Mixed Topics

The use of laser epilation (LE) as a supplement to standard care significantly reduces recurrence of pilonidal disease, compared with standard care alone, according to the results of a randomized trial.

The study, recently published in JAMA Surgery, enrolled 302 patients ages 11-21 with pilonidal disease. Half of the participants were assigned to receive LE (laser hair removal) plus standard treatment (improved hygiene plus mechanical or chemical hair removal), and half were assigned to receive standard care alone.

At 1 year, 10.4% of the patients who had received LE plus standard treatment had experienced a recurrence of pilonidal disease, compared with 33.6% of patients in the standard treatment group (P < .001). Rates were based on the data available on 96 patients in the LE group and 134 patients in the standard care group.

“These results provide further evidence that laser epilation is safe, well-tolerated, and should be available as an initial treatment option or adjunct treatment modality for all eligible patients,” first author Peter C. Minneci, MD, chair of surgery at Nemours Children’s Health, Delaware Valley, Wilmington, Del, said in a press release reporting the results. “There have been few comparative studies that have investigated recurrence rates after LE versus other treatment modalities,” he and his coauthors wrote in the study, noting that the study “was the first, to our knowledge, to compare LE as an adjunct to standard care versus standard care alone and demonstrate a decrease in recurrence rates.”

Pilonidal disease, a common condition, results when cysts form between the buttocks and is most common in adolescents and young adults. It is thought to recur about 33% of the time, with most cases recurring within 1 year of treatment.

In practice, there are large variations in management strategies for pilonidal disease because evidence for an ideal treatment approach is lacking, Dr. Minneci and coauthors wrote. Although lifestyle modifications and nonepilation hair removal strategies have been linked to a reduced need for surgery, compliance with these strategies is low. Additionally, recurrence contributes to “a high degree of psychosocial stress in patients, who often miss school or sports and may avoid social activities,” Dr. Minneci said in the press release. Therefore, some practitioners have begun using LE – which uses selective thermolysis to remove the hair shaft, follicle, and bulb – as an adjunct to standard treatments in the hopes of avoiding surgery. 

A few studies have shown LE is effective in reducing pilonidal disease recurrence, but these studies had small sample sizes, according to the authors.

Study methods

The randomized, nonblinded clinical trial was conducted between 2017 and 2022 at Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, and enrolled patients aged 11-21 years with a history of pilonidal disease, who did not have active disease.

Those in the control group (151 patients) had an in-person clinic visit where they received education and training about hair removal in the gluteal cleft, and were provided with supplies for hair removal (chemical epilation or shaving) for 6 months (standard of care). Those in the LE group (151 patients) received standard of care therapy, and also received one LE treatment every 4-6 weeks for a total of five treatments. They were encouraged to perform hair removal using chemical or mechanical depilation between visits.

At the 1-year follow-up, data were available in 96 patients in the LE group and 134 patients in the standard care group. At that time, the proportion of those who had a recurrence within 1 year was significantly lower in the LE group than in the standard care group (mean difference, –23.2%; 95% CI, –33.2% to –13.1%; P < .001).

In addition, over the course of a year, those in the LE-treated group had significantly higher Child Attitude Toward Illness scores, indicating that they felt more positively about their illness at 6 months than participants in the standard care group. There were no differences between the groups in terms of patient or caregiver disability days, patient- or caregiver-reported health-related quality of life, health care satisfaction, or perceived stigma. In the LE group, no burns were reported, and no inability to tolerate treatment because of pain.

The study had several limitations, including the potential for participation bias, and because of a loss to follow-up, primary and secondary outcomes were missing data points, which was higher in the LE group. Loss to follow-up in the LE arm increased after 6 months, when laser treatments ended, with many of those patients not completing surveys at 9 and 12 months. The hospital’s pilonidal clinic shut down for 3 months during the COVID-19 pandemic, and when the clinic reopened, 15 patients in the LE arm withdrew from the study.

|In the press release, Dr. Minneci said that confirmation of the effectiveness of LE could help justify insurance coverage for pilonidal disease, noting that LE is usually not covered with insurance, and a course of treatment could cost $800-$1,500.

Dr. Minneci and four of the other six coauthors reported receiving grants from Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute during the conduct of the study. One author reported receiving grants from the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities outside the submitted work. The research was funded by a grant from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.

The use of laser epilation (LE) as a supplement to standard care significantly reduces recurrence of pilonidal disease, compared with standard care alone, according to the results of a randomized trial.

The study, recently published in JAMA Surgery, enrolled 302 patients ages 11-21 with pilonidal disease. Half of the participants were assigned to receive LE (laser hair removal) plus standard treatment (improved hygiene plus mechanical or chemical hair removal), and half were assigned to receive standard care alone.

At 1 year, 10.4% of the patients who had received LE plus standard treatment had experienced a recurrence of pilonidal disease, compared with 33.6% of patients in the standard treatment group (P < .001). Rates were based on the data available on 96 patients in the LE group and 134 patients in the standard care group.

“These results provide further evidence that laser epilation is safe, well-tolerated, and should be available as an initial treatment option or adjunct treatment modality for all eligible patients,” first author Peter C. Minneci, MD, chair of surgery at Nemours Children’s Health, Delaware Valley, Wilmington, Del, said in a press release reporting the results. “There have been few comparative studies that have investigated recurrence rates after LE versus other treatment modalities,” he and his coauthors wrote in the study, noting that the study “was the first, to our knowledge, to compare LE as an adjunct to standard care versus standard care alone and demonstrate a decrease in recurrence rates.”

Pilonidal disease, a common condition, results when cysts form between the buttocks and is most common in adolescents and young adults. It is thought to recur about 33% of the time, with most cases recurring within 1 year of treatment.

In practice, there are large variations in management strategies for pilonidal disease because evidence for an ideal treatment approach is lacking, Dr. Minneci and coauthors wrote. Although lifestyle modifications and nonepilation hair removal strategies have been linked to a reduced need for surgery, compliance with these strategies is low. Additionally, recurrence contributes to “a high degree of psychosocial stress in patients, who often miss school or sports and may avoid social activities,” Dr. Minneci said in the press release. Therefore, some practitioners have begun using LE – which uses selective thermolysis to remove the hair shaft, follicle, and bulb – as an adjunct to standard treatments in the hopes of avoiding surgery. 

A few studies have shown LE is effective in reducing pilonidal disease recurrence, but these studies had small sample sizes, according to the authors.

Study methods

The randomized, nonblinded clinical trial was conducted between 2017 and 2022 at Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, and enrolled patients aged 11-21 years with a history of pilonidal disease, who did not have active disease.

Those in the control group (151 patients) had an in-person clinic visit where they received education and training about hair removal in the gluteal cleft, and were provided with supplies for hair removal (chemical epilation or shaving) for 6 months (standard of care). Those in the LE group (151 patients) received standard of care therapy, and also received one LE treatment every 4-6 weeks for a total of five treatments. They were encouraged to perform hair removal using chemical or mechanical depilation between visits.

At the 1-year follow-up, data were available in 96 patients in the LE group and 134 patients in the standard care group. At that time, the proportion of those who had a recurrence within 1 year was significantly lower in the LE group than in the standard care group (mean difference, –23.2%; 95% CI, –33.2% to –13.1%; P < .001).

In addition, over the course of a year, those in the LE-treated group had significantly higher Child Attitude Toward Illness scores, indicating that they felt more positively about their illness at 6 months than participants in the standard care group. There were no differences between the groups in terms of patient or caregiver disability days, patient- or caregiver-reported health-related quality of life, health care satisfaction, or perceived stigma. In the LE group, no burns were reported, and no inability to tolerate treatment because of pain.

The study had several limitations, including the potential for participation bias, and because of a loss to follow-up, primary and secondary outcomes were missing data points, which was higher in the LE group. Loss to follow-up in the LE arm increased after 6 months, when laser treatments ended, with many of those patients not completing surveys at 9 and 12 months. The hospital’s pilonidal clinic shut down for 3 months during the COVID-19 pandemic, and when the clinic reopened, 15 patients in the LE arm withdrew from the study.

|In the press release, Dr. Minneci said that confirmation of the effectiveness of LE could help justify insurance coverage for pilonidal disease, noting that LE is usually not covered with insurance, and a course of treatment could cost $800-$1,500.

Dr. Minneci and four of the other six coauthors reported receiving grants from Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute during the conduct of the study. One author reported receiving grants from the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities outside the submitted work. The research was funded by a grant from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.

The use of laser epilation (LE) as a supplement to standard care significantly reduces recurrence of pilonidal disease, compared with standard care alone, according to the results of a randomized trial.

The study, recently published in JAMA Surgery, enrolled 302 patients ages 11-21 with pilonidal disease. Half of the participants were assigned to receive LE (laser hair removal) plus standard treatment (improved hygiene plus mechanical or chemical hair removal), and half were assigned to receive standard care alone.

At 1 year, 10.4% of the patients who had received LE plus standard treatment had experienced a recurrence of pilonidal disease, compared with 33.6% of patients in the standard treatment group (P < .001). Rates were based on the data available on 96 patients in the LE group and 134 patients in the standard care group.

“These results provide further evidence that laser epilation is safe, well-tolerated, and should be available as an initial treatment option or adjunct treatment modality for all eligible patients,” first author Peter C. Minneci, MD, chair of surgery at Nemours Children’s Health, Delaware Valley, Wilmington, Del, said in a press release reporting the results. “There have been few comparative studies that have investigated recurrence rates after LE versus other treatment modalities,” he and his coauthors wrote in the study, noting that the study “was the first, to our knowledge, to compare LE as an adjunct to standard care versus standard care alone and demonstrate a decrease in recurrence rates.”

Pilonidal disease, a common condition, results when cysts form between the buttocks and is most common in adolescents and young adults. It is thought to recur about 33% of the time, with most cases recurring within 1 year of treatment.

In practice, there are large variations in management strategies for pilonidal disease because evidence for an ideal treatment approach is lacking, Dr. Minneci and coauthors wrote. Although lifestyle modifications and nonepilation hair removal strategies have been linked to a reduced need for surgery, compliance with these strategies is low. Additionally, recurrence contributes to “a high degree of psychosocial stress in patients, who often miss school or sports and may avoid social activities,” Dr. Minneci said in the press release. Therefore, some practitioners have begun using LE – which uses selective thermolysis to remove the hair shaft, follicle, and bulb – as an adjunct to standard treatments in the hopes of avoiding surgery. 

A few studies have shown LE is effective in reducing pilonidal disease recurrence, but these studies had small sample sizes, according to the authors.

Study methods

The randomized, nonblinded clinical trial was conducted between 2017 and 2022 at Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Columbus, and enrolled patients aged 11-21 years with a history of pilonidal disease, who did not have active disease.

Those in the control group (151 patients) had an in-person clinic visit where they received education and training about hair removal in the gluteal cleft, and were provided with supplies for hair removal (chemical epilation or shaving) for 6 months (standard of care). Those in the LE group (151 patients) received standard of care therapy, and also received one LE treatment every 4-6 weeks for a total of five treatments. They were encouraged to perform hair removal using chemical or mechanical depilation between visits.

