Guidelines

New atrial fibrillation (AFib) management guidelines from the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) call for diagnostic confirmation and structured characterization of AFib and the need to streamline integrated care with the Atrial fibrillation Better Care (ABC) pathway.

“It’s as simple as CC to ABC,” quipped one task force member during the virtual unveiling of the guidelines at the ESC Congress 2020.

The guidelines were developed in collaboration with the European Association of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) and published simultaneously August 29 in the European Heart Journal.

Acknowledging the slew of novel screening tools now available and their reported sensitivity and specificity rates, the document supports opportunistic screening for AFib by pulse taking or electrocardiogram (ECG) rhythm strip in patients at least 65 years of age, with a class 1 recommendation, evidence level B.

Systematic ECG screening should also be considered to detect AFib in individuals at least 75 years of age or in those at high risk for stroke (class IIa, level B).

Other new class I screening recommendations are to inform individuals undergoing screening about the significance and treatment implications of detecting AFib and to have a structured referral platform in place for further physician-led evaluation.

A definite diagnosis of clinical AFib is established only after confirmation by a conventional 12-lead ECG or single-lead ECG strip with at least 30 seconds of AFib.

In line with ESC’s 2016 AFib guidelines, the new iteration classifies AFib as first diagnosed, paroxysmal, persistent, long-standing persistent, and permanent. But it’s also important to classify the clinical profile of AFib, task force member Giuseppe Boriani, MD, PhD, University of Modena, Italy, said in the first of five presentations.

“So the novelty of the 2020 guidelines is related to the proposal of the 4S-AF scheme for a structured characterization of atrial fibrillation that takes into account Stroke risk, severity of Symptoms, Severity of atrial fibrillation burden, and Substrate severity,” he said.

This represents a paradigm shift from a single-domain conventional classification of AFib toward a structured characterization that streamlines assessment, informs treatment decision-making, and facilitates communication among physicians of various specialties, said Tatjana Potpara, MD, PhD, guideline co-chair and head of the Department for Intensive Arrhythmia Care, Clinical Centre of Serbia, Belgrade.

“The beauty of this approach is that, at present, the assessment of the ‘S’ components are performed using available tools, but in the future, the 4S-AF has a great potential to incorporate whatever becomes available for a more precision assessment of substrate or symptoms or arrhythmia burden and so forth,” she said.


 

ABC pathway

The guidelines advocate the previously described ABC pathway for integrated care management, which includes ‘A’ for Anticoagulation/Avoid stroke, ‘B’ for Better symptom control, and ‘C’ for Comorbidity/Cardiovascular risk factor optimization.

The document strengthens support for formal risk score–based assessment of bleeding risk in all patients, including use of the HAS-BLED score to help address modifiable bleeding risk factors and to identify patients at high bleeding risk (HAS-BLED score ≥3) for early and more frequent follow-up.

These assessments should be done regularly, given that both stroke and bleeding risk are dynamic and change over time with aging and comorbidities, Dr. Potpara stressed. In patients with AFib initially at low risk for stroke, the next assessment should be optimally performed at 4-6 months.

The guideline also targets weight loss in patients who are obese and have AFib, particularly those being evaluated for ablation, and good blood pressure control in patients with AFib and hypertension to reduce AFib recurrences and risk for stroke and bleeding (both class I, up from IIa). 

It’s particularly important that these risk factors are addressed, and that modifiable risk factors that go along with increased AFib occurrence and persistence are addressed and communicated to patients, said Gerhard Hindricks, MD, PhD, guideline cochair and medical director of the Rhythmology Department, Heart Centre Leipzig (Germany).

“I have to confess, as an interventional electrophysiologist, there has been a time where I have not appreciated these risk factors intensely enough,” he said. “But we have learned, also in the field of catheter ablation, that weight loss is an essential basis for a good procedure. If we can motivate patients to lose weight and then come to the intervention with better outcome, it’s a true benefit for the patient and addresses patient values. So I’m particularly happy we have introduced that with such intensity in the guidelines.”
 

Rate and rhythm control

The guidelines make no recommendation of one novel oral anticoagulant (NOAC) over another. However, in patients already receiving vitamin K antagonists with low time in the therapeutic range, they recommend switching to a different NOAC but ensuring good adherence and persistence with therapy (class I recommendation) or efforts to improve time in therapeutic range (class IIa).

Catheter ablation takes on a more prominent role for rhythm control and is now recommended after one antiarrhythmic drug therapy fails to improve symptoms of AF recurrence in patients with paroxysmal AFib, or persistent AFib with or without major risk factors for recurrence. The class I recommendation is based on results from the CAPTAF and CABANA trials, said task force member Carina Blomström-Lundqvist, MD, PhD, Uppsala University, Sweden.

Catheter ablation is also now a first-line therapy for patients with AFib who have a high likelihood of tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy, independent of symptom status. “In this subset of patients, catheter ablation may offer a lot with respect to restoration of left ventricular function,” observed Dr. Hindricks.

Complete electrical isolation of the pulmonary veins is recommended during all AFib catheter ablation procedures (class I).

“Even as a medical conservative, I think it is totally reasonable to move to catheter ablation after a failed drug trial,” commented John Mandrola, MD, Baptist Health, Louisville, Ky., who was not a part of the guideline development. 

Although the chance of a second drug working after one failure is low, he noted that operators in the United States have dofetilide, which is not used much in Europe, and sometimes works surprisingly well.

“That said, the caveat is that moving to catheter ablation after drug failure is only appropriate if we have addressed all the pertinent risk factors: sleep apnea, weight loss, lack of fitness, blood pressure control, and alcohol excess,” he said. 

As for tachycardia-mediated cardiomyopathy, this too can be reasonable, Dr. Mandrola said. “I often get people ‘out of a hole’ with amiodarone plus cardioversion for a few months and then proceed to ablation.”

Notably, the 2020 iteration sharpens its recommendation that amiodarone not be used first-line for long-term rhythm control in all patients with AFib, including those with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, given its extracardiac toxicity (class I, up from IIa).
 

Quality counts

In response to growing evidence that guideline-adherence is associated with significantly better outcomes in AFib, the 2020 ESC/EACTS guidelines explicitly included a recommendation on the need to measure quality of care to identify opportunities for improvement.

With this framework in mind, a task force with 23 people – including members from ESC and heart rhythm societies in the United States, Asia Pacific, and Latin America, along with patient representatives – was created to develop a list of quality indicators (QIs), ultimately settling on 17 main QIs and 17 secondary ones, said Elena Arbelo, MD, PhD, MSc, University of Barcelona.

The QIs are classified into six domains: patient assessment, anticoagulation, rate control, rhythm control, risk factor modification, and, importantly, outcome measures. A full list is accessible in a paper, simultaneously published in EP EuroPace.

Five patient-reported outcomes fall under the outcomes domain but only one – health-related quality of life – is a main quality indicator. The remaining outcomes are still important but are listed as secondary because of the lack of evidence to sustain or defend their systematic implementation, particularly evidence on how to measure them appropriately, Dr. Arbelo said.

“Hopefully, following the [class I] recommendation by the 2020 ESC guidelines to routinely collect patient-reported outcomes will allow us to collect further evidence and in the future have sufficient evidence to include these as a main outcome,” she said.

The QI work was driven in parallel with the guidelines and had a huge impact on its development, including inclusion of clear recommendations on how to measure quality, Dr. Hindricks said. “I believe that the whole issue of quality management in the treatment of patients with a focus on patient values cannot be overestimated.”

Disclosure information for all writing committee members is in the report. Dr. Mandrola is a writer and podcaster for Medscape.
 

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

New atrial fibrillation (AFib) management guidelines from the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) call for diagnostic confirmation and structured characterization of AFib and the need to streamline integrated care with the Atrial fibrillation Better Care (ABC) pathway.

“It’s as simple as CC to ABC,” quipped one task force member during the virtual unveiling of the guidelines at the ESC Congress 2020.

The guidelines were developed in collaboration with the European Association of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) and published simultaneously August 29 in the European Heart Journal.

Acknowledging the slew of novel screening tools now available and their reported sensitivity and specificity rates, the document supports opportunistic screening for AFib by pulse taking or electrocardiogram (ECG) rhythm strip in patients at least 65 years of age, with a class 1 recommendation, evidence level B.

Systematic ECG screening should also be considered to detect AFib in individuals at least 75 years of age or in those at high risk for stroke (class IIa, level B).

Other new class I screening recommendations are to inform individuals undergoing screening about the significance and treatment implications of detecting AFib and to have a structured referral platform in place for further physician-led evaluation.

A definite diagnosis of clinical AFib is established only after confirmation by a conventional 12-lead ECG or single-lead ECG strip with at least 30 seconds of AFib.

In line with ESC’s 2016 AFib guidelines, the new iteration classifies AFib as first diagnosed, paroxysmal, persistent, long-standing persistent, and permanent. But it’s also important to classify the clinical profile of AFib, task force member Giuseppe Boriani, MD, PhD, University of Modena, Italy, said in the first of five presentations.

“So the novelty of the 2020 guidelines is related to the proposal of the 4S-AF scheme for a structured characterization of atrial fibrillation that takes into account Stroke risk, severity of Symptoms, Severity of atrial fibrillation burden, and Substrate severity,” he said.

This represents a paradigm shift from a single-domain conventional classification of AFib toward a structured characterization that streamlines assessment, informs treatment decision-making, and facilitates communication among physicians of various specialties, said Tatjana Potpara, MD, PhD, guideline co-chair and head of the Department for Intensive Arrhythmia Care, Clinical Centre of Serbia, Belgrade.

“The beauty of this approach is that, at present, the assessment of the ‘S’ components are performed using available tools, but in the future, the 4S-AF has a great potential to incorporate whatever becomes available for a more precision assessment of substrate or symptoms or arrhythmia burden and so forth,” she said.


 

ABC pathway

The guidelines advocate the previously described ABC pathway for integrated care management, which includes ‘A’ for Anticoagulation/Avoid stroke, ‘B’ for Better symptom control, and ‘C’ for Comorbidity/Cardiovascular risk factor optimization.

The document strengthens support for formal risk score–based assessment of bleeding risk in all patients, including use of the HAS-BLED score to help address modifiable bleeding risk factors and to identify patients at high bleeding risk (HAS-BLED score ≥3) for early and more frequent follow-up.

These assessments should be done regularly, given that both stroke and bleeding risk are dynamic and change over time with aging and comorbidities, Dr. Potpara stressed. In patients with AFib initially at low risk for stroke, the next assessment should be optimally performed at 4-6 months.

The guideline also targets weight loss in patients who are obese and have AFib, particularly those being evaluated for ablation, and good blood pressure control in patients with AFib and hypertension to reduce AFib recurrences and risk for stroke and bleeding (both class I, up from IIa). 

It’s particularly important that these risk factors are addressed, and that modifiable risk factors that go along with increased AFib occurrence and persistence are addressed and communicated to patients, said Gerhard Hindricks, MD, PhD, guideline cochair and medical director of the Rhythmology Department, Heart Centre Leipzig (Germany).

“I have to confess, as an interventional electrophysiologist, there has been a time where I have not appreciated these risk factors intensely enough,” he said. “But we have learned, also in the field of catheter ablation, that weight loss is an essential basis for a good procedure. If we can motivate patients to lose weight and then come to the intervention with better outcome, it’s a true benefit for the patient and addresses patient values. So I’m particularly happy we have introduced that with such intensity in the guidelines.”
 

Rate and rhythm control

The guidelines make no recommendation of one novel oral anticoagulant (NOAC) over another. However, in patients already receiving vitamin K antagonists with low time in the therapeutic range, they recommend switching to a different NOAC but ensuring good adherence and persistence with therapy (class I recommendation) or efforts to improve time in therapeutic range (class IIa).

Catheter ablation takes on a more prominent role for rhythm control and is now recommended after one antiarrhythmic drug therapy fails to improve symptoms of AF recurrence in patients with paroxysmal AFib, or persistent AFib with or without major risk factors for recurrence. The class I recommendation is based on results from the CAPTAF and CABANA trials, said task force member Carina Blomström-Lundqvist, MD, PhD, Uppsala University, Sweden.

Catheter ablation is also now a first-line therapy for patients with AFib who have a high likelihood of tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy, independent of symptom status. “In this subset of patients, catheter ablation may offer a lot with respect to restoration of left ventricular function,” observed Dr. Hindricks.

Complete electrical isolation of the pulmonary veins is recommended during all AFib catheter ablation procedures (class I).

“Even as a medical conservative, I think it is totally reasonable to move to catheter ablation after a failed drug trial,” commented John Mandrola, MD, Baptist Health, Louisville, Ky., who was not a part of the guideline development. 

Although the chance of a second drug working after one failure is low, he noted that operators in the United States have dofetilide, which is not used much in Europe, and sometimes works surprisingly well.

“That said, the caveat is that moving to catheter ablation after drug failure is only appropriate if we have addressed all the pertinent risk factors: sleep apnea, weight loss, lack of fitness, blood pressure control, and alcohol excess,” he said. 

As for tachycardia-mediated cardiomyopathy, this too can be reasonable, Dr. Mandrola said. “I often get people ‘out of a hole’ with amiodarone plus cardioversion for a few months and then proceed to ablation.”

Notably, the 2020 iteration sharpens its recommendation that amiodarone not be used first-line for long-term rhythm control in all patients with AFib, including those with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, given its extracardiac toxicity (class I, up from IIa).
 

Quality counts

In response to growing evidence that guideline-adherence is associated with significantly better outcomes in AFib, the 2020 ESC/EACTS guidelines explicitly included a recommendation on the need to measure quality of care to identify opportunities for improvement.

With this framework in mind, a task force with 23 people – including members from ESC and heart rhythm societies in the United States, Asia Pacific, and Latin America, along with patient representatives – was created to develop a list of quality indicators (QIs), ultimately settling on 17 main QIs and 17 secondary ones, said Elena Arbelo, MD, PhD, MSc, University of Barcelona.

The QIs are classified into six domains: patient assessment, anticoagulation, rate control, rhythm control, risk factor modification, and, importantly, outcome measures. A full list is accessible in a paper, simultaneously published in EP EuroPace.

Five patient-reported outcomes fall under the outcomes domain but only one – health-related quality of life – is a main quality indicator. The remaining outcomes are still important but are listed as secondary because of the lack of evidence to sustain or defend their systematic implementation, particularly evidence on how to measure them appropriately, Dr. Arbelo said.

“Hopefully, following the [class I] recommendation by the 2020 ESC guidelines to routinely collect patient-reported outcomes will allow us to collect further evidence and in the future have sufficient evidence to include these as a main outcome,” she said.

The QI work was driven in parallel with the guidelines and had a huge impact on its development, including inclusion of clear recommendations on how to measure quality, Dr. Hindricks said. “I believe that the whole issue of quality management in the treatment of patients with a focus on patient values cannot be overestimated.”

Disclosure information for all writing committee members is in the report. Dr. Mandrola is a writer and podcaster for Medscape.
 

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

New atrial fibrillation (AFib) management guidelines from the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) call for diagnostic confirmation and structured characterization of AFib and the need to streamline integrated care with the Atrial fibrillation Better Care (ABC) pathway.

“It’s as simple as CC to ABC,” quipped one task force member during the virtual unveiling of the guidelines at the ESC Congress 2020.

The guidelines were developed in collaboration with the European Association of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) and published simultaneously August 29 in the European Heart Journal.

Acknowledging the slew of novel screening tools now available and their reported sensitivity and specificity rates, the document supports opportunistic screening for AFib by pulse taking or electrocardiogram (ECG) rhythm strip in patients at least 65 years of age, with a class 1 recommendation, evidence level B.

Systematic ECG screening should also be considered to detect AFib in individuals at least 75 years of age or in those at high risk for stroke (class IIa, level B).

Other new class I screening recommendations are to inform individuals undergoing screening about the significance and treatment implications of detecting AFib and to have a structured referral platform in place for further physician-led evaluation.

A definite diagnosis of clinical AFib is established only after confirmation by a conventional 12-lead ECG or single-lead ECG strip with at least 30 seconds of AFib.

In line with ESC’s 2016 AFib guidelines, the new iteration classifies AFib as first diagnosed, paroxysmal, persistent, long-standing persistent, and permanent. But it’s also important to classify the clinical profile of AFib, task force member Giuseppe Boriani, MD, PhD, University of Modena, Italy, said in the first of five presentations.

“So the novelty of the 2020 guidelines is related to the proposal of the 4S-AF scheme for a structured characterization of atrial fibrillation that takes into account Stroke risk, severity of Symptoms, Severity of atrial fibrillation burden, and Substrate severity,” he said.

This represents a paradigm shift from a single-domain conventional classification of AFib toward a structured characterization that streamlines assessment, informs treatment decision-making, and facilitates communication among physicians of various specialties, said Tatjana Potpara, MD, PhD, guideline co-chair and head of the Department for Intensive Arrhythmia Care, Clinical Centre of Serbia, Belgrade.

“The beauty of this approach is that, at present, the assessment of the ‘S’ components are performed using available tools, but in the future, the 4S-AF has a great potential to incorporate whatever becomes available for a more precision assessment of substrate or symptoms or arrhythmia burden and so forth,” she said.


 

ABC pathway

The guidelines advocate the previously described ABC pathway for integrated care management, which includes ‘A’ for Anticoagulation/Avoid stroke, ‘B’ for Better symptom control, and ‘C’ for Comorbidity/Cardiovascular risk factor optimization.

The document strengthens support for formal risk score–based assessment of bleeding risk in all patients, including use of the HAS-BLED score to help address modifiable bleeding risk factors and to identify patients at high bleeding risk (HAS-BLED score ≥3) for early and more frequent follow-up.

These assessments should be done regularly, given that both stroke and bleeding risk are dynamic and change over time with aging and comorbidities, Dr. Potpara stressed. In patients with AFib initially at low risk for stroke, the next assessment should be optimally performed at 4-6 months.

The guideline also targets weight loss in patients who are obese and have AFib, particularly those being evaluated for ablation, and good blood pressure control in patients with AFib and hypertension to reduce AFib recurrences and risk for stroke and bleeding (both class I, up from IIa). 

It’s particularly important that these risk factors are addressed, and that modifiable risk factors that go along with increased AFib occurrence and persistence are addressed and communicated to patients, said Gerhard Hindricks, MD, PhD, guideline cochair and medical director of the Rhythmology Department, Heart Centre Leipzig (Germany).

“I have to confess, as an interventional electrophysiologist, there has been a time where I have not appreciated these risk factors intensely enough,” he said. “But we have learned, also in the field of catheter ablation, that weight loss is an essential basis for a good procedure. If we can motivate patients to lose weight and then come to the intervention with better outcome, it’s a true benefit for the patient and addresses patient values. So I’m particularly happy we have introduced that with such intensity in the guidelines.”
 

Rate and rhythm control

The guidelines make no recommendation of one novel oral anticoagulant (NOAC) over another. However, in patients already receiving vitamin K antagonists with low time in the therapeutic range, they recommend switching to a different NOAC but ensuring good adherence and persistence with therapy (class I recommendation) or efforts to improve time in therapeutic range (class IIa).

Catheter ablation takes on a more prominent role for rhythm control and is now recommended after one antiarrhythmic drug therapy fails to improve symptoms of AF recurrence in patients with paroxysmal AFib, or persistent AFib with or without major risk factors for recurrence. The class I recommendation is based on results from the CAPTAF and CABANA trials, said task force member Carina Blomström-Lundqvist, MD, PhD, Uppsala University, Sweden.

