggest that “increased late mortality experienced by childhood cancer survivors in adulthood may not be predetermined by treatment-related risk factors alone,” the researchers said.

In addition, survivors living in the most disadvantaged areas, as measured by the area deprivation index (ADI), had a five- to eightfold increased risk of late death from any cause compared with those living in the least disadvantaged areas, even after adjusting for modifiable chronic health conditions, cancer treatment, demographics, and individual socioeconomic factors.

The findings have important public health implications, Dr. Ehrhardt and colleagues said. The results can, for instance, help identify and stratify cancer survivors at higher lifetime risk for specific chronic conditions and late death. 

This risk-stratified approach to care, however, is “relatively static” and does not account for risk factors acquired after cancer diagnosis and treatment, such as social determinants of health.

That is why also focusing on socioeconomic factors is important, and transitional care services following cancer treatment should consider that survivors in disadvantaged neighborhoods may lack supportive resources to address health issues, potentially leading to increased risk for death, the researchers said.

The knowledge that living in a resource-poor neighborhood may raise the risk for late death in childhood cancer survivors “strengthens support for public health policies that will direct resources to such regions and facilitate a multipronged approach to risk mitigation,” the authors concluded.

This study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health and the American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Modifiable chronic health conditions and socioeconomic factors may raise the risk for death in adult survivors of childhood cancer, according to new data from the St. Jude Lifetime Cohort.

Survivors with a greater number and severity of modifiable chronic health conditions as well as those living in the most versus least resource-deprived areas had a significantly higher risk of all-cause and health-related late death.

Finding ways to mitigate these factors “will be important to improving health outcomes and developing risk-stratification strategies to optimize care delivery to survivors at varying risk of adverse health events,” the researchers wrote.

The study indicates that treating chronic health conditions alone may not be enough to increase a cancer survivor’s lifespan; improving local environments matters too.

“It is important for clinicians to ask patients about their specific situation,” first author Matthew J. Ehrhardt, MD, department of oncology, St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, said in a news release. “It’s easy to prescribe medications or to tell people to exercise. It takes more time and more thoughtfulness to sit and understand environments in which they are residing.”

“As clinicians, we may have limited ability to modify some of those factors. But we can work closely with the rest of the health care team, such as social workers, for example, to help survivors to identify and access local resources,” Dr. Ehrhardt added.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

A growing population of childhood cancer survivors faces an increased risk for premature death in the years following their diagnosis. However, associations between social determinants of health, modifiable health conditions, and late mortality in childhood cancer survivors remain unclear.

To assess late mortality, the study team analyzed data on 9,440 participants (median age at assessment, 27.5 years; range, 5.3-71.9 years) who lived at least 5 years after being diagnosed with a childhood cancer between 1962 and 2012.

During a median follow-up of about 18 years, childhood cancer survivors had an increased rate of both all-cause and health-related late mortality (standardized mortality rate, 7.6 for both). Among specific health-related causes of death, SMRs were 16.0 for subsequent neoplasms, 9.0 for pulmonary causes, 4.2 for cardiac causes, and 4.3 for other health-related causes.

To evaluate ties between modifiable chronic health conditions, social determinants, and late mortality, the researchers restricted their analysis to 3,407 adult study participants for whom relevant data were available. Modifiable chronic health conditions included dyslipidemia, hypertension, diabetes, underweight or obesity, bone mineral deficiency, and hypothyroidism.

After adjusting for individual factors, including age at diagnosis and treatment, as well as neighborhood-level factors, the researchers observed a significantly increased risk for death among survivors with one or more modifiable chronic health conditions of grade 2 or higher (relative risk, 2.2), two chronic health conditions of grade 2 or higher (RR, 2.6) or three chronic health conditions of grade 2 or higher (RR, 3.6).

These findings suggest that “increased late mortality experienced by childhood cancer survivors in adulthood may not be predetermined by treatment-related risk factors alone,” the researchers said.

In addition, survivors living in the most disadvantaged areas, as measured by the area deprivation index (ADI), had a five- to eightfold increased risk of late death from any cause compared with those living in the least disadvantaged areas, even after adjusting for modifiable chronic health conditions, cancer treatment, demographics, and individual socioeconomic factors.

The findings have important public health implications, Dr. Ehrhardt and colleagues said. The results can, for instance, help identify and stratify cancer survivors at higher lifetime risk for specific chronic conditions and late death. 

This risk-stratified approach to care, however, is “relatively static” and does not account for risk factors acquired after cancer diagnosis and treatment, such as social determinants of health.

That is why also focusing on socioeconomic factors is important, and transitional care services following cancer treatment should consider that survivors in disadvantaged neighborhoods may lack supportive resources to address health issues, potentially leading to increased risk for death, the researchers said.

The knowledge that living in a resource-poor neighborhood may raise the risk for late death in childhood cancer survivors “strengthens support for public health policies that will direct resources to such regions and facilitate a multipronged approach to risk mitigation,” the authors concluded.

This study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health and the American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with a large cerebral infarction have better functional recovery when they receive endovascular therapy early on in addition to usual medical management, a new study shows.

The trial was stopped early because a planned interim analysis showed efficacy of endovascular therapy in this patient population.

Among patients in China with acute ischemic stroke and a large cerebral infarction, treatment with endovascular therapy within 24 hours after stroke onset “resulted in a better functional outcome at 3 months than medical management alone,” lead author Xiaochuan Huo, MD, PhD, associate chief physician, interventional neurology department, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, told this news organization.

“This trial added important evidence for the benefits of endovascular therapy,” Dr. Huo added.

The findings were presented at the International Stroke Conference and were published online in The New England Journal of Medicine. The conference was presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

Will change practice

Commenting on the results, Tudor G. Jovin, MD, professor and chair, department of neurology, Cooper Medical School of Rowan University, Camden, N.J., said he has “little doubt” this study will change practice.

Despite previous studies showing signals of benefit from thrombectomy for patients with large-core infarcts, and some even finding a large treatment effect, “somehow the world didn’t register this,” said Dr. Jovin.

“The stroke community was perhaps reluctant to accept these signals that were there in plain sight because we have been primed for such a long time that reperfusing large infarcts was, if not detrimental, not beneficial.”

But this study, along with another study showing similar results, SELECT 2, which was also presented at this meeting and was published in the same issue of NEJM, provide “overwhelming proof” and “have finally made the community aware,” said Dr. Jovin. “This is sort of a wake-up call to say, ‘Hey, this is real; patients with large infarcts also benefit from thrombectomy.’ “

This new research suggests it’s not necessary to learn the infarct size, at least in the early time window, and doing so just wastes precious time, added Dr. Jovin.

The impact of thrombectomy on patients with “super large infarcts” is still not clear, although these are “extremely rare” in the early time window, perhaps representing only about 1% of patients, said Dr. Jovin.

The increased rate of hemorrhages in study patients receiving thrombectomy “is the price you pay” for the benefits, he said. He noted that this is not any different from the situation with tissue plasminogen activator (tPA), which is routinely used because the benefits far outweigh the risks.
 

ANGEL-ASPECT

As patients with large infarctions are generally excluded from studies of thrombectomy, it’s been unclear whether they benefit from this therapy, the researchers noted.

The multicenter Endovascular Therapy in Acute Anterior Circulation Large Vessel Occlusive Patients With a Large Infarct Core (ANGEL-ASPECT) trial included 455 adult patients (median age, 68 years; 38.7% women) who had a large infarct core caused by acute large-vessel occlusion in the anterior circulation (Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score [ASPECTS] 3-5 without core volume limitations or ASPECTS 0–2 with core volume between 70 and 100 mL).

Study participants had to have a score of 6-30 on the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) and a retrospectively determined prestroke score of 0 or 1 on the Modified Rankin Scale (mRS).

The median baseline NIHSS score of study patients was 16, the median ASPECTS was 3, and the median infarct-core volume was 62 mL.

Researchers randomly assigned patients to undergo either medical management alone or medical management as well as endovascular therapy. Medical management included intravenous (IV) thrombolysis for those who were eligible.

IV thrombolysis was administered before thrombectomy for about 28% of patients in each group. Some 78.7% of all patients arrived at the hospital outside the typical 4.5-hour window and were ineligible for thrombolysis.

A greater percentage of patients in the endovascular therapy group was receiving antihypertensive medications (83.0%) than in the medical management alone group (54.0%). About 20% of patients in each group were taking an anticoagulant medication.

When the trial was halted, outcome data were available for 336 patients. An additional 120 patients had undergone randomization, and 455 had completed 90 days of follow-up.
 

Better functional outcome

The primary outcome was the score on the mRS at 90 days. Results showed a shift in the distribution of scores on the mRS at 90 days toward better outcomes favoring endovascular therapy over medical management alone (generalized odds ratio, 1.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11-1.69; P = .004).

The efficacy of endovascular therapy with respect to the primary outcome was similar across predefined subgroups and across all trial sites. However, the trial was not powered to allow definite conclusions based on the results of subgroup analyses.

Although patients with an ASPECT score of 0-2 (indicating very large infarct cores) are considered unlikely to benefit from endovascular treatment, the researchers did find some signals of gain for these patients.

“Although no conclusions can be drawn because the trial was not powered for this analysis and the confidence interval for the odds ratio between the trial groups included 1, there may have been a benefit with endovascular therapy in this subgroup,” the authors wrote. “More trials are warranted to determine if this benefit is valid.”

As for secondary outcomes, the percentage of patients with a score of 0-2 on the mRS at 90 days was 30.0% in the endovascular therapy group and 11.6% in the medical management group (relative risk [RR], 2.62; 95% CI, 1.69-4.06).

The percentage of patients with a score of 0-3 on the mRS at 90 days was 47.0% in the endovascular therapy group and 33.3% in the medical management group (RR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.17-1.91).

The primary safety outcome was symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage within 48 hours, which occurred in 6.1% of the endovascular therapy group, compared to 2.7% in the medical management group (RR, 2.07; 95% CI, 0.79-5.41; P = .12)

Mortality within 90 days was 21.7% in the endovascular therapy group and 20.0% in the medical management group. Other serious adverse events occurred in 40.0% in the endovascular therapy group and 38.2% in the medical management group (P = .70).

The percentage of patients receiving IV thrombolysis was relatively low, which may have affected outcomes in the medical management group. Another potential limitation was that urokinase rather than alteplase, which is probably more effective, was used for thrombolysis in a small percentage of patients.

Further, the study did not include patients older than 80 years or those with an ASPECT value greater than 5 and infarct core volume of 70-100 mL, and it included only Chinese patients, so the results may not be generalizable, the researchers noted.

These findings will likely change clinical practice, said Dr. Huo, who noted that the current guideline doesn’t provide “a high-level recommendation” for [endovascular therapy] in patients with a low ASPECT score.

“These new results will change the guideline” to suggest endovascular therapy for large-core patients, he said.
 

Welcome news

An accompanying editorial by Pierre Fayad, MD, department of neurological sciences, division of vascular neurology and stroke, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, welcomed results from this and other recent related studies.

From these new results, “it is reasonable to suggest that endovascular thrombectomy be offered to patients with large strokes” if they arrive in a timely fashion at a center capable of performing the procedure and have an ASPECT value of 3-5 or an ischemic-core volume of 50 mL or greater, he wrote.

“The improved chance of independent walking and the ability to perform other daily activities in patients with the most severe strokes is welcome news for patients and for the field of stroke treatment.”

The study received funding from Covidien Healthcare International Trading (Shanghai), Johnson & Johnson MedTech, Genesis MedTech (Shanghai), and Shanghai HeartCare Medical Technology. Dr. Huo and Dr. Jovin report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with a large cerebral infarction have better functional recovery when they receive endovascular therapy early on in addition to usual medical management, a new study shows.

The trial was stopped early because a planned interim analysis showed efficacy of endovascular therapy in this patient population.

Among patients in China with acute ischemic stroke and a large cerebral infarction, treatment with endovascular therapy within 24 hours after stroke onset “resulted in a better functional outcome at 3 months than medical management alone,” lead author Xiaochuan Huo, MD, PhD, associate chief physician, interventional neurology department, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, told this news organization.

“This trial added important evidence for the benefits of endovascular therapy,” Dr. Huo added.

The findings were presented at the International Stroke Conference and were published online in The New England Journal of Medicine. The conference was presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

Will change practice

Commenting on the results, Tudor G. Jovin, MD, professor and chair, department of neurology, Cooper Medical School of Rowan University, Camden, N.J., said he has “little doubt” this study will change practice.

Despite previous studies showing signals of benefit from thrombectomy for patients with large-core infarcts, and some even finding a large treatment effect, “somehow the world didn’t register this,” said Dr. Jovin.

“The stroke community was perhaps reluctant to accept these signals that were there in plain sight because we have been primed for such a long time that reperfusing large infarcts was, if not detrimental, not beneficial.”

But this study, along with another study showing similar results, SELECT 2, which was also presented at this meeting and was published in the same issue of NEJM, provide “overwhelming proof” and “have finally made the community aware,” said Dr. Jovin. “This is sort of a wake-up call to say, ‘Hey, this is real; patients with large infarcts also benefit from thrombectomy.’ “

This new research suggests it’s not necessary to learn the infarct size, at least in the early time window, and doing so just wastes precious time, added Dr. Jovin.

The impact of thrombectomy on patients with “super large infarcts” is still not clear, although these are “extremely rare” in the early time window, perhaps representing only about 1% of patients, said Dr. Jovin.

The increased rate of hemorrhages in study patients receiving thrombectomy “is the price you pay” for the benefits, he said. He noted that this is not any different from the situation with tissue plasminogen activator (tPA), which is routinely used because the benefits far outweigh the risks.
 

ANGEL-ASPECT

As patients with large infarctions are generally excluded from studies of thrombectomy, it’s been unclear whether they benefit from this therapy, the researchers noted.

The multicenter Endovascular Therapy in Acute Anterior Circulation Large Vessel Occlusive Patients With a Large Infarct Core (ANGEL-ASPECT) trial included 455 adult patients (median age, 68 years; 38.7% women) who had a large infarct core caused by acute large-vessel occlusion in the anterior circulation (Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score [ASPECTS] 3-5 without core volume limitations or ASPECTS 0–2 with core volume between 70 and 100 mL).

Study participants had to have a score of 6-30 on the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) and a retrospectively determined prestroke score of 0 or 1 on the Modified Rankin Scale (mRS).

The median baseline NIHSS score of study patients was 16, the median ASPECTS was 3, and the median infarct-core volume was 62 mL.

Researchers randomly assigned patients to undergo either medical management alone or medical management as well as endovascular therapy. Medical management included intravenous (IV) thrombolysis for those who were eligible.

IV thrombolysis was administered before thrombectomy for about 28% of patients in each group. Some 78.7% of all patients arrived at the hospital outside the typical 4.5-hour window and were ineligible for thrombolysis.

A greater percentage of patients in the endovascular therapy group was receiving antihypertensive medications (83.0%) than in the medical management alone group (54.0%). About 20% of patients in each group were taking an anticoagulant medication.

When the trial was halted, outcome data were available for 336 patients. An additional 120 patients had undergone randomization, and 455 had completed 90 days of follow-up.
 

Better functional outcome

The primary outcome was the score on the mRS at 90 days. Results showed a shift in the distribution of scores on the mRS at 90 days toward better outcomes favoring endovascular therapy over medical management alone (generalized odds ratio, 1.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11-1.69; P = .004).

The efficacy of endovascular therapy with respect to the primary outcome was similar across predefined subgroups and across all trial sites. However, the trial was not powered to allow definite conclusions based on the results of subgroup analyses.

Although patients with an ASPECT score of 0-2 (indicating very large infarct cores) are considered unlikely to benefit from endovascular treatment, the researchers did find some signals of gain for these patients.

“Although no conclusions can be drawn because the trial was not powered for this analysis and the confidence interval for the odds ratio between the trial groups included 1, there may have been a benefit with endovascular therapy in this subgroup,” the authors wrote. “More trials are warranted to determine if this benefit is valid.”

As for secondary outcomes, the percentage of patients with a score of 0-2 on the mRS at 90 days was 30.0% in the endovascular therapy group and 11.6% in the medical management group (relative risk [RR], 2.62; 95% CI, 1.69-4.06).

The percentage of patients with a score of 0-3 on the mRS at 90 days was 47.0% in the endovascular therapy group and 33.3% in the medical management group (RR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.17-1.91).

