User login
One in three MS patients reports chronic itch
, according to investigators.
Itch is historically underrecognized as a symptom of MS, but physicians should know that it is common and may negatively impact quality of life, reported lead author Giuseppe Ingrasci, MD, a dermatology research fellow at the University of Miami, Miller School of Medicine, and colleagues.
While previous publications suggest that pruritus occurs in just 2%-6% of patients with MS, principal author Gil Yosipovitch, MD, professor, Stiefel Chair of Medical Dermatology, and director of the Miami Itch Center in the Dr. Phillip Frost department of dermatology and cutaneous surgery at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, encountered itch in enough patients with MS that he presented his observations to a group of neurologists.
Most of them dismissed him, he recalled in an interview: “The neurologists said, ‘Very interesting, but we don’t really see it.’ ”
One of those neurologists, however, decided to take a closer look.
Andrew Brown, MD, assistant professor of clinical neurology and chief of the general neurology division at the University of Miami, Miller School of Medicine, began asking his patients with MS if they were experiencing itch and soon found that it was “a very common problem,” according to Dr. Yosipovitch.
Dr. Yosipovitch, who was the first to report pruritus in patients with psoriasis, launched the present investigation with Dr. Brown to determine if itch is also a blind spot in the world of MS. Their results, and their uphill battle to publication, suggest that it very well could be.
After being rejected from six neurology journals, with one editor suggesting that itch is “not relevant at all to neurology,” their findings were published in the Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology & Venereology.
A common problem that may indicate more severe disease
At the Multiple Sclerosis Center of Excellence in Miami, 27 out of 79 outpatients with MS (35%) reported pruritus, with an average severity of 5.42 out of 10. Among those with itch, the extremities were affected in about half of the patients, while the face, scalp, and trunk were affected in about one-third of the patients. Many described paroxysmal itch that was aggravated by heat, and about half experienced itch on a weekly basis.
Further investigation showed that itch was associated with more severe MS. Compared with patients not experiencing itch, those with itch were significantly more likely to report fatigue (77% vs. 44%), anxiety or depression (48% vs. 16%), and cognitive impairment (62% vs. 26%).
MRI findings backed up these clinical results. Compared with patients not experiencing itch, patients with itch had significantly more T2 hyperintensities in the posterior cervical cord (74.1% vs. 46.0%) and anterior pons/ventromedial medulla (62% vs. 26%). These hyperintensities in the medulla were also associated with an 11-fold increased rate of itch on the face or scalp (odds ratio, 11.3; 95% confidence interval, 1.6-78.6, P = 0.025).
“Health care providers should be aware of episodes of localized, neuropathic itch in MS patients, as they appear to be more prevalent than previously thought and may impair these patients’ quality of life,” the investigators concluded.
Challenges with symptom characterization, management
“This is an important study for both patients and clinicians,” said Justin Abbatemarco, MD, of Cleveland Clinic’s Mellen Center for Multiple Sclerosis, in a written comment. “As the authors mention, many of our patients experience transient symptoms, including many different types of sensory disturbance (that is, pins & needles, burning, electrical shocks, and itching). These symptoms can be really distressing for patients and their caregivers.”
While Dr. Abbatemarco has encountered severe itching in “several patients” with MS, he maintained that it is “relatively uncommon” and noted that MS symptomatology is an inherently cloudy subject.
“I think it is difficult to be definite in any opinion on this topic,” Dr. Abbatemarco said. “How patients experience these symptoms is very subjective and can be difficult to describe/characterize.”
Dr. Abbatemarco emphasized that transient symptoms “do not usually represent MS relapse/flare or new inflammatory disease activity. Instead, we believe these symptoms are related to old areas of injury or demyelination.”
Symptom management can be challenging, he added. He recommended setting realistic expectations, and in the case of pruritus, asking dermatologists to rule out other causes of itch, and to offer “unique treatment approaches.”
Cool the itch?
Noting how heat appears to aggravate itch in patients with MS, Dr. Yosipovitch suggested that one of those unique – and simple – treatment approaches may be cooling itchy areas. Alternatively, clinicians may consider oral agents, like gabapentin to dampen neural transmission, or compounded formulations applied to the skin to reduce neural sensitivity, such as topical ketamine. Finally, Dr. Yosipovitch speculated that newer antibody agents for MS could potentially reduce itch.
All these treatment suggestions are purely hypothetical, he said, and require further investigation before they can be recommended with confidence.
The investigators disclosed relationships with Galderma, Pfizer, Novartis, and others. Dr. Abbatemarco disclosed no conflicts of interest.
Correction, 9/19/22: An earlier version of this article misidentified the photo of Dr. Justin Abbatemarco.
, according to investigators.
