Pulmonology

Scans of the lungs of pot users have turned up an alarming surprise: Regular smokers of marijuana appear to be at greater risk for lung damage than are people who smoke tobacco alone.

“There’s a public perception that marijuana is safe,” said Giselle Revah, MD, a radiologist at the University of Ottawa. “This study is raising concern that this might not be true.”

Dr. Revah said she can often tell immediately if a CT scan is from a heavy or long-time cigarette smoker. But with the legalization and increased use of marijuana in Canada and many U.S. states, she began to wonder what cannabis use does to the lungs and whether she would be able to differentiate its effects from those of cigarette smoking.

She and her colleagues retrospectively examined chest CT scans from 56 marijuana smokers and compared them to scans of 57 nonsmokers and 33 users of tobacco alone.

Emphysema was significantly more common among marijuana smokers (75%) than among nonsmokers (5%). When matched for age and sex, 93% of marijuana smokers had emphysema, vs. 67% of those who smoked tobacco only (P = .009).

Without age matching, rates of emphysema remained slightly higher among the marijuana users (75% vs. 67%), although the difference was no longer statistically significant. Yet more than 40% of the marijuana group was younger than 50 years, and all of the tobacco-only users were 50 or older – meaning that marijuana smokers may develop lung damage earlier or with less exposure, Dr. Revah said.

Dr. Revah added that her colleagues in family medicine have said the findings match their clinical experience. “In their practices, they have younger patients with emphysema,” she said.

Marijuana smokers also showed higher rates of airway inflammation, including bronchial thickening, bronchiectasis, and mucoid impaction, with and without sex- and age-matching, the researchers found.

The findings are “not even a little bit surprising,” according to Alan Kaplan, MD, a family physician in Ontario who has expertise in respiratory health. He is the author of a 2021 review on cannabis and lung health.

In an editorial accompanying the journal article by Dr. Revah and colleagues , pulmonary experts noted that the new data give context to a recent uptick in referrals for nontraumatic pneumothorax. The authors said they had received 22 of these referrals during the past 2 years but that they had received only 6 between 2012 and 2020. “Many, but not all, of these patients have a documented history of marijuana use,” they wrote.

One reason for the additional damage may be the way marijuana is inhaled, Dr. Kaplan said. Marijuana smokers “take a big breath in, and they really push it into lungs and hold pressure on it, which may actually cause alveoli to distend over time.”

Because most marijuana smokers in the study also smoked cigarettes, whether the observed damage was caused by marijuana alone or occurred through a synergy with tobacco is impossible to discern, Dr. Revah said.

Still, the results are striking, she said, because the marijuana group was compared to tobacco users who had an extensive smoking history – 25 to 100 pack-years – and who were from a high-risk lung cancer screening program.

Dr. Revah and her colleagues are now conducting a larger, prospective study to see whether they can confirm their findings.

“The message to physicians is to ask about cannabis smoking,” Dr. Kaplan said. In the past, people have been reluctant to admit to using cannabis. Even with legalization, they may be slow to tell their physicians. But clinicians should still try to identify frequent users, especially those who are predisposed for lung conditions. If they intend to use the drug, the advice should be, “There are safer ways to use cannabis,” he said.

Dr. Revah and Dr. Kaplan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Scans of the lungs of pot users have turned up an alarming surprise: Regular smokers of marijuana appear to be at greater risk for lung damage than are people who smoke tobacco alone.

“There’s a public perception that marijuana is safe,” said Giselle Revah, MD, a radiologist at the University of Ottawa. “This study is raising concern that this might not be true.”

Dr. Revah said she can often tell immediately if a CT scan is from a heavy or long-time cigarette smoker. But with the legalization and increased use of marijuana in Canada and many U.S. states, she began to wonder what cannabis use does to the lungs and whether she would be able to differentiate its effects from those of cigarette smoking.

She and her colleagues retrospectively examined chest CT scans from 56 marijuana smokers and compared them to scans of 57 nonsmokers and 33 users of tobacco alone.

Emphysema was significantly more common among marijuana smokers (75%) than among nonsmokers (5%). When matched for age and sex, 93% of marijuana smokers had emphysema, vs. 67% of those who smoked tobacco only (P = .009).

Without age matching, rates of emphysema remained slightly higher among the marijuana users (75% vs. 67%), although the difference was no longer statistically significant. Yet more than 40% of the marijuana group was younger than 50 years, and all of the tobacco-only users were 50 or older – meaning that marijuana smokers may develop lung damage earlier or with less exposure, Dr. Revah said.

Dr. Revah added that her colleagues in family medicine have said the findings match their clinical experience. “In their practices, they have younger patients with emphysema,” she said.

Marijuana smokers also showed higher rates of airway inflammation, including bronchial thickening, bronchiectasis, and mucoid impaction, with and without sex- and age-matching, the researchers found.

The findings are “not even a little bit surprising,” according to Alan Kaplan, MD, a family physician in Ontario who has expertise in respiratory health. He is the author of a 2021 review on cannabis and lung health.

In an editorial accompanying the journal article by Dr. Revah and colleagues , pulmonary experts noted that the new data give context to a recent uptick in referrals for nontraumatic pneumothorax. The authors said they had received 22 of these referrals during the past 2 years but that they had received only 6 between 2012 and 2020. “Many, but not all, of these patients have a documented history of marijuana use,” they wrote.

One reason for the additional damage may be the way marijuana is inhaled, Dr. Kaplan said. Marijuana smokers “take a big breath in, and they really push it into lungs and hold pressure on it, which may actually cause alveoli to distend over time.”

Because most marijuana smokers in the study also smoked cigarettes, whether the observed damage was caused by marijuana alone or occurred through a synergy with tobacco is impossible to discern, Dr. Revah said.

Still, the results are striking, she said, because the marijuana group was compared to tobacco users who had an extensive smoking history – 25 to 100 pack-years – and who were from a high-risk lung cancer screening program.

Dr. Revah and her colleagues are now conducting a larger, prospective study to see whether they can confirm their findings.

“The message to physicians is to ask about cannabis smoking,” Dr. Kaplan said. In the past, people have been reluctant to admit to using cannabis. Even with legalization, they may be slow to tell their physicians. But clinicians should still try to identify frequent users, especially those who are predisposed for lung conditions. If they intend to use the drug, the advice should be, “There are safer ways to use cannabis,” he said.

Dr. Revah and Dr. Kaplan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Scans of the lungs of pot users have turned up an alarming surprise: Regular smokers of marijuana appear to be at greater risk for lung damage than are people who smoke tobacco alone.

“There’s a public perception that marijuana is safe,” said Giselle Revah, MD, a radiologist at the University of Ottawa. “This study is raising concern that this might not be true.”

Dr. Revah said she can often tell immediately if a CT scan is from a heavy or long-time cigarette smoker. But with the legalization and increased use of marijuana in Canada and many U.S. states, she began to wonder what cannabis use does to the lungs and whether she would be able to differentiate its effects from those of cigarette smoking.

She and her colleagues retrospectively examined chest CT scans from 56 marijuana smokers and compared them to scans of 57 nonsmokers and 33 users of tobacco alone.

Emphysema was significantly more common among marijuana smokers (75%) than among nonsmokers (5%). When matched for age and sex, 93% of marijuana smokers had emphysema, vs. 67% of those who smoked tobacco only (P = .009).

Without age matching, rates of emphysema remained slightly higher among the marijuana users (75% vs. 67%), although the difference was no longer statistically significant. Yet more than 40% of the marijuana group was younger than 50 years, and all of the tobacco-only users were 50 or older – meaning that marijuana smokers may develop lung damage earlier or with less exposure, Dr. Revah said.

Dr. Revah added that her colleagues in family medicine have said the findings match their clinical experience. “In their practices, they have younger patients with emphysema,” she said.

Marijuana smokers also showed higher rates of airway inflammation, including bronchial thickening, bronchiectasis, and mucoid impaction, with and without sex- and age-matching, the researchers found.

The findings are “not even a little bit surprising,” according to Alan Kaplan, MD, a family physician in Ontario who has expertise in respiratory health. He is the author of a 2021 review on cannabis and lung health.

In an editorial accompanying the journal article by Dr. Revah and colleagues , pulmonary experts noted that the new data give context to a recent uptick in referrals for nontraumatic pneumothorax. The authors said they had received 22 of these referrals during the past 2 years but that they had received only 6 between 2012 and 2020. “Many, but not all, of these patients have a documented history of marijuana use,” they wrote.

One reason for the additional damage may be the way marijuana is inhaled, Dr. Kaplan said. Marijuana smokers “take a big breath in, and they really push it into lungs and hold pressure on it, which may actually cause alveoli to distend over time.”

Because most marijuana smokers in the study also smoked cigarettes, whether the observed damage was caused by marijuana alone or occurred through a synergy with tobacco is impossible to discern, Dr. Revah said.

Still, the results are striking, she said, because the marijuana group was compared to tobacco users who had an extensive smoking history – 25 to 100 pack-years – and who were from a high-risk lung cancer screening program.

Dr. Revah and her colleagues are now conducting a larger, prospective study to see whether they can confirm their findings.

“The message to physicians is to ask about cannabis smoking,” Dr. Kaplan said. In the past, people have been reluctant to admit to using cannabis. Even with legalization, they may be slow to tell their physicians. But clinicians should still try to identify frequent users, especially those who are predisposed for lung conditions. If they intend to use the drug, the advice should be, “There are safer ways to use cannabis,” he said.

Dr. Revah and Dr. Kaplan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

I work with medical students nearly every day that I see patients. I recently mentioned to a student that I have a limited working knowledge of the brand names of diabetes medications released in the past 10 years. Just like the M3s, I need the full generic name to know whether a medication is a GLP-1 inhibitor or a ­DPP-4 inhibitor, because I know that “flozins” are SGLT-2 inhibitors and ­“glutides” are GLP-1 agonists. The combined efforts of an ambulatory care pharmacist and some flashcards have helped me to better understand how they work and which ones to prescribe when. Meanwhile, the residents are capably counseling on the adverse effects of the latest diabetes agent, while I am googling its generic name.

The premise of science is continuous discovery. In the first 10 months of 2022, the US Food & Drug Administration approved more than 2 dozen new medications, almost 100 new generics, and new indications for dozens more.^1,2 The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) issued 13 new or reaffirmed recommendations in the first 10 months of 2022, and it is just one of dozens of bodies that issue guidelines relevant to primary care.³ PubMed indexes more than a million new articles each year. Learning new information and changing practice are crucial to being an effective clinician.

In this edition of JFP, Covey and Cagle⁴ write about updates to the USPSTF’s lung cancer screening guidelines. The authors reference changing evidence that led to the revised recommendations. When the original guideline was released in 2013, it drew on the best available evidence at the time.⁵ The National Lung Screening Trial, which looked at CT scanning compared with chest x-rays as screening tests for lung cancer, was groundbreaking in its methods and results.⁶ However, it was not without its flaws. It enrolled < 5% Black patients, and so the recommendations for age cutoffs and pack-year cutoffs were made based on the majority White population from the trial.

Not adopting the new lung cancer screening recommendations would exclude patients most at risk of lung cancer and allow disparities to grow.

Black patients experience a higher mortality from lung cancer and are diagnosed at an earlier age and a lower cumulative pack-year exposure than White patients.⁷ Other studies have explored the social and political factors that lead to these disparities, which range from access to care to racial segregation of neighborhoods and tobacco marketing practices.⁷ When the USPSTF performed its periodic update of the guideline, it had access to additional research. The updates reflect the new information.

Every physician has a responsibility to find a way to adapt to important new information in medicine. Not using ­SGLT-2 inhibitors in the management of diabetes would be substandard care, and my patients would suffer for it. Not adopting the new lung cancer screening recommendations would exclude patients most at risk of lung cancer and allow disparities in lung cancer morbidity and mortality to grow.^7,8Understanding the evidence behind the recommendations also reminds me that the guidelines will change again. These recommendations are no more static than the first guidelines were. I’ll be ready when the next update comes, and I’ll have the medical students and residents to keep me sharp.

I work with medical students nearly every day that I see patients. I recently mentioned to a student that I have a limited working knowledge of the brand names of diabetes medications released in the past 10 years. Just like the M3s, I need the full generic name to know whether a medication is a GLP-1 inhibitor or a ­DPP-4 inhibitor, because I know that “flozins” are SGLT-2 inhibitors and ­“glutides” are GLP-1 agonists. The combined efforts of an ambulatory care pharmacist and some flashcards have helped me to better understand how they work and which ones to prescribe when. Meanwhile, the residents are capably counseling on the adverse effects of the latest diabetes agent, while I am googling its generic name.

The premise of science is continuous discovery. In the first 10 months of 2022, the US Food & Drug Administration approved more than 2 dozen new medications, almost 100 new generics, and new indications for dozens more.^1,2 The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) issued 13 new or reaffirmed recommendations in the first 10 months of 2022, and it is just one of dozens of bodies that issue guidelines relevant to primary care.³ PubMed indexes more than a million new articles each year. Learning new information and changing practice are crucial to being an effective clinician.

In this edition of JFP, Covey and Cagle⁴ write about updates to the USPSTF’s lung cancer screening guidelines. The authors reference changing evidence that led to the revised recommendations. When the original guideline was released in 2013, it drew on the best available evidence at the time.⁵ The National Lung Screening Trial, which looked at CT scanning compared with chest x-rays as screening tests for lung cancer, was groundbreaking in its methods and results.⁶ However, it was not without its flaws. It enrolled < 5% Black patients, and so the recommendations for age cutoffs and pack-year cutoffs were made based on the majority White population from the trial.