The primary safety outcome was symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage within 48 hours, which occurred in 6.1% of the endovascular therapy group, compared to 2.7% in the medical management group (RR, 2.07; 95% CI, 0.79-5.41; P = .12)

Mortality within 90 days was 21.7% in the endovascular therapy group and 20.0% in the medical management group. Other serious adverse events occurred in 40.0% in the endovascular therapy group and 38.2% in the medical management group (P = .70).

The percentage of patients receiving IV thrombolysis was relatively low, which may have affected outcomes in the medical management group. Another potential limitation was that urokinase rather than alteplase, which is probably more effective, was used for thrombolysis in a small percentage of patients.

Further, the study did not include patients older than 80 years or those with an ASPECT value greater than 5 and infarct core volume of 70-100 mL, and it included only Chinese patients, so the results may not be generalizable, the researchers noted.

These findings will likely change clinical practice, said Dr. Huo, who noted that the current guideline doesn’t provide “a high-level recommendation” for [endovascular therapy] in patients with a low ASPECT score.

“These new results will change the guideline” to suggest endovascular therapy for large-core patients, he said.
 

Welcome news

An accompanying editorial by Pierre Fayad, MD, department of neurological sciences, division of vascular neurology and stroke, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, welcomed results from this and other recent related studies.

From these new results, “it is reasonable to suggest that endovascular thrombectomy be offered to patients with large strokes” if they arrive in a timely fashion at a center capable of performing the procedure and have an ASPECT value of 3-5 or an ischemic-core volume of 50 mL or greater, he wrote.

“The improved chance of independent walking and the ability to perform other daily activities in patients with the most severe strokes is welcome news for patients and for the field of stroke treatment.”

The study received funding from Covidien Healthcare International Trading (Shanghai), Johnson & Johnson MedTech, Genesis MedTech (Shanghai), and Shanghai HeartCare Medical Technology. Dr. Huo and Dr. Jovin report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with a large cerebral infarction have better functional recovery when they receive endovascular therapy early on in addition to usual medical management, a new study shows.

The trial was stopped early because a planned interim analysis showed efficacy of endovascular therapy in this patient population.

Among patients in China with acute ischemic stroke and a large cerebral infarction, treatment with endovascular therapy within 24 hours after stroke onset “resulted in a better functional outcome at 3 months than medical management alone,” lead author Xiaochuan Huo, MD, PhD, associate chief physician, interventional neurology department, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, told this news organization.

“This trial added important evidence for the benefits of endovascular therapy,” Dr. Huo added.

The findings were presented at the International Stroke Conference and were published online in The New England Journal of Medicine. The conference was presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

Will change practice

Commenting on the results, Tudor G. Jovin, MD, professor and chair, department of neurology, Cooper Medical School of Rowan University, Camden, N.J., said he has “little doubt” this study will change practice.

Despite previous studies showing signals of benefit from thrombectomy for patients with large-core infarcts, and some even finding a large treatment effect, “somehow the world didn’t register this,” said Dr. Jovin.

“The stroke community was perhaps reluctant to accept these signals that were there in plain sight because we have been primed for such a long time that reperfusing large infarcts was, if not detrimental, not beneficial.”

But this study, along with another study showing similar results, SELECT 2, which was also presented at this meeting and was published in the same issue of NEJM, provide “overwhelming proof” and “have finally made the community aware,” said Dr. Jovin. “This is sort of a wake-up call to say, ‘Hey, this is real; patients with large infarcts also benefit from thrombectomy.’ “

This new research suggests it’s not necessary to learn the infarct size, at least in the early time window, and doing so just wastes precious time, added Dr. Jovin.

The impact of thrombectomy on patients with “super large infarcts” is still not clear, although these are “extremely rare” in the early time window, perhaps representing only about 1% of patients, said Dr. Jovin.

The increased rate of hemorrhages in study patients receiving thrombectomy “is the price you pay” for the benefits, he said. He noted that this is not any different from the situation with tissue plasminogen activator (tPA), which is routinely used because the benefits far outweigh the risks.
 

ANGEL-ASPECT

As patients with large infarctions are generally excluded from studies of thrombectomy, it’s been unclear whether they benefit from this therapy, the researchers noted.

The multicenter Endovascular Therapy in Acute Anterior Circulation Large Vessel Occlusive Patients With a Large Infarct Core (ANGEL-ASPECT) trial included 455 adult patients (median age, 68 years; 38.7% women) who had a large infarct core caused by acute large-vessel occlusion in the anterior circulation (Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score [ASPECTS] 3-5 without core volume limitations or ASPECTS 0–2 with core volume between 70 and 100 mL).

Study participants had to have a score of 6-30 on the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) and a retrospectively determined prestroke score of 0 or 1 on the Modified Rankin Scale (mRS).

The median baseline NIHSS score of study patients was 16, the median ASPECTS was 3, and the median infarct-core volume was 62 mL.

Researchers randomly assigned patients to undergo either medical management alone or medical management as well as endovascular therapy. Medical management included intravenous (IV) thrombolysis for those who were eligible.

IV thrombolysis was administered before thrombectomy for about 28% of patients in each group. Some 78.7% of all patients arrived at the hospital outside the typical 4.5-hour window and were ineligible for thrombolysis.

A greater percentage of patients in the endovascular therapy group was receiving antihypertensive medications (83.0%) than in the medical management alone group (54.0%). About 20% of patients in each group were taking an anticoagulant medication.

When the trial was halted, outcome data were available for 336 patients. An additional 120 patients had undergone randomization, and 455 had completed 90 days of follow-up.
 

Better functional outcome

The primary outcome was the score on the mRS at 90 days. Results showed a shift in the distribution of scores on the mRS at 90 days toward better outcomes favoring endovascular therapy over medical management alone (generalized odds ratio, 1.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11-1.69; P = .004).

The efficacy of endovascular therapy with respect to the primary outcome was similar across predefined subgroups and across all trial sites. However, the trial was not powered to allow definite conclusions based on the results of subgroup analyses.

Although patients with an ASPECT score of 0-2 (indicating very large infarct cores) are considered unlikely to benefit from endovascular treatment, the researchers did find some signals of gain for these patients.

“Although no conclusions can be drawn because the trial was not powered for this analysis and the confidence interval for the odds ratio between the trial groups included 1, there may have been a benefit with endovascular therapy in this subgroup,” the authors wrote. “More trials are warranted to determine if this benefit is valid.”

As for secondary outcomes, the percentage of patients with a score of 0-2 on the mRS at 90 days was 30.0% in the endovascular therapy group and 11.6% in the medical management group (relative risk [RR], 2.62; 95% CI, 1.69-4.06).

The percentage of patients with a score of 0-3 on the mRS at 90 days was 47.0% in the endovascular therapy group and 33.3% in the medical management group (RR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.17-1.91).

The primary safety outcome was symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage within 48 hours, which occurred in 6.1% of the endovascular therapy group, compared to 2.7% in the medical management group (RR, 2.07; 95% CI, 0.79-5.41; P = .12)

Mortality within 90 days was 21.7% in the endovascular therapy group and 20.0% in the medical management group. Other serious adverse events occurred in 40.0% in the endovascular therapy group and 38.2% in the medical management group (P = .70).

The percentage of patients receiving IV thrombolysis was relatively low, which may have affected outcomes in the medical management group. Another potential limitation was that urokinase rather than alteplase, which is probably more effective, was used for thrombolysis in a small percentage of patients.

Further, the study did not include patients older than 80 years or those with an ASPECT value greater than 5 and infarct core volume of 70-100 mL, and it included only Chinese patients, so the results may not be generalizable, the researchers noted.

These findings will likely change clinical practice, said Dr. Huo, who noted that the current guideline doesn’t provide “a high-level recommendation” for [endovascular therapy] in patients with a low ASPECT score.

“These new results will change the guideline” to suggest endovascular therapy for large-core patients, he said.
 

Welcome news

An accompanying editorial by Pierre Fayad, MD, department of neurological sciences, division of vascular neurology and stroke, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, welcomed results from this and other recent related studies.

From these new results, “it is reasonable to suggest that endovascular thrombectomy be offered to patients with large strokes” if they arrive in a timely fashion at a center capable of performing the procedure and have an ASPECT value of 3-5 or an ischemic-core volume of 50 mL or greater, he wrote.

“The improved chance of independent walking and the ability to perform other daily activities in patients with the most severe strokes is welcome news for patients and for the field of stroke treatment.”

The study received funding from Covidien Healthcare International Trading (Shanghai), Johnson & Johnson MedTech, Genesis MedTech (Shanghai), and Shanghai HeartCare Medical Technology. Dr. Huo and Dr. Jovin report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In patients with acute ischemic stroke who have not received thrombolysis or thrombectomy, early antihypertensive treatment compared with delayed antihypertensive treatment did not reduce the likelihood of death and major disability at 3 months in the CATIS-2 trial.

The trial was presented by Liping Liu, MD, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, at the International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

“Antihypertensive treatment can be delayed for at least 7 days following ischemic stroke onset, unless there are severe acute comorbidities that demand emergency blood pressure reduction to prevent serious complications,” Dr. Liu concluded.

But he acknowledged that the optimal BP management strategy in these patients remains uncertain and should be the focus of future research.

Discussing the trial at an ISC 2023 Highlights session, Lauren Sansing, MD, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and ISC program vice chair, said: “These results seem to support waiting for a week or so before treating blood pressure in these patients.”

But Tudor Jovin, MD, Cooper Neurological Institute, Cherry Hill, N.J., and ISC program chair, countered: “To me, it’s kind of a neutral result, so what I take home from this is that you don’t necessarily have to wait.”

Dr. Jovin continued: “We used to think that it was mandatory not to treat blood pressure early because of the risk of deceasing the perfusion pressure, but this trial suggests the effects are neutral and there is probably as much benefit from lowering blood pressure for other reasons that offsets the potential harm.

“I think these are good data to rely on when we make these kinds of treatment decisions. Personally, I am a bit more aggressive with early blood pressure management and it’s good to see that you don’t get punished for that,” he added.

In his presentation, Dr. Liu explained that increased BP is common in acute stroke and is strongly associated with poor functional outcome and recurrence of ischemic stroke, but the optimal blood pressure management strategy in acute ischemic stroke remains controversial.

In the first CATIS trial (China Antihypertensive Trial in Acute Ischemic Stroke), which compared antihypertensive treatment within 48 hours of stroke onset with no antihypertensive treatment in ischemic stroke patients not receiving thrombolysis, the main results suggested that BP reduction with antihypertensive medications did not reduce the likelihood of death and major disability at 14 days or hospital discharge. But a subgroup analysis found that initiating antihypertensive treatment between 24 and 48 hours of stroke onset showed a beneficial effect on reducing death or major disability.

Current AHA/ASA guidelines suggest that, in patients with BP greater than 220/120 mm Hg who have not received thrombolysis or thrombectomy and have no comorbid conditions requiring urgent antihypertensive treatment, the benefit of initiating or reinitiating antihypertensive treatment within the first 48-72 hours is uncertain, although the guidelines say it might be reasonable to lower BP by around 15% during the first 24 hours after stroke onset, Dr. Liu noted.

The CATIS-2 trial was a multicenter, randomized, open-label, blinded-endpoints trial conducted at 106 centers in China that enrolled 4810 patients within 24-48 hours of onset of acute ischemic stroke who had elevated BP. Patients had not received thrombolytic therapy or mechanical thrombectomy.

Patients were randomly assigned to early antihypertensive therapy (initiated after randomization and aiming for a 10%-20% reduction in systolic BP) or delayed antihypertensive therapy (restarted antihypertensive therapy on day 8 of randomization, aiming for a BP of < 140/90 mm Hg).

The median age of the patients was 64 years, 65% were male, 80% had a history of hypertension, and the median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score was 3. Baseline BP averaged 163/92 mm Hg in both groups. The median time from stroke onset to antihypertensive treatment was 1.5 days in the early group and 8.5 days in the delayed group.

BP results showed that, at 24 hours after randomization, mean systolic pressure was reduced by 16.4 mm Hg (9.7%) in the early-treatment group and by 8.6 mm Hg (4.9%) in the delayed-treatment group (difference, –7.8 mm Hg; P < .0001).

At day 7, mean systolic pressure was 139.1 mm Hg in the early-treatment group, compared with 150.9 mm Hg in the delayed-treatment group, with a net difference in systolic BP of –11.9 mm Hg (P < .0001).

The primary outcome was the composite of death and major disability (modified Rankin Scale ≥ 3) at 3 months. This did not differ between the groups, occurring in 12.1% in the early antihypertensive treatment group versus 10.5% in the delayed antihypertensive treatment group (risk ratio, 1.15; P = .08).

There was also no difference in the major secondary outcome of shift in scores of mRS at 3 months, with a common odds ratio of 1.05 (95% confidence interval, 0.95-1.17).

There was no interaction with the composite outcome of death or major disability at 90 days in the prespecified subgroups.

Dr. Liu pointed out several limitations of the study. These included an observed primary outcome rate substantially lower than expected; the BP reduction seen within the first 7 days in the early-treatment group was moderate; and the results of the study cannot be applied to patients treated with thrombolysis or thrombectomy.

Dr. Liu has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In patients with acute ischemic stroke who have not received thrombolysis or thrombectomy, early antihypertensive treatment compared with delayed antihypertensive treatment did not reduce the likelihood of death and major disability at 3 months in the CATIS-2 trial.

The trial was presented by Liping Liu, MD, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, at the International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

“Antihypertensive treatment can be delayed for at least 7 days following ischemic stroke onset, unless there are severe acute comorbidities that demand emergency blood pressure reduction to prevent serious complications,” Dr. Liu concluded.

But he acknowledged that the optimal BP management strategy in these patients remains uncertain and should be the focus of future research.

Discussing the trial at an ISC 2023 Highlights session, Lauren Sansing, MD, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and ISC program vice chair, said: “These results seem to support waiting for a week or so before treating blood pressure in these patients.”

But Tudor Jovin, MD, Cooper Neurological Institute, Cherry Hill, N.J., and ISC program chair, countered: “To me, it’s kind of a neutral result, so what I take home from this is that you don’t necessarily have to wait.”

Dr. Jovin continued: “We used to think that it was mandatory not to treat blood pressure early because of the risk of deceasing the perfusion pressure, but this trial suggests the effects are neutral and there is probably as much benefit from lowering blood pressure for other reasons that offsets the potential harm.

“I think these are good data to rely on when we make these kinds of treatment decisions. Personally, I am a bit more aggressive with early blood pressure management and it’s good to see that you don’t get punished for that,” he added.

In his presentation, Dr. Liu explained that increased BP is common in acute stroke and is strongly associated with poor functional outcome and recurrence of ischemic stroke, but the optimal blood pressure management strategy in acute ischemic stroke remains controversial.

In the first CATIS trial (China Antihypertensive Trial in Acute Ischemic Stroke), which compared antihypertensive treatment within 48 hours of stroke onset with no antihypertensive treatment in ischemic stroke patients not receiving thrombolysis, the main results suggested that BP reduction with antihypertensive medications did not reduce the likelihood of death and major disability at 14 days or hospital discharge. But a subgroup analysis found that initiating antihypertensive treatment between 24 and 48 hours of stroke onset showed a beneficial effect on reducing death or major disability.

Current AHA/ASA guidelines suggest that, in patients with BP greater than 220/120 mm Hg who have not received thrombolysis or thrombectomy and have no comorbid conditions requiring urgent antihypertensive treatment, the benefit of initiating or reinitiating antihypertensive treatment within the first 48-72 hours is uncertain, although the guidelines say it might be reasonable to lower BP by around 15% during the first 24 hours after stroke onset, Dr. Liu noted.

The CATIS-2 trial was a multicenter, randomized, open-label, blinded-endpoints trial conducted at 106 centers in China that enrolled 4810 patients within 24-48 hours of onset of acute ischemic stroke who had elevated BP. Patients had not received thrombolytic therapy or mechanical thrombectomy.

Patients were randomly assigned to early antihypertensive therapy (initiated after randomization and aiming for a 10%-20% reduction in systolic BP) or delayed antihypertensive therapy (restarted antihypertensive therapy on day 8 of randomization, aiming for a BP of < 140/90 mm Hg).