Itch is historically underrecognized as a symptom of MS, but physicians should know that it is common and may negatively impact quality of life, reported lead author Giuseppe Ingrasci, MD, a dermatology research fellow at the University of Miami, Miller School of Medicine, and colleagues.
While previous publications suggest that pruritus occurs in just 2%-6% of patients with MS, principal author Gil Yosipovitch, MD, professor, Stiefel Chair of Medical Dermatology, and director of the Miami Itch Center in the Dr. Phillip Frost department of dermatology and cutaneous surgery at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, encountered itch in enough patients with MS that he presented his observations to a group of neurologists.
Most of them dismissed him, he recalled in an interview: “The neurologists said, ‘Very interesting, but we don’t really see it.’ ”
One of those neurologists, however, decided to take a closer look.
Andrew Brown, MD, assistant professor of clinical neurology and chief of the general neurology division at the University of Miami, Miller School of Medicine, began asking his patients with MS if they were experiencing itch and soon found that it was “a very common problem,” according to Dr. Yosipovitch.
Dr. Yosipovitch, who was the first to report pruritus in patients with psoriasis, launched the present investigation with Dr. Brown to determine if itch is also a blind spot in the world of MS. Their results, and their uphill battle to publication, suggest that it very well could be.
After being rejected from six neurology journals, with one editor suggesting that itch is “not relevant at all to neurology,” their findings were published in the Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology & Venereology.
A common problem that may indicate more severe disease
At the Multiple Sclerosis Center of Excellence in Miami, 27 out of 79 outpatients with MS (35%) reported pruritus, with an average severity of 5.42 out of 10. Among those with itch, the extremities were affected in about half of the patients, while the face, scalp, and trunk were affected in about one-third of the patients. Many described paroxysmal itch that was aggravated by heat, and about half experienced itch on a weekly basis.
Further investigation showed that itch was associated with more severe MS. Compared with patients not experiencing itch, those with itch were significantly more likely to report fatigue (77% vs. 44%), anxiety or depression (48% vs. 16%), and cognitive impairment (62% vs. 26%).
MRI findings backed up these clinical results. Compared with patients not experiencing itch, patients with itch had significantly more T2 hyperintensities in the posterior cervical cord (74.1% vs. 46.0%) and anterior pons/ventromedial medulla (62% vs. 26%). These hyperintensities in the medulla were also associated with an 11-fold increased rate of itch on the face or scalp (odds ratio, 11.3; 95% confidence interval, 1.6-78.6, P = 0.025).
“Health care providers should be aware of episodes of localized, neuropathic itch in MS patients, as they appear to be more prevalent than previously thought and may impair these patients’ quality of life,” the investigators concluded.
Challenges with symptom characterization, management
“This is an important study for both patients and clinicians,” said Justin Abbatemarco, MD, of Cleveland Clinic’s Mellen Center for Multiple Sclerosis, in a written comment. “As the authors mention, many of our patients experience transient symptoms, including many different types of sensory disturbance (that is, pins & needles, burning, electrical shocks, and itching). These symptoms can be really distressing for patients and their caregivers.”
While Dr. Abbatemarco has encountered severe itching in “several patients” with MS, he maintained that it is “relatively uncommon” and noted that MS symptomatology is an inherently cloudy subject.
“I think it is difficult to be definite in any opinion on this topic,” Dr. Abbatemarco said. “How patients experience these symptoms is very subjective and can be difficult to describe/characterize.”
Dr. Abbatemarco emphasized that transient symptoms “do not usually represent MS relapse/flare or new inflammatory disease activity. Instead, we believe these symptoms are related to old areas of injury or demyelination.”
Symptom management can be challenging, he added. He recommended setting realistic expectations, and in the case of pruritus, asking dermatologists to rule out other causes of itch, and to offer “unique treatment approaches.”
Cool the itch?
Noting how heat appears to aggravate itch in patients with MS, Dr. Yosipovitch suggested that one of those unique – and simple – treatment approaches may be cooling itchy areas. Alternatively, clinicians may consider oral agents, like gabapentin to dampen neural transmission, or compounded formulations applied to the skin to reduce neural sensitivity, such as topical ketamine. Finally, Dr. Yosipovitch speculated that newer antibody agents for MS could potentially reduce itch.
All these treatment suggestions are purely hypothetical, he said, and require further investigation before they can be recommended with confidence.
The investigators disclosed relationships with Galderma, Pfizer, Novartis, and others. Dr. Abbatemarco disclosed no conflicts of interest.
Correction, 9/19/22: An earlier version of this article misidentified the photo of Dr. Justin Abbatemarco.
, according to investigators.
Itch is historically underrecognized as a symptom of MS, but physicians should know that it is common and may negatively impact quality of life, reported lead author Giuseppe Ingrasci, MD, a dermatology research fellow at the University of Miami, Miller School of Medicine, and colleagues.
