User login
New JIA guidelines emphasize treating to target
– a strategy made possible with new therapies that have transformed treatment in recent years, including earlier treatment with methotrexate, expanding use of intra-articular glucocorticoids, and especially disease-modifying antibodies.
The guidelines, published online April 11 in the Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, are a departure from some others in that there is very little research supporting the approach they advocate. But there is precedent in adult disease. Research in adults with rheumatoid arthritis has shown that achievement of low levels of disease activity through frequent adjustments of therapy improves patient outcomes, no matter the treatment used.
Nevertheless, the time for aggressive treatment in children has come, according to Karen Onel, MD, chief of the division of pediatric rheumatology at the Hospital for Special Surgery, New York. She pointed out that joint and organ damage resulting from JIA can be permanent. “These guidelines are meant to be fluid, but we need to be committed to getting patients into remission as quickly as possible. Anything less than that is not OK,” said Dr. Onel, who did not participate in drafting the guidelines.
The guidelines make almost no mention of specific treatments, with the exception of an admonition to avoid long-term systemic glucocorticoid therapy. “It’s addressing a philosophy of care that is different than what most of us do in our daily practice,” Dr. Lovell said. The lack of medication specifics also ensures that the guidelines will be useful in a wide range of settings, since specific drugs may be unavailable in some countries, or unaffordable due to insurance considerations.
The guidelines and the community at large are battling a historical perception of JIA as a childhood disease that patients outgrow. That has led to conservative approaches to therapy in an attempt to spare children from toxicity. But with new treatment options, that approach is outdated. “We have an issue in pediatrics where many people feel, including families, that you should wait until the child is old enough to make these decisions on their own. But the reality is that if [JIA] is not fixed in childhood, it won’t be fixed in adulthood,” Dr. Onel said.
About half of JIA cases are handled by rheumatologists who primarily work with adults, and they tend to favor toxicity-sparing regimens. These practitioners must be convinced to be more aggressive in their treatment, but parents are critical as well. The guidelines emphasize communicating with parents the rationale behind a chosen treatment target, along with information on the disease and the benefits and risks of the medications to be prescribed. Parents may struggle to understand the need for aggressive treatment, especially those with young children.
Parents may even be socially stigmatized by peers who think dietary change and exercise should be sufficient. “It’s really unfair. Nobody says to a parent of a child with cancer that they are treating their children with poison. The same holds true for other childhood chronic diseases. For whatever reason, the risk of permanent disability from childhood arthritis is understated,” Dr. Onel said.
A call for research
The primary target called for in the guidelines is clinically inactive disease (CID), defined as an absence of signs and symptoms of inflammatory disease activity, including extra-articular manifestations. An alternative target is minimal or low disease activity (LDA), which may be a more appropriate goal in patients with long-standing disease. Whatever the target, patients should be tracked at each clinical visit using a validated composite instrument, though the committee did not recommend one specifically.
Frequency of assessments may range from weekly to monthly or every 3 months, depending on the disease state. Within 3 months, the guidelines call for a minimum 50% improvement in disease activity, and by 6 months, clinicians should aim to achieve the target of clinical remission or LDA.
“It’s really important that clinicians systematically collect information on disease activity at every encounter. The next step is making sure we have some way of measuring outcomes. That might require a registry. It’s not easy to just start doing this. You need to have a plan in place,” said Esi Morgan, MD, of the department of rheumatology at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, and also a member of the guideline committee.
It remains to be seen how effective treatment to target will be, but Dr. Lovell hopes the guidelines will encourage research to provide definitive answers. “I think the recommendation is to just get on with it. Start doing trials utilizing a treat-to-target approach, and do them in a formal enough fashion that you can compare it to routine care in kids with JIA so you can assess the impact,” Dr. Lovell said.
Confidence is high. “There are many examples [of treating to target], so we can be confident this will work. What’s slightly different is applying this across the many subtypes of JIA. There are many categories, so it makes it a little more complex in terms of telling people what to do. But it’s definitely worth doing. We just need to solve the problem of how to address those issues,” Dr. Morgan said.
One key question is whether CID or LDA is the best target for functional outcomes. The UK Childhood Arthritis Prospective Study examined this question among 832 JIA patients and found that only achievement of CID on the clinical Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score (cJADAS) was associated with an improvement in functional ability and psychosocial health at 1 year. Both endpoints were associated with greater absence of limited joints.
Another challenge is to determine what instrument to use to track disease activity and treatment response. Instruments include Wallace’s preliminary criteria, the American College of Rheumatology preliminary criteria, the Childhood Health Assessment Questionnaire (CHAQ), and the JADAS. All can be time consuming, which is a problem in a busy clinic. “That’s the work we need to do now: Figuring out what the best, easiest, most predictive instrument is going to be,” Dr. Onel said.
Dr. Lovell and Dr. Onel have no financial disclosures. Dr. Morgan is chair of the Pediatric Rheumatology Care and Outcomes Improvement Network (PR-COIN), which has received grants from Novartis and Medac Pharma.
SOURCE: Ravelli A et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2018 Apr 11. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2018-213030.
– a strategy made possible with new therapies that have transformed treatment in recent years, including earlier treatment with methotrexate, expanding use of intra-articular glucocorticoids, and especially disease-modifying antibodies.
The guidelines, published online April 11 in the Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, are a departure from some others in that there is very little research supporting the approach they advocate. But there is precedent in adult disease. Research in adults with rheumatoid arthritis has shown that achievement of low levels of disease activity through frequent adjustments of therapy improves patient outcomes, no matter the treatment used.
Nevertheless, the time for aggressive treatment in children has come, according to Karen Onel, MD, chief of the division of pediatric rheumatology at the Hospital for Special Surgery, New York. She pointed out that joint and organ damage resulting from JIA can be permanent. “These guidelines are meant to be fluid, but we need to be committed to getting patients into remission as quickly as possible. Anything less than that is not OK,” said Dr. Onel, who did not participate in drafting the guidelines.
The guidelines make almost no mention of specific treatments, with the exception of an admonition to avoid long-term systemic glucocorticoid therapy. “It’s addressing a philosophy of care that is different than what most of us do in our daily practice,” Dr. Lovell said. The lack of medication specifics also ensures that the guidelines will be useful in a wide range of settings, since specific drugs may be unavailable in some countries, or unaffordable due to insurance considerations.
The guidelines and the community at large are battling a historical perception of JIA as a childhood disease that patients outgrow. That has led to conservative approaches to therapy in an attempt to spare children from toxicity. But with new treatment options, that approach is outdated. “We have an issue in pediatrics where many people feel, including families, that you should wait until the child is old enough to make these decisions on their own. But the reality is that if [JIA] is not fixed in childhood, it won’t be fixed in adulthood,” Dr. Onel said.
About half of JIA cases are handled by rheumatologists who primarily work with adults, and they tend to favor toxicity-sparing regimens. These practitioners must be convinced to be more aggressive in their treatment, but parents are critical as well. The guidelines emphasize communicating with parents the rationale behind a chosen treatment target, along with information on the disease and the benefits and risks of the medications to be prescribed. Parents may struggle to understand the need for aggressive treatment, especially those with young children.
Parents may even be socially stigmatized by peers who think dietary change and exercise should be sufficient. “It’s really unfair. Nobody says to a parent of a child with cancer that they are treating their children with poison. The same holds true for other childhood chronic diseases. For whatever reason, the risk of permanent disability from childhood arthritis is understated,” Dr. Onel said.
A call for research
The primary target called for in the guidelines is clinically inactive disease (CID), defined as an absence of signs and symptoms of inflammatory disease activity, including extra-articular manifestations. An alternative target is minimal or low disease activity (LDA), which may be a more appropriate goal in patients with long-standing disease. Whatever the target, patients should be tracked at each clinical visit using a validated composite instrument, though the committee did not recommend one specifically.
Frequency of assessments may range from weekly to monthly or every 3 months, depending on the disease state. Within 3 months, the guidelines call for a minimum 50% improvement in disease activity, and by 6 months, clinicians should aim to achieve the target of clinical remission or LDA.
“It’s really important that clinicians systematically collect information on disease activity at every encounter. The next step is making sure we have some way of measuring outcomes. That might require a registry. It’s not easy to just start doing this. You need to have a plan in place,” said Esi Morgan, MD, of the department of rheumatology at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, and also a member of the guideline committee.
It remains to be seen how effective treatment to target will be, but Dr. Lovell hopes the guidelines will encourage research to provide definitive answers. “I think the recommendation is to just get on with it. Start doing trials utilizing a treat-to-target approach, and do them in a formal enough fashion that you can compare it to routine care in kids with JIA so you can assess the impact,” Dr. Lovell said.
Confidence is high. “There are many examples [of treating to target], so we can be confident this will work. What’s slightly different is applying this across the many subtypes of JIA. There are many categories, so it makes it a little more complex in terms of telling people what to do. But it’s definitely worth doing. We just need to solve the problem of how to address those issues,” Dr. Morgan said.
One key question is whether CID or LDA is the best target for functional outcomes. The UK Childhood Arthritis Prospective Study examined this question among 832 JIA patients and found that only achievement of CID on the clinical Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score (cJADAS) was associated with an improvement in functional ability and psychosocial health at 1 year. Both endpoints were associated with greater absence of limited joints.
Another challenge is to determine what instrument to use to track disease activity and treatment response. Instruments include Wallace’s preliminary criteria, the American College of Rheumatology preliminary criteria, the Childhood Health Assessment Questionnaire (CHAQ), and the JADAS. All can be time consuming, which is a problem in a busy clinic. “That’s the work we need to do now: Figuring out what the best, easiest, most predictive instrument is going to be,” Dr. Onel said.
Dr. Lovell and Dr. Onel have no financial disclosures. Dr. Morgan is chair of the Pediatric Rheumatology Care and Outcomes Improvement Network (PR-COIN), which has received grants from Novartis and Medac Pharma.
SOURCE: Ravelli A et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2018 Apr 11. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2018-213030.
– a strategy made possible with new therapies that have transformed treatment in recent years, including earlier treatment with methotrexate, expanding use of intra-articular glucocorticoids, and especially disease-modifying antibodies.
The guidelines, published online April 11 in the Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, are a departure from some others in that there is very little research supporting the approach they advocate. But there is precedent in adult disease. Research in adults with rheumatoid arthritis has shown that achievement of low levels of disease activity through frequent adjustments of therapy improves patient outcomes, no matter the treatment used.
Nevertheless, the time for aggressive treatment in children has come, according to Karen Onel, MD, chief of the division of pediatric rheumatology at the Hospital for Special Surgery, New York. She pointed out that joint and organ damage resulting from JIA can be permanent. “These guidelines are meant to be fluid, but we need to be committed to getting patients into remission as quickly as possible. Anything less than that is not OK,” said Dr. Onel, who did not participate in drafting the guidelines.
The guidelines make almost no mention of specific treatments, with the exception of an admonition to avoid long-term systemic glucocorticoid therapy. “It’s addressing a philosophy of care that is different than what most of us do in our daily practice,” Dr. Lovell said. The lack of medication specifics also ensures that the guidelines will be useful in a wide range of settings, since specific drugs may be unavailable in some countries, or unaffordable due to insurance considerations.
The guidelines and the community at large are battling a historical perception of JIA as a childhood disease that patients outgrow. That has led to conservative approaches to therapy in an attempt to spare children from toxicity. But with new treatment options, that approach is outdated. “We have an issue in pediatrics where many people feel, including families, that you should wait until the child is old enough to make these decisions on their own. But the reality is that if [JIA] is not fixed in childhood, it won’t be fixed in adulthood,” Dr. Onel said.
About half of JIA cases are handled by rheumatologists who primarily work with adults, and they tend to favor toxicity-sparing regimens. These practitioners must be convinced to be more aggressive in their treatment, but parents are critical as well. The guidelines emphasize communicating with parents the rationale behind a chosen treatment target, along with information on the disease and the benefits and risks of the medications to be prescribed. Parents may struggle to understand the need for aggressive treatment, especially those with young children.
Parents may even be socially stigmatized by peers who think dietary change and exercise should be sufficient. “It’s really unfair. Nobody says to a parent of a child with cancer that they are treating their children with poison. The same holds true for other childhood chronic diseases. For whatever reason, the risk of permanent disability from childhood arthritis is understated,” Dr. Onel said.
A call for research
The primary target called for in the guidelines is clinically inactive disease (CID), defined as an absence of signs and symptoms of inflammatory disease activity, including extra-articular manifestations. An alternative target is minimal or low disease activity (LDA), which may be a more appropriate goal in patients with long-standing disease. Whatever the target, patients should be tracked at each clinical visit using a validated composite instrument, though the committee did not recommend one specifically.
Frequency of assessments may range from weekly to monthly or every 3 months, depending on the disease state. Within 3 months, the guidelines call for a minimum 50% improvement in disease activity, and by 6 months, clinicians should aim to achieve the target of clinical remission or LDA.
“It’s really important that clinicians systematically collect information on disease activity at every encounter. The next step is making sure we have some way of measuring outcomes. That might require a registry. It’s not easy to just start doing this. You need to have a plan in place,” said Esi Morgan, MD, of the department of rheumatology at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, and also a member of the guideline committee.
It remains to be seen how effective treatment to target will be, but Dr. Lovell hopes the guidelines will encourage research to provide definitive answers. “I think the recommendation is to just get on with it. Start doing trials utilizing a treat-to-target approach, and do them in a formal enough fashion that you can compare it to routine care in kids with JIA so you can assess the impact,” Dr. Lovell said.
Confidence is high. “There are many examples [of treating to target], so we can be confident this will work. What’s slightly different is applying this across the many subtypes of JIA. There are many categories, so it makes it a little more complex in terms of telling people what to do. But it’s definitely worth doing. We just need to solve the problem of how to address those issues,” Dr. Morgan said.
One key question is whether CID or LDA is the best target for functional outcomes. The UK Childhood Arthritis Prospective Study examined this question among 832 JIA patients and found that only achievement of CID on the clinical Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score (cJADAS) was associated with an improvement in functional ability and psychosocial health at 1 year. Both endpoints were associated with greater absence of limited joints.
Another challenge is to determine what instrument to use to track disease activity and treatment response. Instruments include Wallace’s preliminary criteria, the American College of Rheumatology preliminary criteria, the Childhood Health Assessment Questionnaire (CHAQ), and the JADAS. All can be time consuming, which is a problem in a busy clinic. “That’s the work we need to do now: Figuring out what the best, easiest, most predictive instrument is going to be,” Dr. Onel said.
Dr. Lovell and Dr. Onel have no financial disclosures. Dr. Morgan is chair of the Pediatric Rheumatology Care and Outcomes Improvement Network (PR-COIN), which has received grants from Novartis and Medac Pharma.
SOURCE: Ravelli A et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2018 Apr 11. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2018-213030.
FROM ANNALS OF THE RHEUMATIC DISEASES
Updated CLL guidelines incorporate a decade of advances
include new and revised recommendations based on major advances in genomics, targeted therapies, and biomarkers that have occurred since the last iteration in 2008.
The guidelines are an update from a consensus document issued a decade ago by the International Workshop on CLL, focusing on the conduct of clinical trials in patients with CLL. The new guidelines are published in Blood.
Major changes or additions include:
Molecular genetics: The updated guidelines recognize the clinical importance of specific genomic alterations/mutations on response to standard chemotherapy or chemoimmunotherapy, including the 17p deletion and mutations in TP53.