Catheter ablation is also now a first-line therapy for patients with AFib who have a high likelihood of tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy, independent of symptom status. “In this subset of patients, catheter ablation may offer a lot with respect to restoration of left ventricular function,” observed Dr. Hindricks.

Complete electrical isolation of the pulmonary veins is recommended during all AFib catheter ablation procedures (class I).

“Even as a medical conservative, I think it is totally reasonable to move to catheter ablation after a failed drug trial,” commented John Mandrola, MD, Baptist Health, Louisville, Ky., who was not a part of the guideline development. 

Although the chance of a second drug working after one failure is low, he noted that operators in the United States have dofetilide, which is not used much in Europe, and sometimes works surprisingly well.

“That said, the caveat is that moving to catheter ablation after drug failure is only appropriate if we have addressed all the pertinent risk factors: sleep apnea, weight loss, lack of fitness, blood pressure control, and alcohol excess,” he said. 

As for tachycardia-mediated cardiomyopathy, this too can be reasonable, Dr. Mandrola said. “I often get people ‘out of a hole’ with amiodarone plus cardioversion for a few months and then proceed to ablation.”

Notably, the 2020 iteration sharpens its recommendation that amiodarone not be used first-line for long-term rhythm control in all patients with AFib, including those with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, given its extracardiac toxicity (class I, up from IIa).
 

Quality counts

In response to growing evidence that guideline-adherence is associated with significantly better outcomes in AFib, the 2020 ESC/EACTS guidelines explicitly included a recommendation on the need to measure quality of care to identify opportunities for improvement.

With this framework in mind, a task force with 23 people – including members from ESC and heart rhythm societies in the United States, Asia Pacific, and Latin America, along with patient representatives – was created to develop a list of quality indicators (QIs), ultimately settling on 17 main QIs and 17 secondary ones, said Elena Arbelo, MD, PhD, MSc, University of Barcelona.

The QIs are classified into six domains: patient assessment, anticoagulation, rate control, rhythm control, risk factor modification, and, importantly, outcome measures. A full list is accessible in a paper, simultaneously published in EP EuroPace.

Five patient-reported outcomes fall under the outcomes domain but only one – health-related quality of life – is a main quality indicator. The remaining outcomes are still important but are listed as secondary because of the lack of evidence to sustain or defend their systematic implementation, particularly evidence on how to measure them appropriately, Dr. Arbelo said.

“Hopefully, following the [class I] recommendation by the 2020 ESC guidelines to routinely collect patient-reported outcomes will allow us to collect further evidence and in the future have sufficient evidence to include these as a main outcome,” she said.

The QI work was driven in parallel with the guidelines and had a huge impact on its development, including inclusion of clear recommendations on how to measure quality, Dr. Hindricks said. “I believe that the whole issue of quality management in the treatment of patients with a focus on patient values cannot be overestimated.”

Disclosure information for all writing committee members is in the report. Dr. Mandrola is a writer and podcaster for Medscape.
 

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

Recommendations on the use of next-generation sequencing (NGS) tests for patients with metastatic cancer have been issued by the European Society for Medical Oncology, the first recommendations of their kind to be published by any medical society.

“Until now, there were no recommendations from scientific societies on how to use this technique in daily clinical practice to profile metastatic cancers,” Fernanda Mosele, MD, medical oncologist, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France, said in a statement.

NGS testing is already used extensively in oncology, particularly in metastatic cancer, she noted. The technology is used to assess the sequence of DNA in genes from a tumor tissue sample. Numerous genes can be quickly sequenced at the same time at relatively low cost. The results provide information on mutations that are present, which, in turn, helps with deciding which treatments to use, including drugs targeting the identified mutations.

“Our intent is that they [the guidelines] will unify decision-making about how NGS should be used for patients with metastatic cancer,” Dr. Mosele said.

The recommendations were published online August 25 in Annals of Oncology.

Overall, ESMO recommends the use of tumor multigene NGS for non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), prostate cancer, ovarian cancer, and cholangiocarcinoma.

For other cancers, the authors said that NGS is not recommended in clinical practice but could be used for research purposes.

However, patients should be informed that it is unlikely that test results would benefit them much personally.

Physicians and patients may decide together to subject the tumor to mutational testing using a large panel of genes, provided testing doesn’t burden the health care system with additional costs.

“This recommendation acknowledges that a small number of patients could benefit from a drug because they have a rare mutation,” Joaquin Mateo, MD, chair of the ESMO working group, said in a statement.

“So beyond the cancers in which everyone should receive NGS, there is room for physicians and patients to discuss the pros and cons of ordering these tests,” he added.

ESMO also does not recommend the use of off-label drugs matched to any genomic alteration detected by NGS unless an access program and a decisional procedure have been developed, either regionally or nationally.
 

No need for NGS testing of other cancers

In contrast to NSCLC, “there is currently no need to perform tumor multigene NGS for patients with mBC [metastatic breast cancer] in the context of daily practice,” ESMO stated.

This is largely because somatic sequencing cannot fully substitute for germline testing for BRCA status, and other mutations, such as HER2, can be detected using immunohistochemistry (IHC).

The same can be said for patients with metastatic gastric cancer, inasmuch as detection of alterations can and should be done using cheaper testing methods, ESMO pointed out.

However, ESMO members still emphasized that it’s important to include patients with metastatic breast cancer in molecular screening programs as well as in clinical trials testing targeted agents.

Similarly, there is no need to test metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) using multigene NGS in daily practice, inasmuch as most level 1 alterations in mCRC can be determined by IHC or PCR.

However, NGS can be considered as an alternative to PCR-based tests in mCRC, provided NGS is not associated with additional cost.

ESMO again recommended that research centers include mCRC patients in molecular screening programs in order for them to have access to innovative clinical trial agents.

As for advanced prostate cancer, ESMO does recommend that clinicians perform NGS on tissue samples to assess the tumor’s mutational status, at least for the presence of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations, when patients have access to the poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors for treatment.

The authors cautioned, however, that this strategy is unlikely to be cost-effective, so larger panels should be used only when there are specific agreements with payers.

Multigene NGS is also not recommended for patients with advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), although ESMO points out that it is the role of research centers to propose multigene sequencing for these patients in the context of molecular screening programs.

This is again to facilitate access to innovative drugs for these patients.

Similar to recommendations for patients with advanced PDAC, patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) do not need to have tumor multigene NGS either.

Considering the high unmet needs of HCC patients, ESMO feels that research centers should propose multigene sequencing to patients with advanced HCC in the context of molecular screening programs.

In contrast, ESMO recommended that tumor multigene NGS be used to detect actionable alterations in patients with advanced cholangiocarcinoma.

Again, they predict that this strategy is unlikely to be cost-effective, so larger panels should only be used if a specific agreement is in place with payers.

ESMO also assessed the frequency of level 1 alterations in less frequent tumor types, including ovarian cancers. Because BRCA1 and BRCA2 somatic mutations in ovarian tumors have been associated with increased response to the PARP inhibitors, the use of multigene NGS is justified with this malignancy, ESMO states.

The authors also recommend that tumor mutational burden be determined in cervical cancer, moderately differentiated neuroendocrine tumors, salivary cancers, vulvar cancer, and thyroid cancers.

Dr. Mosele has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Many coauthors have relationships with the pharmaceutical industry, as listed in the article.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Recommendations on the use of next-generation sequencing (NGS) tests for patients with metastatic cancer have been issued by the European Society for Medical Oncology, the first recommendations of their kind to be published by any medical society.

“Until now, there were no recommendations from scientific societies on how to use this technique in daily clinical practice to profile metastatic cancers,” Fernanda Mosele, MD, medical oncologist, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France, said in a statement.

NGS testing is already used extensively in oncology, particularly in metastatic cancer, she noted. The technology is used to assess the sequence of DNA in genes from a tumor tissue sample. Numerous genes can be quickly sequenced at the same time at relatively low cost. The results provide information on mutations that are present, which, in turn, helps with deciding which treatments to use, including drugs targeting the identified mutations.

“Our intent is that they [the guidelines] will unify decision-making about how NGS should be used for patients with metastatic cancer,” Dr. Mosele said.

The recommendations were published online August 25 in Annals of Oncology.

Overall, ESMO recommends the use of tumor multigene NGS for non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), prostate cancer, ovarian cancer, and cholangiocarcinoma.

For other cancers, the authors said that NGS is not recommended in clinical practice but could be used for research purposes.

However, patients should be informed that it is unlikely that test results would benefit them much personally.

Physicians and patients may decide together to subject the tumor to mutational testing using a large panel of genes, provided testing doesn’t burden the health care system with additional costs.

“This recommendation acknowledges that a small number of patients could benefit from a drug because they have a rare mutation,” Joaquin Mateo, MD, chair of the ESMO working group, said in a statement.

“So beyond the cancers in which everyone should receive NGS, there is room for physicians and patients to discuss the pros and cons of ordering these tests,” he added.

ESMO also does not recommend the use of off-label drugs matched to any genomic alteration detected by NGS unless an access program and a decisional procedure have been developed, either regionally or nationally.
 

No need for NGS testing of other cancers

In contrast to NSCLC, “there is currently no need to perform tumor multigene NGS for patients with mBC [metastatic breast cancer] in the context of daily practice,” ESMO stated.

This is largely because somatic sequencing cannot fully substitute for germline testing for BRCA status, and other mutations, such as HER2, can be detected using immunohistochemistry (IHC).

The same can be said for patients with metastatic gastric cancer, inasmuch as detection of alterations can and should be done using cheaper testing methods, ESMO pointed out.

However, ESMO members still emphasized that it’s important to include patients with metastatic breast cancer in molecular screening programs as well as in clinical trials testing targeted agents.

Similarly, there is no need to test metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) using multigene NGS in daily practice, inasmuch as most level 1 alterations in mCRC can be determined by IHC or PCR.

However, NGS can be considered as an alternative to PCR-based tests in mCRC, provided NGS is not associated with additional cost.

ESMO again recommended that research centers include mCRC patients in molecular screening programs in order for them to have access to innovative clinical trial agents.

As for advanced prostate cancer, ESMO does recommend that clinicians perform NGS on tissue samples to assess the tumor’s mutational status, at least for the presence of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations, when patients have access to the poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors for treatment.

The authors cautioned, however, that this strategy is unlikely to be cost-effective, so larger panels should be used only when there are specific agreements with payers.

Multigene NGS is also not recommended for patients with advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), although ESMO points out that it is the role of research centers to propose multigene sequencing for these patients in the context of molecular screening programs.

This is again to facilitate access to innovative drugs for these patients.

Similar to recommendations for patients with advanced PDAC, patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) do not need to have tumor multigene NGS either.

Considering the high unmet needs of HCC patients, ESMO feels that research centers should propose multigene sequencing to patients with advanced HCC in the context of molecular screening programs.

In contrast, ESMO recommended that tumor multigene NGS be used to detect actionable alterations in patients with advanced cholangiocarcinoma.

Again, they predict that this strategy is unlikely to be cost-effective, so larger panels should only be used if a specific agreement is in place with payers.

ESMO also assessed the frequency of level 1 alterations in less frequent tumor types, including ovarian cancers. Because BRCA1 and BRCA2 somatic mutations in ovarian tumors have been associated with increased response to the PARP inhibitors, the use of multigene NGS is justified with this malignancy, ESMO states.

The authors also recommend that tumor mutational burden be determined in cervical cancer, moderately differentiated neuroendocrine tumors, salivary cancers, vulvar cancer, and thyroid cancers.

Dr. Mosele has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Many coauthors have relationships with the pharmaceutical industry, as listed in the article.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Recommendations on the use of next-generation sequencing (NGS) tests for patients with metastatic cancer have been issued by the European Society for Medical Oncology, the first recommendations of their kind to be published by any medical society.

“Until now, there were no recommendations from scientific societies on how to use this technique in daily clinical practice to profile metastatic cancers,” Fernanda Mosele, MD, medical oncologist, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France, said in a statement.

NGS testing is already used extensively in oncology, particularly in metastatic cancer, she noted. The technology is used to assess the sequence of DNA in genes from a tumor tissue sample. Numerous genes can be quickly sequenced at the same time at relatively low cost. The results provide information on mutations that are present, which, in turn, helps with deciding which treatments to use, including drugs targeting the identified mutations.

“Our intent is that they [the guidelines] will unify decision-making about how NGS should be used for patients with metastatic cancer,” Dr. Mosele said.

The recommendations were published online August 25 in Annals of Oncology.

Overall, ESMO recommends the use of tumor multigene NGS for non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), prostate cancer, ovarian cancer, and cholangiocarcinoma.

For other cancers, the authors said that NGS is not recommended in clinical practice but could be used for research purposes.

However, patients should be informed that it is unlikely that test results would benefit them much personally.

Physicians and patients may decide together to subject the tumor to mutational testing using a large panel of genes, provided testing doesn’t burden the health care system with additional costs.

“This recommendation acknowledges that a small number of patients could benefit from a drug because they have a rare mutation,” Joaquin Mateo, MD, chair of the ESMO working group, said in a statement.

“So beyond the cancers in which everyone should receive NGS, there is room for physicians and patients to discuss the pros and cons of ordering these tests,” he added.

ESMO also does not recommend the use of off-label drugs matched to any genomic alteration detected by NGS unless an access program and a decisional procedure have been developed, either regionally or nationally.
 

No need for NGS testing of other cancers

In contrast to NSCLC, “there is currently no need to perform tumor multigene NGS for patients with mBC [metastatic breast cancer] in the context of daily practice,” ESMO stated.

This is largely because somatic sequencing cannot fully substitute for germline testing for BRCA status, and other mutations, such as HER2, can be detected using immunohistochemistry (IHC).

The same can be said for patients with metastatic gastric cancer, inasmuch as detection of alterations can and should be done using cheaper testing methods, ESMO pointed out.

However, ESMO members still emphasized that it’s important to include patients with metastatic breast cancer in molecular screening programs as well as in clinical trials testing targeted agents.

Similarly, there is no need to test metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) using multigene NGS in daily practice, inasmuch as most level 1 alterations in mCRC can be determined by IHC or PCR.

However, NGS can be considered as an alternative to PCR-based tests in mCRC, provided NGS is not associated with additional cost.

ESMO again recommended that research centers include mCRC patients in molecular screening programs in order for them to have access to innovative clinical trial agents.

As for advanced prostate cancer, ESMO does recommend that clinicians perform NGS on tissue samples to assess the tumor’s mutational status, at least for the presence of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations, when patients have access to the poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors for treatment.

The authors cautioned, however, that this strategy is unlikely to be cost-effective, so larger panels should be used only when there are specific agreements with payers.

Multigene NGS is also not recommended for patients with advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), although ESMO points out that it is the role of research centers to propose multigene sequencing for these patients in the context of molecular screening programs.

This is again to facilitate access to innovative drugs for these patients.

Similar to recommendations for patients with advanced PDAC, patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) do not need to have tumor multigene NGS either.

Considering the high unmet needs of HCC patients, ESMO feels that research centers should propose multigene sequencing to patients with advanced HCC in the context of molecular screening programs.

In contrast, ESMO recommended that tumor multigene NGS be used to detect actionable alterations in patients with advanced cholangiocarcinoma.

Again, they predict that this strategy is unlikely to be cost-effective, so larger panels should only be used if a specific agreement is in place with payers.

ESMO also assessed the frequency of level 1 alterations in less frequent tumor types, including ovarian cancers. Because BRCA1 and BRCA2 somatic mutations in ovarian tumors have been associated with increased response to the PARP inhibitors, the use of multigene NGS is justified with this malignancy, ESMO states.

The authors also recommend that tumor mutational burden be determined in cervical cancer, moderately differentiated neuroendocrine tumors, salivary cancers, vulvar cancer, and thyroid cancers.

Dr. Mosele has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Many coauthors have relationships with the pharmaceutical industry, as listed in the article.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A new Canadian clinical practice guideline for treating adults with obesity emphasizes improving health rather than simply losing weight, among other things.

A summary of the guideline, which was developed by Obesity Canada and the Canadian Association of Bariatric Physicians and Surgeons, was published online August 4 in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.

This patient-centered update to the 2006 guidelines is “provocative,” starting with its definition of obesity, co–lead author Sean Wharton, MD, adjunct professor at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., said in an interview.

The guideline was authored by more than 60 health care professionals and researchers who assessed more than 500,000 peer-reviewed articles and made 80 key recommendations.

These reflect substantial recent advances in the understanding of obesity. Individuals with obesity (from a patient committee of the Obesity Society) helped to shape the key messages.

“People who live with obesity have been shut out of receiving quality health care because of the biased, deeply flawed misconceptions about what drives obesity and how we can improve health,” Lisa Schaffer, chair of Obesity Canada’s Public Engagement Committee, said in a press release.

“Obesity is widely seen as the result of poor personal decisions, but research tells us it is far more complicated than that. Our hope with the [new] clinical practice guideline is that more health care professionals, health policy makers, benefits providers and people living with obesity will have a better understanding of it, so we can help more of those who need it.”

“Obesity management should be about compassion and empathy, and then everything falls into place,” Dr. Wharton said. “Think of obesity like breast cancer.”

Address the root causes of obesity

The guideline defines obesity as “a prevalent, complex, progressive and relapsing chronic disease, characterized by abnormal or excessive body fat (adiposity) that impairs health.”

Aimed at primary care providers, the document stresses that clinicians need to “move beyond simplistic approaches of ‘eat less, move more,’ and address the root drivers of obesity.”

As a first step, doctors should ask a patient for permission to discuss weight (e.g., they can ask: “Would it be all right if we discussed your weight?”) – which demonstrates empathy and can help build patient-provider trust.

Clinicians can still measure body mass index as part of a routine physical examination, but they should also obtain a comprehensive patient history to identify the root causes of any weight gain (which could include genetics or psychological factors such as depression and anxiety), as well as any barriers to managing obesity.

‘Eat less, move more’ is too simple: Employ three pillars

Advice to “eat less and move more is dangerously simplistic,” coauthor Arya M. Sharma, MD, from the University of Alberta, Edmonton, and scientific director of Obesity Canada, said in an interview that “the body fights to put back any lost weight.”

Patients with obesity need “medical nutrition therapy.” For patients at risk for heart disease, that may mean following a Mediterranean diet, Dr. Wharton said.

“Physical activity and medical nutrition therapy are absolutely necessary” to manage obesity, he clarified. As a person loses weight, their body “releases a cascade of neurochemicals and hormones that try to push the weight back up” to the original weight or even higher.

Therefore, to maintain weight loss, people need support from one or more of what he calls the “three pillars” of effective long-term weight loss – pharmacotherapy, bariatric surgery, and cognitive-behavioral therapy – which tempers this cascade of neurochemicals.

Cognitive-behavioral therapy could be given by various health care professionals, he noted. A behavioral strategy to stop snacking, for example, is to wait 5 minutes before eating a desired snack to make sure you still want it.

Similarly, Dr. Sharma noted, “the reason obesity is a chronic disease is that once you’ve gained the weight, your body is not going to want to lose it. That is what I tell all my patients: ‘Your body doesn’t care why you put on the weight, but it does care about keeping it there, and it’s going to fight you’ when you try to maintain weight loss.”