While previous publications suggest that pruritus occurs in just 2%-6% of patients with MS, principal author Gil Yosipovitch, MD, professor, Stiefel Chair of Medical Dermatology, and director of the Miami Itch Center in the Dr. Phillip Frost department of dermatology and cutaneous surgery at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, encountered itch in enough patients with MS that he presented his observations to a group of neurologists.
Most of them dismissed him, he recalled in an interview: “The neurologists said, ‘Very interesting, but we don’t really see it.’ ”
One of those neurologists, however, decided to take a closer look.
Andrew Brown, MD, assistant professor of clinical neurology and chief of the general neurology division at the University of Miami, Miller School of Medicine, began asking his patients with MS if they were experiencing itch and soon found that it was “a very common problem,” according to Dr. Yosipovitch.
Dr. Yosipovitch, who was the first to report pruritus in patients with psoriasis, launched the present investigation with Dr. Brown to determine if itch is also a blind spot in the world of MS. Their results, and their uphill battle to publication, suggest that it very well could be.
After being rejected from six neurology journals, with one editor suggesting that itch is “not relevant at all to neurology,” their findings were published in the Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology & Venereology.
A common problem that may indicate more severe disease
At the Multiple Sclerosis Center of Excellence in Miami, 27 out of 79 outpatients with MS (35%) reported pruritus, with an average severity of 5.42 out of 10. Among those with itch, the extremities were affected in about half of the patients, while the face, scalp, and trunk were affected in about one-third of the patients. Many described paroxysmal itch that was aggravated by heat, and about half experienced itch on a weekly basis.
Further investigation showed that itch was associated with more severe MS. Compared with patients not experiencing itch, those with itch were significantly more likely to report fatigue (77% vs. 44%), anxiety or depression (48% vs. 16%), and cognitive impairment (62% vs. 26%).
MRI findings backed up these clinical results. Compared with patients not experiencing itch, patients with itch had significantly more T2 hyperintensities in the posterior cervical cord (74.1% vs. 46.0%) and anterior pons/ventromedial medulla (62% vs. 26%). These hyperintensities in the medulla were also associated with an 11-fold increased rate of itch on the face or scalp (odds ratio, 11.3; 95% confidence interval, 1.6-78.6, P = 0.025).
“Health care providers should be aware of episodes of localized, neuropathic itch in MS patients, as they appear to be more prevalent than previously thought and may impair these patients’ quality of life,” the investigators concluded.
Challenges with symptom characterization, management
“This is an important study for both patients and clinicians,” said Justin Abbatemarco, MD, of Cleveland Clinic’s Mellen Center for Multiple Sclerosis, in a written comment. “As the authors mention, many of our patients experience transient symptoms, including many different types of sensory disturbance (that is, pins & needles, burning, electrical shocks, and itching). These symptoms can be really distressing for patients and their caregivers.”
While Dr. Abbatemarco has encountered severe itching in “several patients” with MS, he maintained that it is “relatively uncommon” and noted that MS symptomatology is an inherently cloudy subject.
“I think it is difficult to be definite in any opinion on this topic,” Dr. Abbatemarco said. “How patients experience these symptoms is very subjective and can be difficult to describe/characterize.”
Dr. Abbatemarco emphasized that transient symptoms “do not usually represent MS relapse/flare or new inflammatory disease activity. Instead, we believe these symptoms are related to old areas of injury or demyelination.”
Symptom management can be challenging, he added. He recommended setting realistic expectations, and in the case of pruritus, asking dermatologists to rule out other causes of itch, and to offer “unique treatment approaches.”
Cool the itch?
Noting how heat appears to aggravate itch in patients with MS, Dr. Yosipovitch suggested that one of those unique – and simple – treatment approaches may be cooling itchy areas. Alternatively, clinicians may consider oral agents, like gabapentin to dampen neural transmission, or compounded formulations applied to the skin to reduce neural sensitivity, such as topical ketamine. Finally, Dr. Yosipovitch speculated that newer antibody agents for MS could potentially reduce itch.
All these treatment suggestions are purely hypothetical, he said, and require further investigation before they can be recommended with confidence.
The investigators disclosed relationships with Galderma, Pfizer, Novartis, and others. Dr. Abbatemarco disclosed no conflicts of interest.
Correction, 9/19/22: An earlier version of this article misidentified the photo of Dr. Justin Abbatemarco.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF THE EUROPEAN ACADEMY OF DERMATOLOGY & VENEREOLOGY
Ultrasound offers noninvasive alternative for monitoring ulcerative colitis
Intestinal ultrasound (IUS) findings correlate strongly with endoscopy results in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC), with treatment responses detected as soon as 8 weeks after starting tofacitinib, a longitudinal prospective study has found.