“Therefore, the assessment of both del(17p) and TP53 mutation has prognostic and predictive value and should guide therapeutic decisions in routine practice. For clinical trials, it is recommended that molecular genetics be performed prior to treating a patient on protocol,” the guidelines state.
IGHV mutational status: The mutational status of immunoglobulin variable heavy chain (IGHV) genes has been demonstrated to offer important prognostic information, according to the guidelines authors led by Michael Hallek, MD of the University of Cologne, Germany.
Specifically, leukemia with IGHV genes without somatic mutations are associated with worse clinical outcomes, compared with leukemia with IGHV mutations. Patients with mutated IGHV and other prognostic factors such as favorable cytogenetics or minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity generally have excellent outcomes with a chemoimmunotherapy regimen consisting of fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab, the authors noted.
Biomarkers: The guidelines call for standardization and use in prospective clinical trials of assays for serum markers such as soluble CD23, thymidine kinase, and beta-2-microglobulin. These markers have been shown in several studies to be associated with overall survival or progression-free survival, and of these markers, beta-2-microglobulin “has retained independent prognostic value in several multiparameter scores,” the guidelines state.
The authors also tip their hats to recently developed or improved prognostic scores, especially the CLL International Prognostic Index (CLL-IPI), which incorporates clinical stage, age, IGHV mutational status, beta-2-microglobulin, and del(17p) and/or TP53 mutations.
Organ function assessment: Not new, but improved in the current version of the guidelines, are recommendations for evaluation of splenomegaly, hepatomegaly, and lymphadenopathy in response assessment. These recommendations were harmonized with the relevant sections of the updated lymphoma response guidelines.
Continuous therapy: The guidelines panel recommends assessment of response duration during continuous therapy with oral agents and after the end of therapy, especially after chemotherapy or chemoimmunotherapy.
“Study protocols should provide detailed specifications of the planned time points for the assessment of the treatment response under continuous therapy. Response durations of less than six months are not considered clinically relevant,” the panel cautioned.
Response assessments for treatments with a maintenance phase should be performed at a minimum of 2 months after patients achieve their best responses.
MRD: The guidelines call for minimal residual disease (MRD) assessment in clinical trials aimed at maximizing remission depth, with emphasis on reporting the sensitivity of the MRD evaluation method used, and the type of tissue assessed.
Antiviral prophylaxis: The guidelines caution that because patients treated with anti-CD20 antibodies, such as rituximab or obinutuzumab, could have reactivation of hepatitis B virus (HBV) infections, patients should be tested for HBV serological status before starting on an anti-CD20 agent.
“Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy has been reported in a few CLL patients treated with anti-CD20 antibodies; therefore, infections with John Cunningham (JC) virus should be ruled out in situations of unclear neurological symptoms,” the panel recommended.
They note that patients younger than 65 treated with fludarabine-based therapy in the first line do not require routine monitoring or infection prophylaxis, due to the low reported incidence of infections in this group.
The authors reported having no financial disclosures related to the guidelines.
include new and revised recommendations based on major advances in genomics, targeted therapies, and biomarkers that have occurred since the last iteration in 2008.
The guidelines are an update from a consensus document issued a decade ago by the International Workshop on CLL, focusing on the conduct of clinical trials in patients with CLL. The new guidelines are published in Blood.
Major changes or additions include:
Molecular genetics: The updated guidelines recognize the clinical importance of specific genomic alterations/mutations on response to standard chemotherapy or chemoimmunotherapy, including the 17p deletion and mutations in TP53.
“Therefore, the assessment of both del(17p) and TP53 mutation has prognostic and predictive value and should guide therapeutic decisions in routine practice. For clinical trials, it is recommended that molecular genetics be performed prior to treating a patient on protocol,” the guidelines state.
IGHV mutational status: The mutational status of immunoglobulin variable heavy chain (IGHV) genes has been demonstrated to offer important prognostic information, according to the guidelines authors led by Michael Hallek, MD of the University of Cologne, Germany.
Specifically, leukemia with IGHV genes without somatic mutations are associated with worse clinical outcomes, compared with leukemia with IGHV mutations. Patients with mutated IGHV and other prognostic factors such as favorable cytogenetics or minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity generally have excellent outcomes with a chemoimmunotherapy regimen consisting of fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab, the authors noted.
Biomarkers: The guidelines call for standardization and use in prospective clinical trials of assays for serum markers such as soluble CD23, thymidine kinase, and beta-2-microglobulin. These markers have been shown in several studies to be associated with overall survival or progression-free survival, and of these markers, beta-2-microglobulin “has retained independent prognostic value in several multiparameter scores,” the guidelines state.
The authors also tip their hats to recently developed or improved prognostic scores, especially the CLL International Prognostic Index (CLL-IPI), which incorporates clinical stage, age, IGHV mutational status, beta-2-microglobulin, and del(17p) and/or TP53 mutations.
Organ function assessment: Not new, but improved in the current version of the guidelines, are recommendations for evaluation of splenomegaly, hepatomegaly, and lymphadenopathy in response assessment. These recommendations were harmonized with the relevant sections of the updated lymphoma response guidelines.
Continuous therapy: The guidelines panel recommends assessment of response duration during continuous therapy with oral agents and after the end of therapy, especially after chemotherapy or chemoimmunotherapy.
“Study protocols should provide detailed specifications of the planned time points for the assessment of the treatment response under continuous therapy. Response durations of less than six months are not considered clinically relevant,” the panel cautioned.
Response assessments for treatments with a maintenance phase should be performed at a minimum of 2 months after patients achieve their best responses.
MRD: The guidelines call for minimal residual disease (MRD) assessment in clinical trials aimed at maximizing remission depth, with emphasis on reporting the sensitivity of the MRD evaluation method used, and the type of tissue assessed.
Antiviral prophylaxis: The guidelines caution that because patients treated with anti-CD20 antibodies, such as rituximab or obinutuzumab, could have reactivation of hepatitis B virus (HBV) infections, patients should be tested for HBV serological status before starting on an anti-CD20 agent.
“Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy has been reported in a few CLL patients treated with anti-CD20 antibodies; therefore, infections with John Cunningham (JC) virus should be ruled out in situations of unclear neurological symptoms,” the panel recommended.
They note that patients younger than 65 treated with fludarabine-based therapy in the first line do not require routine monitoring or infection prophylaxis, due to the low reported incidence of infections in this group.
The authors reported having no financial disclosures related to the guidelines.
include new and revised recommendations based on major advances in genomics, targeted therapies, and biomarkers that have occurred since the last iteration in 2008.
The guidelines are an update from a consensus document issued a decade ago by the International Workshop on CLL, focusing on the conduct of clinical trials in patients with CLL. The new guidelines are published in Blood.
Major changes or additions include:
Molecular genetics: The updated guidelines recognize the clinical importance of specific genomic alterations/mutations on response to standard chemotherapy or chemoimmunotherapy, including the 17p deletion and mutations in TP53.
“Therefore, the assessment of both del(17p) and TP53 mutation has prognostic and predictive value and should guide therapeutic decisions in routine practice. For clinical trials, it is recommended that molecular genetics be performed prior to treating a patient on protocol,” the guidelines state.
IGHV mutational status: The mutational status of immunoglobulin variable heavy chain (IGHV) genes has been demonstrated to offer important prognostic information, according to the guidelines authors led by Michael Hallek, MD of the University of Cologne, Germany.
Specifically, leukemia with IGHV genes without somatic mutations are associated with worse clinical outcomes, compared with leukemia with IGHV mutations. Patients with mutated IGHV and other prognostic factors such as favorable cytogenetics or minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity generally have excellent outcomes with a chemoimmunotherapy regimen consisting of fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab, the authors noted.
Biomarkers: The guidelines call for standardization and use in prospective clinical trials of assays for serum markers such as soluble CD23, thymidine kinase, and beta-2-microglobulin. These markers have been shown in several studies to be associated with overall survival or progression-free survival, and of these markers, beta-2-microglobulin “has retained independent prognostic value in several multiparameter scores,” the guidelines state.
The authors also tip their hats to recently developed or improved prognostic scores, especially the CLL International Prognostic Index (CLL-IPI), which incorporates clinical stage, age, IGHV mutational status, beta-2-microglobulin, and del(17p) and/or TP53 mutations.
Organ function assessment: Not new, but improved in the current version of the guidelines, are recommendations for evaluation of splenomegaly, hepatomegaly, and lymphadenopathy in response assessment. These recommendations were harmonized with the relevant sections of the updated lymphoma response guidelines.
Continuous therapy: The guidelines panel recommends assessment of response duration during continuous therapy with oral agents and after the end of therapy, especially after chemotherapy or chemoimmunotherapy.
“Study protocols should provide detailed specifications of the planned time points for the assessment of the treatment response under continuous therapy. Response durations of less than six months are not considered clinically relevant,” the panel cautioned.
Response assessments for treatments with a maintenance phase should be performed at a minimum of 2 months after patients achieve their best responses.
MRD: The guidelines call for minimal residual disease (MRD) assessment in clinical trials aimed at maximizing remission depth, with emphasis on reporting the sensitivity of the MRD evaluation method used, and the type of tissue assessed.
Antiviral prophylaxis: The guidelines caution that because patients treated with anti-CD20 antibodies, such as rituximab or obinutuzumab, could have reactivation of hepatitis B virus (HBV) infections, patients should be tested for HBV serological status before starting on an anti-CD20 agent.
“Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy has been reported in a few CLL patients treated with anti-CD20 antibodies; therefore, infections with John Cunningham (JC) virus should be ruled out in situations of unclear neurological symptoms,” the panel recommended.
They note that patients younger than 65 treated with fludarabine-based therapy in the first line do not require routine monitoring or infection prophylaxis, due to the low reported incidence of infections in this group.
The authors reported having no financial disclosures related to the guidelines.
FROM BLOOD
Cancer groups offer guidance on musculoskeletal adverse events related to checkpoint inhibitors
Recently released guidelines from two major cancer organizations have provided some of the most comprehensive guidance to date on management of musculoskeletal side effects associated with cancer immunotherapy.
The guidelines, published in February, are a “sorely needed” reference point for the rheumatology community and others who will be encountering patients who experience immune-related adverse events (irAEs), according to Leonard H. Calabrese, DO, the R.J. Fasenmyer Chair of Clinical Immunology at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio.
“They’re a good first start, given the fact that up until 4 or 5 months ago, there were no endorsed guidelines that included oncologists and rheumatologists,” Dr. Calabrese said of the guidelines, which were collaboratively developed and recently released by both the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN).
Rheumatologists can add value
“We talk a lot about rheumatologists being aware of these diseases, but it’s been pointed out by some oncologists that unless they’re really knowledgeable and can add considerably to the management, it doesn’t do any good just to be aware of it,” Dr. Calabrese explained. “You need to actually have some procedural knowledge.”
ASCO guidelines also describe a polymyalgia-like syndrome seen in some patients on immune checkpoint inhibitors that according to the guideline authors is characterized by pain, but not true muscle weakness.
In general, the guidelines endorse a stepwise approach, in which milder irAEs can be managed with conservative treatments and without the need to stop the immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy. In contrast, more serious side effects may require more intensive management and either temporary or permanent discontinuation of cancer immunotherapy.
One good example is NCCN’s take on managing inflammatory arthritis.
Mild cases of inflammatory arthritis can be treated with NSAIDs, low-dose prednisone, or intra-articular steroids with no need to stop immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment, according to NCCN guideline authors.
Moderate cases, by contrast, may require holding immunotherapy and treating with prednisone. A rheumatology consult by week 4 is “strongly recommended” if the immune arthritis doesn’t improve, the authors added.
Severe cases may warrant permanent discontinuation of immunotherapy and treatment with methylprednisolone/prednisone, infliximab, or tocilizumab, they added. If the irAE doesn’t improve after 2 weeks, a rheumatology consult should be considered for additional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, including methotrexate, leflunomide, or sulfasalazine.
irAEs on the rise
These guidelines are particularly useful for rheumatologists to familiarize themselves with the six Food and Drug Administration–approved immune checkpoint inhibitors, their spectrum of side effects, and how oncologists use the severity of presentation to guide therapy, according to Laura Cappelli, MD.
Understanding irAEs will be increasingly important for rheumatologist as the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors continues to increase, said Dr. Cappelli, who has started a research program at Johns Hopkins to evaluate the rheumatologic adverse effects of these therapies.
Dr. Cappelli said her division sees at least one suspected irAE case per week, most commonly the immune arthritis associated with checkpoint inhibitor therapy.
Likewise, Dr. Calabrese said he is already seeing approximately two new referrals per week for adverse events related to these relatively new therapies.
“It’s far outstripped our notion of what we thought we would be doing,” he said in an interview.
Systems have been set up to encourage interprofessional collaborations, he added, including a “virtual referral clinic” where advanced practitioners working with oncologists communicate with advanced practitioners in each of the specialty areas that are most frequently consulted in order to help facilitate care and triage patients.
In addition, a monthly irAE tumor board was set up to include only cases that have manifest autoimmune or autoinflammatory complications.
“We have a growing group of people who come to this from each area involved, whether it be nephrology, neurology, ophthalmology, gastroenterology, rheumatology, or something else,” Dr. Calabrese said. “That’s been a great learning experience for all of us to talk about these adverse events in real time.”
Critical need for guidance
These guidelines meet a growing need to help practicing clinicians identify and best manage immune-related adverse events, according to Bryan J. Schneider, MD, of the University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center, and vice chair of the NCCN Panel on Management of Immunotherapy-Related Toxicities.
“We’re experienced with chemotherapy, and we are very comfortable with the side effects,” he said. “The immunotherapy story is just an entirely different world because, as I tell patients, the therapies aren’t directly damaging cancer cells like chemotherapy. Instead, they are helping the immune system to identify the cancer cells as abnormal and mount an assault. Proteins on cancer cells may suppress the immune response and these therapies effectively ‘release these brakes’ so the immune system can attack.”
Rheumatologists and those with particular expertise in rheumatologic side effects participated in the development of the ASCO and NCCN guidelines. They include Maria E. Suarez-Almazor, MD, PhD, chief of rheumatology and clinical immunology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, who served on the ASCO expert panel; Jarushka Naidoo, MBBCh, from the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, provided expertise in the rheumatologic side effects that were considered by the NCCN panel, according to Dr. Schneider.
Rheumatologist input also informed another set of recommendations on immune checkpoint inhibitor toxicities published several months before the ASCO and NCCN guidelines. The working group for the September 2017 guidelines from the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (doi: 10.1186/s40425-017-0300-z) included Dr. Suarez-Almazor, as well as Clifton O. Bingham III, MD, director of the Johns Hopkins Arthritis Center.
Vigilance required
Checkpoint inhibitors have been approved by the FDA to treat a variety of cancers, including melanoma, lung cancer, and Hodgkin lymphoma, as well as lung, liver, kidney, and bladder cancers.
Clinicians managing patients on checkpoint inhibitors should always be vigilant because irAE symptoms can be subtle, according to Julie Brahmer, MD, of the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore.
“Everyone has to work as a team, which includes being educated on possible side effects to immunotherapy prior to prescribing it,” said Dr. Brahmer, chair of the ASCO panel and vice chair of the NCCN panel that developed the guidelines.
The guidelines were published Feb. 14 in two documents that are similar in content, but different in format. The ASCO guideline was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology (doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.77.6385) and the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology were posted on the NCCN website.
While the first edition of the guidelines focus specifically on immune checkpoint inhibitors, an update anticipated for 2019 will include guidance on chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy, which is associated with several important side effects, notably cytokine release syndrome.