Not adopting the new lung cancer screening recommendations would exclude patients most at risk of lung cancer and allow disparities to grow.

Black patients experience a higher mortality from lung cancer and are diagnosed at an earlier age and a lower cumulative pack-year exposure than White patients.⁷ Other studies have explored the social and political factors that lead to these disparities, which range from access to care to racial segregation of neighborhoods and tobacco marketing practices.⁷ When the USPSTF performed its periodic update of the guideline, it had access to additional research. The updates reflect the new information.

Every physician has a responsibility to find a way to adapt to important new information in medicine. Not using ­SGLT-2 inhibitors in the management of diabetes would be substandard care, and my patients would suffer for it. Not adopting the new lung cancer screening recommendations would exclude patients most at risk of lung cancer and allow disparities in lung cancer morbidity and mortality to grow.^7,8Understanding the evidence behind the recommendations also reminds me that the guidelines will change again. These recommendations are no more static than the first guidelines were. I’ll be ready when the next update comes, and I’ll have the medical students and residents to keep me sharp.

I work with medical students nearly every day that I see patients. I recently mentioned to a student that I have a limited working knowledge of the brand names of diabetes medications released in the past 10 years. Just like the M3s, I need the full generic name to know whether a medication is a GLP-1 inhibitor or a ­DPP-4 inhibitor, because I know that “flozins” are SGLT-2 inhibitors and ­“glutides” are GLP-1 agonists. The combined efforts of an ambulatory care pharmacist and some flashcards have helped me to better understand how they work and which ones to prescribe when. Meanwhile, the residents are capably counseling on the adverse effects of the latest diabetes agent, while I am googling its generic name.

The premise of science is continuous discovery. In the first 10 months of 2022, the US Food & Drug Administration approved more than 2 dozen new medications, almost 100 new generics, and new indications for dozens more.^1,2 The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) issued 13 new or reaffirmed recommendations in the first 10 months of 2022, and it is just one of dozens of bodies that issue guidelines relevant to primary care.³ PubMed indexes more than a million new articles each year. Learning new information and changing practice are crucial to being an effective clinician.

In this edition of JFP, Covey and Cagle⁴ write about updates to the USPSTF’s lung cancer screening guidelines. The authors reference changing evidence that led to the revised recommendations. When the original guideline was released in 2013, it drew on the best available evidence at the time.⁵ The National Lung Screening Trial, which looked at CT scanning compared with chest x-rays as screening tests for lung cancer, was groundbreaking in its methods and results.⁶ However, it was not without its flaws. It enrolled < 5% Black patients, and so the recommendations for age cutoffs and pack-year cutoffs were made based on the majority White population from the trial.

Not adopting the new lung cancer screening recommendations would exclude patients most at risk of lung cancer and allow disparities to grow.

Black patients experience a higher mortality from lung cancer and are diagnosed at an earlier age and a lower cumulative pack-year exposure than White patients.⁷ Other studies have explored the social and political factors that lead to these disparities, which range from access to care to racial segregation of neighborhoods and tobacco marketing practices.⁷ When the USPSTF performed its periodic update of the guideline, it had access to additional research. The updates reflect the new information.

Every physician has a responsibility to find a way to adapt to important new information in medicine. Not using ­SGLT-2 inhibitors in the management of diabetes would be substandard care, and my patients would suffer for it. Not adopting the new lung cancer screening recommendations would exclude patients most at risk of lung cancer and allow disparities in lung cancer morbidity and mortality to grow.^7,8Understanding the evidence behind the recommendations also reminds me that the guidelines will change again. These recommendations are no more static than the first guidelines were. I’ll be ready when the next update comes, and I’ll have the medical students and residents to keep me sharp.

CASE

A 51-year-old man presents to your office to discuss lung cancer screening. He has a history of hypertension and prediabetes. His father died of lung cancer 5 years ago, at age 77. The patient stopped smoking soon thereafter; prior to that, he smoked 1 pack of cigarettes per day for 20 years. He wants to know if he should be screened for lung cancer.

The relative lack of symptoms during the early stages of lung cancer frequently results in a delayed diagnosis. This, and the speed at which the disease progresses, underscores the need for an effective screening modality. More than half of people with lung cancer die within 1 year of diagnosis.¹ Excluding skin cancer, lung cancer is the second most commonly diagnosed cancer, and more people die of lung cancer than of colon, breast, and prostate cancers combined.² In 2022, it was estimated that there would be 236,740 new cases of lung cancer and 130,180 deaths from lung cancer.^1,2 The average age at diagnosis is 70 years.²

Screening modalities: Only 1 has demonstrated mortality benefit

In 1968, Wilson and Junger³ outlined the characteristics of the ideal screening test for the World Health Organization: it should limit risk to the patient, be sensitive for detecting the disease early in its course, limit false-positive results, be acceptable to the patient, and be inexpensive to the health system.³ For decades, several screening modalities for lung cancer were trialed to fit the above guidance, but many of them fell short of the most important outcome: the impact on mortality.

Sputum cytology. The use of sputum cytology, either in combination with or without chest radiography, is not recommended. Several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have failed to demonstrate improved lung cancer detection or mortality reduction in patients screened with this modality.⁴

Chest radiography (CXR). Several studies have assessed the efficacy of CXR as a screening modality. The best known was the Prostate, Lung, Colon, Ovarian (PLCO) Trial.⁵ This multicenter RCT enrolled more than 154,000 participants, half of whom received CXR at baseline and then annually for 3 years; the other half continued usual care (no screening). After 13 years of follow-up, there were no significant differences in lung cancer detection or mortality rates between the 2 groups.⁵

Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT). Several major medical societies recommend LDCT to screen high-risk individuals for lung cancer (TABLE 1^6-10). Results from 2 major RCTs have guided these recommendations.

At this time, low-dose computed tomography is the only lung cancer screening modality that has shown benefit for both disease-related and all-cause mortality.

The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) was a multicenter RCT comparing 2 screening tests for lung cancer.¹¹ Approximately 54,000 high-risk participants were enrolled between 2002 and 2004 and were randomized to receive annual screening with either LDCT or single-view CXR. The trial was discontinued prematurely when investigators noted a 20% reduction in lung cancer mortality in the LDCT group vs the CXR group.¹² This equates to 3 fewer deaths for every 1000 people screened with LDCT vs CXR. There was also a 6% reduction in all-cause mortality noted in the LDCT vs the CXR group.¹²

Continue to: The NELSON trial...

The NELSON trial, conducted between 2005 and 2015, studied more than 15,000 current or former smokers ages 50 to 74 years and compared LDCT screening at various intervals to no screening.¹³ After 10 years, lung cancer–related mortality was reduced by 24% (or 1 less death per 1000 person-years) in men who were screened vs their unscreened counterparts.¹³ In contrast to the NLST, in the NELSON trial, no significant difference in all-cause mortality was observed. Subgroup analysis of the relatively small population of women included in the NELSON trial suggested a 33% reduction in 10-year mortality; however, the difference was nonsignificant between the screened and unscreened groups.¹³

Each of these landmark studies had characteristics that could limit the results' generalizability to the US population. In the NELSON trial, more than 80% of the study participants were male. In both trials, there was significant underrepresentation of Black, Asian, Hispanic, and other non-White people.^12,13 Furthermore, participants in these studies were of higher socioeconomic status than the general US screening-eligible population.

At this time, LDCT is the only lung cancer screening modality that has shown benefit for both disease-related and all-cause mortality, in the populations that were studied. Based on the NLST, the number needed to screen (NNS) with LDCT to prevent 1 lung cancer–related death is 308. The NNS to prevent 1 death from any cause is 219.⁶

Updated evidence has led to a consensus on screening criteria

Many national societies endorse annual screening with LDCT in high-risk individuals (TABLE 1^6-10). Risk assessment for the purpose of lung cancer screening includes a detailed review of smoking history and age. The risk of lung cancer increases with advancing age and with cumulative quantity and duration of smoking, but decreases with increasing time since quitting. Therefore, a detailed smoking history should include total number of pack-years, current smoking status, and, if applicable, when smoking cessation occurred.

In 2021, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) updated their 2013 lung cancer screening recommendations, expanding the screening age range and lowering the smoking history threshold for triggering initiation of screening.⁶ The impetus for the update was emerging evidence from systematic reviews, RCTs, and the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network ­(CISNET) that could help to determine the optimal age for screening and identify high-risk groups. For example, the NELSON trial, combined with results from CISNET modeling data, showed an empirical benefit for screening those ages 50 to 55 years.⁶

Continue to: As a result...

As a result, the USPSTF now recommends annual lung cancer screening with LDCT for any adult ages 50 to 80 years who has a 20-pack-year smoking history and currently smokes or has quit within the past 15 years.⁶ Screening should be discontinued once a person has not smoked for 15 years, develops a health problem that substantially limits life expectancy, or is not willing to have curative lung surgery.⁶

Expanding the screening eligibility may also address racial and gender disparities in health care. Black people and women who smoke have a higher risk for lung cancer at a lower intensity of smoking.⁶

Following the USPSTF update, the American College of Chest Physicians and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services published updated guidance that aligns with USPSTF’s recommendations to lower the age and pack-year qualifications for initiating screening.^7,10 The American Cancer Society is currently reviewing its 2018 guidelines on lung cancer screening.¹⁴TABLE 1^6-10 summarizes the guidance on lung cancer screening from these medical societies.

Effective screening could save lives (and money)

A smoker’s risk for lung cancer is 20 times higher than that of a nonsmoker^15,16; 55% of lung cancer deaths in women and 70% in men are attributed to smoking.¹⁷ Once diagnosed with lung cancer, more than 50% of people will die within 1 year.¹ This underpins the need for a lung cancer screening modality that reduces mortality. Large RCTs, including the NLST and NELSONtrials, have shown that screening high-risk individuals with LDCT can significantly reduce lung cancer–related death when compared to no screening or screening with CXR alone.^11,13

There is controversy surrounding the cost benefit of implementing a nationwide lung cancer screening program. However, recent use of microsimulation models has shown LDCT to be a cost-effective strategy, with an average cost of $81,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, which is below the threshold of $100,000 to be considered cost effective.¹⁸ Expanding the upper age limit for screening leads to a greater reduction in mortality but increases treatment costs and overdiagnosis rates, and overall does not improve quality-adjusted life-years.¹⁸

Continue to: Potential harms

Potential harms: False-positives and related complications

Screening for lung cancer is not without its risks. Harms from screening typically result from false-positive test results leading to over­diagnosis, anxiety and distress, unnecessary invasive tests or procedures, and increased costs.¹⁹TABLE 2^6,19-23 lists specific complications from lung cancer screening with LDCT.

The false-positive rate is not trivial. For every 1000 patients screened, 250 people will have a positive LDCT finding but will not have lung cancer.¹⁹ Furthermore, about 1 in every 2000 individuals who screen positive, but who do not have lung cancer, die as a result of complications from the ensuing work-up.⁶

Annual LDCT screening increases the risk of radiation-induced cancer by approximately 0.05% over 10 years.²¹ The absolute risk is generally low but not insignificant. However, the mortality benefits previously outlined are significantly more robust in both absolute and relative terms vs the 10-year risk of radiation-induced cancer.

The trial was discontinued prematurely when investigators noted a 20% reduction in lung cancer mortality in the lowdose computed tomography group vs the chest x-ray group.

Lastly, it is important to note that the NELSON trial and NLST included a limited number of LDCT scans. Current guidelines for lung cancer screening with LDCT, including those from the USPSTF, recommend screening annually. We do not know the cumulative harm of annual LDCT over a 20- or 30-year period for those who would qualify (ie, current smokers).

If you screen, you must be able to act on the results

Effective screening programs should extend beyond the LDCT scan itself. The studies that have shown a benefit of LDCT were done at large academic centers that had the appropriate radiologic, pathologic, and surgical infrastructure to interpret and act on results and offer further diagnostic or treatment procedures.

Continue to: Prior to screening...

Prior to screening for lung cancer with LDCT, documentation of shared decision-making between the patient and the clinician is necessary.⁷ This discussion should include the potential benefits and harms of screening, potential results and likelihood of follow-up diagnostic testing, the false-positive rate of LDCT lung cancer screening, and cumulative radiation exposure. In addition, screening should be considered only if the patient is willing to be screened annually, is willing to pursue follow-up scans and procedures (including lung biopsy) if deemed necessary, and does not have comorbid conditions that significantly limit life expectancy.

Smoking cessation: The most important change to make

Smoking cessation is the single most important risk-modifying behavior to reduce one’s chance of developing lung cancer. At age 40, smokers have a 2-fold increase in all-cause mortality compared to age-matched nonsmokers. This rises to a 3-fold increase by the age of 70.¹⁶

Smoking cessation reduces the risk of lung cancer by 20% after 5 years, 30% to 50% after 10 years, and up to 70% after 15 years.²⁴ In its guidelines, the American Thoracic Society recommends varenicline (Chantix) for all smokers to assist with smoking cessation.²⁵

CASE

This 51-year-old patient with at least a 20-pack-year history of smoking should be commended for giving up smoking. Based on the USPSTF recommendations, he should be screened annually with LDCT for the next 10 years.

Screening to save more lives

The results of 2 large multicenter RCTs have led to the recent recommendation for lung cancer screening of high-risk adults with the use of LDCT. Screening with LDCT has been shown to reduce disease-related mortality and likely be cost effective in the long term.