At the 1-year follow-up, data were available in 96 patients in the LE group and 134 patients in the standard care group. At that time, the proportion of those who had a recurrence within 1 year was significantly lower in the LE group than in the standard care group (mean difference, –23.2%; 95% CI, –33.2% to –13.1%; P < .001).

In addition, over the course of a year, those in the LE-treated group had significantly higher Child Attitude Toward Illness scores, indicating that they felt more positively about their illness at 6 months than participants in the standard care group. There were no differences between the groups in terms of patient or caregiver disability days, patient- or caregiver-reported health-related quality of life, health care satisfaction, or perceived stigma. In the LE group, no burns were reported, and no inability to tolerate treatment because of pain.

The study had several limitations, including the potential for participation bias, and because of a loss to follow-up, primary and secondary outcomes were missing data points, which was higher in the LE group. Loss to follow-up in the LE arm increased after 6 months, when laser treatments ended, with many of those patients not completing surveys at 9 and 12 months. The hospital’s pilonidal clinic shut down for 3 months during the COVID-19 pandemic, and when the clinic reopened, 15 patients in the LE arm withdrew from the study.

|In the press release, Dr. Minneci said that confirmation of the effectiveness of LE could help justify insurance coverage for pilonidal disease, noting that LE is usually not covered with insurance, and a course of treatment could cost $800-$1,500.

Dr. Minneci and four of the other six coauthors reported receiving grants from Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute during the conduct of the study. One author reported receiving grants from the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities outside the submitted work. The research was funded by a grant from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.

The Food and Drug Administration approved a new colony-stimulating factor, efbemalenograstim alfa (Ryzneuta, Evive Biotech), to decrease the incidence of infection, as manifested by febrile neutropenia, in adults with nonmyeloid malignancies receiving myelosuppressive anticancer drugs.

Efbemalenograstim joins other agents already on the U.S. market, including pegfilgrastim (Neulasta), that aim to reduce the incidence of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia.

The approval of efbemalenograstim was based on two randomized trials. The first included 122 women with either metastatic or nonmetastatic breast cancer who were receiving doxorubicin and docetaxel. These patients were randomly assigned to receive either one subcutaneous injection of efbemalenograstim or placebo on the second day of their first chemotherapy cycle. All patients received efbemalenograstim on the second day of cycles two through four.

The mean duration of grade 4 neutropenia in the first cycle was 1.4 days with efbemalenograstim versus 4.3 days with placebo. Only 4.8% of patients who received efbemalenograstim experienced chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia, compared with 25.6% who received the placebo.

The new agent went up against pegfilgrastim in the second trial, which included 393 women who received docetaxel and cyclophosphamide as treatment for nonmetastatic breast cancer. These patients were randomly assigned to receive either a single subcutaneous injection of efbemalenograstim or pegfilgrastim on the second day of each cycle.

During the first cycle, patients in both arms of the trial experienced a mean of 0.2 days of grade 4 neutropenia.

The most common side effects associated with efbemalenograstim were nausea, anemia, and thrombocytopenia. Similar to pegfilgrastim’s label, efbemalenograstim’s label warns of possible splenic rupture, respiratory distress syndrome, sickle cell crisis, and other serious adverse events.

The FDA recommends a dose of 20 mg subcutaneous once per chemotherapy cycle.

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

The Food and Drug Administration approved a new colony-stimulating factor, efbemalenograstim alfa (Ryzneuta, Evive Biotech), to decrease the incidence of infection, as manifested by febrile neutropenia, in adults with nonmyeloid malignancies receiving myelosuppressive anticancer drugs.

Efbemalenograstim joins other agents already on the U.S. market, including pegfilgrastim (Neulasta), that aim to reduce the incidence of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia.

The approval of efbemalenograstim was based on two randomized trials. The first included 122 women with either metastatic or nonmetastatic breast cancer who were receiving doxorubicin and docetaxel. These patients were randomly assigned to receive either one subcutaneous injection of efbemalenograstim or placebo on the second day of their first chemotherapy cycle. All patients received efbemalenograstim on the second day of cycles two through four.

The mean duration of grade 4 neutropenia in the first cycle was 1.4 days with efbemalenograstim versus 4.3 days with placebo. Only 4.8% of patients who received efbemalenograstim experienced chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia, compared with 25.6% who received the placebo.

The new agent went up against pegfilgrastim in the second trial, which included 393 women who received docetaxel and cyclophosphamide as treatment for nonmetastatic breast cancer. These patients were randomly assigned to receive either a single subcutaneous injection of efbemalenograstim or pegfilgrastim on the second day of each cycle.

During the first cycle, patients in both arms of the trial experienced a mean of 0.2 days of grade 4 neutropenia.

The most common side effects associated with efbemalenograstim were nausea, anemia, and thrombocytopenia. Similar to pegfilgrastim’s label, efbemalenograstim’s label warns of possible splenic rupture, respiratory distress syndrome, sickle cell crisis, and other serious adverse events.

The FDA recommends a dose of 20 mg subcutaneous once per chemotherapy cycle.

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

The Food and Drug Administration approved a new colony-stimulating factor, efbemalenograstim alfa (Ryzneuta, Evive Biotech), to decrease the incidence of infection, as manifested by febrile neutropenia, in adults with nonmyeloid malignancies receiving myelosuppressive anticancer drugs.

Efbemalenograstim joins other agents already on the U.S. market, including pegfilgrastim (Neulasta), that aim to reduce the incidence of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia.

The approval of efbemalenograstim was based on two randomized trials. The first included 122 women with either metastatic or nonmetastatic breast cancer who were receiving doxorubicin and docetaxel. These patients were randomly assigned to receive either one subcutaneous injection of efbemalenograstim or placebo on the second day of their first chemotherapy cycle. All patients received efbemalenograstim on the second day of cycles two through four.

The mean duration of grade 4 neutropenia in the first cycle was 1.4 days with efbemalenograstim versus 4.3 days with placebo. Only 4.8% of patients who received efbemalenograstim experienced chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia, compared with 25.6% who received the placebo.

The new agent went up against pegfilgrastim in the second trial, which included 393 women who received docetaxel and cyclophosphamide as treatment for nonmetastatic breast cancer. These patients were randomly assigned to receive either a single subcutaneous injection of efbemalenograstim or pegfilgrastim on the second day of each cycle.

During the first cycle, patients in both arms of the trial experienced a mean of 0.2 days of grade 4 neutropenia.

The most common side effects associated with efbemalenograstim were nausea, anemia, and thrombocytopenia. Similar to pegfilgrastim’s label, efbemalenograstim’s label warns of possible splenic rupture, respiratory distress syndrome, sickle cell crisis, and other serious adverse events.

The FDA recommends a dose of 20 mg subcutaneous once per chemotherapy cycle.

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

The Food and Drug Administration is investigating whether chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell immunotherapies can cause secondary blood cancers.

Secondary cancers are a known risk for this class of immunotherapies, known as B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA)–directed or CD19-directed autologous CAR T-cell therapies, and are included in the prescribing information for these drugs. However, the FDA has received 19 reports of secondary cancers, including CAR-positive lymphoma, since 2017, when the first CAR T-cell treatments were approved, according to Endpoints News.

Most of these reports came from the FDA’s postmarketing adverse event system and others from clinical trial data.

Although the overall benefits of these products continue to outweigh their potential risks, “FDA is investigating the identified risk of T-cell malignancy with serious outcomes, including hospitalization and death, and is evaluating the need for regulatory action,” the agency said in a press release.

Currently approved products in this class include idecabtagene vicleucel (Abecma), lisocabtagene maraleucel (Breyanzi), ciltacabtagene autoleucel (Carvykti), tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah), brexucabtagene autoleucel (Tecartus), and axicabtagene ciloleucel (Yescarta).

“Patients and clinical trial participants receiving treatment with these products should be monitored life-long for new malignancies,” the FDA added.

Suspected adverse events, including T-cell cancers, should be reported by contacting the FDA at 1-800-FDA-1088 or www.fda.gov/medwatch.

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

The Food and Drug Administration is investigating whether chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell immunotherapies can cause secondary blood cancers.

Secondary cancers are a known risk for this class of immunotherapies, known as B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA)–directed or CD19-directed autologous CAR T-cell therapies, and are included in the prescribing information for these drugs. However, the FDA has received 19 reports of secondary cancers, including CAR-positive lymphoma, since 2017, when the first CAR T-cell treatments were approved, according to Endpoints News.

Most of these reports came from the FDA’s postmarketing adverse event system and others from clinical trial data.

Although the overall benefits of these products continue to outweigh their potential risks, “FDA is investigating the identified risk of T-cell malignancy with serious outcomes, including hospitalization and death, and is evaluating the need for regulatory action,” the agency said in a press release.

Currently approved products in this class include idecabtagene vicleucel (Abecma), lisocabtagene maraleucel (Breyanzi), ciltacabtagene autoleucel (Carvykti), tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah), brexucabtagene autoleucel (Tecartus), and axicabtagene ciloleucel (Yescarta).

“Patients and clinical trial participants receiving treatment with these products should be monitored life-long for new malignancies,” the FDA added.

Suspected adverse events, including T-cell cancers, should be reported by contacting the FDA at 1-800-FDA-1088 or www.fda.gov/medwatch.

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

The Food and Drug Administration is investigating whether chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell immunotherapies can cause secondary blood cancers.

Secondary cancers are a known risk for this class of immunotherapies, known as B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA)–directed or CD19-directed autologous CAR T-cell therapies, and are included in the prescribing information for these drugs. However, the FDA has received 19 reports of secondary cancers, including CAR-positive lymphoma, since 2017, when the first CAR T-cell treatments were approved, according to Endpoints News.

Most of these reports came from the FDA’s postmarketing adverse event system and others from clinical trial data.

Although the overall benefits of these products continue to outweigh their potential risks, “FDA is investigating the identified risk of T-cell malignancy with serious outcomes, including hospitalization and death, and is evaluating the need for regulatory action,” the agency said in a press release.

Currently approved products in this class include idecabtagene vicleucel (Abecma), lisocabtagene maraleucel (Breyanzi), ciltacabtagene autoleucel (Carvykti), tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah), brexucabtagene autoleucel (Tecartus), and axicabtagene ciloleucel (Yescarta).

“Patients and clinical trial participants receiving treatment with these products should be monitored life-long for new malignancies,” the FDA added.

Suspected adverse events, including T-cell cancers, should be reported by contacting the FDA at 1-800-FDA-1088 or www.fda.gov/medwatch.

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

TOPLINE:

Among children with urine drug screens that are positive for cannabinoids, confirmatory testing based on liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry (LC-MS) may be negative despite detectable concentrations of a cannabis metabolite, according to a research letter published online in JAMA Pediatrics.