“Clinicians should feel very comfortable” treating obesity as a chronic disease, he added, because they are already treating chronic diseases such as heart, lung, and kidney disease.

Don’t play the blame game: ‘Think of obesity like breast cancer’

Clinicians also need to avoid “shaming and blaming patients with obesity,” said Dr. Sharma.

He noted that many patients have internalized weight bias and blame their excess weight on their lack of willpower. They may not want to talk about weight-loss medications or bariatric surgery because they feel that’s “cheating.”

By thinking of obesity in a similar way to cancer, doctors can help themselves respond to patients in a kinder way. “What would we do with somebody who has breast cancer? We would have compassion. We would talk about surgery to get the lump out and medication to keep the cancer from coming back, and we would engage them in psychological treatment or counseling for some of the challenges they have to face,” Dr. Wharton said.

“The right answer is to treat [obesity] like a disease – with surgery, medication, and psychological intervention,” depending on the individual patient, he added.

The complete guideline is available on the Obesity Canada website.

The study was funded by Obesity Canada, the Canadian Association of Bariatric Physicians and Surgeons, and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. Wharton has received honoraria and travel expenses and has participated in academic advisory boards for Novo Nordisk, Bausch Health, Eli Lilly, and Janssen. He is the medical director of a medical clinic specializing in weight management and diabetes. Dr. Sharma has received speaker’s bureau and consulting fees from Novo Nordisk, Bausch Pharmaceuticals, and AstraZeneca.

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

A new Canadian clinical practice guideline for treating adults with obesity emphasizes improving health rather than simply losing weight, among other things.

A summary of the guideline, which was developed by Obesity Canada and the Canadian Association of Bariatric Physicians and Surgeons, was published online August 4 in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.

This patient-centered update to the 2006 guidelines is “provocative,” starting with its definition of obesity, co–lead author Sean Wharton, MD, adjunct professor at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., said in an interview.

The guideline was authored by more than 60 health care professionals and researchers who assessed more than 500,000 peer-reviewed articles and made 80 key recommendations.

These reflect substantial recent advances in the understanding of obesity. Individuals with obesity (from a patient committee of the Obesity Society) helped to shape the key messages.

“People who live with obesity have been shut out of receiving quality health care because of the biased, deeply flawed misconceptions about what drives obesity and how we can improve health,” Lisa Schaffer, chair of Obesity Canada’s Public Engagement Committee, said in a press release.

“Obesity is widely seen as the result of poor personal decisions, but research tells us it is far more complicated than that. Our hope with the [new] clinical practice guideline is that more health care professionals, health policy makers, benefits providers and people living with obesity will have a better understanding of it, so we can help more of those who need it.”

“Obesity management should be about compassion and empathy, and then everything falls into place,” Dr. Wharton said. “Think of obesity like breast cancer.”

Address the root causes of obesity

The guideline defines obesity as “a prevalent, complex, progressive and relapsing chronic disease, characterized by abnormal or excessive body fat (adiposity) that impairs health.”

Aimed at primary care providers, the document stresses that clinicians need to “move beyond simplistic approaches of ‘eat less, move more,’ and address the root drivers of obesity.”

As a first step, doctors should ask a patient for permission to discuss weight (e.g., they can ask: “Would it be all right if we discussed your weight?”) – which demonstrates empathy and can help build patient-provider trust.

Clinicians can still measure body mass index as part of a routine physical examination, but they should also obtain a comprehensive patient history to identify the root causes of any weight gain (which could include genetics or psychological factors such as depression and anxiety), as well as any barriers to managing obesity.

‘Eat less, move more’ is too simple: Employ three pillars

Advice to “eat less and move more is dangerously simplistic,” coauthor Arya M. Sharma, MD, from the University of Alberta, Edmonton, and scientific director of Obesity Canada, said in an interview that “the body fights to put back any lost weight.”

Patients with obesity need “medical nutrition therapy.” For patients at risk for heart disease, that may mean following a Mediterranean diet, Dr. Wharton said.

“Physical activity and medical nutrition therapy are absolutely necessary” to manage obesity, he clarified. As a person loses weight, their body “releases a cascade of neurochemicals and hormones that try to push the weight back up” to the original weight or even higher.

Therefore, to maintain weight loss, people need support from one or more of what he calls the “three pillars” of effective long-term weight loss – pharmacotherapy, bariatric surgery, and cognitive-behavioral therapy – which tempers this cascade of neurochemicals.

Cognitive-behavioral therapy could be given by various health care professionals, he noted. A behavioral strategy to stop snacking, for example, is to wait 5 minutes before eating a desired snack to make sure you still want it.

Similarly, Dr. Sharma noted, “the reason obesity is a chronic disease is that once you’ve gained the weight, your body is not going to want to lose it. That is what I tell all my patients: ‘Your body doesn’t care why you put on the weight, but it does care about keeping it there, and it’s going to fight you’ when you try to maintain weight loss.”

“Clinicians should feel very comfortable” treating obesity as a chronic disease, he added, because they are already treating chronic diseases such as heart, lung, and kidney disease.

Don’t play the blame game: ‘Think of obesity like breast cancer’

Clinicians also need to avoid “shaming and blaming patients with obesity,” said Dr. Sharma.

He noted that many patients have internalized weight bias and blame their excess weight on their lack of willpower. They may not want to talk about weight-loss medications or bariatric surgery because they feel that’s “cheating.”

By thinking of obesity in a similar way to cancer, doctors can help themselves respond to patients in a kinder way. “What would we do with somebody who has breast cancer? We would have compassion. We would talk about surgery to get the lump out and medication to keep the cancer from coming back, and we would engage them in psychological treatment or counseling for some of the challenges they have to face,” Dr. Wharton said.

“The right answer is to treat [obesity] like a disease – with surgery, medication, and psychological intervention,” depending on the individual patient, he added.

The complete guideline is available on the Obesity Canada website.

The study was funded by Obesity Canada, the Canadian Association of Bariatric Physicians and Surgeons, and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. Wharton has received honoraria and travel expenses and has participated in academic advisory boards for Novo Nordisk, Bausch Health, Eli Lilly, and Janssen. He is the medical director of a medical clinic specializing in weight management and diabetes. Dr. Sharma has received speaker’s bureau and consulting fees from Novo Nordisk, Bausch Pharmaceuticals, and AstraZeneca.

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

A new Canadian clinical practice guideline for treating adults with obesity emphasizes improving health rather than simply losing weight, among other things.

A summary of the guideline, which was developed by Obesity Canada and the Canadian Association of Bariatric Physicians and Surgeons, was published online August 4 in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.

This patient-centered update to the 2006 guidelines is “provocative,” starting with its definition of obesity, co–lead author Sean Wharton, MD, adjunct professor at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., said in an interview.

The guideline was authored by more than 60 health care professionals and researchers who assessed more than 500,000 peer-reviewed articles and made 80 key recommendations.

These reflect substantial recent advances in the understanding of obesity. Individuals with obesity (from a patient committee of the Obesity Society) helped to shape the key messages.

“People who live with obesity have been shut out of receiving quality health care because of the biased, deeply flawed misconceptions about what drives obesity and how we can improve health,” Lisa Schaffer, chair of Obesity Canada’s Public Engagement Committee, said in a press release.

“Obesity is widely seen as the result of poor personal decisions, but research tells us it is far more complicated than that. Our hope with the [new] clinical practice guideline is that more health care professionals, health policy makers, benefits providers and people living with obesity will have a better understanding of it, so we can help more of those who need it.”

“Obesity management should be about compassion and empathy, and then everything falls into place,” Dr. Wharton said. “Think of obesity like breast cancer.”

Address the root causes of obesity

The guideline defines obesity as “a prevalent, complex, progressive and relapsing chronic disease, characterized by abnormal or excessive body fat (adiposity) that impairs health.”

Aimed at primary care providers, the document stresses that clinicians need to “move beyond simplistic approaches of ‘eat less, move more,’ and address the root drivers of obesity.”

As a first step, doctors should ask a patient for permission to discuss weight (e.g., they can ask: “Would it be all right if we discussed your weight?”) – which demonstrates empathy and can help build patient-provider trust.

Clinicians can still measure body mass index as part of a routine physical examination, but they should also obtain a comprehensive patient history to identify the root causes of any weight gain (which could include genetics or psychological factors such as depression and anxiety), as well as any barriers to managing obesity.

‘Eat less, move more’ is too simple: Employ three pillars

Advice to “eat less and move more is dangerously simplistic,” coauthor Arya M. Sharma, MD, from the University of Alberta, Edmonton, and scientific director of Obesity Canada, said in an interview that “the body fights to put back any lost weight.”

Patients with obesity need “medical nutrition therapy.” For patients at risk for heart disease, that may mean following a Mediterranean diet, Dr. Wharton said.

“Physical activity and medical nutrition therapy are absolutely necessary” to manage obesity, he clarified. As a person loses weight, their body “releases a cascade of neurochemicals and hormones that try to push the weight back up” to the original weight or even higher.

Therefore, to maintain weight loss, people need support from one or more of what he calls the “three pillars” of effective long-term weight loss – pharmacotherapy, bariatric surgery, and cognitive-behavioral therapy – which tempers this cascade of neurochemicals.

Cognitive-behavioral therapy could be given by various health care professionals, he noted. A behavioral strategy to stop snacking, for example, is to wait 5 minutes before eating a desired snack to make sure you still want it.

Similarly, Dr. Sharma noted, “the reason obesity is a chronic disease is that once you’ve gained the weight, your body is not going to want to lose it. That is what I tell all my patients: ‘Your body doesn’t care why you put on the weight, but it does care about keeping it there, and it’s going to fight you’ when you try to maintain weight loss.”

“Clinicians should feel very comfortable” treating obesity as a chronic disease, he added, because they are already treating chronic diseases such as heart, lung, and kidney disease.

Don’t play the blame game: ‘Think of obesity like breast cancer’

Clinicians also need to avoid “shaming and blaming patients with obesity,” said Dr. Sharma.

He noted that many patients have internalized weight bias and blame their excess weight on their lack of willpower. They may not want to talk about weight-loss medications or bariatric surgery because they feel that’s “cheating.”

By thinking of obesity in a similar way to cancer, doctors can help themselves respond to patients in a kinder way. “What would we do with somebody who has breast cancer? We would have compassion. We would talk about surgery to get the lump out and medication to keep the cancer from coming back, and we would engage them in psychological treatment or counseling for some of the challenges they have to face,” Dr. Wharton said.

“The right answer is to treat [obesity] like a disease – with surgery, medication, and psychological intervention,” depending on the individual patient, he added.

The complete guideline is available on the Obesity Canada website.

The study was funded by Obesity Canada, the Canadian Association of Bariatric Physicians and Surgeons, and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. Wharton has received honoraria and travel expenses and has participated in academic advisory boards for Novo Nordisk, Bausch Health, Eli Lilly, and Janssen. He is the medical director of a medical clinic specializing in weight management and diabetes. Dr. Sharma has received speaker’s bureau and consulting fees from Novo Nordisk, Bausch Pharmaceuticals, and AstraZeneca.

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

Early testing for actionable genomic alterations is now recommended for metastatic pancreatic cancer patients who progress on therapy or experience intolerable toxicity and who are potential candidates for additional treatment after first-line therapy, according to an American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline update.

Both germline and somatic testing, including for microsatellite instability/mismatch repair deficiency, BRCA mutations with known significance, and NTRK gene fusions, are recommended in this population, reported Davendra P.S. Sohal, MD, MPH, of the University of Cincinnati, and colleagues on ASCO’s expert panel. The update was published online Aug. 5 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The ASCO guideline on clinical decision making for patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer was first published in 2016 to address initial assessment and first- and second-line treatment options, supportive care, and follow-up and was updated in 2018. The current update is based on new evidence of benefit with targeted therapy options after first-line therapy or as maintenance therapy.

The phase 3 POLO trial, for example, showed significantly improved progression-free survival with the poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor olaparib for maintenance therapy after first-line treatment in patients with a germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation and metastatic pancreatic cancer that had not progressed during first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. An integrated analysis of three studies showed that entrectinib, a potent inhibitor of tropomyosin receptor kinase (TRK) A, B, and C, safely induced durable and clinically meaningful responses in patients with NTRK fusion-positive solid tumors, and a phase 1-2 study showed that the highly selective TRK inhibitor larotrectinib had marked and durable antitumor activity in both children and adults with TRK fusion-positive solid tumors.

With respect to the new recommendation endorsing early testing for actionable genomic alterations (Recommendation 1.5), the authors noted that the results of testing can lead to treatment with PARP inhibitors, programmed death-1 (PD-1) checkpoint inhibitor therapy, TRK fusion inhibitors, and clinical trials of targeted therapies.

“Genomic testing is recommended as part of an initial assessment to ensure that the results of testing are available at the time of treatment decision where applicable after first-line therapy,” the new recommendation states.

A “qualifying statement” further notes that the decision to test should “involve a discussion between the patient and physician regarding the frequency of actionable findings, treatment implications of testing results, and genetic counseling related to germline testing.”

Recommendation 1.5 is rated by the panel as “strong” and is based on informal consensus.

The panel also added two recommendations on treatment options after first-line therapy:

• Recommendation 3.1 calls for treatment with larotrectinib or entrectinib in patient with tumors harboring NTRK fusions.
• Recommendation 3.3 states that patients with a germline BRCA1 or BCA2 mutation who have received first-line platinum-based chemotherapy without disease progression for at least 16 weeks can receive chemotherapy or PARP inhibition with olaparib.

The relevant evidence for these two recommendations is of low quality, but shows that the benefits outweigh the harms; the strength of both recommendations is “moderate.”

A qualifying statement for the latter notes that “the decision to continue treatment with chemotherapy or proceed to maintenance therapy with olaparib should be based on a discussion between the patient and the oncologist, including consideration of whether a maximum response and plateau in response to chemotherapy have been achieved, the level of cumulative toxicities associated with chemotherapy treatment, patient preference, convenience, toxicity, goals of care, cost, and clinical evidence, including a lack of overall survival benefit demonstrated in the POLO randomized controlled trial.”

This focused update includes minor modifications to three existing recommendations:

• In addition to capecitabine or erlotinib, nab-paclitaxel is now included in Recommendation 2.3 as another possible add-on to gemcitabine alone for patients with either an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance score of 2 or a comorbidity profile that precludes more aggressive regimens. The recommendation was also updated to encourage proactive dose and schedule adjustments to minimize toxicities.
• Recommendation 3.5 now includes patients treated previously with a gemcitabine-based regimen in the criteria for the preferred second-line treatment combination of fluorouracil plus nanoliposomal irinotecan or fluorouracil plus irinotecan “where the former is unavailable.”
• Recommendation 3.7 now includes nab-paclitaxel as an add-on option to gemcitabine, and nanoliposomal irinotecan as an add-on option to fluorouracil for second-line therapy – with proactive dose and schedule adjustments to minimize toxicities – in patients with ECOG performance score of 2 or a comorbidity profile that precludes more aggressive regimens.

These three minor modifications reflect new evidence in the first-line treatment setting, including from the FRAGRANCE trial, and are based on expert panel consensus. All other recommendations in the 2018 update are endorsed for the current update, which is available at the ASCO website.

Dr. Sohal reported honoraria from Foundation Medicine, and consulting or advisory roles with Perthera, Ability Pharma, and PierianDx. He reported research funding to his institution from Novartis, Celgene, OncoMed, Bayer, Genentech, Bristol Myers Squibb, Agios, Incyte, Loxo, and Rafael Pharmaceuticals.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Sohal D et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Aug 5. doi: 10.1200/JCO.20.01364.

Early testing for actionable genomic alterations is now recommended for metastatic pancreatic cancer patients who progress on therapy or experience intolerable toxicity and who are potential candidates for additional treatment after first-line therapy, according to an American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline update.

Both germline and somatic testing, including for microsatellite instability/mismatch repair deficiency, BRCA mutations with known significance, and NTRK gene fusions, are recommended in this population, reported Davendra P.S. Sohal, MD, MPH, of the University of Cincinnati, and colleagues on ASCO’s expert panel. The update was published online Aug. 5 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The ASCO guideline on clinical decision making for patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer was first published in 2016 to address initial assessment and first- and second-line treatment options, supportive care, and follow-up and was updated in 2018. The current update is based on new evidence of benefit with targeted therapy options after first-line therapy or as maintenance therapy.

The phase 3 POLO trial, for example, showed significantly improved progression-free survival with the poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor olaparib for maintenance therapy after first-line treatment in patients with a germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation and metastatic pancreatic cancer that had not progressed during first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. An integrated analysis of three studies showed that entrectinib, a potent inhibitor of tropomyosin receptor kinase (TRK) A, B, and C, safely induced durable and clinically meaningful responses in patients with NTRK fusion-positive solid tumors, and a phase 1-2 study showed that the highly selective TRK inhibitor larotrectinib had marked and durable antitumor activity in both children and adults with TRK fusion-positive solid tumors.

With respect to the new recommendation endorsing early testing for actionable genomic alterations (Recommendation 1.5), the authors noted that the results of testing can lead to treatment with PARP inhibitors, programmed death-1 (PD-1) checkpoint inhibitor therapy, TRK fusion inhibitors, and clinical trials of targeted therapies.

“Genomic testing is recommended as part of an initial assessment to ensure that the results of testing are available at the time of treatment decision where applicable after first-line therapy,” the new recommendation states.

A “qualifying statement” further notes that the decision to test should “involve a discussion between the patient and physician regarding the frequency of actionable findings, treatment implications of testing results, and genetic counseling related to germline testing.”

Recommendation 1.5 is rated by the panel as “strong” and is based on informal consensus.

The panel also added two recommendations on treatment options after first-line therapy:

• Recommendation 3.1 calls for treatment with larotrectinib or entrectinib in patient with tumors harboring NTRK fusions.
• Recommendation 3.3 states that patients with a germline BRCA1 or BCA2 mutation who have received first-line platinum-based chemotherapy without disease progression for at least 16 weeks can receive chemotherapy or PARP inhibition with olaparib.

The relevant evidence for these two recommendations is of low quality, but shows that the benefits outweigh the harms; the strength of both recommendations is “moderate.”

A qualifying statement for the latter notes that “the decision to continue treatment with chemotherapy or proceed to maintenance therapy with olaparib should be based on a discussion between the patient and the oncologist, including consideration of whether a maximum response and plateau in response to chemotherapy have been achieved, the level of cumulative toxicities associated with chemotherapy treatment, patient preference, convenience, toxicity, goals of care, cost, and clinical evidence, including a lack of overall survival benefit demonstrated in the POLO randomized controlled trial.”

This focused update includes minor modifications to three existing recommendations:

• In addition to capecitabine or erlotinib, nab-paclitaxel is now included in Recommendation 2.3 as another possible add-on to gemcitabine alone for patients with either an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance score of 2 or a comorbidity profile that precludes more aggressive regimens. The recommendation was also updated to encourage proactive dose and schedule adjustments to minimize toxicities.
• Recommendation 3.5 now includes patients treated previously with a gemcitabine-based regimen in the criteria for the preferred second-line treatment combination of fluorouracil plus nanoliposomal irinotecan or fluorouracil plus irinotecan “where the former is unavailable.”
• Recommendation 3.7 now includes nab-paclitaxel as an add-on option to gemcitabine, and nanoliposomal irinotecan as an add-on option to fluorouracil for second-line therapy – with proactive dose and schedule adjustments to minimize toxicities – in patients with ECOG performance score of 2 or a comorbidity profile that precludes more aggressive regimens.

