Guidelines

The American Cancer Society (ACS) has released updated guidelines for cervical cancer screening. The key recommendation is that primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing is the preferred screening method, starting at the age of 25 and repeated every 5 years.

In the past, guidelines for cervical cancer screening recommended cytology (the Pap test) starting at 21 years of age and repeated every 3 years. In more recent years, cotesting (with both Pap and HPV tests) has been recommended.

Since the last ACS guidelines on cervical cancer screening were published in 2012, two HPV tests have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in primary HPV screening.

The new “streamlined recommendations can improve compliance and reduce potential harms,” commented Debbie Saslow, PhD, managing director, HPV/GYN Cancers, American Cancer Society.

The updated guidelines were published online July 30 in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians.

“We now have stronger evidence to support starting cervical cancer screening at a later age and to recommend screening with the HPV test as the preferred test,” Saslow told Medscape Medical News. This also reflects the phasing out of cytology and cotesting, she added.

“This update is based on decades of studies comparing the effectiveness of HPV testing to cytology and is bolstered by evidence of the impact of HPV vaccination, including a dramatic decline in cervical precancers and, more recently, cervical cancers among young women,” she said.

The American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology (ASCCP) said that it was preparing a response to these new guidelines, as is the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG).
 

Cotesting or cytology alone

The updated guidelines recommend primary HPV testing as the preferred screening method for all women with a cervix. If primary HPV testing is not available, women should be screened with cotesting, which should also be performed every 5 years.

If only cytology is available, then women should be screened every 3 years.

The ACS authors point out that cotesting or cytology testing alone is still an acceptable option for cervical cancer screening, insofar as primary HPV testing using FDA-approved tests may not be available in some settings.

As more laboratories in the United States transition to FDA-approved tests for primary HPV testing, it is expected that the use of cotesting or cytology alone will be phased out.

The new guidelines also emphasize that women may discontinue screening at the age of 65 if they have not had cervical intraepitheal neoplasia of grade 2 or higher within the past 25 years and if they have tested negative over the past 10 years on all past screens.

The authors caution that past screens should only be considered negative if the patient has had two consecutive negative HPV tests or two consecutive negative cotests or three consecutive negative cytology tests within the past 10 years.

“These criteria do not apply to individuals who are currently under surveillance for abnormal screening results,” the authors state.

Women older than 65 for whom adequate documentation of prior screening is not available should continue to be screened until criteria for screening discontinuation are met, they add.

Screening may be discontinued among women with a limited life expectancy.
 

HPV vaccination

The authors note that HPV vaccination is expected to substantially change cervical cancer screening strategies.

In 2018, the National Immunization Survey–Teen, involving adolescents aged 13 to 17 years, showed that 68.1% of female patients were up to date on HPV vaccine recommendations, as were 51.1% of male patients.

“Cytology-based screening is much less efficient in vaccinated populations, as abnormal cytology disproportionately identifies minor abnormalities resulting from HPV types that are associated with lower cancer risk,” the reports’ authors point out.

As the prevalence of high-grade cervical abnormalities and the incidence of cervical cancer continue to decline, “the proportion of false-positive findings [on cytology alone] is expected to increase significantly,” they caution.

As a result, the ACS suggests that physicians will likely have to consider a patient’s vaccination status in tandem with cervical cancer screening results to arrive at an accurate assessment.
 

Raising starting age to 25 years

Saslow also noted that there were several reasons why it is now recommended that screening begin at the age of 25 instead of the age of 21, as in earlier guidelines.

“Firstly, less than 1% of cervical cancers are diagnosed before the age of 25 – so this is about 130 cases per year,” she explained.

Thanks to HPV vaccination, this percentage is further declining, “so screening is just not beneficial at this age,” Saslow emphasized.

Furthermore, the rate of false positives is much higher in younger patients, and a false-positive result can have a negative impact on pregnancy outcomes, she added.

Saslow also dismissed an article in favor of cotesting instead of HPV testing alone. That study, carried out by researchers at Quest Diagnostics and the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, recommended cotesting, claiming that primary HPV testing is significantly less likely to detect cervical precancers or cervical cancer than cotesting.

“These data come from parties with a vested interest in preserving cytology as a screening test,” Saslow told Medscape Medical News. She noted that “these findings are not at all credible as judged by the scientific community.”

On the basis of their own modeling, ACS researchers estimate that “starting with primary HPV testing at age 25 will prevent 13% more cervical cancers and 7% more cervical cancer deaths” in comparison with cytology (Pap testing alone) beginning at the age of 21, then cotesting at the age of 30, Saslow said in a statement.

“Our model showed we could do that with a 9% increase in follow-up procedures but with 45% fewer tests required overall,” she added.

The new recommendations are not expected to create any change in the type or amount of care required by providers, and patients will not notice any difference, inasmuch as cotesting and primary HPV testing are performed the same way in the examination room, she added.

“Resistance [to the changes] is expected – and is already occurring – from laboratories and manufacturers of tests that will no longer be used once we transition from cotesting and, less commonly, Pap testing to primary HPV testing,” Saslow said.

However, providers need to be aware that HPV infection, as with any sexually transmitted disease, is associated with a certain stigma, and they need to take care in discussing potential HPV infection with their patients.
 

Good method

Medscape Medical News approached Mark Einstein, MD, president of the ASCCP and professor and chair of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive health at Rutgers Biomedical and Health Sciences, Newark, New Jersey, to comment on the new guidelines.

“First and foremost,” he said, “everything we want to do when it comes to screening is to maximize the identification of picking up a cancer and minimize the risk or potential harm of not only screening itself but of missing cancers, so any strategy that improves on the sensitivity of picking up a cancer is a good method.”

Nevertheless, inasmuch as the ASCCP is one of the foremost organizations involved in cervical cancer screening and management, its members need more time to take a closer look at the updated ACS guidelines before they, together with sister organizations, such as the ACOG, release an official statement as to whether or not they fully endorse the new guidelines.

The United States Preventive Services Task Force recently endorsed primary HPV testing (starting at age 30), but it also said that an alternative strategy is cotesting for women between 30 and 65 years of age, Einstein observed.

Asked to comment on the article from Quest Diagnostics and the University of Pittsburgh that recommended cotesting instead of primary HPV testing, Einstein said that suggestion should not be dismissed out of hand.

The ASCCP has asked the authors of that study for their data in order conduct an independent assessment of it, largely because the study was retrospective in nature. Because of that, “there may have been a few pieces of information that were missing in true real-time fashion,” he said. “Not having [both the primary HPV testing and the cytology results] in front of me might change the next thing I might recommend to the patient,” Einstein explained.

The bottom line is that, when comparing primary HPV testing alone, cytology alone, and cotesting and rates of cervical cancer at 5 years, “the biggest driver for true performance of positive predictive value is HPV,” Einstein said.

Nevertheless, cotesting does bring more information into the equation compared with primary HPV testing alone, although it also increases the potential for harm, including the harm of overtesting and conducting needless colposcopies, he added.

That said, starting primary HPV testing at the age of 25 rather than the age of 30, as was previously recommended, is very likely to lead to detection of spurious HPV infections because HPV infections are very common among women in their 20s, Einstein pointed out.

“This, too, could potentially lead to more colposcopies, which may cause harm from the procedure itself but also create a certain amount of anxiety and concern, so there is some harm in testing for HPV at an earlier age as well,” Einstein said.

Saslow and Einstein have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The American Cancer Society (ACS) has released updated guidelines for cervical cancer screening. The key recommendation is that primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing is the preferred screening method, starting at the age of 25 and repeated every 5 years.

In the past, guidelines for cervical cancer screening recommended cytology (the Pap test) starting at 21 years of age and repeated every 3 years. In more recent years, cotesting (with both Pap and HPV tests) has been recommended.

Since the last ACS guidelines on cervical cancer screening were published in 2012, two HPV tests have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in primary HPV screening.

The new “streamlined recommendations can improve compliance and reduce potential harms,” commented Debbie Saslow, PhD, managing director, HPV/GYN Cancers, American Cancer Society.

The updated guidelines were published online July 30 in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians.

“We now have stronger evidence to support starting cervical cancer screening at a later age and to recommend screening with the HPV test as the preferred test,” Saslow told Medscape Medical News. This also reflects the phasing out of cytology and cotesting, she added.

“This update is based on decades of studies comparing the effectiveness of HPV testing to cytology and is bolstered by evidence of the impact of HPV vaccination, including a dramatic decline in cervical precancers and, more recently, cervical cancers among young women,” she said.

The American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology (ASCCP) said that it was preparing a response to these new guidelines, as is the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG).
 

Cotesting or cytology alone

The updated guidelines recommend primary HPV testing as the preferred screening method for all women with a cervix. If primary HPV testing is not available, women should be screened with cotesting, which should also be performed every 5 years.

If only cytology is available, then women should be screened every 3 years.

The ACS authors point out that cotesting or cytology testing alone is still an acceptable option for cervical cancer screening, insofar as primary HPV testing using FDA-approved tests may not be available in some settings.

As more laboratories in the United States transition to FDA-approved tests for primary HPV testing, it is expected that the use of cotesting or cytology alone will be phased out.

The new guidelines also emphasize that women may discontinue screening at the age of 65 if they have not had cervical intraepitheal neoplasia of grade 2 or higher within the past 25 years and if they have tested negative over the past 10 years on all past screens.

The authors caution that past screens should only be considered negative if the patient has had two consecutive negative HPV tests or two consecutive negative cotests or three consecutive negative cytology tests within the past 10 years.

“These criteria do not apply to individuals who are currently under surveillance for abnormal screening results,” the authors state.

Women older than 65 for whom adequate documentation of prior screening is not available should continue to be screened until criteria for screening discontinuation are met, they add.

Screening may be discontinued among women with a limited life expectancy.
 

HPV vaccination

The authors note that HPV vaccination is expected to substantially change cervical cancer screening strategies.

In 2018, the National Immunization Survey–Teen, involving adolescents aged 13 to 17 years, showed that 68.1% of female patients were up to date on HPV vaccine recommendations, as were 51.1% of male patients.

“Cytology-based screening is much less efficient in vaccinated populations, as abnormal cytology disproportionately identifies minor abnormalities resulting from HPV types that are associated with lower cancer risk,” the reports’ authors point out.

As the prevalence of high-grade cervical abnormalities and the incidence of cervical cancer continue to decline, “the proportion of false-positive findings [on cytology alone] is expected to increase significantly,” they caution.

As a result, the ACS suggests that physicians will likely have to consider a patient’s vaccination status in tandem with cervical cancer screening results to arrive at an accurate assessment.
 

Raising starting age to 25 years

Saslow also noted that there were several reasons why it is now recommended that screening begin at the age of 25 instead of the age of 21, as in earlier guidelines.

“Firstly, less than 1% of cervical cancers are diagnosed before the age of 25 – so this is about 130 cases per year,” she explained.

Thanks to HPV vaccination, this percentage is further declining, “so screening is just not beneficial at this age,” Saslow emphasized.

Furthermore, the rate of false positives is much higher in younger patients, and a false-positive result can have a negative impact on pregnancy outcomes, she added.

Saslow also dismissed an article in favor of cotesting instead of HPV testing alone. That study, carried out by researchers at Quest Diagnostics and the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, recommended cotesting, claiming that primary HPV testing is significantly less likely to detect cervical precancers or cervical cancer than cotesting.

“These data come from parties with a vested interest in preserving cytology as a screening test,” Saslow told Medscape Medical News. She noted that “these findings are not at all credible as judged by the scientific community.”

On the basis of their own modeling, ACS researchers estimate that “starting with primary HPV testing at age 25 will prevent 13% more cervical cancers and 7% more cervical cancer deaths” in comparison with cytology (Pap testing alone) beginning at the age of 21, then cotesting at the age of 30, Saslow said in a statement.

“Our model showed we could do that with a 9% increase in follow-up procedures but with 45% fewer tests required overall,” she added.

The new recommendations are not expected to create any change in the type or amount of care required by providers, and patients will not notice any difference, inasmuch as cotesting and primary HPV testing are performed the same way in the examination room, she added.

“Resistance [to the changes] is expected – and is already occurring – from laboratories and manufacturers of tests that will no longer be used once we transition from cotesting and, less commonly, Pap testing to primary HPV testing,” Saslow said.

However, providers need to be aware that HPV infection, as with any sexually transmitted disease, is associated with a certain stigma, and they need to take care in discussing potential HPV infection with their patients.
 

Good method

Medscape Medical News approached Mark Einstein, MD, president of the ASCCP and professor and chair of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive health at Rutgers Biomedical and Health Sciences, Newark, New Jersey, to comment on the new guidelines.

“First and foremost,” he said, “everything we want to do when it comes to screening is to maximize the identification of picking up a cancer and minimize the risk or potential harm of not only screening itself but of missing cancers, so any strategy that improves on the sensitivity of picking up a cancer is a good method.”

Nevertheless, inasmuch as the ASCCP is one of the foremost organizations involved in cervical cancer screening and management, its members need more time to take a closer look at the updated ACS guidelines before they, together with sister organizations, such as the ACOG, release an official statement as to whether or not they fully endorse the new guidelines.

The United States Preventive Services Task Force recently endorsed primary HPV testing (starting at age 30), but it also said that an alternative strategy is cotesting for women between 30 and 65 years of age, Einstein observed.

Asked to comment on the article from Quest Diagnostics and the University of Pittsburgh that recommended cotesting instead of primary HPV testing, Einstein said that suggestion should not be dismissed out of hand.

The ASCCP has asked the authors of that study for their data in order conduct an independent assessment of it, largely because the study was retrospective in nature. Because of that, “there may have been a few pieces of information that were missing in true real-time fashion,” he said. “Not having [both the primary HPV testing and the cytology results] in front of me might change the next thing I might recommend to the patient,” Einstein explained.

The bottom line is that, when comparing primary HPV testing alone, cytology alone, and cotesting and rates of cervical cancer at 5 years, “the biggest driver for true performance of positive predictive value is HPV,” Einstein said.

Nevertheless, cotesting does bring more information into the equation compared with primary HPV testing alone, although it also increases the potential for harm, including the harm of overtesting and conducting needless colposcopies, he added.

That said, starting primary HPV testing at the age of 25 rather than the age of 30, as was previously recommended, is very likely to lead to detection of spurious HPV infections because HPV infections are very common among women in their 20s, Einstein pointed out.

“This, too, could potentially lead to more colposcopies, which may cause harm from the procedure itself but also create a certain amount of anxiety and concern, so there is some harm in testing for HPV at an earlier age as well,” Einstein said.

Saslow and Einstein have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The American Cancer Society (ACS) has released updated guidelines for cervical cancer screening. The key recommendation is that primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing is the preferred screening method, starting at the age of 25 and repeated every 5 years.

In the past, guidelines for cervical cancer screening recommended cytology (the Pap test) starting at 21 years of age and repeated every 3 years. In more recent years, cotesting (with both Pap and HPV tests) has been recommended.

Since the last ACS guidelines on cervical cancer screening were published in 2012, two HPV tests have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in primary HPV screening.

The new “streamlined recommendations can improve compliance and reduce potential harms,” commented Debbie Saslow, PhD, managing director, HPV/GYN Cancers, American Cancer Society.

The updated guidelines were published online July 30 in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians.

“We now have stronger evidence to support starting cervical cancer screening at a later age and to recommend screening with the HPV test as the preferred test,” Saslow told Medscape Medical News. This also reflects the phasing out of cytology and cotesting, she added.

“This update is based on decades of studies comparing the effectiveness of HPV testing to cytology and is bolstered by evidence of the impact of HPV vaccination, including a dramatic decline in cervical precancers and, more recently, cervical cancers among young women,” she said.

The American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology (ASCCP) said that it was preparing a response to these new guidelines, as is the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG).
 

Cotesting or cytology alone

The updated guidelines recommend primary HPV testing as the preferred screening method for all women with a cervix. If primary HPV testing is not available, women should be screened with cotesting, which should also be performed every 5 years.

If only cytology is available, then women should be screened every 3 years.

The ACS authors point out that cotesting or cytology testing alone is still an acceptable option for cervical cancer screening, insofar as primary HPV testing using FDA-approved tests may not be available in some settings.

As more laboratories in the United States transition to FDA-approved tests for primary HPV testing, it is expected that the use of cotesting or cytology alone will be phased out.

The new guidelines also emphasize that women may discontinue screening at the age of 65 if they have not had cervical intraepitheal neoplasia of grade 2 or higher within the past 25 years and if they have tested negative over the past 10 years on all past screens.

The authors caution that past screens should only be considered negative if the patient has had two consecutive negative HPV tests or two consecutive negative cotests or three consecutive negative cytology tests within the past 10 years.

“These criteria do not apply to individuals who are currently under surveillance for abnormal screening results,” the authors state.