METHODOLOGY:

• After a laboratory changed its reporting threshold for the metabolite 11-nor-9-carboxy-Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC-COOH) from 5 ng/mL to 15 ng/mL in 2019 to match federal standards, researchers examined the rate of false positives for the initial urine drug screen and the false-negative rate with LC-MS.
• Their study focused on 976 cannabinoid-positive drug screens conducted at a pediatric hospital between Nov. 18, 2019, and May 31, 2021, that had confirmatory LC-MS to rule out false-positive results.
• Patients had a median age of 16 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• The false-positive rate was 10.1% based on the 15 ng/mL threshold compared with 2% based on the 5 ng/mL limit of quantification.
• About 81% of samples with negative LC-MS reports had detectable concentrations of THC-COOH.

IN PRACTICE:

“Confirming THC-COOH in children’s and adolescents’ urine may be relevant at concentrations less than 15 ng/mL, particularly if child protection is pertinent,” according to the study authors.

“Confirmatory testing should be reserved for select cases and must be interpreted with caution,” they added. “Laboratories should report down to the limit of quantification on request.”

SOURCE:

Christopher J. Watson, MD, emergency medicine physician, Maine Medical Center, Portland, is the study’s corresponding author.

LIMITATIONS:

The researchers lacked information about the clinical context in which patients underwent drug screening.

DISCLOSURES:

A coauthor disclosed royalties from UpToDate outside of the study.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Among children with urine drug screens that are positive for cannabinoids, confirmatory testing based on liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry (LC-MS) may be negative despite detectable concentrations of a cannabis metabolite, according to a research letter published online in JAMA Pediatrics.

METHODOLOGY:

• After a laboratory changed its reporting threshold for the metabolite 11-nor-9-carboxy-Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC-COOH) from 5 ng/mL to 15 ng/mL in 2019 to match federal standards, researchers examined the rate of false positives for the initial urine drug screen and the false-negative rate with LC-MS.
• Their study focused on 976 cannabinoid-positive drug screens conducted at a pediatric hospital between Nov. 18, 2019, and May 31, 2021, that had confirmatory LC-MS to rule out false-positive results.
• Patients had a median age of 16 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• The false-positive rate was 10.1% based on the 15 ng/mL threshold compared with 2% based on the 5 ng/mL limit of quantification.
• About 81% of samples with negative LC-MS reports had detectable concentrations of THC-COOH.

IN PRACTICE:

“Confirming THC-COOH in children’s and adolescents’ urine may be relevant at concentrations less than 15 ng/mL, particularly if child protection is pertinent,” according to the study authors.

“Confirmatory testing should be reserved for select cases and must be interpreted with caution,” they added. “Laboratories should report down to the limit of quantification on request.”

SOURCE:

Christopher J. Watson, MD, emergency medicine physician, Maine Medical Center, Portland, is the study’s corresponding author.

LIMITATIONS:

The researchers lacked information about the clinical context in which patients underwent drug screening.

DISCLOSURES:

A coauthor disclosed royalties from UpToDate outside of the study.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Among children with urine drug screens that are positive for cannabinoids, confirmatory testing based on liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry (LC-MS) may be negative despite detectable concentrations of a cannabis metabolite, according to a research letter published online in JAMA Pediatrics.

METHODOLOGY:

• After a laboratory changed its reporting threshold for the metabolite 11-nor-9-carboxy-Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC-COOH) from 5 ng/mL to 15 ng/mL in 2019 to match federal standards, researchers examined the rate of false positives for the initial urine drug screen and the false-negative rate with LC-MS.
• Their study focused on 976 cannabinoid-positive drug screens conducted at a pediatric hospital between Nov. 18, 2019, and May 31, 2021, that had confirmatory LC-MS to rule out false-positive results.
• Patients had a median age of 16 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• The false-positive rate was 10.1% based on the 15 ng/mL threshold compared with 2% based on the 5 ng/mL limit of quantification.
• About 81% of samples with negative LC-MS reports had detectable concentrations of THC-COOH.

IN PRACTICE:

“Confirming THC-COOH in children’s and adolescents’ urine may be relevant at concentrations less than 15 ng/mL, particularly if child protection is pertinent,” according to the study authors.

“Confirmatory testing should be reserved for select cases and must be interpreted with caution,” they added. “Laboratories should report down to the limit of quantification on request.”

SOURCE:

Christopher J. Watson, MD, emergency medicine physician, Maine Medical Center, Portland, is the study’s corresponding author.

LIMITATIONS:

The researchers lacked information about the clinical context in which patients underwent drug screening.

DISCLOSURES:

A coauthor disclosed royalties from UpToDate outside of the study.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Getting patients to return unused oral anticancer drugs to the pharmacy and then having the pharmacy redispense those medications that meet quality standards is a promising strategy to save money and reduce waste, a Dutch study has found.

METHODOLOGY:

• Ongoing drug shortages and growing drug prices contribute to access issues in oncology.
• Researchers compared the reduction in drug waste and cost savings from redispensing oral anticancer drugs versus the standard practice of disposing of them.
• Outpatient pharmacies at four Dutch hospitals participated. A total of 1,071 patients with cancer receiving oral anticancer drugs for at-home use were given special packaging for returning unused medication to the pharmacy.
• The pharmacy ensured the quality of returned drugs based on authenticity, appearance, remaining shelf-life, and adequate storage temperature.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 13,069 oral anticancer drug packages, containing an average of 27 daily doses per package, were dispensed during the study period.
• Overall, 16% of patients (n = 171) returned 335 (2.6%) unused oral anticancer drug packages, of which 68% were redispensed after passing quality control.
• Redispensing unused oral anticancer drugs reduced waste by 68%, compared with disposing of them, and provided a mean net annual cost savings of €576 (U.S. $682) per patient per year.
• When just those patients who took targeted oral anticancer drugs for up to 24 months were looked at, the mean net annual cost savings associated with the quality check protocol increased to €934 (U.S. $1,019) per patient or of only the visual quality check was €1,348 (U.S. $1,474) per patient.

IN PRACTICE:

“New strategies targeting waste are required to improve financial and ecologic sustainability of expensive therapies, such as oral anticancer drugs, that frequently remain unused by patients,” the authors write. “These findings provide a waste-minimizing strategy to contribute to sustainable and affordable access to drugs.”

SOURCE:

The study, by Elisabeth M. Smale, PharmD, of Radboud University Medical Center, the Netherlands, and colleagues, was published online  in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

Novel drugs are substantially more expensive in the United States, and the Dutch findings might underestimate potential cost savings generated through redispensing programs in the United States. Participants were prompted to return unused oral anticancer drugs through reminders at the pharmacy, but all such drugs may not have been returned.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by ZonMw, the Dutch national organization for health research and development. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE:

Getting patients to return unused oral anticancer drugs to the pharmacy and then having the pharmacy redispense those medications that meet quality standards is a promising strategy to save money and reduce waste, a Dutch study has found.

METHODOLOGY:

• Ongoing drug shortages and growing drug prices contribute to access issues in oncology.
• Researchers compared the reduction in drug waste and cost savings from redispensing oral anticancer drugs versus the standard practice of disposing of them.
• Outpatient pharmacies at four Dutch hospitals participated. A total of 1,071 patients with cancer receiving oral anticancer drugs for at-home use were given special packaging for returning unused medication to the pharmacy.
• The pharmacy ensured the quality of returned drugs based on authenticity, appearance, remaining shelf-life, and adequate storage temperature.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 13,069 oral anticancer drug packages, containing an average of 27 daily doses per package, were dispensed during the study period.
• Overall, 16% of patients (n = 171) returned 335 (2.6%) unused oral anticancer drug packages, of which 68% were redispensed after passing quality control.
• Redispensing unused oral anticancer drugs reduced waste by 68%, compared with disposing of them, and provided a mean net annual cost savings of €576 (U.S. $682) per patient per year.
• When just those patients who took targeted oral anticancer drugs for up to 24 months were looked at, the mean net annual cost savings associated with the quality check protocol increased to €934 (U.S. $1,019) per patient or of only the visual quality check was €1,348 (U.S. $1,474) per patient.

IN PRACTICE:

“New strategies targeting waste are required to improve financial and ecologic sustainability of expensive therapies, such as oral anticancer drugs, that frequently remain unused by patients,” the authors write. “These findings provide a waste-minimizing strategy to contribute to sustainable and affordable access to drugs.”

SOURCE:

The study, by Elisabeth M. Smale, PharmD, of Radboud University Medical Center, the Netherlands, and colleagues, was published online  in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

Novel drugs are substantially more expensive in the United States, and the Dutch findings might underestimate potential cost savings generated through redispensing programs in the United States. Participants were prompted to return unused oral anticancer drugs through reminders at the pharmacy, but all such drugs may not have been returned.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by ZonMw, the Dutch national organization for health research and development. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE:

Getting patients to return unused oral anticancer drugs to the pharmacy and then having the pharmacy redispense those medications that meet quality standards is a promising strategy to save money and reduce waste, a Dutch study has found.

METHODOLOGY:

• Ongoing drug shortages and growing drug prices contribute to access issues in oncology.
• Researchers compared the reduction in drug waste and cost savings from redispensing oral anticancer drugs versus the standard practice of disposing of them.
• Outpatient pharmacies at four Dutch hospitals participated. A total of 1,071 patients with cancer receiving oral anticancer drugs for at-home use were given special packaging for returning unused medication to the pharmacy.
• The pharmacy ensured the quality of returned drugs based on authenticity, appearance, remaining shelf-life, and adequate storage temperature.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 13,069 oral anticancer drug packages, containing an average of 27 daily doses per package, were dispensed during the study period.
• Overall, 16% of patients (n = 171) returned 335 (2.6%) unused oral anticancer drug packages, of which 68% were redispensed after passing quality control.
• Redispensing unused oral anticancer drugs reduced waste by 68%, compared with disposing of them, and provided a mean net annual cost savings of €576 (U.S. $682) per patient per year.
• When just those patients who took targeted oral anticancer drugs for up to 24 months were looked at, the mean net annual cost savings associated with the quality check protocol increased to €934 (U.S. $1,019) per patient or of only the visual quality check was €1,348 (U.S. $1,474) per patient.

IN PRACTICE:

“New strategies targeting waste are required to improve financial and ecologic sustainability of expensive therapies, such as oral anticancer drugs, that frequently remain unused by patients,” the authors write. “These findings provide a waste-minimizing strategy to contribute to sustainable and affordable access to drugs.”

SOURCE:

The study, by Elisabeth M. Smale, PharmD, of Radboud University Medical Center, the Netherlands, and colleagues, was published online  in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

Novel drugs are substantially more expensive in the United States, and the Dutch findings might underestimate potential cost savings generated through redispensing programs in the United States. Participants were prompted to return unused oral anticancer drugs through reminders at the pharmacy, but all such drugs may not have been returned.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by ZonMw, the Dutch national organization for health research and development. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

PARIS – Will the traditional newborn screening program developed 60 years ago by Dr. Robert Guthrie soon be superseded by genome screening at birth? Routine sampling and analysis of newborn DNA would allow us to screen for many hundreds of childhood genetic diseases. This is the claim made by David Geneviève, MD, PhD, chair of the French Association of Clinical Geneticists and lecturer at the University of Montpellier (France), at the 9th annual conference of the French Society of Predictive and Personalized Medicine.