Screening with LDCT should be part of a multidisciplinary system that has the infrastructure not only to perform the screening, but also to diagnose and appropriately follow up and treat patients whose results are concerning. The risk of false-positive results leading to increased anxiety, overdiagnosis, and unnecessary procedures points to the importance of proper patient selection, counseling, and shared decision-making. Smoking cessation remains the most important disease-modifying behavior one can make to reduce their risk for lung cancer.

CORRESPONDENCE
Carlton J. Covey, MD, 101 Bodin Circle, David Grant Medical Center, Travis Air Force Base, Fairfield, CA, 94545; [email protected]

CASE

A 51-year-old man presents to your office to discuss lung cancer screening. He has a history of hypertension and prediabetes. His father died of lung cancer 5 years ago, at age 77. The patient stopped smoking soon thereafter; prior to that, he smoked 1 pack of cigarettes per day for 20 years. He wants to know if he should be screened for lung cancer.

The relative lack of symptoms during the early stages of lung cancer frequently results in a delayed diagnosis. This, and the speed at which the disease progresses, underscores the need for an effective screening modality. More than half of people with lung cancer die within 1 year of diagnosis.¹ Excluding skin cancer, lung cancer is the second most commonly diagnosed cancer, and more people die of lung cancer than of colon, breast, and prostate cancers combined.² In 2022, it was estimated that there would be 236,740 new cases of lung cancer and 130,180 deaths from lung cancer.^1,2 The average age at diagnosis is 70 years.²

Screening modalities: Only 1 has demonstrated mortality benefit

In 1968, Wilson and Junger³ outlined the characteristics of the ideal screening test for the World Health Organization: it should limit risk to the patient, be sensitive for detecting the disease early in its course, limit false-positive results, be acceptable to the patient, and be inexpensive to the health system.³ For decades, several screening modalities for lung cancer were trialed to fit the above guidance, but many of them fell short of the most important outcome: the impact on mortality.

Sputum cytology. The use of sputum cytology, either in combination with or without chest radiography, is not recommended. Several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have failed to demonstrate improved lung cancer detection or mortality reduction in patients screened with this modality.⁴

Chest radiography (CXR). Several studies have assessed the efficacy of CXR as a screening modality. The best known was the Prostate, Lung, Colon, Ovarian (PLCO) Trial.⁵ This multicenter RCT enrolled more than 154,000 participants, half of whom received CXR at baseline and then annually for 3 years; the other half continued usual care (no screening). After 13 years of follow-up, there were no significant differences in lung cancer detection or mortality rates between the 2 groups.⁵

Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT). Several major medical societies recommend LDCT to screen high-risk individuals for lung cancer (TABLE 1^6-10). Results from 2 major RCTs have guided these recommendations.

At this time, low-dose computed tomography is the only lung cancer screening modality that has shown benefit for both disease-related and all-cause mortality.

The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) was a multicenter RCT comparing 2 screening tests for lung cancer.¹¹ Approximately 54,000 high-risk participants were enrolled between 2002 and 2004 and were randomized to receive annual screening with either LDCT or single-view CXR. The trial was discontinued prematurely when investigators noted a 20% reduction in lung cancer mortality in the LDCT group vs the CXR group.¹² This equates to 3 fewer deaths for every 1000 people screened with LDCT vs CXR. There was also a 6% reduction in all-cause mortality noted in the LDCT vs the CXR group.¹²

Continue to: The NELSON trial...

The NELSON trial, conducted between 2005 and 2015, studied more than 15,000 current or former smokers ages 50 to 74 years and compared LDCT screening at various intervals to no screening.¹³ After 10 years, lung cancer–related mortality was reduced by 24% (or 1 less death per 1000 person-years) in men who were screened vs their unscreened counterparts.¹³ In contrast to the NLST, in the NELSON trial, no significant difference in all-cause mortality was observed. Subgroup analysis of the relatively small population of women included in the NELSON trial suggested a 33% reduction in 10-year mortality; however, the difference was nonsignificant between the screened and unscreened groups.¹³

Each of these landmark studies had characteristics that could limit the results' generalizability to the US population. In the NELSON trial, more than 80% of the study participants were male. In both trials, there was significant underrepresentation of Black, Asian, Hispanic, and other non-White people.^12,13 Furthermore, participants in these studies were of higher socioeconomic status than the general US screening-eligible population.

At this time, LDCT is the only lung cancer screening modality that has shown benefit for both disease-related and all-cause mortality, in the populations that were studied. Based on the NLST, the number needed to screen (NNS) with LDCT to prevent 1 lung cancer–related death is 308. The NNS to prevent 1 death from any cause is 219.⁶

Updated evidence has led to a consensus on screening criteria

Many national societies endorse annual screening with LDCT in high-risk individuals (TABLE 1^6-10). Risk assessment for the purpose of lung cancer screening includes a detailed review of smoking history and age. The risk of lung cancer increases with advancing age and with cumulative quantity and duration of smoking, but decreases with increasing time since quitting. Therefore, a detailed smoking history should include total number of pack-years, current smoking status, and, if applicable, when smoking cessation occurred.

In 2021, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) updated their 2013 lung cancer screening recommendations, expanding the screening age range and lowering the smoking history threshold for triggering initiation of screening.⁶ The impetus for the update was emerging evidence from systematic reviews, RCTs, and the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network ­(CISNET) that could help to determine the optimal age for screening and identify high-risk groups. For example, the NELSON trial, combined with results from CISNET modeling data, showed an empirical benefit for screening those ages 50 to 55 years.⁶

Continue to: As a result...

As a result, the USPSTF now recommends annual lung cancer screening with LDCT for any adult ages 50 to 80 years who has a 20-pack-year smoking history and currently smokes or has quit within the past 15 years.⁶ Screening should be discontinued once a person has not smoked for 15 years, develops a health problem that substantially limits life expectancy, or is not willing to have curative lung surgery.⁶

Expanding the screening eligibility may also address racial and gender disparities in health care. Black people and women who smoke have a higher risk for lung cancer at a lower intensity of smoking.⁶

Following the USPSTF update, the American College of Chest Physicians and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services published updated guidance that aligns with USPSTF’s recommendations to lower the age and pack-year qualifications for initiating screening.^7,10 The American Cancer Society is currently reviewing its 2018 guidelines on lung cancer screening.¹⁴TABLE 1^6-10 summarizes the guidance on lung cancer screening from these medical societies.

Effective screening could save lives (and money)

A smoker’s risk for lung cancer is 20 times higher than that of a nonsmoker^15,16; 55% of lung cancer deaths in women and 70% in men are attributed to smoking.¹⁷ Once diagnosed with lung cancer, more than 50% of people will die within 1 year.¹ This underpins the need for a lung cancer screening modality that reduces mortality. Large RCTs, including the NLST and NELSONtrials, have shown that screening high-risk individuals with LDCT can significantly reduce lung cancer–related death when compared to no screening or screening with CXR alone.^11,13

There is controversy surrounding the cost benefit of implementing a nationwide lung cancer screening program. However, recent use of microsimulation models has shown LDCT to be a cost-effective strategy, with an average cost of $81,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, which is below the threshold of $100,000 to be considered cost effective.¹⁸ Expanding the upper age limit for screening leads to a greater reduction in mortality but increases treatment costs and overdiagnosis rates, and overall does not improve quality-adjusted life-years.¹⁸

Continue to: Potential harms

Potential harms: False-positives and related complications

Screening for lung cancer is not without its risks. Harms from screening typically result from false-positive test results leading to over­diagnosis, anxiety and distress, unnecessary invasive tests or procedures, and increased costs.¹⁹TABLE 2^6,19-23 lists specific complications from lung cancer screening with LDCT.

The false-positive rate is not trivial. For every 1000 patients screened, 250 people will have a positive LDCT finding but will not have lung cancer.¹⁹ Furthermore, about 1 in every 2000 individuals who screen positive, but who do not have lung cancer, die as a result of complications from the ensuing work-up.⁶

Annual LDCT screening increases the risk of radiation-induced cancer by approximately 0.05% over 10 years.²¹ The absolute risk is generally low but not insignificant. However, the mortality benefits previously outlined are significantly more robust in both absolute and relative terms vs the 10-year risk of radiation-induced cancer.

The trial was discontinued prematurely when investigators noted a 20% reduction in lung cancer mortality in the lowdose computed tomography group vs the chest x-ray group.

Lastly, it is important to note that the NELSON trial and NLST included a limited number of LDCT scans. Current guidelines for lung cancer screening with LDCT, including those from the USPSTF, recommend screening annually. We do not know the cumulative harm of annual LDCT over a 20- or 30-year period for those who would qualify (ie, current smokers).

If you screen, you must be able to act on the results

Effective screening programs should extend beyond the LDCT scan itself. The studies that have shown a benefit of LDCT were done at large academic centers that had the appropriate radiologic, pathologic, and surgical infrastructure to interpret and act on results and offer further diagnostic or treatment procedures.

Continue to: Prior to screening...

Prior to screening for lung cancer with LDCT, documentation of shared decision-making between the patient and the clinician is necessary.⁷ This discussion should include the potential benefits and harms of screening, potential results and likelihood of follow-up diagnostic testing, the false-positive rate of LDCT lung cancer screening, and cumulative radiation exposure. In addition, screening should be considered only if the patient is willing to be screened annually, is willing to pursue follow-up scans and procedures (including lung biopsy) if deemed necessary, and does not have comorbid conditions that significantly limit life expectancy.

Smoking cessation: The most important change to make

Smoking cessation is the single most important risk-modifying behavior to reduce one’s chance of developing lung cancer. At age 40, smokers have a 2-fold increase in all-cause mortality compared to age-matched nonsmokers. This rises to a 3-fold increase by the age of 70.¹⁶

Smoking cessation reduces the risk of lung cancer by 20% after 5 years, 30% to 50% after 10 years, and up to 70% after 15 years.²⁴ In its guidelines, the American Thoracic Society recommends varenicline (Chantix) for all smokers to assist with smoking cessation.²⁵

CASE

This 51-year-old patient with at least a 20-pack-year history of smoking should be commended for giving up smoking. Based on the USPSTF recommendations, he should be screened annually with LDCT for the next 10 years.

Screening to save more lives

The results of 2 large multicenter RCTs have led to the recent recommendation for lung cancer screening of high-risk adults with the use of LDCT. Screening with LDCT has been shown to reduce disease-related mortality and likely be cost effective in the long term.

Screening with LDCT should be part of a multidisciplinary system that has the infrastructure not only to perform the screening, but also to diagnose and appropriately follow up and treat patients whose results are concerning. The risk of false-positive results leading to increased anxiety, overdiagnosis, and unnecessary procedures points to the importance of proper patient selection, counseling, and shared decision-making. Smoking cessation remains the most important disease-modifying behavior one can make to reduce their risk for lung cancer.

CORRESPONDENCE
Carlton J. Covey, MD, 101 Bodin Circle, David Grant Medical Center, Travis Air Force Base, Fairfield, CA, 94545; [email protected]

CASE

A 51-year-old man presents to your office to discuss lung cancer screening. He has a history of hypertension and prediabetes. His father died of lung cancer 5 years ago, at age 77. The patient stopped smoking soon thereafter; prior to that, he smoked 1 pack of cigarettes per day for 20 years. He wants to know if he should be screened for lung cancer.

The relative lack of symptoms during the early stages of lung cancer frequently results in a delayed diagnosis. This, and the speed at which the disease progresses, underscores the need for an effective screening modality. More than half of people with lung cancer die within 1 year of diagnosis.¹ Excluding skin cancer, lung cancer is the second most commonly diagnosed cancer, and more people die of lung cancer than of colon, breast, and prostate cancers combined.² In 2022, it was estimated that there would be 236,740 new cases of lung cancer and 130,180 deaths from lung cancer.^1,2 The average age at diagnosis is 70 years.²

Screening modalities: Only 1 has demonstrated mortality benefit

In 1968, Wilson and Junger³ outlined the characteristics of the ideal screening test for the World Health Organization: it should limit risk to the patient, be sensitive for detecting the disease early in its course, limit false-positive results, be acceptable to the patient, and be inexpensive to the health system.³ For decades, several screening modalities for lung cancer were trialed to fit the above guidance, but many of them fell short of the most important outcome: the impact on mortality.

Sputum cytology. The use of sputum cytology, either in combination with or without chest radiography, is not recommended. Several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have failed to demonstrate improved lung cancer detection or mortality reduction in patients screened with this modality.⁴

Chest radiography (CXR). Several studies have assessed the efficacy of CXR as a screening modality. The best known was the Prostate, Lung, Colon, Ovarian (PLCO) Trial.⁵ This multicenter RCT enrolled more than 154,000 participants, half of whom received CXR at baseline and then annually for 3 years; the other half continued usual care (no screening). After 13 years of follow-up, there were no significant differences in lung cancer detection or mortality rates between the 2 groups.⁵

Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT). Several major medical societies recommend LDCT to screen high-risk individuals for lung cancer (TABLE 1^6-10). Results from 2 major RCTs have guided these recommendations.

At this time, low-dose computed tomography is the only lung cancer screening modality that has shown benefit for both disease-related and all-cause mortality.

The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) was a multicenter RCT comparing 2 screening tests for lung cancer.¹¹ Approximately 54,000 high-risk participants were enrolled between 2002 and 2004 and were randomized to receive annual screening with either LDCT or single-view CXR. The trial was discontinued prematurely when investigators noted a 20% reduction in lung cancer mortality in the LDCT group vs the CXR group.¹² This equates to 3 fewer deaths for every 1000 people screened with LDCT vs CXR. There was also a 6% reduction in all-cause mortality noted in the LDCT vs the CXR group.¹²

Continue to: The NELSON trial...