These three minor modifications reflect new evidence in the first-line treatment setting, including from the FRAGRANCE trial, and are based on expert panel consensus. All other recommendations in the 2018 update are endorsed for the current update, which is available at the ASCO website.

Dr. Sohal reported honoraria from Foundation Medicine, and consulting or advisory roles with Perthera, Ability Pharma, and PierianDx. He reported research funding to his institution from Novartis, Celgene, OncoMed, Bayer, Genentech, Bristol Myers Squibb, Agios, Incyte, Loxo, and Rafael Pharmaceuticals.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Sohal D et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Aug 5. doi: 10.1200/JCO.20.01364.

Early testing for actionable genomic alterations is now recommended for metastatic pancreatic cancer patients who progress on therapy or experience intolerable toxicity and who are potential candidates for additional treatment after first-line therapy, according to an American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline update.

Both germline and somatic testing, including for microsatellite instability/mismatch repair deficiency, BRCA mutations with known significance, and NTRK gene fusions, are recommended in this population, reported Davendra P.S. Sohal, MD, MPH, of the University of Cincinnati, and colleagues on ASCO’s expert panel. The update was published online Aug. 5 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

The ASCO guideline on clinical decision making for patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer was first published in 2016 to address initial assessment and first- and second-line treatment options, supportive care, and follow-up and was updated in 2018. The current update is based on new evidence of benefit with targeted therapy options after first-line therapy or as maintenance therapy.

The phase 3 POLO trial, for example, showed significantly improved progression-free survival with the poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor olaparib for maintenance therapy after first-line treatment in patients with a germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation and metastatic pancreatic cancer that had not progressed during first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. An integrated analysis of three studies showed that entrectinib, a potent inhibitor of tropomyosin receptor kinase (TRK) A, B, and C, safely induced durable and clinically meaningful responses in patients with NTRK fusion-positive solid tumors, and a phase 1-2 study showed that the highly selective TRK inhibitor larotrectinib had marked and durable antitumor activity in both children and adults with TRK fusion-positive solid tumors.

With respect to the new recommendation endorsing early testing for actionable genomic alterations (Recommendation 1.5), the authors noted that the results of testing can lead to treatment with PARP inhibitors, programmed death-1 (PD-1) checkpoint inhibitor therapy, TRK fusion inhibitors, and clinical trials of targeted therapies.

“Genomic testing is recommended as part of an initial assessment to ensure that the results of testing are available at the time of treatment decision where applicable after first-line therapy,” the new recommendation states.

A “qualifying statement” further notes that the decision to test should “involve a discussion between the patient and physician regarding the frequency of actionable findings, treatment implications of testing results, and genetic counseling related to germline testing.”

Recommendation 1.5 is rated by the panel as “strong” and is based on informal consensus.

The panel also added two recommendations on treatment options after first-line therapy:

• Recommendation 3.1 calls for treatment with larotrectinib or entrectinib in patient with tumors harboring NTRK fusions.
• Recommendation 3.3 states that patients with a germline BRCA1 or BCA2 mutation who have received first-line platinum-based chemotherapy without disease progression for at least 16 weeks can receive chemotherapy or PARP inhibition with olaparib.

The relevant evidence for these two recommendations is of low quality, but shows that the benefits outweigh the harms; the strength of both recommendations is “moderate.”

A qualifying statement for the latter notes that “the decision to continue treatment with chemotherapy or proceed to maintenance therapy with olaparib should be based on a discussion between the patient and the oncologist, including consideration of whether a maximum response and plateau in response to chemotherapy have been achieved, the level of cumulative toxicities associated with chemotherapy treatment, patient preference, convenience, toxicity, goals of care, cost, and clinical evidence, including a lack of overall survival benefit demonstrated in the POLO randomized controlled trial.”

This focused update includes minor modifications to three existing recommendations:

• In addition to capecitabine or erlotinib, nab-paclitaxel is now included in Recommendation 2.3 as another possible add-on to gemcitabine alone for patients with either an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance score of 2 or a comorbidity profile that precludes more aggressive regimens. The recommendation was also updated to encourage proactive dose and schedule adjustments to minimize toxicities.
• Recommendation 3.5 now includes patients treated previously with a gemcitabine-based regimen in the criteria for the preferred second-line treatment combination of fluorouracil plus nanoliposomal irinotecan or fluorouracil plus irinotecan “where the former is unavailable.”
• Recommendation 3.7 now includes nab-paclitaxel as an add-on option to gemcitabine, and nanoliposomal irinotecan as an add-on option to fluorouracil for second-line therapy – with proactive dose and schedule adjustments to minimize toxicities – in patients with ECOG performance score of 2 or a comorbidity profile that precludes more aggressive regimens.

These three minor modifications reflect new evidence in the first-line treatment setting, including from the FRAGRANCE trial, and are based on expert panel consensus. All other recommendations in the 2018 update are endorsed for the current update, which is available at the ASCO website.

Dr. Sohal reported honoraria from Foundation Medicine, and consulting or advisory roles with Perthera, Ability Pharma, and PierianDx. He reported research funding to his institution from Novartis, Celgene, OncoMed, Bayer, Genentech, Bristol Myers Squibb, Agios, Incyte, Loxo, and Rafael Pharmaceuticals.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Sohal D et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Aug 5. doi: 10.1200/JCO.20.01364.

A new scientific statement from the American Heart Association recommends incorporating a rapid diet-screening tool into routine primary care visits to inform dietary counseling and integrating the tool into patients’ electronic health record platforms across all healthcare settings.

American Heart Association

The statement authors evaluated 15 existing screening tools and, although they did not recommend a specific tool, they did present advantages and disadvantages of some of the tools and encouraged “critical conversations” among clinicians and other specialists to arrive at a tool that would be most appropriate for use in a particular health care setting.

“The key takeaway is for clinicians to incorporate discussion of dietary patterns into routine preventive care appointments because a suboptimal diet is the No. 1 risk factor for cardiovascular disease,” Maya Vadiveloo, PhD, RD, chair of the statement group, said in an interview.

“We also wanted to touch on the fact the screening tool could be incorporated into the EHR and then used for clinical support and for tracking and monitoring the patient’s dietary patterns over time,” said Dr. Vadiveloo, assistant professor of nutrition and food sciences in the College of Health Science, University of Rhode Island, Kingston.

The statement was published online Aug. 7 in Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes.
 

Competing demands

Poor dietary quality has “surpassed all other mortality risk factors, accounting for 11 million deaths and about 50% of cardiovascular disease (CVD) deaths globally,” the authors wrote.

Diets deficient in fruits, vegetables, and whole grains and high in red and processed meat, added sugars, sodium, and total energy are the “leading determinants” of the risks for CVD and other conditions, so “strategies that promote holistically healthier dietary patterns to reduce chronic disease risk are of contemporary importance.”

Most clinicians and other members of health care teams “do not currently assess or counsel patients about their food and beverage intake during routine clinical care,” the authors observed.

Reasons for this may include lack of training and knowledge, insufficient time, insufficient integration of nutrition services into health care settings, insufficient reimbursement, and “competing demands during the visit,” they noted.

Dr. Vadiveloo said that an evidence-based rapid screening tool can go a long way toward helping to overcome these barriers.

“Research shows that when primary care practitioners discuss diet with patients, the patients are receptive, but we also know that clinical workloads are already very compressed, and adding another thing to a routine preventive care appointment is challenging,” she said. “So we wanted to look and see if there were already screening tools that showed promise as valid, reliable, reflective of the best science, and easy to incorporate into various types of practice settings.”
 

Top picks

The authors established “theoretical and practice-based criteria” for an optimal diet screening tool for use in the adult population (aged 20 to 75 years). The tool had to:

• Be developed or used within clinical practice in the past 10 years.
• Be evidence-based, reliable, and valid.
• Assess total dietary pattern rather than focusing on a single food or nutrient.
• Be able to be completed and scored at administration without special knowledge or software.
• Give actionable next steps and support to patients.
• Be able track and monitor dietary change over time.
• Be brief.
• Be useful for chronic disease management.

Of the 15 tools reviewed, the three that met the most theoretical and practice-based validity criteria were the Mediterranean Diet Adherence Screener (MEDAS) and its variations; the modified, shortened Rapid Eating Assessment for Participants (REAP), and the modified version of the Starting the Conversation Tool. However, the authors noted that the Powell and Greenberg Screening Tool was the “least time-intensive.”
 

One size does not fit all

No single tool will be appropriate for all practice settings, so “we would like clinicians to discuss what will work in their particular setting,” Dr. Vadiveloo emphasized.

For example, should the screening tool be completed by the clinician, a member of the health care team, or the patient? Advantages of a tool completed by clinicians or team members include collection of the information in real time, where it can be used in shared decision-making during the encounter and increased reliability because the screen has been completed by a clinician. On the other hand, the clinician might not be able to prioritize administering the screening tool during a short clinical encounter.

Advantages of a tool completed by the patient via an EHR portal is that the patient may feel less risk of judgment by the clinician or health care professional and patients can complete the screen at their convenience. Disadvantages are limited reach into underserved populations and, potentially, less reliability than clinician-administered tools.

“It is advantageous to have tools that can be administered by multiple members of health care teams to ease the demand on clinicians, if such staff is available, but in other settings, self-administration might be better, so we tried to leave it open-ended,” Dr. Vadiveloo explained.
 

‘Ideal platform’

“The EHR is the ideal platform to prompt clinicians and other members of the health care team to capture dietary data and deliver dietary advice to patients,” the authors observed.

EHRs allow secure storage of data and also enable access to these data when needed at the point of care. They are also important for documentation purposes.

The authors noted that the use of “myriad EHR platforms and versions of platforms” have created “technical challenges.” They recommended “standardized approaches” for transmitting health data that will “more seamlessly allow rapid diet screeners to be implemented in the EHR.”

They also recommended that the prototypes of rapid diet screeners be tested by end users prior to implementation within particular clinics. “Gathering these data ahead of time can improve the uptake of the application in the real world,” they stated.

Dr. Vadiveloo added that dietary counseling can be conducted by several members of a health care team, such as a dietitian, not just by the physician. Or the patient may need to be referred to a dietitian for counseling and follow-up.

The authors concluded by characterizing the AHA statement as “a call to action ... designed to accelerate efforts to make diet quality assessment an integral part of office-based care delivery by encouraging critical conversations among clinicians, individuals with diet/lifestyle expertise, and specialists in information technology.”

Dr. Vadiveloo has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the original paper.

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

A new scientific statement from the American Heart Association recommends incorporating a rapid diet-screening tool into routine primary care visits to inform dietary counseling and integrating the tool into patients’ electronic health record platforms across all healthcare settings.

American Heart Association

The statement authors evaluated 15 existing screening tools and, although they did not recommend a specific tool, they did present advantages and disadvantages of some of the tools and encouraged “critical conversations” among clinicians and other specialists to arrive at a tool that would be most appropriate for use in a particular health care setting.

“The key takeaway is for clinicians to incorporate discussion of dietary patterns into routine preventive care appointments because a suboptimal diet is the No. 1 risk factor for cardiovascular disease,” Maya Vadiveloo, PhD, RD, chair of the statement group, said in an interview.

“We also wanted to touch on the fact the screening tool could be incorporated into the EHR and then used for clinical support and for tracking and monitoring the patient’s dietary patterns over time,” said Dr. Vadiveloo, assistant professor of nutrition and food sciences in the College of Health Science, University of Rhode Island, Kingston.

The statement was published online Aug. 7 in Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes.
 

Competing demands

Poor dietary quality has “surpassed all other mortality risk factors, accounting for 11 million deaths and about 50% of cardiovascular disease (CVD) deaths globally,” the authors wrote.

Diets deficient in fruits, vegetables, and whole grains and high in red and processed meat, added sugars, sodium, and total energy are the “leading determinants” of the risks for CVD and other conditions, so “strategies that promote holistically healthier dietary patterns to reduce chronic disease risk are of contemporary importance.”

Most clinicians and other members of health care teams “do not currently assess or counsel patients about their food and beverage intake during routine clinical care,” the authors observed.

Reasons for this may include lack of training and knowledge, insufficient time, insufficient integration of nutrition services into health care settings, insufficient reimbursement, and “competing demands during the visit,” they noted.

Dr. Vadiveloo said that an evidence-based rapid screening tool can go a long way toward helping to overcome these barriers.

“Research shows that when primary care practitioners discuss diet with patients, the patients are receptive, but we also know that clinical workloads are already very compressed, and adding another thing to a routine preventive care appointment is challenging,” she said. “So we wanted to look and see if there were already screening tools that showed promise as valid, reliable, reflective of the best science, and easy to incorporate into various types of practice settings.”
 

Top picks

The authors established “theoretical and practice-based criteria” for an optimal diet screening tool for use in the adult population (aged 20 to 75 years). The tool had to:

• Be developed or used within clinical practice in the past 10 years.
• Be evidence-based, reliable, and valid.
• Assess total dietary pattern rather than focusing on a single food or nutrient.
• Be able to be completed and scored at administration without special knowledge or software.
• Give actionable next steps and support to patients.
• Be able track and monitor dietary change over time.
• Be brief.
• Be useful for chronic disease management.

Of the 15 tools reviewed, the three that met the most theoretical and practice-based validity criteria were the Mediterranean Diet Adherence Screener (MEDAS) and its variations; the modified, shortened Rapid Eating Assessment for Participants (REAP), and the modified version of the Starting the Conversation Tool. However, the authors noted that the Powell and Greenberg Screening Tool was the “least time-intensive.”
 

One size does not fit all

No single tool will be appropriate for all practice settings, so “we would like clinicians to discuss what will work in their particular setting,” Dr. Vadiveloo emphasized.

For example, should the screening tool be completed by the clinician, a member of the health care team, or the patient? Advantages of a tool completed by clinicians or team members include collection of the information in real time, where it can be used in shared decision-making during the encounter and increased reliability because the screen has been completed by a clinician. On the other hand, the clinician might not be able to prioritize administering the screening tool during a short clinical encounter.

Advantages of a tool completed by the patient via an EHR portal is that the patient may feel less risk of judgment by the clinician or health care professional and patients can complete the screen at their convenience. Disadvantages are limited reach into underserved populations and, potentially, less reliability than clinician-administered tools.

“It is advantageous to have tools that can be administered by multiple members of health care teams to ease the demand on clinicians, if such staff is available, but in other settings, self-administration might be better, so we tried to leave it open-ended,” Dr. Vadiveloo explained.
 

‘Ideal platform’

“The EHR is the ideal platform to prompt clinicians and other members of the health care team to capture dietary data and deliver dietary advice to patients,” the authors observed.

EHRs allow secure storage of data and also enable access to these data when needed at the point of care. They are also important for documentation purposes.

The authors noted that the use of “myriad EHR platforms and versions of platforms” have created “technical challenges.” They recommended “standardized approaches” for transmitting health data that will “more seamlessly allow rapid diet screeners to be implemented in the EHR.”

They also recommended that the prototypes of rapid diet screeners be tested by end users prior to implementation within particular clinics. “Gathering these data ahead of time can improve the uptake of the application in the real world,” they stated.

Dr. Vadiveloo added that dietary counseling can be conducted by several members of a health care team, such as a dietitian, not just by the physician. Or the patient may need to be referred to a dietitian for counseling and follow-up.

The authors concluded by characterizing the AHA statement as “a call to action ... designed to accelerate efforts to make diet quality assessment an integral part of office-based care delivery by encouraging critical conversations among clinicians, individuals with diet/lifestyle expertise, and specialists in information technology.”

Dr. Vadiveloo has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the original paper.

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

A new scientific statement from the American Heart Association recommends incorporating a rapid diet-screening tool into routine primary care visits to inform dietary counseling and integrating the tool into patients’ electronic health record platforms across all healthcare settings.

American Heart Association

The statement authors evaluated 15 existing screening tools and, although they did not recommend a specific tool, they did present advantages and disadvantages of some of the tools and encouraged “critical conversations” among clinicians and other specialists to arrive at a tool that would be most appropriate for use in a particular health care setting.

“The key takeaway is for clinicians to incorporate discussion of dietary patterns into routine preventive care appointments because a suboptimal diet is the No. 1 risk factor for cardiovascular disease,” Maya Vadiveloo, PhD, RD, chair of the statement group, said in an interview.

“We also wanted to touch on the fact the screening tool could be incorporated into the EHR and then used for clinical support and for tracking and monitoring the patient’s dietary patterns over time,” said Dr. Vadiveloo, assistant professor of nutrition and food sciences in the College of Health Science, University of Rhode Island, Kingston.

The statement was published online Aug. 7 in Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes.
 

Competing demands

Poor dietary quality has “surpassed all other mortality risk factors, accounting for 11 million deaths and about 50% of cardiovascular disease (CVD) deaths globally,” the authors wrote.

Diets deficient in fruits, vegetables, and whole grains and high in red and processed meat, added sugars, sodium, and total energy are the “leading determinants” of the risks for CVD and other conditions, so “strategies that promote holistically healthier dietary patterns to reduce chronic disease risk are of contemporary importance.”

Most clinicians and other members of health care teams “do not currently assess or counsel patients about their food and beverage intake during routine clinical care,” the authors observed.

Reasons for this may include lack of training and knowledge, insufficient time, insufficient integration of nutrition services into health care settings, insufficient reimbursement, and “competing demands during the visit,” they noted.

Dr. Vadiveloo said that an evidence-based rapid screening tool can go a long way toward helping to overcome these barriers.

“Research shows that when primary care practitioners discuss diet with patients, the patients are receptive, but we also know that clinical workloads are already very compressed, and adding another thing to a routine preventive care appointment is challenging,” she said. “So we wanted to look and see if there were already screening tools that showed promise as valid, reliable, reflective of the best science, and easy to incorporate into various types of practice settings.”
 

Top picks

The authors established “theoretical and practice-based criteria” for an optimal diet screening tool for use in the adult population (aged 20 to 75 years). The tool had to:

• Be developed or used within clinical practice in the past 10 years.
• Be evidence-based, reliable, and valid.
• Assess total dietary pattern rather than focusing on a single food or nutrient.
• Be able to be completed and scored at administration without special knowledge or software.
• Give actionable next steps and support to patients.
• Be able track and monitor dietary change over time.
• Be brief.
• Be useful for chronic disease management.

Of the 15 tools reviewed, the three that met the most theoretical and practice-based validity criteria were the Mediterranean Diet Adherence Screener (MEDAS) and its variations; the modified, shortened Rapid Eating Assessment for Participants (REAP), and the modified version of the Starting the Conversation Tool. However, the authors noted that the Powell and Greenberg Screening Tool was the “least time-intensive.”
 

One size does not fit all

No single tool will be appropriate for all practice settings, so “we would like clinicians to discuss what will work in their particular setting,” Dr. Vadiveloo emphasized.

For example, should the screening tool be completed by the clinician, a member of the health care team, or the patient? Advantages of a tool completed by clinicians or team members include collection of the information in real time, where it can be used in shared decision-making during the encounter and increased reliability because the screen has been completed by a clinician. On the other hand, the clinician might not be able to prioritize administering the screening tool during a short clinical encounter.

Advantages of a tool completed by the patient via an EHR portal is that the patient may feel less risk of judgment by the clinician or health care professional and patients can complete the screen at their convenience. Disadvantages are limited reach into underserved populations and, potentially, less reliability than clinician-administered tools.