Recently released guidelines from two major cancer organizations have provided some of the most comprehensive guidance to date on management of musculoskeletal side effects associated with cancer immunotherapy.
The guidelines, published in February, are a “sorely needed” reference point for the rheumatology community and others who will be encountering patients who experience immune-related adverse events (irAEs), according to Leonard H. Calabrese, DO, the R.J. Fasenmyer Chair of Clinical Immunology at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio.
“They’re a good first start, given the fact that up until 4 or 5 months ago, there were no endorsed guidelines that included oncologists and rheumatologists,” Dr. Calabrese said of the guidelines, which were collaboratively developed and recently released by both the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN).
Rheumatologists can add value
“We talk a lot about rheumatologists being aware of these diseases, but it’s been pointed out by some oncologists that unless they’re really knowledgeable and can add considerably to the management, it doesn’t do any good just to be aware of it,” Dr. Calabrese explained. “You need to actually have some procedural knowledge.”
ASCO guidelines also describe a polymyalgia-like syndrome seen in some patients on immune checkpoint inhibitors that according to the guideline authors is characterized by pain, but not true muscle weakness.
In general, the guidelines endorse a stepwise approach, in which milder irAEs can be managed with conservative treatments and without the need to stop the immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy. In contrast, more serious side effects may require more intensive management and either temporary or permanent discontinuation of cancer immunotherapy.
One good example is NCCN’s take on managing inflammatory arthritis.
Mild cases of inflammatory arthritis can be treated with NSAIDs, low-dose prednisone, or intra-articular steroids with no need to stop immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment, according to NCCN guideline authors.
Moderate cases, by contrast, may require holding immunotherapy and treating with prednisone. A rheumatology consult by week 4 is “strongly recommended” if the immune arthritis doesn’t improve, the authors added.
Severe cases may warrant permanent discontinuation of immunotherapy and treatment with methylprednisolone/prednisone, infliximab, or tocilizumab, they added. If the irAE doesn’t improve after 2 weeks, a rheumatology consult should be considered for additional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, including methotrexate, leflunomide, or sulfasalazine.
irAEs on the rise
These guidelines are particularly useful for rheumatologists to familiarize themselves with the six Food and Drug Administration–approved immune checkpoint inhibitors, their spectrum of side effects, and how oncologists use the severity of presentation to guide therapy, according to Laura Cappelli, MD.
Understanding irAEs will be increasingly important for rheumatologist as the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors continues to increase, said Dr. Cappelli, who has started a research program at Johns Hopkins to evaluate the rheumatologic adverse effects of these therapies.
Dr. Cappelli said her division sees at least one suspected irAE case per week, most commonly the immune arthritis associated with checkpoint inhibitor therapy.
Likewise, Dr. Calabrese said he is already seeing approximately two new referrals per week for adverse events related to these relatively new therapies.
“It’s far outstripped our notion of what we thought we would be doing,” he said in an interview.
Systems have been set up to encourage interprofessional collaborations, he added, including a “virtual referral clinic” where advanced practitioners working with oncologists communicate with advanced practitioners in each of the specialty areas that are most frequently consulted in order to help facilitate care and triage patients.
In addition, a monthly irAE tumor board was set up to include only cases that have manifest autoimmune or autoinflammatory complications.
“We have a growing group of people who come to this from each area involved, whether it be nephrology, neurology, ophthalmology, gastroenterology, rheumatology, or something else,” Dr. Calabrese said. “That’s been a great learning experience for all of us to talk about these adverse events in real time.”
Critical need for guidance
These guidelines meet a growing need to help practicing clinicians identify and best manage immune-related adverse events, according to Bryan J. Schneider, MD, of the University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center, and vice chair of the NCCN Panel on Management of Immunotherapy-Related Toxicities.
“We’re experienced with chemotherapy, and we are very comfortable with the side effects,” he said. “The immunotherapy story is just an entirely different world because, as I tell patients, the therapies aren’t directly damaging cancer cells like chemotherapy. Instead, they are helping the immune system to identify the cancer cells as abnormal and mount an assault. Proteins on cancer cells may suppress the immune response and these therapies effectively ‘release these brakes’ so the immune system can attack.”
Rheumatologists and those with particular expertise in rheumatologic side effects participated in the development of the ASCO and NCCN guidelines. They include Maria E. Suarez-Almazor, MD, PhD, chief of rheumatology and clinical immunology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, who served on the ASCO expert panel; Jarushka Naidoo, MBBCh, from the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, provided expertise in the rheumatologic side effects that were considered by the NCCN panel, according to Dr. Schneider.
Rheumatologist input also informed another set of recommendations on immune checkpoint inhibitor toxicities published several months before the ASCO and NCCN guidelines. The working group for the September 2017 guidelines from the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (doi: 10.1186/s40425-017-0300-z) included Dr. Suarez-Almazor, as well as Clifton O. Bingham III, MD, director of the Johns Hopkins Arthritis Center.
Vigilance required
Checkpoint inhibitors have been approved by the FDA to treat a variety of cancers, including melanoma, lung cancer, and Hodgkin lymphoma, as well as lung, liver, kidney, and bladder cancers.
Clinicians managing patients on checkpoint inhibitors should always be vigilant because irAE symptoms can be subtle, according to Julie Brahmer, MD, of the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore.
“Everyone has to work as a team, which includes being educated on possible side effects to immunotherapy prior to prescribing it,” said Dr. Brahmer, chair of the ASCO panel and vice chair of the NCCN panel that developed the guidelines.
The guidelines were published Feb. 14 in two documents that are similar in content, but different in format. The ASCO guideline was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology (doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.77.6385) and the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology were posted on the NCCN website.
While the first edition of the guidelines focus specifically on immune checkpoint inhibitors, an update anticipated for 2019 will include guidance on chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy, which is associated with several important side effects, notably cytokine release syndrome.
Recently released guidelines from two major cancer organizations have provided some of the most comprehensive guidance to date on management of musculoskeletal side effects associated with cancer immunotherapy.
The guidelines, published in February, are a “sorely needed” reference point for the rheumatology community and others who will be encountering patients who experience immune-related adverse events (irAEs), according to Leonard H. Calabrese, DO, the R.J. Fasenmyer Chair of Clinical Immunology at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio.
“They’re a good first start, given the fact that up until 4 or 5 months ago, there were no endorsed guidelines that included oncologists and rheumatologists,” Dr. Calabrese said of the guidelines, which were collaboratively developed and recently released by both the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN).
Rheumatologists can add value
“We talk a lot about rheumatologists being aware of these diseases, but it’s been pointed out by some oncologists that unless they’re really knowledgeable and can add considerably to the management, it doesn’t do any good just to be aware of it,” Dr. Calabrese explained. “You need to actually have some procedural knowledge.”
ASCO guidelines also describe a polymyalgia-like syndrome seen in some patients on immune checkpoint inhibitors that according to the guideline authors is characterized by pain, but not true muscle weakness.
In general, the guidelines endorse a stepwise approach, in which milder irAEs can be managed with conservative treatments and without the need to stop the immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy. In contrast, more serious side effects may require more intensive management and either temporary or permanent discontinuation of cancer immunotherapy.
One good example is NCCN’s take on managing inflammatory arthritis.
Mild cases of inflammatory arthritis can be treated with NSAIDs, low-dose prednisone, or intra-articular steroids with no need to stop immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment, according to NCCN guideline authors.
Moderate cases, by contrast, may require holding immunotherapy and treating with prednisone. A rheumatology consult by week 4 is “strongly recommended” if the immune arthritis doesn’t improve, the authors added.
Severe cases may warrant permanent discontinuation of immunotherapy and treatment with methylprednisolone/prednisone, infliximab, or tocilizumab, they added. If the irAE doesn’t improve after 2 weeks, a rheumatology consult should be considered for additional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, including methotrexate, leflunomide, or sulfasalazine.
irAEs on the rise
These guidelines are particularly useful for rheumatologists to familiarize themselves with the six Food and Drug Administration–approved immune checkpoint inhibitors, their spectrum of side effects, and how oncologists use the severity of presentation to guide therapy, according to Laura Cappelli, MD.
Understanding irAEs will be increasingly important for rheumatologist as the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors continues to increase, said Dr. Cappelli, who has started a research program at Johns Hopkins to evaluate the rheumatologic adverse effects of these therapies.
Dr. Cappelli said her division sees at least one suspected irAE case per week, most commonly the immune arthritis associated with checkpoint inhibitor therapy.
Likewise, Dr. Calabrese said he is already seeing approximately two new referrals per week for adverse events related to these relatively new therapies.
“It’s far outstripped our notion of what we thought we would be doing,” he said in an interview.
Systems have been set up to encourage interprofessional collaborations, he added, including a “virtual referral clinic” where advanced practitioners working with oncologists communicate with advanced practitioners in each of the specialty areas that are most frequently consulted in order to help facilitate care and triage patients.
In addition, a monthly irAE tumor board was set up to include only cases that have manifest autoimmune or autoinflammatory complications.
“We have a growing group of people who come to this from each area involved, whether it be nephrology, neurology, ophthalmology, gastroenterology, rheumatology, or something else,” Dr. Calabrese said. “That’s been a great learning experience for all of us to talk about these adverse events in real time.”
Critical need for guidance
These guidelines meet a growing need to help practicing clinicians identify and best manage immune-related adverse events, according to Bryan J. Schneider, MD, of the University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center, and vice chair of the NCCN Panel on Management of Immunotherapy-Related Toxicities.
“We’re experienced with chemotherapy, and we are very comfortable with the side effects,” he said. “The immunotherapy story is just an entirely different world because, as I tell patients, the therapies aren’t directly damaging cancer cells like chemotherapy. Instead, they are helping the immune system to identify the cancer cells as abnormal and mount an assault. Proteins on cancer cells may suppress the immune response and these therapies effectively ‘release these brakes’ so the immune system can attack.”
Rheumatologists and those with particular expertise in rheumatologic side effects participated in the development of the ASCO and NCCN guidelines. They include Maria E. Suarez-Almazor, MD, PhD, chief of rheumatology and clinical immunology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, who served on the ASCO expert panel; Jarushka Naidoo, MBBCh, from the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, provided expertise in the rheumatologic side effects that were considered by the NCCN panel, according to Dr. Schneider.
Rheumatologist input also informed another set of recommendations on immune checkpoint inhibitor toxicities published several months before the ASCO and NCCN guidelines. The working group for the September 2017 guidelines from the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (doi: 10.1186/s40425-017-0300-z) included Dr. Suarez-Almazor, as well as Clifton O. Bingham III, MD, director of the Johns Hopkins Arthritis Center.
Vigilance required
Checkpoint inhibitors have been approved by the FDA to treat a variety of cancers, including melanoma, lung cancer, and Hodgkin lymphoma, as well as lung, liver, kidney, and bladder cancers.
Clinicians managing patients on checkpoint inhibitors should always be vigilant because irAE symptoms can be subtle, according to Julie Brahmer, MD, of the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore.
“Everyone has to work as a team, which includes being educated on possible side effects to immunotherapy prior to prescribing it,” said Dr. Brahmer, chair of the ASCO panel and vice chair of the NCCN panel that developed the guidelines.
The guidelines were published Feb. 14 in two documents that are similar in content, but different in format. The ASCO guideline was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology (doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.77.6385) and the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology were posted on the NCCN website.
While the first edition of the guidelines focus specifically on immune checkpoint inhibitors, an update anticipated for 2019 will include guidance on chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy, which is associated with several important side effects, notably cytokine release syndrome.
Accelerated breast irradiation advocated by ASTRO guideline
Hypofractionation is the preferred means of giving whole breast irradiation to women with invasive breast cancer, according to updated guidance from the American Society for Radiation Oncology.
A dose of 4,000 cGy given in 15 fractions or 4,250 cGy in 16 fractions is recommended, with or without inclusion of the low axilla, and regardless of a variety of factors such as tumor grade, prior chemotherapy, and patient age.
“Previously, accelerated treatment was recommended only for certain patients, including older patients and those with less advanced disease,” Benjamin Smith, MD, one of the cochairs of the guideline task force, said in an ASTRO news release.
Dr. Smith, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, added that recent long-term data from several large trials “strongly support the safety and efficacy of accelerated treatment for most breast cancer patients.”
Treatment decisions and plans still need to be individualized, but the updated ASTRO guidance notes that whole breast irradiation (WBI) can be offered to most women with invasive breast cancer independent of breast size and whether or not the cancer is in the left or right breast, provided that homogeneous dosing can be achieved. Hormone receptor, HER2 status, and postsurgical margin status also appear not to matter.
Historically, conventional fractionation (CF) with or without a tumor bed boost was used for WBI, Dr. Smith and associates wrote in the guidelines, which were published online in Practical Radiation Oncology. This consisted of daily doses of 180-200 cGy for a total dose of 4,500-5,000 cGy.
“Recognizing the limitations of CF for convenience and cost, randomized trials in the 1990s and 2000s investigated if moderate hypofractionation [HF], defined as daily doses of 265-330 cGy, could yield oncologic and functional/cosmetic outcomes similar to CF-WBI,” they said.
Initial results of these trials “supported the safety and effectiveness of HF-WBI” and were then used to form ASTRO’s 2011 guideline on dose fractionation for WBI. With longer term data from these trials now available, it was time to review the evidence again. A systematic literature review was thus conducted to identify all relevant studies published during 2009-2016, and 100 articles met the task force criteria and were used to create the updated guideline.
Aside from the delivery and dosing of WBI, other key recommendations look at the use of a radiation boost to the tumor bed, and preferred techniques for treatment planning.
With regards to a radiation boost, this needs to be considered on an individual basis but can be independent of any previous WBI. A radiation boost is recommended if patients have any grade invasive cancer and are aged 50 years or younger, have a high-grade tumor and are aged 51-70 years, or if there is a positive margin following surgery. A radiation boost also is recommended in women with ductal carcinoma in situ if they are aged 50 years or younger, have a high-grade tumor, and positive or close postsurgical margins.
As for treatment planning, 3-dimensional conformal treatment planning with a “field-in-field” technique is recommended as the initial approach. This is to minimize the volume of breast tissue that receives more than 105% of the radiation dose. The guideline also covers optimal patient positioning and how to avoid nearby tissues and organs, such as the heart, lungs and contralateral breast.
ASTRO hopes that the updated guideline will increase the use of hypofractionation, which has been reportedly low in recent years, with as few as 35% of eligible patients received hypofractionation in one study (JAMA. 2014;312[23]:2542-50).
“We hope that this guideline encourages providers to counsel their patients on options including hypofractionation,” said Reshma Jagsi, MD, DPhil, professor of radiation oncology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, who cochaired the guideline task force with Dr. Smith.
“Hypofractionated radiation therapy offers patients a more convenient and lower cost option for their treatment without compromising the likelihood that their cancer will return or increasing their risk of side effects,” Dr. Jagsi noted. Furthermore, “a shorter course of radiation equates to more time with family, less time away from work and lower treatment costs.”
SOURCE: Smith BD et al. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2018 March 12. doi: 10.1016/j.prro.2018.01.012.
Hypofractionation is the preferred means of giving whole breast irradiation to women with invasive breast cancer, according to updated guidance from the American Society for Radiation Oncology.
A dose of 4,000 cGy given in 15 fractions or 4,250 cGy in 16 fractions is recommended, with or without inclusion of the low axilla, and regardless of a variety of factors such as tumor grade, prior chemotherapy, and patient age.