IUS accurately detected improvements and remission across a variety of scoring methodologies, suggesting that it may be a cost-effective, noninvasive alternative to endoscopic monitoring, reported lead author Floris de Voogd, MD, of Amsterdam University Medical Centers, and colleagues.
“Endoscopy is generally considered as the gold standard for the diagnosis and follow-up of patients with UC,” the investigators wrote in Gastroenterology. “However, endoscopy is an invasive and costly modality and therefore less attractive to perform frequently during the disease course.”
Whereas noninvasive fecal biomarkers are a more economical method of monitoring inflammation and treatment responses, they fail to characterize disease extent and fall short in detecting early endoscopic responses, the investigators added.
The present study aimed to determine if IUS could offer more clinical insight by measuring bowel wall thickness. Thirty patients were enrolled with moderate to severe UC, all with an endoscopic Mayo score of at least 2. Twenty-seven of these patients were evaluable through follow-up, having undergone both IUS and endoscopy at baseline and 8 weeks after starting tofacitinib.
At both time points, IUS findings correlated significantly with endoscopic Mayo score (EMS), UC endoscopic index for severity, and Robarts Histopathology Index, with correlation coefficients of 0.68, 0.73, and 0.49, respectively. Remission according to EMS was defined as a score of 0, and improvement was defined as a score of 1 or less.
Patients with EMS improvement showed lower median bowel wall thickness in the sigmoid colon after 8 weeks of treatment than did patients without improvement (1.8 mm vs. 4.5 mm; P < .0001); patients who were in EMS remission after 8 weeks also had lower median bowel wall thickness of the sigmoid colon (1.4 mm vs. 4.0 mm; P = .016).
The investigators also sought to define cutoff values for bowel wall thickness. The most accurate cutoff values for identifying endoscopic remission and improvement were 2.8 mm (area under the receiver operating curve, 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-1.00; P = .006) and 3.9 mm (AUROC, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.82-1.00; P < .0001), respectively. Treatment response was best identified by a 32% threshold reduction in thickness (AUROC, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.74-1.00; P = .002).
“Intestinal ultrasound, with bowel wall thickness as the single most important parameter is accurate to determine treatment response to tofacitinib in patients with moderate-severe UC when compared against endoscopy,” the investigators concluded.
Michael Dolinger, MD, MBA, assistant professor of pediatrics and the associate pediatric gastroenterology fellowship program director at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said the study is noteworthy because it is the first of its kind to show that IUS can accurately monitor treatment responses in UC.
“This study is what we’re looking for now, and in the future,” Dr. Dolinger said in an interview. “We’re looking for noninvasive biomarkers to predict early responses so that we know as clinicians ... if our medicines are working or if we need to pivot and switch effectively.”
For patients, this can mean feeling better quicker while reducing burden of care, he added.
“We can use this study to predict patient responses without having to potentially rescope them in 8 weeks using a 5-minute point-of-care test in the clinic,” Dr. Dolinger said. “It’s huge to be able to say that for patients with colitis, and to provide reassurance that not only are they potentially feeling better, but the medicine is working to change and heal their bowel wall really quickly as well.”
Dr. Dolinger speaks from clinical experience. Over the past 2 years, he and his colleagues at Mount Sinai have been implementing IUS for patients with both UC and Crohn’s disease.
“It’s become part of our standard of care,” Dr. Dolinger said. “This is now emerging in the United States and will soon take hold. There is a lot of interest.”
Dr. Dolinger is one of just a few American physicians credentialed by the International Bowel Ultrasound Group, an organization based out of Europe, Israel, and Canada. Formalized training and certification are necessary, Dr. Dolinger noted, to ensure that this new clinical approach maintains consistency as it is rolled out across the United States.
“We have the unique opportunity to do something from the ground up quickly, but also correctly, meaning that we can train everyone to speak the same language and do the same standardized exams so that all the findings and research are relatable,” Dr. Dolinger said.
He advised interested physicians to contact their local inflammatory bowel disease center to find out if training is available, and if it is, devoting “a lot of time” to the learning process.
“If you’re going to use this potentially as a clinical decision-making tool without using other invasive procedures, you really want to make sure what you’re doing is accurate and correct,” Dr. Dolinger said.
The investigators disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Merck, Takeda, and others. Dr. Dolinger disclosed a relationship with NeuroLogica, a subsidiary of Samsung Electronics.
Intestinal ultrasound (IUS) findings correlate strongly with endoscopy results in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC), with treatment responses detected as soon as 8 weeks after starting tofacitinib, a longitudinal prospective study has found.
IUS accurately detected improvements and remission across a variety of scoring methodologies, suggesting that it may be a cost-effective, noninvasive alternative to endoscopic monitoring, reported lead author Floris de Voogd, MD, of Amsterdam University Medical Centers, and colleagues.