The NELSON trial, conducted between 2005 and 2015, studied more than 15,000 current or former smokers ages 50 to 74 years and compared LDCT screening at various intervals to no screening.¹³ After 10 years, lung cancer–related mortality was reduced by 24% (or 1 less death per 1000 person-years) in men who were screened vs their unscreened counterparts.¹³ In contrast to the NLST, in the NELSON trial, no significant difference in all-cause mortality was observed. Subgroup analysis of the relatively small population of women included in the NELSON trial suggested a 33% reduction in 10-year mortality; however, the difference was nonsignificant between the screened and unscreened groups.¹³

Each of these landmark studies had characteristics that could limit the results' generalizability to the US population. In the NELSON trial, more than 80% of the study participants were male. In both trials, there was significant underrepresentation of Black, Asian, Hispanic, and other non-White people.^12,13 Furthermore, participants in these studies were of higher socioeconomic status than the general US screening-eligible population.

At this time, LDCT is the only lung cancer screening modality that has shown benefit for both disease-related and all-cause mortality, in the populations that were studied. Based on the NLST, the number needed to screen (NNS) with LDCT to prevent 1 lung cancer–related death is 308. The NNS to prevent 1 death from any cause is 219.⁶

Updated evidence has led to a consensus on screening criteria

Many national societies endorse annual screening with LDCT in high-risk individuals (TABLE 1^6-10). Risk assessment for the purpose of lung cancer screening includes a detailed review of smoking history and age. The risk of lung cancer increases with advancing age and with cumulative quantity and duration of smoking, but decreases with increasing time since quitting. Therefore, a detailed smoking history should include total number of pack-years, current smoking status, and, if applicable, when smoking cessation occurred.

In 2021, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) updated their 2013 lung cancer screening recommendations, expanding the screening age range and lowering the smoking history threshold for triggering initiation of screening.⁶ The impetus for the update was emerging evidence from systematic reviews, RCTs, and the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network ­(CISNET) that could help to determine the optimal age for screening and identify high-risk groups. For example, the NELSON trial, combined with results from CISNET modeling data, showed an empirical benefit for screening those ages 50 to 55 years.⁶

Continue to: As a result...

As a result, the USPSTF now recommends annual lung cancer screening with LDCT for any adult ages 50 to 80 years who has a 20-pack-year smoking history and currently smokes or has quit within the past 15 years.⁶ Screening should be discontinued once a person has not smoked for 15 years, develops a health problem that substantially limits life expectancy, or is not willing to have curative lung surgery.⁶

Expanding the screening eligibility may also address racial and gender disparities in health care. Black people and women who smoke have a higher risk for lung cancer at a lower intensity of smoking.⁶

Following the USPSTF update, the American College of Chest Physicians and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services published updated guidance that aligns with USPSTF’s recommendations to lower the age and pack-year qualifications for initiating screening.^7,10 The American Cancer Society is currently reviewing its 2018 guidelines on lung cancer screening.¹⁴TABLE 1^6-10 summarizes the guidance on lung cancer screening from these medical societies.

Effective screening could save lives (and money)

A smoker’s risk for lung cancer is 20 times higher than that of a nonsmoker^15,16; 55% of lung cancer deaths in women and 70% in men are attributed to smoking.¹⁷ Once diagnosed with lung cancer, more than 50% of people will die within 1 year.¹ This underpins the need for a lung cancer screening modality that reduces mortality. Large RCTs, including the NLST and NELSONtrials, have shown that screening high-risk individuals with LDCT can significantly reduce lung cancer–related death when compared to no screening or screening with CXR alone.^11,13

There is controversy surrounding the cost benefit of implementing a nationwide lung cancer screening program. However, recent use of microsimulation models has shown LDCT to be a cost-effective strategy, with an average cost of $81,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, which is below the threshold of $100,000 to be considered cost effective.¹⁸ Expanding the upper age limit for screening leads to a greater reduction in mortality but increases treatment costs and overdiagnosis rates, and overall does not improve quality-adjusted life-years.¹⁸

Continue to: Potential harms

Potential harms: False-positives and related complications

Screening for lung cancer is not without its risks. Harms from screening typically result from false-positive test results leading to over­diagnosis, anxiety and distress, unnecessary invasive tests or procedures, and increased costs.¹⁹TABLE 2^6,19-23 lists specific complications from lung cancer screening with LDCT.

The false-positive rate is not trivial. For every 1000 patients screened, 250 people will have a positive LDCT finding but will not have lung cancer.¹⁹ Furthermore, about 1 in every 2000 individuals who screen positive, but who do not have lung cancer, die as a result of complications from the ensuing work-up.⁶

Annual LDCT screening increases the risk of radiation-induced cancer by approximately 0.05% over 10 years.²¹ The absolute risk is generally low but not insignificant. However, the mortality benefits previously outlined are significantly more robust in both absolute and relative terms vs the 10-year risk of radiation-induced cancer.

The trial was discontinued prematurely when investigators noted a 20% reduction in lung cancer mortality in the lowdose computed tomography group vs the chest x-ray group.

Lastly, it is important to note that the NELSON trial and NLST included a limited number of LDCT scans. Current guidelines for lung cancer screening with LDCT, including those from the USPSTF, recommend screening annually. We do not know the cumulative harm of annual LDCT over a 20- or 30-year period for those who would qualify (ie, current smokers).

If you screen, you must be able to act on the results

Effective screening programs should extend beyond the LDCT scan itself. The studies that have shown a benefit of LDCT were done at large academic centers that had the appropriate radiologic, pathologic, and surgical infrastructure to interpret and act on results and offer further diagnostic or treatment procedures.

Continue to: Prior to screening...

Prior to screening for lung cancer with LDCT, documentation of shared decision-making between the patient and the clinician is necessary.⁷ This discussion should include the potential benefits and harms of screening, potential results and likelihood of follow-up diagnostic testing, the false-positive rate of LDCT lung cancer screening, and cumulative radiation exposure. In addition, screening should be considered only if the patient is willing to be screened annually, is willing to pursue follow-up scans and procedures (including lung biopsy) if deemed necessary, and does not have comorbid conditions that significantly limit life expectancy.

Smoking cessation: The most important change to make

Smoking cessation is the single most important risk-modifying behavior to reduce one’s chance of developing lung cancer. At age 40, smokers have a 2-fold increase in all-cause mortality compared to age-matched nonsmokers. This rises to a 3-fold increase by the age of 70.¹⁶

Smoking cessation reduces the risk of lung cancer by 20% after 5 years, 30% to 50% after 10 years, and up to 70% after 15 years.²⁴ In its guidelines, the American Thoracic Society recommends varenicline (Chantix) for all smokers to assist with smoking cessation.²⁵

CASE

This 51-year-old patient with at least a 20-pack-year history of smoking should be commended for giving up smoking. Based on the USPSTF recommendations, he should be screened annually with LDCT for the next 10 years.

Screening to save more lives

The results of 2 large multicenter RCTs have led to the recent recommendation for lung cancer screening of high-risk adults with the use of LDCT. Screening with LDCT has been shown to reduce disease-related mortality and likely be cost effective in the long term.

Screening with LDCT should be part of a multidisciplinary system that has the infrastructure not only to perform the screening, but also to diagnose and appropriately follow up and treat patients whose results are concerning. The risk of false-positive results leading to increased anxiety, overdiagnosis, and unnecessary procedures points to the importance of proper patient selection, counseling, and shared decision-making. Smoking cessation remains the most important disease-modifying behavior one can make to reduce their risk for lung cancer.

CORRESPONDENCE
Carlton J. Covey, MD, 101 Bodin Circle, David Grant Medical Center, Travis Air Force Base, Fairfield, CA, 94545; [email protected]

PHILADELPHIA – Combining the immunomodulatory agent mycophenolate with the antifibrotic pirfenidone led to more rapid improvement and showed a trend to be more effective than mycophenolate mofetil alone for treating the signs and symptoms of scleroderma-related interstitial lung disease, but the combination therapy came with an increase in side effects, according to results from the Scleroderma Lung Study III.

Dinesh Khanna, MBBS, MSc, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, presented the results at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. He noted some problems with the study – namely its small size, enrolling only 51 patients, about one-third of its original goal. But he also said it showed a potential signal for efficacy and that the study itself could serve as a “template” for future studies of combination mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) plus pirfenidone therapy for scleroderma-related interstitial lung disease (SSc-ILD).

“The pirfenidone patients had quite a bit more GI side effects and photosensitivity, and those are known side effects,” Dr. Khanna said in an interview. “So the combination therapy had more side effects but trends to higher efficacy.”

The design of SLS-III, a phase 2 clinical trial, was a challenge, Dr. Khanna explained. The goal was to enroll 150 SSc-ILD patients who hadn’t had any previous treatment for their disease. Finding those patients proved difficult. “In fact, if you look at the recent history, 70% of the patients with early diffuse scleroderma are on MMF,” he said in his presentation. Compounding low study enrollment was the intervening COVID-19 pandemic, he added.
 

Testing a faster-acting combination

Nonetheless, the trial managed to enroll 27 patients in the combination therapy group and 24 in the MMF-plus-placebo group and compared their outcomes over 18 months. Study dosing was 1,500 mg MMF twice daily and pirfenidone 801 mg three times daily, titrated to the tolerable dose.

Despite the study’s being underpowered, Dr. Khanna said, it still reported some notable outcomes that merit further investigation. “I think what was intriguing in the study was the long-term benefit in the patient-reported outcomes and the structural changes,” he said in the interview.

Among those notable outcomes was a clinically significant change in forced vital capacity (FVC) percentage for the combination vs. the placebo groups: 2.24% vs. 2.09%. He also noted that the combination group saw a somewhat more robust improvement in FVC at six months: 2.59% (± 0.98%) vs. 0.92% (± 1.1%) in the placebo group.

The combination group showed greater improvements in high-resolution computed tomography-evaluated lung involvement and lung fibrosis and patient-reported outcomes, including a statistically significant 3.67-point greater improvement in PROMIS-29 physical function score (4.42 vs. 0.75).

The patients on combination therapy had higher rates of serious adverse events (SAEs), and seven discontinued one or both study drugs early, all in the combined arm. Four combination therapy patients had six SAEs, compared to two placebo patients with three SAEs. In the combination group, SAEs included chest pain, herpes zoster ophthalmicus, nodular basal cell cancer, marginal zone B cell lymphoma, renal crisis, and dyspnea. SAEs in the placebo group were colitis, COVID-19 and hypoxic respiratory failure.

Study design challenges

Nonetheless, Dr. Khanna said the SLS-III data are consistent with the SLS-II findings, with mean improvements in FVC of 2.24% and 2.1%, respectively.

“The next study may be able to replicate what we tried to do, keeping in mind that there are really no MMF-naive patients who are walking around,” Dr. Khanna said. “So the challenge is about the feasibility of recruiting within a trial vs. trying to show a statistical difference between the drug and placebo.”

This study could serve as a foundation for future studies of MMF in patients with SSc-ILD, Robert Spiera, MD, of the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, said in an interview. “There are lessons to be learned both from the study but also from prior studies looking at MMF use in the background in patients treated with other drugs in clinical trials,” he said.

Dr. Spiera noted that the study had other challenges besides the difficulty in recruiting patients who hadn’t been on MMF therapy. “A great challenge is that the benefit with regard to the impact on the lungs from MMF seems most prominent in the first 6 months to a year to even 2 years that somebody is on the drug,” he said.

The other challenge with this study is that a large proportion of patients had limited systemic disease and relatively lower levels of skin disease compared with other studies of patients on MMF, Dr. Spiera said.

“The optimal treatment of scleroderma-associated lung disease remains a very important and not-adequately met need,” he said. “Particularly, we’re looking for drugs that are tolerable in a patient population that are very prone to GI side effects in general. This study and others have taught us a lot about trial design, and I think more globally this will allow us to move this field forward.”

Dr. Khanna disclosed relationships with Actelion, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CSL Behring, Horizon Therapeutics USA, Janssen Global Services, Prometheus Biosciences, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corp., Genentech/Roche, Theraly, and Pfizer. Genentech provided funding for the study and pirfenidone and placebo drugs at no cost.

Dr. Spiera disclosed relationships with GlaxoSmithKline, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Corbus Pharmaceutical, InflaRx, AbbVie/Abbott, Sanofi, Novartis, Chemocentryx, Roche and Vera.

PHILADELPHIA – Combining the immunomodulatory agent mycophenolate with the antifibrotic pirfenidone led to more rapid improvement and showed a trend to be more effective than mycophenolate mofetil alone for treating the signs and symptoms of scleroderma-related interstitial lung disease, but the combination therapy came with an increase in side effects, according to results from the Scleroderma Lung Study III.

Dinesh Khanna, MBBS, MSc, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, presented the results at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. He noted some problems with the study – namely its small size, enrolling only 51 patients, about one-third of its original goal. But he also said it showed a potential signal for efficacy and that the study itself could serve as a “template” for future studies of combination mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) plus pirfenidone therapy for scleroderma-related interstitial lung disease (SSc-ILD).

“The pirfenidone patients had quite a bit more GI side effects and photosensitivity, and those are known side effects,” Dr. Khanna said in an interview. “So the combination therapy had more side effects but trends to higher efficacy.”

The design of SLS-III, a phase 2 clinical trial, was a challenge, Dr. Khanna explained. The goal was to enroll 150 SSc-ILD patients who hadn’t had any previous treatment for their disease. Finding those patients proved difficult. “In fact, if you look at the recent history, 70% of the patients with early diffuse scleroderma are on MMF,” he said in his presentation. Compounding low study enrollment was the intervening COVID-19 pandemic, he added.
 