“Previously, accelerated treatment was recommended only for certain patients, including older patients and those with less advanced disease,” Benjamin Smith, MD, one of the cochairs of the guideline task force, said in an ASTRO news release.
Dr. Smith, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, added that recent long-term data from several large trials “strongly support the safety and efficacy of accelerated treatment for most breast cancer patients.”
Treatment decisions and plans still need to be individualized, but the updated ASTRO guidance notes that whole breast irradiation (WBI) can be offered to most women with invasive breast cancer independent of breast size and whether or not the cancer is in the left or right breast, provided that homogeneous dosing can be achieved. Hormone receptor, HER2 status, and postsurgical margin status also appear not to matter.
Historically, conventional fractionation (CF) with or without a tumor bed boost was used for WBI, Dr. Smith and associates wrote in the guidelines, which were published online in Practical Radiation Oncology. This consisted of daily doses of 180-200 cGy for a total dose of 4,500-5,000 cGy.
“Recognizing the limitations of CF for convenience and cost, randomized trials in the 1990s and 2000s investigated if moderate hypofractionation [HF], defined as daily doses of 265-330 cGy, could yield oncologic and functional/cosmetic outcomes similar to CF-WBI,” they said.
Initial results of these trials “supported the safety and effectiveness of HF-WBI” and were then used to form ASTRO’s 2011 guideline on dose fractionation for WBI. With longer term data from these trials now available, it was time to review the evidence again. A systematic literature review was thus conducted to identify all relevant studies published during 2009-2016, and 100 articles met the task force criteria and were used to create the updated guideline.
Aside from the delivery and dosing of WBI, other key recommendations look at the use of a radiation boost to the tumor bed, and preferred techniques for treatment planning.
With regards to a radiation boost, this needs to be considered on an individual basis but can be independent of any previous WBI. A radiation boost is recommended if patients have any grade invasive cancer and are aged 50 years or younger, have a high-grade tumor and are aged 51-70 years, or if there is a positive margin following surgery. A radiation boost also is recommended in women with ductal carcinoma in situ if they are aged 50 years or younger, have a high-grade tumor, and positive or close postsurgical margins.
As for treatment planning, 3-dimensional conformal treatment planning with a “field-in-field” technique is recommended as the initial approach. This is to minimize the volume of breast tissue that receives more than 105% of the radiation dose. The guideline also covers optimal patient positioning and how to avoid nearby tissues and organs, such as the heart, lungs and contralateral breast.
ASTRO hopes that the updated guideline will increase the use of hypofractionation, which has been reportedly low in recent years, with as few as 35% of eligible patients received hypofractionation in one study (JAMA. 2014;312[23]:2542-50).
“We hope that this guideline encourages providers to counsel their patients on options including hypofractionation,” said Reshma Jagsi, MD, DPhil, professor of radiation oncology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, who cochaired the guideline task force with Dr. Smith.
“Hypofractionated radiation therapy offers patients a more convenient and lower cost option for their treatment without compromising the likelihood that their cancer will return or increasing their risk of side effects,” Dr. Jagsi noted. Furthermore, “a shorter course of radiation equates to more time with family, less time away from work and lower treatment costs.”
SOURCE: Smith BD et al. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2018 March 12. doi: 10.1016/j.prro.2018.01.012.
Hypofractionation is the preferred means of giving whole breast irradiation to women with invasive breast cancer, according to updated guidance from the American Society for Radiation Oncology.
A dose of 4,000 cGy given in 15 fractions or 4,250 cGy in 16 fractions is recommended, with or without inclusion of the low axilla, and regardless of a variety of factors such as tumor grade, prior chemotherapy, and patient age.
“Previously, accelerated treatment was recommended only for certain patients, including older patients and those with less advanced disease,” Benjamin Smith, MD, one of the cochairs of the guideline task force, said in an ASTRO news release.
Dr. Smith, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, added that recent long-term data from several large trials “strongly support the safety and efficacy of accelerated treatment for most breast cancer patients.”
Treatment decisions and plans still need to be individualized, but the updated ASTRO guidance notes that whole breast irradiation (WBI) can be offered to most women with invasive breast cancer independent of breast size and whether or not the cancer is in the left or right breast, provided that homogeneous dosing can be achieved. Hormone receptor, HER2 status, and postsurgical margin status also appear not to matter.
Historically, conventional fractionation (CF) with or without a tumor bed boost was used for WBI, Dr. Smith and associates wrote in the guidelines, which were published online in Practical Radiation Oncology. This consisted of daily doses of 180-200 cGy for a total dose of 4,500-5,000 cGy.
“Recognizing the limitations of CF for convenience and cost, randomized trials in the 1990s and 2000s investigated if moderate hypofractionation [HF], defined as daily doses of 265-330 cGy, could yield oncologic and functional/cosmetic outcomes similar to CF-WBI,” they said.
Initial results of these trials “supported the safety and effectiveness of HF-WBI” and were then used to form ASTRO’s 2011 guideline on dose fractionation for WBI. With longer term data from these trials now available, it was time to review the evidence again. A systematic literature review was thus conducted to identify all relevant studies published during 2009-2016, and 100 articles met the task force criteria and were used to create the updated guideline.
Aside from the delivery and dosing of WBI, other key recommendations look at the use of a radiation boost to the tumor bed, and preferred techniques for treatment planning.
With regards to a radiation boost, this needs to be considered on an individual basis but can be independent of any previous WBI. A radiation boost is recommended if patients have any grade invasive cancer and are aged 50 years or younger, have a high-grade tumor and are aged 51-70 years, or if there is a positive margin following surgery. A radiation boost also is recommended in women with ductal carcinoma in situ if they are aged 50 years or younger, have a high-grade tumor, and positive or close postsurgical margins.
As for treatment planning, 3-dimensional conformal treatment planning with a “field-in-field” technique is recommended as the initial approach. This is to minimize the volume of breast tissue that receives more than 105% of the radiation dose. The guideline also covers optimal patient positioning and how to avoid nearby tissues and organs, such as the heart, lungs and contralateral breast.
ASTRO hopes that the updated guideline will increase the use of hypofractionation, which has been reportedly low in recent years, with as few as 35% of eligible patients received hypofractionation in one study (JAMA. 2014;312[23]:2542-50).
“We hope that this guideline encourages providers to counsel their patients on options including hypofractionation,” said Reshma Jagsi, MD, DPhil, professor of radiation oncology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, who cochaired the guideline task force with Dr. Smith.
“Hypofractionated radiation therapy offers patients a more convenient and lower cost option for their treatment without compromising the likelihood that their cancer will return or increasing their risk of side effects,” Dr. Jagsi noted. Furthermore, “a shorter course of radiation equates to more time with family, less time away from work and lower treatment costs.”
SOURCE: Smith BD et al. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2018 March 12. doi: 10.1016/j.prro.2018.01.012.
FROM PRACTICAL RADIATION ONCOLOGY
Key clinical point: For invasive cancer, the preferred scheme is hypofractionated whole breast irradiation (HF-WBI).
Major finding: HF-WBI should be given to a total dose of 4,000 cGy in 15 fractions or 4,250 cGy in 16 fractions.
Study details: A systematic literature review of all relevant studies published during 2009-2016.
Disclosures: The guidelines were sponsored by the American Society for Radiation Oncology.
Source: Smith BD et al. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2018 March 12. doi: 10.1016/j.prro.2018.01.012.
Medical associations fight American College of Physicians HBA1c recommendations
in a statement released Friday, March 9.
The new guideline, which was published in the Annals of Internal Medicine on March 5 “could prevent many patients from receiving the full benefits of long-term glucose control,” according to a joint statement from the Endocrine Society, American Diabetes Association, American Association of Diabetes Educators, and American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists.
“The main concern here is this statement is too large to apply to most people with type 2 diabetes,” Grazia Aleppo, MD, chair of the Endocrine Society’s Clinical Affairs Core Committee, said in an interview. “We are all in agreement among the societies to include the ACP’s recommendation on individualizing treatment, but there is a big difference in a 1% HbA1c increase.
“A 7% HbA1c reflects the average of about 154 mg/dL on average, but 8% reflects the average of about 183 mg/dL.”
With patients without diabetes averaging between 70 and 99 mg/dL, a jump to 183 is concerning for Dr. Aleppo and her colleagues.
The ACP’s recommendations were determined from analysis of four drug therapy trials, which found aiming HbA1c levels at below 7% put patients at risk for hypoglycemia and cardiovascular events.
While the trials themselves were approved by the ADA, AADE, and AACE, associations expressed concern with the exclusion of important data, including the addition of newly diagnosed patients in the test population and more modern medications that reduce the adverse effects mentioned in the ACP’s reasoning for raising the target levels.
The patients participating in the trials were older and could have already had underlying cardiovascular disease, according to Dr. Aleppo. These factors plus a rapid change to their medication to get them below 6.5% could have instigated a cardiovascular response, which would not be as likely for patients in their 40s who are just being diagnosed.
“A great majority of patients who are seen in the primary care setting usually don’t have advanced diabetes and, in that case, if someone does not have an increased risk for hypoglycemia, which is the concern that the ACP has, they should be kept at the tightest possible control so that when they are much older they have a legacy effect of good control of their disease,” said Dr. Aleppo.** “Also, if you place someone on modern, lower-risk medications that are so much safer today than before, these actually have been shown not only to improve glucose level in high-risk patients, they can actually cause a very big improvement in cardiovascular disease outcomes.”
Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors and glucagonlike peptide-1 receptor agonists are both newer medications with signs of high success, according to Dr. Aleppo.*
At press time the American College of Physicians was unable to provide a statement.
Corrections, 3/12/18: *An earlier version of this article misstated one of the drug classes mentioned.
**An earlier version of this article misstated a reference to the patient group specified.
in a statement released Friday, March 9.
The new guideline, which was published in the Annals of Internal Medicine on March 5 “could prevent many patients from receiving the full benefits of long-term glucose control,” according to a joint statement from the Endocrine Society, American Diabetes Association, American Association of Diabetes Educators, and American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists.
“The main concern here is this statement is too large to apply to most people with type 2 diabetes,” Grazia Aleppo, MD, chair of the Endocrine Society’s Clinical Affairs Core Committee, said in an interview. “We are all in agreement among the societies to include the ACP’s recommendation on individualizing treatment, but there is a big difference in a 1% HbA1c increase.
“A 7% HbA1c reflects the average of about 154 mg/dL on average, but 8% reflects the average of about 183 mg/dL.”
With patients without diabetes averaging between 70 and 99 mg/dL, a jump to 183 is concerning for Dr. Aleppo and her colleagues.
The ACP’s recommendations were determined from analysis of four drug therapy trials, which found aiming HbA1c levels at below 7% put patients at risk for hypoglycemia and cardiovascular events.
While the trials themselves were approved by the ADA, AADE, and AACE, associations expressed concern with the exclusion of important data, including the addition of newly diagnosed patients in the test population and more modern medications that reduce the adverse effects mentioned in the ACP’s reasoning for raising the target levels.
The patients participating in the trials were older and could have already had underlying cardiovascular disease, according to Dr. Aleppo. These factors plus a rapid change to their medication to get them below 6.5% could have instigated a cardiovascular response, which would not be as likely for patients in their 40s who are just being diagnosed.
“A great majority of patients who are seen in the primary care setting usually don’t have advanced diabetes and, in that case, if someone does not have an increased risk for hypoglycemia, which is the concern that the ACP has, they should be kept at the tightest possible control so that when they are much older they have a legacy effect of good control of their disease,” said Dr. Aleppo.** “Also, if you place someone on modern, lower-risk medications that are so much safer today than before, these actually have been shown not only to improve glucose level in high-risk patients, they can actually cause a very big improvement in cardiovascular disease outcomes.”
Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors and glucagonlike peptide-1 receptor agonists are both newer medications with signs of high success, according to Dr. Aleppo.*
At press time the American College of Physicians was unable to provide a statement.
Corrections, 3/12/18: *An earlier version of this article misstated one of the drug classes mentioned.
**An earlier version of this article misstated a reference to the patient group specified.
in a statement released Friday, March 9.
The new guideline, which was published in the Annals of Internal Medicine on March 5 “could prevent many patients from receiving the full benefits of long-term glucose control,” according to a joint statement from the Endocrine Society, American Diabetes Association, American Association of Diabetes Educators, and American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists.
“The main concern here is this statement is too large to apply to most people with type 2 diabetes,” Grazia Aleppo, MD, chair of the Endocrine Society’s Clinical Affairs Core Committee, said in an interview. “We are all in agreement among the societies to include the ACP’s recommendation on individualizing treatment, but there is a big difference in a 1% HbA1c increase.
“A 7% HbA1c reflects the average of about 154 mg/dL on average, but 8% reflects the average of about 183 mg/dL.”
With patients without diabetes averaging between 70 and 99 mg/dL, a jump to 183 is concerning for Dr. Aleppo and her colleagues.
The ACP’s recommendations were determined from analysis of four drug therapy trials, which found aiming HbA1c levels at below 7% put patients at risk for hypoglycemia and cardiovascular events.
While the trials themselves were approved by the ADA, AADE, and AACE, associations expressed concern with the exclusion of important data, including the addition of newly diagnosed patients in the test population and more modern medications that reduce the adverse effects mentioned in the ACP’s reasoning for raising the target levels.
The patients participating in the trials were older and could have already had underlying cardiovascular disease, according to Dr. Aleppo. These factors plus a rapid change to their medication to get them below 6.5% could have instigated a cardiovascular response, which would not be as likely for patients in their 40s who are just being diagnosed.
“A great majority of patients who are seen in the primary care setting usually don’t have advanced diabetes and, in that case, if someone does not have an increased risk for hypoglycemia, which is the concern that the ACP has, they should be kept at the tightest possible control so that when they are much older they have a legacy effect of good control of their disease,” said Dr. Aleppo.** “Also, if you place someone on modern, lower-risk medications that are so much safer today than before, these actually have been shown not only to improve glucose level in high-risk patients, they can actually cause a very big improvement in cardiovascular disease outcomes.”
Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors and glucagonlike peptide-1 receptor agonists are both newer medications with signs of high success, according to Dr. Aleppo.*
At press time the American College of Physicians was unable to provide a statement.
Corrections, 3/12/18: *An earlier version of this article misstated one of the drug classes mentioned.
**An earlier version of this article misstated a reference to the patient group specified.
Cancer groups offer guidance on immune-related adverse events
The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) have released new guidelines designed to help clinicians manage the unique and sometimes severe side effects associated with cancer immunotherapy agents.
These guidelines meet a growing need to help practicing clinicians identify and best manage immune-related adverse events, according to Bryan J. Schneider, MD, of the University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center, and vice chair of the NCCN Panel on Management of Immunotherapy-Related Toxicities.
“The mechanism of action of these anticancer therapies is so much different from anything that we’re used to,” Dr. Schneider said in an interview.
Critical need for guidance
The ASCO and NCCN guidelines are “critically important” to ensure uniform management of common immune-related adverse events, according to Stephen M. Ansell, MD, PhD, professor of medicine and chair of the Lymphoma Group at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
“I think it also specifically highlights a few side effects that many people may not necessarily think about, from eye toxicities to thyroid effects, or the type of things that the average oncologist who is now using this in their practice quite regularly may not necessarily think about,” Dr. Ansell said. “Those kind of effects are now clearly outlined with clear guidance about what should be done, and I think that allows oncologists a resource to go and look at this carefully so that they do the right thing.” 