To date, newborn screening has consisted of taking a drop of blood from a newborn’s heel. In the future, DNA samples could be taken from babies for whole genome sequencing to look for diseases that are likely to crop up later in life.
 

The challenge

“In France, nearly all of the 720,000 babies born each year undergo newborn screening (only 300 refuse),” said Dr. Geneviève. For 60 years, newborn screening has tested for phenylketonuria, congenital hypothyroidism, congenital adrenal hyperplasia, sickle cell disease, cystic fibrosis, and medium-chain acyl-coenzyme A dehydrogenase deficiency.

On Jan. 1, 2023, France’s national newborn screening program added seven new diseases, bringing the number of rare diseases screened for to 13. The new diseases are homocystinuria, maple syrup urine disease, tyrosinemia type 1, isovaleric acidemia, glutaric aciduria type I, long-chain 3-hydroxyacyl-coenzyme A dehydrogenase deficiency, and carnitine deficiency.

“There aren’t just 13 childhood diseases,” continued Dr. Geneviève. “There are several hundred rare diseases, and genome sequencing tools allow us to broaden our screening capabilities. It’s inevitable that the ability to sequence your child’s genome at birth will become a possibility. It’s highly likely that within 10-15 years, all newborns will have their genome determined at birth for screening purposes.”

Current international trials

Genome sequencing has already been studied for several years in multiple countries. New York’s Guardian study requires all newborns taking part to undergo genome sequencing. “Our English-speaking colleagues use the genome to screen for childhood diseases that would benefit from treatment (235 can be treated) but also as a preventive measure and a way of providing early therapeutic education,” said Dr. Geneviève.

In 2016, American researchers launched the BabySeq Project, which was conducted at several sites (Boston, New York, Birmingham, Detroit, and Philadelphia). One of its aims is to assess the medical, psychological, and financial impact of screening via genome sequencing at birth, compared with conventional screening.

In North Carolina, 25,000 newborns took part in the Early Check study, a neonatal genetic screening project focusing on childhood spinal muscular atrophy, fragile X syndrome, and Duchenne muscular dystrophy.

In the United Kingdom, Genomics England seeks to assess the feasibility, benefits, and risks of whole genome sequencing as part of the Newborn Genomes Programme, an analysis of 100,000 newborn genomes. Projects are also underway in Belgium, Italy, and France (PeriGEN MED in Dijon).
 

Dijon’s specialist team

The conditions for considering neonatal screening of a disease are determined by the health care authorities in each country and vary greatly from one state to the next.

To date, in France, the only genetic screening authorized is for childhood spinal muscular atrophy via identification of an anomaly on SMN1. It has not yet been implemented, but a pilot study of its use is underway.

“If we are able to identify the 40 newborns affected by spinal muscular atrophy from birth, we can offer these patients gene therapy and stop them from dying at 1 or 2 years of age,” said Dr. Geneviève.

In the future, France should draw up a list of diseases for which genetic screening is useful, he added.

Although France’s initiative for genomic medicine, France Génomique 2025, does not envisage a neonatal genome sequencing screening program, a team in Dijon is studying several dozen genomes to determine the medical and financial benefits of such a program, explained Dr. Geneviève.
 

Ethical issues

Of course, this technological achievement raises ethical issues. “What do we do with the genetic data obtained at birth that won’t become apparent until adulthood, if we find a BRCA1 or BRCA2 variant in a newborn’s genome?” asked Dr. Genevieve.

Will the information obtained be stored somewhere? “This is a real issue,” he said. “The English have a national system. In their newborn screening program, when an infant grows into adulthood, he or she can have access to the genetic data.”

There is also a big risk that women will be pressured to undergo genetic testing during pregnancy. “No genome-related antenatal tests are carried out unless there are concerning ultrasound findings and only to look for particularly severe incurable diseases,” said Dr. Geneviève.
 

Not like Gattaca*

Financial obstacles should be quickly pushed aside. The cost of genome sequencing has decreased in the past few years. The first sequencing in 2003 cost close to $3 billion. Nowadays, it can be done for less than 1,000 € (just over $1,000).

Although neonatal genetic screening would enable us to limit the development of serious diseases, the decision to use such testing routinely must be made by society as a whole, Dr. Geneviève concluded.

“We often oppose preventive and personalized treatment strategies. Now the two have joined forces,” said Pascal Pujol, MD, PhD, chair of SFMPP.

For Dr. Pujol, broadening the application of genome sequencing is a no-brainer. “It won’t be like in Gattaca,” he reassures us. “It wouldn’t be done to determine a person’s character but [rather] to prevent those rare diseases that affect 4 to 5% of the population.”

*A reference to Andrew Niccol’s 1997 science fiction movie Gattaca. The film is set in a futuristic world in which parents can choose the genotype of their children to conceive test-tube babies with the fewest defects and the most advantages possible for society.

This article was translated from the Medscape French edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.

PARIS – Will the traditional newborn screening program developed 60 years ago by Dr. Robert Guthrie soon be superseded by genome screening at birth? Routine sampling and analysis of newborn DNA would allow us to screen for many hundreds of childhood genetic diseases. This is the claim made by David Geneviève, MD, PhD, chair of the French Association of Clinical Geneticists and lecturer at the University of Montpellier (France), at the 9th annual conference of the French Society of Predictive and Personalized Medicine.

To date, newborn screening has consisted of taking a drop of blood from a newborn’s heel. In the future, DNA samples could be taken from babies for whole genome sequencing to look for diseases that are likely to crop up later in life.
 

The challenge

“In France, nearly all of the 720,000 babies born each year undergo newborn screening (only 300 refuse),” said Dr. Geneviève. For 60 years, newborn screening has tested for phenylketonuria, congenital hypothyroidism, congenital adrenal hyperplasia, sickle cell disease, cystic fibrosis, and medium-chain acyl-coenzyme A dehydrogenase deficiency.

On Jan. 1, 2023, France’s national newborn screening program added seven new diseases, bringing the number of rare diseases screened for to 13. The new diseases are homocystinuria, maple syrup urine disease, tyrosinemia type 1, isovaleric acidemia, glutaric aciduria type I, long-chain 3-hydroxyacyl-coenzyme A dehydrogenase deficiency, and carnitine deficiency.

“There aren’t just 13 childhood diseases,” continued Dr. Geneviève. “There are several hundred rare diseases, and genome sequencing tools allow us to broaden our screening capabilities. It’s inevitable that the ability to sequence your child’s genome at birth will become a possibility. It’s highly likely that within 10-15 years, all newborns will have their genome determined at birth for screening purposes.”

Current international trials

Genome sequencing has already been studied for several years in multiple countries. New York’s Guardian study requires all newborns taking part to undergo genome sequencing. “Our English-speaking colleagues use the genome to screen for childhood diseases that would benefit from treatment (235 can be treated) but also as a preventive measure and a way of providing early therapeutic education,” said Dr. Geneviève.

In 2016, American researchers launched the BabySeq Project, which was conducted at several sites (Boston, New York, Birmingham, Detroit, and Philadelphia). One of its aims is to assess the medical, psychological, and financial impact of screening via genome sequencing at birth, compared with conventional screening.

In North Carolina, 25,000 newborns took part in the Early Check study, a neonatal genetic screening project focusing on childhood spinal muscular atrophy, fragile X syndrome, and Duchenne muscular dystrophy.

In the United Kingdom, Genomics England seeks to assess the feasibility, benefits, and risks of whole genome sequencing as part of the Newborn Genomes Programme, an analysis of 100,000 newborn genomes. Projects are also underway in Belgium, Italy, and France (PeriGEN MED in Dijon).
 

Dijon’s specialist team

The conditions for considering neonatal screening of a disease are determined by the health care authorities in each country and vary greatly from one state to the next.

To date, in France, the only genetic screening authorized is for childhood spinal muscular atrophy via identification of an anomaly on SMN1. It has not yet been implemented, but a pilot study of its use is underway.

“If we are able to identify the 40 newborns affected by spinal muscular atrophy from birth, we can offer these patients gene therapy and stop them from dying at 1 or 2 years of age,” said Dr. Geneviève.

In the future, France should draw up a list of diseases for which genetic screening is useful, he added.

Although France’s initiative for genomic medicine, France Génomique 2025, does not envisage a neonatal genome sequencing screening program, a team in Dijon is studying several dozen genomes to determine the medical and financial benefits of such a program, explained Dr. Geneviève.
 

Ethical issues

Of course, this technological achievement raises ethical issues. “What do we do with the genetic data obtained at birth that won’t become apparent until adulthood, if we find a BRCA1 or BRCA2 variant in a newborn’s genome?” asked Dr. Genevieve.

Will the information obtained be stored somewhere? “This is a real issue,” he said. “The English have a national system. In their newborn screening program, when an infant grows into adulthood, he or she can have access to the genetic data.”

There is also a big risk that women will be pressured to undergo genetic testing during pregnancy. “No genome-related antenatal tests are carried out unless there are concerning ultrasound findings and only to look for particularly severe incurable diseases,” said Dr. Geneviève.
 

Not like Gattaca*

Financial obstacles should be quickly pushed aside. The cost of genome sequencing has decreased in the past few years. The first sequencing in 2003 cost close to $3 billion. Nowadays, it can be done for less than 1,000 € (just over $1,000).

Although neonatal genetic screening would enable us to limit the development of serious diseases, the decision to use such testing routinely must be made by society as a whole, Dr. Geneviève concluded.

“We often oppose preventive and personalized treatment strategies. Now the two have joined forces,” said Pascal Pujol, MD, PhD, chair of SFMPP.

For Dr. Pujol, broadening the application of genome sequencing is a no-brainer. “It won’t be like in Gattaca,” he reassures us. “It wouldn’t be done to determine a person’s character but [rather] to prevent those rare diseases that affect 4 to 5% of the population.”

*A reference to Andrew Niccol’s 1997 science fiction movie Gattaca. The film is set in a futuristic world in which parents can choose the genotype of their children to conceive test-tube babies with the fewest defects and the most advantages possible for society.

This article was translated from the Medscape French edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.

PARIS – Will the traditional newborn screening program developed 60 years ago by Dr. Robert Guthrie soon be superseded by genome screening at birth? Routine sampling and analysis of newborn DNA would allow us to screen for many hundreds of childhood genetic diseases. This is the claim made by David Geneviève, MD, PhD, chair of the French Association of Clinical Geneticists and lecturer at the University of Montpellier (France), at the 9th annual conference of the French Society of Predictive and Personalized Medicine.

To date, newborn screening has consisted of taking a drop of blood from a newborn’s heel. In the future, DNA samples could be taken from babies for whole genome sequencing to look for diseases that are likely to crop up later in life.
 