Testing a faster-acting combination

Nonetheless, the trial managed to enroll 27 patients in the combination therapy group and 24 in the MMF-plus-placebo group and compared their outcomes over 18 months. Study dosing was 1,500 mg MMF twice daily and pirfenidone 801 mg three times daily, titrated to the tolerable dose.

Despite the study’s being underpowered, Dr. Khanna said, it still reported some notable outcomes that merit further investigation. “I think what was intriguing in the study was the long-term benefit in the patient-reported outcomes and the structural changes,” he said in the interview.

Among those notable outcomes was a clinically significant change in forced vital capacity (FVC) percentage for the combination vs. the placebo groups: 2.24% vs. 2.09%. He also noted that the combination group saw a somewhat more robust improvement in FVC at six months: 2.59% (± 0.98%) vs. 0.92% (± 1.1%) in the placebo group.

The combination group showed greater improvements in high-resolution computed tomography-evaluated lung involvement and lung fibrosis and patient-reported outcomes, including a statistically significant 3.67-point greater improvement in PROMIS-29 physical function score (4.42 vs. 0.75).

The patients on combination therapy had higher rates of serious adverse events (SAEs), and seven discontinued one or both study drugs early, all in the combined arm. Four combination therapy patients had six SAEs, compared to two placebo patients with three SAEs. In the combination group, SAEs included chest pain, herpes zoster ophthalmicus, nodular basal cell cancer, marginal zone B cell lymphoma, renal crisis, and dyspnea. SAEs in the placebo group were colitis, COVID-19 and hypoxic respiratory failure.

Study design challenges

Nonetheless, Dr. Khanna said the SLS-III data are consistent with the SLS-II findings, with mean improvements in FVC of 2.24% and 2.1%, respectively.

“The next study may be able to replicate what we tried to do, keeping in mind that there are really no MMF-naive patients who are walking around,” Dr. Khanna said. “So the challenge is about the feasibility of recruiting within a trial vs. trying to show a statistical difference between the drug and placebo.”

This study could serve as a foundation for future studies of MMF in patients with SSc-ILD, Robert Spiera, MD, of the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, said in an interview. “There are lessons to be learned both from the study but also from prior studies looking at MMF use in the background in patients treated with other drugs in clinical trials,” he said.

Dr. Spiera noted that the study had other challenges besides the difficulty in recruiting patients who hadn’t been on MMF therapy. “A great challenge is that the benefit with regard to the impact on the lungs from MMF seems most prominent in the first 6 months to a year to even 2 years that somebody is on the drug,” he said.

The other challenge with this study is that a large proportion of patients had limited systemic disease and relatively lower levels of skin disease compared with other studies of patients on MMF, Dr. Spiera said.

“The optimal treatment of scleroderma-associated lung disease remains a very important and not-adequately met need,” he said. “Particularly, we’re looking for drugs that are tolerable in a patient population that are very prone to GI side effects in general. This study and others have taught us a lot about trial design, and I think more globally this will allow us to move this field forward.”

Dr. Khanna disclosed relationships with Actelion, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CSL Behring, Horizon Therapeutics USA, Janssen Global Services, Prometheus Biosciences, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corp., Genentech/Roche, Theraly, and Pfizer. Genentech provided funding for the study and pirfenidone and placebo drugs at no cost.

Dr. Spiera disclosed relationships with GlaxoSmithKline, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Corbus Pharmaceutical, InflaRx, AbbVie/Abbott, Sanofi, Novartis, Chemocentryx, Roche and Vera.

PHILADELPHIA – Combining the immunomodulatory agent mycophenolate with the antifibrotic pirfenidone led to more rapid improvement and showed a trend to be more effective than mycophenolate mofetil alone for treating the signs and symptoms of scleroderma-related interstitial lung disease, but the combination therapy came with an increase in side effects, according to results from the Scleroderma Lung Study III.

Dinesh Khanna, MBBS, MSc, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, presented the results at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. He noted some problems with the study – namely its small size, enrolling only 51 patients, about one-third of its original goal. But he also said it showed a potential signal for efficacy and that the study itself could serve as a “template” for future studies of combination mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) plus pirfenidone therapy for scleroderma-related interstitial lung disease (SSc-ILD).

“The pirfenidone patients had quite a bit more GI side effects and photosensitivity, and those are known side effects,” Dr. Khanna said in an interview. “So the combination therapy had more side effects but trends to higher efficacy.”

The design of SLS-III, a phase 2 clinical trial, was a challenge, Dr. Khanna explained. The goal was to enroll 150 SSc-ILD patients who hadn’t had any previous treatment for their disease. Finding those patients proved difficult. “In fact, if you look at the recent history, 70% of the patients with early diffuse scleroderma are on MMF,” he said in his presentation. Compounding low study enrollment was the intervening COVID-19 pandemic, he added.
 

Testing a faster-acting combination

Nonetheless, the trial managed to enroll 27 patients in the combination therapy group and 24 in the MMF-plus-placebo group and compared their outcomes over 18 months. Study dosing was 1,500 mg MMF twice daily and pirfenidone 801 mg three times daily, titrated to the tolerable dose.

Despite the study’s being underpowered, Dr. Khanna said, it still reported some notable outcomes that merit further investigation. “I think what was intriguing in the study was the long-term benefit in the patient-reported outcomes and the structural changes,” he said in the interview.

Among those notable outcomes was a clinically significant change in forced vital capacity (FVC) percentage for the combination vs. the placebo groups: 2.24% vs. 2.09%. He also noted that the combination group saw a somewhat more robust improvement in FVC at six months: 2.59% (± 0.98%) vs. 0.92% (± 1.1%) in the placebo group.

The combination group showed greater improvements in high-resolution computed tomography-evaluated lung involvement and lung fibrosis and patient-reported outcomes, including a statistically significant 3.67-point greater improvement in PROMIS-29 physical function score (4.42 vs. 0.75).

The patients on combination therapy had higher rates of serious adverse events (SAEs), and seven discontinued one or both study drugs early, all in the combined arm. Four combination therapy patients had six SAEs, compared to two placebo patients with three SAEs. In the combination group, SAEs included chest pain, herpes zoster ophthalmicus, nodular basal cell cancer, marginal zone B cell lymphoma, renal crisis, and dyspnea. SAEs in the placebo group were colitis, COVID-19 and hypoxic respiratory failure.

Study design challenges

Nonetheless, Dr. Khanna said the SLS-III data are consistent with the SLS-II findings, with mean improvements in FVC of 2.24% and 2.1%, respectively.

“The next study may be able to replicate what we tried to do, keeping in mind that there are really no MMF-naive patients who are walking around,” Dr. Khanna said. “So the challenge is about the feasibility of recruiting within a trial vs. trying to show a statistical difference between the drug and placebo.”

This study could serve as a foundation for future studies of MMF in patients with SSc-ILD, Robert Spiera, MD, of the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, said in an interview. “There are lessons to be learned both from the study but also from prior studies looking at MMF use in the background in patients treated with other drugs in clinical trials,” he said.

Dr. Spiera noted that the study had other challenges besides the difficulty in recruiting patients who hadn’t been on MMF therapy. “A great challenge is that the benefit with regard to the impact on the lungs from MMF seems most prominent in the first 6 months to a year to even 2 years that somebody is on the drug,” he said.

The other challenge with this study is that a large proportion of patients had limited systemic disease and relatively lower levels of skin disease compared with other studies of patients on MMF, Dr. Spiera said.

“The optimal treatment of scleroderma-associated lung disease remains a very important and not-adequately met need,” he said. “Particularly, we’re looking for drugs that are tolerable in a patient population that are very prone to GI side effects in general. This study and others have taught us a lot about trial design, and I think more globally this will allow us to move this field forward.”

Dr. Khanna disclosed relationships with Actelion, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CSL Behring, Horizon Therapeutics USA, Janssen Global Services, Prometheus Biosciences, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corp., Genentech/Roche, Theraly, and Pfizer. Genentech provided funding for the study and pirfenidone and placebo drugs at no cost.

Dr. Spiera disclosed relationships with GlaxoSmithKline, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Corbus Pharmaceutical, InflaRx, AbbVie/Abbott, Sanofi, Novartis, Chemocentryx, Roche and Vera.

PHILADELPHIA – In the first controlled clinical trial to compare the two drugs, rituximab and cyclophosphamide were similarly effective in improving lung function in patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD) associated with idiopathic inflammatory myositis and mixed connective tissue disease (CTD). The findings also revealed some nuanced findings that could help clarify which drug to use in specific patients.

“We feel that rituximab is a reasonable alternative to cyclophosphamide as a treatment in patients with these diseases,” said Toby Maher, MD, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, who presented results of an analysis of three disease subgroups from the RECITAL (Rituximab versus Cyclophosphamide for the Treatment of Connective Tissue Disease Associated Interstitial Lung Disease) study at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

“We didn’t show it to be better, so I think you can reasonably choose between the two, but rituximab almost certainly has the advantage of being safer and better tolerated than cyclophosphamide,” Dr. Maher said in an interview. The findings were published simultaneously in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine.
 

Double-blind, double-dummy

RECITAL is a phase 2b, randomized, controlled trial to test the hypothesis that intravenous rituximab would be superior to cyclophosphamide for ILD-associated CTD.

The study included adults with three separate diagnoses: myositis (n = 44), mixed CTD (n = 16), and systemic sclerosis (SSc, n = 37). The study was done in the United Kingdom when Dr. Maher was with Imperial College London.

Patients in the rituximab group received 1,000 mg of IV treatment at baseline and 2 weeks, then placebo treatment every 4 weeks to week 20. Cyclophosphamide patients received 600 mg/m² of body surface area intravenously every 4 weeks for six doses.

“When we designed this study there was limited evidence for any treatment for any disease associated with ILD,” Dr. Maher said. “But cyclophosphamide brings with it many challenges. It can be poorly tolerated and carries issues like infertility and risk of bladder cancer.”
 

Improved lung function

While the study failed to meet its primary endpoint – superiority of rituximab versus cyclophosphamide – it did show that both drugs led to improvement in lung function, measured by the rate of change in forced vital capacity (FVC), as well as quality of life measures, Dr. Maher said.

“Overall by week 48, we saw about a 5% improvement in FVC in the cyclophosphamide group and approximately a 4% improvement in FVC from baseline in the rituximab group, suggesting that both drugs almost certainly had a positive benefit in this patient group,” he said.

But secondary outcomes varied somewhat across the different disease groups. Patients with SSc saw a slight deterioration with cyclophosphamide in the modified Rodnan skin score at 24 weeks (1.6 ± 5.7 units) but an improvement with rituximab (–3.4 ± 8.1 units).

“One area where we did see a difference was in the number of adverse events,” Dr. Maher said. “They were fewer in the rituximab arm – namely gastrointestinal disorders [and] nausea, which we saw quite frequently following cyclophosphamide. Also, they had fewer headaches, which we saw quite frequently following cyclophosphamide.”

Rituximab patients also had fewer infusion reactions, but the number of infections was similar between the two treatment groups, he said.

“The patient group that responded best to treatment was the myositis group,” Dr. Maher said in his presentation. “Cyclophosphamide actually appears to be more effective than rituximab in improving their disease. By the end of 48 weeks, the cyclophosphamide group actually gained about 400 mL in FVC, so a close to 20% improvement.”

The rituximab group had “a little bit of a drop-off” in efficacy from weeks 24 to 48, although the trial didn’t repeat dosing at 6 months, “which is what perhaps one might do in clinical practice,” he said.

Oliver Distler, MD, chair of rheumatology at the University Hospital Zürich, raised questions about concurrent corticosteroid use in study patients that may have caused a “spillover” in the study’s efficacy analysis. But Dr. Maher noted that steroid use was balanced in all treatment arms. Patients in the cyclophosphamide arm averaged 42.9 mg of hydrocortisone daily versus 37.6 mg daily in the rituximab arm. That represents a 12.3% reduction in steroid exposure for the latter.

Dr. Distler noted that the myositis population represented the bulk of those study patients on steroids. “So in the myositis subanalysis we do see a combination of high-dose steroid plus cyclophosphamide and rituximab.”

Dr. Maher disclosed relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Trevi, CSL Behring, Pliant and Veracyte. Dr. Distler disclosed relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.






 

PHILADELPHIA – In the first controlled clinical trial to compare the two drugs, rituximab and cyclophosphamide were similarly effective in improving lung function in patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD) associated with idiopathic inflammatory myositis and mixed connective tissue disease (CTD). The findings also revealed some nuanced findings that could help clarify which drug to use in specific patients.

“We feel that rituximab is a reasonable alternative to cyclophosphamide as a treatment in patients with these diseases,” said Toby Maher, MD, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, who presented results of an analysis of three disease subgroups from the RECITAL (Rituximab versus Cyclophosphamide for the Treatment of Connective Tissue Disease Associated Interstitial Lung Disease) study at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

“We didn’t show it to be better, so I think you can reasonably choose between the two, but rituximab almost certainly has the advantage of being safer and better tolerated than cyclophosphamide,” Dr. Maher said in an interview. The findings were published simultaneously in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine.
 

Double-blind, double-dummy

RECITAL is a phase 2b, randomized, controlled trial to test the hypothesis that intravenous rituximab would be superior to cyclophosphamide for ILD-associated CTD.

The study included adults with three separate diagnoses: myositis (n = 44), mixed CTD (n = 16), and systemic sclerosis (SSc, n = 37). The study was done in the United Kingdom when Dr. Maher was with Imperial College London.