The spectrum of adverse effects associated with checkpoint inhibitors is markedly different from what is seen with cytotoxic chemotherapy, the guidelines note. Most often, the side effects are seen in the skin, GI tract, and lungs, as well as the endocrine, adrenal, nervous, thyroid, pituitary, musculoskeletal, cardiovascular, ocular, and hematologic systems.
Stepwise approach
Side effects of checkpoint inhibitors are typically mild, but they can be severe and sometimes life-threatening, according to ASCO and NCCN.
If immune-related adverse events are mild (i.e., grade 1), treatment can continue with close monitoring, according to the guidelines. By contrast, moderate to severe immune-related adverse events can lead to severe declines in organ function and quality of life, or even fatal outcomes, so early detection and proper management are needed.
Grade 2 toxicities warrant suspending immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment, and resuming it once symptoms subside to grade 1 or less, according to the guidelines. Grade 3 toxicities should also prompt suspension of treatment, plus initiation of high-dose corticosteroids tapered over at least 4-6 weeks.
For most toxicities that reach grade 4, permanent discontinuation of checkpoint inhibitors is recommended.
A thoughtful discussion of potential risks and benefits is needed before using immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients who have autoimmune disease or prior organ transplant, according to the guidelines.
Vigilance required
Checkpoint inhibitors have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration to treat a variety of cancers, including melanoma, lung cancer, and Hodgkin lymphoma, as well as lung, liver, kidney, and bladder cancers.
Clinicians managing patients on checkpoint inhibitors should always be vigilant because immune-related adverse event symptoms can be subtle, according to Julie Brahmer, MD, of The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore.
“Everyone has to work as a team, which includes being educated on possible side effects to immunotherapy prior to prescribing it,” said Dr. Brahmer, chair of the ASCO panel and vice chair of the NCCN panel that developed the guidelines.
The guidelines were published Feb. 14 in two documents that are similar in content, but different in format. The ASCO guideline was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology (doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.77.6385) and the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology were posted on the NCCN website.
While the first edition of the guidelines focuses specifically on immune checkpoint inhibitors, an update anticipated for 2019 will include guidance on chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, which is associated with several important side effects, notably cytokine release syndrome.
The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) have released new guidelines designed to help clinicians manage the unique and sometimes severe side effects associated with cancer immunotherapy agents.
These guidelines meet a growing need to help practicing clinicians identify and best manage immune-related adverse events, according to Bryan J. Schneider, MD, of the University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center, and vice chair of the NCCN Panel on Management of Immunotherapy-Related Toxicities.
“The mechanism of action of these anticancer therapies is so much different from anything that we’re used to,” Dr. Schneider said in an interview.
Critical need for guidance
The ASCO and NCCN guidelines are “critically important” to ensure uniform management of common immune-related adverse events, according to Stephen M. Ansell, MD, PhD, professor of medicine and chair of the Lymphoma Group at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
“I think it also specifically highlights a few side effects that many people may not necessarily think about, from eye toxicities to thyroid effects, or the type of things that the average oncologist who is now using this in their practice quite regularly may not necessarily think about,” Dr. Ansell said. “Those kind of effects are now clearly outlined with clear guidance about what should be done, and I think that allows oncologists a resource to go and look at this carefully so that they do the right thing.”
The spectrum of adverse effects associated with checkpoint inhibitors is markedly different from what is seen with cytotoxic chemotherapy, the guidelines note. Most often, the side effects are seen in the skin, GI tract, and lungs, as well as the endocrine, adrenal, nervous, thyroid, pituitary, musculoskeletal, cardiovascular, ocular, and hematologic systems.
Stepwise approach
Side effects of checkpoint inhibitors are typically mild, but they can be severe and sometimes life-threatening, according to ASCO and NCCN.
If immune-related adverse events are mild (i.e., grade 1), treatment can continue with close monitoring, according to the guidelines. By contrast, moderate to severe immune-related adverse events can lead to severe declines in organ function and quality of life, or even fatal outcomes, so early detection and proper management are needed.
Grade 2 toxicities warrant suspending immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment, and resuming it once symptoms subside to grade 1 or less, according to the guidelines. Grade 3 toxicities should also prompt suspension of treatment, plus initiation of high-dose corticosteroids tapered over at least 4-6 weeks.
For most toxicities that reach grade 4, permanent discontinuation of checkpoint inhibitors is recommended.
A thoughtful discussion of potential risks and benefits is needed before using immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients who have autoimmune disease or prior organ transplant, according to the guidelines.
Vigilance required
Checkpoint inhibitors have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration to treat a variety of cancers, including melanoma, lung cancer, and Hodgkin lymphoma, as well as lung, liver, kidney, and bladder cancers.
Clinicians managing patients on checkpoint inhibitors should always be vigilant because immune-related adverse event symptoms can be subtle, according to Julie Brahmer, MD, of The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore.
“Everyone has to work as a team, which includes being educated on possible side effects to immunotherapy prior to prescribing it,” said Dr. Brahmer, chair of the ASCO panel and vice chair of the NCCN panel that developed the guidelines.
The guidelines were published Feb. 14 in two documents that are similar in content, but different in format. The ASCO guideline was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology (doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.77.6385) and the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology were posted on the NCCN website.
While the first edition of the guidelines focuses specifically on immune checkpoint inhibitors, an update anticipated for 2019 will include guidance on chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, which is associated with several important side effects, notably cytokine release syndrome.
The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) have released new guidelines designed to help clinicians manage the unique and sometimes severe side effects associated with cancer immunotherapy agents.
These guidelines meet a growing need to help practicing clinicians identify and best manage immune-related adverse events, according to Bryan J. Schneider, MD, of the University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center, and vice chair of the NCCN Panel on Management of Immunotherapy-Related Toxicities.
“The mechanism of action of these anticancer therapies is so much different from anything that we’re used to,” Dr. Schneider said in an interview.
Critical need for guidance
The ASCO and NCCN guidelines are “critically important” to ensure uniform management of common immune-related adverse events, according to Stephen M. Ansell, MD, PhD, professor of medicine and chair of the Lymphoma Group at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
“I think it also specifically highlights a few side effects that many people may not necessarily think about, from eye toxicities to thyroid effects, or the type of things that the average oncologist who is now using this in their practice quite regularly may not necessarily think about,” Dr. Ansell said. “Those kind of effects are now clearly outlined with clear guidance about what should be done, and I think that allows oncologists a resource to go and look at this carefully so that they do the right thing.”
The spectrum of adverse effects associated with checkpoint inhibitors is markedly different from what is seen with cytotoxic chemotherapy, the guidelines note. Most often, the side effects are seen in the skin, GI tract, and lungs, as well as the endocrine, adrenal, nervous, thyroid, pituitary, musculoskeletal, cardiovascular, ocular, and hematologic systems.
Stepwise approach
Side effects of checkpoint inhibitors are typically mild, but they can be severe and sometimes life-threatening, according to ASCO and NCCN.
If immune-related adverse events are mild (i.e., grade 1), treatment can continue with close monitoring, according to the guidelines. By contrast, moderate to severe immune-related adverse events can lead to severe declines in organ function and quality of life, or even fatal outcomes, so early detection and proper management are needed.
Grade 2 toxicities warrant suspending immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment, and resuming it once symptoms subside to grade 1 or less, according to the guidelines. Grade 3 toxicities should also prompt suspension of treatment, plus initiation of high-dose corticosteroids tapered over at least 4-6 weeks.
For most toxicities that reach grade 4, permanent discontinuation of checkpoint inhibitors is recommended.
A thoughtful discussion of potential risks and benefits is needed before using immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients who have autoimmune disease or prior organ transplant, according to the guidelines.
Vigilance required
Checkpoint inhibitors have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration to treat a variety of cancers, including melanoma, lung cancer, and Hodgkin lymphoma, as well as lung, liver, kidney, and bladder cancers.
Clinicians managing patients on checkpoint inhibitors should always be vigilant because immune-related adverse event symptoms can be subtle, according to Julie Brahmer, MD, of The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore.
“Everyone has to work as a team, which includes being educated on possible side effects to immunotherapy prior to prescribing it,” said Dr. Brahmer, chair of the ASCO panel and vice chair of the NCCN panel that developed the guidelines.
The guidelines were published Feb. 14 in two documents that are similar in content, but different in format. The ASCO guideline was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology (doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.77.6385) and the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology were posted on the NCCN website.
While the first edition of the guidelines focuses specifically on immune checkpoint inhibitors, an update anticipated for 2019 will include guidance on chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, which is associated with several important side effects, notably cytokine release syndrome.
Collaboration, consultation part of AAP teen depression guidelines update
The updated information includes recommendations on collaborative care, practice preparation, establishing networks of referrals, and much more.
“These guidelines were developed for PC clinicians who are in a position to identify and assist youth with depression in their practice settings,” they said. The guidelines apply to individuals aged 10-21 years, and support universal depression screening for those aged 12 and older.
Known as the Guidelines for Adolescent Depression in Primary Care (GLAD-PC), they consist of two parts: Practice Preparation, Identification, Assessment, and Initial Management, with Dr. Zuckerbrot as the lead author, and Treatment and Ongoing Management, led by Amy H. Cheung, MD, of the University of Toronto. They were published online in Pediatrics.
“It has been over 10 years since the [last] guidelines were published and they are supposed to be updated every 5,” Dr. Zuckerbrot said in an interview. “Given the new evidence on screening, psychopharmacology, and collaborative care, the guidelines needed to be revised. The USPSTF [United States Preventive Services Task Force ] and the AAP had already supported universal adolescent depression screening, and these guidelines are finally aligned with those positions.
“Different parts of the guidelines will be the go-to for different pediatricians, depending on where they are in their delivery of mental health care,” she explained. “Some may need help with practice preparation while others may need advice on screening; others may already be prescribing and may need advice on ongoing treatment and follow-up. I think there is something for everyone.”
Implementation of the guidelines is difficult in a short visit, Dr. Zuckerbrot acknowledged. “In addition, pediatricians may not have been well trained in the management of adolescent depression during their residencies.” However, the guidelines discuss both “real teams to support the pediatricians in their efforts, as well as virtual teams when staffing is limited.
“The guidelines advise that pediatricians learn about child psychiatry primary care consultation programs in their state and make use of those free telephone consultation programs.” The guidelines also discuss strategies for collaborative or integrative care, she said.
Part I
Part I of the guidelines, “Practice Preparation, Identification, Assessment, and Initial Management,” includes several recommendations for each topic.
For practice preparation, the guidelines recommend that clinicians seek training in the assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of depression, and that they establish a network of referrals and mental health resources in their communities. This network may include not only health professionals, but also current patients and families who are managing teen depression. If available, state-wide or regional child and adolescent psychiatry consultation programs can be included.
The identification and surveillance section of the guidelines calls for screening all patients aged 12 years and older for depression each year, using a formal screening tool on paper or online. The screening could occur at an annual wellness visit or any other medical visit, such as a sports physical. A second recommendation calls for identifying patients at increased risk for depression because of factors such as personal history, family history, substance use, other psychiatric disorders, frequent somatic complaints, or trauma, and monitoring these individuals regularly for signs of depression using a formal screening tool.
The assessment and diagnosis section states that assessment should include interviews with the patients alone as well as with their families or caregivers, and should include screening teens for functional impairment.
Primary care physicians should evaluate for depression not only if an adolescent tests positive on a screening tool, but also in children who present with any emotional problem as the chief complaint, and in those in whom depression is highly suspected even if they test negative on a formal screening tool, the guidelines state.
The three recommendations for initial management of depression in the primary care setting are educating patients and families about depression; developing a treatment plan (if the primary care clinician has had appropriate training) and setting specific treatment goals in areas of functioning such as at home, with peers, and at school; and developing a safety plan that includes restricting access to weapons or other means of self-harm, according to the guidelines.
Part II
Part II of the recommendations, “Treatment and Ongoing Management,” discusses options for managing depression in the primary care setting and utilizing outside resources.
The treatment recommendations emphasize the use of integrated models, if possible. “There is a growing recognition that complex chronic conditions, such as depression, are most successfully managed with proactive, multidisciplinary, patient-centered care teams,” Dr. Cheung and her associates said.
The recommendation for cases of mild depression calls for a period of “active support and monitoring” for 6-8 weeks before reassessing if the teen shows no improvement. By contrast, for cases of moderate to severe depression or cases with evidence of substance abuse or other psychoses, the recommendation calls for potential consultation with a mental health specialist and a discussion of the roles primary and specialty care will play in treatment. The guidelines include a flow chart for PC physicians to follow.
The guidelines suggest that PC clinicians recommend “scientifically tested and proven treatments,” such as psychotherapies, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) or interpersonal psychotherapy for adolescents, and/or antidepressant treatment, such as SSRIs, whenever possible and appropriate. It is important to monitor teens on antidepressants regularly to identify adverse events.
Recommendations for the ongoing management of teens with depression in the primary care setting include regular tracking of progress, reassessment if the teen shows no improvement in 6-8 weeks, and consultation with a mental health professional for those who show only partial improvement after exhausting primary care diagnostic and treatment options. Assessment of depressive symptoms is not the only thing to track. Functioning at home, school, and among peers also is important.
The final treatment recommendation is for active support of a depressed teen’s referral to mental health if necessary for best management and sharing care if possible, with an understanding of the roles of the primary and specialty clinicians, the guidelines state.
The guidelines project was funded by the Resource for Advancing Children’s Health Institute and the Bell Canada Chair in Adolescent Mood and Anxiety Disorders.
Dr. Cheung and Dr. Zuckerbrot receive book royalties. Dr Zuckerbrot works for child and adolescent psychiatry for primary care (CAP-PC), now a regional provider for Project TEACH in New York State, and she is on the steering committee as well as faculty for the REACH Institute; both of these institutions are described in the guidelines. Peter S. Jensen, MD, has received royalties from Random House, Oxford University Press, and APPI Inc. He is a part owner of a consulting company, CATCH Services LLC. He is the chief executive officer and president of a nonprofit organization, the Resource for Advancing Children’s Health Institute, but receives no compensation. The other authors indicated they have no financial relationships relevant to the guidelines.
“Mental health disorders have become one of the new morbidities in pediatric care,” Karalyn Kinsella, MD, said in an interview. “With one in five patients having depression, it is an illness that must be within our domain to identify and treat. I think the guidelines will make providers feel more confident in making a diagnosis and providing initial treatment. For those that do not feel comfortable, hopefully the guidelines will encourage them to seek training.
The take-home message for general pediatricians is that a standardized screening tool makes identifying depression relatively easy. “We have been using the PHQ-9 [Patient Health Questionnaire-9] in my office for several years, and it is very easy to administer and score, and is billable,” said Dr. Kinsella. “It can take some practice to tease out some typical teen behaviors, especially on the sleep and fatigue questions, but it provides an opportunity to open up discussion with the teen.
“Treatment [of depression] can be more complicated and time consuming, but rewarding and invaluable to the patient,” she emphasized. “Many states now have psychiatrists available by phone consultation to aid in management of medication. The key is establishing a list of quality counselors for referrals. With those supports and frequent follow-up, pediatricians can play a key role in the treatment of this prevalent and important illness that affects our patients.”
Dr. Kinsella is a pediatrician in Cheshire, Conn., and a member of the Pediatric News editorial advisory board. She was asked to comment on the new AAP teen depression guidelines.
“Mental health disorders have become one of the new morbidities in pediatric care,” Karalyn Kinsella, MD, said in an interview. “With one in five patients having depression, it is an illness that must be within our domain to identify and treat. I think the guidelines will make providers feel more confident in making a diagnosis and providing initial treatment. For those that do not feel comfortable, hopefully the guidelines will encourage them to seek training.