“Endoscopy is generally considered as the gold standard for the diagnosis and follow-up of patients with UC,” the investigators wrote in Gastroenterology. “However, endoscopy is an invasive and costly modality and therefore less attractive to perform frequently during the disease course.”
Whereas noninvasive fecal biomarkers are a more economical method of monitoring inflammation and treatment responses, they fail to characterize disease extent and fall short in detecting early endoscopic responses, the investigators added.
The present study aimed to determine if IUS could offer more clinical insight by measuring bowel wall thickness. Thirty patients were enrolled with moderate to severe UC, all with an endoscopic Mayo score of at least 2. Twenty-seven of these patients were evaluable through follow-up, having undergone both IUS and endoscopy at baseline and 8 weeks after starting tofacitinib.
At both time points, IUS findings correlated significantly with endoscopic Mayo score (EMS), UC endoscopic index for severity, and Robarts Histopathology Index, with correlation coefficients of 0.68, 0.73, and 0.49, respectively. Remission according to EMS was defined as a score of 0, and improvement was defined as a score of 1 or less.
Patients with EMS improvement showed lower median bowel wall thickness in the sigmoid colon after 8 weeks of treatment than did patients without improvement (1.8 mm vs. 4.5 mm; P < .0001); patients who were in EMS remission after 8 weeks also had lower median bowel wall thickness of the sigmoid colon (1.4 mm vs. 4.0 mm; P = .016).
The investigators also sought to define cutoff values for bowel wall thickness. The most accurate cutoff values for identifying endoscopic remission and improvement were 2.8 mm (area under the receiver operating curve, 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-1.00; P = .006) and 3.9 mm (AUROC, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.82-1.00; P < .0001), respectively. Treatment response was best identified by a 32% threshold reduction in thickness (AUROC, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.74-1.00; P = .002).
“Intestinal ultrasound, with bowel wall thickness as the single most important parameter is accurate to determine treatment response to tofacitinib in patients with moderate-severe UC when compared against endoscopy,” the investigators concluded.
Michael Dolinger, MD, MBA, assistant professor of pediatrics and the associate pediatric gastroenterology fellowship program director at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said the study is noteworthy because it is the first of its kind to show that IUS can accurately monitor treatment responses in UC.
“This study is what we’re looking for now, and in the future,” Dr. Dolinger said in an interview. “We’re looking for noninvasive biomarkers to predict early responses so that we know as clinicians ... if our medicines are working or if we need to pivot and switch effectively.”
For patients, this can mean feeling better quicker while reducing burden of care, he added.
“We can use this study to predict patient responses without having to potentially rescope them in 8 weeks using a 5-minute point-of-care test in the clinic,” Dr. Dolinger said. “It’s huge to be able to say that for patients with colitis, and to provide reassurance that not only are they potentially feeling better, but the medicine is working to change and heal their bowel wall really quickly as well.”
Dr. Dolinger speaks from clinical experience. Over the past 2 years, he and his colleagues at Mount Sinai have been implementing IUS for patients with both UC and Crohn’s disease.
“It’s become part of our standard of care,” Dr. Dolinger said. “This is now emerging in the United States and will soon take hold. There is a lot of interest.”
Dr. Dolinger is one of just a few American physicians credentialed by the International Bowel Ultrasound Group, an organization based out of Europe, Israel, and Canada. Formalized training and certification are necessary, Dr. Dolinger noted, to ensure that this new clinical approach maintains consistency as it is rolled out across the United States.
“We have the unique opportunity to do something from the ground up quickly, but also correctly, meaning that we can train everyone to speak the same language and do the same standardized exams so that all the findings and research are relatable,” Dr. Dolinger said.
He advised interested physicians to contact their local inflammatory bowel disease center to find out if training is available, and if it is, devoting “a lot of time” to the learning process.
“If you’re going to use this potentially as a clinical decision-making tool without using other invasive procedures, you really want to make sure what you’re doing is accurate and correct,” Dr. Dolinger said.
The investigators disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Merck, Takeda, and others. Dr. Dolinger disclosed a relationship with NeuroLogica, a subsidiary of Samsung Electronics.
Intestinal ultrasound (IUS) findings correlate strongly with endoscopy results in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC), with treatment responses detected as soon as 8 weeks after starting tofacitinib, a longitudinal prospective study has found.
IUS accurately detected improvements and remission across a variety of scoring methodologies, suggesting that it may be a cost-effective, noninvasive alternative to endoscopic monitoring, reported lead author Floris de Voogd, MD, of Amsterdam University Medical Centers, and colleagues.
“Endoscopy is generally considered as the gold standard for the diagnosis and follow-up of patients with UC,” the investigators wrote in Gastroenterology. “However, endoscopy is an invasive and costly modality and therefore less attractive to perform frequently during the disease course.”