“It is advantageous to have tools that can be administered by multiple members of health care teams to ease the demand on clinicians, if such staff is available, but in other settings, self-administration might be better, so we tried to leave it open-ended,” Dr. Vadiveloo explained.
 

‘Ideal platform’

“The EHR is the ideal platform to prompt clinicians and other members of the health care team to capture dietary data and deliver dietary advice to patients,” the authors observed.

EHRs allow secure storage of data and also enable access to these data when needed at the point of care. They are also important for documentation purposes.

The authors noted that the use of “myriad EHR platforms and versions of platforms” have created “technical challenges.” They recommended “standardized approaches” for transmitting health data that will “more seamlessly allow rapid diet screeners to be implemented in the EHR.”

They also recommended that the prototypes of rapid diet screeners be tested by end users prior to implementation within particular clinics. “Gathering these data ahead of time can improve the uptake of the application in the real world,” they stated.

Dr. Vadiveloo added that dietary counseling can be conducted by several members of a health care team, such as a dietitian, not just by the physician. Or the patient may need to be referred to a dietitian for counseling and follow-up.

The authors concluded by characterizing the AHA statement as “a call to action ... designed to accelerate efforts to make diet quality assessment an integral part of office-based care delivery by encouraging critical conversations among clinicians, individuals with diet/lifestyle expertise, and specialists in information technology.”

Dr. Vadiveloo has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the original paper.

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

New guidance from the U.K. National Diabetes COVID-19 Response Group addresses glucose management in patients with COVID-19 who are receiving dexamethasone therapy.

Although there are already guidelines that address inpatient management of steroid-induced hyperglycemia, the authors of the new document wrote that this new expert opinion paper was needed “given the ‘triple insult’ of dexamethasone-induced–impaired glucose metabolism, COVID-19–induced insulin resistance, and COVID-19–impaired insulin production.”

RECOVERY trial spurs response

The document, which is the latest in a series from the Association of British Clinical Diabetologists, was published online Aug. 2 in Diabetic Medicine. The group is chaired by Gerry Rayman, MD, consultant physician at the diabetes centre and diabetes research unit, East Suffolk (England) and North East NHS Foundation Trust.

The guidance was developed in response to the recent “breakthrough” Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy (RECOVERY) trial, which showed that dexamethasone reduced deaths in patients with COVID-19 on ventilators or receiving oxygen therapy. The advice is not intended for critical care units but can be adapted for that use.

The dose used in RECOVERY – 6 mg daily for 10 days – is 400%-500% greater than the therapeutic glucocorticoid replacement dose. High glucocorticoid doses can exacerbate hyperglycemia in people with established diabetes, unmask undiagnosed diabetes, precipitate hyperglycemia or new-onset diabetes, and can also cause hyperglycemic hyperosmolar state (HHS), the authors explained.

They recommended a target glucose of 6.0-10.0 mmol/L (108-180 mg/dL), although they say up to 12 mmol/L (216 mg/dL) is “acceptable.” They then gave advice on frequency of monitoring for people with and without known diabetes, exclusion of diabetic ketoacidosis and HHS, correction of initial hyperglycemia and maintenance of glycemic control using subcutaneous insulin, and prevention of hypoglycemia at the end of dexamethasone therapy (day 10) with insulin down-titration, discharge, and follow-up.

The detailed insulin guidance covers dose escalation for both insulin-treated and insulin-naive patients. A table suggests increasing correction doses of rapid-acting insulin based on prior total daily dose or weight.

Use of once- or twice-daily NPH insulin is recommended for patients whose glucose has risen above 12 mmol/L, in some cases with the addition of a long-acting analog. A second chart gives dose adjustments for those insulins. Additional guidance addresses patients on insulin pumps.

Guidance useful for U.S. physicians

Francisco Pasquel, MD, assistant professor of medicine in the division of endocrinology at Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview that he believes the guidance is “acceptable” for worldwide use, and that “it’s coherent and consistent with what we typically do.”

However, Dr. Pasquel, who founded COVID-in-Diabetes, an online repository of published guidance and shared experience – to which this new document has now been added – did take issue with one piece of advice. The guidance says that patients already taking premixed insulin formulations can continue using them while increasing the dose by 20%-40%. Given the risk of hypoglycemia associated with those formulations, Dr. Pasquel said he would switch those patients to NPH during the time that they’re on dexamethasone.

He also noted that the rapid-acting insulin dose range of 2-10 units provided in the first table, for correction of initial hyperglycemia, are more conservative than those used at his hospital, where correction doses of up to 14-16 units are sometimes necessary.

But Dr. Pasquel praised the group’s overall efforts since the pandemic began, noting that “they’re very organized and constantly updating their recommendations. They have a unified system in the [National Health Service], so it’s easier to standardize. They have a unique [electronic health record] which is far superior to what we do from a public health perspective.”

Dr. Rayman reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Pasquel reported receiving research funding from Dexcom, Merck, and the National Institutes of Health, and consulting for AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Merck, and Boehringer Ingelheim.

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

New guidance from the U.K. National Diabetes COVID-19 Response Group addresses glucose management in patients with COVID-19 who are receiving dexamethasone therapy.

Although there are already guidelines that address inpatient management of steroid-induced hyperglycemia, the authors of the new document wrote that this new expert opinion paper was needed “given the ‘triple insult’ of dexamethasone-induced–impaired glucose metabolism, COVID-19–induced insulin resistance, and COVID-19–impaired insulin production.”

RECOVERY trial spurs response

The document, which is the latest in a series from the Association of British Clinical Diabetologists, was published online Aug. 2 in Diabetic Medicine. The group is chaired by Gerry Rayman, MD, consultant physician at the diabetes centre and diabetes research unit, East Suffolk (England) and North East NHS Foundation Trust.

The guidance was developed in response to the recent “breakthrough” Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy (RECOVERY) trial, which showed that dexamethasone reduced deaths in patients with COVID-19 on ventilators or receiving oxygen therapy. The advice is not intended for critical care units but can be adapted for that use.

The dose used in RECOVERY – 6 mg daily for 10 days – is 400%-500% greater than the therapeutic glucocorticoid replacement dose. High glucocorticoid doses can exacerbate hyperglycemia in people with established diabetes, unmask undiagnosed diabetes, precipitate hyperglycemia or new-onset diabetes, and can also cause hyperglycemic hyperosmolar state (HHS), the authors explained.

They recommended a target glucose of 6.0-10.0 mmol/L (108-180 mg/dL), although they say up to 12 mmol/L (216 mg/dL) is “acceptable.” They then gave advice on frequency of monitoring for people with and without known diabetes, exclusion of diabetic ketoacidosis and HHS, correction of initial hyperglycemia and maintenance of glycemic control using subcutaneous insulin, and prevention of hypoglycemia at the end of dexamethasone therapy (day 10) with insulin down-titration, discharge, and follow-up.

The detailed insulin guidance covers dose escalation for both insulin-treated and insulin-naive patients. A table suggests increasing correction doses of rapid-acting insulin based on prior total daily dose or weight.

Use of once- or twice-daily NPH insulin is recommended for patients whose glucose has risen above 12 mmol/L, in some cases with the addition of a long-acting analog. A second chart gives dose adjustments for those insulins. Additional guidance addresses patients on insulin pumps.

Guidance useful for U.S. physicians

Francisco Pasquel, MD, assistant professor of medicine in the division of endocrinology at Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview that he believes the guidance is “acceptable” for worldwide use, and that “it’s coherent and consistent with what we typically do.”

However, Dr. Pasquel, who founded COVID-in-Diabetes, an online repository of published guidance and shared experience – to which this new document has now been added – did take issue with one piece of advice. The guidance says that patients already taking premixed insulin formulations can continue using them while increasing the dose by 20%-40%. Given the risk of hypoglycemia associated with those formulations, Dr. Pasquel said he would switch those patients to NPH during the time that they’re on dexamethasone.

He also noted that the rapid-acting insulin dose range of 2-10 units provided in the first table, for correction of initial hyperglycemia, are more conservative than those used at his hospital, where correction doses of up to 14-16 units are sometimes necessary.

But Dr. Pasquel praised the group’s overall efforts since the pandemic began, noting that “they’re very organized and constantly updating their recommendations. They have a unified system in the [National Health Service], so it’s easier to standardize. They have a unique [electronic health record] which is far superior to what we do from a public health perspective.”

Dr. Rayman reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Pasquel reported receiving research funding from Dexcom, Merck, and the National Institutes of Health, and consulting for AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Merck, and Boehringer Ingelheim.

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

New guidance from the U.K. National Diabetes COVID-19 Response Group addresses glucose management in patients with COVID-19 who are receiving dexamethasone therapy.

Although there are already guidelines that address inpatient management of steroid-induced hyperglycemia, the authors of the new document wrote that this new expert opinion paper was needed “given the ‘triple insult’ of dexamethasone-induced–impaired glucose metabolism, COVID-19–induced insulin resistance, and COVID-19–impaired insulin production.”

RECOVERY trial spurs response

The document, which is the latest in a series from the Association of British Clinical Diabetologists, was published online Aug. 2 in Diabetic Medicine. The group is chaired by Gerry Rayman, MD, consultant physician at the diabetes centre and diabetes research unit, East Suffolk (England) and North East NHS Foundation Trust.

The guidance was developed in response to the recent “breakthrough” Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy (RECOVERY) trial, which showed that dexamethasone reduced deaths in patients with COVID-19 on ventilators or receiving oxygen therapy. The advice is not intended for critical care units but can be adapted for that use.

The dose used in RECOVERY – 6 mg daily for 10 days – is 400%-500% greater than the therapeutic glucocorticoid replacement dose. High glucocorticoid doses can exacerbate hyperglycemia in people with established diabetes, unmask undiagnosed diabetes, precipitate hyperglycemia or new-onset diabetes, and can also cause hyperglycemic hyperosmolar state (HHS), the authors explained.

They recommended a target glucose of 6.0-10.0 mmol/L (108-180 mg/dL), although they say up to 12 mmol/L (216 mg/dL) is “acceptable.” They then gave advice on frequency of monitoring for people with and without known diabetes, exclusion of diabetic ketoacidosis and HHS, correction of initial hyperglycemia and maintenance of glycemic control using subcutaneous insulin, and prevention of hypoglycemia at the end of dexamethasone therapy (day 10) with insulin down-titration, discharge, and follow-up.

The detailed insulin guidance covers dose escalation for both insulin-treated and insulin-naive patients. A table suggests increasing correction doses of rapid-acting insulin based on prior total daily dose or weight.

Use of once- or twice-daily NPH insulin is recommended for patients whose glucose has risen above 12 mmol/L, in some cases with the addition of a long-acting analog. A second chart gives dose adjustments for those insulins. Additional guidance addresses patients on insulin pumps.

Guidance useful for U.S. physicians

Francisco Pasquel, MD, assistant professor of medicine in the division of endocrinology at Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview that he believes the guidance is “acceptable” for worldwide use, and that “it’s coherent and consistent with what we typically do.”

However, Dr. Pasquel, who founded COVID-in-Diabetes, an online repository of published guidance and shared experience – to which this new document has now been added – did take issue with one piece of advice. The guidance says that patients already taking premixed insulin formulations can continue using them while increasing the dose by 20%-40%. Given the risk of hypoglycemia associated with those formulations, Dr. Pasquel said he would switch those patients to NPH during the time that they’re on dexamethasone.

He also noted that the rapid-acting insulin dose range of 2-10 units provided in the first table, for correction of initial hyperglycemia, are more conservative than those used at his hospital, where correction doses of up to 14-16 units are sometimes necessary.

But Dr. Pasquel praised the group’s overall efforts since the pandemic began, noting that “they’re very organized and constantly updating their recommendations. They have a unified system in the [National Health Service], so it’s easier to standardize. They have a unique [electronic health record] which is far superior to what we do from a public health perspective.”

Dr. Rayman reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Pasquel reported receiving research funding from Dexcom, Merck, and the National Institutes of Health, and consulting for AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Merck, and Boehringer Ingelheim.

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

A radical change in screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) is being proposed in the United States, where the default screening modality to date has been colonoscopy.

Instead, the American Gastroenterological Association is proposing new approaches that combine better risk assessment, more use of noninvasive testing (such as fecal occult blood tests), and more targeted referrals for colonoscopy. Such changes could increase patient compliance and “save countless lives.”

“We need to improve our strategies to curb the cancer that ranks second for deaths in the U.S.,” commented Srinadh Komanduri, MD, chair of the AGA Center for GI Innovation and Technology, in a statement.

“Approximately 67% of eligible Americans are screened for colorectal cancer,” he said, which means that a third (33%) are not.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the proportion of individuals not being screened has increased. One report of medical claims data showed that colonoscopies dropped by 90% during April.

The proposed changes are outlined in an AGA white paper: “Roadmap for the Future of Colorectal Cancer Screening in the United States.”

The report, written following consultation with 60 gastroenterology and research experts, was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

It proposed that alternative testing modalities to colonoscopy will need to be integrated into organized screening programs.

Rather than offering colonoscopy as the default screening method for all patients at risk, the AGA advised that it be offered initially only to patients at high risk, which would increase access for those who need it most. For patients at lower risk, noninvasive screening methods, such as fecal occult blood testing, could be offered initially and then integrated with colonoscopy.

“If we offered tests that were convenient, accurate, and of lower cost, and we could help people choose the best option based on their individual cancer risks, we would save more lives,” Joshua E. Melson, MD, MPH, lead author of the AGA white paper and professor at Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, said in an interview.

Screening can reduce CRC mortality by more than 50%, he added.

“Screening should be thought of as a process over time, not a single test isolated in time,” Dr. Melson commented. A clinical practice that has historically used only colonoscopy will need an organized, structured program to incorporate noninvasive testing, he said.

To date, efforts to increase CRC screening uptake have met with limited success, the AGA says. In 2014, the National Colorectal Cancer Round Table set the bar high with a 2018 screening goal of 80% for adults 50 years of age and older. As of 2020, some states had almost reached this goal, but most had not.

“In the opportunistic screening environment in the U.S., where colonoscopy is the most prevalent method, CRC screening has not reached aspirational goals in terms of uptake, reduction in CRC incidence, and disease burden,” the AGA said. “It is questionable if 80% uptake is achievable in a primarily opportunistic screening environment.”

In the proposed revamping of the current CRC screening infrastructure, patients whose physicians recommend CRC screening would no longer be left to their own devices to follow up. Clinicians would initiate CRC screening and oversee follow-up testing at defined intervals and would employ ongoing surveillance.

Ensuring that appropriate screening is readily available to at-risk individuals with no social, racial, or economic disparities is crucial, the AGA says. Racial disparities in access to screening disproportionately burden Blacks and Latin Americans as well as people living in rural areas. Screening differences account for 42% of the disparity in CRC incidence between Black and White Americans and 19% of the disparity in CRC mortality.

Compared with colonoscopy, which requires bowel preparation, time off from work, and a hospital or clinic procedure, the fecal immunochemical test (FIT), for which a patient provides stool samples that are examined for the presence of blood, is much less stressful: it is noninvasive, and the patients collect the samples themselves in their own home. Studies show that, in diverse environments, patients prefer FIT over colonoscopy.

In a controlled trial that involved more than 55,000 patients who were randomly assigned to undergo either FIT or colonoscopy, the participation rate in the first cycle was greater for FIT than for colonoscopy (34.2% vs. 24.6%). This partially offset the lower single-application sensitivity for CRC of FIT, the researchers said.

Results from a study with a cluster randomized design showed that offering up-front stool testing as an option in addition to colonoscopy increased screening uptake. Of patients offered fecal occult blood testing or colonoscopy, 69% completed the noninvasive screening, compared with 38% of those offered colonoscopy alone. Notably, non-White participants were more adherent to stool testing.

The success of the AGA’s new initiative hinges largely upon the development of affordable, highly accurate, easy-to-use, noninvasive tests. In this regard, the organization has challenged scientists and industry partners with an aspirational target that is “far superior to current methodologies in terms of sensitivity and specificity,” said Dr. Melson, who is associate professor at Rush Medical College, Chicago, and a member of the AGA Center for GI Innovation and Technology.

The AGA wants new CRC screening tests that are capable of detecting advanced adenomas and advanced serrated lesions with a one-time sensitivity and specificity of 90% or higher, which is comparable with colonoscopy.

The FIT test has a sensitivity of less than 50% for detecting an advanced polyp of 10 mm or larger, said Dr. Melson.

The multitarget stool DNA (MT-sDNA) test may offer some improvement.

In a 2014 pivotal trial that compared FIT with the MT-sDNA in patients at average risk, the MT-sDNA test had higher sensitivity for detecting nonadvanced CRC lesions than FIT (92% vs. 74%) but less specificity (87% vs. 95%). The rate of detection of polyps with high-grade dysplasia was 69.2% with DNA testing and 46.2% with FIT.

However, the MT-sDNA test costs more than $500, compared with $25 for the FIT test, Dr. Melson pointed out.

To help identify the most appropriate screening for individual patients, better understanding and more thorough identification of risk factors are needed. “Risk assessment is definitely not where it could be,” Dr. Melson said.

The accuracy of risk assessment can be improved by sharing information from electronic health records on past colonoscopy polyp data, the presence of molecular markers, and family history, the AGA said. “With clearer risk assessment, shared decision-making on the most appropriate test becomes more clear and screening rates would benefit from patient buy-in and from easier access.”

The AGA recommended that research focus on the cost-effectiveness of screening younger patients, because the proportion of CRC cases in adults aged younger than 50 years has doubled since 1990.

This has raised the question as to whether the age for initial CRC screening should be lowered to 45 years (it already has been by the American Cancer Society), but there is much debate over this move.

Dr. Melson has received consulting fees from Clinical Genomics and research support from Boston Scientific Corporation and holds stocks in Virgo Imaging. A number of AGA white paper coauthors have disclosed relevant financial relationships.

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

A radical change in screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) is being proposed in the United States, where the default screening modality to date has been colonoscopy.

Instead, the American Gastroenterological Association is proposing new approaches that combine better risk assessment, more use of noninvasive testing (such as fecal occult blood tests), and more targeted referrals for colonoscopy. Such changes could increase patient compliance and “save countless lives.”

“We need to improve our strategies to curb the cancer that ranks second for deaths in the U.S.,” commented Srinadh Komanduri, MD, chair of the AGA Center for GI Innovation and Technology, in a statement.

“Approximately 67% of eligible Americans are screened for colorectal cancer,” he said, which means that a third (33%) are not.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the proportion of individuals not being screened has increased. One report of medical claims data showed that colonoscopies dropped by 90% during April.

The proposed changes are outlined in an AGA white paper: “Roadmap for the Future of Colorectal Cancer Screening in the United States.”

The report, written following consultation with 60 gastroenterology and research experts, was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

It proposed that alternative testing modalities to colonoscopy will need to be integrated into organized screening programs.

Rather than offering colonoscopy as the default screening method for all patients at risk, the AGA advised that it be offered initially only to patients at high risk, which would increase access for those who need it most. For patients at lower risk, noninvasive screening methods, such as fecal occult blood testing, could be offered initially and then integrated with colonoscopy.

“If we offered tests that were convenient, accurate, and of lower cost, and we could help people choose the best option based on their individual cancer risks, we would save more lives,” Joshua E. Melson, MD, MPH, lead author of the AGA white paper and professor at Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, said in an interview.