The take-home message for general pediatricians is that a standardized screening tool makes identifying depression relatively easy. “We have been using the PHQ-9 [Patient Health Questionnaire-9] in my office for several years, and it is very easy to administer and score, and is billable,” said Dr. Kinsella. “It can take some practice to tease out some typical teen behaviors, especially on the sleep and fatigue questions, but it provides an opportunity to open up discussion with the teen.
“Treatment [of depression] can be more complicated and time consuming, but rewarding and invaluable to the patient,” she emphasized. “Many states now have psychiatrists available by phone consultation to aid in management of medication. The key is establishing a list of quality counselors for referrals. With those supports and frequent follow-up, pediatricians can play a key role in the treatment of this prevalent and important illness that affects our patients.”
Dr. Kinsella is a pediatrician in Cheshire, Conn., and a member of the Pediatric News editorial advisory board. She was asked to comment on the new AAP teen depression guidelines.
“Mental health disorders have become one of the new morbidities in pediatric care,” Karalyn Kinsella, MD, said in an interview. “With one in five patients having depression, it is an illness that must be within our domain to identify and treat. I think the guidelines will make providers feel more confident in making a diagnosis and providing initial treatment. For those that do not feel comfortable, hopefully the guidelines will encourage them to seek training.
The take-home message for general pediatricians is that a standardized screening tool makes identifying depression relatively easy. “We have been using the PHQ-9 [Patient Health Questionnaire-9] in my office for several years, and it is very easy to administer and score, and is billable,” said Dr. Kinsella. “It can take some practice to tease out some typical teen behaviors, especially on the sleep and fatigue questions, but it provides an opportunity to open up discussion with the teen.
“Treatment [of depression] can be more complicated and time consuming, but rewarding and invaluable to the patient,” she emphasized. “Many states now have psychiatrists available by phone consultation to aid in management of medication. The key is establishing a list of quality counselors for referrals. With those supports and frequent follow-up, pediatricians can play a key role in the treatment of this prevalent and important illness that affects our patients.”
Dr. Kinsella is a pediatrician in Cheshire, Conn., and a member of the Pediatric News editorial advisory board. She was asked to comment on the new AAP teen depression guidelines.
The updated information includes recommendations on collaborative care, practice preparation, establishing networks of referrals, and much more.
“These guidelines were developed for PC clinicians who are in a position to identify and assist youth with depression in their practice settings,” they said. The guidelines apply to individuals aged 10-21 years, and support universal depression screening for those aged 12 and older.
Known as the Guidelines for Adolescent Depression in Primary Care (GLAD-PC), they consist of two parts: Practice Preparation, Identification, Assessment, and Initial Management, with Dr. Zuckerbrot as the lead author, and Treatment and Ongoing Management, led by Amy H. Cheung, MD, of the University of Toronto. They were published online in Pediatrics.
“It has been over 10 years since the [last] guidelines were published and they are supposed to be updated every 5,” Dr. Zuckerbrot said in an interview. “Given the new evidence on screening, psychopharmacology, and collaborative care, the guidelines needed to be revised. The USPSTF [United States Preventive Services Task Force ] and the AAP had already supported universal adolescent depression screening, and these guidelines are finally aligned with those positions.
“Different parts of the guidelines will be the go-to for different pediatricians, depending on where they are in their delivery of mental health care,” she explained. “Some may need help with practice preparation while others may need advice on screening; others may already be prescribing and may need advice on ongoing treatment and follow-up. I think there is something for everyone.”
Implementation of the guidelines is difficult in a short visit, Dr. Zuckerbrot acknowledged. “In addition, pediatricians may not have been well trained in the management of adolescent depression during their residencies.” However, the guidelines discuss both “real teams to support the pediatricians in their efforts, as well as virtual teams when staffing is limited.
“The guidelines advise that pediatricians learn about child psychiatry primary care consultation programs in their state and make use of those free telephone consultation programs.” The guidelines also discuss strategies for collaborative or integrative care, she said.
Part I
Part I of the guidelines, “Practice Preparation, Identification, Assessment, and Initial Management,” includes several recommendations for each topic.
For practice preparation, the guidelines recommend that clinicians seek training in the assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of depression, and that they establish a network of referrals and mental health resources in their communities. This network may include not only health professionals, but also current patients and families who are managing teen depression. If available, state-wide or regional child and adolescent psychiatry consultation programs can be included.
The identification and surveillance section of the guidelines calls for screening all patients aged 12 years and older for depression each year, using a formal screening tool on paper or online. The screening could occur at an annual wellness visit or any other medical visit, such as a sports physical. A second recommendation calls for identifying patients at increased risk for depression because of factors such as personal history, family history, substance use, other psychiatric disorders, frequent somatic complaints, or trauma, and monitoring these individuals regularly for signs of depression using a formal screening tool.
The assessment and diagnosis section states that assessment should include interviews with the patients alone as well as with their families or caregivers, and should include screening teens for functional impairment.
Primary care physicians should evaluate for depression not only if an adolescent tests positive on a screening tool, but also in children who present with any emotional problem as the chief complaint, and in those in whom depression is highly suspected even if they test negative on a formal screening tool, the guidelines state.
The three recommendations for initial management of depression in the primary care setting are educating patients and families about depression; developing a treatment plan (if the primary care clinician has had appropriate training) and setting specific treatment goals in areas of functioning such as at home, with peers, and at school; and developing a safety plan that includes restricting access to weapons or other means of self-harm, according to the guidelines.
Part II
Part II of the recommendations, “Treatment and Ongoing Management,” discusses options for managing depression in the primary care setting and utilizing outside resources.
The treatment recommendations emphasize the use of integrated models, if possible. “There is a growing recognition that complex chronic conditions, such as depression, are most successfully managed with proactive, multidisciplinary, patient-centered care teams,” Dr. Cheung and her associates said.
The recommendation for cases of mild depression calls for a period of “active support and monitoring” for 6-8 weeks before reassessing if the teen shows no improvement. By contrast, for cases of moderate to severe depression or cases with evidence of substance abuse or other psychoses, the recommendation calls for potential consultation with a mental health specialist and a discussion of the roles primary and specialty care will play in treatment. The guidelines include a flow chart for PC physicians to follow.
The guidelines suggest that PC clinicians recommend “scientifically tested and proven treatments,” such as psychotherapies, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) or interpersonal psychotherapy for adolescents, and/or antidepressant treatment, such as SSRIs, whenever possible and appropriate. It is important to monitor teens on antidepressants regularly to identify adverse events.
Recommendations for the ongoing management of teens with depression in the primary care setting include regular tracking of progress, reassessment if the teen shows no improvement in 6-8 weeks, and consultation with a mental health professional for those who show only partial improvement after exhausting primary care diagnostic and treatment options. Assessment of depressive symptoms is not the only thing to track. Functioning at home, school, and among peers also is important.
The final treatment recommendation is for active support of a depressed teen’s referral to mental health if necessary for best management and sharing care if possible, with an understanding of the roles of the primary and specialty clinicians, the guidelines state.
The guidelines project was funded by the Resource for Advancing Children’s Health Institute and the Bell Canada Chair in Adolescent Mood and Anxiety Disorders.
Dr. Cheung and Dr. Zuckerbrot receive book royalties. Dr Zuckerbrot works for child and adolescent psychiatry for primary care (CAP-PC), now a regional provider for Project TEACH in New York State, and she is on the steering committee as well as faculty for the REACH Institute; both of these institutions are described in the guidelines. Peter S. Jensen, MD, has received royalties from Random House, Oxford University Press, and APPI Inc. He is a part owner of a consulting company, CATCH Services LLC. He is the chief executive officer and president of a nonprofit organization, the Resource for Advancing Children’s Health Institute, but receives no compensation. The other authors indicated they have no financial relationships relevant to the guidelines.
The updated information includes recommendations on collaborative care, practice preparation, establishing networks of referrals, and much more.
“These guidelines were developed for PC clinicians who are in a position to identify and assist youth with depression in their practice settings,” they said. The guidelines apply to individuals aged 10-21 years, and support universal depression screening for those aged 12 and older.
Known as the Guidelines for Adolescent Depression in Primary Care (GLAD-PC), they consist of two parts: Practice Preparation, Identification, Assessment, and Initial Management, with Dr. Zuckerbrot as the lead author, and Treatment and Ongoing Management, led by Amy H. Cheung, MD, of the University of Toronto. They were published online in Pediatrics.
“It has been over 10 years since the [last] guidelines were published and they are supposed to be updated every 5,” Dr. Zuckerbrot said in an interview. “Given the new evidence on screening, psychopharmacology, and collaborative care, the guidelines needed to be revised. The USPSTF [United States Preventive Services Task Force ] and the AAP had already supported universal adolescent depression screening, and these guidelines are finally aligned with those positions.
“Different parts of the guidelines will be the go-to for different pediatricians, depending on where they are in their delivery of mental health care,” she explained. “Some may need help with practice preparation while others may need advice on screening; others may already be prescribing and may need advice on ongoing treatment and follow-up. I think there is something for everyone.”
Implementation of the guidelines is difficult in a short visit, Dr. Zuckerbrot acknowledged. “In addition, pediatricians may not have been well trained in the management of adolescent depression during their residencies.” However, the guidelines discuss both “real teams to support the pediatricians in their efforts, as well as virtual teams when staffing is limited.
“The guidelines advise that pediatricians learn about child psychiatry primary care consultation programs in their state and make use of those free telephone consultation programs.” The guidelines also discuss strategies for collaborative or integrative care, she said.
Part I
Part I of the guidelines, “Practice Preparation, Identification, Assessment, and Initial Management,” includes several recommendations for each topic.
For practice preparation, the guidelines recommend that clinicians seek training in the assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of depression, and that they establish a network of referrals and mental health resources in their communities. This network may include not only health professionals, but also current patients and families who are managing teen depression. If available, state-wide or regional child and adolescent psychiatry consultation programs can be included.
The identification and surveillance section of the guidelines calls for screening all patients aged 12 years and older for depression each year, using a formal screening tool on paper or online. The screening could occur at an annual wellness visit or any other medical visit, such as a sports physical. A second recommendation calls for identifying patients at increased risk for depression because of factors such as personal history, family history, substance use, other psychiatric disorders, frequent somatic complaints, or trauma, and monitoring these individuals regularly for signs of depression using a formal screening tool.
The assessment and diagnosis section states that assessment should include interviews with the patients alone as well as with their families or caregivers, and should include screening teens for functional impairment.
Primary care physicians should evaluate for depression not only if an adolescent tests positive on a screening tool, but also in children who present with any emotional problem as the chief complaint, and in those in whom depression is highly suspected even if they test negative on a formal screening tool, the guidelines state.
The three recommendations for initial management of depression in the primary care setting are educating patients and families about depression; developing a treatment plan (if the primary care clinician has had appropriate training) and setting specific treatment goals in areas of functioning such as at home, with peers, and at school; and developing a safety plan that includes restricting access to weapons or other means of self-harm, according to the guidelines.
Part II
Part II of the recommendations, “Treatment and Ongoing Management,” discusses options for managing depression in the primary care setting and utilizing outside resources.
The treatment recommendations emphasize the use of integrated models, if possible. “There is a growing recognition that complex chronic conditions, such as depression, are most successfully managed with proactive, multidisciplinary, patient-centered care teams,” Dr. Cheung and her associates said.
The recommendation for cases of mild depression calls for a period of “active support and monitoring” for 6-8 weeks before reassessing if the teen shows no improvement. By contrast, for cases of moderate to severe depression or cases with evidence of substance abuse or other psychoses, the recommendation calls for potential consultation with a mental health specialist and a discussion of the roles primary and specialty care will play in treatment. The guidelines include a flow chart for PC physicians to follow.
The guidelines suggest that PC clinicians recommend “scientifically tested and proven treatments,” such as psychotherapies, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) or interpersonal psychotherapy for adolescents, and/or antidepressant treatment, such as SSRIs, whenever possible and appropriate. It is important to monitor teens on antidepressants regularly to identify adverse events.
Recommendations for the ongoing management of teens with depression in the primary care setting include regular tracking of progress, reassessment if the teen shows no improvement in 6-8 weeks, and consultation with a mental health professional for those who show only partial improvement after exhausting primary care diagnostic and treatment options. Assessment of depressive symptoms is not the only thing to track. Functioning at home, school, and among peers also is important.
The final treatment recommendation is for active support of a depressed teen’s referral to mental health if necessary for best management and sharing care if possible, with an understanding of the roles of the primary and specialty clinicians, the guidelines state.
The guidelines project was funded by the Resource for Advancing Children’s Health Institute and the Bell Canada Chair in Adolescent Mood and Anxiety Disorders.
Dr. Cheung and Dr. Zuckerbrot receive book royalties. Dr Zuckerbrot works for child and adolescent psychiatry for primary care (CAP-PC), now a regional provider for Project TEACH in New York State, and she is on the steering committee as well as faculty for the REACH Institute; both of these institutions are described in the guidelines. Peter S. Jensen, MD, has received royalties from Random House, Oxford University Press, and APPI Inc. He is a part owner of a consulting company, CATCH Services LLC. He is the chief executive officer and president of a nonprofit organization, the Resource for Advancing Children’s Health Institute, but receives no compensation. The other authors indicated they have no financial relationships relevant to the guidelines.
FROM PEDIATRICS
AGA Guideline: Use goal-directed fluid therapy, early oral feeding in acute pancreatitis
Patients with acute pancreatitis should receive “goal-directed” fluid therapy with normal saline or Ringer’s lactate solution rather than hydroxyethyl starch (HES) fluids, states a new guideline from the AGA Institute.
In a single-center randomized trial, hydroxyethyl starch fluids conferred a 3.9-fold increase in the odds of multiorgan failure (95% confidence interval for odds ratio, 1.2-12.0) compared with normal saline in patients with acute pancreatitis, wrote guideline authors Seth D. Crockett, MD, MPH, of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and his associates. This trial and another randomized study found no mortality benefit for HES compared with fluid resuscitation. The evidence is “very low quality” but mirrors the critical care literature, according to the experts. So far, Ringer’s lactate solution and normal saline have shown similar effects on the risk of organ failure, necrosis, and mortality, but ongoing trials should better clarify this choice, they noted (Gastroenterology. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2018.01.032).
The guideline addresses the initial 2-week period of treating acute pancreatitis. It defines goal-directed fluid therapy as titration based on meaningful targets, such as heart rate, mean arterial pressure, central venous pressure, urine output, blood urea nitrogen concentration, and hematocrit. Studies of goal-directed fluid therapy in acute pancreatitis have been unblinded, have used inconsistent outcome measures, and have found no definite benefits over nontargeted fluid therapy, note the guideline authors. Nevertheless, they conditionally recommend goal-directed fluid therapy, partly because a randomized, blinded trial of patients with severe sepsis or septic shock (which physiologically resembles acute pancreatitis) had in-hospital mortality rates of 31% when they received goal-directed fluid therapy and 47% when they received standard fluid therapy (P = .0009).
The guideline recommends against routine use of two interventions: prophylactic antibiotics and urgent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for patients with acute pancreatitis. The authors note that no evidence supports routine prophylactic antibiotics for acute pancreatitis patients without cholangitis, and that urgent ERCP did not significantly affect the risk of mortality, multiorgan failure, single-organ failure, infected pancreatic and peripancreatic necrosis, or necrotizing pancreatitis in eight randomized controlled trials of patients with acute gallstone pancreatitis.