The challenge

“In France, nearly all of the 720,000 babies born each year undergo newborn screening (only 300 refuse),” said Dr. Geneviève. For 60 years, newborn screening has tested for phenylketonuria, congenital hypothyroidism, congenital adrenal hyperplasia, sickle cell disease, cystic fibrosis, and medium-chain acyl-coenzyme A dehydrogenase deficiency.

On Jan. 1, 2023, France’s national newborn screening program added seven new diseases, bringing the number of rare diseases screened for to 13. The new diseases are homocystinuria, maple syrup urine disease, tyrosinemia type 1, isovaleric acidemia, glutaric aciduria type I, long-chain 3-hydroxyacyl-coenzyme A dehydrogenase deficiency, and carnitine deficiency.

“There aren’t just 13 childhood diseases,” continued Dr. Geneviève. “There are several hundred rare diseases, and genome sequencing tools allow us to broaden our screening capabilities. It’s inevitable that the ability to sequence your child’s genome at birth will become a possibility. It’s highly likely that within 10-15 years, all newborns will have their genome determined at birth for screening purposes.”

Current international trials

Genome sequencing has already been studied for several years in multiple countries. New York’s Guardian study requires all newborns taking part to undergo genome sequencing. “Our English-speaking colleagues use the genome to screen for childhood diseases that would benefit from treatment (235 can be treated) but also as a preventive measure and a way of providing early therapeutic education,” said Dr. Geneviève.

In 2016, American researchers launched the BabySeq Project, which was conducted at several sites (Boston, New York, Birmingham, Detroit, and Philadelphia). One of its aims is to assess the medical, psychological, and financial impact of screening via genome sequencing at birth, compared with conventional screening.

In North Carolina, 25,000 newborns took part in the Early Check study, a neonatal genetic screening project focusing on childhood spinal muscular atrophy, fragile X syndrome, and Duchenne muscular dystrophy.

In the United Kingdom, Genomics England seeks to assess the feasibility, benefits, and risks of whole genome sequencing as part of the Newborn Genomes Programme, an analysis of 100,000 newborn genomes. Projects are also underway in Belgium, Italy, and France (PeriGEN MED in Dijon).
 

Dijon’s specialist team

The conditions for considering neonatal screening of a disease are determined by the health care authorities in each country and vary greatly from one state to the next.

To date, in France, the only genetic screening authorized is for childhood spinal muscular atrophy via identification of an anomaly on SMN1. It has not yet been implemented, but a pilot study of its use is underway.

“If we are able to identify the 40 newborns affected by spinal muscular atrophy from birth, we can offer these patients gene therapy and stop them from dying at 1 or 2 years of age,” said Dr. Geneviève.

In the future, France should draw up a list of diseases for which genetic screening is useful, he added.

Although France’s initiative for genomic medicine, France Génomique 2025, does not envisage a neonatal genome sequencing screening program, a team in Dijon is studying several dozen genomes to determine the medical and financial benefits of such a program, explained Dr. Geneviève.
 

Ethical issues

Of course, this technological achievement raises ethical issues. “What do we do with the genetic data obtained at birth that won’t become apparent until adulthood, if we find a BRCA1 or BRCA2 variant in a newborn’s genome?” asked Dr. Genevieve.

Will the information obtained be stored somewhere? “This is a real issue,” he said. “The English have a national system. In their newborn screening program, when an infant grows into adulthood, he or she can have access to the genetic data.”

There is also a big risk that women will be pressured to undergo genetic testing during pregnancy. “No genome-related antenatal tests are carried out unless there are concerning ultrasound findings and only to look for particularly severe incurable diseases,” said Dr. Geneviève.
 

Not like Gattaca*

Financial obstacles should be quickly pushed aside. The cost of genome sequencing has decreased in the past few years. The first sequencing in 2003 cost close to $3 billion. Nowadays, it can be done for less than 1,000 € (just over $1,000).

Although neonatal genetic screening would enable us to limit the development of serious diseases, the decision to use such testing routinely must be made by society as a whole, Dr. Geneviève concluded.

“We often oppose preventive and personalized treatment strategies. Now the two have joined forces,” said Pascal Pujol, MD, PhD, chair of SFMPP.

For Dr. Pujol, broadening the application of genome sequencing is a no-brainer. “It won’t be like in Gattaca,” he reassures us. “It wouldn’t be done to determine a person’s character but [rather] to prevent those rare diseases that affect 4 to 5% of the population.”

*A reference to Andrew Niccol’s 1997 science fiction movie Gattaca. The film is set in a futuristic world in which parents can choose the genotype of their children to conceive test-tube babies with the fewest defects and the most advantages possible for society.

This article was translated from the Medscape French edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.

Intensive lowering of blood pressure to a systolic target less than 120 mm Hg reduced cardiovascular events among individuals at high risk for cardiovascular disease, compared with standard treatment using a target less than 140 mm Hg in the ESPRIT trial.

“Intensive blood pressure–lowering treatment targeting a systolic pressure below 120 mm Hg for 3 years resulted in a 12% lower incidence of major vascular events, a 39% lower cardiovascular mortality, and 21% lower all-cause mortality than the standard treatment targeting a systolic pressure below 140 mm Hg,” reported lead investigator, Jing Li, MD, PhD, director of the department of preventive medicine at the National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases in Beijing.

The trial included patients with diabetes and those with a history of stroke, two important groups that were excluded in the previous SPRINT trial of intensive BP lowering. Results suggested that the benefit of intensive BP lowering extends to these groups.

The results translate into the prevention of 14 major vascular events and 8 deaths for every 1,000 individuals are treated for 3 years to a target systolic pressure less than 120 mm Hg rather than less than 140 mm Hg, at the cost of an additional three patients experiencing the serious adverse event of syncope, Dr. Li said.

“Our study generates new evidence about benefit and safety of treatment targeting systolic blood pressure below 120 mm Hg among a diverse Asian population, which is generally consistent with those from other ethnicities. Implementing this intensive treatment strategy for high-risk adults has the potential to save more lives and reduce the public health burden of heart disease worldwide,” she concluded.

Dr. Li presented the ESPRIT trial at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.

The ESPRIT trial included 11,255 Chinese adults (average age, 64 years; 41% women) who had a baseline systolic BP measurement of 130-180 mm Hg (average was 147/83 mm Hg) and either established cardiovascular disease or at least two major risk factors for cardiovascular disease. Of those enrolled, 39% had diabetes, and 27% had a history of stroke.

They were randomly assigned to receive intensive BP treatment, with a systolic BP target less than 120 mm Hg, or standard treatment, with a target measurement less than 140 mm Hg, over a 3-year period. After 1 year, systolic pressure was lowered to 135.6 mm Hg in the standard care group and to 120.3 mm Hg in the intensive treatment group, with values remaining at around the same level for the remainder of the follow-up.

The primary outcome was a composite of myocardial infarction, coronary or noncoronary revascularization, hospitalization/ED visit for heart failure, stroke, or cardiovascular death.

After 3.4 years of follow-up, 624 primary outcome events had occurred in the standard arm (3.6%) versus 547 events in intensive arm (3.2%), a reduction of 12% (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval, 0.78-0.99). This gives a number needed to treat to prevent one event of 74.

Cardiovascular death occurred in 0.5% of the standard group versus 0.3% of the intensive group (HR 0.61; 95% CI, 0.44-0.84); and all-cause death occurred in 1.1% of the standard group versus 0.9% of the intensive group (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.64-0.97).

The individual endpoints of MI, stroke, and heart failure showed positive trends to a reduction with intensive BP lowering, but these did not reach statistical significance.

In terms of serious adverse events, syncope was increased in the intensive group (0.4% vs 0.1%), but there were no significant differences in hypotension, electrolyte abnormality, falls resulting in an injury, acute kidney injury, or renal failure.
 

Should 120 mm Hg be new target?

Commenting on the study, Paul Whelton, MD, chair in global public health at Tulane University, New Orleans, said that the results were consistent with several other trials.  

“When we look at meta-analysis of trials of different levels of blood pressure reduction, all the studies show the same thing – the lower the blood pressure, the better the outcome, with those starting at higher levels gaining the greatest the benefit of blood pressure reductions,” he noted.

“There are four trials that have looked at systolic targets of less than 120 mm Hg versus less than 140 mm Hg (SPRINT, ACCORD BP, RESPECT, and now ESPRIT), and when analyzed properly, they all show a similar benefit for cardiovascular outcomes with the lower 120 target,” said Dr. Whelton, who led the SPRINT trial. 

“ESPRIT is a nicely done trial. It is reassuring because it is consistent with the other trials, in that it seems that the benefits are much greater than the risk of adverse effects,” he added.

Dr. Whelton pointed out that there are three more trials to come looking at this question, two in Brazil (one in individuals with diabetes and one in stroke survivors) and another trial in China in people with diabetes. “So, we will get more information from these.”

He said that guidelines committees will have to consider a lower systolic BP of 120 mm Hg as the optimal treatment target. In the United States, at present, the target is 130 mm Hg.

The current U.S. guidelines were based on the SPRINT trial, which showed a reduction in cardiovascular events in patients treated to a systolic target of 120 mm Hg versus 140 mm Hg.

Dr. Whelton, who was chair of the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association hypertension guidelines committee, explained that, at the time the guidelines were written, there was only one trial, SPRINT, to base the evidence on.

“The committee could all comfortably agree on the 130 mm Hg target, but it was felt that there wasn’t enough evidence at the time to make a recommendation for 120 mm Hg,” he said. “But now we have four trials.”

He said that the trials included patients with high risk for cardiovascular disease, but they all brought some differences to the table, with ACCORD BP conducted in patients with diabetes; SPRINT having enrichment with African American patients, older adults, and patients with kidney disease; RESPECT was in stroke survivors; and ESPRIT had a mix of Chinese patients.

“I think we’ve got a nice mix of different participants and they’re all showing the same signal – that 120 mm Hg is better,” Dr. Whelton said.

But he stressed that although there is now good evidence in favor of lower BP targets, these findings were not being implemented in clinical practice.

“We are doing very badly in terms of implementation. There is a big gap between science and what’s happening in the real world.”

Dr. Whelton pointed out that only 30% of patients in high-income countries are controlled to the 140/90 target and that in low- and middle-income countries, only 8.8% get to that level, never mind lower targets. “The next job is to work on implementing these findings.”

He noted that several studies have shown better results in this regard using a team approach, with nonphysicians playing a major role in following up with patients.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Intensive lowering of blood pressure to a systolic target less than 120 mm Hg reduced cardiovascular events among individuals at high risk for cardiovascular disease, compared with standard treatment using a target less than 140 mm Hg in the ESPRIT trial.

“Intensive blood pressure–lowering treatment targeting a systolic pressure below 120 mm Hg for 3 years resulted in a 12% lower incidence of major vascular events, a 39% lower cardiovascular mortality, and 21% lower all-cause mortality than the standard treatment targeting a systolic pressure below 140 mm Hg,” reported lead investigator, Jing Li, MD, PhD, director of the department of preventive medicine at the National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases in Beijing.

The trial included patients with diabetes and those with a history of stroke, two important groups that were excluded in the previous SPRINT trial of intensive BP lowering. Results suggested that the benefit of intensive BP lowering extends to these groups.