The median age of the patients was 64 years, 65% were male, 80% had a history of hypertension, and the median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score was 3. Baseline BP averaged 163/92 mm Hg in both groups. The median time from stroke onset to antihypertensive treatment was 1.5 days in the early group and 8.5 days in the delayed group.

BP results showed that, at 24 hours after randomization, mean systolic pressure was reduced by 16.4 mm Hg (9.7%) in the early-treatment group and by 8.6 mm Hg (4.9%) in the delayed-treatment group (difference, –7.8 mm Hg; P < .0001).

At day 7, mean systolic pressure was 139.1 mm Hg in the early-treatment group, compared with 150.9 mm Hg in the delayed-treatment group, with a net difference in systolic BP of –11.9 mm Hg (P < .0001).

The primary outcome was the composite of death and major disability (modified Rankin Scale ≥ 3) at 3 months. This did not differ between the groups, occurring in 12.1% in the early antihypertensive treatment group versus 10.5% in the delayed antihypertensive treatment group (risk ratio, 1.15; P = .08).

There was also no difference in the major secondary outcome of shift in scores of mRS at 3 months, with a common odds ratio of 1.05 (95% confidence interval, 0.95-1.17).

There was no interaction with the composite outcome of death or major disability at 90 days in the prespecified subgroups.

Dr. Liu pointed out several limitations of the study. These included an observed primary outcome rate substantially lower than expected; the BP reduction seen within the first 7 days in the early-treatment group was moderate; and the results of the study cannot be applied to patients treated with thrombolysis or thrombectomy.

Dr. Liu has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In patients with acute ischemic stroke who have not received thrombolysis or thrombectomy, early antihypertensive treatment compared with delayed antihypertensive treatment did not reduce the likelihood of death and major disability at 3 months in the CATIS-2 trial.

The trial was presented by Liping Liu, MD, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, at the International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

“Antihypertensive treatment can be delayed for at least 7 days following ischemic stroke onset, unless there are severe acute comorbidities that demand emergency blood pressure reduction to prevent serious complications,” Dr. Liu concluded.

But he acknowledged that the optimal BP management strategy in these patients remains uncertain and should be the focus of future research.

Discussing the trial at an ISC 2023 Highlights session, Lauren Sansing, MD, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and ISC program vice chair, said: “These results seem to support waiting for a week or so before treating blood pressure in these patients.”

But Tudor Jovin, MD, Cooper Neurological Institute, Cherry Hill, N.J., and ISC program chair, countered: “To me, it’s kind of a neutral result, so what I take home from this is that you don’t necessarily have to wait.”

Dr. Jovin continued: “We used to think that it was mandatory not to treat blood pressure early because of the risk of deceasing the perfusion pressure, but this trial suggests the effects are neutral and there is probably as much benefit from lowering blood pressure for other reasons that offsets the potential harm.

“I think these are good data to rely on when we make these kinds of treatment decisions. Personally, I am a bit more aggressive with early blood pressure management and it’s good to see that you don’t get punished for that,” he added.

In his presentation, Dr. Liu explained that increased BP is common in acute stroke and is strongly associated with poor functional outcome and recurrence of ischemic stroke, but the optimal blood pressure management strategy in acute ischemic stroke remains controversial.

In the first CATIS trial (China Antihypertensive Trial in Acute Ischemic Stroke), which compared antihypertensive treatment within 48 hours of stroke onset with no antihypertensive treatment in ischemic stroke patients not receiving thrombolysis, the main results suggested that BP reduction with antihypertensive medications did not reduce the likelihood of death and major disability at 14 days or hospital discharge. But a subgroup analysis found that initiating antihypertensive treatment between 24 and 48 hours of stroke onset showed a beneficial effect on reducing death or major disability.

Current AHA/ASA guidelines suggest that, in patients with BP greater than 220/120 mm Hg who have not received thrombolysis or thrombectomy and have no comorbid conditions requiring urgent antihypertensive treatment, the benefit of initiating or reinitiating antihypertensive treatment within the first 48-72 hours is uncertain, although the guidelines say it might be reasonable to lower BP by around 15% during the first 24 hours after stroke onset, Dr. Liu noted.

The CATIS-2 trial was a multicenter, randomized, open-label, blinded-endpoints trial conducted at 106 centers in China that enrolled 4810 patients within 24-48 hours of onset of acute ischemic stroke who had elevated BP. Patients had not received thrombolytic therapy or mechanical thrombectomy.

Patients were randomly assigned to early antihypertensive therapy (initiated after randomization and aiming for a 10%-20% reduction in systolic BP) or delayed antihypertensive therapy (restarted antihypertensive therapy on day 8 of randomization, aiming for a BP of < 140/90 mm Hg).

The median age of the patients was 64 years, 65% were male, 80% had a history of hypertension, and the median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score was 3. Baseline BP averaged 163/92 mm Hg in both groups. The median time from stroke onset to antihypertensive treatment was 1.5 days in the early group and 8.5 days in the delayed group.

BP results showed that, at 24 hours after randomization, mean systolic pressure was reduced by 16.4 mm Hg (9.7%) in the early-treatment group and by 8.6 mm Hg (4.9%) in the delayed-treatment group (difference, –7.8 mm Hg; P < .0001).

At day 7, mean systolic pressure was 139.1 mm Hg in the early-treatment group, compared with 150.9 mm Hg in the delayed-treatment group, with a net difference in systolic BP of –11.9 mm Hg (P < .0001).

The primary outcome was the composite of death and major disability (modified Rankin Scale ≥ 3) at 3 months. This did not differ between the groups, occurring in 12.1% in the early antihypertensive treatment group versus 10.5% in the delayed antihypertensive treatment group (risk ratio, 1.15; P = .08).

There was also no difference in the major secondary outcome of shift in scores of mRS at 3 months, with a common odds ratio of 1.05 (95% confidence interval, 0.95-1.17).

There was no interaction with the composite outcome of death or major disability at 90 days in the prespecified subgroups.

Dr. Liu pointed out several limitations of the study. These included an observed primary outcome rate substantially lower than expected; the BP reduction seen within the first 7 days in the early-treatment group was moderate; and the results of the study cannot be applied to patients treated with thrombolysis or thrombectomy.

Dr. Liu has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

It was Friday, and oncologist Coral Olazagasti, MD, faced a ticking clock.

Her patient had taken his last prescription antinausea pill. Without a refill of ondansetron, he faced a long, painful weekend.

The patient – a man with HPV-related oropharyngeal cancer – was experiencing severe side effects from standard chemoradiation with weekly cisplatin. Intense nausea and grade 3 mucositis, in particular, left him struggling to swallow or take in any food or fluids.

He was on 8 mg of ondansetron (Zofran) every 8 hours, as needed, to keep the nausea at bay. The pills along with a feeding tube helped, but his symptoms were so intense, neither was quite enough.

“He still needed to be hospitalized twice for dehydration,” said Dr. Olazagasti, who specializes in head and neck medical cancer at Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center in Miami.

But when it came time to renew his ondansetron prescription, his insurance company denied it.

The reasoning: “The company had only approved 30 tablets a month and, for them, it was unjustifiable to approve anything above that amount,” Dr. Olazagasti explained.

After Dr. Olazagasti called the insurance company to resolve the issue, a company representative told her to fill out a prior authorization form.

But it was already after 7:30 p.m. ET on Friday.

At that point, finding the prior authorization documents, filling them out, and submitting them would take more time – and the paperwork couldn’t be filed until Monday.

“My patient was at home with zero tablets left and horrible symptoms. He couldn’t keep anything down,” Dr. Olazagasti said.

On Monday, the oncology team sent the prior authorization request, and her patient received his medication a few days later.

“My patient had to wait about 5 days to get the nausea meds he needed,” she said. In the meantime, he was in pain. “Having a refill of this simple supportive care medication rejected was infuriating.”

When Dr. Olazagasti vented her frustrations on Twitter, several people chimed in, suggesting purchasing the drug at a discount through GoodRx or Cost Plus instead of going through the insurance company.

At Cost Plus, for instance, 30 8-mg pills would cost $6.30, but ordering from the online pharmacy would mean waiting several days for delivery.

Discounts through GoodRx may provide a potentially faster solution in a pinch, but the pharmacy matters. In Miami, 30 8-mg pills would cost $19.99 at Costco with a GoodRx coupon, but $233.56 at CVS and $253.60 at Walgreens.

Although potentially useful, these options may not be the obvious choice for oncologists and patients, especially when a drug has already been approved and covered by the insurer. In this case, the denial was also a surprise, which left Dr. Olazagasti and her patient scrambling right before the weekend.

In addition, companies providing discounted generic drugs may only have a limited number of oncology-related medications. Cost Plus, for instance, now sells more than 1,000 generic prescription drugs at a fraction of what insurance companies charge, but only about 7 are cancer drugs.

On a broader level, Dr. Olazagasti noted, “insurance companies have a responsibility to cover these drugs. If we all get so fed up that we start relying on alternate routes to get patients their treatments, then insurance companies are let off the hook.”

However, using an alternative option like GoodRx or CostPlus could mean bypassing insurance company obstacles in certain cases.

“The hurdles someone may have to go through to get a generic drug approved are very frustrating,” said Stacie B. Dusetzina, PhD, professor of health policy and a professor of cancer research at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn.

In a weekend emergency situation, if the drug is discounted through GoodRx, “it can be a good backup strategy to send the prescription to the pharmacy” and more generally “worth it for patients to check if they can get a better deal on generic drugs through these companies.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

It was Friday, and oncologist Coral Olazagasti, MD, faced a ticking clock.

Her patient had taken his last prescription antinausea pill. Without a refill of ondansetron, he faced a long, painful weekend.

The patient – a man with HPV-related oropharyngeal cancer – was experiencing severe side effects from standard chemoradiation with weekly cisplatin. Intense nausea and grade 3 mucositis, in particular, left him struggling to swallow or take in any food or fluids.

He was on 8 mg of ondansetron (Zofran) every 8 hours, as needed, to keep the nausea at bay. The pills along with a feeding tube helped, but his symptoms were so intense, neither was quite enough.

“He still needed to be hospitalized twice for dehydration,” said Dr. Olazagasti, who specializes in head and neck medical cancer at Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center in Miami.

But when it came time to renew his ondansetron prescription, his insurance company denied it.

The reasoning: “The company had only approved 30 tablets a month and, for them, it was unjustifiable to approve anything above that amount,” Dr. Olazagasti explained.

After Dr. Olazagasti called the insurance company to resolve the issue, a company representative told her to fill out a prior authorization form.

But it was already after 7:30 p.m. ET on Friday.

At that point, finding the prior authorization documents, filling them out, and submitting them would take more time – and the paperwork couldn’t be filed until Monday.

“My patient was at home with zero tablets left and horrible symptoms. He couldn’t keep anything down,” Dr. Olazagasti said.

On Monday, the oncology team sent the prior authorization request, and her patient received his medication a few days later.

“My patient had to wait about 5 days to get the nausea meds he needed,” she said. In the meantime, he was in pain. “Having a refill of this simple supportive care medication rejected was infuriating.”

When Dr. Olazagasti vented her frustrations on Twitter, several people chimed in, suggesting purchasing the drug at a discount through GoodRx or Cost Plus instead of going through the insurance company.

At Cost Plus, for instance, 30 8-mg pills would cost $6.30, but ordering from the online pharmacy would mean waiting several days for delivery.

Discounts through GoodRx may provide a potentially faster solution in a pinch, but the pharmacy matters. In Miami, 30 8-mg pills would cost $19.99 at Costco with a GoodRx coupon, but $233.56 at CVS and $253.60 at Walgreens.

Although potentially useful, these options may not be the obvious choice for oncologists and patients, especially when a drug has already been approved and covered by the insurer. In this case, the denial was also a surprise, which left Dr. Olazagasti and her patient scrambling right before the weekend.

In addition, companies providing discounted generic drugs may only have a limited number of oncology-related medications. Cost Plus, for instance, now sells more than 1,000 generic prescription drugs at a fraction of what insurance companies charge, but only about 7 are cancer drugs.

On a broader level, Dr. Olazagasti noted, “insurance companies have a responsibility to cover these drugs. If we all get so fed up that we start relying on alternate routes to get patients their treatments, then insurance companies are let off the hook.”

However, using an alternative option like GoodRx or CostPlus could mean bypassing insurance company obstacles in certain cases.

“The hurdles someone may have to go through to get a generic drug approved are very frustrating,” said Stacie B. Dusetzina, PhD, professor of health policy and a professor of cancer research at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn.

In a weekend emergency situation, if the drug is discounted through GoodRx, “it can be a good backup strategy to send the prescription to the pharmacy” and more generally “worth it for patients to check if they can get a better deal on generic drugs through these companies.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

It was Friday, and oncologist Coral Olazagasti, MD, faced a ticking clock.

Her patient had taken his last prescription antinausea pill. Without a refill of ondansetron, he faced a long, painful weekend.

The patient – a man with HPV-related oropharyngeal cancer – was experiencing severe side effects from standard chemoradiation with weekly cisplatin. Intense nausea and grade 3 mucositis, in particular, left him struggling to swallow or take in any food or fluids.

He was on 8 mg of ondansetron (Zofran) every 8 hours, as needed, to keep the nausea at bay. The pills along with a feeding tube helped, but his symptoms were so intense, neither was quite enough.

“He still needed to be hospitalized twice for dehydration,” said Dr. Olazagasti, who specializes in head and neck medical cancer at Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center in Miami.

But when it came time to renew his ondansetron prescription, his insurance company denied it.

The reasoning: “The company had only approved 30 tablets a month and, for them, it was unjustifiable to approve anything above that amount,” Dr. Olazagasti explained.

After Dr. Olazagasti called the insurance company to resolve the issue, a company representative told her to fill out a prior authorization form.

But it was already after 7:30 p.m. ET on Friday.

At that point, finding the prior authorization documents, filling them out, and submitting them would take more time – and the paperwork couldn’t be filed until Monday.

“My patient was at home with zero tablets left and horrible symptoms. He couldn’t keep anything down,” Dr. Olazagasti said.

On Monday, the oncology team sent the prior authorization request, and her patient received his medication a few days later.

“My patient had to wait about 5 days to get the nausea meds he needed,” she said. In the meantime, he was in pain. “Having a refill of this simple supportive care medication rejected was infuriating.”

When Dr. Olazagasti vented her frustrations on Twitter, several people chimed in, suggesting purchasing the drug at a discount through GoodRx or Cost Plus instead of going through the insurance company.

At Cost Plus, for instance, 30 8-mg pills would cost $6.30, but ordering from the online pharmacy would mean waiting several days for delivery.

Discounts through GoodRx may provide a potentially faster solution in a pinch, but the pharmacy matters. In Miami, 30 8-mg pills would cost $19.99 at Costco with a GoodRx coupon, but $233.56 at CVS and $253.60 at Walgreens.

Although potentially useful, these options may not be the obvious choice for oncologists and patients, especially when a drug has already been approved and covered by the insurer. In this case, the denial was also a surprise, which left Dr. Olazagasti and her patient scrambling right before the weekend.

In addition, companies providing discounted generic drugs may only have a limited number of oncology-related medications. Cost Plus, for instance, now sells more than 1,000 generic prescription drugs at a fraction of what insurance companies charge, but only about 7 are cancer drugs.

On a broader level, Dr. Olazagasti noted, “insurance companies have a responsibility to cover these drugs. If we all get so fed up that we start relying on alternate routes to get patients their treatments, then insurance companies are let off the hook.”

However, using an alternative option like GoodRx or CostPlus could mean bypassing insurance company obstacles in certain cases.

“The hurdles someone may have to go through to get a generic drug approved are very frustrating,” said Stacie B. Dusetzina, PhD, professor of health policy and a professor of cancer research at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn.

In a weekend emergency situation, if the drug is discounted through GoodRx, “it can be a good backup strategy to send the prescription to the pharmacy” and more generally “worth it for patients to check if they can get a better deal on generic drugs through these companies.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

It’s safe to skip radiation in older women with early, low-risk, estrogen receptor (ER)–positive breast tumors, say researchers reporting 10-year outcomes from the large phase 3 trial known as PRIME II.

“Our trial provides robust evidence indicating that irradiation can be safely omitted in women 65 years of age or older who have grade 1 or 2 ER-high cancers treated by breast-conserving therapy, provided that they receive 5 years of adjuvant endocrine therapy,” concluded investigators led by Ian Kunkler, MB, a clinical oncology professor at the University of Edinburgh.