Patients in the rituximab group received 1,000 mg of IV treatment at baseline and 2 weeks, then placebo treatment every 4 weeks to week 20. Cyclophosphamide patients received 600 mg/m² of body surface area intravenously every 4 weeks for six doses.

“When we designed this study there was limited evidence for any treatment for any disease associated with ILD,” Dr. Maher said. “But cyclophosphamide brings with it many challenges. It can be poorly tolerated and carries issues like infertility and risk of bladder cancer.”
 

Improved lung function

While the study failed to meet its primary endpoint – superiority of rituximab versus cyclophosphamide – it did show that both drugs led to improvement in lung function, measured by the rate of change in forced vital capacity (FVC), as well as quality of life measures, Dr. Maher said.

“Overall by week 48, we saw about a 5% improvement in FVC in the cyclophosphamide group and approximately a 4% improvement in FVC from baseline in the rituximab group, suggesting that both drugs almost certainly had a positive benefit in this patient group,” he said.

But secondary outcomes varied somewhat across the different disease groups. Patients with SSc saw a slight deterioration with cyclophosphamide in the modified Rodnan skin score at 24 weeks (1.6 ± 5.7 units) but an improvement with rituximab (–3.4 ± 8.1 units).

“One area where we did see a difference was in the number of adverse events,” Dr. Maher said. “They were fewer in the rituximab arm – namely gastrointestinal disorders [and] nausea, which we saw quite frequently following cyclophosphamide. Also, they had fewer headaches, which we saw quite frequently following cyclophosphamide.”

Rituximab patients also had fewer infusion reactions, but the number of infections was similar between the two treatment groups, he said.

“The patient group that responded best to treatment was the myositis group,” Dr. Maher said in his presentation. “Cyclophosphamide actually appears to be more effective than rituximab in improving their disease. By the end of 48 weeks, the cyclophosphamide group actually gained about 400 mL in FVC, so a close to 20% improvement.”

The rituximab group had “a little bit of a drop-off” in efficacy from weeks 24 to 48, although the trial didn’t repeat dosing at 6 months, “which is what perhaps one might do in clinical practice,” he said.

Oliver Distler, MD, chair of rheumatology at the University Hospital Zürich, raised questions about concurrent corticosteroid use in study patients that may have caused a “spillover” in the study’s efficacy analysis. But Dr. Maher noted that steroid use was balanced in all treatment arms. Patients in the cyclophosphamide arm averaged 42.9 mg of hydrocortisone daily versus 37.6 mg daily in the rituximab arm. That represents a 12.3% reduction in steroid exposure for the latter.

Dr. Distler noted that the myositis population represented the bulk of those study patients on steroids. “So in the myositis subanalysis we do see a combination of high-dose steroid plus cyclophosphamide and rituximab.”

Dr. Maher disclosed relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Trevi, CSL Behring, Pliant and Veracyte. Dr. Distler disclosed relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.






 

PHILADELPHIA – In the first controlled clinical trial to compare the two drugs, rituximab and cyclophosphamide were similarly effective in improving lung function in patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD) associated with idiopathic inflammatory myositis and mixed connective tissue disease (CTD). The findings also revealed some nuanced findings that could help clarify which drug to use in specific patients.

“We feel that rituximab is a reasonable alternative to cyclophosphamide as a treatment in patients with these diseases,” said Toby Maher, MD, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, who presented results of an analysis of three disease subgroups from the RECITAL (Rituximab versus Cyclophosphamide for the Treatment of Connective Tissue Disease Associated Interstitial Lung Disease) study at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

“We didn’t show it to be better, so I think you can reasonably choose between the two, but rituximab almost certainly has the advantage of being safer and better tolerated than cyclophosphamide,” Dr. Maher said in an interview. The findings were published simultaneously in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine.
 

Double-blind, double-dummy

RECITAL is a phase 2b, randomized, controlled trial to test the hypothesis that intravenous rituximab would be superior to cyclophosphamide for ILD-associated CTD.

The study included adults with three separate diagnoses: myositis (n = 44), mixed CTD (n = 16), and systemic sclerosis (SSc, n = 37). The study was done in the United Kingdom when Dr. Maher was with Imperial College London.

Patients in the rituximab group received 1,000 mg of IV treatment at baseline and 2 weeks, then placebo treatment every 4 weeks to week 20. Cyclophosphamide patients received 600 mg/m² of body surface area intravenously every 4 weeks for six doses.

“When we designed this study there was limited evidence for any treatment for any disease associated with ILD,” Dr. Maher said. “But cyclophosphamide brings with it many challenges. It can be poorly tolerated and carries issues like infertility and risk of bladder cancer.”
 

Improved lung function

While the study failed to meet its primary endpoint – superiority of rituximab versus cyclophosphamide – it did show that both drugs led to improvement in lung function, measured by the rate of change in forced vital capacity (FVC), as well as quality of life measures, Dr. Maher said.

“Overall by week 48, we saw about a 5% improvement in FVC in the cyclophosphamide group and approximately a 4% improvement in FVC from baseline in the rituximab group, suggesting that both drugs almost certainly had a positive benefit in this patient group,” he said.

But secondary outcomes varied somewhat across the different disease groups. Patients with SSc saw a slight deterioration with cyclophosphamide in the modified Rodnan skin score at 24 weeks (1.6 ± 5.7 units) but an improvement with rituximab (–3.4 ± 8.1 units).

“One area where we did see a difference was in the number of adverse events,” Dr. Maher said. “They were fewer in the rituximab arm – namely gastrointestinal disorders [and] nausea, which we saw quite frequently following cyclophosphamide. Also, they had fewer headaches, which we saw quite frequently following cyclophosphamide.”

Rituximab patients also had fewer infusion reactions, but the number of infections was similar between the two treatment groups, he said.

“The patient group that responded best to treatment was the myositis group,” Dr. Maher said in his presentation. “Cyclophosphamide actually appears to be more effective than rituximab in improving their disease. By the end of 48 weeks, the cyclophosphamide group actually gained about 400 mL in FVC, so a close to 20% improvement.”

The rituximab group had “a little bit of a drop-off” in efficacy from weeks 24 to 48, although the trial didn’t repeat dosing at 6 months, “which is what perhaps one might do in clinical practice,” he said.

Oliver Distler, MD, chair of rheumatology at the University Hospital Zürich, raised questions about concurrent corticosteroid use in study patients that may have caused a “spillover” in the study’s efficacy analysis. But Dr. Maher noted that steroid use was balanced in all treatment arms. Patients in the cyclophosphamide arm averaged 42.9 mg of hydrocortisone daily versus 37.6 mg daily in the rituximab arm. That represents a 12.3% reduction in steroid exposure for the latter.

Dr. Distler noted that the myositis population represented the bulk of those study patients on steroids. “So in the myositis subanalysis we do see a combination of high-dose steroid plus cyclophosphamide and rituximab.”

Dr. Maher disclosed relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Trevi, CSL Behring, Pliant and Veracyte. Dr. Distler disclosed relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.






 

This Veterans Day we honor the passing of the largest expansion of veterans benefits and services in history. On August 10, 2022, President Biden signed the Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics (PACT) Act. This act was named for a combat medic who died of a rare form of lung cancer believed to be the result of a toxic military exposure. His widow was present during the President's State of the Union address that urged Congress to pass the legislation.² 

Like all other congressional bills and government regulations, the PACT Act is complex in its details and still a work in progress. Simply put, the PACT Act expands and/or extends enrollment for a group of previously ineligible veterans. Eligibility will no longer require that veterans demonstrate a service-connected disability due to toxic exposure, including those from burn pits. This has long been a barrier for many veterans seeking benefits and not just related to toxic exposures. Logistical barriers and documentary losses have prevented many service members from establishing a clean chain of evidence for the injuries or illnesses they sustained while in uniform.
 
The new process is a massive step forward by the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to establish high standards of procedural justice for settling beneficiary claims. The PACT Act removes the burden from the shoulders of the veteran and places it squarely on the VA to demonstrate that > 20 different medical conditions--primarily cancers and respiratory illnesses--are linked to toxic exposure. The VA must establish that exposure occurred to cohorts of service members in specific theaters and time frames. A veteran who served in that area and period and has one of the indexed illnesses is presumed to have been exposed in the line of duty.^3,4

As a result, the VA instituted a new screening process to determine that toxic military exposures (a) led to illness; and (b) both exposure and illness are connected to service. According to the VA, the new process is evidence based, transparent, and allows the VA to fast-track policy decisions related to exposures. The PACT Act includes a provision intended to promote sustained implementation and prevent the program from succumbing as so many new initiatives have to inadequate adoption. VA is required to deploy its considerable internal research capacity to collaborate with external partners in and outside government to study military members with toxic exposures.⁴ 

Congress had initially proposed that the provisions of the PACT ACT would take effect in 2026, providing time to ramp up the process. The White House and VA telescoped that time line so veterans can begin now to apply for benefits that they could foreseeably receive in 2023. However, a long-standing problem for the VA has been unfunded agency or congressional mandates. These have often end in undermining the legislative intention or policy purpose of the program undermining their legislative intention or policy purpose through staffing shortages, leading to lack of or delayed access. The PACT Act promises to eschew the infamous Phoenix problem by providing increased personnel, training infrastructure, and technology resources for both the Veterans Benefit Administration and the Veterans Health Administration. Ironically, many seasoned VA observers expect the PACT expansion will lead to even larger backlogs of claims as hundreds of newly eligible veterans are added to the extant rolls of those seeking benefits.⁵ 

An estimated 1 in 5 veterans may be entitled to PACT benefits. The PACT Act is the latest of a long uneven movement toward distributive justice for veteran benefits and services. It is fitting in the month of Veterans Day 2022 to trace that trajectory. Congress first passed veteran benefits legislation in 1917, focused on soldiers with disabilities. This resulted in a massive investment in building hospitals. Ironically, part of the impetus for VA health care was an earlier toxic military exposure. World War I service members suffered from the detrimental effects of mustard gas among other chemical byproducts. In 1924, VA benefits and services underwent a momentous opening to include individuals with non-service-connected disabilities. Four years later, the VA tent became even bigger, welcoming women, National Guard, and militia members to receive care under its auspices.⁶ 

The PACT Act is a fitting memorial for Veterans Day as an increasingly divided country presents a unified response to veterans and their survivors exposed to a variety of toxins across multiple wars. The PACT Act was hard won with veterans and their advocates having to fight years of political bickering, government abdication of accountability, and scientific sparring before this bipartisan legislation passed.⁷ It covers Vietnam War veterans with several conditions due to Agent Orange exposure; Gulf War and post-9/11 veterans with cancer and respiratory conditions; and the service members deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq afflicted with illnesses due to the smoke of burn pits and other toxins. 

As many areas of the country roll back LGBTQ+ rights to health care and social services, the VA has emerged as a leader in the movement for diversity and inclusion. VA Secretary McDonough provided a pathway to VA eligibility for other than honorably discharged veterans, including those LGBTQ+ persons discharged under Don't Ask, Don't Tell.⁸ Lest we take this new inclusivity for granted, we should never forget that this journey toward equity for the military and VA has been long, slow, and uneven. There are many difficult miles yet to travel if we are to achieve liberty and justice for veteran members of racial minorities, women, and other marginalized populations. Even the PACT Act does not cover all putative exposures to toxins.⁹ Yet it is a significant step closer to fulfilling the motto of the VA LGBTQ+ program: to serve all who served.¹⁰ 

This Veterans Day we honor the passing of the largest expansion of veterans benefits and services in history. On August 10, 2022, President Biden signed the Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics (PACT) Act. This act was named for a combat medic who died of a rare form of lung cancer believed to be the result of a toxic military exposure. His widow was present during the President's State of the Union address that urged Congress to pass the legislation.² 

Like all other congressional bills and government regulations, the PACT Act is complex in its details and still a work in progress. Simply put, the PACT Act expands and/or extends enrollment for a group of previously ineligible veterans. Eligibility will no longer require that veterans demonstrate a service-connected disability due to toxic exposure, including those from burn pits. This has long been a barrier for many veterans seeking benefits and not just related to toxic exposures. Logistical barriers and documentary losses have prevented many service members from establishing a clean chain of evidence for the injuries or illnesses they sustained while in uniform.
 