The results translate into the prevention of 14 major vascular events and 8 deaths for every 1,000 individuals are treated for 3 years to a target systolic pressure less than 120 mm Hg rather than less than 140 mm Hg, at the cost of an additional three patients experiencing the serious adverse event of syncope, Dr. Li said.

“Our study generates new evidence about benefit and safety of treatment targeting systolic blood pressure below 120 mm Hg among a diverse Asian population, which is generally consistent with those from other ethnicities. Implementing this intensive treatment strategy for high-risk adults has the potential to save more lives and reduce the public health burden of heart disease worldwide,” she concluded.

Dr. Li presented the ESPRIT trial at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.

The ESPRIT trial included 11,255 Chinese adults (average age, 64 years; 41% women) who had a baseline systolic BP measurement of 130-180 mm Hg (average was 147/83 mm Hg) and either established cardiovascular disease or at least two major risk factors for cardiovascular disease. Of those enrolled, 39% had diabetes, and 27% had a history of stroke.

They were randomly assigned to receive intensive BP treatment, with a systolic BP target less than 120 mm Hg, or standard treatment, with a target measurement less than 140 mm Hg, over a 3-year period. After 1 year, systolic pressure was lowered to 135.6 mm Hg in the standard care group and to 120.3 mm Hg in the intensive treatment group, with values remaining at around the same level for the remainder of the follow-up.

The primary outcome was a composite of myocardial infarction, coronary or noncoronary revascularization, hospitalization/ED visit for heart failure, stroke, or cardiovascular death.

After 3.4 years of follow-up, 624 primary outcome events had occurred in the standard arm (3.6%) versus 547 events in intensive arm (3.2%), a reduction of 12% (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval, 0.78-0.99). This gives a number needed to treat to prevent one event of 74.

Cardiovascular death occurred in 0.5% of the standard group versus 0.3% of the intensive group (HR 0.61; 95% CI, 0.44-0.84); and all-cause death occurred in 1.1% of the standard group versus 0.9% of the intensive group (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.64-0.97).

The individual endpoints of MI, stroke, and heart failure showed positive trends to a reduction with intensive BP lowering, but these did not reach statistical significance.

In terms of serious adverse events, syncope was increased in the intensive group (0.4% vs 0.1%), but there were no significant differences in hypotension, electrolyte abnormality, falls resulting in an injury, acute kidney injury, or renal failure.
 

Should 120 mm Hg be new target?

Commenting on the study, Paul Whelton, MD, chair in global public health at Tulane University, New Orleans, said that the results were consistent with several other trials.  

“When we look at meta-analysis of trials of different levels of blood pressure reduction, all the studies show the same thing – the lower the blood pressure, the better the outcome, with those starting at higher levels gaining the greatest the benefit of blood pressure reductions,” he noted.

“There are four trials that have looked at systolic targets of less than 120 mm Hg versus less than 140 mm Hg (SPRINT, ACCORD BP, RESPECT, and now ESPRIT), and when analyzed properly, they all show a similar benefit for cardiovascular outcomes with the lower 120 target,” said Dr. Whelton, who led the SPRINT trial. 

“ESPRIT is a nicely done trial. It is reassuring because it is consistent with the other trials, in that it seems that the benefits are much greater than the risk of adverse effects,” he added.

Dr. Whelton pointed out that there are three more trials to come looking at this question, two in Brazil (one in individuals with diabetes and one in stroke survivors) and another trial in China in people with diabetes. “So, we will get more information from these.”

He said that guidelines committees will have to consider a lower systolic BP of 120 mm Hg as the optimal treatment target. In the United States, at present, the target is 130 mm Hg.

The current U.S. guidelines were based on the SPRINT trial, which showed a reduction in cardiovascular events in patients treated to a systolic target of 120 mm Hg versus 140 mm Hg.

Dr. Whelton, who was chair of the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association hypertension guidelines committee, explained that, at the time the guidelines were written, there was only one trial, SPRINT, to base the evidence on.

“The committee could all comfortably agree on the 130 mm Hg target, but it was felt that there wasn’t enough evidence at the time to make a recommendation for 120 mm Hg,” he said. “But now we have four trials.”

He said that the trials included patients with high risk for cardiovascular disease, but they all brought some differences to the table, with ACCORD BP conducted in patients with diabetes; SPRINT having enrichment with African American patients, older adults, and patients with kidney disease; RESPECT was in stroke survivors; and ESPRIT had a mix of Chinese patients.

“I think we’ve got a nice mix of different participants and they’re all showing the same signal – that 120 mm Hg is better,” Dr. Whelton said.

But he stressed that although there is now good evidence in favor of lower BP targets, these findings were not being implemented in clinical practice.

“We are doing very badly in terms of implementation. There is a big gap between science and what’s happening in the real world.”

Dr. Whelton pointed out that only 30% of patients in high-income countries are controlled to the 140/90 target and that in low- and middle-income countries, only 8.8% get to that level, never mind lower targets. “The next job is to work on implementing these findings.”

He noted that several studies have shown better results in this regard using a team approach, with nonphysicians playing a major role in following up with patients.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Intensive lowering of blood pressure to a systolic target less than 120 mm Hg reduced cardiovascular events among individuals at high risk for cardiovascular disease, compared with standard treatment using a target less than 140 mm Hg in the ESPRIT trial.

“Intensive blood pressure–lowering treatment targeting a systolic pressure below 120 mm Hg for 3 years resulted in a 12% lower incidence of major vascular events, a 39% lower cardiovascular mortality, and 21% lower all-cause mortality than the standard treatment targeting a systolic pressure below 140 mm Hg,” reported lead investigator, Jing Li, MD, PhD, director of the department of preventive medicine at the National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases in Beijing.

The trial included patients with diabetes and those with a history of stroke, two important groups that were excluded in the previous SPRINT trial of intensive BP lowering. Results suggested that the benefit of intensive BP lowering extends to these groups.

The results translate into the prevention of 14 major vascular events and 8 deaths for every 1,000 individuals are treated for 3 years to a target systolic pressure less than 120 mm Hg rather than less than 140 mm Hg, at the cost of an additional three patients experiencing the serious adverse event of syncope, Dr. Li said.

“Our study generates new evidence about benefit and safety of treatment targeting systolic blood pressure below 120 mm Hg among a diverse Asian population, which is generally consistent with those from other ethnicities. Implementing this intensive treatment strategy for high-risk adults has the potential to save more lives and reduce the public health burden of heart disease worldwide,” she concluded.

Dr. Li presented the ESPRIT trial at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.

The ESPRIT trial included 11,255 Chinese adults (average age, 64 years; 41% women) who had a baseline systolic BP measurement of 130-180 mm Hg (average was 147/83 mm Hg) and either established cardiovascular disease or at least two major risk factors for cardiovascular disease. Of those enrolled, 39% had diabetes, and 27% had a history of stroke.

They were randomly assigned to receive intensive BP treatment, with a systolic BP target less than 120 mm Hg, or standard treatment, with a target measurement less than 140 mm Hg, over a 3-year period. After 1 year, systolic pressure was lowered to 135.6 mm Hg in the standard care group and to 120.3 mm Hg in the intensive treatment group, with values remaining at around the same level for the remainder of the follow-up.

The primary outcome was a composite of myocardial infarction, coronary or noncoronary revascularization, hospitalization/ED visit for heart failure, stroke, or cardiovascular death.

After 3.4 years of follow-up, 624 primary outcome events had occurred in the standard arm (3.6%) versus 547 events in intensive arm (3.2%), a reduction of 12% (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval, 0.78-0.99). This gives a number needed to treat to prevent one event of 74.

Cardiovascular death occurred in 0.5% of the standard group versus 0.3% of the intensive group (HR 0.61; 95% CI, 0.44-0.84); and all-cause death occurred in 1.1% of the standard group versus 0.9% of the intensive group (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.64-0.97).

The individual endpoints of MI, stroke, and heart failure showed positive trends to a reduction with intensive BP lowering, but these did not reach statistical significance.

In terms of serious adverse events, syncope was increased in the intensive group (0.4% vs 0.1%), but there were no significant differences in hypotension, electrolyte abnormality, falls resulting in an injury, acute kidney injury, or renal failure.
 

Should 120 mm Hg be new target?

Commenting on the study, Paul Whelton, MD, chair in global public health at Tulane University, New Orleans, said that the results were consistent with several other trials.  

“When we look at meta-analysis of trials of different levels of blood pressure reduction, all the studies show the same thing – the lower the blood pressure, the better the outcome, with those starting at higher levels gaining the greatest the benefit of blood pressure reductions,” he noted.

“There are four trials that have looked at systolic targets of less than 120 mm Hg versus less than 140 mm Hg (SPRINT, ACCORD BP, RESPECT, and now ESPRIT), and when analyzed properly, they all show a similar benefit for cardiovascular outcomes with the lower 120 target,” said Dr. Whelton, who led the SPRINT trial. 

“ESPRIT is a nicely done trial. It is reassuring because it is consistent with the other trials, in that it seems that the benefits are much greater than the risk of adverse effects,” he added.

Dr. Whelton pointed out that there are three more trials to come looking at this question, two in Brazil (one in individuals with diabetes and one in stroke survivors) and another trial in China in people with diabetes. “So, we will get more information from these.”

He said that guidelines committees will have to consider a lower systolic BP of 120 mm Hg as the optimal treatment target. In the United States, at present, the target is 130 mm Hg.

The current U.S. guidelines were based on the SPRINT trial, which showed a reduction in cardiovascular events in patients treated to a systolic target of 120 mm Hg versus 140 mm Hg.

Dr. Whelton, who was chair of the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association hypertension guidelines committee, explained that, at the time the guidelines were written, there was only one trial, SPRINT, to base the evidence on.

“The committee could all comfortably agree on the 130 mm Hg target, but it was felt that there wasn’t enough evidence at the time to make a recommendation for 120 mm Hg,” he said. “But now we have four trials.”

He said that the trials included patients with high risk for cardiovascular disease, but they all brought some differences to the table, with ACCORD BP conducted in patients with diabetes; SPRINT having enrichment with African American patients, older adults, and patients with kidney disease; RESPECT was in stroke survivors; and ESPRIT had a mix of Chinese patients.

“I think we’ve got a nice mix of different participants and they’re all showing the same signal – that 120 mm Hg is better,” Dr. Whelton said.

But he stressed that although there is now good evidence in favor of lower BP targets, these findings were not being implemented in clinical practice.

“We are doing very badly in terms of implementation. There is a big gap between science and what’s happening in the real world.”

Dr. Whelton pointed out that only 30% of patients in high-income countries are controlled to the 140/90 target and that in low- and middle-income countries, only 8.8% get to that level, never mind lower targets. “The next job is to work on implementing these findings.”

He noted that several studies have shown better results in this regard using a team approach, with nonphysicians playing a major role in following up with patients.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert Louis Stevenson famously said, “Wine is bottled poetry.” And I think it works quite well. I’ve had wines that are simple, elegant, and unpretentious like Emily Dickinson, and passionate and mysterious like Pablo Neruda. And I’ve had wines that are more analogous to the limerick you might read scrawled on a rest-stop bathroom wall. Those ones give me headaches.