The trial randomly assigned 1,326 women who had undergone a lumpectomy to either whole-breast irradiation or no radiation on a background of tamoxifen.

The incidence of local recurrence was lower with radiation (0.9% vs. 9.5%), but there was no significant difference in distant metastases or breast cancer–specific or overall survival.

The findings will “help clinicians guide older patients on whether this particular aspect of early breast cancer treatment can be omitted,” Dr. Kunkler said in a press release. Radiation carries risks of heart and lung damage, and these results show that skipping it does not increase the odds of dying from breast cancer.

The new study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“Any doubt that radiotherapy cannot be omitted in women” who meet the criteria “can be put to rest,” commented breast radiation oncologists Alice Ho, MD, of Duke University in Durham, N.C., and Jennifer Bellon, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, in an accompanying editorial.

Clinical guidelines already support omitting radiation therapy in older women with low-risk tumors treated with lumpectomy and endocrine therapy, but the move has been controversial owing to a lack of long-term data, and use of radiation for such women remains common in the United States, the investigators explain.

The “highly anticipated” results for 10-year outcomes from this trial should help address that issue, as well as “the long-standing problem of overtreatment in older women with low-risk breast cancer,” the editorialists comment.
 

Study details

PRIME II was conducted from 2003 to 2009 mainly in the United Kingdom. Participants were aged 65 years or older and had T1 or T2 ER-positive tumors no larger than 3 cm and were without nodal involvement.

Following lumpectomies with clear margins, the women underwent endocrine therapy; the investigators recommended tamoxifen at 20 mg/day for 5 years.

Women who were randomly assigned to radiation also received 40-50 Gy of whole-breast irradiation in 20-25 fractions over 3-5 weeks.

At 10 years, 1.6% of women in the no-radiation arm had distant metastases as their first recurrence vs. 3% of women who underwent radiation.

Ten-year breast cancer–specific survival was 97.9% with radiation and 97.4% with no radiation. Ten-year overall survival was 80.7% in the radiotherapy arm vs. 80.8% in the no-radiotherapy group.

In addition, the recurrence rate was lower after radiation. The investigators suggest that lower adherence to endocrine therapy and lower levels of ER positivity increased the risk of local recurrence among women who didn’t receive radiation.

Almost 10% of the women who did not receive radiation had local recurrences by 10 years, but the investigators note that if tumors do recur locally, women still have the option of a second lumpectomy, and if they so choose, they can then receive radiation, so local recurrence “does not necessarily mean loss of the breast.”

PRIME II was funded by the Scottish Government’s chief scientist office and the Breast Cancer Institute at Western General Hospital, Edinburgh. Dr. Kunkler reported no conflicts of interest. A coauthor has acted as a speaker, adviser, and/or researcher for many companies, including Hoffmann-La Roche, Exact Sciences, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Ho reported grants from and/or being a consultant for GlaxoSmithKline, Roche, Merck, and others. Dr. Bellon reported ties to Varian Medical Systems and Veracyte.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

It’s safe to skip radiation in older women with early, low-risk, estrogen receptor (ER)–positive breast tumors, say researchers reporting 10-year outcomes from the large phase 3 trial known as PRIME II.

“Our trial provides robust evidence indicating that irradiation can be safely omitted in women 65 years of age or older who have grade 1 or 2 ER-high cancers treated by breast-conserving therapy, provided that they receive 5 years of adjuvant endocrine therapy,” concluded investigators led by Ian Kunkler, MB, a clinical oncology professor at the University of Edinburgh.

The trial randomly assigned 1,326 women who had undergone a lumpectomy to either whole-breast irradiation or no radiation on a background of tamoxifen.

The incidence of local recurrence was lower with radiation (0.9% vs. 9.5%), but there was no significant difference in distant metastases or breast cancer–specific or overall survival.

The findings will “help clinicians guide older patients on whether this particular aspect of early breast cancer treatment can be omitted,” Dr. Kunkler said in a press release. Radiation carries risks of heart and lung damage, and these results show that skipping it does not increase the odds of dying from breast cancer.

The new study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“Any doubt that radiotherapy cannot be omitted in women” who meet the criteria “can be put to rest,” commented breast radiation oncologists Alice Ho, MD, of Duke University in Durham, N.C., and Jennifer Bellon, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, in an accompanying editorial.

Clinical guidelines already support omitting radiation therapy in older women with low-risk tumors treated with lumpectomy and endocrine therapy, but the move has been controversial owing to a lack of long-term data, and use of radiation for such women remains common in the United States, the investigators explain.

The “highly anticipated” results for 10-year outcomes from this trial should help address that issue, as well as “the long-standing problem of overtreatment in older women with low-risk breast cancer,” the editorialists comment.
 

Study details

PRIME II was conducted from 2003 to 2009 mainly in the United Kingdom. Participants were aged 65 years or older and had T1 or T2 ER-positive tumors no larger than 3 cm and were without nodal involvement.

Following lumpectomies with clear margins, the women underwent endocrine therapy; the investigators recommended tamoxifen at 20 mg/day for 5 years.

Women who were randomly assigned to radiation also received 40-50 Gy of whole-breast irradiation in 20-25 fractions over 3-5 weeks.

At 10 years, 1.6% of women in the no-radiation arm had distant metastases as their first recurrence vs. 3% of women who underwent radiation.

Ten-year breast cancer–specific survival was 97.9% with radiation and 97.4% with no radiation. Ten-year overall survival was 80.7% in the radiotherapy arm vs. 80.8% in the no-radiotherapy group.

In addition, the recurrence rate was lower after radiation. The investigators suggest that lower adherence to endocrine therapy and lower levels of ER positivity increased the risk of local recurrence among women who didn’t receive radiation.

Almost 10% of the women who did not receive radiation had local recurrences by 10 years, but the investigators note that if tumors do recur locally, women still have the option of a second lumpectomy, and if they so choose, they can then receive radiation, so local recurrence “does not necessarily mean loss of the breast.”

PRIME II was funded by the Scottish Government’s chief scientist office and the Breast Cancer Institute at Western General Hospital, Edinburgh. Dr. Kunkler reported no conflicts of interest. A coauthor has acted as a speaker, adviser, and/or researcher for many companies, including Hoffmann-La Roche, Exact Sciences, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Ho reported grants from and/or being a consultant for GlaxoSmithKline, Roche, Merck, and others. Dr. Bellon reported ties to Varian Medical Systems and Veracyte.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

It’s safe to skip radiation in older women with early, low-risk, estrogen receptor (ER)–positive breast tumors, say researchers reporting 10-year outcomes from the large phase 3 trial known as PRIME II.

“Our trial provides robust evidence indicating that irradiation can be safely omitted in women 65 years of age or older who have grade 1 or 2 ER-high cancers treated by breast-conserving therapy, provided that they receive 5 years of adjuvant endocrine therapy,” concluded investigators led by Ian Kunkler, MB, a clinical oncology professor at the University of Edinburgh.

The trial randomly assigned 1,326 women who had undergone a lumpectomy to either whole-breast irradiation or no radiation on a background of tamoxifen.

The incidence of local recurrence was lower with radiation (0.9% vs. 9.5%), but there was no significant difference in distant metastases or breast cancer–specific or overall survival.

The findings will “help clinicians guide older patients on whether this particular aspect of early breast cancer treatment can be omitted,” Dr. Kunkler said in a press release. Radiation carries risks of heart and lung damage, and these results show that skipping it does not increase the odds of dying from breast cancer.

The new study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“Any doubt that radiotherapy cannot be omitted in women” who meet the criteria “can be put to rest,” commented breast radiation oncologists Alice Ho, MD, of Duke University in Durham, N.C., and Jennifer Bellon, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, in an accompanying editorial.

Clinical guidelines already support omitting radiation therapy in older women with low-risk tumors treated with lumpectomy and endocrine therapy, but the move has been controversial owing to a lack of long-term data, and use of radiation for such women remains common in the United States, the investigators explain.

The “highly anticipated” results for 10-year outcomes from this trial should help address that issue, as well as “the long-standing problem of overtreatment in older women with low-risk breast cancer,” the editorialists comment.
 

Study details

PRIME II was conducted from 2003 to 2009 mainly in the United Kingdom. Participants were aged 65 years or older and had T1 or T2 ER-positive tumors no larger than 3 cm and were without nodal involvement.

Following lumpectomies with clear margins, the women underwent endocrine therapy; the investigators recommended tamoxifen at 20 mg/day for 5 years.

Women who were randomly assigned to radiation also received 40-50 Gy of whole-breast irradiation in 20-25 fractions over 3-5 weeks.

At 10 years, 1.6% of women in the no-radiation arm had distant metastases as their first recurrence vs. 3% of women who underwent radiation.

Ten-year breast cancer–specific survival was 97.9% with radiation and 97.4% with no radiation. Ten-year overall survival was 80.7% in the radiotherapy arm vs. 80.8% in the no-radiotherapy group.

In addition, the recurrence rate was lower after radiation. The investigators suggest that lower adherence to endocrine therapy and lower levels of ER positivity increased the risk of local recurrence among women who didn’t receive radiation.

Almost 10% of the women who did not receive radiation had local recurrences by 10 years, but the investigators note that if tumors do recur locally, women still have the option of a second lumpectomy, and if they so choose, they can then receive radiation, so local recurrence “does not necessarily mean loss of the breast.”

PRIME II was funded by the Scottish Government’s chief scientist office and the Breast Cancer Institute at Western General Hospital, Edinburgh. Dr. Kunkler reported no conflicts of interest. A coauthor has acted as a speaker, adviser, and/or researcher for many companies, including Hoffmann-La Roche, Exact Sciences, and Eli Lilly. Dr. Ho reported grants from and/or being a consultant for GlaxoSmithKline, Roche, Merck, and others. Dr. Bellon reported ties to Varian Medical Systems and Veracyte.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Among Chinese patients with minor nondisabling stroke who presented within 4.5 hours of symptom onset, dual antiplatelet treatment was noninferior to thrombolysis with intravenous alteplase with regard to functional outcome at 90 days in the ARAMIS trial.

The trial was presented by Thanh Nguyen, MD, Boston Medical Center, at the International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

“Given the ease of administration, less intensive monitoring, low cost, and safety profile of dual antiplatelet therapy, the current findings support the use of dual antiplatelet in this population,” Dr. Nguyen concluded.

In a comment on the trial, Pooja Khatri, MD, professor of neurology at the University of Cincinnati, and lead investigator of the previous PRISMS study of tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) or alteplase in mild stroke, said the results reinforced the current recommendations of giving dual antiplatelet therapy but not alteplase to these patients.

Noting that the standard of care is now to give dual antiplatelet therapy to these patients, Dr. Khatri said: “These data reassure that this remains the right way to go.”

She added that her take-home message from the study would be: “Keep giving dual antiplatelet therapy, and we may be doing more harm than good with alteplase in this patient population.”

Introducing her presentation, Dr. Nguyen explained that mild ischemic stroke, defined as having a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score of 5 or less, comprises half of ischemic stroke patients in the United States. But the benefit of thrombolysis in patients with minor ischemic stroke that is not disabling is unknown.

A subgroup analysis of one of the major thrombolysis trials (IST-3) found that a higher proportion of patients with mild ischemic stroke who were treated within 3 hours of symptom onset were alive and independent at 6 months if they had been given thrombolysis (84%), compared to 65% in the control group who received standard medical treatment.

This led to the first randomized trial (PRISMS) dedicated to patients with mild nondisabling stroke, which found that alteplase given within 3 hours of symptom onset did not increase the likelihood of a good functional outcome at 90 days in comparison with single-agent aspirin. The study was unfortunately terminated early for administrative reasons, and no definitive conclusions could be drawn on the basis of these results, Dr. Nguyen reported.

In 2018, the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association guidelines indicated that for patients who present within 3 hours of symptom onset with mild ischemic stroke that was judged to be nondisabling, thrombolysis with intravenous alteplase could be considered, she noted.

In the meantime, dual antiplatelet therapy was shown to be safe and effective in the POINT and CHANCE trials in patients presenting with minor stroke within 12 or 24 hours, and the CHANCE trial also found a benefit in reducing recurrent stroke that was most effective in the first 2 weeks.

The current ARAMIS trial was therefore conducted to evaluate dual antiplatelet therapy in comparison with thrombolysis for patients with acute minor stroke (NIHSS 5 or less) who presented within 4.5 hours of symptom onset and were without clearly disabling deficit.

The trial was conducted in 38 hospitals in China and included 760 patients (median NIHSS score of 2) who were randomly assigned to receive intravenous alteplase at the standard dose of 0.9 mg/kg, followed by guideline-based antiplatelet treatment, or dual antiplatelet therapy (clopidogrel 300 mg plus 100 mg aspirin loading dose followed by 10 to 14 days of aspirin 100 mg and clopidogrel 75 mg).

The trial was designed to assess noninferiority of dual antiplatelet therapy to alteplase with noninferiority margin of –4.5%.

In the modified intention-to-treat analysis, which included 722 patients, the primary outcome (excellent functional outcome, defined as a Modified Rankin Scale score of 0 or 1 at 90 days) occurred in 93.8% of patients in the dual antiplatelet therapy group and in 91.4% of the alteplase group. This gave a difference of 2.4%, which fell within the limits for noninferiority (P = .0002 for noninferiority test).

“Therefore, this was a positive trial,” Dr. Nguyen stated.

About 20% of patients crossed over from the dual antiplatelet group to the thrombolysis group, and about 16% of patients crossed over from the thrombolysis group to the dual antiplatelet group. But a per-protocol and an “as treated” analysis showed results similar to those of the main intention-to-treat analysis.

Secondary outcomes were largely similar between the two groups other than early neurologic deterioration, which was less common in the dual antiplatelet therapy group.

In terms of safety, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage occurred in 0.3% (1/369) in the dual antiplatelet group and in 0.9% (3/350) in the alteplase group, a nonsignificant difference.

Events of “any bleeding” occurred in more patients in the thrombolysis group (5.4%) than in the dual antiplatelet therapy group (1.6%), and this difference was significant (P = .01).

Subgroup analysis showed a trend toward benefit of alteplase for patients with higher NIHSS score at baseline (NIHSS > 3). Otherwise, the other subgroups looked similar to the main results.

Dr. Nguyen pointed out one limitation of the study – that dual antiplatelet therapy was updated to standard treatment in this target population in the 2019 AHA/ASA guidelines.

In her discussion of the study, Dr. Khatri suggested that the ARAMIS results were what might have been expected.

“Dual antiplatelet therapy is designed to prevent stroke. Even in the POINT trial, dual antiplatelet therapy showed no effect on 90-day functional outcome. It was really about prevention. The PRISMS trial suggested that alteplase was also unlikely to improve 90-day functional outcome in this population of patients with mild and not clearly disabling stroke. So, it is not surprising that dual antiplatelet therapy was noninferior to alteplase for 90-day functional outcome for both those reasons,” she explained.

“That being said, while designed as a noninferiority study, it is interesting to note that alteplase again showed no evidence of treatment effect compared to antiplatelet therapy, affirming what was observed in the prematurely terminated PRISMS trial,” Dr. Khatri added.

In a discussion of the study at an ISC 2023 highlights session, ISC program chair Tudor Jovin, MD, Cooper Neurological Institute, Cherry Hill, N.J., said: “This is very important data and it’s actually the first completed trial that examines this question.”

But, he added, “I think we need to refine our knowledge about what a nondisabling stroke actually is. You could argue that every stroke is disabling. I think we need more clarity on this definition, as in practice, many clinicians still give tPA on account of these mild strokes still being disabling.”

The ARAMIS trial was funded by the National Key R&D Program of China and the Science and Technology Project Plan of Liaoning Province. Dr. Nguyen reports research support from Medtronic that was not related to the current study.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Among Chinese patients with minor nondisabling stroke who presented within 4.5 hours of symptom onset, dual antiplatelet treatment was noninferior to thrombolysis with intravenous alteplase with regard to functional outcome at 90 days in the ARAMIS trial.

The trial was presented by Thanh Nguyen, MD, Boston Medical Center, at the International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

“Given the ease of administration, less intensive monitoring, low cost, and safety profile of dual antiplatelet therapy, the current findings support the use of dual antiplatelet in this population,” Dr. Nguyen concluded.