The guideline strongly recommends early oral feeding and enteral rather than parenteral nutrition for all patients with acute pancreatitis. In 11 randomized controlled trials, early and delayed feeding led to similar rates of mortality, but delayed feeding produced a 2.5-fold higher risk of necrosis (95% CI for OR, 1.4-4.4) and tended to increase the risk of infected peripancreatic necrosis, multiorgan failure, and total necrotizing pancreatitis, the authors wrote. In another 12 trials, enteral nutrition significantly reduced the risk of infected peripancreatic necrosis, single-organ failure, and multiorgan failure compared with parenteral nutrition.
Clinicians continue to debate cholecystectomy timing in patients with biliary or gallstone pancreatitis. The guidelines strongly recommend same-admission cholecystectomy, citing a randomized controlled trial in which this approach markedly reduced the combined risk of mortality and gallstone-related complications (OR, 0.2, 95% CI, 0.1-0.6), readmission for recurrent pancreatitis (OR, 0.3, 95% CI, 0.1-0.9), and pancreaticobiliary complications (OR, 0.2, 95% CI, 0.1-0.6). “The AGA issued a strong recommendation due to the quality of available evidence and the high likelihood of benefit from early versus delayed cholecystectomy in this patient population,” the experts stated.
Patients with biliary pancreatitis should be evaluated for cholecystectomy during the same admission, while those with alcohol-induced pancreatitis should receive a brief alcohol intervention, according to the guidelines, which also call for better studies of how alcohol and tobacco cessation measures affect risk of recurrent acute pancreatitis, chronic pancreatitis, and pancreatic cancer, as well as quality of life, health care utilization, and mortality.
The authors also noted knowledge gaps concerning the relative benefits of risk stratification tools, the use of prophylactic antibiotics in patients with severe acute pancreatitis or necrotizing pancreatitis, and the timing of ERCP in patients with severe biliary pancreatitis with persistent biliary obstruction.
The guideline was developed with sole funding by the AGA Institute with no external funding. The authors disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
Source: Crockett SD et al. Gastroenterology. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2018.01.032.
Patients with acute pancreatitis should receive “goal-directed” fluid therapy with normal saline or Ringer’s lactate solution rather than hydroxyethyl starch (HES) fluids, states a new guideline from the AGA Institute.
In a single-center randomized trial, hydroxyethyl starch fluids conferred a 3.9-fold increase in the odds of multiorgan failure (95% confidence interval for odds ratio, 1.2-12.0) compared with normal saline in patients with acute pancreatitis, wrote guideline authors Seth D. Crockett, MD, MPH, of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and his associates. This trial and another randomized study found no mortality benefit for HES compared with fluid resuscitation. The evidence is “very low quality” but mirrors the critical care literature, according to the experts. So far, Ringer’s lactate solution and normal saline have shown similar effects on the risk of organ failure, necrosis, and mortality, but ongoing trials should better clarify this choice, they noted (Gastroenterology. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2018.01.032).
The guideline addresses the initial 2-week period of treating acute pancreatitis. It defines goal-directed fluid therapy as titration based on meaningful targets, such as heart rate, mean arterial pressure, central venous pressure, urine output, blood urea nitrogen concentration, and hematocrit. Studies of goal-directed fluid therapy in acute pancreatitis have been unblinded, have used inconsistent outcome measures, and have found no definite benefits over nontargeted fluid therapy, note the guideline authors. Nevertheless, they conditionally recommend goal-directed fluid therapy, partly because a randomized, blinded trial of patients with severe sepsis or septic shock (which physiologically resembles acute pancreatitis) had in-hospital mortality rates of 31% when they received goal-directed fluid therapy and 47% when they received standard fluid therapy (P = .0009).
The guideline recommends against routine use of two interventions: prophylactic antibiotics and urgent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for patients with acute pancreatitis. The authors note that no evidence supports routine prophylactic antibiotics for acute pancreatitis patients without cholangitis, and that urgent ERCP did not significantly affect the risk of mortality, multiorgan failure, single-organ failure, infected pancreatic and peripancreatic necrosis, or necrotizing pancreatitis in eight randomized controlled trials of patients with acute gallstone pancreatitis.
The guideline strongly recommends early oral feeding and enteral rather than parenteral nutrition for all patients with acute pancreatitis. In 11 randomized controlled trials, early and delayed feeding led to similar rates of mortality, but delayed feeding produced a 2.5-fold higher risk of necrosis (95% CI for OR, 1.4-4.4) and tended to increase the risk of infected peripancreatic necrosis, multiorgan failure, and total necrotizing pancreatitis, the authors wrote. In another 12 trials, enteral nutrition significantly reduced the risk of infected peripancreatic necrosis, single-organ failure, and multiorgan failure compared with parenteral nutrition.
Clinicians continue to debate cholecystectomy timing in patients with biliary or gallstone pancreatitis. The guidelines strongly recommend same-admission cholecystectomy, citing a randomized controlled trial in which this approach markedly reduced the combined risk of mortality and gallstone-related complications (OR, 0.2, 95% CI, 0.1-0.6), readmission for recurrent pancreatitis (OR, 0.3, 95% CI, 0.1-0.9), and pancreaticobiliary complications (OR, 0.2, 95% CI, 0.1-0.6). “The AGA issued a strong recommendation due to the quality of available evidence and the high likelihood of benefit from early versus delayed cholecystectomy in this patient population,” the experts stated.
Patients with biliary pancreatitis should be evaluated for cholecystectomy during the same admission, while those with alcohol-induced pancreatitis should receive a brief alcohol intervention, according to the guidelines, which also call for better studies of how alcohol and tobacco cessation measures affect risk of recurrent acute pancreatitis, chronic pancreatitis, and pancreatic cancer, as well as quality of life, health care utilization, and mortality.
The authors also noted knowledge gaps concerning the relative benefits of risk stratification tools, the use of prophylactic antibiotics in patients with severe acute pancreatitis or necrotizing pancreatitis, and the timing of ERCP in patients with severe biliary pancreatitis with persistent biliary obstruction.
The guideline was developed with sole funding by the AGA Institute with no external funding. The authors disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
Source: Crockett SD et al. Gastroenterology. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2018.01.032.
Patients with acute pancreatitis should receive “goal-directed” fluid therapy with normal saline or Ringer’s lactate solution rather than hydroxyethyl starch (HES) fluids, states a new guideline from the AGA Institute.
In a single-center randomized trial, hydroxyethyl starch fluids conferred a 3.9-fold increase in the odds of multiorgan failure (95% confidence interval for odds ratio, 1.2-12.0) compared with normal saline in patients with acute pancreatitis, wrote guideline authors Seth D. Crockett, MD, MPH, of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and his associates. This trial and another randomized study found no mortality benefit for HES compared with fluid resuscitation. The evidence is “very low quality” but mirrors the critical care literature, according to the experts. So far, Ringer’s lactate solution and normal saline have shown similar effects on the risk of organ failure, necrosis, and mortality, but ongoing trials should better clarify this choice, they noted (Gastroenterology. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2018.01.032).
The guideline addresses the initial 2-week period of treating acute pancreatitis. It defines goal-directed fluid therapy as titration based on meaningful targets, such as heart rate, mean arterial pressure, central venous pressure, urine output, blood urea nitrogen concentration, and hematocrit. Studies of goal-directed fluid therapy in acute pancreatitis have been unblinded, have used inconsistent outcome measures, and have found no definite benefits over nontargeted fluid therapy, note the guideline authors. Nevertheless, they conditionally recommend goal-directed fluid therapy, partly because a randomized, blinded trial of patients with severe sepsis or septic shock (which physiologically resembles acute pancreatitis) had in-hospital mortality rates of 31% when they received goal-directed fluid therapy and 47% when they received standard fluid therapy (P = .0009).
The guideline recommends against routine use of two interventions: prophylactic antibiotics and urgent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for patients with acute pancreatitis. The authors note that no evidence supports routine prophylactic antibiotics for acute pancreatitis patients without cholangitis, and that urgent ERCP did not significantly affect the risk of mortality, multiorgan failure, single-organ failure, infected pancreatic and peripancreatic necrosis, or necrotizing pancreatitis in eight randomized controlled trials of patients with acute gallstone pancreatitis.
The guideline strongly recommends early oral feeding and enteral rather than parenteral nutrition for all patients with acute pancreatitis. In 11 randomized controlled trials, early and delayed feeding led to similar rates of mortality, but delayed feeding produced a 2.5-fold higher risk of necrosis (95% CI for OR, 1.4-4.4) and tended to increase the risk of infected peripancreatic necrosis, multiorgan failure, and total necrotizing pancreatitis, the authors wrote. In another 12 trials, enteral nutrition significantly reduced the risk of infected peripancreatic necrosis, single-organ failure, and multiorgan failure compared with parenteral nutrition.
Clinicians continue to debate cholecystectomy timing in patients with biliary or gallstone pancreatitis. The guidelines strongly recommend same-admission cholecystectomy, citing a randomized controlled trial in which this approach markedly reduced the combined risk of mortality and gallstone-related complications (OR, 0.2, 95% CI, 0.1-0.6), readmission for recurrent pancreatitis (OR, 0.3, 95% CI, 0.1-0.9), and pancreaticobiliary complications (OR, 0.2, 95% CI, 0.1-0.6). “The AGA issued a strong recommendation due to the quality of available evidence and the high likelihood of benefit from early versus delayed cholecystectomy in this patient population,” the experts stated.
Patients with biliary pancreatitis should be evaluated for cholecystectomy during the same admission, while those with alcohol-induced pancreatitis should receive a brief alcohol intervention, according to the guidelines, which also call for better studies of how alcohol and tobacco cessation measures affect risk of recurrent acute pancreatitis, chronic pancreatitis, and pancreatic cancer, as well as quality of life, health care utilization, and mortality.
The authors also noted knowledge gaps concerning the relative benefits of risk stratification tools, the use of prophylactic antibiotics in patients with severe acute pancreatitis or necrotizing pancreatitis, and the timing of ERCP in patients with severe biliary pancreatitis with persistent biliary obstruction.
The guideline was developed with sole funding by the AGA Institute with no external funding. The authors disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
Source: Crockett SD et al. Gastroenterology. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2018.01.032.
FROM GASTROENTEROLOGY
Guidelines update best practices for hemorrhoid treatment
Each year, more than 2.2 million patients in the United States undergo evaluations for symptoms of hemorrhoids, according to updated guidelines on the management of hemorrhoids issued by the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons.
“As a result, it is important to identify symptomatic hemorrhoids as the underlying source of the anorectal symptom and to have a clear understanding of the evaluation and management of this disease process,” wrote Bradley R. Davis, MD, FACS, chief of colon and rectal surgery at the Carolinas Medical Center, Charlotte, N.C., and the fellow members of the Clinical Practice Guidelines Committee of the ASCRS.
The guidelines recommend evaluation of hemorrhoids based on a disease-specific history, and a physical that emphasizes the degree and duration of symptoms and identifies risk factors. But the guideline writers note that the recommendation is a grade 1C because the supporting data mainly come from observational or case studies.
“The cardinal signs of internal hemorrhoids are painless bleeding with bowel movements with intermittent protrusion,” the committee said, also emphasizing that patients should be evaluated for fecal incontinence, which could inform surgical decision making.
In addition, the guidelines call for a complete endoscopic evaluation of the colon for patients who present with symptomatic hemorrhoids and rectal bleeding; this recommendation is based on moderately strong evidence, and presented with a grade of 1B.
Medical management of hemorrhoids may include office-based procedures or surgery, according to the guidelines.
“Most patients with grade I and II and select patients with grade III internal hemorrhoidal disease who fail medical treatment can be effectively treated with office-based procedures, such as banding, sclerotherapy, and infrared coagulation,” the committee wrote, and medical office treatment received a strong grade 1A recommendation based on high-quality evidence. Although office procedures are generally well tolerated, the condition can recur. Bleeding is the most common complication, and it is more likely after rubber-band ligation than other office-based options, the guidelines state.
The guidelines offer a weak recommendation of 2C, based on the lack of quality evidence, for the use of early surgical excision to treat patients with thrombosed external hemorrhoids. “Although most patients treated nonoperatively will experience eventual resolution of their symptoms, excision of thrombosed external hemorrhoids may result in more rapid symptom resolution, lower incidence of recurrence, and longer remission intervals,” the committee noted.
Surgical hemorrhoidectomy received the strongest possible recommendation (1A, based on high-quality evidence) for the treatment of patients with external hemorrhoids or a combination of internal and external hemorrhoids with prolapse.
Surgical options described in the recommendations include surgical excision (hemorrhoidectomy), hemorrhoidopexy, and Doppler-guided hemorrhoidectomy, with citations of studies on each procedure. Data from a meta-analysis of 18 randomized prospective studies comparing hemorrhoidectomy with office-based procedures showed that hemorrhoidectomy was “the most effective treatment for patients with grade III hemorrhoids,” but it was associated with greater pain and complication rates, according to the guidelines.
However, complications in general are low after surgical hemorrhoidectomy, with reported complication rates of 1%-2% for the most common complication of postprocedure hemorrhage, the guidelines state. After surgery, the guidelines recommend with a 1B grade (moderate quality evidence) that patients use “a multimodality pain regimen to reduce narcotic usage and promote a faster recovery.”
The committee members had no financial conflicts to disclose.
SOURCE: Davis BR et al. Dis Colon Rectum. 2018; 61:284-92.
Each year, more than 2.2 million patients in the United States undergo evaluations for symptoms of hemorrhoids, according to updated guidelines on the management of hemorrhoids issued by the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons.
“As a result, it is important to identify symptomatic hemorrhoids as the underlying source of the anorectal symptom and to have a clear understanding of the evaluation and management of this disease process,” wrote Bradley R. Davis, MD, FACS, chief of colon and rectal surgery at the Carolinas Medical Center, Charlotte, N.C., and the fellow members of the Clinical Practice Guidelines Committee of the ASCRS.
The guidelines recommend evaluation of hemorrhoids based on a disease-specific history, and a physical that emphasizes the degree and duration of symptoms and identifies risk factors. But the guideline writers note that the recommendation is a grade 1C because the supporting data mainly come from observational or case studies.
“The cardinal signs of internal hemorrhoids are painless bleeding with bowel movements with intermittent protrusion,” the committee said, also emphasizing that patients should be evaluated for fecal incontinence, which could inform surgical decision making.
In addition, the guidelines call for a complete endoscopic evaluation of the colon for patients who present with symptomatic hemorrhoids and rectal bleeding; this recommendation is based on moderately strong evidence, and presented with a grade of 1B.
Medical management of hemorrhoids may include office-based procedures or surgery, according to the guidelines.
“Most patients with grade I and II and select patients with grade III internal hemorrhoidal disease who fail medical treatment can be effectively treated with office-based procedures, such as banding, sclerotherapy, and infrared coagulation,” the committee wrote, and medical office treatment received a strong grade 1A recommendation based on high-quality evidence. Although office procedures are generally well tolerated, the condition can recur. Bleeding is the most common complication, and it is more likely after rubber-band ligation than other office-based options, the guidelines state.
The guidelines offer a weak recommendation of 2C, based on the lack of quality evidence, for the use of early surgical excision to treat patients with thrombosed external hemorrhoids. “Although most patients treated nonoperatively will experience eventual resolution of their symptoms, excision of thrombosed external hemorrhoids may result in more rapid symptom resolution, lower incidence of recurrence, and longer remission intervals,” the committee noted.