The new process is a massive step forward by the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to establish high standards of procedural justice for settling beneficiary claims. The PACT Act removes the burden from the shoulders of the veteran and places it squarely on the VA to demonstrate that > 20 different medical conditions--primarily cancers and respiratory illnesses--are linked to toxic exposure. The VA must establish that exposure occurred to cohorts of service members in specific theaters and time frames. A veteran who served in that area and period and has one of the indexed illnesses is presumed to have been exposed in the line of duty.^3,4

As a result, the VA instituted a new screening process to determine that toxic military exposures (a) led to illness; and (b) both exposure and illness are connected to service. According to the VA, the new process is evidence based, transparent, and allows the VA to fast-track policy decisions related to exposures. The PACT Act includes a provision intended to promote sustained implementation and prevent the program from succumbing as so many new initiatives have to inadequate adoption. VA is required to deploy its considerable internal research capacity to collaborate with external partners in and outside government to study military members with toxic exposures.⁴ 

Congress had initially proposed that the provisions of the PACT ACT would take effect in 2026, providing time to ramp up the process. The White House and VA telescoped that time line so veterans can begin now to apply for benefits that they could foreseeably receive in 2023. However, a long-standing problem for the VA has been unfunded agency or congressional mandates. These have often end in undermining the legislative intention or policy purpose of the program undermining their legislative intention or policy purpose through staffing shortages, leading to lack of or delayed access. The PACT Act promises to eschew the infamous Phoenix problem by providing increased personnel, training infrastructure, and technology resources for both the Veterans Benefit Administration and the Veterans Health Administration. Ironically, many seasoned VA observers expect the PACT expansion will lead to even larger backlogs of claims as hundreds of newly eligible veterans are added to the extant rolls of those seeking benefits.⁵ 

An estimated 1 in 5 veterans may be entitled to PACT benefits. The PACT Act is the latest of a long uneven movement toward distributive justice for veteran benefits and services. It is fitting in the month of Veterans Day 2022 to trace that trajectory. Congress first passed veteran benefits legislation in 1917, focused on soldiers with disabilities. This resulted in a massive investment in building hospitals. Ironically, part of the impetus for VA health care was an earlier toxic military exposure. World War I service members suffered from the detrimental effects of mustard gas among other chemical byproducts. In 1924, VA benefits and services underwent a momentous opening to include individuals with non-service-connected disabilities. Four years later, the VA tent became even bigger, welcoming women, National Guard, and militia members to receive care under its auspices.⁶ 

The PACT Act is a fitting memorial for Veterans Day as an increasingly divided country presents a unified response to veterans and their survivors exposed to a variety of toxins across multiple wars. The PACT Act was hard won with veterans and their advocates having to fight years of political bickering, government abdication of accountability, and scientific sparring before this bipartisan legislation passed.⁷ It covers Vietnam War veterans with several conditions due to Agent Orange exposure; Gulf War and post-9/11 veterans with cancer and respiratory conditions; and the service members deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq afflicted with illnesses due to the smoke of burn pits and other toxins. 

As many areas of the country roll back LGBTQ+ rights to health care and social services, the VA has emerged as a leader in the movement for diversity and inclusion. VA Secretary McDonough provided a pathway to VA eligibility for other than honorably discharged veterans, including those LGBTQ+ persons discharged under Don't Ask, Don't Tell.⁸ Lest we take this new inclusivity for granted, we should never forget that this journey toward equity for the military and VA has been long, slow, and uneven. There are many difficult miles yet to travel if we are to achieve liberty and justice for veteran members of racial minorities, women, and other marginalized populations. Even the PACT Act does not cover all putative exposures to toxins.⁹ Yet it is a significant step closer to fulfilling the motto of the VA LGBTQ+ program: to serve all who served.¹⁰ 

This Veterans Day we honor the passing of the largest expansion of veterans benefits and services in history. On August 10, 2022, President Biden signed the Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics (PACT) Act. This act was named for a combat medic who died of a rare form of lung cancer believed to be the result of a toxic military exposure. His widow was present during the President's State of the Union address that urged Congress to pass the legislation.² 

Like all other congressional bills and government regulations, the PACT Act is complex in its details and still a work in progress. Simply put, the PACT Act expands and/or extends enrollment for a group of previously ineligible veterans. Eligibility will no longer require that veterans demonstrate a service-connected disability due to toxic exposure, including those from burn pits. This has long been a barrier for many veterans seeking benefits and not just related to toxic exposures. Logistical barriers and documentary losses have prevented many service members from establishing a clean chain of evidence for the injuries or illnesses they sustained while in uniform.
 
The new process is a massive step forward by the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to establish high standards of procedural justice for settling beneficiary claims. The PACT Act removes the burden from the shoulders of the veteran and places it squarely on the VA to demonstrate that > 20 different medical conditions--primarily cancers and respiratory illnesses--are linked to toxic exposure. The VA must establish that exposure occurred to cohorts of service members in specific theaters and time frames. A veteran who served in that area and period and has one of the indexed illnesses is presumed to have been exposed in the line of duty.^3,4

As a result, the VA instituted a new screening process to determine that toxic military exposures (a) led to illness; and (b) both exposure and illness are connected to service. According to the VA, the new process is evidence based, transparent, and allows the VA to fast-track policy decisions related to exposures. The PACT Act includes a provision intended to promote sustained implementation and prevent the program from succumbing as so many new initiatives have to inadequate adoption. VA is required to deploy its considerable internal research capacity to collaborate with external partners in and outside government to study military members with toxic exposures.⁴ 

Congress had initially proposed that the provisions of the PACT ACT would take effect in 2026, providing time to ramp up the process. The White House and VA telescoped that time line so veterans can begin now to apply for benefits that they could foreseeably receive in 2023. However, a long-standing problem for the VA has been unfunded agency or congressional mandates. These have often end in undermining the legislative intention or policy purpose of the program undermining their legislative intention or policy purpose through staffing shortages, leading to lack of or delayed access. The PACT Act promises to eschew the infamous Phoenix problem by providing increased personnel, training infrastructure, and technology resources for both the Veterans Benefit Administration and the Veterans Health Administration. Ironically, many seasoned VA observers expect the PACT expansion will lead to even larger backlogs of claims as hundreds of newly eligible veterans are added to the extant rolls of those seeking benefits.⁵ 

An estimated 1 in 5 veterans may be entitled to PACT benefits. The PACT Act is the latest of a long uneven movement toward distributive justice for veteran benefits and services. It is fitting in the month of Veterans Day 2022 to trace that trajectory. Congress first passed veteran benefits legislation in 1917, focused on soldiers with disabilities. This resulted in a massive investment in building hospitals. Ironically, part of the impetus for VA health care was an earlier toxic military exposure. World War I service members suffered from the detrimental effects of mustard gas among other chemical byproducts. In 1924, VA benefits and services underwent a momentous opening to include individuals with non-service-connected disabilities. Four years later, the VA tent became even bigger, welcoming women, National Guard, and militia members to receive care under its auspices.⁶ 

The PACT Act is a fitting memorial for Veterans Day as an increasingly divided country presents a unified response to veterans and their survivors exposed to a variety of toxins across multiple wars. The PACT Act was hard won with veterans and their advocates having to fight years of political bickering, government abdication of accountability, and scientific sparring before this bipartisan legislation passed.⁷ It covers Vietnam War veterans with several conditions due to Agent Orange exposure; Gulf War and post-9/11 veterans with cancer and respiratory conditions; and the service members deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq afflicted with illnesses due to the smoke of burn pits and other toxins. 

As many areas of the country roll back LGBTQ+ rights to health care and social services, the VA has emerged as a leader in the movement for diversity and inclusion. VA Secretary McDonough provided a pathway to VA eligibility for other than honorably discharged veterans, including those LGBTQ+ persons discharged under Don't Ask, Don't Tell.⁸ Lest we take this new inclusivity for granted, we should never forget that this journey toward equity for the military and VA has been long, slow, and uneven. There are many difficult miles yet to travel if we are to achieve liberty and justice for veteran members of racial minorities, women, and other marginalized populations. Even the PACT Act does not cover all putative exposures to toxins.⁹ Yet it is a significant step closer to fulfilling the motto of the VA LGBTQ+ program: to serve all who served.¹⁰ 

CHICAGO – A clinical decision-support tool designed to identify hospitalized patients who need thromboembolism prophylaxis and embedded in a hospital’s electronic health record led to significantly more appropriate prophylaxis, compared with usual care, and significantly cut the 30-day rate of thromboembolism in a randomized, multicenter trial with more than 10,000 patients.

“This is the first time that a clinical decision support tool not only changed [thromboprophylaxis prescribing] behavior but also affected hard outcomes. That’s remarkable,” lead investigator Alex C. Spyropoulos, MD, said in an interview.

Even so, outside experts expressed concerns about certain results and the trial design.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Use of the decision-support risk calculator for thromboembolism in the IMPROVE-DD VTE trial significantly boosted use of appropriate inpatient thromboprophylaxis starting at hospital admission by a relative 52%, and significantly increased outpatient thromboprophylaxis prescribed at discharge by a relative 93% in the study’s two primary endpoints, Dr. Spyropoulos reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

This intervention led to a significant 29% relative reduction in the incidence of total thromboembolic events, both venous and arterial, during hospitalization and through 30 days post discharge.

The absolute thromboembolic event rates were 2.9% among 5,249 patients treated at either of two U.S. hospitals that used the EHR-based risk calculator and 4.0% in 5,450 patients seen at either of two other U.S. hospitals that served as controls and where usual care method identified patients who needed thromboprophylaxis, said Dr. Spyropoulos, professor and director of the anticoagulation and clinical thrombosis services for Northwell Health in New York. This included a 2.7% rate of venous thromboembolism and a 0.25% rate of arterial thromboembolism in the intervention patients, and a 3.3% rate of venous events and a 0.7% rate of arterial events in the controls.

Patients treated at the hospitals that used the EHR-embedded risk calculator also has a numerically lower rate of major bleeding events during hospitalization and 30-day postdischarge follow-up, a 0.15% rate compared with a 0.22% rate in the control patients, a difference that was not significant.
 

A ‘powerful message’

“It’s a powerful message to see an absolute 1.1% difference in the rate of thromboembolism and a trend to fewer major bleeds. I think this will change practice,” Dr. Spyropoulos added in the interview. “The next step is dissemination.”

But thromboprophylaxis experts cautioned that, while the results looked promising, the findings need more analysis and review, and the intervention may need further testing before it’s ready for widespread use.

For example, one unexpected result was an unexpected 2.1 percentage point increase in all-cause mortality linked with use of the decision-support tool. Total deaths from admission to 30 days after discharge occurred in 9.1% of the patients treated at the two hospitals that used the risk calculator and 7.0% among the control patients, a difference that Dr, Spyropoulos said was likely the result of unbalanced outcomes from COVID-19 infections that had no relevance to the tested intervention. The trial ran during December 2020–January 2022.
 

But wait – more detail and analysis needed

“I’d like to see more analysis of the data from this trial,” and “there is the issue of increased mortality,” commented Gregory Piazza, MD, director of vascular medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and a specialist in thromboembolism prevention and management. He also highlighted the need for greater detail on the arterial thromboembolic events tallied during the study.

With more details and analysis of these findings “we’ll learn more about the true impact” of this intervention, Dr. Piazza said in an interview.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“The increased mortality in the intervention group may have been due to differential treatment and decision-making and confounding and warrants further investigation,” commented Elaine M. Hylek, MD, a professor at Boston University and designated discussant for the report. Selection bias may have contributed to this possible confounding, Dr. Hylek noted.

Other limitations of the study cited by Dr. Hylek included its reliance on individual clinician decision-making to actually prescribe thromboprophylaxis, a lack of information on patient adherence to their thromboprophylaxis prescription, and an overall low rate of appropriate thromboprophylaxis prescribed to patients at discharge. The rates were 7.5% among the controls and 13.6% among patients in the intervention arm. For prescription at the time of hospitalization, the rates were 72.5% among control patients and 80.1% for patients seen at the two hospitals that used the decision-support tool.
 

The IMPROVE-DD VTE risk assessment tool

The clinical decision-support tool tested is called the IMPROVE-DD VTE risk assessment model, developed over several years by Dr. Spyropoulos and associates; they have also performed multiple validation studies. The model includes eight factors that score 1-3 points if positive that can add up to total scores of 0-14. A score of 0 or 1 is considered low risk, 2 or 3 intermediate risk, and 4 or more high risk. One of the scoring factors is the result of a D-dimer test, which explains the DD part of the name.

The eight factors and point assignments are prior venous thromboembolism: 3 points; known thrombophilia: 2 points; lower limb paralysis: 2 points; current cancer: 2 points; d-dimer level more than twofold the upper limit of normal: 2 points; immobilized for at least 7 days: 1 point; admitted to the ICU or coronary care unit: 1 point; and age greater than 60 years old: 1 point.

Development of the IMPROVE-DD VTE risk calculator received most of its funding from the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the risk tool will be available for hospitals and health systems to access at no charge through the agency’s website, Dr. Spyropoulos said. The researchers designed the calculator to operate in any EHR product.

IMPROVE-DD VTE “is a very valid, high-quality tool,” commented Dr. Piazza. “We’ve used some rather blunt tools in the past,” and especially praised inclusion of D-dimer results into the IMPROVE-DD VTE model.

“It’s nice to use a biomarker in addition to clinical factors,” he said. “A biomarker provides a more holistic picture; we can’t do genetic testing on every patient.”

Enrollment focused on higher-risk patients

The study ran at four academic, tertiary-care hospitals in the Northwell Health network in the New York region. It enrolled patients aged more than 60 years who were hospitalized for any of five diagnoses: heart failure; acute respiratory insufficiency, including chronic obstructive lung disease or asthma; acute infectious disease, including COVID-19; acute inflammatory disease, including rheumatic disease; or acute stroke. The study excluded patients with a history of atrial fibrillation, those who used an anticoagulant at home, or those who had received therapeutic anticoagulation within 24 hours of their hospital admission.

The anticoagulant prophylaxis that patients received depended on their calculated risk level – intermediate or high – and whether they were inpatients or being discharged. The anticoagulants that clinicians could prescribe included unfractionated heparin, enoxaparin, fondaparinux, rivaroxaban, and apixaban.

“We’ve been looking for a long time for a tool for medically ill patients that’s like the CHA2DS2-VASc score” for patients with atrial fibrillation. “These powerful data say we now have this, and the EHR provides a vehicle to easily implement it,” Dr. Spyropoulos said.

The IMPROVE-DD VTE study received partial funding from Janssen. Dr. Spyropoulos has been a consultant to Nayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Pfizer, and Sanofi; adviser to the ATLAS Group; and has received research support from Janssen. Dr. Piazza has received research funding from Bayer, BIG/EKOS, BMS, Janssen, and Portola. Dr. Hylek had been a consultant to Bayer and Ionis, and has received honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim and Pfizer.