Women older than 65 for whom adequate documentation of prior screening is not available should continue to be screened until criteria for screening discontinuation are met, they add.

Screening may be discontinued among women with a limited life expectancy.
 

HPV vaccination

The authors note that HPV vaccination is expected to substantially change cervical cancer screening strategies.

In 2018, the National Immunization Survey–Teen, involving adolescents aged 13 to 17 years, showed that 68.1% of female patients were up to date on HPV vaccine recommendations, as were 51.1% of male patients.

“Cytology-based screening is much less efficient in vaccinated populations, as abnormal cytology disproportionately identifies minor abnormalities resulting from HPV types that are associated with lower cancer risk,” the reports’ authors point out.

As the prevalence of high-grade cervical abnormalities and the incidence of cervical cancer continue to decline, “the proportion of false-positive findings [on cytology alone] is expected to increase significantly,” they caution.

As a result, the ACS suggests that physicians will likely have to consider a patient’s vaccination status in tandem with cervical cancer screening results to arrive at an accurate assessment.
 

Raising starting age to 25 years

Saslow also noted that there were several reasons why it is now recommended that screening begin at the age of 25 instead of the age of 21, as in earlier guidelines.

“Firstly, less than 1% of cervical cancers are diagnosed before the age of 25 – so this is about 130 cases per year,” she explained.

Thanks to HPV vaccination, this percentage is further declining, “so screening is just not beneficial at this age,” Saslow emphasized.

Furthermore, the rate of false positives is much higher in younger patients, and a false-positive result can have a negative impact on pregnancy outcomes, she added.

Saslow also dismissed an article in favor of cotesting instead of HPV testing alone. That study, carried out by researchers at Quest Diagnostics and the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, recommended cotesting, claiming that primary HPV testing is significantly less likely to detect cervical precancers or cervical cancer than cotesting.

“These data come from parties with a vested interest in preserving cytology as a screening test,” Saslow told Medscape Medical News. She noted that “these findings are not at all credible as judged by the scientific community.”

On the basis of their own modeling, ACS researchers estimate that “starting with primary HPV testing at age 25 will prevent 13% more cervical cancers and 7% more cervical cancer deaths” in comparison with cytology (Pap testing alone) beginning at the age of 21, then cotesting at the age of 30, Saslow said in a statement.

“Our model showed we could do that with a 9% increase in follow-up procedures but with 45% fewer tests required overall,” she added.

The new recommendations are not expected to create any change in the type or amount of care required by providers, and patients will not notice any difference, inasmuch as cotesting and primary HPV testing are performed the same way in the examination room, she added.

“Resistance [to the changes] is expected – and is already occurring – from laboratories and manufacturers of tests that will no longer be used once we transition from cotesting and, less commonly, Pap testing to primary HPV testing,” Saslow said.

However, providers need to be aware that HPV infection, as with any sexually transmitted disease, is associated with a certain stigma, and they need to take care in discussing potential HPV infection with their patients.
 

Good method

Medscape Medical News approached Mark Einstein, MD, president of the ASCCP and professor and chair of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive health at Rutgers Biomedical and Health Sciences, Newark, New Jersey, to comment on the new guidelines.

“First and foremost,” he said, “everything we want to do when it comes to screening is to maximize the identification of picking up a cancer and minimize the risk or potential harm of not only screening itself but of missing cancers, so any strategy that improves on the sensitivity of picking up a cancer is a good method.”

Nevertheless, inasmuch as the ASCCP is one of the foremost organizations involved in cervical cancer screening and management, its members need more time to take a closer look at the updated ACS guidelines before they, together with sister organizations, such as the ACOG, release an official statement as to whether or not they fully endorse the new guidelines.

The United States Preventive Services Task Force recently endorsed primary HPV testing (starting at age 30), but it also said that an alternative strategy is cotesting for women between 30 and 65 years of age, Einstein observed.

Asked to comment on the article from Quest Diagnostics and the University of Pittsburgh that recommended cotesting instead of primary HPV testing, Einstein said that suggestion should not be dismissed out of hand.

The ASCCP has asked the authors of that study for their data in order conduct an independent assessment of it, largely because the study was retrospective in nature. Because of that, “there may have been a few pieces of information that were missing in true real-time fashion,” he said. “Not having [both the primary HPV testing and the cytology results] in front of me might change the next thing I might recommend to the patient,” Einstein explained.

The bottom line is that, when comparing primary HPV testing alone, cytology alone, and cotesting and rates of cervical cancer at 5 years, “the biggest driver for true performance of positive predictive value is HPV,” Einstein said.

Nevertheless, cotesting does bring more information into the equation compared with primary HPV testing alone, although it also increases the potential for harm, including the harm of overtesting and conducting needless colposcopies, he added.

That said, starting primary HPV testing at the age of 25 rather than the age of 30, as was previously recommended, is very likely to lead to detection of spurious HPV infections because HPV infections are very common among women in their 20s, Einstein pointed out.

“This, too, could potentially lead to more colposcopies, which may cause harm from the procedure itself but also create a certain amount of anxiety and concern, so there is some harm in testing for HPV at an earlier age as well,” Einstein said.

Saslow and Einstein have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Topical agents, alternative medicine, and disease severity assessment are the subjects of the latest updated set of guidelines for the management and treatment of psoriasis issued jointly by the American Academy of Dermatology and the National Psoriasis Foundation.

©Rodd100/thinkstockphotos.com

The guidelines, published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, focus on treatment for adults, and follow the release of other AAD-NPF guidelines on biologics for psoriasis, psoriasis-related comorbidities, pediatric psoriasis, and phototherapy in 2019, and earlier this year, guidelines for systemic nonbiologic treatments. The latest guidelines’ section on topical treatment outlines evidence for the efficacy, effectiveness, and adverse events related to topical steroids, topical tacrolimus and pimecrolimus, vitamin D analogues, tazarotene, moisturizers, salicylic acid, anthralin, coal tar, combinations with biologic agents, and combinations with nonbiologic treatments (methotrexate, cyclosporine, acitretin, and apremilast).

The guidelines noted the “key role” of topical corticosteroids in treating psoriasis “especially for localized disease,” and include a review of the data on low-, moderate-, high-, and ultrahigh-potency topical steroids for psoriasis.

In general, all topical steroids can be used in combination with biologics, according to the guidelines, but the strongest recommendations based on the latest evidence include the addition of an ultra-high potency topical corticosteroid to standard dose etanercept for 12 weeks. Currently, 11 biologics are approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of psoriasis.

In addition, “while not FDA approved for psoriasis, the topical calcineurin inhibitors tacrolimus and pimecrolimus are often employed in the treatment of psoriasis,” can be helpful for “thinner skin such as facial and intertriginous areas,” and can be steroid sparing when used for more than 4 weeks, according to the guidelines.

Don’t discount the role of patient preferences when choosing topical treatments, the authors noted. “The optimal vehicle choice is the one the patient is mostly likely to use.”

The guidelines also address the evidence for effectiveness, and adverse events in the use of several alternative medicines for psoriasis including traditional Chinese medicine, and the herbal therapies aloe vera and St. John’s wort, as well as the potential role of dietary supplements including fish oil, vitamin D, turmeric, and zinc in managing psoriasis, and the potential role of a gluten-free diet.

In general, research on the efficacy, effectiveness, and potential adverse effects of these strategies are limited, according to the guidelines, although many patients express interest in supplements and herbal products. For example, “Many patients ask about the overall role of vitamin D in skin health. Rather than adding oral vitamin D supplementation, topical therapy with vitamin D agents is effective for the treatment of psoriasis,” the authors noted.

In addition, they noted that mind/body strategies, namely hypnosis and stress reduction or meditation techniques, have been shown to improve symptoms and can be helpful for some patients, but clinical evidence is limited.

The guidelines also addressed methods for assessing disease severity in psoriasis. They recommended using body surface area (BSA) to assess psoriasis severity and patient response to treatment in the clinical setting. However, BSA is a provider assessment tool that “does not take into account location on the body, clinical characteristics of the plaques, symptoms, or quality of life issues,” the authors noted. The Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) measures erythema, induration, and scaling and is more suited to assessing psoriasis severity and response to treatment in clinical trials rather than in practice, they said.

Prior AAD guidelines on psoriasis were published more than 10 years ago, and major developments including the availability of new biologic drugs and new data on comorbidities have been recognized in the past decade, working group cochair and author of the guidelines Alan Menter, MD, said in an interview.

The key game-changers from previous guidelines include the full section published on comorbidities plus the development of two new important cytokine classes: three IL-17 drugs and three new IL-23 drugs now available for moderate to severe psoriasis, said Dr. Menter, chairman of the division of dermatology at Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas.

Barriers to implementing the guidelines in practice may occur when “third party payers make the decision on which of the 11 biologic drugs now approved for moderate to severe psoriasis should be used,” he noted.

As for next steps in psoriasis studies, “new biomarker research is currently underway,” Dr. Menter said. With 11 biologic agents new formally approved by the FDA for moderate to severe psoriasis, the next steps are to determine which drug is likely to be the most appropriate for each individual patient.

Dr. Menter disclosed relationships with multiple companies that develop and manufacture psoriasis therapies, including Abbott Labs, AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly and Company, Galderma USA, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, LEO Pharma US, Menlo Therapeutics, and Novartis. The updated guidelines were designed by a multidisciplinary work group of psoriasis experts including dermatologists, a rheumatologist, a cardiologist, and representatives from a patient advocacy organization.
 

SOURCE: Elmets CA et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 Jul 29. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2020.07.087.

Topical agents, alternative medicine, and disease severity assessment are the subjects of the latest updated set of guidelines for the management and treatment of psoriasis issued jointly by the American Academy of Dermatology and the National Psoriasis Foundation.

©Rodd100/thinkstockphotos.com

The guidelines, published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, focus on treatment for adults, and follow the release of other AAD-NPF guidelines on biologics for psoriasis, psoriasis-related comorbidities, pediatric psoriasis, and phototherapy in 2019, and earlier this year, guidelines for systemic nonbiologic treatments. The latest guidelines’ section on topical treatment outlines evidence for the efficacy, effectiveness, and adverse events related to topical steroids, topical tacrolimus and pimecrolimus, vitamin D analogues, tazarotene, moisturizers, salicylic acid, anthralin, coal tar, combinations with biologic agents, and combinations with nonbiologic treatments (methotrexate, cyclosporine, acitretin, and apremilast).

The guidelines noted the “key role” of topical corticosteroids in treating psoriasis “especially for localized disease,” and include a review of the data on low-, moderate-, high-, and ultrahigh-potency topical steroids for psoriasis.

In general, all topical steroids can be used in combination with biologics, according to the guidelines, but the strongest recommendations based on the latest evidence include the addition of an ultra-high potency topical corticosteroid to standard dose etanercept for 12 weeks. Currently, 11 biologics are approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of psoriasis.

In addition, “while not FDA approved for psoriasis, the topical calcineurin inhibitors tacrolimus and pimecrolimus are often employed in the treatment of psoriasis,” can be helpful for “thinner skin such as facial and intertriginous areas,” and can be steroid sparing when used for more than 4 weeks, according to the guidelines.

Don’t discount the role of patient preferences when choosing topical treatments, the authors noted. “The optimal vehicle choice is the one the patient is mostly likely to use.”

The guidelines also address the evidence for effectiveness, and adverse events in the use of several alternative medicines for psoriasis including traditional Chinese medicine, and the herbal therapies aloe vera and St. John’s wort, as well as the potential role of dietary supplements including fish oil, vitamin D, turmeric, and zinc in managing psoriasis, and the potential role of a gluten-free diet.

In general, research on the efficacy, effectiveness, and potential adverse effects of these strategies are limited, according to the guidelines, although many patients express interest in supplements and herbal products. For example, “Many patients ask about the overall role of vitamin D in skin health. Rather than adding oral vitamin D supplementation, topical therapy with vitamin D agents is effective for the treatment of psoriasis,” the authors noted.

In addition, they noted that mind/body strategies, namely hypnosis and stress reduction or meditation techniques, have been shown to improve symptoms and can be helpful for some patients, but clinical evidence is limited.

The guidelines also addressed methods for assessing disease severity in psoriasis. They recommended using body surface area (BSA) to assess psoriasis severity and patient response to treatment in the clinical setting. However, BSA is a provider assessment tool that “does not take into account location on the body, clinical characteristics of the plaques, symptoms, or quality of life issues,” the authors noted. The Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) measures erythema, induration, and scaling and is more suited to assessing psoriasis severity and response to treatment in clinical trials rather than in practice, they said.

Prior AAD guidelines on psoriasis were published more than 10 years ago, and major developments including the availability of new biologic drugs and new data on comorbidities have been recognized in the past decade, working group cochair and author of the guidelines Alan Menter, MD, said in an interview.

The key game-changers from previous guidelines include the full section published on comorbidities plus the development of two new important cytokine classes: three IL-17 drugs and three new IL-23 drugs now available for moderate to severe psoriasis, said Dr. Menter, chairman of the division of dermatology at Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas.

Barriers to implementing the guidelines in practice may occur when “third party payers make the decision on which of the 11 biologic drugs now approved for moderate to severe psoriasis should be used,” he noted.

As for next steps in psoriasis studies, “new biomarker research is currently underway,” Dr. Menter said. With 11 biologic agents new formally approved by the FDA for moderate to severe psoriasis, the next steps are to determine which drug is likely to be the most appropriate for each individual patient.

Dr. Menter disclosed relationships with multiple companies that develop and manufacture psoriasis therapies, including Abbott Labs, AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly and Company, Galderma USA, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, LEO Pharma US, Menlo Therapeutics, and Novartis. The updated guidelines were designed by a multidisciplinary work group of psoriasis experts including dermatologists, a rheumatologist, a cardiologist, and representatives from a patient advocacy organization.
 

SOURCE: Elmets CA et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 Jul 29. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2020.07.087.

Topical agents, alternative medicine, and disease severity assessment are the subjects of the latest updated set of guidelines for the management and treatment of psoriasis issued jointly by the American Academy of Dermatology and the National Psoriasis Foundation.

©Rodd100/thinkstockphotos.com

The guidelines, published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, focus on treatment for adults, and follow the release of other AAD-NPF guidelines on biologics for psoriasis, psoriasis-related comorbidities, pediatric psoriasis, and phototherapy in 2019, and earlier this year, guidelines for systemic nonbiologic treatments. The latest guidelines’ section on topical treatment outlines evidence for the efficacy, effectiveness, and adverse events related to topical steroids, topical tacrolimus and pimecrolimus, vitamin D analogues, tazarotene, moisturizers, salicylic acid, anthralin, coal tar, combinations with biologic agents, and combinations with nonbiologic treatments (methotrexate, cyclosporine, acitretin, and apremilast).

The guidelines noted the “key role” of topical corticosteroids in treating psoriasis “especially for localized disease,” and include a review of the data on low-, moderate-, high-, and ultrahigh-potency topical steroids for psoriasis.

In general, all topical steroids can be used in combination with biologics, according to the guidelines, but the strongest recommendations based on the latest evidence include the addition of an ultra-high potency topical corticosteroid to standard dose etanercept for 12 weeks. Currently, 11 biologics are approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of psoriasis.

In addition, “while not FDA approved for psoriasis, the topical calcineurin inhibitors tacrolimus and pimecrolimus are often employed in the treatment of psoriasis,” can be helpful for “thinner skin such as facial and intertriginous areas,” and can be steroid sparing when used for more than 4 weeks, according to the guidelines.

Don’t discount the role of patient preferences when choosing topical treatments, the authors noted. “The optimal vehicle choice is the one the patient is mostly likely to use.”

The guidelines also address the evidence for effectiveness, and adverse events in the use of several alternative medicines for psoriasis including traditional Chinese medicine, and the herbal therapies aloe vera and St. John’s wort, as well as the potential role of dietary supplements including fish oil, vitamin D, turmeric, and zinc in managing psoriasis, and the potential role of a gluten-free diet.

In general, research on the efficacy, effectiveness, and potential adverse effects of these strategies are limited, according to the guidelines, although many patients express interest in supplements and herbal products. For example, “Many patients ask about the overall role of vitamin D in skin health. Rather than adding oral vitamin D supplementation, topical therapy with vitamin D agents is effective for the treatment of psoriasis,” the authors noted.

In addition, they noted that mind/body strategies, namely hypnosis and stress reduction or meditation techniques, have been shown to improve symptoms and can be helpful for some patients, but clinical evidence is limited.

The guidelines also addressed methods for assessing disease severity in psoriasis. They recommended using body surface area (BSA) to assess psoriasis severity and patient response to treatment in the clinical setting. However, BSA is a provider assessment tool that “does not take into account location on the body, clinical characteristics of the plaques, symptoms, or quality of life issues,” the authors noted. The Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) measures erythema, induration, and scaling and is more suited to assessing psoriasis severity and response to treatment in clinical trials rather than in practice, they said.