Surgical hemorrhoidectomy received the strongest possible recommendation (1A, based on high-quality evidence) for the treatment of patients with external hemorrhoids or a combination of internal and external hemorrhoids with prolapse.
Surgical options described in the recommendations include surgical excision (hemorrhoidectomy), hemorrhoidopexy, and Doppler-guided hemorrhoidectomy, with citations of studies on each procedure. Data from a meta-analysis of 18 randomized prospective studies comparing hemorrhoidectomy with office-based procedures showed that hemorrhoidectomy was “the most effective treatment for patients with grade III hemorrhoids,” but it was associated with greater pain and complication rates, according to the guidelines.
However, complications in general are low after surgical hemorrhoidectomy, with reported complication rates of 1%-2% for the most common complication of postprocedure hemorrhage, the guidelines state. After surgery, the guidelines recommend with a 1B grade (moderate quality evidence) that patients use “a multimodality pain regimen to reduce narcotic usage and promote a faster recovery.”
The committee members had no financial conflicts to disclose.
SOURCE: Davis BR et al. Dis Colon Rectum. 2018; 61:284-92.
Each year, more than 2.2 million patients in the United States undergo evaluations for symptoms of hemorrhoids, according to updated guidelines on the management of hemorrhoids issued by the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons.
“As a result, it is important to identify symptomatic hemorrhoids as the underlying source of the anorectal symptom and to have a clear understanding of the evaluation and management of this disease process,” wrote Bradley R. Davis, MD, FACS, chief of colon and rectal surgery at the Carolinas Medical Center, Charlotte, N.C., and the fellow members of the Clinical Practice Guidelines Committee of the ASCRS.
The guidelines recommend evaluation of hemorrhoids based on a disease-specific history, and a physical that emphasizes the degree and duration of symptoms and identifies risk factors. But the guideline writers note that the recommendation is a grade 1C because the supporting data mainly come from observational or case studies.
“The cardinal signs of internal hemorrhoids are painless bleeding with bowel movements with intermittent protrusion,” the committee said, also emphasizing that patients should be evaluated for fecal incontinence, which could inform surgical decision making.
In addition, the guidelines call for a complete endoscopic evaluation of the colon for patients who present with symptomatic hemorrhoids and rectal bleeding; this recommendation is based on moderately strong evidence, and presented with a grade of 1B.
Medical management of hemorrhoids may include office-based procedures or surgery, according to the guidelines.
“Most patients with grade I and II and select patients with grade III internal hemorrhoidal disease who fail medical treatment can be effectively treated with office-based procedures, such as banding, sclerotherapy, and infrared coagulation,” the committee wrote, and medical office treatment received a strong grade 1A recommendation based on high-quality evidence. Although office procedures are generally well tolerated, the condition can recur. Bleeding is the most common complication, and it is more likely after rubber-band ligation than other office-based options, the guidelines state.
The guidelines offer a weak recommendation of 2C, based on the lack of quality evidence, for the use of early surgical excision to treat patients with thrombosed external hemorrhoids. “Although most patients treated nonoperatively will experience eventual resolution of their symptoms, excision of thrombosed external hemorrhoids may result in more rapid symptom resolution, lower incidence of recurrence, and longer remission intervals,” the committee noted.
Surgical hemorrhoidectomy received the strongest possible recommendation (1A, based on high-quality evidence) for the treatment of patients with external hemorrhoids or a combination of internal and external hemorrhoids with prolapse.
Surgical options described in the recommendations include surgical excision (hemorrhoidectomy), hemorrhoidopexy, and Doppler-guided hemorrhoidectomy, with citations of studies on each procedure. Data from a meta-analysis of 18 randomized prospective studies comparing hemorrhoidectomy with office-based procedures showed that hemorrhoidectomy was “the most effective treatment for patients with grade III hemorrhoids,” but it was associated with greater pain and complication rates, according to the guidelines.
However, complications in general are low after surgical hemorrhoidectomy, with reported complication rates of 1%-2% for the most common complication of postprocedure hemorrhage, the guidelines state. After surgery, the guidelines recommend with a 1B grade (moderate quality evidence) that patients use “a multimodality pain regimen to reduce narcotic usage and promote a faster recovery.”
The committee members had no financial conflicts to disclose.
SOURCE: Davis BR et al. Dis Colon Rectum. 2018; 61:284-92.
FROM DISEASES OF THE COLON & RECTUM
New C. difficile guidelines recommend fecal microbiota transplants
.
The updated Clinical Practice Guidelines for Clostridium difficile Infection in Adults and Children, published in the Feb. 15 edition of Clinical Infectious Diseases (doi: 10.1093/cid/cix1085), address changes in management and diagnosis of the infection, and include recommendations for pediatric infection. The guidelines from the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America were lasted published in 2010.
One of the strongest recommendations was on the use of FMTs to treat recurrent C. difficile infection after the failure of antibiotic therapy.
“Anecdotal treatment success rates of fecal microbiota transplantation for recurrent CDI [C. difficile infection] have been high regardless of route of instillation of feces, and have ranged between 77% and 94% with administration via the proximal small bowel; the highest success rates (80%-100%) have been associated with instillation of feces via the colon,” they wrote.
The guidelines also addressed what the authors described as the “evolving controversy” over the best methods for diagnosis, pointing out that there is little consensus about the best laboratory testing method.
“Given these various conundrums and the paucity of large prospective studies, the recommendations, while strong in some instances, are based upon a very low to low quality of evidence,” the authors said.
That aside, they advised that patients with unexplained and new-onset diarrhea (three or more unformed stools in 24 hours) were the preferred target population for testing for C. difficile infection. The most sensitive method of diagnosis in patients with clinical symptoms likely to be C. difficile infection was a nucleic acid amplification test, or a multistep algorithm, rather than a toxin test alone.
The guidelines committee also strongly advised against repeat testing within 7 days during the same episode of diarrhea, and against testing stool from asymptomatic patients, except for the purpose of epidemiologic study. They also noted there was insufficient evidence for the use of biologic markers such as fecal lactoferrin as an adjunct to testing.
The guidelines’ authors found there was not enough evidence to recommend discontinuing proton pump inhibitors to reduce the incidence of C. difficile infection, despite epidemiologic evidence of an association between proton pump inhibitor use and C. difficile infection. Similarly, there was a lack of evidence for the use of probiotics for primary prevention, but the authors noted that meta-analyses suggest probiotics may help prevent C. difficile infection in patients on antibiotics without a history of C. difficile infection.
With respect to antibiotic treatment, they recommended that patients diagnosed with C. difficile infection should first discontinue the inciting antibiotic treatment and then begin therapy with either vancomycin or fidaxomicin. For recurrent infection, they advised a tapered and pulsed regimen of oral vancomycin or a 10-day course of fidaxomicin. If patients had received metronidazole for the primary episode, they should be given a standard 10-day course of vancomycin for recurrent infection, the authors said.
In terms of diagnosis and management of pediatric C. difficile, the guidelines advised against routinely testing infants under 2 years of age with diarrhea, as the rate of C. difficile colonization even among asymptomatic infants can be higher than 40%. Even in children older than age 2, there was only a “weak” recommendation for C. difficile testing in patients with prolonged or worsening diarrhea and other risk factors such as inflammatory bowel disease or recent antibiotic exposure.
Children with a first episode or first recurrence of nonsevere C. difficile should be treated with either metronidazole or vancomycin, the authors wrote, but in the case of more severe illness or second recurrence, oral vancomycin was preferred over metronidazole.
The authors also suggested clinicians consider FMTs for children with recurrent infection that had failed to respond to antibiotics, but noted the quality of evidence for this was very low.
The guidelines were funded by the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. Six authors declared grants, consultancies, board positions, and other payments from the pharmaceutical industry outside the submitted work. One author also held patents relating to the treatment and prevention of C. difficile infection.
SOURCE: McDonald CL et al. Clin Infect Dis. 2018 Feb 15. doi: 10.1093/cid/cix1085.
.
The updated Clinical Practice Guidelines for Clostridium difficile Infection in Adults and Children, published in the Feb. 15 edition of Clinical Infectious Diseases (doi: 10.1093/cid/cix1085), address changes in management and diagnosis of the infection, and include recommendations for pediatric infection. The guidelines from the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America were lasted published in 2010.
One of the strongest recommendations was on the use of FMTs to treat recurrent C. difficile infection after the failure of antibiotic therapy.
“Anecdotal treatment success rates of fecal microbiota transplantation for recurrent CDI [C. difficile infection] have been high regardless of route of instillation of feces, and have ranged between 77% and 94% with administration via the proximal small bowel; the highest success rates (80%-100%) have been associated with instillation of feces via the colon,” they wrote.
The guidelines also addressed what the authors described as the “evolving controversy” over the best methods for diagnosis, pointing out that there is little consensus about the best laboratory testing method.
“Given these various conundrums and the paucity of large prospective studies, the recommendations, while strong in some instances, are based upon a very low to low quality of evidence,” the authors said.
That aside, they advised that patients with unexplained and new-onset diarrhea (three or more unformed stools in 24 hours) were the preferred target population for testing for C. difficile infection. The most sensitive method of diagnosis in patients with clinical symptoms likely to be C. difficile infection was a nucleic acid amplification test, or a multistep algorithm, rather than a toxin test alone.
The guidelines committee also strongly advised against repeat testing within 7 days during the same episode of diarrhea, and against testing stool from asymptomatic patients, except for the purpose of epidemiologic study. They also noted there was insufficient evidence for the use of biologic markers such as fecal lactoferrin as an adjunct to testing.
The guidelines’ authors found there was not enough evidence to recommend discontinuing proton pump inhibitors to reduce the incidence of C. difficile infection, despite epidemiologic evidence of an association between proton pump inhibitor use and C. difficile infection. Similarly, there was a lack of evidence for the use of probiotics for primary prevention, but the authors noted that meta-analyses suggest probiotics may help prevent C. difficile infection in patients on antibiotics without a history of C. difficile infection.
With respect to antibiotic treatment, they recommended that patients diagnosed with C. difficile infection should first discontinue the inciting antibiotic treatment and then begin therapy with either vancomycin or fidaxomicin. For recurrent infection, they advised a tapered and pulsed regimen of oral vancomycin or a 10-day course of fidaxomicin. If patients had received metronidazole for the primary episode, they should be given a standard 10-day course of vancomycin for recurrent infection, the authors said.
In terms of diagnosis and management of pediatric C. difficile, the guidelines advised against routinely testing infants under 2 years of age with diarrhea, as the rate of C. difficile colonization even among asymptomatic infants can be higher than 40%. Even in children older than age 2, there was only a “weak” recommendation for C. difficile testing in patients with prolonged or worsening diarrhea and other risk factors such as inflammatory bowel disease or recent antibiotic exposure.
Children with a first episode or first recurrence of nonsevere C. difficile should be treated with either metronidazole or vancomycin, the authors wrote, but in the case of more severe illness or second recurrence, oral vancomycin was preferred over metronidazole.
The authors also suggested clinicians consider FMTs for children with recurrent infection that had failed to respond to antibiotics, but noted the quality of evidence for this was very low.
The guidelines were funded by the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. Six authors declared grants, consultancies, board positions, and other payments from the pharmaceutical industry outside the submitted work. One author also held patents relating to the treatment and prevention of C. difficile infection.
SOURCE: McDonald CL et al. Clin Infect Dis. 2018 Feb 15. doi: 10.1093/cid/cix1085.
.
The updated Clinical Practice Guidelines for Clostridium difficile Infection in Adults and Children, published in the Feb. 15 edition of Clinical Infectious Diseases (doi: 10.1093/cid/cix1085), address changes in management and diagnosis of the infection, and include recommendations for pediatric infection. The guidelines from the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America were lasted published in 2010.
One of the strongest recommendations was on the use of FMTs to treat recurrent C. difficile infection after the failure of antibiotic therapy.
“Anecdotal treatment success rates of fecal microbiota transplantation for recurrent CDI [C. difficile infection] have been high regardless of route of instillation of feces, and have ranged between 77% and 94% with administration via the proximal small bowel; the highest success rates (80%-100%) have been associated with instillation of feces via the colon,” they wrote.
The guidelines also addressed what the authors described as the “evolving controversy” over the best methods for diagnosis, pointing out that there is little consensus about the best laboratory testing method.
“Given these various conundrums and the paucity of large prospective studies, the recommendations, while strong in some instances, are based upon a very low to low quality of evidence,” the authors said.
That aside, they advised that patients with unexplained and new-onset diarrhea (three or more unformed stools in 24 hours) were the preferred target population for testing for C. difficile infection. The most sensitive method of diagnosis in patients with clinical symptoms likely to be C. difficile infection was a nucleic acid amplification test, or a multistep algorithm, rather than a toxin test alone.
The guidelines committee also strongly advised against repeat testing within 7 days during the same episode of diarrhea, and against testing stool from asymptomatic patients, except for the purpose of epidemiologic study. They also noted there was insufficient evidence for the use of biologic markers such as fecal lactoferrin as an adjunct to testing.
The guidelines’ authors found there was not enough evidence to recommend discontinuing proton pump inhibitors to reduce the incidence of C. difficile infection, despite epidemiologic evidence of an association between proton pump inhibitor use and C. difficile infection. Similarly, there was a lack of evidence for the use of probiotics for primary prevention, but the authors noted that meta-analyses suggest probiotics may help prevent C. difficile infection in patients on antibiotics without a history of C. difficile infection.
With respect to antibiotic treatment, they recommended that patients diagnosed with C. difficile infection should first discontinue the inciting antibiotic treatment and then begin therapy with either vancomycin or fidaxomicin. For recurrent infection, they advised a tapered and pulsed regimen of oral vancomycin or a 10-day course of fidaxomicin. If patients had received metronidazole for the primary episode, they should be given a standard 10-day course of vancomycin for recurrent infection, the authors said.
In terms of diagnosis and management of pediatric C. difficile, the guidelines advised against routinely testing infants under 2 years of age with diarrhea, as the rate of C. difficile colonization even among asymptomatic infants can be higher than 40%. Even in children older than age 2, there was only a “weak” recommendation for C. difficile testing in patients with prolonged or worsening diarrhea and other risk factors such as inflammatory bowel disease or recent antibiotic exposure.
Children with a first episode or first recurrence of nonsevere C. difficile should be treated with either metronidazole or vancomycin, the authors wrote, but in the case of more severe illness or second recurrence, oral vancomycin was preferred over metronidazole.
The authors also suggested clinicians consider FMTs for children with recurrent infection that had failed to respond to antibiotics, but noted the quality of evidence for this was very low.
The guidelines were funded by the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. Six authors declared grants, consultancies, board positions, and other payments from the pharmaceutical industry outside the submitted work. One author also held patents relating to the treatment and prevention of C. difficile infection.
SOURCE: McDonald CL et al. Clin Infect Dis. 2018 Feb 15. doi: 10.1093/cid/cix1085.
FROM CLINICAL INFECTIOUS DISEASES
Key clinical point: Fecal microbiota transplants should be considered for use in patients with recurrent Clostridium difficile infection that has not responded to antibiotic therapy.
Major finding: One of the strongest recommendations in the new guidelines on C. difficile infection is to consider use of fecal microbiota transplants in patients with recurrent infection.
Data source: Clinical practice guidelines.
Disclosures: The guidelines were funded by the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. Six authors declared grants, consultancies, board positions, and other payments from the pharmaceutical industry outside the submitted work. One author also held patents relating to the treatment and prevention of C. difficile infection.
Source: McDonald CL et al. Clin Infect Dis. 2018 Feb 15. doi: 10.1093/cid/cix1085.