Screening can reduce CRC mortality by more than 50%, he added.

“Screening should be thought of as a process over time, not a single test isolated in time,” Dr. Melson commented. A clinical practice that has historically used only colonoscopy will need an organized, structured program to incorporate noninvasive testing, he said.

To date, efforts to increase CRC screening uptake have met with limited success, the AGA says. In 2014, the National Colorectal Cancer Round Table set the bar high with a 2018 screening goal of 80% for adults 50 years of age and older. As of 2020, some states had almost reached this goal, but most had not.

“In the opportunistic screening environment in the U.S., where colonoscopy is the most prevalent method, CRC screening has not reached aspirational goals in terms of uptake, reduction in CRC incidence, and disease burden,” the AGA said. “It is questionable if 80% uptake is achievable in a primarily opportunistic screening environment.”

In the proposed revamping of the current CRC screening infrastructure, patients whose physicians recommend CRC screening would no longer be left to their own devices to follow up. Clinicians would initiate CRC screening and oversee follow-up testing at defined intervals and would employ ongoing surveillance.

Ensuring that appropriate screening is readily available to at-risk individuals with no social, racial, or economic disparities is crucial, the AGA says. Racial disparities in access to screening disproportionately burden Blacks and Latin Americans as well as people living in rural areas. Screening differences account for 42% of the disparity in CRC incidence between Black and White Americans and 19% of the disparity in CRC mortality.

Compared with colonoscopy, which requires bowel preparation, time off from work, and a hospital or clinic procedure, the fecal immunochemical test (FIT), for which a patient provides stool samples that are examined for the presence of blood, is much less stressful: it is noninvasive, and the patients collect the samples themselves in their own home. Studies show that, in diverse environments, patients prefer FIT over colonoscopy.

In a controlled trial that involved more than 55,000 patients who were randomly assigned to undergo either FIT or colonoscopy, the participation rate in the first cycle was greater for FIT than for colonoscopy (34.2% vs. 24.6%). This partially offset the lower single-application sensitivity for CRC of FIT, the researchers said.

Results from a study with a cluster randomized design showed that offering up-front stool testing as an option in addition to colonoscopy increased screening uptake. Of patients offered fecal occult blood testing or colonoscopy, 69% completed the noninvasive screening, compared with 38% of those offered colonoscopy alone. Notably, non-White participants were more adherent to stool testing.

The success of the AGA’s new initiative hinges largely upon the development of affordable, highly accurate, easy-to-use, noninvasive tests. In this regard, the organization has challenged scientists and industry partners with an aspirational target that is “far superior to current methodologies in terms of sensitivity and specificity,” said Dr. Melson, who is associate professor at Rush Medical College, Chicago, and a member of the AGA Center for GI Innovation and Technology.

The AGA wants new CRC screening tests that are capable of detecting advanced adenomas and advanced serrated lesions with a one-time sensitivity and specificity of 90% or higher, which is comparable with colonoscopy.

The FIT test has a sensitivity of less than 50% for detecting an advanced polyp of 10 mm or larger, said Dr. Melson.

The multitarget stool DNA (MT-sDNA) test may offer some improvement.

In a 2014 pivotal trial that compared FIT with the MT-sDNA in patients at average risk, the MT-sDNA test had higher sensitivity for detecting nonadvanced CRC lesions than FIT (92% vs. 74%) but less specificity (87% vs. 95%). The rate of detection of polyps with high-grade dysplasia was 69.2% with DNA testing and 46.2% with FIT.

However, the MT-sDNA test costs more than $500, compared with $25 for the FIT test, Dr. Melson pointed out.

To help identify the most appropriate screening for individual patients, better understanding and more thorough identification of risk factors are needed. “Risk assessment is definitely not where it could be,” Dr. Melson said.

The accuracy of risk assessment can be improved by sharing information from electronic health records on past colonoscopy polyp data, the presence of molecular markers, and family history, the AGA said. “With clearer risk assessment, shared decision-making on the most appropriate test becomes more clear and screening rates would benefit from patient buy-in and from easier access.”

The AGA recommended that research focus on the cost-effectiveness of screening younger patients, because the proportion of CRC cases in adults aged younger than 50 years has doubled since 1990.

This has raised the question as to whether the age for initial CRC screening should be lowered to 45 years (it already has been by the American Cancer Society), but there is much debate over this move.

Dr. Melson has received consulting fees from Clinical Genomics and research support from Boston Scientific Corporation and holds stocks in Virgo Imaging. A number of AGA white paper coauthors have disclosed relevant financial relationships.

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

A radical change in screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) is being proposed in the United States, where the default screening modality to date has been colonoscopy.

Instead, the American Gastroenterological Association is proposing new approaches that combine better risk assessment, more use of noninvasive testing (such as fecal occult blood tests), and more targeted referrals for colonoscopy. Such changes could increase patient compliance and “save countless lives.”

“We need to improve our strategies to curb the cancer that ranks second for deaths in the U.S.,” commented Srinadh Komanduri, MD, chair of the AGA Center for GI Innovation and Technology, in a statement.

“Approximately 67% of eligible Americans are screened for colorectal cancer,” he said, which means that a third (33%) are not.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the proportion of individuals not being screened has increased. One report of medical claims data showed that colonoscopies dropped by 90% during April.

The proposed changes are outlined in an AGA white paper: “Roadmap for the Future of Colorectal Cancer Screening in the United States.”

The report, written following consultation with 60 gastroenterology and research experts, was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

It proposed that alternative testing modalities to colonoscopy will need to be integrated into organized screening programs.

Rather than offering colonoscopy as the default screening method for all patients at risk, the AGA advised that it be offered initially only to patients at high risk, which would increase access for those who need it most. For patients at lower risk, noninvasive screening methods, such as fecal occult blood testing, could be offered initially and then integrated with colonoscopy.

“If we offered tests that were convenient, accurate, and of lower cost, and we could help people choose the best option based on their individual cancer risks, we would save more lives,” Joshua E. Melson, MD, MPH, lead author of the AGA white paper and professor at Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, said in an interview.

Screening can reduce CRC mortality by more than 50%, he added.

“Screening should be thought of as a process over time, not a single test isolated in time,” Dr. Melson commented. A clinical practice that has historically used only colonoscopy will need an organized, structured program to incorporate noninvasive testing, he said.

To date, efforts to increase CRC screening uptake have met with limited success, the AGA says. In 2014, the National Colorectal Cancer Round Table set the bar high with a 2018 screening goal of 80% for adults 50 years of age and older. As of 2020, some states had almost reached this goal, but most had not.

“In the opportunistic screening environment in the U.S., where colonoscopy is the most prevalent method, CRC screening has not reached aspirational goals in terms of uptake, reduction in CRC incidence, and disease burden,” the AGA said. “It is questionable if 80% uptake is achievable in a primarily opportunistic screening environment.”

In the proposed revamping of the current CRC screening infrastructure, patients whose physicians recommend CRC screening would no longer be left to their own devices to follow up. Clinicians would initiate CRC screening and oversee follow-up testing at defined intervals and would employ ongoing surveillance.

Ensuring that appropriate screening is readily available to at-risk individuals with no social, racial, or economic disparities is crucial, the AGA says. Racial disparities in access to screening disproportionately burden Blacks and Latin Americans as well as people living in rural areas. Screening differences account for 42% of the disparity in CRC incidence between Black and White Americans and 19% of the disparity in CRC mortality.

Compared with colonoscopy, which requires bowel preparation, time off from work, and a hospital or clinic procedure, the fecal immunochemical test (FIT), for which a patient provides stool samples that are examined for the presence of blood, is much less stressful: it is noninvasive, and the patients collect the samples themselves in their own home. Studies show that, in diverse environments, patients prefer FIT over colonoscopy.

In a controlled trial that involved more than 55,000 patients who were randomly assigned to undergo either FIT or colonoscopy, the participation rate in the first cycle was greater for FIT than for colonoscopy (34.2% vs. 24.6%). This partially offset the lower single-application sensitivity for CRC of FIT, the researchers said.

Results from a study with a cluster randomized design showed that offering up-front stool testing as an option in addition to colonoscopy increased screening uptake. Of patients offered fecal occult blood testing or colonoscopy, 69% completed the noninvasive screening, compared with 38% of those offered colonoscopy alone. Notably, non-White participants were more adherent to stool testing.

The success of the AGA’s new initiative hinges largely upon the development of affordable, highly accurate, easy-to-use, noninvasive tests. In this regard, the organization has challenged scientists and industry partners with an aspirational target that is “far superior to current methodologies in terms of sensitivity and specificity,” said Dr. Melson, who is associate professor at Rush Medical College, Chicago, and a member of the AGA Center for GI Innovation and Technology.

The AGA wants new CRC screening tests that are capable of detecting advanced adenomas and advanced serrated lesions with a one-time sensitivity and specificity of 90% or higher, which is comparable with colonoscopy.

The FIT test has a sensitivity of less than 50% for detecting an advanced polyp of 10 mm or larger, said Dr. Melson.

The multitarget stool DNA (MT-sDNA) test may offer some improvement.

In a 2014 pivotal trial that compared FIT with the MT-sDNA in patients at average risk, the MT-sDNA test had higher sensitivity for detecting nonadvanced CRC lesions than FIT (92% vs. 74%) but less specificity (87% vs. 95%). The rate of detection of polyps with high-grade dysplasia was 69.2% with DNA testing and 46.2% with FIT.

However, the MT-sDNA test costs more than $500, compared with $25 for the FIT test, Dr. Melson pointed out.

To help identify the most appropriate screening for individual patients, better understanding and more thorough identification of risk factors are needed. “Risk assessment is definitely not where it could be,” Dr. Melson said.

The accuracy of risk assessment can be improved by sharing information from electronic health records on past colonoscopy polyp data, the presence of molecular markers, and family history, the AGA said. “With clearer risk assessment, shared decision-making on the most appropriate test becomes more clear and screening rates would benefit from patient buy-in and from easier access.”

The AGA recommended that research focus on the cost-effectiveness of screening younger patients, because the proportion of CRC cases in adults aged younger than 50 years has doubled since 1990.

This has raised the question as to whether the age for initial CRC screening should be lowered to 45 years (it already has been by the American Cancer Society), but there is much debate over this move.

Dr. Melson has received consulting fees from Clinical Genomics and research support from Boston Scientific Corporation and holds stocks in Virgo Imaging. A number of AGA white paper coauthors have disclosed relevant financial relationships.

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

All patients with cancer who are candidates for systemic anticancer therapy should be screened for hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection prior to or at the start of therapy, according to an updated provisional clinical opinion (PCO) from the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“This is a new approach [that] will actively take system changes ... but it will ultimately be safer for patients – and that is crucial,” commented Jessica P. Hwang, MD, MPH, cochair of the American Society of Clinical Oncology HBV Screening Expert Panel and the first author of the PCO.

Uptake of this universal screening approach would streamline testing protocols and identify more patients at risk for HBV reactivation who should receive prophylactic antiviral therapy, Dr. Hwang said in an interview.

The PCO calls for antiviral prophylaxis during and for at least 12 months after therapy for those with chronic HBV infection who are receiving any systemic anticancer treatment and for those with have had HBV in the past and are receiving any therapies that pose a risk for HBV reactivation.

“Hepatitis B reactivation can cause really terrible outcomes, like organ failure and even death,” Dr. Hwang, who is also a professor at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, commented in an interview.

“This whole [issue of] reactivation and adverse outcomes with anticancer therapies is completely preventable with good planning, good communication, comanagement with specialists, and antiviral therapy and monitoring,” she added.

The updated opinion was published online July 27 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

It was developed in response to new data that call into question the previously recommended risk-adaptive approach to HBV screening of cancer patients, say the authors.

ASCO PCOs are developed “to provide timely clinical guidance” on the basis of emerging practice-changing information. This is the second update to follow the initial HBV screening PCO, published in 2010. In the absence of clear consensus because of limited data, the original PCO called for a risk-based approach to screening. A 2015 update extended the recommendation for screening to patients starting anti-CD20 therapy or who are to undergo stem cell transplant and to those with risk factors for HBV exposure.

The current update provides “a clinically pragmatic approach to HBV screening and management” that is based on the latest findings, say the authors. These include findings from a multicenter prospective cohort study of more than 3000 patients. In that study, 21% of patients with chronic HBV had no known risk factors for the infection. In another large prospective observational cohort study, led by Dr. Hwang, which included more than 2100 patients with cancer, 90% had one or more significant risk factors for HBV infection, making selective screening “inefficient and impractical,” she said.

“The results of these two studies suggest that a universal screening approach, its potential harms (e.g., patient and clinician anxiety about management, financial burden associated with antiviral therapy) notwithstanding, is the most efficient, clinically pragmatic approach to HBV screening in persons anticipating systemic anticancer treatment,” the authors comment.

The screening recommended in the PCO requires three tests: hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg), core antibody total immunoglobulin or IgG, and antibody to HBsAg tests.

Anticancer therapy should not be delayed pending the results, they write.

Planning for monitoring and long-term prophylaxis for chronic HBV infection should involve a clinician experienced in HBV management, the authors write. Management of those with past infection should be individualized. Alternatively, patients with past infection can be carefully monitored rather than given prophylactic treatment, as long as frequent and consistent follow-up is possible to allow for rapid initiation of antiviral therapy in the event of reactivation, they say.

Hormonal therapy without systemic anticancer therapy is not likely to lead to HBV reactivation in patients with chronic or past infection; antiviral therapy and management of these patients should follow relevant national HBV guidelines, they note.

Challenges in implementing universal HBV screening

The expert panel acknowledges the challenges associated with implementation of universal HBV screening as recommended in their report and notes that electronic health record–based approaches that use alerts to prompt screening have demonstrated success. In one study of high-risk primary care patients, an EHR alert system significantly increased testing rates (odds ratio, 2.64 in comparison with a control group without alerts), and another study that used a simple “sticky-note” alert system to promote referral of HBsAg patients to hepatologists increased referrals from 28% to 73%.

In a cancer population, a “comprehensive set of multimodal interventions,” including pharmacy staff checks for screening prior to anti-CD20 therapy administration and electronic medication order reviews to assess for appropriate testing and treatment before anti-CD20 therapy, increased testing rates to greater than 90% and antiviral prophylaxis rates to more than 80%.

A study of 965 patients in Taiwan showed that a computer-assisted reminder system that prompted for testing prior to ordering anticancer therapy increased screening from 8% to 86% but was less effective for improving the rates of antiviral prophylaxis for those who tested positive for HBV, particularly among physicians treating patients with nonhematologic malignancies.

“Future studies will be needed to make universal HBV screening and linkage to care efficient and systematic, likely based in EHR systems,” the panel says. The authors note that “[o]ngoing studies of HBV tests such as ultrasensitive HBsAg, HBV RNA, and hepatitis B core antigen are being studied and may be useful in predicting risk of HBV reactivation.”

The panel also identified a research gap related to HBV reactivation risks “for the growing list of agents that deplete or modulate B cells.” It notes a need for additional research on the cost-effectiveness of HBV screening. The results of prior cost analyses have been inconsistent and vary with respect to the population studied. For example, universal screening and antiviral prophylaxis approaches have been shown to be cost-effective for patients with hematologic malignancies and high HBV reactivation risk but are less so for patients with solid tumors and lower reactivation risk, they explain.

Dr. Hwang said that not one of the more than 2100 patients in her HBV screening cohort study encountered problems with receiving insurance payment for their HBV screening.

“That’s a really strong statement that insurance payers are accepting of this kind of preventative service,” she said.

Expert panel cochair Andrew Artz, MD, commented that there is now greater acceptance of the need for HBV screening across medical specialties.

“There’s growing consensus among hepatologists, infectious disease specialists, oncologists, and HBV specialists that we need to do a better job of finding patients with hepatitis B [who are] about to receive immunocompromising treatment,” Dr. Artz said in an interview.

Dr. Artz is director of the Program for Aging and Blood Cancers and deputy director of the Center for Cancer and Aging at City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, California.

He suggested that the growing acceptance is due in part to the increasing number of anticancer therapies available and the resulting increase in the likelihood of patients receiving therapies that could cause reactivation.

More therapies – and more lines of therapy – could mean greater risk, he explained. He said that testing is easy and that universal screening is the simplest approach to determining who needs it. “There’s no question we will have to change practice,” Dr. Artz said in an interview. “But this is easier than the previous approach that essentially wasn’t being followed because it was too difficult to follow and patients were being missed.”

Most clinicians will appreciate having an approach that’s easier to follow, Dr. Artz predicted.

If there’s a challenge it will be in developing partnerships with HBV specialists, particularly in rural areas. In areas where there is a paucity of subspecialists, oncologists will have to “take some ownership of the issue,” as they often do in such settings, he said.

However, with support from pharmacists, administrators, and others in embracing this guidance, implementation can take place at a systems level rather than an individual clinician level, he added.

The recommendations in this updated PCO were all rated as “strong,” with the exception of the recommendation on hormonal therapy in the absence of systemic anticancer therapy, which was rated as “moderate.” All were based on “informal consensus,” with the exception of the key recommendation for universal HBV screening – use of three specific tests – which was “evidence based.”

The expert panel agreed that the benefits outweigh the harms for each recommendation in the update.

Dr. Hwang received research funding to her institution from Gilead Sciences and Merck Sharp & Dohme. She also has a relationship with the Asian Health Foundation. Dr. Artz received research funding from Miltenyi Biotec. All expert panel members’ disclosures are available in the PCO update.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

All patients with cancer who are candidates for systemic anticancer therapy should be screened for hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection prior to or at the start of therapy, according to an updated provisional clinical opinion (PCO) from the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“This is a new approach [that] will actively take system changes ... but it will ultimately be safer for patients – and that is crucial,” commented Jessica P. Hwang, MD, MPH, cochair of the American Society of Clinical Oncology HBV Screening Expert Panel and the first author of the PCO.

Uptake of this universal screening approach would streamline testing protocols and identify more patients at risk for HBV reactivation who should receive prophylactic antiviral therapy, Dr. Hwang said in an interview.

The PCO calls for antiviral prophylaxis during and for at least 12 months after therapy for those with chronic HBV infection who are receiving any systemic anticancer treatment and for those with have had HBV in the past and are receiving any therapies that pose a risk for HBV reactivation.

“Hepatitis B reactivation can cause really terrible outcomes, like organ failure and even death,” Dr. Hwang, who is also a professor at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, commented in an interview.

“This whole [issue of] reactivation and adverse outcomes with anticancer therapies is completely preventable with good planning, good communication, comanagement with specialists, and antiviral therapy and monitoring,” she added.

The updated opinion was published online July 27 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

It was developed in response to new data that call into question the previously recommended risk-adaptive approach to HBV screening of cancer patients, say the authors.

ASCO PCOs are developed “to provide timely clinical guidance” on the basis of emerging practice-changing information. This is the second update to follow the initial HBV screening PCO, published in 2010. In the absence of clear consensus because of limited data, the original PCO called for a risk-based approach to screening. A 2015 update extended the recommendation for screening to patients starting anti-CD20 therapy or who are to undergo stem cell transplant and to those with risk factors for HBV exposure.

The current update provides “a clinically pragmatic approach to HBV screening and management” that is based on the latest findings, say the authors. These include findings from a multicenter prospective cohort study of more than 3000 patients. In that study, 21% of patients with chronic HBV had no known risk factors for the infection. In another large prospective observational cohort study, led by Dr. Hwang, which included more than 2100 patients with cancer, 90% had one or more significant risk factors for HBV infection, making selective screening “inefficient and impractical,” she said.