Whereas noninvasive fecal biomarkers are a more economical method of monitoring inflammation and treatment responses, they fail to characterize disease extent and fall short in detecting early endoscopic responses, the investigators added.
The present study aimed to determine if IUS could offer more clinical insight by measuring bowel wall thickness. Thirty patients were enrolled with moderate to severe UC, all with an endoscopic Mayo score of at least 2. Twenty-seven of these patients were evaluable through follow-up, having undergone both IUS and endoscopy at baseline and 8 weeks after starting tofacitinib.
At both time points, IUS findings correlated significantly with endoscopic Mayo score (EMS), UC endoscopic index for severity, and Robarts Histopathology Index, with correlation coefficients of 0.68, 0.73, and 0.49, respectively. Remission according to EMS was defined as a score of 0, and improvement was defined as a score of 1 or less.
Patients with EMS improvement showed lower median bowel wall thickness in the sigmoid colon after 8 weeks of treatment than did patients without improvement (1.8 mm vs. 4.5 mm; P < .0001); patients who were in EMS remission after 8 weeks also had lower median bowel wall thickness of the sigmoid colon (1.4 mm vs. 4.0 mm; P = .016).
The investigators also sought to define cutoff values for bowel wall thickness. The most accurate cutoff values for identifying endoscopic remission and improvement were 2.8 mm (area under the receiver operating curve, 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-1.00; P = .006) and 3.9 mm (AUROC, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.82-1.00; P < .0001), respectively. Treatment response was best identified by a 32% threshold reduction in thickness (AUROC, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.74-1.00; P = .002).
“Intestinal ultrasound, with bowel wall thickness as the single most important parameter is accurate to determine treatment response to tofacitinib in patients with moderate-severe UC when compared against endoscopy,” the investigators concluded.
Michael Dolinger, MD, MBA, assistant professor of pediatrics and the associate pediatric gastroenterology fellowship program director at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said the study is noteworthy because it is the first of its kind to show that IUS can accurately monitor treatment responses in UC.
“This study is what we’re looking for now, and in the future,” Dr. Dolinger said in an interview. “We’re looking for noninvasive biomarkers to predict early responses so that we know as clinicians ... if our medicines are working or if we need to pivot and switch effectively.”
For patients, this can mean feeling better quicker while reducing burden of care, he added.
“We can use this study to predict patient responses without having to potentially rescope them in 8 weeks using a 5-minute point-of-care test in the clinic,” Dr. Dolinger said. “It’s huge to be able to say that for patients with colitis, and to provide reassurance that not only are they potentially feeling better, but the medicine is working to change and heal their bowel wall really quickly as well.”
Dr. Dolinger speaks from clinical experience. Over the past 2 years, he and his colleagues at Mount Sinai have been implementing IUS for patients with both UC and Crohn’s disease.
“It’s become part of our standard of care,” Dr. Dolinger said. “This is now emerging in the United States and will soon take hold. There is a lot of interest.”
Dr. Dolinger is one of just a few American physicians credentialed by the International Bowel Ultrasound Group, an organization based out of Europe, Israel, and Canada. Formalized training and certification are necessary, Dr. Dolinger noted, to ensure that this new clinical approach maintains consistency as it is rolled out across the United States.
“We have the unique opportunity to do something from the ground up quickly, but also correctly, meaning that we can train everyone to speak the same language and do the same standardized exams so that all the findings and research are relatable,” Dr. Dolinger said.
He advised interested physicians to contact their local inflammatory bowel disease center to find out if training is available, and if it is, devoting “a lot of time” to the learning process.
“If you’re going to use this potentially as a clinical decision-making tool without using other invasive procedures, you really want to make sure what you’re doing is accurate and correct,” Dr. Dolinger said.
The investigators disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Merck, Takeda, and others. Dr. Dolinger disclosed a relationship with NeuroLogica, a subsidiary of Samsung Electronics.
FROM GASTROENTEROLOGY
Unvaccinated 10 times more likely to be hospitalized for Omicron
The data, which included almost 200,000 COVID-19–associated hospitalizations across 13 states, also showed that vaccinated, hospitalized patients were more often older and already dealing with other health conditions, compared with unvaccinated, hospitalized patients, reported lead author Fiona P. Havers, MD, of the CDC, Atlanta.
“Unlike previously published reports and web pages … this study reports hospitalization rates by vaccination status and clinical and demographic characteristics of hospitalized patients, beginning with the period when vaccines first became available, and includes comparisons of unvaccinated persons, persons vaccinated with a primary series without a booster dose, and those vaccinated with a primary series and at least 1 booster dose,” the investigators wrote in JAMA Internal Medicine.
In total, the investigators reviewed 192,509 hospitalizations involving patients 18 years and older. The study period spanned from Jan. 1, 2021, to April 30, 2022. Data were reported month by month, showing that the relative monthly hospitalization rate peaked in May 2021, when it was 17.7 times higher for unvaccinated versus vaccinated individuals (with or without a booster).