Prior AAD guidelines on psoriasis were published more than 10 years ago, and major developments including the availability of new biologic drugs and new data on comorbidities have been recognized in the past decade, working group cochair and author of the guidelines Alan Menter, MD, said in an interview.

The key game-changers from previous guidelines include the full section published on comorbidities plus the development of two new important cytokine classes: three IL-17 drugs and three new IL-23 drugs now available for moderate to severe psoriasis, said Dr. Menter, chairman of the division of dermatology at Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas.

Barriers to implementing the guidelines in practice may occur when “third party payers make the decision on which of the 11 biologic drugs now approved for moderate to severe psoriasis should be used,” he noted.

As for next steps in psoriasis studies, “new biomarker research is currently underway,” Dr. Menter said. With 11 biologic agents new formally approved by the FDA for moderate to severe psoriasis, the next steps are to determine which drug is likely to be the most appropriate for each individual patient.

Dr. Menter disclosed relationships with multiple companies that develop and manufacture psoriasis therapies, including Abbott Labs, AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly and Company, Galderma USA, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, LEO Pharma US, Menlo Therapeutics, and Novartis. The updated guidelines were designed by a multidisciplinary work group of psoriasis experts including dermatologists, a rheumatologist, a cardiologist, and representatives from a patient advocacy organization.
 

SOURCE: Elmets CA et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 Jul 29. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2020.07.087.

In the era of COVID-19, cancer treatment should not be discontinued or delayed if it can affect overall survival, according to new recommendations from an international team of experts.

Another important recommendation is to stop labeling all patients with cancer as being vulnerable to infection with the virus as it can lead to inappropriate care with potential negative outcomes.

“Although it was reasonable to adopt over-protective measures for our patients at the outbreak of a novel infective disease which was not previously observed in humans, we now need to step away from the assumption that all cancer patients are vulnerable to COVID-19,” said first author of the consensus article Giuseppe Curigliano, MD, PhD, of the European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy, in a statement. “The implications have been important because for some patients treatment was delayed or interrupted over the last few months, and I believe that we will see the impact of this over-precautionary approach in the...future.”

The recommendations were issued by the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) to help guide physicians in “optimizing the pathway to cancer care” as well as to improve outcomes during the pandemic. The recommendations were published online July 31 in Annals of Oncology.

Studies have found that patients with cancer face a higher risk of serious complications and death if they develop COVID-19. Data from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium registry, for example, showed that patients with progressing cancer and COVID-19 infection had a fivefold increase in the risk of 30-day mortality compared with COVID-19–positive cancer patients who were in remission or had no evidence of cancer.

But while this may be true for some patients, Curigliano and colleagues emphasize that individuals with cancer are not a heterogeneous group and that the term “cancer” itself represents myriad different diseases. The European experts note that current evidence suggests many patients with solid tumors are not more vulnerable to serious complications than the general population.

Thus, cancer prognoses vary considerably, and addressing all patients with cancer as being “COVID-19-vulnerable is probably neither reasonable nor informative,” say the authors.

Dramatic changes were initiated in cancer management for all cancer types, nevertheless, and although these changes seemed reasonable in an acute pandemic situation, note the authors, they were made in the absence of strong supportive evidence. Attempts to define the individualized risk for a given patient, taking into account their primary tumor subtype, stage, age, and gender, have been limited.

“Based on current evidence, only patients who are elderly, with multiple comorbidities, and receiving chemotherapy are vulnerable to the infection,” explained Curigliano.

However, on a positive note, a recently published prospective cohort study looked at approximately 800 patients with cancer – who had symptomatic COVID-19 – in the United Kingdom. The analysis showed no association at all between the risk for death and receiving chemotherapy or immunotherapy, points out Medscape commentator David Kerr, MD, of the University of Oxford, UK, in a recent commentary.

Key recommendations

An international consortium was established by ESMO, and the interdisciplinary expert panel consisted of 64 experts and one voting patient advocate. They agreed on 28 statements that can be used to help with many of the current clinical and technical areas of uncertainty that range from diagnosis to treatment decisions.

The following are several of the key recommendations:

• Patients with cancer who face the highest risk of severe COVID-19 are characterized by active and progressive cancer, advanced age, poor performance status, smoking status, comorbidities, and possibly type of cancer.
• Telehealth and digital health can be excellent tools for some types of care such as primary care triage and counseling, but meeting in person may be more effective for situations that include delivery of key cancer-related information and for patients with complex cancer needs.
• Prior to hospital admission, patients with cancer should be tested for COVID-19, if feasible, and if they are considered at high risk, regardless of symptoms or chest radiological findings.
• Patients with cancer and COVID-19 have a higher risk of thromboembolic events, and prophylaxis using low molecular weight  or novel oral anticoagulants is recommended.
• Immune checkpoint inhibitors should not be withheld or delayed when there is a significant survival benefit, but use should be postponed in patients who test positive for COVID-19 until they recover.
• Use of high-dose steroids in patients with cancer infected with COVID-19 could potentially increase the risk of mortality, and a switch should be made to another immunosuppressant, if possible.
• The decision to use tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) of the PI3K/AKT/mTOR or RAS/RAF/MEK axis is complex, as they interfere with critical pathways involved in innate or adaptive immune responses. Stopping or withholding therapy depends on the risk-benefit balance, and the magnitude of benefit from the TKI needs to be considered.

The authors conclude that “ultimately, this set of statements will serve as a dynamic knowledge repository that will be better informed by accumulating data on SARS-CoV-2 biology, COVID-19 pandemic characteristics, on the risk of cancer patients for COVID-19 and its modulating factors, and finally, on optimal cancer care in the presence of the virus.”

No funding was reported for the current study. Several authors have disclosed relationships with industry, which are listed in the article.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In the era of COVID-19, cancer treatment should not be discontinued or delayed if it can affect overall survival, according to new recommendations from an international team of experts.

Another important recommendation is to stop labeling all patients with cancer as being vulnerable to infection with the virus as it can lead to inappropriate care with potential negative outcomes.

“Although it was reasonable to adopt over-protective measures for our patients at the outbreak of a novel infective disease which was not previously observed in humans, we now need to step away from the assumption that all cancer patients are vulnerable to COVID-19,” said first author of the consensus article Giuseppe Curigliano, MD, PhD, of the European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy, in a statement. “The implications have been important because for some patients treatment was delayed or interrupted over the last few months, and I believe that we will see the impact of this over-precautionary approach in the...future.”

The recommendations were issued by the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) to help guide physicians in “optimizing the pathway to cancer care” as well as to improve outcomes during the pandemic. The recommendations were published online July 31 in Annals of Oncology.

Studies have found that patients with cancer face a higher risk of serious complications and death if they develop COVID-19. Data from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium registry, for example, showed that patients with progressing cancer and COVID-19 infection had a fivefold increase in the risk of 30-day mortality compared with COVID-19–positive cancer patients who were in remission or had no evidence of cancer.

But while this may be true for some patients, Curigliano and colleagues emphasize that individuals with cancer are not a heterogeneous group and that the term “cancer” itself represents myriad different diseases. The European experts note that current evidence suggests many patients with solid tumors are not more vulnerable to serious complications than the general population.

Thus, cancer prognoses vary considerably, and addressing all patients with cancer as being “COVID-19-vulnerable is probably neither reasonable nor informative,” say the authors.

Dramatic changes were initiated in cancer management for all cancer types, nevertheless, and although these changes seemed reasonable in an acute pandemic situation, note the authors, they were made in the absence of strong supportive evidence. Attempts to define the individualized risk for a given patient, taking into account their primary tumor subtype, stage, age, and gender, have been limited.

“Based on current evidence, only patients who are elderly, with multiple comorbidities, and receiving chemotherapy are vulnerable to the infection,” explained Curigliano.

However, on a positive note, a recently published prospective cohort study looked at approximately 800 patients with cancer – who had symptomatic COVID-19 – in the United Kingdom. The analysis showed no association at all between the risk for death and receiving chemotherapy or immunotherapy, points out Medscape commentator David Kerr, MD, of the University of Oxford, UK, in a recent commentary.

Key recommendations

An international consortium was established by ESMO, and the interdisciplinary expert panel consisted of 64 experts and one voting patient advocate. They agreed on 28 statements that can be used to help with many of the current clinical and technical areas of uncertainty that range from diagnosis to treatment decisions.

The following are several of the key recommendations:

• Patients with cancer who face the highest risk of severe COVID-19 are characterized by active and progressive cancer, advanced age, poor performance status, smoking status, comorbidities, and possibly type of cancer.
• Telehealth and digital health can be excellent tools for some types of care such as primary care triage and counseling, but meeting in person may be more effective for situations that include delivery of key cancer-related information and for patients with complex cancer needs.
• Prior to hospital admission, patients with cancer should be tested for COVID-19, if feasible, and if they are considered at high risk, regardless of symptoms or chest radiological findings.
• Patients with cancer and COVID-19 have a higher risk of thromboembolic events, and prophylaxis using low molecular weight  or novel oral anticoagulants is recommended.
• Immune checkpoint inhibitors should not be withheld or delayed when there is a significant survival benefit, but use should be postponed in patients who test positive for COVID-19 until they recover.
• Use of high-dose steroids in patients with cancer infected with COVID-19 could potentially increase the risk of mortality, and a switch should be made to another immunosuppressant, if possible.
• The decision to use tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) of the PI3K/AKT/mTOR or RAS/RAF/MEK axis is complex, as they interfere with critical pathways involved in innate or adaptive immune responses. Stopping or withholding therapy depends on the risk-benefit balance, and the magnitude of benefit from the TKI needs to be considered.

The authors conclude that “ultimately, this set of statements will serve as a dynamic knowledge repository that will be better informed by accumulating data on SARS-CoV-2 biology, COVID-19 pandemic characteristics, on the risk of cancer patients for COVID-19 and its modulating factors, and finally, on optimal cancer care in the presence of the virus.”

No funding was reported for the current study. Several authors have disclosed relationships with industry, which are listed in the article.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In the era of COVID-19, cancer treatment should not be discontinued or delayed if it can affect overall survival, according to new recommendations from an international team of experts.

Another important recommendation is to stop labeling all patients with cancer as being vulnerable to infection with the virus as it can lead to inappropriate care with potential negative outcomes.

“Although it was reasonable to adopt over-protective measures for our patients at the outbreak of a novel infective disease which was not previously observed in humans, we now need to step away from the assumption that all cancer patients are vulnerable to COVID-19,” said first author of the consensus article Giuseppe Curigliano, MD, PhD, of the European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy, in a statement. “The implications have been important because for some patients treatment was delayed or interrupted over the last few months, and I believe that we will see the impact of this over-precautionary approach in the...future.”

The recommendations were issued by the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) to help guide physicians in “optimizing the pathway to cancer care” as well as to improve outcomes during the pandemic. The recommendations were published online July 31 in Annals of Oncology.

Studies have found that patients with cancer face a higher risk of serious complications and death if they develop COVID-19. Data from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium registry, for example, showed that patients with progressing cancer and COVID-19 infection had a fivefold increase in the risk of 30-day mortality compared with COVID-19–positive cancer patients who were in remission or had no evidence of cancer.

But while this may be true for some patients, Curigliano and colleagues emphasize that individuals with cancer are not a heterogeneous group and that the term “cancer” itself represents myriad different diseases. The European experts note that current evidence suggests many patients with solid tumors are not more vulnerable to serious complications than the general population.

Thus, cancer prognoses vary considerably, and addressing all patients with cancer as being “COVID-19-vulnerable is probably neither reasonable nor informative,” say the authors.

Dramatic changes were initiated in cancer management for all cancer types, nevertheless, and although these changes seemed reasonable in an acute pandemic situation, note the authors, they were made in the absence of strong supportive evidence. Attempts to define the individualized risk for a given patient, taking into account their primary tumor subtype, stage, age, and gender, have been limited.

“Based on current evidence, only patients who are elderly, with multiple comorbidities, and receiving chemotherapy are vulnerable to the infection,” explained Curigliano.

However, on a positive note, a recently published prospective cohort study looked at approximately 800 patients with cancer – who had symptomatic COVID-19 – in the United Kingdom. The analysis showed no association at all between the risk for death and receiving chemotherapy or immunotherapy, points out Medscape commentator David Kerr, MD, of the University of Oxford, UK, in a recent commentary.

Key recommendations

An international consortium was established by ESMO, and the interdisciplinary expert panel consisted of 64 experts and one voting patient advocate. They agreed on 28 statements that can be used to help with many of the current clinical and technical areas of uncertainty that range from diagnosis to treatment decisions.

The following are several of the key recommendations:

• Patients with cancer who face the highest risk of severe COVID-19 are characterized by active and progressive cancer, advanced age, poor performance status, smoking status, comorbidities, and possibly type of cancer.
• Telehealth and digital health can be excellent tools for some types of care such as primary care triage and counseling, but meeting in person may be more effective for situations that include delivery of key cancer-related information and for patients with complex cancer needs.
• Prior to hospital admission, patients with cancer should be tested for COVID-19, if feasible, and if they are considered at high risk, regardless of symptoms or chest radiological findings.
• Patients with cancer and COVID-19 have a higher risk of thromboembolic events, and prophylaxis using low molecular weight  or novel oral anticoagulants is recommended.
• Immune checkpoint inhibitors should not be withheld or delayed when there is a significant survival benefit, but use should be postponed in patients who test positive for COVID-19 until they recover.
• Use of high-dose steroids in patients with cancer infected with COVID-19 could potentially increase the risk of mortality, and a switch should be made to another immunosuppressant, if possible.
• The decision to use tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) of the PI3K/AKT/mTOR or RAS/RAF/MEK axis is complex, as they interfere with critical pathways involved in innate or adaptive immune responses. Stopping or withholding therapy depends on the risk-benefit balance, and the magnitude of benefit from the TKI needs to be considered.

The authors conclude that “ultimately, this set of statements will serve as a dynamic knowledge repository that will be better informed by accumulating data on SARS-CoV-2 biology, COVID-19 pandemic characteristics, on the risk of cancer patients for COVID-19 and its modulating factors, and finally, on optimal cancer care in the presence of the virus.”

No funding was reported for the current study. Several authors have disclosed relationships with industry, which are listed in the article.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Use of the 2019 EULAR/ACR criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus identified an additional 17% of lupus patients in a cohort of 133 women with undifferentiated connective tissue disease.

Several studies have applied the 2019 EULAR/ACR criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) to different patient populations, wrote Massimo Radin, MD, of S. Giovanni Bosco Hospital, Turin, Italy, and colleagues.

“However, it is unknown if the new classifications criteria for SLE might impact on the categorization of patients previously diagnosed with undifferentiated connective tissue disease (UCTD),” they said in a brief report published in Arthritis Care & Research.

In addition, “being classified or not as having SLE may pose clinical and logistic consequences, as patients with a diagnosis of ‘SLE’ might be followed up according to a specific local protocol and have in-label access to certain medications (such as biologics) or may be eligible for the participation in clinical trials,” they wrote.

The investigators applied the 2019 EULAR/ACR criteria to a cohort of 133 women with UCTD but no other diagnosis. The average age of the women was 38 years; the average disease duration was 10 years. Patients who scored 10 points or more on positive clinical and immunological domains at the start of the study were classified as SLE under the 2019 EULAR/ACR criteria.

Overall, 22 patients (17%) met the classification criteria for SLE at the time of their first pregnancy.

Compared with the other patients in the cohort who were not classified as SLE, patients classified as SLE under the 2019 EULAR/ACR criteria had significantly higher frequency of mucocutaneous manifestations (5% vs. 23%), arthritis (17% vs. 59%), isolated urine abnormalities (1% vs. 18%), and highly specific antibodies (15% vs. 50%).

In addition, patients who met the 2019 EULAR/ACR SLE criteria were significantly more likely to meet the ACR 1997 and SLICC criteria after an average follow-up of 9 years compared with the rest of the cohort (18.2% vs. 1.8%). Patients who met the 2019 EULAR/ACR criteria also had significantly shorter disease duration than that of the other patients in the UCTD cohort (8.23 years vs. 10.7 years) and were significantly more likely to develop preeclampsia during pregnancy (18% vs. 0%).

The findings were limited by several factors including the retrospective design of the study and possible lack of generalizability to male patients, the researchers noted.

The results support the need for improved classification criteria for UCTD, as early identification of specific conditions can help guide treatment and reduce the risk of more severe symptoms and complications, the authors said.

“When discriminating between conditions with a marked overlap, such as SLE and UCTD, the proposal of new classification criteria should balance specificity and sensitivity,” the researchers wrote. “When developing new classification criteria, one approach is to select patients and the control groups as representative as possible of the settings (the medical practices) in which these criteria will be used.”