Wine headaches are on my mind this week, not only because of the incoming tide of Beaujolais nouveau, but because of a new study which claims to have finally explained the link between wine consumption and headaches – and apparently it’s not just the alcohol.

Headaches are common, and headaches after drinking alcohol are particularly common. An interesting epidemiologic phenomenon, not yet adequately explained, is why red wine is associated with more headache than other forms of alcohol. There have been many studies fingering many suspects, from sulfites to tannins to various phenolic compounds, but none have really provided a concrete explanation for what might be going on.

A new hypothesis came to the fore on Nov. 20 in the journal Scientific Reports:

To understand the idea, first a reminder of what happens when you drink alcohol, physiologically.

Alcohol is metabolized by the enzyme alcohol dehydrogenase in the gut and then in the liver. That turns it into acetaldehyde, a toxic metabolite. In most of us, aldehyde dehydrogenase (ALDH) quickly metabolizes acetaldehyde to the inert acetate, which can be safely excreted.

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

Scientific Reports

So let’s do some math. To make the numbers easy, let’s say you drank a liter of Australian wine, taking in 50 mg of quercetin glucuronide.

How much of that gets into your bloodstream? Some studies suggest a bioavailability of less than 1%, which basically means none and should probably put the quercetin hypothesis to bed. But there is some variation here too; it seems to depend on the form of quercetin you ingest.

Let’s say all 50 mg gets into your bloodstream. What blood concentration would that lead to? Well, I’ll keep the stoichiometry in the graphics and just say that if we assume that the volume of distribution of the compound is restricted to plasma alone, then you could achieve similar concentrations to what was done in petri dishes during this study.

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert Louis Stevenson famously said, “Wine is bottled poetry.” And I think it works quite well. I’ve had wines that are simple, elegant, and unpretentious like Emily Dickinson, and passionate and mysterious like Pablo Neruda. And I’ve had wines that are more analogous to the limerick you might read scrawled on a rest-stop bathroom wall. Those ones give me headaches.

Wine headaches are on my mind this week, not only because of the incoming tide of Beaujolais nouveau, but because of a new study which claims to have finally explained the link between wine consumption and headaches – and apparently it’s not just the alcohol.

Headaches are common, and headaches after drinking alcohol are particularly common. An interesting epidemiologic phenomenon, not yet adequately explained, is why red wine is associated with more headache than other forms of alcohol. There have been many studies fingering many suspects, from sulfites to tannins to various phenolic compounds, but none have really provided a concrete explanation for what might be going on.

A new hypothesis came to the fore on Nov. 20 in the journal Scientific Reports:

To understand the idea, first a reminder of what happens when you drink alcohol, physiologically.

Alcohol is metabolized by the enzyme alcohol dehydrogenase in the gut and then in the liver. That turns it into acetaldehyde, a toxic metabolite. In most of us, aldehyde dehydrogenase (ALDH) quickly metabolizes acetaldehyde to the inert acetate, which can be safely excreted.

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

Scientific Reports

So let’s do some math. To make the numbers easy, let’s say you drank a liter of Australian wine, taking in 50 mg of quercetin glucuronide.

How much of that gets into your bloodstream? Some studies suggest a bioavailability of less than 1%, which basically means none and should probably put the quercetin hypothesis to bed. But there is some variation here too; it seems to depend on the form of quercetin you ingest.

Let’s say all 50 mg gets into your bloodstream. What blood concentration would that lead to? Well, I’ll keep the stoichiometry in the graphics and just say that if we assume that the volume of distribution of the compound is restricted to plasma alone, then you could achieve similar concentrations to what was done in petri dishes during this study.

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert Louis Stevenson famously said, “Wine is bottled poetry.” And I think it works quite well. I’ve had wines that are simple, elegant, and unpretentious like Emily Dickinson, and passionate and mysterious like Pablo Neruda. And I’ve had wines that are more analogous to the limerick you might read scrawled on a rest-stop bathroom wall. Those ones give me headaches.

Wine headaches are on my mind this week, not only because of the incoming tide of Beaujolais nouveau, but because of a new study which claims to have finally explained the link between wine consumption and headaches – and apparently it’s not just the alcohol.

Headaches are common, and headaches after drinking alcohol are particularly common. An interesting epidemiologic phenomenon, not yet adequately explained, is why red wine is associated with more headache than other forms of alcohol. There have been many studies fingering many suspects, from sulfites to tannins to various phenolic compounds, but none have really provided a concrete explanation for what might be going on.

A new hypothesis came to the fore on Nov. 20 in the journal Scientific Reports:

To understand the idea, first a reminder of what happens when you drink alcohol, physiologically.

Alcohol is metabolized by the enzyme alcohol dehydrogenase in the gut and then in the liver. That turns it into acetaldehyde, a toxic metabolite. In most of us, aldehyde dehydrogenase (ALDH) quickly metabolizes acetaldehyde to the inert acetate, which can be safely excreted.

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

Scientific Reports

So let’s do some math. To make the numbers easy, let’s say you drank a liter of Australian wine, taking in 50 mg of quercetin glucuronide.

How much of that gets into your bloodstream? Some studies suggest a bioavailability of less than 1%, which basically means none and should probably put the quercetin hypothesis to bed. But there is some variation here too; it seems to depend on the form of quercetin you ingest.

Let’s say all 50 mg gets into your bloodstream. What blood concentration would that lead to? Well, I’ll keep the stoichiometry in the graphics and just say that if we assume that the volume of distribution of the compound is restricted to plasma alone, then you could achieve similar concentrations to what was done in petri dishes during this study.

Dr. F. Perry Wilson

Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids reduce hepatic dysfunction in nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) by lowering betacellulin (BTC), a protein growth factor that contributes to liver fibrosis and progression to cirrhosis and liver cancer, new data suggest.

METHODOLOGY:

• Because omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids have been shown to reduce hepatic dysfunction in NASH, but the molecular underpinnings of this action were elusive, researchers conducted a multiomic network analysis applied to a mouse model of Western diet–induced NASH to identify the key mechanisms involved.
• They also performed a meta-analysis of human liver cancer transcriptome data to evaluate which aspects of NASH pathogenesis leading to cancer are reversed by omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids.

TAKEAWAY:

• BTC, an epidermal growth factor–binding protein, was consistently upregulated in liver cancer and downregulated by omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids in mice and humans with NASH.
• BTC promotes NASH fibrosis by activating dormant hepatic stellate cells to produce transforming growth factor beta-2 and increase collagen production. It also exacerbates toll-like receptor-dependent inflammatory processes in NASH.
• By downregulating BTC, omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids have therapeutic potential in NASH and could serve as a novel drug target.

IN PRACTICE:

“BTC represents a candidate master regulator inducing two most important factors (collagens and integrins) contributing to liver fibrosis and consequently promoting liver cancer,” the researchers write. “Future studies should investigate if BTC-triggered gene expression signatures can serve as biomarkers guiding personalized [omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid] therapy, as targets of new NAFLD/NASH drugs, and finally as a predictors of hepatic cancer risk in humans.”

SOURCE:

The study, with lead first author Jyothi Padiadpu, PhD, Oregon State University College of Pharmacy, Corvallis, was published online  in EMBO Molecular Medicine (2023. doi: 10.15252/emmm.202318367).

LIMITATIONS:

The study authors report no limitations. However, the findings are based on mouse model and human transcriptome data.

DISCLOSURES:

This research was supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive Kidney Diseases and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The authors report no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids reduce hepatic dysfunction in nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) by lowering betacellulin (BTC), a protein growth factor that contributes to liver fibrosis and progression to cirrhosis and liver cancer, new data suggest.

METHODOLOGY:

• Because omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids have been shown to reduce hepatic dysfunction in NASH, but the molecular underpinnings of this action were elusive, researchers conducted a multiomic network analysis applied to a mouse model of Western diet–induced NASH to identify the key mechanisms involved.
• They also performed a meta-analysis of human liver cancer transcriptome data to evaluate which aspects of NASH pathogenesis leading to cancer are reversed by omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids.

TAKEAWAY:

• BTC, an epidermal growth factor–binding protein, was consistently upregulated in liver cancer and downregulated by omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids in mice and humans with NASH.
• BTC promotes NASH fibrosis by activating dormant hepatic stellate cells to produce transforming growth factor beta-2 and increase collagen production. It also exacerbates toll-like receptor-dependent inflammatory processes in NASH.
• By downregulating BTC, omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids have therapeutic potential in NASH and could serve as a novel drug target.

IN PRACTICE:

“BTC represents a candidate master regulator inducing two most important factors (collagens and integrins) contributing to liver fibrosis and consequently promoting liver cancer,” the researchers write. “Future studies should investigate if BTC-triggered gene expression signatures can serve as biomarkers guiding personalized [omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid] therapy, as targets of new NAFLD/NASH drugs, and finally as a predictors of hepatic cancer risk in humans.”

SOURCE:

The study, with lead first author Jyothi Padiadpu, PhD, Oregon State University College of Pharmacy, Corvallis, was published online  in EMBO Molecular Medicine (2023. doi: 10.15252/emmm.202318367).

LIMITATIONS:

The study authors report no limitations. However, the findings are based on mouse model and human transcriptome data.

DISCLOSURES:

This research was supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive Kidney Diseases and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The authors report no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids reduce hepatic dysfunction in nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) by lowering betacellulin (BTC), a protein growth factor that contributes to liver fibrosis and progression to cirrhosis and liver cancer, new data suggest.

METHODOLOGY:

• Because omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids have been shown to reduce hepatic dysfunction in NASH, but the molecular underpinnings of this action were elusive, researchers conducted a multiomic network analysis applied to a mouse model of Western diet–induced NASH to identify the key mechanisms involved.
• They also performed a meta-analysis of human liver cancer transcriptome data to evaluate which aspects of NASH pathogenesis leading to cancer are reversed by omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids.

TAKEAWAY:

• BTC, an epidermal growth factor–binding protein, was consistently upregulated in liver cancer and downregulated by omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids in mice and humans with NASH.
• BTC promotes NASH fibrosis by activating dormant hepatic stellate cells to produce transforming growth factor beta-2 and increase collagen production. It also exacerbates toll-like receptor-dependent inflammatory processes in NASH.
• By downregulating BTC, omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids have therapeutic potential in NASH and could serve as a novel drug target.

IN PRACTICE:

“BTC represents a candidate master regulator inducing two most important factors (collagens and integrins) contributing to liver fibrosis and consequently promoting liver cancer,” the researchers write. “Future studies should investigate if BTC-triggered gene expression signatures can serve as biomarkers guiding personalized [omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid] therapy, as targets of new NAFLD/NASH drugs, and finally as a predictors of hepatic cancer risk in humans.”