In a comment on the trial, Pooja Khatri, MD, professor of neurology at the University of Cincinnati, and lead investigator of the previous PRISMS study of tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) or alteplase in mild stroke, said the results reinforced the current recommendations of giving dual antiplatelet therapy but not alteplase to these patients.

Noting that the standard of care is now to give dual antiplatelet therapy to these patients, Dr. Khatri said: “These data reassure that this remains the right way to go.”

She added that her take-home message from the study would be: “Keep giving dual antiplatelet therapy, and we may be doing more harm than good with alteplase in this patient population.”

Introducing her presentation, Dr. Nguyen explained that mild ischemic stroke, defined as having a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score of 5 or less, comprises half of ischemic stroke patients in the United States. But the benefit of thrombolysis in patients with minor ischemic stroke that is not disabling is unknown.

A subgroup analysis of one of the major thrombolysis trials (IST-3) found that a higher proportion of patients with mild ischemic stroke who were treated within 3 hours of symptom onset were alive and independent at 6 months if they had been given thrombolysis (84%), compared to 65% in the control group who received standard medical treatment.

This led to the first randomized trial (PRISMS) dedicated to patients with mild nondisabling stroke, which found that alteplase given within 3 hours of symptom onset did not increase the likelihood of a good functional outcome at 90 days in comparison with single-agent aspirin. The study was unfortunately terminated early for administrative reasons, and no definitive conclusions could be drawn on the basis of these results, Dr. Nguyen reported.

In 2018, the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association guidelines indicated that for patients who present within 3 hours of symptom onset with mild ischemic stroke that was judged to be nondisabling, thrombolysis with intravenous alteplase could be considered, she noted.

In the meantime, dual antiplatelet therapy was shown to be safe and effective in the POINT and CHANCE trials in patients presenting with minor stroke within 12 or 24 hours, and the CHANCE trial also found a benefit in reducing recurrent stroke that was most effective in the first 2 weeks.

The current ARAMIS trial was therefore conducted to evaluate dual antiplatelet therapy in comparison with thrombolysis for patients with acute minor stroke (NIHSS 5 or less) who presented within 4.5 hours of symptom onset and were without clearly disabling deficit.

The trial was conducted in 38 hospitals in China and included 760 patients (median NIHSS score of 2) who were randomly assigned to receive intravenous alteplase at the standard dose of 0.9 mg/kg, followed by guideline-based antiplatelet treatment, or dual antiplatelet therapy (clopidogrel 300 mg plus 100 mg aspirin loading dose followed by 10 to 14 days of aspirin 100 mg and clopidogrel 75 mg).

The trial was designed to assess noninferiority of dual antiplatelet therapy to alteplase with noninferiority margin of –4.5%.

In the modified intention-to-treat analysis, which included 722 patients, the primary outcome (excellent functional outcome, defined as a Modified Rankin Scale score of 0 or 1 at 90 days) occurred in 93.8% of patients in the dual antiplatelet therapy group and in 91.4% of the alteplase group. This gave a difference of 2.4%, which fell within the limits for noninferiority (P = .0002 for noninferiority test).

“Therefore, this was a positive trial,” Dr. Nguyen stated.

About 20% of patients crossed over from the dual antiplatelet group to the thrombolysis group, and about 16% of patients crossed over from the thrombolysis group to the dual antiplatelet group. But a per-protocol and an “as treated” analysis showed results similar to those of the main intention-to-treat analysis.

Secondary outcomes were largely similar between the two groups other than early neurologic deterioration, which was less common in the dual antiplatelet therapy group.

In terms of safety, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage occurred in 0.3% (1/369) in the dual antiplatelet group and in 0.9% (3/350) in the alteplase group, a nonsignificant difference.

Events of “any bleeding” occurred in more patients in the thrombolysis group (5.4%) than in the dual antiplatelet therapy group (1.6%), and this difference was significant (P = .01).

Subgroup analysis showed a trend toward benefit of alteplase for patients with higher NIHSS score at baseline (NIHSS > 3). Otherwise, the other subgroups looked similar to the main results.

Dr. Nguyen pointed out one limitation of the study – that dual antiplatelet therapy was updated to standard treatment in this target population in the 2019 AHA/ASA guidelines.

In her discussion of the study, Dr. Khatri suggested that the ARAMIS results were what might have been expected.

“Dual antiplatelet therapy is designed to prevent stroke. Even in the POINT trial, dual antiplatelet therapy showed no effect on 90-day functional outcome. It was really about prevention. The PRISMS trial suggested that alteplase was also unlikely to improve 90-day functional outcome in this population of patients with mild and not clearly disabling stroke. So, it is not surprising that dual antiplatelet therapy was noninferior to alteplase for 90-day functional outcome for both those reasons,” she explained.

“That being said, while designed as a noninferiority study, it is interesting to note that alteplase again showed no evidence of treatment effect compared to antiplatelet therapy, affirming what was observed in the prematurely terminated PRISMS trial,” Dr. Khatri added.

In a discussion of the study at an ISC 2023 highlights session, ISC program chair Tudor Jovin, MD, Cooper Neurological Institute, Cherry Hill, N.J., said: “This is very important data and it’s actually the first completed trial that examines this question.”

But, he added, “I think we need to refine our knowledge about what a nondisabling stroke actually is. You could argue that every stroke is disabling. I think we need more clarity on this definition, as in practice, many clinicians still give tPA on account of these mild strokes still being disabling.”

The ARAMIS trial was funded by the National Key R&D Program of China and the Science and Technology Project Plan of Liaoning Province. Dr. Nguyen reports research support from Medtronic that was not related to the current study.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Among Chinese patients with minor nondisabling stroke who presented within 4.5 hours of symptom onset, dual antiplatelet treatment was noninferior to thrombolysis with intravenous alteplase with regard to functional outcome at 90 days in the ARAMIS trial.

The trial was presented by Thanh Nguyen, MD, Boston Medical Center, at the International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

“Given the ease of administration, less intensive monitoring, low cost, and safety profile of dual antiplatelet therapy, the current findings support the use of dual antiplatelet in this population,” Dr. Nguyen concluded.

In a comment on the trial, Pooja Khatri, MD, professor of neurology at the University of Cincinnati, and lead investigator of the previous PRISMS study of tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) or alteplase in mild stroke, said the results reinforced the current recommendations of giving dual antiplatelet therapy but not alteplase to these patients.

Noting that the standard of care is now to give dual antiplatelet therapy to these patients, Dr. Khatri said: “These data reassure that this remains the right way to go.”

She added that her take-home message from the study would be: “Keep giving dual antiplatelet therapy, and we may be doing more harm than good with alteplase in this patient population.”

Introducing her presentation, Dr. Nguyen explained that mild ischemic stroke, defined as having a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score of 5 or less, comprises half of ischemic stroke patients in the United States. But the benefit of thrombolysis in patients with minor ischemic stroke that is not disabling is unknown.

A subgroup analysis of one of the major thrombolysis trials (IST-3) found that a higher proportion of patients with mild ischemic stroke who were treated within 3 hours of symptom onset were alive and independent at 6 months if they had been given thrombolysis (84%), compared to 65% in the control group who received standard medical treatment.

This led to the first randomized trial (PRISMS) dedicated to patients with mild nondisabling stroke, which found that alteplase given within 3 hours of symptom onset did not increase the likelihood of a good functional outcome at 90 days in comparison with single-agent aspirin. The study was unfortunately terminated early for administrative reasons, and no definitive conclusions could be drawn on the basis of these results, Dr. Nguyen reported.

In 2018, the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association guidelines indicated that for patients who present within 3 hours of symptom onset with mild ischemic stroke that was judged to be nondisabling, thrombolysis with intravenous alteplase could be considered, she noted.

In the meantime, dual antiplatelet therapy was shown to be safe and effective in the POINT and CHANCE trials in patients presenting with minor stroke within 12 or 24 hours, and the CHANCE trial also found a benefit in reducing recurrent stroke that was most effective in the first 2 weeks.

The current ARAMIS trial was therefore conducted to evaluate dual antiplatelet therapy in comparison with thrombolysis for patients with acute minor stroke (NIHSS 5 or less) who presented within 4.5 hours of symptom onset and were without clearly disabling deficit.

The trial was conducted in 38 hospitals in China and included 760 patients (median NIHSS score of 2) who were randomly assigned to receive intravenous alteplase at the standard dose of 0.9 mg/kg, followed by guideline-based antiplatelet treatment, or dual antiplatelet therapy (clopidogrel 300 mg plus 100 mg aspirin loading dose followed by 10 to 14 days of aspirin 100 mg and clopidogrel 75 mg).

The trial was designed to assess noninferiority of dual antiplatelet therapy to alteplase with noninferiority margin of –4.5%.

In the modified intention-to-treat analysis, which included 722 patients, the primary outcome (excellent functional outcome, defined as a Modified Rankin Scale score of 0 or 1 at 90 days) occurred in 93.8% of patients in the dual antiplatelet therapy group and in 91.4% of the alteplase group. This gave a difference of 2.4%, which fell within the limits for noninferiority (P = .0002 for noninferiority test).

“Therefore, this was a positive trial,” Dr. Nguyen stated.

About 20% of patients crossed over from the dual antiplatelet group to the thrombolysis group, and about 16% of patients crossed over from the thrombolysis group to the dual antiplatelet group. But a per-protocol and an “as treated” analysis showed results similar to those of the main intention-to-treat analysis.

Secondary outcomes were largely similar between the two groups other than early neurologic deterioration, which was less common in the dual antiplatelet therapy group.

In terms of safety, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage occurred in 0.3% (1/369) in the dual antiplatelet group and in 0.9% (3/350) in the alteplase group, a nonsignificant difference.

Events of “any bleeding” occurred in more patients in the thrombolysis group (5.4%) than in the dual antiplatelet therapy group (1.6%), and this difference was significant (P = .01).

Subgroup analysis showed a trend toward benefit of alteplase for patients with higher NIHSS score at baseline (NIHSS > 3). Otherwise, the other subgroups looked similar to the main results.

Dr. Nguyen pointed out one limitation of the study – that dual antiplatelet therapy was updated to standard treatment in this target population in the 2019 AHA/ASA guidelines.

In her discussion of the study, Dr. Khatri suggested that the ARAMIS results were what might have been expected.

“Dual antiplatelet therapy is designed to prevent stroke. Even in the POINT trial, dual antiplatelet therapy showed no effect on 90-day functional outcome. It was really about prevention. The PRISMS trial suggested that alteplase was also unlikely to improve 90-day functional outcome in this population of patients with mild and not clearly disabling stroke. So, it is not surprising that dual antiplatelet therapy was noninferior to alteplase for 90-day functional outcome for both those reasons,” she explained.

“That being said, while designed as a noninferiority study, it is interesting to note that alteplase again showed no evidence of treatment effect compared to antiplatelet therapy, affirming what was observed in the prematurely terminated PRISMS trial,” Dr. Khatri added.

In a discussion of the study at an ISC 2023 highlights session, ISC program chair Tudor Jovin, MD, Cooper Neurological Institute, Cherry Hill, N.J., said: “This is very important data and it’s actually the first completed trial that examines this question.”

But, he added, “I think we need to refine our knowledge about what a nondisabling stroke actually is. You could argue that every stroke is disabling. I think we need more clarity on this definition, as in practice, many clinicians still give tPA on account of these mild strokes still being disabling.”

The ARAMIS trial was funded by the National Key R&D Program of China and the Science and Technology Project Plan of Liaoning Province. Dr. Nguyen reports research support from Medtronic that was not related to the current study.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Treatment with the thiazolidinedione pioglitazone may offer the greatest protection against dementia for older adults with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who have a history of stroke or ischemic heart disease, new research suggests.

Overall, in a large cohort study from South Korea, patients who took pioglitazone were 16% less likely to develop dementia over an average of 10 years than peers who did not take the drug.

However, the dementia risk reduction was 54% among those with ischemic heart disease and 43% among those with a history of stroke.

“Our study was to see the association between pioglitazone use and incidence of dementia, not how (with what mechanisms) this drug can suppress dementia pathology,” coinvestigator Eosu Kim, MD, PhD, Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea, said in an interview.

However, “as we found this drug is more effective in diabetic patients who have blood circulation problems in the heart or brain than in those without such problems, we speculate that pioglitazone’s antidementia action may be related to improving blood vessel’s health,” Dr. Kim said.

This finding suggests that pioglitazone could be used as a personalized treatment approach for dementia prevention in this subgroup of patients with diabetes, the researchers noted.

The results were published online in Neurology.
 

Dose-response relationship

Risk for dementia is doubled in adults with T2DM, the investigators wrote. Prior studies have suggested that pioglitazone may protect against dementia, as well as a first or recurrent stroke, in patients with T2DM.

This led Dr. Kim and colleagues to examine the effects of pioglitazone on dementia risk overall and in relation to stroke and ischemic heart disease.

Using the national Korean health database, the researchers identified 91,218 adults aged 50 and older with new-onset T2DM who did not have dementia. A total of 3,467 were treated with pioglitazone.

Pioglitazone exposure was defined as a total cumulative daily dose of 90 or more calculated from all dispensations during 4 years after T2DM diagnosis, with outcomes assessed after this period.

Over an average of 10 years, 8.3% of pioglitazone users developed dementia, compared with 10.0% of nonusers.

There was a statistically significant 16% lower risk for developing all-cause dementia among pioglitazone users than among nonusers (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.75-0.95).

A dose-response relationship was evident; pioglitazone users who received the highest cumulative daily dose were at lower risk for dementia (aHR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.55-0.94).
 

Several limitations

The reduced risk for dementia was more pronounced among patients who used pioglitazone for 4 years in comparison with patients who did not use the drug (aHR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.44-0.90).

The apparent protective effect of pioglitazone with regard to dementia was greater among those with a history of ischemic heart disease (aHR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.24-0.90) or stroke (aHR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.38-0.86) before diabetes diagnosis.

The incidence of stroke was also reduced with pioglitazone use (aHR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.66-1.0).

“These results provide valuable information on who could potentially benefit from pioglitazone use for prevention of dementia,” Dr. Kim said in a news release.

However, “the risk and benefit balance of long-term use of this drug to prevent dementia should be prospectively assessed,” he said in an interview.

The researchers cautioned that the study was observational; hence, the reported associations cannot address causal relationships. Also, because of the use of claims data, drug compliance could not be guaranteed, and exposure may have been overestimated.

There is also the potential for selection bias, and no information on apolipoprotein E was available, they noted.
 

More data needed

In an accompanying editorial, Colleen J. Maxwell, PhD, University of Waterloo (Ont.), and colleagues wrote that the results “not only support previous studies showing the potential cognitive benefit of pioglitazone but also extend our understanding of this benefit through the mediating effect of reducing ischemic stroke.”

However, because of their associated risks, which include fractures, weight gain, heart failure, and bladder cancer, thiazolidinediones are not currently favored in diabetes management guidelines – and their use has significantly declined since the mid to late 2000s, the editorialists noted.

They agreed that it will be important to reassess the risk-benefit profile of pioglitazone in T2DM as additional findings emerge.

They also noted that sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors, which have significant cardiovascular and renal benefits and minimal side effects, may also lower the risk for dementia.

“As both pioglitazone and SGLT-2 inhibitors are second-line options for physicians, the current decision would easily be in favor of SGLT-2 inhibitors given their safety profile,” Dr. Maxwell and colleagues wrote.

For now, pioglitazone “should not be used to prevent dementia in patients with T2DM,” they concluded.

The study was supported by grants from the National Research Foundation of Korea funded by the Korean government and the Ministry of Health and Welfare. The investigators and editorialists report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Treatment with the thiazolidinedione pioglitazone may offer the greatest protection against dementia for older adults with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who have a history of stroke or ischemic heart disease, new research suggests.

Overall, in a large cohort study from South Korea, patients who took pioglitazone were 16% less likely to develop dementia over an average of 10 years than peers who did not take the drug.

However, the dementia risk reduction was 54% among those with ischemic heart disease and 43% among those with a history of stroke.

“Our study was to see the association between pioglitazone use and incidence of dementia, not how (with what mechanisms) this drug can suppress dementia pathology,” coinvestigator Eosu Kim, MD, PhD, Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea, said in an interview.

However, “as we found this drug is more effective in diabetic patients who have blood circulation problems in the heart or brain than in those without such problems, we speculate that pioglitazone’s antidementia action may be related to improving blood vessel’s health,” Dr. Kim said.