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Radin M et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2020 Jul 23. doi: 10.1002/ACR.24391.

Use of the 2019 EULAR/ACR criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus identified an additional 17% of lupus patients in a cohort of 133 women with undifferentiated connective tissue disease.

Several studies have applied the 2019 EULAR/ACR criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) to different patient populations, wrote Massimo Radin, MD, of S. Giovanni Bosco Hospital, Turin, Italy, and colleagues.

“However, it is unknown if the new classifications criteria for SLE might impact on the categorization of patients previously diagnosed with undifferentiated connective tissue disease (UCTD),” they said in a brief report published in Arthritis Care & Research.

In addition, “being classified or not as having SLE may pose clinical and logistic consequences, as patients with a diagnosis of ‘SLE’ might be followed up according to a specific local protocol and have in-label access to certain medications (such as biologics) or may be eligible for the participation in clinical trials,” they wrote.

The investigators applied the 2019 EULAR/ACR criteria to a cohort of 133 women with UCTD but no other diagnosis. The average age of the women was 38 years; the average disease duration was 10 years. Patients who scored 10 points or more on positive clinical and immunological domains at the start of the study were classified as SLE under the 2019 EULAR/ACR criteria.

Overall, 22 patients (17%) met the classification criteria for SLE at the time of their first pregnancy.

Compared with the other patients in the cohort who were not classified as SLE, patients classified as SLE under the 2019 EULAR/ACR criteria had significantly higher frequency of mucocutaneous manifestations (5% vs. 23%), arthritis (17% vs. 59%), isolated urine abnormalities (1% vs. 18%), and highly specific antibodies (15% vs. 50%).

In addition, patients who met the 2019 EULAR/ACR SLE criteria were significantly more likely to meet the ACR 1997 and SLICC criteria after an average follow-up of 9 years compared with the rest of the cohort (18.2% vs. 1.8%). Patients who met the 2019 EULAR/ACR criteria also had significantly shorter disease duration than that of the other patients in the UCTD cohort (8.23 years vs. 10.7 years) and were significantly more likely to develop preeclampsia during pregnancy (18% vs. 0%).

The findings were limited by several factors including the retrospective design of the study and possible lack of generalizability to male patients, the researchers noted.

The results support the need for improved classification criteria for UCTD, as early identification of specific conditions can help guide treatment and reduce the risk of more severe symptoms and complications, the authors said.

“When discriminating between conditions with a marked overlap, such as SLE and UCTD, the proposal of new classification criteria should balance specificity and sensitivity,” the researchers wrote. “When developing new classification criteria, one approach is to select patients and the control groups as representative as possible of the settings (the medical practices) in which these criteria will be used.”

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Radin M et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2020 Jul 23. doi: 10.1002/ACR.24391.

Use of the 2019 EULAR/ACR criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus identified an additional 17% of lupus patients in a cohort of 133 women with undifferentiated connective tissue disease.

Several studies have applied the 2019 EULAR/ACR criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) to different patient populations, wrote Massimo Radin, MD, of S. Giovanni Bosco Hospital, Turin, Italy, and colleagues.

“However, it is unknown if the new classifications criteria for SLE might impact on the categorization of patients previously diagnosed with undifferentiated connective tissue disease (UCTD),” they said in a brief report published in Arthritis Care & Research.

In addition, “being classified or not as having SLE may pose clinical and logistic consequences, as patients with a diagnosis of ‘SLE’ might be followed up according to a specific local protocol and have in-label access to certain medications (such as biologics) or may be eligible for the participation in clinical trials,” they wrote.

The investigators applied the 2019 EULAR/ACR criteria to a cohort of 133 women with UCTD but no other diagnosis. The average age of the women was 38 years; the average disease duration was 10 years. Patients who scored 10 points or more on positive clinical and immunological domains at the start of the study were classified as SLE under the 2019 EULAR/ACR criteria.

Overall, 22 patients (17%) met the classification criteria for SLE at the time of their first pregnancy.

Compared with the other patients in the cohort who were not classified as SLE, patients classified as SLE under the 2019 EULAR/ACR criteria had significantly higher frequency of mucocutaneous manifestations (5% vs. 23%), arthritis (17% vs. 59%), isolated urine abnormalities (1% vs. 18%), and highly specific antibodies (15% vs. 50%).

In addition, patients who met the 2019 EULAR/ACR SLE criteria were significantly more likely to meet the ACR 1997 and SLICC criteria after an average follow-up of 9 years compared with the rest of the cohort (18.2% vs. 1.8%). Patients who met the 2019 EULAR/ACR criteria also had significantly shorter disease duration than that of the other patients in the UCTD cohort (8.23 years vs. 10.7 years) and were significantly more likely to develop preeclampsia during pregnancy (18% vs. 0%).

The findings were limited by several factors including the retrospective design of the study and possible lack of generalizability to male patients, the researchers noted.

The results support the need for improved classification criteria for UCTD, as early identification of specific conditions can help guide treatment and reduce the risk of more severe symptoms and complications, the authors said.

“When discriminating between conditions with a marked overlap, such as SLE and UCTD, the proposal of new classification criteria should balance specificity and sensitivity,” the researchers wrote. “When developing new classification criteria, one approach is to select patients and the control groups as representative as possible of the settings (the medical practices) in which these criteria will be used.”

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Radin M et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2020 Jul 23. doi: 10.1002/ACR.24391.

As if the management of patients with severe COVID-19 infections is not complicated enough, an estimated 50%-60% of patients admitted to an ICU with the disease will have some form of cardiovascular involvement, which further increases their already high risk for morbidity and mortality.

Multimodality cardiovascular imaging, chosen wisely, can both help to direct management of cardiovascular complications associated with COVID-19 and lessen risk of exposure of health care workers to SARS-CoV-2, said members of an expert panel from the American College of Cardiology Cardiovascular Imaging Leadership Council.

“When we face a patient with known or suspected COVID-19, it’s not like any other disease because we face potential exposure risk to personnel doing imaging studies and also to other patients,” corresponding author Marcelo F. Di Carli, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital Boston said in an interview.

“Any imaging study that is being considered should be performed only if we think it will help us make a change in the way that we’re going to treat that particular patient. This is true for imaging in any disease – why would you do an imaging study that will make no difference in treatment? – but the stakes are even higher in COVID-19,” he said.

The panel’s recommendations for cardiovascular imaging in patients with COVID-19 are outlined in a guidance document published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

Testing and biomarkers

The guidance begins by highlighting the importance of diagnostic testing for COVID-19 infection and the use of universal precautions for health care personnel performing imaging studies, as well as disinfection of imaging equipment and rooms after each use.

Circulating biomarkers that measure end-organ stress or injury, inflammation, hypoperfusion, and activation of thrombosis/hemostasis pathways may be prognostically useful, but “almost none of the widely measured biomarkers represent a specific trigger for imaging outside of that supported by clinical judgment,” the guidance states.

In contrast, low to moderate, nonrising concentrations of markers for myocardial stress, such as B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) and N-terminal pro-BNP (NT-proBNP), or of myocardial injury, such as cardiac troponins (cTn), may be helpful for excluding the need for imaging.

“Importantly, clinicians should be aware that most patients with abnormal BNP/NT-proBNP or cTn do not have acute heart failure or myocardial infarction; and rise in concentration of either class of biomarker presumably reflects complex processes including direct myocardial stress/injury related to systemic illness,” the panel members wrote.
 

Oldies but goodies

“One thing that we found out in our review of the literature and in our experiences in our own work settings is that cardiac ultrasound plays a huge role in this disease – like in any disease – but this one in particular,” Dr. Di Carli said. “One of the most feared complications in COVID-19 leads to inflammation of the heart muscle, which then leads to heart dysfunction. And of course cardiac ultrasound, because of its portability, can be performed at bedside to help clinicians ascertain an abnormality in the heart.”

Cardiac CT is also extremely helpful for determining whether patients with ECG findings suggestive of infarction have suffered an actual thrombotic event.

“These patients may best be served by a noninvasive study as compared to an invasive coronary angiogram,” he said.
 

Clinical scenarios

Cardiologists may be called in to consult on the evaluation of possible cardiogenic components of pulmonary abnormalities in patients who present with dyspnea and chest x-rays showing airspace or interstitial infiltrates suggestive of pneumonia, the authors noted.

“Clinicians will rely on history, physical exam, ECG [electrocardiogram] and biomarkers, and recent cardiac imaging tests if available. Underlying cardiac history including [coronary artery disease], cardiomyopathy, heart failure, and arrhythmia should be sought, and frequent contributors to decompensation should be eliminated,” they wrote.

For patients with suspected cardiac injury, either point-of-care ultrasound or limited echocardiography can be used for the initial evaluation, with additional, more advanced technologies called into play for specific clinical scenarios outlined in the guidance.

For example, the guidance recommends that patients with chest pain and abnormal ECG readings with clinical concern for ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome or high clinical risk for in-hospital mortality from conditions such as cardiogenic shock, dynamic ST-segment changes, or left ventricular ejection fraction less than 40% thought to be caused by non–ST-elevation myocardial infarction be referred for emergent coronary angiography and reperfusion.

In contrast, in patients with chest pain and abnormal ECG but equivocal symptoms, atypical or equivocal ECG abnormalities, or late presentations, point-of-care ultrasound or limited echocardiogram could be used to look for regional wall motion abnormalities and left ventricular ejection fraction, whereas in patients with chest pain and ST-elevation without clear evidence of ST-elevation myocardial infarction, coronary CT angiography can help to rule out ACS and point to alternate diagnoses, the authors said.

The guidance also offers recommendations for imaging in patients with hemodynamic instability (shock or hypotension), patients with new left ventricular dysfunction in the absence of shock or hypotension, and patients with subacute and chronic-phase disease.

Development of the guidance document was supported by the ACC. Dr. Di Carli disclosed institutional grant support from Gilead Sciences and Spectrum Dynamics, and consulting income from Janssen and Bayer.

SOURCE: Rudski L et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Jul 22. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.06.080.

As if the management of patients with severe COVID-19 infections is not complicated enough, an estimated 50%-60% of patients admitted to an ICU with the disease will have some form of cardiovascular involvement, which further increases their already high risk for morbidity and mortality.

Multimodality cardiovascular imaging, chosen wisely, can both help to direct management of cardiovascular complications associated with COVID-19 and lessen risk of exposure of health care workers to SARS-CoV-2, said members of an expert panel from the American College of Cardiology Cardiovascular Imaging Leadership Council.

“When we face a patient with known or suspected COVID-19, it’s not like any other disease because we face potential exposure risk to personnel doing imaging studies and also to other patients,” corresponding author Marcelo F. Di Carli, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital Boston said in an interview.

“Any imaging study that is being considered should be performed only if we think it will help us make a change in the way that we’re going to treat that particular patient. This is true for imaging in any disease – why would you do an imaging study that will make no difference in treatment? – but the stakes are even higher in COVID-19,” he said.

The panel’s recommendations for cardiovascular imaging in patients with COVID-19 are outlined in a guidance document published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

Testing and biomarkers

The guidance begins by highlighting the importance of diagnostic testing for COVID-19 infection and the use of universal precautions for health care personnel performing imaging studies, as well as disinfection of imaging equipment and rooms after each use.

Circulating biomarkers that measure end-organ stress or injury, inflammation, hypoperfusion, and activation of thrombosis/hemostasis pathways may be prognostically useful, but “almost none of the widely measured biomarkers represent a specific trigger for imaging outside of that supported by clinical judgment,” the guidance states.

In contrast, low to moderate, nonrising concentrations of markers for myocardial stress, such as B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) and N-terminal pro-BNP (NT-proBNP), or of myocardial injury, such as cardiac troponins (cTn), may be helpful for excluding the need for imaging.

“Importantly, clinicians should be aware that most patients with abnormal BNP/NT-proBNP or cTn do not have acute heart failure or myocardial infarction; and rise in concentration of either class of biomarker presumably reflects complex processes including direct myocardial stress/injury related to systemic illness,” the panel members wrote.
 

Oldies but goodies

“One thing that we found out in our review of the literature and in our experiences in our own work settings is that cardiac ultrasound plays a huge role in this disease – like in any disease – but this one in particular,” Dr. Di Carli said. “One of the most feared complications in COVID-19 leads to inflammation of the heart muscle, which then leads to heart dysfunction. And of course cardiac ultrasound, because of its portability, can be performed at bedside to help clinicians ascertain an abnormality in the heart.”

Cardiac CT is also extremely helpful for determining whether patients with ECG findings suggestive of infarction have suffered an actual thrombotic event.

“These patients may best be served by a noninvasive study as compared to an invasive coronary angiogram,” he said.
 

Clinical scenarios

Cardiologists may be called in to consult on the evaluation of possible cardiogenic components of pulmonary abnormalities in patients who present with dyspnea and chest x-rays showing airspace or interstitial infiltrates suggestive of pneumonia, the authors noted.

“Clinicians will rely on history, physical exam, ECG [electrocardiogram] and biomarkers, and recent cardiac imaging tests if available. Underlying cardiac history including [coronary artery disease], cardiomyopathy, heart failure, and arrhythmia should be sought, and frequent contributors to decompensation should be eliminated,” they wrote.

For patients with suspected cardiac injury, either point-of-care ultrasound or limited echocardiography can be used for the initial evaluation, with additional, more advanced technologies called into play for specific clinical scenarios outlined in the guidance.

For example, the guidance recommends that patients with chest pain and abnormal ECG readings with clinical concern for ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome or high clinical risk for in-hospital mortality from conditions such as cardiogenic shock, dynamic ST-segment changes, or left ventricular ejection fraction less than 40% thought to be caused by non–ST-elevation myocardial infarction be referred for emergent coronary angiography and reperfusion.

In contrast, in patients with chest pain and abnormal ECG but equivocal symptoms, atypical or equivocal ECG abnormalities, or late presentations, point-of-care ultrasound or limited echocardiogram could be used to look for regional wall motion abnormalities and left ventricular ejection fraction, whereas in patients with chest pain and ST-elevation without clear evidence of ST-elevation myocardial infarction, coronary CT angiography can help to rule out ACS and point to alternate diagnoses, the authors said.

The guidance also offers recommendations for imaging in patients with hemodynamic instability (shock or hypotension), patients with new left ventricular dysfunction in the absence of shock or hypotension, and patients with subacute and chronic-phase disease.

Development of the guidance document was supported by the ACC. Dr. Di Carli disclosed institutional grant support from Gilead Sciences and Spectrum Dynamics, and consulting income from Janssen and Bayer.

SOURCE: Rudski L et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Jul 22. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.06.080.

As if the management of patients with severe COVID-19 infections is not complicated enough, an estimated 50%-60% of patients admitted to an ICU with the disease will have some form of cardiovascular involvement, which further increases their already high risk for morbidity and mortality.

Multimodality cardiovascular imaging, chosen wisely, can both help to direct management of cardiovascular complications associated with COVID-19 and lessen risk of exposure of health care workers to SARS-CoV-2, said members of an expert panel from the American College of Cardiology Cardiovascular Imaging Leadership Council.

“When we face a patient with known or suspected COVID-19, it’s not like any other disease because we face potential exposure risk to personnel doing imaging studies and also to other patients,” corresponding author Marcelo F. Di Carli, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital Boston said in an interview.

“Any imaging study that is being considered should be performed only if we think it will help us make a change in the way that we’re going to treat that particular patient. This is true for imaging in any disease – why would you do an imaging study that will make no difference in treatment? – but the stakes are even higher in COVID-19,” he said.

The panel’s recommendations for cardiovascular imaging in patients with COVID-19 are outlined in a guidance document published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

Testing and biomarkers

The guidance begins by highlighting the importance of diagnostic testing for COVID-19 infection and the use of universal precautions for health care personnel performing imaging studies, as well as disinfection of imaging equipment and rooms after each use.

Circulating biomarkers that measure end-organ stress or injury, inflammation, hypoperfusion, and activation of thrombosis/hemostasis pathways may be prognostically useful, but “almost none of the widely measured biomarkers represent a specific trigger for imaging outside of that supported by clinical judgment,” the guidance states.

In contrast, low to moderate, nonrising concentrations of markers for myocardial stress, such as B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) and N-terminal pro-BNP (NT-proBNP), or of myocardial injury, such as cardiac troponins (cTn), may be helpful for excluding the need for imaging.

“Importantly, clinicians should be aware that most patients with abnormal BNP/NT-proBNP or cTn do not have acute heart failure or myocardial infarction; and rise in concentration of either class of biomarker presumably reflects complex processes including direct myocardial stress/injury related to systemic illness,” the panel members wrote.
 