CHICAGO – A clinical decision-support tool designed to identify hospitalized patients who need thromboembolism prophylaxis and embedded in a hospital’s electronic health record led to significantly more appropriate prophylaxis, compared with usual care, and significantly cut the 30-day rate of thromboembolism in a randomized, multicenter trial with more than 10,000 patients.

“This is the first time that a clinical decision support tool not only changed [thromboprophylaxis prescribing] behavior but also affected hard outcomes. That’s remarkable,” lead investigator Alex C. Spyropoulos, MD, said in an interview.

Even so, outside experts expressed concerns about certain results and the trial design.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Use of the decision-support risk calculator for thromboembolism in the IMPROVE-DD VTE trial significantly boosted use of appropriate inpatient thromboprophylaxis starting at hospital admission by a relative 52%, and significantly increased outpatient thromboprophylaxis prescribed at discharge by a relative 93% in the study’s two primary endpoints, Dr. Spyropoulos reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

This intervention led to a significant 29% relative reduction in the incidence of total thromboembolic events, both venous and arterial, during hospitalization and through 30 days post discharge.

The absolute thromboembolic event rates were 2.9% among 5,249 patients treated at either of two U.S. hospitals that used the EHR-based risk calculator and 4.0% in 5,450 patients seen at either of two other U.S. hospitals that served as controls and where usual care method identified patients who needed thromboprophylaxis, said Dr. Spyropoulos, professor and director of the anticoagulation and clinical thrombosis services for Northwell Health in New York. This included a 2.7% rate of venous thromboembolism and a 0.25% rate of arterial thromboembolism in the intervention patients, and a 3.3% rate of venous events and a 0.7% rate of arterial events in the controls.

Patients treated at the hospitals that used the EHR-embedded risk calculator also has a numerically lower rate of major bleeding events during hospitalization and 30-day postdischarge follow-up, a 0.15% rate compared with a 0.22% rate in the control patients, a difference that was not significant.
 

A ‘powerful message’

“It’s a powerful message to see an absolute 1.1% difference in the rate of thromboembolism and a trend to fewer major bleeds. I think this will change practice,” Dr. Spyropoulos added in the interview. “The next step is dissemination.”

But thromboprophylaxis experts cautioned that, while the results looked promising, the findings need more analysis and review, and the intervention may need further testing before it’s ready for widespread use.

For example, one unexpected result was an unexpected 2.1 percentage point increase in all-cause mortality linked with use of the decision-support tool. Total deaths from admission to 30 days after discharge occurred in 9.1% of the patients treated at the two hospitals that used the risk calculator and 7.0% among the control patients, a difference that Dr, Spyropoulos said was likely the result of unbalanced outcomes from COVID-19 infections that had no relevance to the tested intervention. The trial ran during December 2020–January 2022.
 

But wait – more detail and analysis needed

“I’d like to see more analysis of the data from this trial,” and “there is the issue of increased mortality,” commented Gregory Piazza, MD, director of vascular medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and a specialist in thromboembolism prevention and management. He also highlighted the need for greater detail on the arterial thromboembolic events tallied during the study.

With more details and analysis of these findings “we’ll learn more about the true impact” of this intervention, Dr. Piazza said in an interview.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“The increased mortality in the intervention group may have been due to differential treatment and decision-making and confounding and warrants further investigation,” commented Elaine M. Hylek, MD, a professor at Boston University and designated discussant for the report. Selection bias may have contributed to this possible confounding, Dr. Hylek noted.

Other limitations of the study cited by Dr. Hylek included its reliance on individual clinician decision-making to actually prescribe thromboprophylaxis, a lack of information on patient adherence to their thromboprophylaxis prescription, and an overall low rate of appropriate thromboprophylaxis prescribed to patients at discharge. The rates were 7.5% among the controls and 13.6% among patients in the intervention arm. For prescription at the time of hospitalization, the rates were 72.5% among control patients and 80.1% for patients seen at the two hospitals that used the decision-support tool.
 

The IMPROVE-DD VTE risk assessment tool

The clinical decision-support tool tested is called the IMPROVE-DD VTE risk assessment model, developed over several years by Dr. Spyropoulos and associates; they have also performed multiple validation studies. The model includes eight factors that score 1-3 points if positive that can add up to total scores of 0-14. A score of 0 or 1 is considered low risk, 2 or 3 intermediate risk, and 4 or more high risk. One of the scoring factors is the result of a D-dimer test, which explains the DD part of the name.

The eight factors and point assignments are prior venous thromboembolism: 3 points; known thrombophilia: 2 points; lower limb paralysis: 2 points; current cancer: 2 points; d-dimer level more than twofold the upper limit of normal: 2 points; immobilized for at least 7 days: 1 point; admitted to the ICU or coronary care unit: 1 point; and age greater than 60 years old: 1 point.

Development of the IMPROVE-DD VTE risk calculator received most of its funding from the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the risk tool will be available for hospitals and health systems to access at no charge through the agency’s website, Dr. Spyropoulos said. The researchers designed the calculator to operate in any EHR product.

IMPROVE-DD VTE “is a very valid, high-quality tool,” commented Dr. Piazza. “We’ve used some rather blunt tools in the past,” and especially praised inclusion of D-dimer results into the IMPROVE-DD VTE model.

“It’s nice to use a biomarker in addition to clinical factors,” he said. “A biomarker provides a more holistic picture; we can’t do genetic testing on every patient.”

Enrollment focused on higher-risk patients

The study ran at four academic, tertiary-care hospitals in the Northwell Health network in the New York region. It enrolled patients aged more than 60 years who were hospitalized for any of five diagnoses: heart failure; acute respiratory insufficiency, including chronic obstructive lung disease or asthma; acute infectious disease, including COVID-19; acute inflammatory disease, including rheumatic disease; or acute stroke. The study excluded patients with a history of atrial fibrillation, those who used an anticoagulant at home, or those who had received therapeutic anticoagulation within 24 hours of their hospital admission.

The anticoagulant prophylaxis that patients received depended on their calculated risk level – intermediate or high – and whether they were inpatients or being discharged. The anticoagulants that clinicians could prescribe included unfractionated heparin, enoxaparin, fondaparinux, rivaroxaban, and apixaban.

“We’ve been looking for a long time for a tool for medically ill patients that’s like the CHA2DS2-VASc score” for patients with atrial fibrillation. “These powerful data say we now have this, and the EHR provides a vehicle to easily implement it,” Dr. Spyropoulos said.

The IMPROVE-DD VTE study received partial funding from Janssen. Dr. Spyropoulos has been a consultant to Nayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Pfizer, and Sanofi; adviser to the ATLAS Group; and has received research support from Janssen. Dr. Piazza has received research funding from Bayer, BIG/EKOS, BMS, Janssen, and Portola. Dr. Hylek had been a consultant to Bayer and Ionis, and has received honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim and Pfizer.

CHICAGO – A clinical decision-support tool designed to identify hospitalized patients who need thromboembolism prophylaxis and embedded in a hospital’s electronic health record led to significantly more appropriate prophylaxis, compared with usual care, and significantly cut the 30-day rate of thromboembolism in a randomized, multicenter trial with more than 10,000 patients.

“This is the first time that a clinical decision support tool not only changed [thromboprophylaxis prescribing] behavior but also affected hard outcomes. That’s remarkable,” lead investigator Alex C. Spyropoulos, MD, said in an interview.

Even so, outside experts expressed concerns about certain results and the trial design.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Use of the decision-support risk calculator for thromboembolism in the IMPROVE-DD VTE trial significantly boosted use of appropriate inpatient thromboprophylaxis starting at hospital admission by a relative 52%, and significantly increased outpatient thromboprophylaxis prescribed at discharge by a relative 93% in the study’s two primary endpoints, Dr. Spyropoulos reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

This intervention led to a significant 29% relative reduction in the incidence of total thromboembolic events, both venous and arterial, during hospitalization and through 30 days post discharge.

The absolute thromboembolic event rates were 2.9% among 5,249 patients treated at either of two U.S. hospitals that used the EHR-based risk calculator and 4.0% in 5,450 patients seen at either of two other U.S. hospitals that served as controls and where usual care method identified patients who needed thromboprophylaxis, said Dr. Spyropoulos, professor and director of the anticoagulation and clinical thrombosis services for Northwell Health in New York. This included a 2.7% rate of venous thromboembolism and a 0.25% rate of arterial thromboembolism in the intervention patients, and a 3.3% rate of venous events and a 0.7% rate of arterial events in the controls.

Patients treated at the hospitals that used the EHR-embedded risk calculator also has a numerically lower rate of major bleeding events during hospitalization and 30-day postdischarge follow-up, a 0.15% rate compared with a 0.22% rate in the control patients, a difference that was not significant.
 

A ‘powerful message’

“It’s a powerful message to see an absolute 1.1% difference in the rate of thromboembolism and a trend to fewer major bleeds. I think this will change practice,” Dr. Spyropoulos added in the interview. “The next step is dissemination.”

But thromboprophylaxis experts cautioned that, while the results looked promising, the findings need more analysis and review, and the intervention may need further testing before it’s ready for widespread use.

For example, one unexpected result was an unexpected 2.1 percentage point increase in all-cause mortality linked with use of the decision-support tool. Total deaths from admission to 30 days after discharge occurred in 9.1% of the patients treated at the two hospitals that used the risk calculator and 7.0% among the control patients, a difference that Dr, Spyropoulos said was likely the result of unbalanced outcomes from COVID-19 infections that had no relevance to the tested intervention. The trial ran during December 2020–January 2022.
 

But wait – more detail and analysis needed

“I’d like to see more analysis of the data from this trial,” and “there is the issue of increased mortality,” commented Gregory Piazza, MD, director of vascular medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and a specialist in thromboembolism prevention and management. He also highlighted the need for greater detail on the arterial thromboembolic events tallied during the study.

With more details and analysis of these findings “we’ll learn more about the true impact” of this intervention, Dr. Piazza said in an interview.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“The increased mortality in the intervention group may have been due to differential treatment and decision-making and confounding and warrants further investigation,” commented Elaine M. Hylek, MD, a professor at Boston University and designated discussant for the report. Selection bias may have contributed to this possible confounding, Dr. Hylek noted.

Other limitations of the study cited by Dr. Hylek included its reliance on individual clinician decision-making to actually prescribe thromboprophylaxis, a lack of information on patient adherence to their thromboprophylaxis prescription, and an overall low rate of appropriate thromboprophylaxis prescribed to patients at discharge. The rates were 7.5% among the controls and 13.6% among patients in the intervention arm. For prescription at the time of hospitalization, the rates were 72.5% among control patients and 80.1% for patients seen at the two hospitals that used the decision-support tool.
 

The IMPROVE-DD VTE risk assessment tool

The clinical decision-support tool tested is called the IMPROVE-DD VTE risk assessment model, developed over several years by Dr. Spyropoulos and associates; they have also performed multiple validation studies. The model includes eight factors that score 1-3 points if positive that can add up to total scores of 0-14. A score of 0 or 1 is considered low risk, 2 or 3 intermediate risk, and 4 or more high risk. One of the scoring factors is the result of a D-dimer test, which explains the DD part of the name.

The eight factors and point assignments are prior venous thromboembolism: 3 points; known thrombophilia: 2 points; lower limb paralysis: 2 points; current cancer: 2 points; d-dimer level more than twofold the upper limit of normal: 2 points; immobilized for at least 7 days: 1 point; admitted to the ICU or coronary care unit: 1 point; and age greater than 60 years old: 1 point.

Development of the IMPROVE-DD VTE risk calculator received most of its funding from the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the risk tool will be available for hospitals and health systems to access at no charge through the agency’s website, Dr. Spyropoulos said. The researchers designed the calculator to operate in any EHR product.

IMPROVE-DD VTE “is a very valid, high-quality tool,” commented Dr. Piazza. “We’ve used some rather blunt tools in the past,” and especially praised inclusion of D-dimer results into the IMPROVE-DD VTE model.

“It’s nice to use a biomarker in addition to clinical factors,” he said. “A biomarker provides a more holistic picture; we can’t do genetic testing on every patient.”

Enrollment focused on higher-risk patients

The study ran at four academic, tertiary-care hospitals in the Northwell Health network in the New York region. It enrolled patients aged more than 60 years who were hospitalized for any of five diagnoses: heart failure; acute respiratory insufficiency, including chronic obstructive lung disease or asthma; acute infectious disease, including COVID-19; acute inflammatory disease, including rheumatic disease; or acute stroke. The study excluded patients with a history of atrial fibrillation, those who used an anticoagulant at home, or those who had received therapeutic anticoagulation within 24 hours of their hospital admission.

The anticoagulant prophylaxis that patients received depended on their calculated risk level – intermediate or high – and whether they were inpatients or being discharged. The anticoagulants that clinicians could prescribe included unfractionated heparin, enoxaparin, fondaparinux, rivaroxaban, and apixaban.

“We’ve been looking for a long time for a tool for medically ill patients that’s like the CHA2DS2-VASc score” for patients with atrial fibrillation. “These powerful data say we now have this, and the EHR provides a vehicle to easily implement it,” Dr. Spyropoulos said.

The IMPROVE-DD VTE study received partial funding from Janssen. Dr. Spyropoulos has been a consultant to Nayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Pfizer, and Sanofi; adviser to the ATLAS Group; and has received research support from Janssen. Dr. Piazza has received research funding from Bayer, BIG/EKOS, BMS, Janssen, and Portola. Dr. Hylek had been a consultant to Bayer and Ionis, and has received honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim and Pfizer.