To account for differences in clinical course between Delta and Omicron, the investigators also analyzed data sorted into two time periods: July-December 2021 (Delta predominant) and January-April 2022 (Omicron BA.1 predominant). These analyses revealed the greater hospitalization risk presented by Delta. Specifically, unvaccinated people were 12.2 times more likely to be hospitalized for Delta than vaccinated people, with or without a booster, versus 6.8 times for Omicron BA.1.
Study shows power of the booster
A closer look at the Omicron BA.1 data showed the power of a booster dose. From January to April 2022, individuals who were fully vaccinated with a booster dose were 10.5 times less likely than unvaccinated individuals to be hospitalized for Omicron BA.1. Plus, boosted people were 2.5 times less likely to be hospitalized for Omicron BA.1 than people who got vaccinated but skipped the booster.
“The high hospitalization rates in unvaccinated compared with vaccinated persons with and without a booster dose underscores the importance of COVID-19 vaccinations in preventing hospitalizations and suggests that increasing vaccination coverage, including booster dose coverage, can prevent hospitalizations, serious illness, and death,” the investigators wrote.
The study also revealed that vaccinated hospitalized patients were significantly older, on average, than unvaccinated hospitalized patients (median, 70 vs. 58 years; P < .001). They were also significantly more likely to have three or more underlying medical conditions (77.8% vs. 51.6%; P < .001)
“A greater proportion of hospitalized cases among vaccinated persons occurred in individuals with medical fragility who were older, more likely to reside in long-term care facilities, and have three or more underlying medical conditions, including immunosuppressive conditions,” the investigators wrote.
New variants outpacing data, vaccines remain essential
While data from April 2022 alone showed a 3.5-fold higher rate of hospitalization among unvaccinated versus vaccinated individuals with or without a booster, newer data suggest that emerging strains of Omicron are putting more people in the hospital.
A recent report by the CDC showed weekly hospitalization rates climbing from March 20 to May 31, 2022, which coincided with predominance of the newer Omicron BA.2 variant. While unvaccinated people were still around 3.5 times more likely to be hospitalized than vaccinated people, overall hospitalization rates jumped 3-fold for people 65 years and older, and 1.7-fold for adults younger than 65. Adding further complexity to this constantly evolving situation is that Omicron BA.2 has since been joined by the BA.4 and BA.5 lineages, for which vaccines are now available.
In the paper published in JAMA Internal Medicine, the CDC report, and in a comment for this article, the CDC offered the same take-home message: Get vaccinated.
“These findings reinforce previous research illustrating how vaccination provides protection from hospitalization due to COVID-19,” a CDC spokesperson said. “COVID-19 vaccines are proven to help prevent serious COVID-19 illness, and everyone ages 6 months and older should stay up to date with COVID-19 vaccines.”
The study published in JAMA Internal Medicine was supported by the CDC. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Sanofi, GSK, MedImmune, and others.
The data, which included almost 200,000 COVID-19–associated hospitalizations across 13 states, also showed that vaccinated, hospitalized patients were more often older and already dealing with other health conditions, compared with unvaccinated, hospitalized patients, reported lead author Fiona P. Havers, MD, of the CDC, Atlanta.
“Unlike previously published reports and web pages … this study reports hospitalization rates by vaccination status and clinical and demographic characteristics of hospitalized patients, beginning with the period when vaccines first became available, and includes comparisons of unvaccinated persons, persons vaccinated with a primary series without a booster dose, and those vaccinated with a primary series and at least 1 booster dose,” the investigators wrote in JAMA Internal Medicine.
In total, the investigators reviewed 192,509 hospitalizations involving patients 18 years and older. The study period spanned from Jan. 1, 2021, to April 30, 2022. Data were reported month by month, showing that the relative monthly hospitalization rate peaked in May 2021, when it was 17.7 times higher for unvaccinated versus vaccinated individuals (with or without a booster).
To account for differences in clinical course between Delta and Omicron, the investigators also analyzed data sorted into two time periods: July-December 2021 (Delta predominant) and January-April 2022 (Omicron BA.1 predominant). These analyses revealed the greater hospitalization risk presented by Delta. Specifically, unvaccinated people were 12.2 times more likely to be hospitalized for Delta than vaccinated people, with or without a booster, versus 6.8 times for Omicron BA.1.
Study shows power of the booster
A closer look at the Omicron BA.1 data showed the power of a booster dose. From January to April 2022, individuals who were fully vaccinated with a booster dose were 10.5 times less likely than unvaccinated individuals to be hospitalized for Omicron BA.1. Plus, boosted people were 2.5 times less likely to be hospitalized for Omicron BA.1 than people who got vaccinated but skipped the booster.