Oldies but goodies

“One thing that we found out in our review of the literature and in our experiences in our own work settings is that cardiac ultrasound plays a huge role in this disease – like in any disease – but this one in particular,” Dr. Di Carli said. “One of the most feared complications in COVID-19 leads to inflammation of the heart muscle, which then leads to heart dysfunction. And of course cardiac ultrasound, because of its portability, can be performed at bedside to help clinicians ascertain an abnormality in the heart.”

Cardiac CT is also extremely helpful for determining whether patients with ECG findings suggestive of infarction have suffered an actual thrombotic event.

“These patients may best be served by a noninvasive study as compared to an invasive coronary angiogram,” he said.
 

Clinical scenarios

Cardiologists may be called in to consult on the evaluation of possible cardiogenic components of pulmonary abnormalities in patients who present with dyspnea and chest x-rays showing airspace or interstitial infiltrates suggestive of pneumonia, the authors noted.

“Clinicians will rely on history, physical exam, ECG [electrocardiogram] and biomarkers, and recent cardiac imaging tests if available. Underlying cardiac history including [coronary artery disease], cardiomyopathy, heart failure, and arrhythmia should be sought, and frequent contributors to decompensation should be eliminated,” they wrote.

For patients with suspected cardiac injury, either point-of-care ultrasound or limited echocardiography can be used for the initial evaluation, with additional, more advanced technologies called into play for specific clinical scenarios outlined in the guidance.

For example, the guidance recommends that patients with chest pain and abnormal ECG readings with clinical concern for ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome or high clinical risk for in-hospital mortality from conditions such as cardiogenic shock, dynamic ST-segment changes, or left ventricular ejection fraction less than 40% thought to be caused by non–ST-elevation myocardial infarction be referred for emergent coronary angiography and reperfusion.

In contrast, in patients with chest pain and abnormal ECG but equivocal symptoms, atypical or equivocal ECG abnormalities, or late presentations, point-of-care ultrasound or limited echocardiogram could be used to look for regional wall motion abnormalities and left ventricular ejection fraction, whereas in patients with chest pain and ST-elevation without clear evidence of ST-elevation myocardial infarction, coronary CT angiography can help to rule out ACS and point to alternate diagnoses, the authors said.

The guidance also offers recommendations for imaging in patients with hemodynamic instability (shock or hypotension), patients with new left ventricular dysfunction in the absence of shock or hypotension, and patients with subacute and chronic-phase disease.

Development of the guidance document was supported by the ACC. Dr. Di Carli disclosed institutional grant support from Gilead Sciences and Spectrum Dynamics, and consulting income from Janssen and Bayer.

SOURCE: Rudski L et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Jul 22. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.06.080.

Recommendations on use of the new dual-action anabolic agent romosozumab (Evenity, Amgen) and how to safely transition between osteoporosis agents are two of the issues addressed in the latest clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis from the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and American College of Endocrinology.

“This guideline is a practical tool for endocrinologists, physicians in general, regulatory bodies, health-related organizations, and interested laypersons regarding the diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis,” the authors wrote.

The guidelines focus on 12 key clinical questions related to postmenopausal osteoporosis, with 52 specific recommendations, each graded according to the level of evidence.

They also include a treatment algorithm to help guide choice of therapy.
 

Reiterating role of FRAX in the diagnosis of patients with osteopenia

Among key updates is an emphasis on the role of the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) in the diagnosis of osteoporosis in patients with osteopenia.

While patients have traditionally been diagnosed with osteoporosis based on the presence of low bone mineral density (BMD) in the absence of fracture, the updated guidelines indicate that osteoporosis may be diagnosed in patients with osteopenia and an increased fracture risk using FRAX.

“The use of FRAX and osteopenia to diagnosis osteoporosis was first proposed by the National Bone Health Alliance years ago, and in the 2016 guideline, we agreed with it,” Pauline M. Camacho, MD, cochair of the guidelines task force, said in an interview.

“We reiterate in the 2020 guideline that we feel this is a valid diagnostic criteria,” said Dr. Camacho, professor of medicine and director of the Osteoporosis and Metabolic Bone Disease Center at Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, Ill. “It makes sense because when the thresholds are met by FRAX in patients with osteopenia, treatment is recommended. Therefore, why would they not fulfill treatment criteria for diagnosing osteoporosis?”

An increased risk of fracture based on a FRAX score may also be used to determine pharmacologic therapy, as can other traditional factors such as a low T score or a fragility fracture, the guidelines stated.
 

High risk vs. very high risk guides choice of first therapy

Another key update is the clarification of the risk stratification of patients who are high risk versus very high risk, which is key in determining the initial choice of agents and duration of therapy.

Specifically, patients should be considered at a very high fracture risk if they have the following criteria: a recent fracture (e.g., within the past 12 months), fractures while on approved osteoporosis therapy, multiple fractures, fractures while on drugs causing skeletal harm (e.g., long-term glucocorticoids), very low T score (e.g., less than −3.0), a high risk for falls or history of injurious falls, and a very high fracture probability by FRAX (e.g., major osteoporosis fracture >30%, hip fracture >4.5%) or other validated fracture risk algorithm.

Meanwhile, patients should be considered at high risk if they have been diagnosed with osteoporosis but do not meet the criteria for very high fracture risk.
 

Romosozumab brought into the mix

Another important update provides information on the role of one of the newest osteoporosis agents on the market, the anabolic drug romosozumab, a monoclonal antibody directed against sclerostin.

The drug’s approval by the Food and Drug Administration in 2019 for postmenopausal women at high risk of fracture was based on two large trials that showed dramatic increases in bone density through modeling as well as remodeling.

Those studies specifically showed significant reductions in radiographic vertebral fractures with romosozumab, compared with placebo and alendronate.

Dr. Camacho noted that romosozumab “will likely be for the very high risk group and those who have maxed out on teriparatide or abaloparatide.”

Romosozumab can safely be used in patients with prior radiation exposure, the guidelines noted.

Importantly, because of reports of a higher risk of serious cardiovascular events with romosozumab, compared with alendronate, romosozumab comes with a black-box warning that it should not be used in patients at high risk for cardiovascular events or who have had a recent myocardial infarction or stroke.

“Unfortunately, the very high risk group is often the older patients,” Dr. Camacho noted.

“The drug should not be given if there is a history of myocardial infarction or stroke in the past year,” she emphasized. “Clinical judgment is needed to decide who is at risk for cardiovascular complications.”

Notably, teriparatide and abaloparatide have black box warnings of their own regarding risk for osteosarcoma.

Switching therapies

Reflecting the evolving data on osteoporosis drug holidays, the guidelines also addressed the issue and the clinical challenges of switching therapies.

“In 2016, we said drug holidays are not recommended, and the treatment can be continued indefinitely, [however] in 2020, we felt that if some patients are no longer high risk, they can be transitioned off the drug,” Dr. Camacho said.

For teriparatide and abaloparatide, the FDA recommends treatment be limited to no more than 2 years, and for romosozumab, 1 year.

The updated guidelines recommend that upon discontinuation of an anabolic agent (e.g., abaloparatide, romosozumab, or teriparatide), a switch to therapy with an antiresorptive agent, such as denosumab or bisphosphonates, should be implemented to prevent loss of BMD and fracture efficacy.

Discontinuation of denosumab, however, can have notably negative effects. Clinical trials show rapid decreases in BMD when denosumab treatment is stopped after 2 or 8 years, as well as rapid loss of protection from vertebral fractures.

Therefore, if denosumab is going to be discontinued, there should be a proper transition to an antiresorptive agent for a limited time, such as one infusion of the bisphosphonate zoledronate.
 

Communicate the risks with and without treatment to patients

The authors underscored that, in addition to communicating the potential risk and expected benefits of osteoporosis treatments, clinicians should make sure patients fully appreciate the risk of fractures and their consequences, such as pain, disability, loss of independence, and death, when no treatment is given.

“It is incumbent on the clinician to provide this information to each patient in a manner that is fully understood, and it is equally important to learn from the patient about cultural beliefs, previous treatment experiences, fears, and concerns,” they wrote.

And in estimating patients’ fracture risk, T score must be combined with clinical risk factors, particularly advanced age and previous fracture, and clinicians should recognize that the absolute fracture risk is more useful than a risk ratio in developing treatment plans.

“Treatment recommendations may be quite different; an early postmenopausal woman with a T score of −2.5 has osteoporosis, although fracture risk is much lower than an 80-year-old woman with the same T score,” the authors explained.

Dr. Camacho reported financial relationships with Amgen and Shire. Disclosures for other task force members are detailed in the guidelines.

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

Recommendations on use of the new dual-action anabolic agent romosozumab (Evenity, Amgen) and how to safely transition between osteoporosis agents are two of the issues addressed in the latest clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis from the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and American College of Endocrinology.

“This guideline is a practical tool for endocrinologists, physicians in general, regulatory bodies, health-related organizations, and interested laypersons regarding the diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis,” the authors wrote.

The guidelines focus on 12 key clinical questions related to postmenopausal osteoporosis, with 52 specific recommendations, each graded according to the level of evidence.

They also include a treatment algorithm to help guide choice of therapy.
 

Reiterating role of FRAX in the diagnosis of patients with osteopenia

Among key updates is an emphasis on the role of the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) in the diagnosis of osteoporosis in patients with osteopenia.

While patients have traditionally been diagnosed with osteoporosis based on the presence of low bone mineral density (BMD) in the absence of fracture, the updated guidelines indicate that osteoporosis may be diagnosed in patients with osteopenia and an increased fracture risk using FRAX.

“The use of FRAX and osteopenia to diagnosis osteoporosis was first proposed by the National Bone Health Alliance years ago, and in the 2016 guideline, we agreed with it,” Pauline M. Camacho, MD, cochair of the guidelines task force, said in an interview.

“We reiterate in the 2020 guideline that we feel this is a valid diagnostic criteria,” said Dr. Camacho, professor of medicine and director of the Osteoporosis and Metabolic Bone Disease Center at Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, Ill. “It makes sense because when the thresholds are met by FRAX in patients with osteopenia, treatment is recommended. Therefore, why would they not fulfill treatment criteria for diagnosing osteoporosis?”

An increased risk of fracture based on a FRAX score may also be used to determine pharmacologic therapy, as can other traditional factors such as a low T score or a fragility fracture, the guidelines stated.
 

High risk vs. very high risk guides choice of first therapy

Another key update is the clarification of the risk stratification of patients who are high risk versus very high risk, which is key in determining the initial choice of agents and duration of therapy.

Specifically, patients should be considered at a very high fracture risk if they have the following criteria: a recent fracture (e.g., within the past 12 months), fractures while on approved osteoporosis therapy, multiple fractures, fractures while on drugs causing skeletal harm (e.g., long-term glucocorticoids), very low T score (e.g., less than −3.0), a high risk for falls or history of injurious falls, and a very high fracture probability by FRAX (e.g., major osteoporosis fracture >30%, hip fracture >4.5%) or other validated fracture risk algorithm.

Meanwhile, patients should be considered at high risk if they have been diagnosed with osteoporosis but do not meet the criteria for very high fracture risk.
 

Romosozumab brought into the mix

Another important update provides information on the role of one of the newest osteoporosis agents on the market, the anabolic drug romosozumab, a monoclonal antibody directed against sclerostin.

The drug’s approval by the Food and Drug Administration in 2019 for postmenopausal women at high risk of fracture was based on two large trials that showed dramatic increases in bone density through modeling as well as remodeling.

Those studies specifically showed significant reductions in radiographic vertebral fractures with romosozumab, compared with placebo and alendronate.

Dr. Camacho noted that romosozumab “will likely be for the very high risk group and those who have maxed out on teriparatide or abaloparatide.”

Romosozumab can safely be used in patients with prior radiation exposure, the guidelines noted.

Importantly, because of reports of a higher risk of serious cardiovascular events with romosozumab, compared with alendronate, romosozumab comes with a black-box warning that it should not be used in patients at high risk for cardiovascular events or who have had a recent myocardial infarction or stroke.

“Unfortunately, the very high risk group is often the older patients,” Dr. Camacho noted.

“The drug should not be given if there is a history of myocardial infarction or stroke in the past year,” she emphasized. “Clinical judgment is needed to decide who is at risk for cardiovascular complications.”

Notably, teriparatide and abaloparatide have black box warnings of their own regarding risk for osteosarcoma.

Switching therapies

Reflecting the evolving data on osteoporosis drug holidays, the guidelines also addressed the issue and the clinical challenges of switching therapies.

“In 2016, we said drug holidays are not recommended, and the treatment can be continued indefinitely, [however] in 2020, we felt that if some patients are no longer high risk, they can be transitioned off the drug,” Dr. Camacho said.

For teriparatide and abaloparatide, the FDA recommends treatment be limited to no more than 2 years, and for romosozumab, 1 year.

The updated guidelines recommend that upon discontinuation of an anabolic agent (e.g., abaloparatide, romosozumab, or teriparatide), a switch to therapy with an antiresorptive agent, such as denosumab or bisphosphonates, should be implemented to prevent loss of BMD and fracture efficacy.

Discontinuation of denosumab, however, can have notably negative effects. Clinical trials show rapid decreases in BMD when denosumab treatment is stopped after 2 or 8 years, as well as rapid loss of protection from vertebral fractures.

Therefore, if denosumab is going to be discontinued, there should be a proper transition to an antiresorptive agent for a limited time, such as one infusion of the bisphosphonate zoledronate.
 

Communicate the risks with and without treatment to patients

The authors underscored that, in addition to communicating the potential risk and expected benefits of osteoporosis treatments, clinicians should make sure patients fully appreciate the risk of fractures and their consequences, such as pain, disability, loss of independence, and death, when no treatment is given.

“It is incumbent on the clinician to provide this information to each patient in a manner that is fully understood, and it is equally important to learn from the patient about cultural beliefs, previous treatment experiences, fears, and concerns,” they wrote.

And in estimating patients’ fracture risk, T score must be combined with clinical risk factors, particularly advanced age and previous fracture, and clinicians should recognize that the absolute fracture risk is more useful than a risk ratio in developing treatment plans.

“Treatment recommendations may be quite different; an early postmenopausal woman with a T score of −2.5 has osteoporosis, although fracture risk is much lower than an 80-year-old woman with the same T score,” the authors explained.

Dr. Camacho reported financial relationships with Amgen and Shire. Disclosures for other task force members are detailed in the guidelines.

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

Recommendations on use of the new dual-action anabolic agent romosozumab (Evenity, Amgen) and how to safely transition between osteoporosis agents are two of the issues addressed in the latest clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis from the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and American College of Endocrinology.

“This guideline is a practical tool for endocrinologists, physicians in general, regulatory bodies, health-related organizations, and interested laypersons regarding the diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis,” the authors wrote.

The guidelines focus on 12 key clinical questions related to postmenopausal osteoporosis, with 52 specific recommendations, each graded according to the level of evidence.

They also include a treatment algorithm to help guide choice of therapy.
 

Reiterating role of FRAX in the diagnosis of patients with osteopenia

Among key updates is an emphasis on the role of the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) in the diagnosis of osteoporosis in patients with osteopenia.

While patients have traditionally been diagnosed with osteoporosis based on the presence of low bone mineral density (BMD) in the absence of fracture, the updated guidelines indicate that osteoporosis may be diagnosed in patients with osteopenia and an increased fracture risk using FRAX.

“The use of FRAX and osteopenia to diagnosis osteoporosis was first proposed by the National Bone Health Alliance years ago, and in the 2016 guideline, we agreed with it,” Pauline M. Camacho, MD, cochair of the guidelines task force, said in an interview.

“We reiterate in the 2020 guideline that we feel this is a valid diagnostic criteria,” said Dr. Camacho, professor of medicine and director of the Osteoporosis and Metabolic Bone Disease Center at Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, Ill. “It makes sense because when the thresholds are met by FRAX in patients with osteopenia, treatment is recommended. Therefore, why would they not fulfill treatment criteria for diagnosing osteoporosis?”

An increased risk of fracture based on a FRAX score may also be used to determine pharmacologic therapy, as can other traditional factors such as a low T score or a fragility fracture, the guidelines stated.
 

High risk vs. very high risk guides choice of first therapy

Another key update is the clarification of the risk stratification of patients who are high risk versus very high risk, which is key in determining the initial choice of agents and duration of therapy.

Specifically, patients should be considered at a very high fracture risk if they have the following criteria: a recent fracture (e.g., within the past 12 months), fractures while on approved osteoporosis therapy, multiple fractures, fractures while on drugs causing skeletal harm (e.g., long-term glucocorticoids), very low T score (e.g., less than −3.0), a high risk for falls or history of injurious falls, and a very high fracture probability by FRAX (e.g., major osteoporosis fracture >30%, hip fracture >4.5%) or other validated fracture risk algorithm.

Meanwhile, patients should be considered at high risk if they have been diagnosed with osteoporosis but do not meet the criteria for very high fracture risk.
 