SOURCE:

The study, with lead first author Jyothi Padiadpu, PhD, Oregon State University College of Pharmacy, Corvallis, was published online  in EMBO Molecular Medicine (2023. doi: 10.15252/emmm.202318367).

LIMITATIONS:

The study authors report no limitations. However, the findings are based on mouse model and human transcriptome data.

DISCLOSURES:

This research was supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive Kidney Diseases and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The authors report no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

UnitedHealthcare (UHC) is the latest payer accused of using artificial intelligence (AI) to deny patient claims by trading “real doctors’ recommendations” for a flawed algorithm to save money.

In a class action suit filed in Minnesota district court, the attorneys for the families of two deceased UHC Medicare Advantage plan policyholders say that the company uses the technology to systematically deny skilled nursing facility (SNF) claims and shirk its responsibility to adhere to Medicare’s coverage determination standards.

The case raises ethical and legal questions about whether AI can replace or supplement human tasks and interactions, particularly in a field as complex as health care. California-based public advocacy firm Clarkson Law filed a similar complaint against Cigna earlier this year and has previously sued tech giants Google and ChatGPT creator OpenAI for harvesting Internet users’ data to train their AI systems.

Clarkson Law represents the plaintiffs and says that the policyholders had to pay thousands in out-of-pocket costs or forgo the recommended postacute care owing to UHC’s faulty AI model, nH Predict. The tool has a 90% error rate, says the lawsuit, as evidenced by the number of claims that are reversed following review by a medical professional. Still, just 0.2% of policyholders appeal the denials.

nH Predict was created by naviHealth and was acquired by UnitedHealth Group, UHC’s parent company, in 2020. In a statement to Bloomberg Law, a spokesperson for naviHealth said that the lawsuit has no merit and the model was not used for making coverage determinations.

According to the complaint, nH Predict determines the appropriate amount of SNF, home health, or rehabilitation services a patient requires on the basis of the diagnosis, age, and living situation. The model compares the patient with its database of 6 million patients and estimates the ideal length of stay and target discharge date, “pinpointing the precise moment when [UHC] will cut off payment for a patient’s treatment.”

The lawsuit says that employees are instructed to strictly adhere to the AI model’s predictions, and those who do not are disciplined and terminated, even when additional care for the patient is warranted. Employees are told that the generated reports contain proprietary information and that they cannot share them with physicians and patients who inquire about extending care.

“Every patient is entitled to a nuanced evaluation of their health care needs,” Zarrina Ozari, senior associate at Clarkson Law, said in a prepared statement. “By replacing licensed practitioners with unchecked AI, UHC is telling its patients that they are completely interchangeable with one another and undervaluing the expertise of the physicians devoted to key elements of care.”

According to the complaint, Gene Lokken fell in May 2022 and fractured his leg and ankle. After a 1-month SNF stay, the 91-year-old man’s doctor ordered physical therapy. However, the insurer said Mr. Lokken was safe to be discharged home two and a half weeks later, conflicting with a physical therapist’s notes that indicated he still had paralyzed and weak muscles. The insurer denied Mr. Lokken’s appeal. He remained in the facility for another year until his death, paying about $150,000 in out-of-pocket expenses, according to the lawsuit.

Another patient, Dale H. Tetzloff, initially spent just 20 days in a SNF for stroke rehabilitation before UHC denied coverage. An appeal later extended the stay to 40 days, short of the 100 days recommended by his physician. Requests for further extensions were unsuccessful, and Mr. Tetzloff ultimately paid about $70,000 in out-of-pocket expenses over the next 10 months, according to the complaint.

New federal rules prohibit Medicare Advantage plans from relying on an algorithm or software to make medically necessary determinations instead of an individual’s specific circumstances. Any medical necessity denial must be “reviewed by a physician or other appropriate health care professional with expertise in the field of medicine or health care that is appropriate for the service at issue.”

Clarkson is demanding a jury trial and has asked the court to certify the case as a federal class action, which could open the suit to any U.S. resident who purchased a UHC Medicare Advantage plan in the past 4 years.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

UnitedHealthcare (UHC) is the latest payer accused of using artificial intelligence (AI) to deny patient claims by trading “real doctors’ recommendations” for a flawed algorithm to save money.

In a class action suit filed in Minnesota district court, the attorneys for the families of two deceased UHC Medicare Advantage plan policyholders say that the company uses the technology to systematically deny skilled nursing facility (SNF) claims and shirk its responsibility to adhere to Medicare’s coverage determination standards.

The case raises ethical and legal questions about whether AI can replace or supplement human tasks and interactions, particularly in a field as complex as health care. California-based public advocacy firm Clarkson Law filed a similar complaint against Cigna earlier this year and has previously sued tech giants Google and ChatGPT creator OpenAI for harvesting Internet users’ data to train their AI systems.

Clarkson Law represents the plaintiffs and says that the policyholders had to pay thousands in out-of-pocket costs or forgo the recommended postacute care owing to UHC’s faulty AI model, nH Predict. The tool has a 90% error rate, says the lawsuit, as evidenced by the number of claims that are reversed following review by a medical professional. Still, just 0.2% of policyholders appeal the denials.

nH Predict was created by naviHealth and was acquired by UnitedHealth Group, UHC’s parent company, in 2020. In a statement to Bloomberg Law, a spokesperson for naviHealth said that the lawsuit has no merit and the model was not used for making coverage determinations.

According to the complaint, nH Predict determines the appropriate amount of SNF, home health, or rehabilitation services a patient requires on the basis of the diagnosis, age, and living situation. The model compares the patient with its database of 6 million patients and estimates the ideal length of stay and target discharge date, “pinpointing the precise moment when [UHC] will cut off payment for a patient’s treatment.”

The lawsuit says that employees are instructed to strictly adhere to the AI model’s predictions, and those who do not are disciplined and terminated, even when additional care for the patient is warranted. Employees are told that the generated reports contain proprietary information and that they cannot share them with physicians and patients who inquire about extending care.

“Every patient is entitled to a nuanced evaluation of their health care needs,” Zarrina Ozari, senior associate at Clarkson Law, said in a prepared statement. “By replacing licensed practitioners with unchecked AI, UHC is telling its patients that they are completely interchangeable with one another and undervaluing the expertise of the physicians devoted to key elements of care.”

According to the complaint, Gene Lokken fell in May 2022 and fractured his leg and ankle. After a 1-month SNF stay, the 91-year-old man’s doctor ordered physical therapy. However, the insurer said Mr. Lokken was safe to be discharged home two and a half weeks later, conflicting with a physical therapist’s notes that indicated he still had paralyzed and weak muscles. The insurer denied Mr. Lokken’s appeal. He remained in the facility for another year until his death, paying about $150,000 in out-of-pocket expenses, according to the lawsuit.

Another patient, Dale H. Tetzloff, initially spent just 20 days in a SNF for stroke rehabilitation before UHC denied coverage. An appeal later extended the stay to 40 days, short of the 100 days recommended by his physician. Requests for further extensions were unsuccessful, and Mr. Tetzloff ultimately paid about $70,000 in out-of-pocket expenses over the next 10 months, according to the complaint.

New federal rules prohibit Medicare Advantage plans from relying on an algorithm or software to make medically necessary determinations instead of an individual’s specific circumstances. Any medical necessity denial must be “reviewed by a physician or other appropriate health care professional with expertise in the field of medicine or health care that is appropriate for the service at issue.”

Clarkson is demanding a jury trial and has asked the court to certify the case as a federal class action, which could open the suit to any U.S. resident who purchased a UHC Medicare Advantage plan in the past 4 years.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

UnitedHealthcare (UHC) is the latest payer accused of using artificial intelligence (AI) to deny patient claims by trading “real doctors’ recommendations” for a flawed algorithm to save money.

In a class action suit filed in Minnesota district court, the attorneys for the families of two deceased UHC Medicare Advantage plan policyholders say that the company uses the technology to systematically deny skilled nursing facility (SNF) claims and shirk its responsibility to adhere to Medicare’s coverage determination standards.

The case raises ethical and legal questions about whether AI can replace or supplement human tasks and interactions, particularly in a field as complex as health care. California-based public advocacy firm Clarkson Law filed a similar complaint against Cigna earlier this year and has previously sued tech giants Google and ChatGPT creator OpenAI for harvesting Internet users’ data to train their AI systems.

Clarkson Law represents the plaintiffs and says that the policyholders had to pay thousands in out-of-pocket costs or forgo the recommended postacute care owing to UHC’s faulty AI model, nH Predict. The tool has a 90% error rate, says the lawsuit, as evidenced by the number of claims that are reversed following review by a medical professional. Still, just 0.2% of policyholders appeal the denials.

nH Predict was created by naviHealth and was acquired by UnitedHealth Group, UHC’s parent company, in 2020. In a statement to Bloomberg Law, a spokesperson for naviHealth said that the lawsuit has no merit and the model was not used for making coverage determinations.

According to the complaint, nH Predict determines the appropriate amount of SNF, home health, or rehabilitation services a patient requires on the basis of the diagnosis, age, and living situation. The model compares the patient with its database of 6 million patients and estimates the ideal length of stay and target discharge date, “pinpointing the precise moment when [UHC] will cut off payment for a patient’s treatment.”

The lawsuit says that employees are instructed to strictly adhere to the AI model’s predictions, and those who do not are disciplined and terminated, even when additional care for the patient is warranted. Employees are told that the generated reports contain proprietary information and that they cannot share them with physicians and patients who inquire about extending care.

“Every patient is entitled to a nuanced evaluation of their health care needs,” Zarrina Ozari, senior associate at Clarkson Law, said in a prepared statement. “By replacing licensed practitioners with unchecked AI, UHC is telling its patients that they are completely interchangeable with one another and undervaluing the expertise of the physicians devoted to key elements of care.”

According to the complaint, Gene Lokken fell in May 2022 and fractured his leg and ankle. After a 1-month SNF stay, the 91-year-old man’s doctor ordered physical therapy. However, the insurer said Mr. Lokken was safe to be discharged home two and a half weeks later, conflicting with a physical therapist’s notes that indicated he still had paralyzed and weak muscles. The insurer denied Mr. Lokken’s appeal. He remained in the facility for another year until his death, paying about $150,000 in out-of-pocket expenses, according to the lawsuit.

Another patient, Dale H. Tetzloff, initially spent just 20 days in a SNF for stroke rehabilitation before UHC denied coverage. An appeal later extended the stay to 40 days, short of the 100 days recommended by his physician. Requests for further extensions were unsuccessful, and Mr. Tetzloff ultimately paid about $70,000 in out-of-pocket expenses over the next 10 months, according to the complaint.

New federal rules prohibit Medicare Advantage plans from relying on an algorithm or software to make medically necessary determinations instead of an individual’s specific circumstances. Any medical necessity denial must be “reviewed by a physician or other appropriate health care professional with expertise in the field of medicine or health care that is appropriate for the service at issue.”

Clarkson is demanding a jury trial and has asked the court to certify the case as a federal class action, which could open the suit to any U.S. resident who purchased a UHC Medicare Advantage plan in the past 4 years.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.