This finding suggests that pioglitazone could be used as a personalized treatment approach for dementia prevention in this subgroup of patients with diabetes, the researchers noted.

The results were published online in Neurology.
 

Dose-response relationship

Risk for dementia is doubled in adults with T2DM, the investigators wrote. Prior studies have suggested that pioglitazone may protect against dementia, as well as a first or recurrent stroke, in patients with T2DM.

This led Dr. Kim and colleagues to examine the effects of pioglitazone on dementia risk overall and in relation to stroke and ischemic heart disease.

Using the national Korean health database, the researchers identified 91,218 adults aged 50 and older with new-onset T2DM who did not have dementia. A total of 3,467 were treated with pioglitazone.

Pioglitazone exposure was defined as a total cumulative daily dose of 90 or more calculated from all dispensations during 4 years after T2DM diagnosis, with outcomes assessed after this period.

Over an average of 10 years, 8.3% of pioglitazone users developed dementia, compared with 10.0% of nonusers.

There was a statistically significant 16% lower risk for developing all-cause dementia among pioglitazone users than among nonusers (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.75-0.95).

A dose-response relationship was evident; pioglitazone users who received the highest cumulative daily dose were at lower risk for dementia (aHR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.55-0.94).
 

Several limitations

The reduced risk for dementia was more pronounced among patients who used pioglitazone for 4 years in comparison with patients who did not use the drug (aHR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.44-0.90).

The apparent protective effect of pioglitazone with regard to dementia was greater among those with a history of ischemic heart disease (aHR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.24-0.90) or stroke (aHR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.38-0.86) before diabetes diagnosis.

The incidence of stroke was also reduced with pioglitazone use (aHR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.66-1.0).

“These results provide valuable information on who could potentially benefit from pioglitazone use for prevention of dementia,” Dr. Kim said in a news release.

However, “the risk and benefit balance of long-term use of this drug to prevent dementia should be prospectively assessed,” he said in an interview.

The researchers cautioned that the study was observational; hence, the reported associations cannot address causal relationships. Also, because of the use of claims data, drug compliance could not be guaranteed, and exposure may have been overestimated.

There is also the potential for selection bias, and no information on apolipoprotein E was available, they noted.
 

More data needed

In an accompanying editorial, Colleen J. Maxwell, PhD, University of Waterloo (Ont.), and colleagues wrote that the results “not only support previous studies showing the potential cognitive benefit of pioglitazone but also extend our understanding of this benefit through the mediating effect of reducing ischemic stroke.”

However, because of their associated risks, which include fractures, weight gain, heart failure, and bladder cancer, thiazolidinediones are not currently favored in diabetes management guidelines – and their use has significantly declined since the mid to late 2000s, the editorialists noted.

They agreed that it will be important to reassess the risk-benefit profile of pioglitazone in T2DM as additional findings emerge.

They also noted that sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors, which have significant cardiovascular and renal benefits and minimal side effects, may also lower the risk for dementia.

“As both pioglitazone and SGLT-2 inhibitors are second-line options for physicians, the current decision would easily be in favor of SGLT-2 inhibitors given their safety profile,” Dr. Maxwell and colleagues wrote.

For now, pioglitazone “should not be used to prevent dementia in patients with T2DM,” they concluded.

The study was supported by grants from the National Research Foundation of Korea funded by the Korean government and the Ministry of Health and Welfare. The investigators and editorialists report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Treatment with the thiazolidinedione pioglitazone may offer the greatest protection against dementia for older adults with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who have a history of stroke or ischemic heart disease, new research suggests.

Overall, in a large cohort study from South Korea, patients who took pioglitazone were 16% less likely to develop dementia over an average of 10 years than peers who did not take the drug.

However, the dementia risk reduction was 54% among those with ischemic heart disease and 43% among those with a history of stroke.

“Our study was to see the association between pioglitazone use and incidence of dementia, not how (with what mechanisms) this drug can suppress dementia pathology,” coinvestigator Eosu Kim, MD, PhD, Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea, said in an interview.

However, “as we found this drug is more effective in diabetic patients who have blood circulation problems in the heart or brain than in those without such problems, we speculate that pioglitazone’s antidementia action may be related to improving blood vessel’s health,” Dr. Kim said.

This finding suggests that pioglitazone could be used as a personalized treatment approach for dementia prevention in this subgroup of patients with diabetes, the researchers noted.

The results were published online in Neurology.
 

Dose-response relationship

Risk for dementia is doubled in adults with T2DM, the investigators wrote. Prior studies have suggested that pioglitazone may protect against dementia, as well as a first or recurrent stroke, in patients with T2DM.

This led Dr. Kim and colleagues to examine the effects of pioglitazone on dementia risk overall and in relation to stroke and ischemic heart disease.

Using the national Korean health database, the researchers identified 91,218 adults aged 50 and older with new-onset T2DM who did not have dementia. A total of 3,467 were treated with pioglitazone.

Pioglitazone exposure was defined as a total cumulative daily dose of 90 or more calculated from all dispensations during 4 years after T2DM diagnosis, with outcomes assessed after this period.

Over an average of 10 years, 8.3% of pioglitazone users developed dementia, compared with 10.0% of nonusers.

There was a statistically significant 16% lower risk for developing all-cause dementia among pioglitazone users than among nonusers (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.75-0.95).

A dose-response relationship was evident; pioglitazone users who received the highest cumulative daily dose were at lower risk for dementia (aHR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.55-0.94).
 

Several limitations

The reduced risk for dementia was more pronounced among patients who used pioglitazone for 4 years in comparison with patients who did not use the drug (aHR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.44-0.90).

The apparent protective effect of pioglitazone with regard to dementia was greater among those with a history of ischemic heart disease (aHR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.24-0.90) or stroke (aHR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.38-0.86) before diabetes diagnosis.

The incidence of stroke was also reduced with pioglitazone use (aHR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.66-1.0).

“These results provide valuable information on who could potentially benefit from pioglitazone use for prevention of dementia,” Dr. Kim said in a news release.

However, “the risk and benefit balance of long-term use of this drug to prevent dementia should be prospectively assessed,” he said in an interview.

The researchers cautioned that the study was observational; hence, the reported associations cannot address causal relationships. Also, because of the use of claims data, drug compliance could not be guaranteed, and exposure may have been overestimated.

There is also the potential for selection bias, and no information on apolipoprotein E was available, they noted.
 

More data needed

In an accompanying editorial, Colleen J. Maxwell, PhD, University of Waterloo (Ont.), and colleagues wrote that the results “not only support previous studies showing the potential cognitive benefit of pioglitazone but also extend our understanding of this benefit through the mediating effect of reducing ischemic stroke.”

However, because of their associated risks, which include fractures, weight gain, heart failure, and bladder cancer, thiazolidinediones are not currently favored in diabetes management guidelines – and their use has significantly declined since the mid to late 2000s, the editorialists noted.

They agreed that it will be important to reassess the risk-benefit profile of pioglitazone in T2DM as additional findings emerge.

They also noted that sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors, which have significant cardiovascular and renal benefits and minimal side effects, may also lower the risk for dementia.

“As both pioglitazone and SGLT-2 inhibitors are second-line options for physicians, the current decision would easily be in favor of SGLT-2 inhibitors given their safety profile,” Dr. Maxwell and colleagues wrote.

For now, pioglitazone “should not be used to prevent dementia in patients with T2DM,” they concluded.

The study was supported by grants from the National Research Foundation of Korea funded by the Korean government and the Ministry of Health and Welfare. The investigators and editorialists report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

A frustrated physician recently voiced some strong words in Medscape’s US Physician Burnout & Depression Report: “Only a sociopath could work for a large health system and not be burned out. Anyone who cares about patients is doomed to burnout.”

It’s no secret that today’s large health care organizations are leaving physicians feeling overwhelmed, beaten up, and exhausted. Medscape’s report showed that 53% of physicians feel burned out by job requirements; 65% say that burnout has impacted their relationships, and other statistics say that physicians are leaving clinical medicine because of all this pressure.

What is it about being employed by large organizations that can be so negative?  In another study, MEMO – Minimizing Error, Maximizing Outcomes – researchers at the University of Wisconsin surveyed more than 400 doctors to learn about how their working environments corresponded with medical errors. More than half of the physicians reported time pressures when conducting physical examinations. Nearly a third felt they needed at least 50% more time than was allotted for this patient care function, and nearly a quarter said they needed at least 50% more time for follow-up appointments.

Some have asked: Can anyone, then, thrive in today’s health care environment and avoid burnout?

Although the frustrated physician noted above may sardonically say that a doctor needs to be sociopathic to enjoy it – lacking in feelings for others – “It’s a very small number of doctors who get in it for the wrong reasons and therefore care about their own benefit and not their patients,” said psychiatrist Wendy Dean, MD, CEO and cofounder of Moral Injury of Healthcare, a nonprofit organization addressing workforce distress in health care. “Those are the outliers.”

The vast majority of physicians do care about their patients – deeply, said Dr. Dean. They struggle under the weight of the health care system and yet must find ways to get through. Today, thriving in an imperfect system requires honing new skills, asking for help when needed, and pushing for systemic and cultural change.

“We’ve been assessing and trying to address burnout for half a century,” said Dr. Dean. “Despite all the good intentions, and people dedicating their entire careers to solving the issue, we’ve barely made a dent.”

With the advent of new technological requirements on the job and more demands from increasingly larger health care organizations, the risk for burnout is higher than ever before. “There’s an increased burden of regulatory-mandated and cumbersome administrative workload per patient,” said Shomron Ben-Horin, MD, cofounder of Evinature. “Often the computer/paperwork before and after a procedure is much longer than the procedure itself.”

Meeting insurance requirements is increasingly cumbersome, too, and preauthorizations and debates with payers over medical approval may put physicians frustratingly in the middle.

“This increases the psychological burden for physicians who may feel responsible for wrongdoing no matter which option they deem better,” Dr. Ben-Horin said. “Add in physician accessibility around the clock via mobile phones, emails, and apps, and you end up on call even if you’re not officially on call.”
 

Why some physicians suffer more

Some physicians are more likely to suffer burnout than others, said Jessi Gold, MD, assistant professor in the department of psychiatry at Washington University in St. Louis. “The self-valuation concept comes into play here,” she said. “If you make a mistake, do you blame yourself or see it as a growth opportunity? If it’s the former, you’re more likely to burn out.”

Dr. Ben-Horin added that the most patient-centric doctors are the ones who struggle most. “These are the doctors we’d all love to have as a patient,” he said. “But they are burdened by the extra tasks of the job, and they are the most stressed by the environment.”

So too are those physicians who never master compartmentalizing their feelings and emotions. “We learn in training to compartmentalize our emotions,” said Dr. Dean. “You can’t allow yourself to get emotional while performing chest compressions on an 18-year-old kid. So you shut it all away; otherwise, you might lose the patient.”

This turn-off switch becomes automatic, but it also comes at a cost. “When doctors were interviewed about [Buffalo Bills player] Damar Hamlin going into cardiac arrest on the football field, they talked about how a life-and-death situation is so common that they have to put the emotions away, work on the patient, and move onto the next,” said Dr. Dean. “The next patient needs you just as much. We must lock away our feelings and manage the situation.”

Dr. Gold explained that burying feelings, however, is a symptom of burnout. “We have to remove ourselves from the situation to protect ourselves,” she said. “We can’t cry in these situations, but we can’t bury our feelings either.”

Instead, Dr. Gold suggested, a good medium may exist. “You may not be able to address them in the moment, but you should sometime after,” she said.

This is just a starting point on how to remain a dedicated, caring physician without burning out. “The system is pretty broken, and to survive it first means wanting to survive it,” Dr. Gold said. “There’s a lot of focus on resiliency and lack thereof if a physician expresses burnout, but that’s a false notion. Doctors are a resilient bunch but even they get burned out.”

Change for the better must come from several places. One is asking for help, something that can be hard for a group conditioned to keeping a stiff upper lip. “Just because your peers might look healthy (emotionally) doesn’t mean they are,” said Dr. Gold. “We’ve normalized this culture of burying feelings, but that doesn’t mean it’s right.”

Dr. Ben-Horin also advocates diversifying your work. This might include engaging in research and academics, for instance. “This not only makes you a better broad-perspective doctor but allows you to psychologically switch gears on research days,” he said.

The biggest place to make change, however, is within the health care system culture itself. The AMA created a series of recommendations to address burnout at the resident and fellow level, a good starting point to carry through into staff work. The steps include creating a well-being framework, gathering a team to support a well-being program, developing the program in a way to foster fun and connectivity among the staff, fostering individual well-being that addresses emotional and physical well-being, and confronting burnout and creating a sustainable culture of well-being.

On a personal level, it’s essential that physicians keep close tabs on themselves and peers. “Understand the signs and symptoms of burnout by taking stock of where you are emotionally,” said Dr. Gold. “Have a place and time at the end of a hard day to reflect or find a ritual that helps you and stay with it.”

You might also reach out to a therapist or a peer when you’re struggling. Having honest conversations with peers can go a long way. “Find a confidant that allows you to be vulnerable,” Dr. Gold recommended. “Acknowledge that this is hard and that you might need help taking care of yourself. The system needs to change, but we can also learn to survive in the meantime. You don’t have to be a sociopath to make it.”

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

A frustrated physician recently voiced some strong words in Medscape’s US Physician Burnout & Depression Report: “Only a sociopath could work for a large health system and not be burned out. Anyone who cares about patients is doomed to burnout.”

It’s no secret that today’s large health care organizations are leaving physicians feeling overwhelmed, beaten up, and exhausted. Medscape’s report showed that 53% of physicians feel burned out by job requirements; 65% say that burnout has impacted their relationships, and other statistics say that physicians are leaving clinical medicine because of all this pressure.

What is it about being employed by large organizations that can be so negative?  In another study, MEMO – Minimizing Error, Maximizing Outcomes – researchers at the University of Wisconsin surveyed more than 400 doctors to learn about how their working environments corresponded with medical errors. More than half of the physicians reported time pressures when conducting physical examinations. Nearly a third felt they needed at least 50% more time than was allotted for this patient care function, and nearly a quarter said they needed at least 50% more time for follow-up appointments.

Some have asked: Can anyone, then, thrive in today’s health care environment and avoid burnout?

Although the frustrated physician noted above may sardonically say that a doctor needs to be sociopathic to enjoy it – lacking in feelings for others – “It’s a very small number of doctors who get in it for the wrong reasons and therefore care about their own benefit and not their patients,” said psychiatrist Wendy Dean, MD, CEO and cofounder of Moral Injury of Healthcare, a nonprofit organization addressing workforce distress in health care. “Those are the outliers.”

The vast majority of physicians do care about their patients – deeply, said Dr. Dean. They struggle under the weight of the health care system and yet must find ways to get through. Today, thriving in an imperfect system requires honing new skills, asking for help when needed, and pushing for systemic and cultural change.

“We’ve been assessing and trying to address burnout for half a century,” said Dr. Dean. “Despite all the good intentions, and people dedicating their entire careers to solving the issue, we’ve barely made a dent.”

With the advent of new technological requirements on the job and more demands from increasingly larger health care organizations, the risk for burnout is higher than ever before. “There’s an increased burden of regulatory-mandated and cumbersome administrative workload per patient,” said Shomron Ben-Horin, MD, cofounder of Evinature. “Often the computer/paperwork before and after a procedure is much longer than the procedure itself.”

Meeting insurance requirements is increasingly cumbersome, too, and preauthorizations and debates with payers over medical approval may put physicians frustratingly in the middle.

“This increases the psychological burden for physicians who may feel responsible for wrongdoing no matter which option they deem better,” Dr. Ben-Horin said. “Add in physician accessibility around the clock via mobile phones, emails, and apps, and you end up on call even if you’re not officially on call.”
 

Why some physicians suffer more

Some physicians are more likely to suffer burnout than others, said Jessi Gold, MD, assistant professor in the department of psychiatry at Washington University in St. Louis. “The self-valuation concept comes into play here,” she said. “If you make a mistake, do you blame yourself or see it as a growth opportunity? If it’s the former, you’re more likely to burn out.”

Dr. Ben-Horin added that the most patient-centric doctors are the ones who struggle most. “These are the doctors we’d all love to have as a patient,” he said. “But they are burdened by the extra tasks of the job, and they are the most stressed by the environment.”