Romosozumab brought into the mix

Another important update provides information on the role of one of the newest osteoporosis agents on the market, the anabolic drug romosozumab, a monoclonal antibody directed against sclerostin.

The drug’s approval by the Food and Drug Administration in 2019 for postmenopausal women at high risk of fracture was based on two large trials that showed dramatic increases in bone density through modeling as well as remodeling.

Those studies specifically showed significant reductions in radiographic vertebral fractures with romosozumab, compared with placebo and alendronate.

Dr. Camacho noted that romosozumab “will likely be for the very high risk group and those who have maxed out on teriparatide or abaloparatide.”

Romosozumab can safely be used in patients with prior radiation exposure, the guidelines noted.

Importantly, because of reports of a higher risk of serious cardiovascular events with romosozumab, compared with alendronate, romosozumab comes with a black-box warning that it should not be used in patients at high risk for cardiovascular events or who have had a recent myocardial infarction or stroke.

“Unfortunately, the very high risk group is often the older patients,” Dr. Camacho noted.

“The drug should not be given if there is a history of myocardial infarction or stroke in the past year,” she emphasized. “Clinical judgment is needed to decide who is at risk for cardiovascular complications.”

Notably, teriparatide and abaloparatide have black box warnings of their own regarding risk for osteosarcoma.

Switching therapies

Reflecting the evolving data on osteoporosis drug holidays, the guidelines also addressed the issue and the clinical challenges of switching therapies.

“In 2016, we said drug holidays are not recommended, and the treatment can be continued indefinitely, [however] in 2020, we felt that if some patients are no longer high risk, they can be transitioned off the drug,” Dr. Camacho said.

For teriparatide and abaloparatide, the FDA recommends treatment be limited to no more than 2 years, and for romosozumab, 1 year.

The updated guidelines recommend that upon discontinuation of an anabolic agent (e.g., abaloparatide, romosozumab, or teriparatide), a switch to therapy with an antiresorptive agent, such as denosumab or bisphosphonates, should be implemented to prevent loss of BMD and fracture efficacy.

Discontinuation of denosumab, however, can have notably negative effects. Clinical trials show rapid decreases in BMD when denosumab treatment is stopped after 2 or 8 years, as well as rapid loss of protection from vertebral fractures.

Therefore, if denosumab is going to be discontinued, there should be a proper transition to an antiresorptive agent for a limited time, such as one infusion of the bisphosphonate zoledronate.
 

Communicate the risks with and without treatment to patients

The authors underscored that, in addition to communicating the potential risk and expected benefits of osteoporosis treatments, clinicians should make sure patients fully appreciate the risk of fractures and their consequences, such as pain, disability, loss of independence, and death, when no treatment is given.

“It is incumbent on the clinician to provide this information to each patient in a manner that is fully understood, and it is equally important to learn from the patient about cultural beliefs, previous treatment experiences, fears, and concerns,” they wrote.

And in estimating patients’ fracture risk, T score must be combined with clinical risk factors, particularly advanced age and previous fracture, and clinicians should recognize that the absolute fracture risk is more useful than a risk ratio in developing treatment plans.

“Treatment recommendations may be quite different; an early postmenopausal woman with a T score of −2.5 has osteoporosis, although fracture risk is much lower than an 80-year-old woman with the same T score,” the authors explained.

Dr. Camacho reported financial relationships with Amgen and Shire. Disclosures for other task force members are detailed in the guidelines.

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

BRCA carrier status alone should not influence screening recommendations for colorectal cancer or pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, according to an American Gastroenterological Association clinical practice update.

Relationships between BRCA carrier status and risks of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) and colorectal cancer (CRC) remain unclear, reported lead author Sonia S. Kupfer, MD, AGAF, of the University of Chicago, and colleagues.

“Pathogenic variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 have ... been associated with variable risk of GI cancer, including CRC, PDAC, biliary, and gastric cancers,” the investigators wrote in Gastroenterology. “However, the magnitude of GI cancer risks is not well established and there is minimal evidence or guidance on screening for GI cancers among BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers.”

According to the investigators, personalized screening for CRC is well supported by evidence, as higher-risk individuals, such as those with a family history of CRC, have been shown to benefit from earlier and more frequent colonoscopies. Although the value of risk-based screening is less clear for other types of GI cancer, the investigators cited a growing body of evidence that supports screening individuals at high risk of PDAC.

Still, data illuminating the role of BRCA carrier status are relatively scarce, which has led to variability in clinical practice.

“Lack of accurate CRC and PDAC risk estimates in BRCA1 and BRCA2 leave physicians and patients without guidance, and result in a range of screening recommendations and practices in this population,” wrote Dr. Kupfer and colleagues.

To offer some clarity, they drafted the present clinical practice update on behalf of the AGA. The recommendations are framed within a discussion of relevant publications.

Data from multiple studies, for instance, suggest that BRCA pathogenic variants are found in 1.3% of patients with early-onset CRC, 0.2% of those with high-risk CRC, and 1.0% of those with any type of CRC, all of which are higher rates “than would be expected by chance.

“However,” the investigators added, “this association is not proof that the observed BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants play a causative role in CRC.”

The investigators went on to discuss a 2018 meta-analysis by Oho et al., which included 14 studies evaluating risk of CRC among BRCA carriers. The analysis found that BRCA carriers had a 24% increased risk of CRC, which Dr. Kupfer and colleagues described as “small but statistically significant.” Subgroup analysis suggested that BRCA1 carriers drove this association, with a 49% increased risk of CRC, whereas no significant link was found with BRCA2.

Dr. Kupfer and colleagues described the 49% increase as “very modest,” and therefore insufficient to warrant more intensive screening, particularly when considered in the context of other risk factors, such as Lynch syndrome, which may entail a 1,600% increased risk of CRC. For PDAC, no such meta-analysis has been conducted; however, multiple studies have pointed to associations between BRCA and risk of PDAC.

For example, a 2018 case-control study by Hu et al. showed that BRCA1 and BRCA2 had relative prevalence rates of 0.59% and 1.95% among patients with PDAC. These rates translated to a 158% increased risk of PDAC for BRCA1, and a 520% increase risk for BRCA2; but Dr. Kupfer and colleagues noted that the BRCA2 carriers were from high-risk families, so the findings may not extend to the general population.

In light of these findings, the update recommends PDAC screening for BRCA carriers only if they have a family history of PDAC, with the caveat that the association between risk and degree of family involvement remains unknown.

Ultimately, for both CRC and PDAC, the investigators called for further BRCA research, based on the conclusion that “results from published studies provide inconsistent levels of evidence.”

The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Kupfer SS et al. Gastroenterology. 2020 Apr 23. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.03.086.

BRCA carrier status alone should not influence screening recommendations for colorectal cancer or pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, according to an American Gastroenterological Association clinical practice update.

Relationships between BRCA carrier status and risks of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) and colorectal cancer (CRC) remain unclear, reported lead author Sonia S. Kupfer, MD, AGAF, of the University of Chicago, and colleagues.

“Pathogenic variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 have ... been associated with variable risk of GI cancer, including CRC, PDAC, biliary, and gastric cancers,” the investigators wrote in Gastroenterology. “However, the magnitude of GI cancer risks is not well established and there is minimal evidence or guidance on screening for GI cancers among BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers.”

According to the investigators, personalized screening for CRC is well supported by evidence, as higher-risk individuals, such as those with a family history of CRC, have been shown to benefit from earlier and more frequent colonoscopies. Although the value of risk-based screening is less clear for other types of GI cancer, the investigators cited a growing body of evidence that supports screening individuals at high risk of PDAC.

Still, data illuminating the role of BRCA carrier status are relatively scarce, which has led to variability in clinical practice.

“Lack of accurate CRC and PDAC risk estimates in BRCA1 and BRCA2 leave physicians and patients without guidance, and result in a range of screening recommendations and practices in this population,” wrote Dr. Kupfer and colleagues.

To offer some clarity, they drafted the present clinical practice update on behalf of the AGA. The recommendations are framed within a discussion of relevant publications.

Data from multiple studies, for instance, suggest that BRCA pathogenic variants are found in 1.3% of patients with early-onset CRC, 0.2% of those with high-risk CRC, and 1.0% of those with any type of CRC, all of which are higher rates “than would be expected by chance.

“However,” the investigators added, “this association is not proof that the observed BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants play a causative role in CRC.”

The investigators went on to discuss a 2018 meta-analysis by Oho et al., which included 14 studies evaluating risk of CRC among BRCA carriers. The analysis found that BRCA carriers had a 24% increased risk of CRC, which Dr. Kupfer and colleagues described as “small but statistically significant.” Subgroup analysis suggested that BRCA1 carriers drove this association, with a 49% increased risk of CRC, whereas no significant link was found with BRCA2.

Dr. Kupfer and colleagues described the 49% increase as “very modest,” and therefore insufficient to warrant more intensive screening, particularly when considered in the context of other risk factors, such as Lynch syndrome, which may entail a 1,600% increased risk of CRC. For PDAC, no such meta-analysis has been conducted; however, multiple studies have pointed to associations between BRCA and risk of PDAC.

For example, a 2018 case-control study by Hu et al. showed that BRCA1 and BRCA2 had relative prevalence rates of 0.59% and 1.95% among patients with PDAC. These rates translated to a 158% increased risk of PDAC for BRCA1, and a 520% increase risk for BRCA2; but Dr. Kupfer and colleagues noted that the BRCA2 carriers were from high-risk families, so the findings may not extend to the general population.

In light of these findings, the update recommends PDAC screening for BRCA carriers only if they have a family history of PDAC, with the caveat that the association between risk and degree of family involvement remains unknown.

Ultimately, for both CRC and PDAC, the investigators called for further BRCA research, based on the conclusion that “results from published studies provide inconsistent levels of evidence.”

The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Kupfer SS et al. Gastroenterology. 2020 Apr 23. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.03.086.

BRCA carrier status alone should not influence screening recommendations for colorectal cancer or pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, according to an American Gastroenterological Association clinical practice update.

Relationships between BRCA carrier status and risks of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) and colorectal cancer (CRC) remain unclear, reported lead author Sonia S. Kupfer, MD, AGAF, of the University of Chicago, and colleagues.

“Pathogenic variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 have ... been associated with variable risk of GI cancer, including CRC, PDAC, biliary, and gastric cancers,” the investigators wrote in Gastroenterology. “However, the magnitude of GI cancer risks is not well established and there is minimal evidence or guidance on screening for GI cancers among BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers.”

According to the investigators, personalized screening for CRC is well supported by evidence, as higher-risk individuals, such as those with a family history of CRC, have been shown to benefit from earlier and more frequent colonoscopies. Although the value of risk-based screening is less clear for other types of GI cancer, the investigators cited a growing body of evidence that supports screening individuals at high risk of PDAC.

Still, data illuminating the role of BRCA carrier status are relatively scarce, which has led to variability in clinical practice.

“Lack of accurate CRC and PDAC risk estimates in BRCA1 and BRCA2 leave physicians and patients without guidance, and result in a range of screening recommendations and practices in this population,” wrote Dr. Kupfer and colleagues.

To offer some clarity, they drafted the present clinical practice update on behalf of the AGA. The recommendations are framed within a discussion of relevant publications.

Data from multiple studies, for instance, suggest that BRCA pathogenic variants are found in 1.3% of patients with early-onset CRC, 0.2% of those with high-risk CRC, and 1.0% of those with any type of CRC, all of which are higher rates “than would be expected by chance.

“However,” the investigators added, “this association is not proof that the observed BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants play a causative role in CRC.”

The investigators went on to discuss a 2018 meta-analysis by Oho et al., which included 14 studies evaluating risk of CRC among BRCA carriers. The analysis found that BRCA carriers had a 24% increased risk of CRC, which Dr. Kupfer and colleagues described as “small but statistically significant.” Subgroup analysis suggested that BRCA1 carriers drove this association, with a 49% increased risk of CRC, whereas no significant link was found with BRCA2.

Dr. Kupfer and colleagues described the 49% increase as “very modest,” and therefore insufficient to warrant more intensive screening, particularly when considered in the context of other risk factors, such as Lynch syndrome, which may entail a 1,600% increased risk of CRC. For PDAC, no such meta-analysis has been conducted; however, multiple studies have pointed to associations between BRCA and risk of PDAC.

For example, a 2018 case-control study by Hu et al. showed that BRCA1 and BRCA2 had relative prevalence rates of 0.59% and 1.95% among patients with PDAC. These rates translated to a 158% increased risk of PDAC for BRCA1, and a 520% increase risk for BRCA2; but Dr. Kupfer and colleagues noted that the BRCA2 carriers were from high-risk families, so the findings may not extend to the general population.

In light of these findings, the update recommends PDAC screening for BRCA carriers only if they have a family history of PDAC, with the caveat that the association between risk and degree of family involvement remains unknown.

Ultimately, for both CRC and PDAC, the investigators called for further BRCA research, based on the conclusion that “results from published studies provide inconsistent levels of evidence.”

The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Kupfer SS et al. Gastroenterology. 2020 Apr 23. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.03.086.

The role of probiotics in the management of gastrointestinal disorders remains largely unclear, according to a clinical practice guideline published by the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA).

Out of eight disorders reviewed by the guideline panel, four had enough relevant data to support conditional recommendations, while the other four were associated with knowledge gaps that precluded guidance, reported lead author Grace L. Su, MD, AGAF, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues.

“It is estimated that 3.9 million American adults used some form of probiotics or prebiotics ... in 2015, an amount which is four times that in 2007,” the guideline panelists wrote. Their report is in Gastroenterology. “Given widespread use and often biased sources of information, it is essential that clinicians have objective guidance for their patients about the appropriate use of and indications for probiotics.”

The creation of such guidance, however, proved a challenging task for the panel, who faced an “extremely varied” evidence base.

Dr. Su and colleagues, who were selected by the AGA Governing Board and Clinical Guidelines Committee, encountered “differences in the strain of microbe(s) used, dose, and route of administration.”

They noted that such differences can significantly affect clinical outcomes.

“Within species, different strains can have widely different activities and biologic effects,” they wrote. “Many immunologic, neurologic, and biochemical effects of gut microbiota are likely not only to be strain specific, but also dose specific. Furthermore, combinations of different microbial strains may also have widely different activity as some microbial activities are dependent on interactions between different strains.”

Beyond differences in treatments, the investigators also reported wide variability in endpoints and outcomes, as well as relatively small study populations compared with pharmacological trials.

Still, data were sufficient to provide some conditional recommendations.

The guideline supports probiotics for patients with pouchitis, those receiving antibiotic therapy, and preterm/low-birthweight infants. In contrast, the panel recommended against probiotics for children with acute infectious gastroenteritis, noting that this recommendation differs from those made by other medical organizations.

“While other society guidelines have previously recommended the use of probiotics in [children with acute infectious gastroenteritis], these guidelines were developed without utilizing GRADE methodology and also relied on data outside of North America which became available after the recommendations were made,” wrote Dr. Su and colleagues. They described a moderate quality of evidence relevant to this indication.

In comparison, the quality of evidence was very low for patients with pouchitis, low for those receiving antibiotics, and moderate/high for preterm/low-birthweight infants.

For Clostridioides difficile infection, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, and irritable bowel syndrome, the panel recommended probiotics only in the context of a clinical trial, citing knowledge gaps in these areas.

They also noted that probiotics may not be suitable for those at high risk of infection.

“[F]or patients who place a high value on avoidance of potential harms, particularly those with severe illnesses or immunosuppression, it would be reasonable to select not to use probiotics,” the panelists wrote.

Concluding their discussion, Dr. Su and colleagues called for more high-quality research.

“We identified that significant knowledge gaps exist in this very promising and important area of research due to the significant heterogeneity between studies and variability in the probiotic strains studied,” they wrote. “The lack of consistent harms reporting makes it difficult to assess true harms. The lack of product manufacturing details prohibits true comparisons and decreases the feasibility of obtaining certain products by patients. Future high-quality studies are urgently needed which address these pitfalls.”

According to the panelists, the probiotic guideline will be updated in 3-5 years, or possibly earlier if practice-altering findings are published.

The investigators disclosed relationships with Nestex, AbbVie, Takeda, and others.

The role of probiotics in the management of gastrointestinal disorders remains largely unclear, according to a clinical practice guideline published by the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA).

Out of eight disorders reviewed by the guideline panel, four had enough relevant data to support conditional recommendations, while the other four were associated with knowledge gaps that precluded guidance, reported lead author Grace L. Su, MD, AGAF, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues.

“It is estimated that 3.9 million American adults used some form of probiotics or prebiotics ... in 2015, an amount which is four times that in 2007,” the guideline panelists wrote. Their report is in Gastroenterology. “Given widespread use and often biased sources of information, it is essential that clinicians have objective guidance for their patients about the appropriate use of and indications for probiotics.”