“The results of these two studies suggest that a universal screening approach, its potential harms (e.g., patient and clinician anxiety about management, financial burden associated with antiviral therapy) notwithstanding, is the most efficient, clinically pragmatic approach to HBV screening in persons anticipating systemic anticancer treatment,” the authors comment.

The screening recommended in the PCO requires three tests: hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg), core antibody total immunoglobulin or IgG, and antibody to HBsAg tests.

Anticancer therapy should not be delayed pending the results, they write.

Planning for monitoring and long-term prophylaxis for chronic HBV infection should involve a clinician experienced in HBV management, the authors write. Management of those with past infection should be individualized. Alternatively, patients with past infection can be carefully monitored rather than given prophylactic treatment, as long as frequent and consistent follow-up is possible to allow for rapid initiation of antiviral therapy in the event of reactivation, they say.

Hormonal therapy without systemic anticancer therapy is not likely to lead to HBV reactivation in patients with chronic or past infection; antiviral therapy and management of these patients should follow relevant national HBV guidelines, they note.

Challenges in implementing universal HBV screening

The expert panel acknowledges the challenges associated with implementation of universal HBV screening as recommended in their report and notes that electronic health record–based approaches that use alerts to prompt screening have demonstrated success. In one study of high-risk primary care patients, an EHR alert system significantly increased testing rates (odds ratio, 2.64 in comparison with a control group without alerts), and another study that used a simple “sticky-note” alert system to promote referral of HBsAg patients to hepatologists increased referrals from 28% to 73%.

In a cancer population, a “comprehensive set of multimodal interventions,” including pharmacy staff checks for screening prior to anti-CD20 therapy administration and electronic medication order reviews to assess for appropriate testing and treatment before anti-CD20 therapy, increased testing rates to greater than 90% and antiviral prophylaxis rates to more than 80%.

A study of 965 patients in Taiwan showed that a computer-assisted reminder system that prompted for testing prior to ordering anticancer therapy increased screening from 8% to 86% but was less effective for improving the rates of antiviral prophylaxis for those who tested positive for HBV, particularly among physicians treating patients with nonhematologic malignancies.

“Future studies will be needed to make universal HBV screening and linkage to care efficient and systematic, likely based in EHR systems,” the panel says. The authors note that “[o]ngoing studies of HBV tests such as ultrasensitive HBsAg, HBV RNA, and hepatitis B core antigen are being studied and may be useful in predicting risk of HBV reactivation.”

The panel also identified a research gap related to HBV reactivation risks “for the growing list of agents that deplete or modulate B cells.” It notes a need for additional research on the cost-effectiveness of HBV screening. The results of prior cost analyses have been inconsistent and vary with respect to the population studied. For example, universal screening and antiviral prophylaxis approaches have been shown to be cost-effective for patients with hematologic malignancies and high HBV reactivation risk but are less so for patients with solid tumors and lower reactivation risk, they explain.

Dr. Hwang said that not one of the more than 2100 patients in her HBV screening cohort study encountered problems with receiving insurance payment for their HBV screening.

“That’s a really strong statement that insurance payers are accepting of this kind of preventative service,” she said.

Expert panel cochair Andrew Artz, MD, commented that there is now greater acceptance of the need for HBV screening across medical specialties.

“There’s growing consensus among hepatologists, infectious disease specialists, oncologists, and HBV specialists that we need to do a better job of finding patients with hepatitis B [who are] about to receive immunocompromising treatment,” Dr. Artz said in an interview.

Dr. Artz is director of the Program for Aging and Blood Cancers and deputy director of the Center for Cancer and Aging at City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, California.

He suggested that the growing acceptance is due in part to the increasing number of anticancer therapies available and the resulting increase in the likelihood of patients receiving therapies that could cause reactivation.

More therapies – and more lines of therapy – could mean greater risk, he explained. He said that testing is easy and that universal screening is the simplest approach to determining who needs it. “There’s no question we will have to change practice,” Dr. Artz said in an interview. “But this is easier than the previous approach that essentially wasn’t being followed because it was too difficult to follow and patients were being missed.”

Most clinicians will appreciate having an approach that’s easier to follow, Dr. Artz predicted.

If there’s a challenge it will be in developing partnerships with HBV specialists, particularly in rural areas. In areas where there is a paucity of subspecialists, oncologists will have to “take some ownership of the issue,” as they often do in such settings, he said.

However, with support from pharmacists, administrators, and others in embracing this guidance, implementation can take place at a systems level rather than an individual clinician level, he added.

The recommendations in this updated PCO were all rated as “strong,” with the exception of the recommendation on hormonal therapy in the absence of systemic anticancer therapy, which was rated as “moderate.” All were based on “informal consensus,” with the exception of the key recommendation for universal HBV screening – use of three specific tests – which was “evidence based.”

The expert panel agreed that the benefits outweigh the harms for each recommendation in the update.

Dr. Hwang received research funding to her institution from Gilead Sciences and Merck Sharp & Dohme. She also has a relationship with the Asian Health Foundation. Dr. Artz received research funding from Miltenyi Biotec. All expert panel members’ disclosures are available in the PCO update.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

All patients with cancer who are candidates for systemic anticancer therapy should be screened for hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection prior to or at the start of therapy, according to an updated provisional clinical opinion (PCO) from the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

“This is a new approach [that] will actively take system changes ... but it will ultimately be safer for patients – and that is crucial,” commented Jessica P. Hwang, MD, MPH, cochair of the American Society of Clinical Oncology HBV Screening Expert Panel and the first author of the PCO.

Uptake of this universal screening approach would streamline testing protocols and identify more patients at risk for HBV reactivation who should receive prophylactic antiviral therapy, Dr. Hwang said in an interview.

The PCO calls for antiviral prophylaxis during and for at least 12 months after therapy for those with chronic HBV infection who are receiving any systemic anticancer treatment and for those with have had HBV in the past and are receiving any therapies that pose a risk for HBV reactivation.

“Hepatitis B reactivation can cause really terrible outcomes, like organ failure and even death,” Dr. Hwang, who is also a professor at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, commented in an interview.

“This whole [issue of] reactivation and adverse outcomes with anticancer therapies is completely preventable with good planning, good communication, comanagement with specialists, and antiviral therapy and monitoring,” she added.

The updated opinion was published online July 27 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

It was developed in response to new data that call into question the previously recommended risk-adaptive approach to HBV screening of cancer patients, say the authors.

ASCO PCOs are developed “to provide timely clinical guidance” on the basis of emerging practice-changing information. This is the second update to follow the initial HBV screening PCO, published in 2010. In the absence of clear consensus because of limited data, the original PCO called for a risk-based approach to screening. A 2015 update extended the recommendation for screening to patients starting anti-CD20 therapy or who are to undergo stem cell transplant and to those with risk factors for HBV exposure.

The current update provides “a clinically pragmatic approach to HBV screening and management” that is based on the latest findings, say the authors. These include findings from a multicenter prospective cohort study of more than 3000 patients. In that study, 21% of patients with chronic HBV had no known risk factors for the infection. In another large prospective observational cohort study, led by Dr. Hwang, which included more than 2100 patients with cancer, 90% had one or more significant risk factors for HBV infection, making selective screening “inefficient and impractical,” she said.

“The results of these two studies suggest that a universal screening approach, its potential harms (e.g., patient and clinician anxiety about management, financial burden associated with antiviral therapy) notwithstanding, is the most efficient, clinically pragmatic approach to HBV screening in persons anticipating systemic anticancer treatment,” the authors comment.

The screening recommended in the PCO requires three tests: hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg), core antibody total immunoglobulin or IgG, and antibody to HBsAg tests.

Anticancer therapy should not be delayed pending the results, they write.

Planning for monitoring and long-term prophylaxis for chronic HBV infection should involve a clinician experienced in HBV management, the authors write. Management of those with past infection should be individualized. Alternatively, patients with past infection can be carefully monitored rather than given prophylactic treatment, as long as frequent and consistent follow-up is possible to allow for rapid initiation of antiviral therapy in the event of reactivation, they say.

Hormonal therapy without systemic anticancer therapy is not likely to lead to HBV reactivation in patients with chronic or past infection; antiviral therapy and management of these patients should follow relevant national HBV guidelines, they note.

Challenges in implementing universal HBV screening

The expert panel acknowledges the challenges associated with implementation of universal HBV screening as recommended in their report and notes that electronic health record–based approaches that use alerts to prompt screening have demonstrated success. In one study of high-risk primary care patients, an EHR alert system significantly increased testing rates (odds ratio, 2.64 in comparison with a control group without alerts), and another study that used a simple “sticky-note” alert system to promote referral of HBsAg patients to hepatologists increased referrals from 28% to 73%.

In a cancer population, a “comprehensive set of multimodal interventions,” including pharmacy staff checks for screening prior to anti-CD20 therapy administration and electronic medication order reviews to assess for appropriate testing and treatment before anti-CD20 therapy, increased testing rates to greater than 90% and antiviral prophylaxis rates to more than 80%.

A study of 965 patients in Taiwan showed that a computer-assisted reminder system that prompted for testing prior to ordering anticancer therapy increased screening from 8% to 86% but was less effective for improving the rates of antiviral prophylaxis for those who tested positive for HBV, particularly among physicians treating patients with nonhematologic malignancies.

“Future studies will be needed to make universal HBV screening and linkage to care efficient and systematic, likely based in EHR systems,” the panel says. The authors note that “[o]ngoing studies of HBV tests such as ultrasensitive HBsAg, HBV RNA, and hepatitis B core antigen are being studied and may be useful in predicting risk of HBV reactivation.”

The panel also identified a research gap related to HBV reactivation risks “for the growing list of agents that deplete or modulate B cells.” It notes a need for additional research on the cost-effectiveness of HBV screening. The results of prior cost analyses have been inconsistent and vary with respect to the population studied. For example, universal screening and antiviral prophylaxis approaches have been shown to be cost-effective for patients with hematologic malignancies and high HBV reactivation risk but are less so for patients with solid tumors and lower reactivation risk, they explain.

Dr. Hwang said that not one of the more than 2100 patients in her HBV screening cohort study encountered problems with receiving insurance payment for their HBV screening.

“That’s a really strong statement that insurance payers are accepting of this kind of preventative service,” she said.

Expert panel cochair Andrew Artz, MD, commented that there is now greater acceptance of the need for HBV screening across medical specialties.

“There’s growing consensus among hepatologists, infectious disease specialists, oncologists, and HBV specialists that we need to do a better job of finding patients with hepatitis B [who are] about to receive immunocompromising treatment,” Dr. Artz said in an interview.

Dr. Artz is director of the Program for Aging and Blood Cancers and deputy director of the Center for Cancer and Aging at City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, California.

He suggested that the growing acceptance is due in part to the increasing number of anticancer therapies available and the resulting increase in the likelihood of patients receiving therapies that could cause reactivation.

More therapies – and more lines of therapy – could mean greater risk, he explained. He said that testing is easy and that universal screening is the simplest approach to determining who needs it. “There’s no question we will have to change practice,” Dr. Artz said in an interview. “But this is easier than the previous approach that essentially wasn’t being followed because it was too difficult to follow and patients were being missed.”

Most clinicians will appreciate having an approach that’s easier to follow, Dr. Artz predicted.

If there’s a challenge it will be in developing partnerships with HBV specialists, particularly in rural areas. In areas where there is a paucity of subspecialists, oncologists will have to “take some ownership of the issue,” as they often do in such settings, he said.

However, with support from pharmacists, administrators, and others in embracing this guidance, implementation can take place at a systems level rather than an individual clinician level, he added.

The recommendations in this updated PCO were all rated as “strong,” with the exception of the recommendation on hormonal therapy in the absence of systemic anticancer therapy, which was rated as “moderate.” All were based on “informal consensus,” with the exception of the key recommendation for universal HBV screening – use of three specific tests – which was “evidence based.”

The expert panel agreed that the benefits outweigh the harms for each recommendation in the update.

Dr. Hwang received research funding to her institution from Gilead Sciences and Merck Sharp & Dohme. She also has a relationship with the Asian Health Foundation. Dr. Artz received research funding from Miltenyi Biotec. All expert panel members’ disclosures are available in the PCO update.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Evidence for a link between cannabis use and cardiovascular health remains unsupported, and the potential risks outweigh any potential benefits, according to a scientific statement from the American Heart Association.

American Heart Association

The increased legalization of cannabis and cannabis products in the United States has driven medical professionals to evaluate the safety and efficacy of cannabis in relation to health conditions, wrote Robert L. Page II, PharmD, of the University of Colorado, Aurora, and colleagues.

In a statement published in Circulation, the researchers noted that although cannabis has been shown to relieve pain and other symptoms in certain conditions, clinicians in the United States have been limited from studying its health effects because of federal law restrictions. “Cannabis remains a schedule I controlled substance, deeming no accepted medical use, a high potential for abuse, and an unacceptable safety profile,” the researchers wrote.

The statement addresses issues with the use of cannabis by individuals with cardiovascular disease or those at increased risk. Observational studies have shown no cardiovascular benefits associated with cannabis, the writers noted. The most common chemicals in cannabis include THC (tetrahydrocannabinolic acid) and CBD (cannabidiol).

Some research has shown associations between CBD cardiovascular features including lower blood pressure and reduced inflammation, the writers noted. However, THC, the component of cannabis associated with a “high” or intoxication, has been associated with heart rhythm abnormalities. The writers cited data suggesting an increased risk of heart attacks, atrial fibrillation and heart failure, although more research is needed.

The statement outlines common cannabis formulations including plant-based, extracts, crystalline forms, edible products, and tinctures. In addition, the statement notes that synthetic cannabis products are marketed and used in the United States without subject to regulation.

“Over the past 5 years, we have seen a surge in cannabis use, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic here in Colorado, especially among adolescents and young adults,” Dr. Page said in an interview. Because of the surge, health care practitioners need to familiarize themselves with not only the benefits, but risks associated with cannabis use regardless of the formulation,” he said. As heart disease remains a leading cause of death in the United States, understanding the cardiovascular risks associated with cannabis is crucial at this time.

Dr. Page noted that popular attitudes about cannabis could pose risks to users’ cardiovascular health. “One leading misconception about cannabis is because it is ‘natural’ it must be safe,” Dr. Page said. “As with all medications, cannabis has side effects, some of which can be cardiovascular in nature,” he said. “Significant drug-drug interactions can occur as CBD and THC, both found in cannabis, inhibit CYP3A4, which metabolizes a large number of medications used to treat many cardiovascular conditions,” he noted.

“Unfortunately, much of the published data is observational in nature due to the federal restrictions on cannabis as a schedule I drug,” said Dr. Page. “Nonetheless, safety signals have emerged regarding cannabis use and adverse cardiovascular outcomes, including myocardial infarction, heart failure, and atrial fibrillation. Carefully designed prospective short- and long-term studies regarding cannabis use and cardiovascular safety are needed,” he emphasized.

Areas in particular need of additional research include the cardiovascular effects of cannabis in several vulnerable populations such as adolescents, older adults, pregnant women, transplant recipients, and those with underlying cardiovascular disease, said Dr. Page.

“Nonetheless, based on the safety signals described within this Clinical Science Statement, an open discussion regarding the risks of using cannabis needs to occur between patient and health care providers,” he said. “Furthermore, patients must be transparent regarding their cannabis use with their cardiologist and primary care provider. The cannabis story will continue to evolve and is a rapidly moving/changing target,” he said.

“Whether cannabis use is a definitive risk factor for cardiovascular disease as with tobacco use is still unknown, and both acute and long-term studies are desperately needed to address this issue,” he said.

Dr. Page had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Page et al. Circulation. 2020 Aug 5. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000883.

Evidence for a link between cannabis use and cardiovascular health remains unsupported, and the potential risks outweigh any potential benefits, according to a scientific statement from the American Heart Association.

American Heart Association

The increased legalization of cannabis and cannabis products in the United States has driven medical professionals to evaluate the safety and efficacy of cannabis in relation to health conditions, wrote Robert L. Page II, PharmD, of the University of Colorado, Aurora, and colleagues.

In a statement published in Circulation, the researchers noted that although cannabis has been shown to relieve pain and other symptoms in certain conditions, clinicians in the United States have been limited from studying its health effects because of federal law restrictions. “Cannabis remains a schedule I controlled substance, deeming no accepted medical use, a high potential for abuse, and an unacceptable safety profile,” the researchers wrote.

The statement addresses issues with the use of cannabis by individuals with cardiovascular disease or those at increased risk. Observational studies have shown no cardiovascular benefits associated with cannabis, the writers noted. The most common chemicals in cannabis include THC (tetrahydrocannabinolic acid) and CBD (cannabidiol).

Some research has shown associations between CBD cardiovascular features including lower blood pressure and reduced inflammation, the writers noted. However, THC, the component of cannabis associated with a “high” or intoxication, has been associated with heart rhythm abnormalities. The writers cited data suggesting an increased risk of heart attacks, atrial fibrillation and heart failure, although more research is needed.

The statement outlines common cannabis formulations including plant-based, extracts, crystalline forms, edible products, and tinctures. In addition, the statement notes that synthetic cannabis products are marketed and used in the United States without subject to regulation.

“Over the past 5 years, we have seen a surge in cannabis use, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic here in Colorado, especially among adolescents and young adults,” Dr. Page said in an interview. Because of the surge, health care practitioners need to familiarize themselves with not only the benefits, but risks associated with cannabis use regardless of the formulation,” he said. As heart disease remains a leading cause of death in the United States, understanding the cardiovascular risks associated with cannabis is crucial at this time.

Dr. Page noted that popular attitudes about cannabis could pose risks to users’ cardiovascular health. “One leading misconception about cannabis is because it is ‘natural’ it must be safe,” Dr. Page said. “As with all medications, cannabis has side effects, some of which can be cardiovascular in nature,” he said. “Significant drug-drug interactions can occur as CBD and THC, both found in cannabis, inhibit CYP3A4, which metabolizes a large number of medications used to treat many cardiovascular conditions,” he noted.

“Unfortunately, much of the published data is observational in nature due to the federal restrictions on cannabis as a schedule I drug,” said Dr. Page. “Nonetheless, safety signals have emerged regarding cannabis use and adverse cardiovascular outcomes, including myocardial infarction, heart failure, and atrial fibrillation. Carefully designed prospective short- and long-term studies regarding cannabis use and cardiovascular safety are needed,” he emphasized.

Areas in particular need of additional research include the cardiovascular effects of cannabis in several vulnerable populations such as adolescents, older adults, pregnant women, transplant recipients, and those with underlying cardiovascular disease, said Dr. Page.

“Nonetheless, based on the safety signals described within this Clinical Science Statement, an open discussion regarding the risks of using cannabis needs to occur between patient and health care providers,” he said. “Furthermore, patients must be transparent regarding their cannabis use with their cardiologist and primary care provider. The cannabis story will continue to evolve and is a rapidly moving/changing target,” he said.

“Whether cannabis use is a definitive risk factor for cardiovascular disease as with tobacco use is still unknown, and both acute and long-term studies are desperately needed to address this issue,” he said.

Dr. Page had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Page et al. Circulation. 2020 Aug 5. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000883.