So too are those physicians who never master compartmentalizing their feelings and emotions. “We learn in training to compartmentalize our emotions,” said Dr. Dean. “You can’t allow yourself to get emotional while performing chest compressions on an 18-year-old kid. So you shut it all away; otherwise, you might lose the patient.”

This turn-off switch becomes automatic, but it also comes at a cost. “When doctors were interviewed about [Buffalo Bills player] Damar Hamlin going into cardiac arrest on the football field, they talked about how a life-and-death situation is so common that they have to put the emotions away, work on the patient, and move onto the next,” said Dr. Dean. “The next patient needs you just as much. We must lock away our feelings and manage the situation.”

Dr. Gold explained that burying feelings, however, is a symptom of burnout. “We have to remove ourselves from the situation to protect ourselves,” she said. “We can’t cry in these situations, but we can’t bury our feelings either.”

Instead, Dr. Gold suggested, a good medium may exist. “You may not be able to address them in the moment, but you should sometime after,” she said.

This is just a starting point on how to remain a dedicated, caring physician without burning out. “The system is pretty broken, and to survive it first means wanting to survive it,” Dr. Gold said. “There’s a lot of focus on resiliency and lack thereof if a physician expresses burnout, but that’s a false notion. Doctors are a resilient bunch but even they get burned out.”

Change for the better must come from several places. One is asking for help, something that can be hard for a group conditioned to keeping a stiff upper lip. “Just because your peers might look healthy (emotionally) doesn’t mean they are,” said Dr. Gold. “We’ve normalized this culture of burying feelings, but that doesn’t mean it’s right.”

Dr. Ben-Horin also advocates diversifying your work. This might include engaging in research and academics, for instance. “This not only makes you a better broad-perspective doctor but allows you to psychologically switch gears on research days,” he said.

The biggest place to make change, however, is within the health care system culture itself. The AMA created a series of recommendations to address burnout at the resident and fellow level, a good starting point to carry through into staff work. The steps include creating a well-being framework, gathering a team to support a well-being program, developing the program in a way to foster fun and connectivity among the staff, fostering individual well-being that addresses emotional and physical well-being, and confronting burnout and creating a sustainable culture of well-being.

On a personal level, it’s essential that physicians keep close tabs on themselves and peers. “Understand the signs and symptoms of burnout by taking stock of where you are emotionally,” said Dr. Gold. “Have a place and time at the end of a hard day to reflect or find a ritual that helps you and stay with it.”

You might also reach out to a therapist or a peer when you’re struggling. Having honest conversations with peers can go a long way. “Find a confidant that allows you to be vulnerable,” Dr. Gold recommended. “Acknowledge that this is hard and that you might need help taking care of yourself. The system needs to change, but we can also learn to survive in the meantime. You don’t have to be a sociopath to make it.”

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

A frustrated physician recently voiced some strong words in Medscape’s US Physician Burnout & Depression Report: “Only a sociopath could work for a large health system and not be burned out. Anyone who cares about patients is doomed to burnout.”

It’s no secret that today’s large health care organizations are leaving physicians feeling overwhelmed, beaten up, and exhausted. Medscape’s report showed that 53% of physicians feel burned out by job requirements; 65% say that burnout has impacted their relationships, and other statistics say that physicians are leaving clinical medicine because of all this pressure.

What is it about being employed by large organizations that can be so negative?  In another study, MEMO – Minimizing Error, Maximizing Outcomes – researchers at the University of Wisconsin surveyed more than 400 doctors to learn about how their working environments corresponded with medical errors. More than half of the physicians reported time pressures when conducting physical examinations. Nearly a third felt they needed at least 50% more time than was allotted for this patient care function, and nearly a quarter said they needed at least 50% more time for follow-up appointments.

Some have asked: Can anyone, then, thrive in today’s health care environment and avoid burnout?

Although the frustrated physician noted above may sardonically say that a doctor needs to be sociopathic to enjoy it – lacking in feelings for others – “It’s a very small number of doctors who get in it for the wrong reasons and therefore care about their own benefit and not their patients,” said psychiatrist Wendy Dean, MD, CEO and cofounder of Moral Injury of Healthcare, a nonprofit organization addressing workforce distress in health care. “Those are the outliers.”

The vast majority of physicians do care about their patients – deeply, said Dr. Dean. They struggle under the weight of the health care system and yet must find ways to get through. Today, thriving in an imperfect system requires honing new skills, asking for help when needed, and pushing for systemic and cultural change.

“We’ve been assessing and trying to address burnout for half a century,” said Dr. Dean. “Despite all the good intentions, and people dedicating their entire careers to solving the issue, we’ve barely made a dent.”

With the advent of new technological requirements on the job and more demands from increasingly larger health care organizations, the risk for burnout is higher than ever before. “There’s an increased burden of regulatory-mandated and cumbersome administrative workload per patient,” said Shomron Ben-Horin, MD, cofounder of Evinature. “Often the computer/paperwork before and after a procedure is much longer than the procedure itself.”

Meeting insurance requirements is increasingly cumbersome, too, and preauthorizations and debates with payers over medical approval may put physicians frustratingly in the middle.

“This increases the psychological burden for physicians who may feel responsible for wrongdoing no matter which option they deem better,” Dr. Ben-Horin said. “Add in physician accessibility around the clock via mobile phones, emails, and apps, and you end up on call even if you’re not officially on call.”
 

Why some physicians suffer more

Some physicians are more likely to suffer burnout than others, said Jessi Gold, MD, assistant professor in the department of psychiatry at Washington University in St. Louis. “The self-valuation concept comes into play here,” she said. “If you make a mistake, do you blame yourself or see it as a growth opportunity? If it’s the former, you’re more likely to burn out.”

Dr. Ben-Horin added that the most patient-centric doctors are the ones who struggle most. “These are the doctors we’d all love to have as a patient,” he said. “But they are burdened by the extra tasks of the job, and they are the most stressed by the environment.”

So too are those physicians who never master compartmentalizing their feelings and emotions. “We learn in training to compartmentalize our emotions,” said Dr. Dean. “You can’t allow yourself to get emotional while performing chest compressions on an 18-year-old kid. So you shut it all away; otherwise, you might lose the patient.”

This turn-off switch becomes automatic, but it also comes at a cost. “When doctors were interviewed about [Buffalo Bills player] Damar Hamlin going into cardiac arrest on the football field, they talked about how a life-and-death situation is so common that they have to put the emotions away, work on the patient, and move onto the next,” said Dr. Dean. “The next patient needs you just as much. We must lock away our feelings and manage the situation.”

Dr. Gold explained that burying feelings, however, is a symptom of burnout. “We have to remove ourselves from the situation to protect ourselves,” she said. “We can’t cry in these situations, but we can’t bury our feelings either.”

Instead, Dr. Gold suggested, a good medium may exist. “You may not be able to address them in the moment, but you should sometime after,” she said.

This is just a starting point on how to remain a dedicated, caring physician without burning out. “The system is pretty broken, and to survive it first means wanting to survive it,” Dr. Gold said. “There’s a lot of focus on resiliency and lack thereof if a physician expresses burnout, but that’s a false notion. Doctors are a resilient bunch but even they get burned out.”

Change for the better must come from several places. One is asking for help, something that can be hard for a group conditioned to keeping a stiff upper lip. “Just because your peers might look healthy (emotionally) doesn’t mean they are,” said Dr. Gold. “We’ve normalized this culture of burying feelings, but that doesn’t mean it’s right.”

Dr. Ben-Horin also advocates diversifying your work. This might include engaging in research and academics, for instance. “This not only makes you a better broad-perspective doctor but allows you to psychologically switch gears on research days,” he said.

The biggest place to make change, however, is within the health care system culture itself. The AMA created a series of recommendations to address burnout at the resident and fellow level, a good starting point to carry through into staff work. The steps include creating a well-being framework, gathering a team to support a well-being program, developing the program in a way to foster fun and connectivity among the staff, fostering individual well-being that addresses emotional and physical well-being, and confronting burnout and creating a sustainable culture of well-being.

On a personal level, it’s essential that physicians keep close tabs on themselves and peers. “Understand the signs and symptoms of burnout by taking stock of where you are emotionally,” said Dr. Gold. “Have a place and time at the end of a hard day to reflect or find a ritual that helps you and stay with it.”

You might also reach out to a therapist or a peer when you’re struggling. Having honest conversations with peers can go a long way. “Find a confidant that allows you to be vulnerable,” Dr. Gold recommended. “Acknowledge that this is hard and that you might need help taking care of yourself. The system needs to change, but we can also learn to survive in the meantime. You don’t have to be a sociopath to make it.”

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Many companies, government agencies, and organizations have implemented policies and procedures to shield employees from sexual and other forms of harassment. The U.S. Department of Health & Human Services and the American Medical Association are just two examples.

Employers can tap a rich lode of guidance and resources to craft these antiharassment policies. The National Institutes of Health’s resource page is a good site for hospitals to check out.

But how effective have official policies proved in deterring harassment in medical workplaces? After all, in a study by the American Association of Medical Colleges, 34% of female faculty said they had experienced sexual harassment irrespective of such policies. And in a recent Medscape survey of more than 3,000 physicians, 27% reported that they had either witnessed or been subjected to sexual harassment or misconduct at work during the past 4 years.
 

When policies are absent or unenforced

“Not all institutions have antiharassment rules and policies, and even when they exist, they’re not always enforced,” says Theresa Rohr-Kirchgraber, MD, president of the American Medical Women’s Association and professor of medicine at the Medical College of Georgia, Augusta.

She believes employer rules and policies generally are helpful in establishing who fields harassment complaints and in creating at least some accountability.

On the other hand, policies that don’t recognize anonymous complaints effectively discourage harassment victims from coming forward, Dr. Rohr-Kirchgraber argues. Even those policies that do allow anonymous complaints may have limitations.

For example, the NIH policy on reporting harassment acknowledges that “officials must follow up on all allegations of harassment and cannot guarantee that your identity will not become apparent during the process. Please note that if you remain anonymous, key details about the allegation or concern [may] be omitted. This will limit the NIH’s ability to conduct an inquiry and take corrective action as warranted.”
 

Risks in pressing a harassment case

A complainant whose name becomes public risks getting a reputation as a problem employee or suffering workplace retaliation, according to Dr. Rohr-Kirchgraber. She recalls a colleague who was on a clinical education track until she lodged a harassment complaint. Abruptly, she was told she was needed on a service with fewer teaching opportunities.

With such risks in mind, respondents to the Medscape survey advised employees in medical workplaces to familiarize themselves with policies and procedures before pressing a case.

“Document everything,” an ophthalmologist urged, including time, place, offender, and witnesses. Present that information to your supervisor, and if nothing is done, hire a lawyer, a gastroenterologist suggested.

But taking the situation to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission can be complicated, Roberta Gebhard, DO, past AMWA president and founder of its Gender Equity Task Force, told this news organization.

“They talk to the employer and get the employer’s side of the story and eventually render a decision about whether you have a case you can put through and file a lawsuit,” she said. “I don’t know of any other situation in which you need ‘permission’ to file a lawsuit.”

Nevertheless, an attorney can be helpful with cases, and when someone is terminated, a lawyer can possibly have it overturned or converted to a resignation, Dr. Gebhard said.

“And always have a lawyer review your contract before you take the job,” she advised. The lawyer might adjust the contract’s verbiage in ways that can protect one down the road in the event of a potential termination. “It’s money very well spent.”
 

More education needed

Dr. Rohr-Kirchgraber said that protection against harassment goes beyond the employer’s policies and procedures. Building an overall consciousness of what harassment is should begin with employee onboarding, she said.

“The harasser may not even recognize that what they’re doing or saying is a form of harassment, so we need better education,” Dr. Rohr-Kirchgraber emphasized.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Many companies, government agencies, and organizations have implemented policies and procedures to shield employees from sexual and other forms of harassment. The U.S. Department of Health & Human Services and the American Medical Association are just two examples.

Employers can tap a rich lode of guidance and resources to craft these antiharassment policies. The National Institutes of Health’s resource page is a good site for hospitals to check out.

But how effective have official policies proved in deterring harassment in medical workplaces? After all, in a study by the American Association of Medical Colleges, 34% of female faculty said they had experienced sexual harassment irrespective of such policies. And in a recent Medscape survey of more than 3,000 physicians, 27% reported that they had either witnessed or been subjected to sexual harassment or misconduct at work during the past 4 years.
 

When policies are absent or unenforced

“Not all institutions have antiharassment rules and policies, and even when they exist, they’re not always enforced,” says Theresa Rohr-Kirchgraber, MD, president of the American Medical Women’s Association and professor of medicine at the Medical College of Georgia, Augusta.

She believes employer rules and policies generally are helpful in establishing who fields harassment complaints and in creating at least some accountability.

On the other hand, policies that don’t recognize anonymous complaints effectively discourage harassment victims from coming forward, Dr. Rohr-Kirchgraber argues. Even those policies that do allow anonymous complaints may have limitations.

For example, the NIH policy on reporting harassment acknowledges that “officials must follow up on all allegations of harassment and cannot guarantee that your identity will not become apparent during the process. Please note that if you remain anonymous, key details about the allegation or concern [may] be omitted. This will limit the NIH’s ability to conduct an inquiry and take corrective action as warranted.”
 

Risks in pressing a harassment case

A complainant whose name becomes public risks getting a reputation as a problem employee or suffering workplace retaliation, according to Dr. Rohr-Kirchgraber. She recalls a colleague who was on a clinical education track until she lodged a harassment complaint. Abruptly, she was told she was needed on a service with fewer teaching opportunities.

With such risks in mind, respondents to the Medscape survey advised employees in medical workplaces to familiarize themselves with policies and procedures before pressing a case.

“Document everything,” an ophthalmologist urged, including time, place, offender, and witnesses. Present that information to your supervisor, and if nothing is done, hire a lawyer, a gastroenterologist suggested.

But taking the situation to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission can be complicated, Roberta Gebhard, DO, past AMWA president and founder of its Gender Equity Task Force, told this news organization.

“They talk to the employer and get the employer’s side of the story and eventually render a decision about whether you have a case you can put through and file a lawsuit,” she said. “I don’t know of any other situation in which you need ‘permission’ to file a lawsuit.”

Nevertheless, an attorney can be helpful with cases, and when someone is terminated, a lawyer can possibly have it overturned or converted to a resignation, Dr. Gebhard said.

“And always have a lawyer review your contract before you take the job,” she advised. The lawyer might adjust the contract’s verbiage in ways that can protect one down the road in the event of a potential termination. “It’s money very well spent.”
 

More education needed

Dr. Rohr-Kirchgraber said that protection against harassment goes beyond the employer’s policies and procedures. Building an overall consciousness of what harassment is should begin with employee onboarding, she said.

“The harasser may not even recognize that what they’re doing or saying is a form of harassment, so we need better education,” Dr. Rohr-Kirchgraber emphasized.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Many companies, government agencies, and organizations have implemented policies and procedures to shield employees from sexual and other forms of harassment. The U.S. Department of Health & Human Services and the American Medical Association are just two examples.

Employers can tap a rich lode of guidance and resources to craft these antiharassment policies. The National Institutes of Health’s resource page is a good site for hospitals to check out.

But how effective have official policies proved in deterring harassment in medical workplaces? After all, in a study by the American Association of Medical Colleges, 34% of female faculty said they had experienced sexual harassment irrespective of such policies. And in a recent Medscape survey of more than 3,000 physicians, 27% reported that they had either witnessed or been subjected to sexual harassment or misconduct at work during the past 4 years.
 

When policies are absent or unenforced

“Not all institutions have antiharassment rules and policies, and even when they exist, they’re not always enforced,” says Theresa Rohr-Kirchgraber, MD, president of the American Medical Women’s Association and professor of medicine at the Medical College of Georgia, Augusta.

She believes employer rules and policies generally are helpful in establishing who fields harassment complaints and in creating at least some accountability.

On the other hand, policies that don’t recognize anonymous complaints effectively discourage harassment victims from coming forward, Dr. Rohr-Kirchgraber argues. Even those policies that do allow anonymous complaints may have limitations.

For example, the NIH policy on reporting harassment acknowledges that “officials must follow up on all allegations of harassment and cannot guarantee that your identity will not become apparent during the process. Please note that if you remain anonymous, key details about the allegation or concern [may] be omitted. This will limit the NIH’s ability to conduct an inquiry and take corrective action as warranted.”
 