The creation of such guidance, however, proved a challenging task for the panel, who faced an “extremely varied” evidence base.

Dr. Su and colleagues, who were selected by the AGA Governing Board and Clinical Guidelines Committee, encountered “differences in the strain of microbe(s) used, dose, and route of administration.”

They noted that such differences can significantly affect clinical outcomes.

“Within species, different strains can have widely different activities and biologic effects,” they wrote. “Many immunologic, neurologic, and biochemical effects of gut microbiota are likely not only to be strain specific, but also dose specific. Furthermore, combinations of different microbial strains may also have widely different activity as some microbial activities are dependent on interactions between different strains.”

Beyond differences in treatments, the investigators also reported wide variability in endpoints and outcomes, as well as relatively small study populations compared with pharmacological trials.

Still, data were sufficient to provide some conditional recommendations.

The guideline supports probiotics for patients with pouchitis, those receiving antibiotic therapy, and preterm/low-birthweight infants. In contrast, the panel recommended against probiotics for children with acute infectious gastroenteritis, noting that this recommendation differs from those made by other medical organizations.

“While other society guidelines have previously recommended the use of probiotics in [children with acute infectious gastroenteritis], these guidelines were developed without utilizing GRADE methodology and also relied on data outside of North America which became available after the recommendations were made,” wrote Dr. Su and colleagues. They described a moderate quality of evidence relevant to this indication.

In comparison, the quality of evidence was very low for patients with pouchitis, low for those receiving antibiotics, and moderate/high for preterm/low-birthweight infants.

For Clostridioides difficile infection, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, and irritable bowel syndrome, the panel recommended probiotics only in the context of a clinical trial, citing knowledge gaps in these areas.

They also noted that probiotics may not be suitable for those at high risk of infection.

“[F]or patients who place a high value on avoidance of potential harms, particularly those with severe illnesses or immunosuppression, it would be reasonable to select not to use probiotics,” the panelists wrote.

Concluding their discussion, Dr. Su and colleagues called for more high-quality research.

“We identified that significant knowledge gaps exist in this very promising and important area of research due to the significant heterogeneity between studies and variability in the probiotic strains studied,” they wrote. “The lack of consistent harms reporting makes it difficult to assess true harms. The lack of product manufacturing details prohibits true comparisons and decreases the feasibility of obtaining certain products by patients. Future high-quality studies are urgently needed which address these pitfalls.”

According to the panelists, the probiotic guideline will be updated in 3-5 years, or possibly earlier if practice-altering findings are published.

The investigators disclosed relationships with Nestex, AbbVie, Takeda, and others.

The role of probiotics in the management of gastrointestinal disorders remains largely unclear, according to a clinical practice guideline published by the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA).

Out of eight disorders reviewed by the guideline panel, four had enough relevant data to support conditional recommendations, while the other four were associated with knowledge gaps that precluded guidance, reported lead author Grace L. Su, MD, AGAF, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues.

“It is estimated that 3.9 million American adults used some form of probiotics or prebiotics ... in 2015, an amount which is four times that in 2007,” the guideline panelists wrote. Their report is in Gastroenterology. “Given widespread use and often biased sources of information, it is essential that clinicians have objective guidance for their patients about the appropriate use of and indications for probiotics.”

The creation of such guidance, however, proved a challenging task for the panel, who faced an “extremely varied” evidence base.

Dr. Su and colleagues, who were selected by the AGA Governing Board and Clinical Guidelines Committee, encountered “differences in the strain of microbe(s) used, dose, and route of administration.”

They noted that such differences can significantly affect clinical outcomes.

“Within species, different strains can have widely different activities and biologic effects,” they wrote. “Many immunologic, neurologic, and biochemical effects of gut microbiota are likely not only to be strain specific, but also dose specific. Furthermore, combinations of different microbial strains may also have widely different activity as some microbial activities are dependent on interactions between different strains.”

Beyond differences in treatments, the investigators also reported wide variability in endpoints and outcomes, as well as relatively small study populations compared with pharmacological trials.

Still, data were sufficient to provide some conditional recommendations.

The guideline supports probiotics for patients with pouchitis, those receiving antibiotic therapy, and preterm/low-birthweight infants. In contrast, the panel recommended against probiotics for children with acute infectious gastroenteritis, noting that this recommendation differs from those made by other medical organizations.

“While other society guidelines have previously recommended the use of probiotics in [children with acute infectious gastroenteritis], these guidelines were developed without utilizing GRADE methodology and also relied on data outside of North America which became available after the recommendations were made,” wrote Dr. Su and colleagues. They described a moderate quality of evidence relevant to this indication.

In comparison, the quality of evidence was very low for patients with pouchitis, low for those receiving antibiotics, and moderate/high for preterm/low-birthweight infants.

For Clostridioides difficile infection, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, and irritable bowel syndrome, the panel recommended probiotics only in the context of a clinical trial, citing knowledge gaps in these areas.

They also noted that probiotics may not be suitable for those at high risk of infection.

“[F]or patients who place a high value on avoidance of potential harms, particularly those with severe illnesses or immunosuppression, it would be reasonable to select not to use probiotics,” the panelists wrote.

Concluding their discussion, Dr. Su and colleagues called for more high-quality research.

“We identified that significant knowledge gaps exist in this very promising and important area of research due to the significant heterogeneity between studies and variability in the probiotic strains studied,” they wrote. “The lack of consistent harms reporting makes it difficult to assess true harms. The lack of product manufacturing details prohibits true comparisons and decreases the feasibility of obtaining certain products by patients. Future high-quality studies are urgently needed which address these pitfalls.”

According to the panelists, the probiotic guideline will be updated in 3-5 years, or possibly earlier if practice-altering findings are published.

The investigators disclosed relationships with Nestex, AbbVie, Takeda, and others.

Proposed changes in the eligibility criteria for lung cancer screening with low-dose CT could result in a near doubling of eligibility, and could especially benefit Black persons and women, say lung cancer experts.

The new proposals include lowering the age at which screening starts from 55 to 50 years, and to reduce the smoking history from 30 to 20 pack-years.

The draft recommendation from the United States Preventive Service Task Force (USPSTF) is available for public comment until August 3.

The task force recommends that adults age 50 to 80 who have a 20 pack-year or greater smoking history and currently smoke or have quit within the last 15 years undergo annual screening for lung cancer with low-dose CT,

“In my opinion, the proposed criteria by USPSTF represent a huge step in the right direction,” Lecia Sequist, MD, director of innovation at the Mass General Cancer Center in Boston, told Medscape Medical News.

“If these are adopted and implemented, we could see the benefit of screening (measured as reduction in lung cancer mortality) go from 9.8% with current parameters up to 13% with the broader parameters,” she said. “In addition, the new criteria should reduce racial disparities in screening eligibility.”

The recommendation also earned high marks from the American Lung Association.

The USPSTF has continued its ‘B’ recommendation – allowing for coverage of the screening with no cost for many under the Affordable Care Act – and is now proposing to expand the eligibility criteria “so that even more Americans at higher risk for lung cancer can be screened,” the ALA commented.

Start screening at 50  

Lowering the minimum age of screening to 50 would likely mean that more Black individuals and women would be eligible for screening, the recommendation authors contend. The current screening age of 55 is currently recommended under guidelines issued by the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American Cancer Society, American College of Chest Physicians, and National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

“African Americans have a higher risk of lung cancer, compared with whites, and this risk difference is more apparent at lower levels of smoking intensity,” they write.

As previously reported by Medscape Medical News, lung cancer screening in an urban, largely black cohort yielded roughly double the rates of positive screens and detected lung cancers compared with results from the National Lung Screening Trial, which enrolled mostly White individuals.

In addition, although lung cancer risk is greater for men than women who smoke, and women generally accumulate fewer pack-years than men, there is evidence to suggest that women who smoke may develop lung cancer earlier and with lower levels of exposure.

Therefore, “a strategy of screening persons ages 50 to 80 years who have at least a 20 pack-year smoking history and currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years (A-50-80-20-15) would lead to a relative increase in the percentage of persons eligible for screening by 81% in men and by 96% in women,” the proposed recommendation states.

What’s the harm?

One of the major concerns about low-dose CT screening for lung cancer is the relatively high rate of false-positive results reported in two large scale clinical trials, the recommendation authors acknowledged.

For example, in the NLST, which was the basis for an earlier USPSTF recommendation (for annual screening of adults 55 to 80 years of age who have a 30 pack-year smoking history and currently smoke or have quit in the previous 15 years), the false-positive rates were 26.3% at baseline, 27.2% at year 1, and 15.9% at year 2.

Similarly, in the NELSON trial, results of which were published earlier this year, false-positive rates for men were 19.8% at baseline, 7.1% at year 1, 9% at year 3, and 3.9% at year 5.5 of screening, they noted.

“Yes, false-positive results are one of the things we need to think carefully about when embarking on lung screening,” Dr. Sequist told Medscape Medical News. “The potential harm of a false-positive (unnecessary scans, biopsies or even surgery) can be minimized by having a multidisciplinary team with experience working up lung nodules see patients who have a positive screening test. In fact, the American College of Radiology recommends that all lung screening programs be paired with such a team.”

Mass General has a pulmonary nodule clinic to evaluate screen-detected lung nodules, with the goal of minimizing unnecessary procedures, she noted.

Asked about the potential harm from radiation exposure, Sequist said that exposure from low-dose CT screening is fairly minimal, comparable to that from solar radiation at sea level over a 6-month period, or about the level from three cross-country airplane trips.

“While it is not zero radiation, there is very little concern that this low level of radiation would cause a cancer or damage one’s lungs,” she said.

Albert Rizzo, MD, chief medical officer of the ALA, said that the potential harms of unnecessary interventions are outweighed by the benefits of detecting lung cancer at an early stage.

“I think what has been learned over the last 5 years is that the original recommendations that were put out really allowed the overall rate of positivity well within what’s seen with mammography, for example, and the number of patients who have needlessly gone on to procedures remains very low, and the morbidity of those procedures remains low as well,” Dr. Rizzo told Medscape Medical News.

Not enough takers

Despite the clear benefits of low-dose CT screening, however, US screening rates for high-risk individuals are still very low, ranging from 12.3% in Massachusetts to a low of 0.5% in Nevada, according to a 2019 research report on the state of lung cancer from the ALA.

“For screening to be most effective, more of the high-risk population should be screened. Currently, screening rates are very low among those at high risk. This may be because of a lack of access or low awareness and knowledge among patients and providers. As rates vary tremendously between states, it is clear that more can be done to increase screening rates,” the report stated.

“I think that there are some mixed messages sent out into the population as to whether or not an individual patient should be screened,” Dr. Rizzo said.

He noted that some physicians may be reluctant to take on the nuanced risk–benefit discussion required, or may not have the time during a brief patient visit.

“It really boils down to that discussion between the physician and the patient who falls under these risk categories, to say, ‘Look, this is what these studies have found, and you fall under a category where if we find a cancer early, it’s very likely you’re going to be saved,’ as compared for waiting for it to present by itself,” he said.

Dr. Sequist and Dr. Rizzo have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Proposed changes in the eligibility criteria for lung cancer screening with low-dose CT could result in a near doubling of eligibility, and could especially benefit Black persons and women, say lung cancer experts.

The new proposals include lowering the age at which screening starts from 55 to 50 years, and to reduce the smoking history from 30 to 20 pack-years.

The draft recommendation from the United States Preventive Service Task Force (USPSTF) is available for public comment until August 3.

The task force recommends that adults age 50 to 80 who have a 20 pack-year or greater smoking history and currently smoke or have quit within the last 15 years undergo annual screening for lung cancer with low-dose CT,

“In my opinion, the proposed criteria by USPSTF represent a huge step in the right direction,” Lecia Sequist, MD, director of innovation at the Mass General Cancer Center in Boston, told Medscape Medical News.

“If these are adopted and implemented, we could see the benefit of screening (measured as reduction in lung cancer mortality) go from 9.8% with current parameters up to 13% with the broader parameters,” she said. “In addition, the new criteria should reduce racial disparities in screening eligibility.”

The recommendation also earned high marks from the American Lung Association.

The USPSTF has continued its ‘B’ recommendation – allowing for coverage of the screening with no cost for many under the Affordable Care Act – and is now proposing to expand the eligibility criteria “so that even more Americans at higher risk for lung cancer can be screened,” the ALA commented.

Start screening at 50  

Lowering the minimum age of screening to 50 would likely mean that more Black individuals and women would be eligible for screening, the recommendation authors contend. The current screening age of 55 is currently recommended under guidelines issued by the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American Cancer Society, American College of Chest Physicians, and National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

“African Americans have a higher risk of lung cancer, compared with whites, and this risk difference is more apparent at lower levels of smoking intensity,” they write.

As previously reported by Medscape Medical News, lung cancer screening in an urban, largely black cohort yielded roughly double the rates of positive screens and detected lung cancers compared with results from the National Lung Screening Trial, which enrolled mostly White individuals.

In addition, although lung cancer risk is greater for men than women who smoke, and women generally accumulate fewer pack-years than men, there is evidence to suggest that women who smoke may develop lung cancer earlier and with lower levels of exposure.

Therefore, “a strategy of screening persons ages 50 to 80 years who have at least a 20 pack-year smoking history and currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years (A-50-80-20-15) would lead to a relative increase in the percentage of persons eligible for screening by 81% in men and by 96% in women,” the proposed recommendation states.

What’s the harm?

One of the major concerns about low-dose CT screening for lung cancer is the relatively high rate of false-positive results reported in two large scale clinical trials, the recommendation authors acknowledged.

For example, in the NLST, which was the basis for an earlier USPSTF recommendation (for annual screening of adults 55 to 80 years of age who have a 30 pack-year smoking history and currently smoke or have quit in the previous 15 years), the false-positive rates were 26.3% at baseline, 27.2% at year 1, and 15.9% at year 2.

Similarly, in the NELSON trial, results of which were published earlier this year, false-positive rates for men were 19.8% at baseline, 7.1% at year 1, 9% at year 3, and 3.9% at year 5.5 of screening, they noted.

“Yes, false-positive results are one of the things we need to think carefully about when embarking on lung screening,” Dr. Sequist told Medscape Medical News. “The potential harm of a false-positive (unnecessary scans, biopsies or even surgery) can be minimized by having a multidisciplinary team with experience working up lung nodules see patients who have a positive screening test. In fact, the American College of Radiology recommends that all lung screening programs be paired with such a team.”

Mass General has a pulmonary nodule clinic to evaluate screen-detected lung nodules, with the goal of minimizing unnecessary procedures, she noted.

Asked about the potential harm from radiation exposure, Sequist said that exposure from low-dose CT screening is fairly minimal, comparable to that from solar radiation at sea level over a 6-month period, or about the level from three cross-country airplane trips.

“While it is not zero radiation, there is very little concern that this low level of radiation would cause a cancer or damage one’s lungs,” she said.

Albert Rizzo, MD, chief medical officer of the ALA, said that the potential harms of unnecessary interventions are outweighed by the benefits of detecting lung cancer at an early stage.

“I think what has been learned over the last 5 years is that the original recommendations that were put out really allowed the overall rate of positivity well within what’s seen with mammography, for example, and the number of patients who have needlessly gone on to procedures remains very low, and the morbidity of those procedures remains low as well,” Dr. Rizzo told Medscape Medical News.

Not enough takers

Despite the clear benefits of low-dose CT screening, however, US screening rates for high-risk individuals are still very low, ranging from 12.3% in Massachusetts to a low of 0.5% in Nevada, according to a 2019 research report on the state of lung cancer from the ALA.

“For screening to be most effective, more of the high-risk population should be screened. Currently, screening rates are very low among those at high risk. This may be because of a lack of access or low awareness and knowledge among patients and providers. As rates vary tremendously between states, it is clear that more can be done to increase screening rates,” the report stated.

“I think that there are some mixed messages sent out into the population as to whether or not an individual patient should be screened,” Dr. Rizzo said.

He noted that some physicians may be reluctant to take on the nuanced risk–benefit discussion required, or may not have the time during a brief patient visit.

“It really boils down to that discussion between the physician and the patient who falls under these risk categories, to say, ‘Look, this is what these studies have found, and you fall under a category where if we find a cancer early, it’s very likely you’re going to be saved,’ as compared for waiting for it to present by itself,” he said.

Dr. Sequist and Dr. Rizzo have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Proposed changes in the eligibility criteria for lung cancer screening with low-dose CT could result in a near doubling of eligibility, and could especially benefit Black persons and women, say lung cancer experts.

The new proposals include lowering the age at which screening starts from 55 to 50 years, and to reduce the smoking history from 30 to 20 pack-years.

The draft recommendation from the United States Preventive Service Task Force (USPSTF) is available for public comment until August 3.