Evidence for a link between cannabis use and cardiovascular health remains unsupported, and the potential risks outweigh any potential benefits, according to a scientific statement from the American Heart Association.

American Heart Association

The increased legalization of cannabis and cannabis products in the United States has driven medical professionals to evaluate the safety and efficacy of cannabis in relation to health conditions, wrote Robert L. Page II, PharmD, of the University of Colorado, Aurora, and colleagues.

In a statement published in Circulation, the researchers noted that although cannabis has been shown to relieve pain and other symptoms in certain conditions, clinicians in the United States have been limited from studying its health effects because of federal law restrictions. “Cannabis remains a schedule I controlled substance, deeming no accepted medical use, a high potential for abuse, and an unacceptable safety profile,” the researchers wrote.

The statement addresses issues with the use of cannabis by individuals with cardiovascular disease or those at increased risk. Observational studies have shown no cardiovascular benefits associated with cannabis, the writers noted. The most common chemicals in cannabis include THC (tetrahydrocannabinolic acid) and CBD (cannabidiol).

Some research has shown associations between CBD cardiovascular features including lower blood pressure and reduced inflammation, the writers noted. However, THC, the component of cannabis associated with a “high” or intoxication, has been associated with heart rhythm abnormalities. The writers cited data suggesting an increased risk of heart attacks, atrial fibrillation and heart failure, although more research is needed.

The statement outlines common cannabis formulations including plant-based, extracts, crystalline forms, edible products, and tinctures. In addition, the statement notes that synthetic cannabis products are marketed and used in the United States without subject to regulation.

“Over the past 5 years, we have seen a surge in cannabis use, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic here in Colorado, especially among adolescents and young adults,” Dr. Page said in an interview. Because of the surge, health care practitioners need to familiarize themselves with not only the benefits, but risks associated with cannabis use regardless of the formulation,” he said. As heart disease remains a leading cause of death in the United States, understanding the cardiovascular risks associated with cannabis is crucial at this time.

Dr. Page noted that popular attitudes about cannabis could pose risks to users’ cardiovascular health. “One leading misconception about cannabis is because it is ‘natural’ it must be safe,” Dr. Page said. “As with all medications, cannabis has side effects, some of which can be cardiovascular in nature,” he said. “Significant drug-drug interactions can occur as CBD and THC, both found in cannabis, inhibit CYP3A4, which metabolizes a large number of medications used to treat many cardiovascular conditions,” he noted.

“Unfortunately, much of the published data is observational in nature due to the federal restrictions on cannabis as a schedule I drug,” said Dr. Page. “Nonetheless, safety signals have emerged regarding cannabis use and adverse cardiovascular outcomes, including myocardial infarction, heart failure, and atrial fibrillation. Carefully designed prospective short- and long-term studies regarding cannabis use and cardiovascular safety are needed,” he emphasized.

Areas in particular need of additional research include the cardiovascular effects of cannabis in several vulnerable populations such as adolescents, older adults, pregnant women, transplant recipients, and those with underlying cardiovascular disease, said Dr. Page.

“Nonetheless, based on the safety signals described within this Clinical Science Statement, an open discussion regarding the risks of using cannabis needs to occur between patient and health care providers,” he said. “Furthermore, patients must be transparent regarding their cannabis use with their cardiologist and primary care provider. The cannabis story will continue to evolve and is a rapidly moving/changing target,” he said.

“Whether cannabis use is a definitive risk factor for cardiovascular disease as with tobacco use is still unknown, and both acute and long-term studies are desperately needed to address this issue,” he said.

Dr. Page had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Page et al. Circulation. 2020 Aug 5. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000883.

Because heart failure patients with recovered ejection fraction are a complex and diverse group, little consensus has emerged on how to define, diagnose, and manage this growing population.

To provide some clarity for identifying and treating these patients, a Journal of the American College of Cardiology scientific expert panel has issued a consensus document. Published Aug. 3 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, it provides a working definition of heart failure with recovered ejection fraction (HFrecEF) and recommends approaches for treatment and follow-up.
 

Defining a new class of HF

“Part of the impetus of this was to bring attention to what we think is a new class of heart failure, and it requires different treatment modalities and different ways of thinking about it,” expert panel member Douglas L. Mann, MD, cardiologist-in-chief at Barnes Jewish Hospital in St. Louis, said in an interview. “It’s a newly discovered HF biology about which we know very little and it’s very confusing to just go on the ejection fraction alone.”

The panel, led by Jane E. Wilcox, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, recommends three components for a working definition of HFrecEF: 1) documentation of a decreased left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) of less than 40% at baseline; 2) a 10% or greater absolute improvement in LVEF; and 3) a second measurement of LVEF >40%.

“We try to give it a nomenclature that clearly indicates what it is,” Dr. Mann said. “There has been a lot of confusing terminology.” Among the terms the panel calls out in the lexicon of modestly recovered EF, in addition to HFrecEF, are HF improved EF, HF with preserved EF (HFpEF), borderline HFpEF and HF with mid-range EF (HFmrEF).

The panel also recommends that guideline-based medical and device therapies for HFrecEF should continue indefinitely until there’s a better understanding of the biology and clinical epidemiology of HFrecEF, and that these patients should have close clinical follow-up because of the high risk of HF relapse.

Determining EF’s ‘trajectory’

The findings presented in the statement should help cardiologists distinguish HFrecEF from HFpEF, Dr. Mann noted. “Because EF is moving, we also have to emphasize the importance of following the trajectory of EF,” he said. “It’s not enough to know where the EF is; you have to know where it came from – if it had been from a higher number or a lower number – because that will help inform you about the patient’s disease.”

In that regard, the panel states that the level of change in LVEF – the “trajectory” – will provide clues to the nature and extent of myocardial injury, degree and duration of LV remodeling, and the type of therapy that’s indicated. Clinicians should consider HFmrEF, a description the European Society of Cardiology has endorsed, as an entity different from HFrecEF without data on LVEF trajectory.

The statement delves into the biology of HFrecEF, defining reverse LV remodeling as the restoration of some normalization to cardiac myocyte size and LV chamber geometry that results in a leftward shift toward normalization of end-diastolic pressure volume. The panel also noted that cardiac remodeling in reverse LV remodeling and recovery of LV function is bidirectional and involves multiple molecular and cellular changes that contribute to changes in the heart’s size, shape and function, and explains the role gene expression has in HF-related LV changes.

The statement explores the recovery of LV function, noting that spontaneous recovery often occurs when the cause of the myocardial dysfunction resolves. Common causes are chronic tachycardia and thyroid disease.

That panel noted that “super responders” to cardiac resynchronization therapy can provide insight into HFrecEF. Favorable responders include women, patients with nonischemic HF, very wide ECG ventricular depolarization wavelength with left-bundle branch block morphology, and dyssynchrony on ECG.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

The panel states that, “regardless of the definition of HFrecEF,” the evidence suggests that younger patients, women, and those with nonischemic disease, shorter disease duration, and relatively few comorbidities are more likely to recover LVEF – and their outcomes are typically better than those of patients with HF reduced EF (HFrEF) and HFpEF.

Clinicians should bear in mind, however, that patients on guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) who achieve complete normalization of LV structure and function are prone to recurrent LV dysfunction and HF. The panel explored the role of potential treatment for three different etiologies of HF. Little is known about Takotsubo cardiomyopathy, considered a transient form of LV dysfunction, in terms of how many of these patients will develop HFrEF or if they’ll benefit from GDMT. Alcohol-induced cardiomyopathy patients should continue on medical therapy even if they have HFrecEF, as should patients with fulminant and nonfulminant myocarditis.
 

Managing HFrecEF

Management should include assessment of jugular vein distention and signs of volume overload – “particularly concerning in HFrecEF” – the panel noted. ECG is cost effective, and signs of left-bundle branch block are predictors of low success with GDMT alone. The panel also recommended a family history going back three generations and consideration of genetic testing to determine the risk for sudden cardiac death. Two-dimensional ECG can help predict GDMT response and cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging can provide information about myocardial substrate at the time of diagnosis of HFrEF.

The panel suggested four areas for future research: 1) improved phenotyping of HFrEF; 2) use of inception cohorts to better understand the natural history of HFrecEF; 3) clinical trials to better define those clinical care components most effective at maintaining remission; and 4) basic studies to better define the biology of HFrecEF. “The goal,” wrote Dr. Wilcox and colleagues, “is to develop new therapeutic targets that will enable patients with HFrecEF to experience a durable remission from HF.”

Dr. Wilcox reported receiving funding from the National Institutes of Health and the American Heart Association, and financial relationships with Abbott, Medtronic, and Cytokinetics. Dr. Mann has received funding from NIH and reports financial relationships with MyoKardia and Novartis. Coauthors reported funding from NIH and AHA and financial relationships with Novartis, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Thoratec Corporation (Abbott), Sanofi, Pfizer, MyoKardia and American Regent.

SOURCE: Wilcox JE et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;76:719-34.

Because heart failure patients with recovered ejection fraction are a complex and diverse group, little consensus has emerged on how to define, diagnose, and manage this growing population.

To provide some clarity for identifying and treating these patients, a Journal of the American College of Cardiology scientific expert panel has issued a consensus document. Published Aug. 3 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, it provides a working definition of heart failure with recovered ejection fraction (HFrecEF) and recommends approaches for treatment and follow-up.
 

Defining a new class of HF

“Part of the impetus of this was to bring attention to what we think is a new class of heart failure, and it requires different treatment modalities and different ways of thinking about it,” expert panel member Douglas L. Mann, MD, cardiologist-in-chief at Barnes Jewish Hospital in St. Louis, said in an interview. “It’s a newly discovered HF biology about which we know very little and it’s very confusing to just go on the ejection fraction alone.”

The panel, led by Jane E. Wilcox, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, recommends three components for a working definition of HFrecEF: 1) documentation of a decreased left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) of less than 40% at baseline; 2) a 10% or greater absolute improvement in LVEF; and 3) a second measurement of LVEF >40%.

“We try to give it a nomenclature that clearly indicates what it is,” Dr. Mann said. “There has been a lot of confusing terminology.” Among the terms the panel calls out in the lexicon of modestly recovered EF, in addition to HFrecEF, are HF improved EF, HF with preserved EF (HFpEF), borderline HFpEF and HF with mid-range EF (HFmrEF).

The panel also recommends that guideline-based medical and device therapies for HFrecEF should continue indefinitely until there’s a better understanding of the biology and clinical epidemiology of HFrecEF, and that these patients should have close clinical follow-up because of the high risk of HF relapse.

Determining EF’s ‘trajectory’

The findings presented in the statement should help cardiologists distinguish HFrecEF from HFpEF, Dr. Mann noted. “Because EF is moving, we also have to emphasize the importance of following the trajectory of EF,” he said. “It’s not enough to know where the EF is; you have to know where it came from – if it had been from a higher number or a lower number – because that will help inform you about the patient’s disease.”

In that regard, the panel states that the level of change in LVEF – the “trajectory” – will provide clues to the nature and extent of myocardial injury, degree and duration of LV remodeling, and the type of therapy that’s indicated. Clinicians should consider HFmrEF, a description the European Society of Cardiology has endorsed, as an entity different from HFrecEF without data on LVEF trajectory.

The statement delves into the biology of HFrecEF, defining reverse LV remodeling as the restoration of some normalization to cardiac myocyte size and LV chamber geometry that results in a leftward shift toward normalization of end-diastolic pressure volume. The panel also noted that cardiac remodeling in reverse LV remodeling and recovery of LV function is bidirectional and involves multiple molecular and cellular changes that contribute to changes in the heart’s size, shape and function, and explains the role gene expression has in HF-related LV changes.

The statement explores the recovery of LV function, noting that spontaneous recovery often occurs when the cause of the myocardial dysfunction resolves. Common causes are chronic tachycardia and thyroid disease.

That panel noted that “super responders” to cardiac resynchronization therapy can provide insight into HFrecEF. Favorable responders include women, patients with nonischemic HF, very wide ECG ventricular depolarization wavelength with left-bundle branch block morphology, and dyssynchrony on ECG.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

The panel states that, “regardless of the definition of HFrecEF,” the evidence suggests that younger patients, women, and those with nonischemic disease, shorter disease duration, and relatively few comorbidities are more likely to recover LVEF – and their outcomes are typically better than those of patients with HF reduced EF (HFrEF) and HFpEF.

Clinicians should bear in mind, however, that patients on guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) who achieve complete normalization of LV structure and function are prone to recurrent LV dysfunction and HF. The panel explored the role of potential treatment for three different etiologies of HF. Little is known about Takotsubo cardiomyopathy, considered a transient form of LV dysfunction, in terms of how many of these patients will develop HFrEF or if they’ll benefit from GDMT. Alcohol-induced cardiomyopathy patients should continue on medical therapy even if they have HFrecEF, as should patients with fulminant and nonfulminant myocarditis.
 

Managing HFrecEF

Management should include assessment of jugular vein distention and signs of volume overload – “particularly concerning in HFrecEF” – the panel noted. ECG is cost effective, and signs of left-bundle branch block are predictors of low success with GDMT alone. The panel also recommended a family history going back three generations and consideration of genetic testing to determine the risk for sudden cardiac death. Two-dimensional ECG can help predict GDMT response and cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging can provide information about myocardial substrate at the time of diagnosis of HFrEF.

The panel suggested four areas for future research: 1) improved phenotyping of HFrEF; 2) use of inception cohorts to better understand the natural history of HFrecEF; 3) clinical trials to better define those clinical care components most effective at maintaining remission; and 4) basic studies to better define the biology of HFrecEF. “The goal,” wrote Dr. Wilcox and colleagues, “is to develop new therapeutic targets that will enable patients with HFrecEF to experience a durable remission from HF.”

Dr. Wilcox reported receiving funding from the National Institutes of Health and the American Heart Association, and financial relationships with Abbott, Medtronic, and Cytokinetics. Dr. Mann has received funding from NIH and reports financial relationships with MyoKardia and Novartis. Coauthors reported funding from NIH and AHA and financial relationships with Novartis, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Thoratec Corporation (Abbott), Sanofi, Pfizer, MyoKardia and American Regent.

SOURCE: Wilcox JE et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;76:719-34.

Because heart failure patients with recovered ejection fraction are a complex and diverse group, little consensus has emerged on how to define, diagnose, and manage this growing population.

To provide some clarity for identifying and treating these patients, a Journal of the American College of Cardiology scientific expert panel has issued a consensus document. Published Aug. 3 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, it provides a working definition of heart failure with recovered ejection fraction (HFrecEF) and recommends approaches for treatment and follow-up.
 

Defining a new class of HF

“Part of the impetus of this was to bring attention to what we think is a new class of heart failure, and it requires different treatment modalities and different ways of thinking about it,” expert panel member Douglas L. Mann, MD, cardiologist-in-chief at Barnes Jewish Hospital in St. Louis, said in an interview. “It’s a newly discovered HF biology about which we know very little and it’s very confusing to just go on the ejection fraction alone.”

The panel, led by Jane E. Wilcox, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, recommends three components for a working definition of HFrecEF: 1) documentation of a decreased left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) of less than 40% at baseline; 2) a 10% or greater absolute improvement in LVEF; and 3) a second measurement of LVEF >40%.

“We try to give it a nomenclature that clearly indicates what it is,” Dr. Mann said. “There has been a lot of confusing terminology.” Among the terms the panel calls out in the lexicon of modestly recovered EF, in addition to HFrecEF, are HF improved EF, HF with preserved EF (HFpEF), borderline HFpEF and HF with mid-range EF (HFmrEF).

The panel also recommends that guideline-based medical and device therapies for HFrecEF should continue indefinitely until there’s a better understanding of the biology and clinical epidemiology of HFrecEF, and that these patients should have close clinical follow-up because of the high risk of HF relapse.

Determining EF’s ‘trajectory’

The findings presented in the statement should help cardiologists distinguish HFrecEF from HFpEF, Dr. Mann noted. “Because EF is moving, we also have to emphasize the importance of following the trajectory of EF,” he said. “It’s not enough to know where the EF is; you have to know where it came from – if it had been from a higher number or a lower number – because that will help inform you about the patient’s disease.”

In that regard, the panel states that the level of change in LVEF – the “trajectory” – will provide clues to the nature and extent of myocardial injury, degree and duration of LV remodeling, and the type of therapy that’s indicated. Clinicians should consider HFmrEF, a description the European Society of Cardiology has endorsed, as an entity different from HFrecEF without data on LVEF trajectory.

The statement delves into the biology of HFrecEF, defining reverse LV remodeling as the restoration of some normalization to cardiac myocyte size and LV chamber geometry that results in a leftward shift toward normalization of end-diastolic pressure volume. The panel also noted that cardiac remodeling in reverse LV remodeling and recovery of LV function is bidirectional and involves multiple molecular and cellular changes that contribute to changes in the heart’s size, shape and function, and explains the role gene expression has in HF-related LV changes.

The statement explores the recovery of LV function, noting that spontaneous recovery often occurs when the cause of the myocardial dysfunction resolves. Common causes are chronic tachycardia and thyroid disease.

That panel noted that “super responders” to cardiac resynchronization therapy can provide insight into HFrecEF. Favorable responders include women, patients with nonischemic HF, very wide ECG ventricular depolarization wavelength with left-bundle branch block morphology, and dyssynchrony on ECG.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

The panel states that, “regardless of the definition of HFrecEF,” the evidence suggests that younger patients, women, and those with nonischemic disease, shorter disease duration, and relatively few comorbidities are more likely to recover LVEF – and their outcomes are typically better than those of patients with HF reduced EF (HFrEF) and HFpEF.

Clinicians should bear in mind, however, that patients on guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) who achieve complete normalization of LV structure and function are prone to recurrent LV dysfunction and HF. The panel explored the role of potential treatment for three different etiologies of HF. Little is known about Takotsubo cardiomyopathy, considered a transient form of LV dysfunction, in terms of how many of these patients will develop HFrEF or if they’ll benefit from GDMT. Alcohol-induced cardiomyopathy patients should continue on medical therapy even if they have HFrecEF, as should patients with fulminant and nonfulminant myocarditis.
 

Managing HFrecEF

Management should include assessment of jugular vein distention and signs of volume overload – “particularly concerning in HFrecEF” – the panel noted. ECG is cost effective, and signs of left-bundle branch block are predictors of low success with GDMT alone. The panel also recommended a family history going back three generations and consideration of genetic testing to determine the risk for sudden cardiac death. Two-dimensional ECG can help predict GDMT response and cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging can provide information about myocardial substrate at the time of diagnosis of HFrEF.

The panel suggested four areas for future research: 1) improved phenotyping of HFrEF; 2) use of inception cohorts to better understand the natural history of HFrecEF; 3) clinical trials to better define those clinical care components most effective at maintaining remission; and 4) basic studies to better define the biology of HFrecEF. “The goal,” wrote Dr. Wilcox and colleagues, “is to develop new therapeutic targets that will enable patients with HFrecEF to experience a durable remission from HF.”

Dr. Wilcox reported receiving funding from the National Institutes of Health and the American Heart Association, and financial relationships with Abbott, Medtronic, and Cytokinetics. Dr. Mann has received funding from NIH and reports financial relationships with MyoKardia and Novartis. Coauthors reported funding from NIH and AHA and financial relationships with Novartis, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Thoratec Corporation (Abbott), Sanofi, Pfizer, MyoKardia and American Regent.

SOURCE: Wilcox JE et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;76:719-34.