Risks in pressing a harassment case

A complainant whose name becomes public risks getting a reputation as a problem employee or suffering workplace retaliation, according to Dr. Rohr-Kirchgraber. She recalls a colleague who was on a clinical education track until she lodged a harassment complaint. Abruptly, she was told she was needed on a service with fewer teaching opportunities.

With such risks in mind, respondents to the Medscape survey advised employees in medical workplaces to familiarize themselves with policies and procedures before pressing a case.

“Document everything,” an ophthalmologist urged, including time, place, offender, and witnesses. Present that information to your supervisor, and if nothing is done, hire a lawyer, a gastroenterologist suggested.

But taking the situation to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission can be complicated, Roberta Gebhard, DO, past AMWA president and founder of its Gender Equity Task Force, told this news organization.

“They talk to the employer and get the employer’s side of the story and eventually render a decision about whether you have a case you can put through and file a lawsuit,” she said. “I don’t know of any other situation in which you need ‘permission’ to file a lawsuit.”

Nevertheless, an attorney can be helpful with cases, and when someone is terminated, a lawyer can possibly have it overturned or converted to a resignation, Dr. Gebhard said.

“And always have a lawyer review your contract before you take the job,” she advised. The lawyer might adjust the contract’s verbiage in ways that can protect one down the road in the event of a potential termination. “It’s money very well spent.”
 

More education needed

Dr. Rohr-Kirchgraber said that protection against harassment goes beyond the employer’s policies and procedures. Building an overall consciousness of what harassment is should begin with employee onboarding, she said.

“The harasser may not even recognize that what they’re doing or saying is a form of harassment, so we need better education,” Dr. Rohr-Kirchgraber emphasized.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

People at high risk for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), such as those with type 2 diabetes or medically complicated obesity, should be screened for advanced fibrosis, says new guidance from the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.

The guidance, published online in Hepatology, also reflects recent advances in the diagnosis and management of NAFLD, particularly noninvasive testing, lead author Mary E. Rinella, MD, University of Chicago, told this news organization.

The “biggest change” from the previous guidance, published 5 years ago, is “that we are explicitly recommending that people in high-risk categories get screened in primary care,” she said.

NAFLD is “a silent disease ... you could easily have somebody develop cirrhosis,” Dr. Rinella said. By identifying patients earlier, physicians would be able to “prevent or reduce the number of people turning up decompensated or at an advanced stage,” she added.

The other message that Dr. Rinella wants clinicians to take away from the guidance is that “something can be done” for patients with NAFLD. “It’s very common, and the often-cited reason why patients aren’t referred to specialty care is that there’s ‘nothing that can be done.’ ”

Although there is no U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved drug for NAFLD, clinicians can still support their patients and suggest lifestyle changes, she added.

The guidelines also are designed to prepare the groundwork for novel drugs in the pipeline, as well as discuss those that are already available for conditions such as obesity and diabetes and that benefit people with liver disease, Dr. Rinella said.
 

Screening and evaluation

The guidance covers all aspects of NAFLD, including the latest developments in understanding of the epidemiology and natural history of the disease, and its molecular and cellular pathogenesis.

The guidance continues to recommend against population-based screening for NAFLD. In addition to the aforementioned screening for advanced fibrosis in high-risk individuals, it calls for a primary risk assessment with FIB-4 to be performed every 1-2 years in patients with pre-diabetes, type 2 diabetes, two or more metabolic risk factors, or imaging evidence of hepatic steatosis.

Patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) cirrhosis require routine monitoring, as they are at the highest risk for liver-related outcomes, the guidance adds. Those with suspected NASH should be referred for evaluation by a specialist.

In assessments of liver fibrosis in patients, findings such as highly elevated liver stiffness, FIB-4, and enhanced liver fibrosis scores can predict an increased risk for hepatic decompensation and mortality, the authors write.
 

Intervention guidance

Patients with NAFLD who are overweight or obese should be prescribed a reduced calorie diet in a multidisciplinary setting because weight loss “improves hepatic steatosis, NASH, and hepatic fibrosis in a dose-dependent manner,” the guidance states.

Bariatric surgery should be considered in appropriate patients because of its effectiveness in resolving NAFLD and NASH in most patients without cirrhosis, the guidance says. However, in patients with well-compensated NASH cirrhosis, the type, safety, and efficacy of bariatric surgery is not established, so a “careful benefit-risk assessment by a multidisciplinary team of experts that includes a hepatologist” is needed, the authors note.

The guidance discusses alcohol consumption’s role in the progression of fatty liver disease and recommends that intake be assessed on a regular basis in patients with NAFLD. Patients with clinically significant hepatic fibrosis should abstain completely, it adds. Abstinence, particularly for patients with moderate to heavy alcohol intake, may lower the risk of fibrosis progression and hepatic and extrahepatic malignancies, the authors note.

Additionally, drinking at least three cups of coffee, caffeinated or not, per day is “associated with less-advanced liver disease,” they write.

The guidance also sets out key considerations for people with comorbid conditions. It states that patients with NAFLD should be screened for type 2 diabetes and that statins can be safely used for cardiovascular risk reduction “across the disease spectrum, including compensated cirrhosis.”

While noting the lack of approved medications for NAFLD, the guidance states that some drugs prescribed for comorbidities also benefit patients with NASH. These are glucagon-like peptide 1 agonist semaglutide (Ozempic), pioglitazone (Actos), and vitamin E supplementation in select patients.

Available data on these same drugs, however, do not show an antifibrotic benefit and haven’t been studied in patients with cirrhosis, the guidance states.

Additionally, metformin, ursodeoxycholic acid, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, silymarin, and statins do not offer meaningful histologic benefit and shouldn’t be used as a treatment for NASH.
 

Help against an ‘evolving epidemic’

The guidance is “timely and long awaited,” Jamile Wakim-Fleming, MD, director of the fatty liver disease program at the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview. NAFLD is an “evolving epidemic,” she added.

Numerous recent studies have “led to new modalities for diagnosis and therapy, and a better understanding” of the epidemiology and pathophysiology of NAFLD, she said. “More specifically, advancements in noninvasive testing, risk stratifications, and therapeutic modalities are now available and worth disseminating.”

NAFLD’s complexity and the lack of an FDA-approved therapy specifically targeting the liver means that managing the disease “requires expertise in multiple disciplines and knowledge of the latest developments,” Dr. Wakim-Fleming noted.

“This guidance describes preventive and treatment strategies for the metabolic conditions associated with NAFLD and is very useful for physicians in different specialties who treat individuals with these conditions,” she said.

No funding was declared. Dr. Rinella and Dr. Wakim-Fleming have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

People at high risk for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), such as those with type 2 diabetes or medically complicated obesity, should be screened for advanced fibrosis, says new guidance from the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.

The guidance, published online in Hepatology, also reflects recent advances in the diagnosis and management of NAFLD, particularly noninvasive testing, lead author Mary E. Rinella, MD, University of Chicago, told this news organization.

The “biggest change” from the previous guidance, published 5 years ago, is “that we are explicitly recommending that people in high-risk categories get screened in primary care,” she said.

NAFLD is “a silent disease ... you could easily have somebody develop cirrhosis,” Dr. Rinella said. By identifying patients earlier, physicians would be able to “prevent or reduce the number of people turning up decompensated or at an advanced stage,” she added.

The other message that Dr. Rinella wants clinicians to take away from the guidance is that “something can be done” for patients with NAFLD. “It’s very common, and the often-cited reason why patients aren’t referred to specialty care is that there’s ‘nothing that can be done.’ ”

Although there is no U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved drug for NAFLD, clinicians can still support their patients and suggest lifestyle changes, she added.

The guidelines also are designed to prepare the groundwork for novel drugs in the pipeline, as well as discuss those that are already available for conditions such as obesity and diabetes and that benefit people with liver disease, Dr. Rinella said.
 

Screening and evaluation

The guidance covers all aspects of NAFLD, including the latest developments in understanding of the epidemiology and natural history of the disease, and its molecular and cellular pathogenesis.

The guidance continues to recommend against population-based screening for NAFLD. In addition to the aforementioned screening for advanced fibrosis in high-risk individuals, it calls for a primary risk assessment with FIB-4 to be performed every 1-2 years in patients with pre-diabetes, type 2 diabetes, two or more metabolic risk factors, or imaging evidence of hepatic steatosis.

Patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) cirrhosis require routine monitoring, as they are at the highest risk for liver-related outcomes, the guidance adds. Those with suspected NASH should be referred for evaluation by a specialist.

In assessments of liver fibrosis in patients, findings such as highly elevated liver stiffness, FIB-4, and enhanced liver fibrosis scores can predict an increased risk for hepatic decompensation and mortality, the authors write.
 

Intervention guidance

Patients with NAFLD who are overweight or obese should be prescribed a reduced calorie diet in a multidisciplinary setting because weight loss “improves hepatic steatosis, NASH, and hepatic fibrosis in a dose-dependent manner,” the guidance states.

Bariatric surgery should be considered in appropriate patients because of its effectiveness in resolving NAFLD and NASH in most patients without cirrhosis, the guidance says. However, in patients with well-compensated NASH cirrhosis, the type, safety, and efficacy of bariatric surgery is not established, so a “careful benefit-risk assessment by a multidisciplinary team of experts that includes a hepatologist” is needed, the authors note.

The guidance discusses alcohol consumption’s role in the progression of fatty liver disease and recommends that intake be assessed on a regular basis in patients with NAFLD. Patients with clinically significant hepatic fibrosis should abstain completely, it adds. Abstinence, particularly for patients with moderate to heavy alcohol intake, may lower the risk of fibrosis progression and hepatic and extrahepatic malignancies, the authors note.

Additionally, drinking at least three cups of coffee, caffeinated or not, per day is “associated with less-advanced liver disease,” they write.

The guidance also sets out key considerations for people with comorbid conditions. It states that patients with NAFLD should be screened for type 2 diabetes and that statins can be safely used for cardiovascular risk reduction “across the disease spectrum, including compensated cirrhosis.”

While noting the lack of approved medications for NAFLD, the guidance states that some drugs prescribed for comorbidities also benefit patients with NASH. These are glucagon-like peptide 1 agonist semaglutide (Ozempic), pioglitazone (Actos), and vitamin E supplementation in select patients.

Available data on these same drugs, however, do not show an antifibrotic benefit and haven’t been studied in patients with cirrhosis, the guidance states.

Additionally, metformin, ursodeoxycholic acid, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, silymarin, and statins do not offer meaningful histologic benefit and shouldn’t be used as a treatment for NASH.
 

Help against an ‘evolving epidemic’

The guidance is “timely and long awaited,” Jamile Wakim-Fleming, MD, director of the fatty liver disease program at the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview. NAFLD is an “evolving epidemic,” she added.

Numerous recent studies have “led to new modalities for diagnosis and therapy, and a better understanding” of the epidemiology and pathophysiology of NAFLD, she said. “More specifically, advancements in noninvasive testing, risk stratifications, and therapeutic modalities are now available and worth disseminating.”

NAFLD’s complexity and the lack of an FDA-approved therapy specifically targeting the liver means that managing the disease “requires expertise in multiple disciplines and knowledge of the latest developments,” Dr. Wakim-Fleming noted.

“This guidance describes preventive and treatment strategies for the metabolic conditions associated with NAFLD and is very useful for physicians in different specialties who treat individuals with these conditions,” she said.

No funding was declared. Dr. Rinella and Dr. Wakim-Fleming have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

People at high risk for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), such as those with type 2 diabetes or medically complicated obesity, should be screened for advanced fibrosis, says new guidance from the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.

The guidance, published online in Hepatology, also reflects recent advances in the diagnosis and management of NAFLD, particularly noninvasive testing, lead author Mary E. Rinella, MD, University of Chicago, told this news organization.

The “biggest change” from the previous guidance, published 5 years ago, is “that we are explicitly recommending that people in high-risk categories get screened in primary care,” she said.

NAFLD is “a silent disease ... you could easily have somebody develop cirrhosis,” Dr. Rinella said. By identifying patients earlier, physicians would be able to “prevent or reduce the number of people turning up decompensated or at an advanced stage,” she added.

The other message that Dr. Rinella wants clinicians to take away from the guidance is that “something can be done” for patients with NAFLD. “It’s very common, and the often-cited reason why patients aren’t referred to specialty care is that there’s ‘nothing that can be done.’ ”

Although there is no U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved drug for NAFLD, clinicians can still support their patients and suggest lifestyle changes, she added.

The guidelines also are designed to prepare the groundwork for novel drugs in the pipeline, as well as discuss those that are already available for conditions such as obesity and diabetes and that benefit people with liver disease, Dr. Rinella said.
 

Screening and evaluation

The guidance covers all aspects of NAFLD, including the latest developments in understanding of the epidemiology and natural history of the disease, and its molecular and cellular pathogenesis.

The guidance continues to recommend against population-based screening for NAFLD. In addition to the aforementioned screening for advanced fibrosis in high-risk individuals, it calls for a primary risk assessment with FIB-4 to be performed every 1-2 years in patients with pre-diabetes, type 2 diabetes, two or more metabolic risk factors, or imaging evidence of hepatic steatosis.

Patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) cirrhosis require routine monitoring, as they are at the highest risk for liver-related outcomes, the guidance adds. Those with suspected NASH should be referred for evaluation by a specialist.

In assessments of liver fibrosis in patients, findings such as highly elevated liver stiffness, FIB-4, and enhanced liver fibrosis scores can predict an increased risk for hepatic decompensation and mortality, the authors write.
 

Intervention guidance

Patients with NAFLD who are overweight or obese should be prescribed a reduced calorie diet in a multidisciplinary setting because weight loss “improves hepatic steatosis, NASH, and hepatic fibrosis in a dose-dependent manner,” the guidance states.

Bariatric surgery should be considered in appropriate patients because of its effectiveness in resolving NAFLD and NASH in most patients without cirrhosis, the guidance says. However, in patients with well-compensated NASH cirrhosis, the type, safety, and efficacy of bariatric surgery is not established, so a “careful benefit-risk assessment by a multidisciplinary team of experts that includes a hepatologist” is needed, the authors note.

The guidance discusses alcohol consumption’s role in the progression of fatty liver disease and recommends that intake be assessed on a regular basis in patients with NAFLD. Patients with clinically significant hepatic fibrosis should abstain completely, it adds. Abstinence, particularly for patients with moderate to heavy alcohol intake, may lower the risk of fibrosis progression and hepatic and extrahepatic malignancies, the authors note.

Additionally, drinking at least three cups of coffee, caffeinated or not, per day is “associated with less-advanced liver disease,” they write.

The guidance also sets out key considerations for people with comorbid conditions. It states that patients with NAFLD should be screened for type 2 diabetes and that statins can be safely used for cardiovascular risk reduction “across the disease spectrum, including compensated cirrhosis.”

While noting the lack of approved medications for NAFLD, the guidance states that some drugs prescribed for comorbidities also benefit patients with NASH. These are glucagon-like peptide 1 agonist semaglutide (Ozempic), pioglitazone (Actos), and vitamin E supplementation in select patients.

Available data on these same drugs, however, do not show an antifibrotic benefit and haven’t been studied in patients with cirrhosis, the guidance states.

Additionally, metformin, ursodeoxycholic acid, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, silymarin, and statins do not offer meaningful histologic benefit and shouldn’t be used as a treatment for NASH.
 

Help against an ‘evolving epidemic’

The guidance is “timely and long awaited,” Jamile Wakim-Fleming, MD, director of the fatty liver disease program at the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview. NAFLD is an “evolving epidemic,” she added.

Numerous recent studies have “led to new modalities for diagnosis and therapy, and a better understanding” of the epidemiology and pathophysiology of NAFLD, she said. “More specifically, advancements in noninvasive testing, risk stratifications, and therapeutic modalities are now available and worth disseminating.”

NAFLD’s complexity and the lack of an FDA-approved therapy specifically targeting the liver means that managing the disease “requires expertise in multiple disciplines and knowledge of the latest developments,” Dr. Wakim-Fleming noted.

“This guidance describes preventive and treatment strategies for the metabolic conditions associated with NAFLD and is very useful for physicians in different specialties who treat individuals with these conditions,” she said.

No funding was declared. Dr. Rinella and Dr. Wakim-Fleming have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.