The task force recommends that adults age 50 to 80 who have a 20 pack-year or greater smoking history and currently smoke or have quit within the last 15 years undergo annual screening for lung cancer with low-dose CT,

“In my opinion, the proposed criteria by USPSTF represent a huge step in the right direction,” Lecia Sequist, MD, director of innovation at the Mass General Cancer Center in Boston, told Medscape Medical News.

“If these are adopted and implemented, we could see the benefit of screening (measured as reduction in lung cancer mortality) go from 9.8% with current parameters up to 13% with the broader parameters,” she said. “In addition, the new criteria should reduce racial disparities in screening eligibility.”

The recommendation also earned high marks from the American Lung Association.

The USPSTF has continued its ‘B’ recommendation – allowing for coverage of the screening with no cost for many under the Affordable Care Act – and is now proposing to expand the eligibility criteria “so that even more Americans at higher risk for lung cancer can be screened,” the ALA commented.

Start screening at 50  

Lowering the minimum age of screening to 50 would likely mean that more Black individuals and women would be eligible for screening, the recommendation authors contend. The current screening age of 55 is currently recommended under guidelines issued by the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American Cancer Society, American College of Chest Physicians, and National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

“African Americans have a higher risk of lung cancer, compared with whites, and this risk difference is more apparent at lower levels of smoking intensity,” they write.

As previously reported by Medscape Medical News, lung cancer screening in an urban, largely black cohort yielded roughly double the rates of positive screens and detected lung cancers compared with results from the National Lung Screening Trial, which enrolled mostly White individuals.

In addition, although lung cancer risk is greater for men than women who smoke, and women generally accumulate fewer pack-years than men, there is evidence to suggest that women who smoke may develop lung cancer earlier and with lower levels of exposure.

Therefore, “a strategy of screening persons ages 50 to 80 years who have at least a 20 pack-year smoking history and currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years (A-50-80-20-15) would lead to a relative increase in the percentage of persons eligible for screening by 81% in men and by 96% in women,” the proposed recommendation states.

What’s the harm?

One of the major concerns about low-dose CT screening for lung cancer is the relatively high rate of false-positive results reported in two large scale clinical trials, the recommendation authors acknowledged.

For example, in the NLST, which was the basis for an earlier USPSTF recommendation (for annual screening of adults 55 to 80 years of age who have a 30 pack-year smoking history and currently smoke or have quit in the previous 15 years), the false-positive rates were 26.3% at baseline, 27.2% at year 1, and 15.9% at year 2.

Similarly, in the NELSON trial, results of which were published earlier this year, false-positive rates for men were 19.8% at baseline, 7.1% at year 1, 9% at year 3, and 3.9% at year 5.5 of screening, they noted.

“Yes, false-positive results are one of the things we need to think carefully about when embarking on lung screening,” Dr. Sequist told Medscape Medical News. “The potential harm of a false-positive (unnecessary scans, biopsies or even surgery) can be minimized by having a multidisciplinary team with experience working up lung nodules see patients who have a positive screening test. In fact, the American College of Radiology recommends that all lung screening programs be paired with such a team.”

Mass General has a pulmonary nodule clinic to evaluate screen-detected lung nodules, with the goal of minimizing unnecessary procedures, she noted.

Asked about the potential harm from radiation exposure, Sequist said that exposure from low-dose CT screening is fairly minimal, comparable to that from solar radiation at sea level over a 6-month period, or about the level from three cross-country airplane trips.

“While it is not zero radiation, there is very little concern that this low level of radiation would cause a cancer or damage one’s lungs,” she said.

Albert Rizzo, MD, chief medical officer of the ALA, said that the potential harms of unnecessary interventions are outweighed by the benefits of detecting lung cancer at an early stage.

“I think what has been learned over the last 5 years is that the original recommendations that were put out really allowed the overall rate of positivity well within what’s seen with mammography, for example, and the number of patients who have needlessly gone on to procedures remains very low, and the morbidity of those procedures remains low as well,” Dr. Rizzo told Medscape Medical News.

Not enough takers

Despite the clear benefits of low-dose CT screening, however, US screening rates for high-risk individuals are still very low, ranging from 12.3% in Massachusetts to a low of 0.5% in Nevada, according to a 2019 research report on the state of lung cancer from the ALA.

“For screening to be most effective, more of the high-risk population should be screened. Currently, screening rates are very low among those at high risk. This may be because of a lack of access or low awareness and knowledge among patients and providers. As rates vary tremendously between states, it is clear that more can be done to increase screening rates,” the report stated.

“I think that there are some mixed messages sent out into the population as to whether or not an individual patient should be screened,” Dr. Rizzo said.

He noted that some physicians may be reluctant to take on the nuanced risk–benefit discussion required, or may not have the time during a brief patient visit.

“It really boils down to that discussion between the physician and the patient who falls under these risk categories, to say, ‘Look, this is what these studies have found, and you fall under a category where if we find a cancer early, it’s very likely you’re going to be saved,’ as compared for waiting for it to present by itself,” he said.

Dr. Sequist and Dr. Rizzo have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The American Gastroenterological Association has released a new guideline for consultative management of patients with COVID-19.

The recommendations, which were written by Shahnaz Sultan, MD, AGAF, chair of the AGA Clinical Guidelines Committee, of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and colleagues, were based on a meta-analysis of data from 47 studies involving 10,890 unique patients.

“We seek to summarize international data on the GI and liver manifestations of COVID-19 infection and treatment,” the panelists wrote in Gastroenterology. “Additionally, this document provides evidence-based clinical guidance on clinical questions that gastroenterologists may be consulted for.”

The guideline includes seven best practice statements.

The first three statements relate to COVID-19–related GI symptoms, which are estimated to occur in less than 10% of patients, and rarely in the absence of other COVID-19–related symptoms, according to Dr. Sultan and her copanelists.

“The overall prevalence of GI symptoms in the context of COVID-19, including nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and diarrhea, is lower than estimated previously,” the panelists wrote, referencing a previous meta-analysis by Ka Shing Cheung, MBBS, and colleagues that showed a prevalence of 17.6%.

“It is important to note that the majority of studies were focused on hospitalized patients with COVID-19, and the prevalence of diarrhea in patients with mild symptoms who were not hospitalized is not known.”

Since GI issues may precede other symptoms of COVID-19, the guideline recommends questioning outpatients with new-onset GI symptoms about other symptoms of COVID-19, with viral testing recommended in areas of high prevalence. Conversely, the panelists recommended that patients with suspected or known COVID-19 should undergo thorough history taking for GI symptoms, “including onset, characteristics, duration, and severity.”

The fourth practice statement advises against COVID-19 stool testing in routine clinical practice, either for diagnostic or monitoring purposes.

Although Dr. Cheung and colleagues reported that 48.1% of fecal specimens from patients with COVID-19 contained viral RNA, the panelists concluded that the practical relevance of this finding remains unknown.

“Stool infectivity and transmission have not been confirmed,” the panelists wrote, citing a lack of evidence and conflicting findings.

The final three practice statements address liver concerns.

First, any patient with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 who has elevated liver function tests should be evaluated for alternative etiologies. Second, hospitalized patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 should undergo baseline liver function testing, followed by liver monitoring throughout their stay, “particularly in the context of drug treatment for COVID-19.” And third, any patient receiving drugs to treat COVID-19 should be monitored for treatment-related hepatic and GI adverse effects.

Dr. Sultan and colleagues found that approximately 15% of patients with COVID-19 included in their meta-analysis had abnormal liver function tests, more often because of secondary effects rather than virally induced liver injury.

Although liver function test abnormalities were inconsistently reported across studies, and when available, often lacked relevant contextual data, such as information about underlying liver disease, published data suggest that abnormal liver values could predict more severe COVID-19, supporting baseline and serial liver testing, the panelists wrote.

Following these recommendations, the guideline includes a discussion of GI and hepatic adverse effects related to specific COVID-19 treatments.

According to the panelists, chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine may infrequently lead to GI disturbances, and rarely, liver injury, with the latter thought to be a sequela of a hypersensitivity reaction; among antiviral medications, lopinavir/ritonavir and favipiravir may cause GI adverse effects in approximately 5%-15% of patients, with potentially higher rates in children and those receiving higher doses.

“In particular, GI adverse events are poorly understood for both favipiravir and remdesivir,” the panelists wrote.

Hepatic adverse effects, ranging from mild elevations in aminotransferases to acute liver failure, have been documented, albeit rarely, among patients receiving lopinavir/ritonavir, according to the panelists. For remdesivir, liver injury has also been reported, although frequency is unknown, and for favipiravir, hepatic adverse events may be seen in 3% of patients, although, again, the panelists noted a scarcity of relevant findings.

In their concluding remarks, Dr. Sultan and colleagues called for more high-quality data, and encouraged clinicians to contribute to international registries, as these could help guide COVID-19 recommendations for patient subgroups.

The article was funded by the American Gastroenterological Association Institute.

SOURCE: Sultan S et al. Gastroenterology. 2020 May 11. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.05.001.

The American Gastroenterological Association has released a new guideline for consultative management of patients with COVID-19.

The recommendations, which were written by Shahnaz Sultan, MD, AGAF, chair of the AGA Clinical Guidelines Committee, of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and colleagues, were based on a meta-analysis of data from 47 studies involving 10,890 unique patients.

“We seek to summarize international data on the GI and liver manifestations of COVID-19 infection and treatment,” the panelists wrote in Gastroenterology. “Additionally, this document provides evidence-based clinical guidance on clinical questions that gastroenterologists may be consulted for.”

The guideline includes seven best practice statements.

The first three statements relate to COVID-19–related GI symptoms, which are estimated to occur in less than 10% of patients, and rarely in the absence of other COVID-19–related symptoms, according to Dr. Sultan and her copanelists.

“The overall prevalence of GI symptoms in the context of COVID-19, including nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and diarrhea, is lower than estimated previously,” the panelists wrote, referencing a previous meta-analysis by Ka Shing Cheung, MBBS, and colleagues that showed a prevalence of 17.6%.

“It is important to note that the majority of studies were focused on hospitalized patients with COVID-19, and the prevalence of diarrhea in patients with mild symptoms who were not hospitalized is not known.”

Since GI issues may precede other symptoms of COVID-19, the guideline recommends questioning outpatients with new-onset GI symptoms about other symptoms of COVID-19, with viral testing recommended in areas of high prevalence. Conversely, the panelists recommended that patients with suspected or known COVID-19 should undergo thorough history taking for GI symptoms, “including onset, characteristics, duration, and severity.”

The fourth practice statement advises against COVID-19 stool testing in routine clinical practice, either for diagnostic or monitoring purposes.

Although Dr. Cheung and colleagues reported that 48.1% of fecal specimens from patients with COVID-19 contained viral RNA, the panelists concluded that the practical relevance of this finding remains unknown.

“Stool infectivity and transmission have not been confirmed,” the panelists wrote, citing a lack of evidence and conflicting findings.

The final three practice statements address liver concerns.

First, any patient with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 who has elevated liver function tests should be evaluated for alternative etiologies. Second, hospitalized patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 should undergo baseline liver function testing, followed by liver monitoring throughout their stay, “particularly in the context of drug treatment for COVID-19.” And third, any patient receiving drugs to treat COVID-19 should be monitored for treatment-related hepatic and GI adverse effects.

Dr. Sultan and colleagues found that approximately 15% of patients with COVID-19 included in their meta-analysis had abnormal liver function tests, more often because of secondary effects rather than virally induced liver injury.

Although liver function test abnormalities were inconsistently reported across studies, and when available, often lacked relevant contextual data, such as information about underlying liver disease, published data suggest that abnormal liver values could predict more severe COVID-19, supporting baseline and serial liver testing, the panelists wrote.

Following these recommendations, the guideline includes a discussion of GI and hepatic adverse effects related to specific COVID-19 treatments.

According to the panelists, chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine may infrequently lead to GI disturbances, and rarely, liver injury, with the latter thought to be a sequela of a hypersensitivity reaction; among antiviral medications, lopinavir/ritonavir and favipiravir may cause GI adverse effects in approximately 5%-15% of patients, with potentially higher rates in children and those receiving higher doses.

“In particular, GI adverse events are poorly understood for both favipiravir and remdesivir,” the panelists wrote.

Hepatic adverse effects, ranging from mild elevations in aminotransferases to acute liver failure, have been documented, albeit rarely, among patients receiving lopinavir/ritonavir, according to the panelists. For remdesivir, liver injury has also been reported, although frequency is unknown, and for favipiravir, hepatic adverse events may be seen in 3% of patients, although, again, the panelists noted a scarcity of relevant findings.

In their concluding remarks, Dr. Sultan and colleagues called for more high-quality data, and encouraged clinicians to contribute to international registries, as these could help guide COVID-19 recommendations for patient subgroups.

The article was funded by the American Gastroenterological Association Institute.

SOURCE: Sultan S et al. Gastroenterology. 2020 May 11. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.05.001.

The American Gastroenterological Association has released a new guideline for consultative management of patients with COVID-19.

The recommendations, which were written by Shahnaz Sultan, MD, AGAF, chair of the AGA Clinical Guidelines Committee, of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and colleagues, were based on a meta-analysis of data from 47 studies involving 10,890 unique patients.

“We seek to summarize international data on the GI and liver manifestations of COVID-19 infection and treatment,” the panelists wrote in Gastroenterology. “Additionally, this document provides evidence-based clinical guidance on clinical questions that gastroenterologists may be consulted for.”

The guideline includes seven best practice statements.

The first three statements relate to COVID-19–related GI symptoms, which are estimated to occur in less than 10% of patients, and rarely in the absence of other COVID-19–related symptoms, according to Dr. Sultan and her copanelists.

“The overall prevalence of GI symptoms in the context of COVID-19, including nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and diarrhea, is lower than estimated previously,” the panelists wrote, referencing a previous meta-analysis by Ka Shing Cheung, MBBS, and colleagues that showed a prevalence of 17.6%.

“It is important to note that the majority of studies were focused on hospitalized patients with COVID-19, and the prevalence of diarrhea in patients with mild symptoms who were not hospitalized is not known.”

Since GI issues may precede other symptoms of COVID-19, the guideline recommends questioning outpatients with new-onset GI symptoms about other symptoms of COVID-19, with viral testing recommended in areas of high prevalence. Conversely, the panelists recommended that patients with suspected or known COVID-19 should undergo thorough history taking for GI symptoms, “including onset, characteristics, duration, and severity.”

The fourth practice statement advises against COVID-19 stool testing in routine clinical practice, either for diagnostic or monitoring purposes.

Although Dr. Cheung and colleagues reported that 48.1% of fecal specimens from patients with COVID-19 contained viral RNA, the panelists concluded that the practical relevance of this finding remains unknown.

“Stool infectivity and transmission have not been confirmed,” the panelists wrote, citing a lack of evidence and conflicting findings.

The final three practice statements address liver concerns.

First, any patient with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 who has elevated liver function tests should be evaluated for alternative etiologies. Second, hospitalized patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 should undergo baseline liver function testing, followed by liver monitoring throughout their stay, “particularly in the context of drug treatment for COVID-19.” And third, any patient receiving drugs to treat COVID-19 should be monitored for treatment-related hepatic and GI adverse effects.

Dr. Sultan and colleagues found that approximately 15% of patients with COVID-19 included in their meta-analysis had abnormal liver function tests, more often because of secondary effects rather than virally induced liver injury.

Although liver function test abnormalities were inconsistently reported across studies, and when available, often lacked relevant contextual data, such as information about underlying liver disease, published data suggest that abnormal liver values could predict more severe COVID-19, supporting baseline and serial liver testing, the panelists wrote.

Following these recommendations, the guideline includes a discussion of GI and hepatic adverse effects related to specific COVID-19 treatments.

According to the panelists, chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine may infrequently lead to GI disturbances, and rarely, liver injury, with the latter thought to be a sequela of a hypersensitivity reaction; among antiviral medications, lopinavir/ritonavir and favipiravir may cause GI adverse effects in approximately 5%-15% of patients, with potentially higher rates in children and those receiving higher doses.

“In particular, GI adverse events are poorly understood for both favipiravir and remdesivir,” the panelists wrote.

Hepatic adverse effects, ranging from mild elevations in aminotransferases to acute liver failure, have been documented, albeit rarely, among patients receiving lopinavir/ritonavir, according to the panelists. For remdesivir, liver injury has also been reported, although frequency is unknown, and for favipiravir, hepatic adverse events may be seen in 3% of patients, although, again, the panelists noted a scarcity of relevant findings.

In their concluding remarks, Dr. Sultan and colleagues called for more high-quality data, and encouraged clinicians to contribute to international registries, as these could help guide COVID-19 recommendations for patient subgroups.

The article was funded by the American Gastroenterological Association Institute.

SOURCE: Sultan S et al. Gastroenterology. 2020 May 11. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.05.001.