“The high hospitalization rates in unvaccinated compared with vaccinated persons with and without a booster dose underscores the importance of COVID-19 vaccinations in preventing hospitalizations and suggests that increasing vaccination coverage, including booster dose coverage, can prevent hospitalizations, serious illness, and death,” the investigators wrote.
The study also revealed that vaccinated hospitalized patients were significantly older, on average, than unvaccinated hospitalized patients (median, 70 vs. 58 years; P < .001). They were also significantly more likely to have three or more underlying medical conditions (77.8% vs. 51.6%; P < .001)
“A greater proportion of hospitalized cases among vaccinated persons occurred in individuals with medical fragility who were older, more likely to reside in long-term care facilities, and have three or more underlying medical conditions, including immunosuppressive conditions,” the investigators wrote.
New variants outpacing data, vaccines remain essential
While data from April 2022 alone showed a 3.5-fold higher rate of hospitalization among unvaccinated versus vaccinated individuals with or without a booster, newer data suggest that emerging strains of Omicron are putting more people in the hospital.
A recent report by the CDC showed weekly hospitalization rates climbing from March 20 to May 31, 2022, which coincided with predominance of the newer Omicron BA.2 variant. While unvaccinated people were still around 3.5 times more likely to be hospitalized than vaccinated people, overall hospitalization rates jumped 3-fold for people 65 years and older, and 1.7-fold for adults younger than 65. Adding further complexity to this constantly evolving situation is that Omicron BA.2 has since been joined by the BA.4 and BA.5 lineages, for which vaccines are now available.
In the paper published in JAMA Internal Medicine, the CDC report, and in a comment for this article, the CDC offered the same take-home message: Get vaccinated.
“These findings reinforce previous research illustrating how vaccination provides protection from hospitalization due to COVID-19,” a CDC spokesperson said. “COVID-19 vaccines are proven to help prevent serious COVID-19 illness, and everyone ages 6 months and older should stay up to date with COVID-19 vaccines.”
The study published in JAMA Internal Medicine was supported by the CDC. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Sanofi, GSK, MedImmune, and others.
The data, which included almost 200,000 COVID-19–associated hospitalizations across 13 states, also showed that vaccinated, hospitalized patients were more often older and already dealing with other health conditions, compared with unvaccinated, hospitalized patients, reported lead author Fiona P. Havers, MD, of the CDC, Atlanta.
“Unlike previously published reports and web pages … this study reports hospitalization rates by vaccination status and clinical and demographic characteristics of hospitalized patients, beginning with the period when vaccines first became available, and includes comparisons of unvaccinated persons, persons vaccinated with a primary series without a booster dose, and those vaccinated with a primary series and at least 1 booster dose,” the investigators wrote in JAMA Internal Medicine.
In total, the investigators reviewed 192,509 hospitalizations involving patients 18 years and older. The study period spanned from Jan. 1, 2021, to April 30, 2022. Data were reported month by month, showing that the relative monthly hospitalization rate peaked in May 2021, when it was 17.7 times higher for unvaccinated versus vaccinated individuals (with or without a booster).
To account for differences in clinical course between Delta and Omicron, the investigators also analyzed data sorted into two time periods: July-December 2021 (Delta predominant) and January-April 2022 (Omicron BA.1 predominant). These analyses revealed the greater hospitalization risk presented by Delta. Specifically, unvaccinated people were 12.2 times more likely to be hospitalized for Delta than vaccinated people, with or without a booster, versus 6.8 times for Omicron BA.1.
Study shows power of the booster
A closer look at the Omicron BA.1 data showed the power of a booster dose. From January to April 2022, individuals who were fully vaccinated with a booster dose were 10.5 times less likely than unvaccinated individuals to be hospitalized for Omicron BA.1. Plus, boosted people were 2.5 times less likely to be hospitalized for Omicron BA.1 than people who got vaccinated but skipped the booster.
“The high hospitalization rates in unvaccinated compared with vaccinated persons with and without a booster dose underscores the importance of COVID-19 vaccinations in preventing hospitalizations and suggests that increasing vaccination coverage, including booster dose coverage, can prevent hospitalizations, serious illness, and death,” the investigators wrote.
The study also revealed that vaccinated hospitalized patients were significantly older, on average, than unvaccinated hospitalized patients (median, 70 vs. 58 years; P < .001). They were also significantly more likely to have three or more underlying medical conditions (77.8% vs. 51.6%; P < .001)
“A greater proportion of hospitalized cases among vaccinated persons occurred in individuals with medical fragility who were older, more likely to reside in long-term care facilities, and have three or more underlying medical conditions, including immunosuppressive conditions,” the investigators wrote.
New variants outpacing data, vaccines remain essential
While data from April 2022 alone showed a 3.5-fold higher rate of hospitalization among unvaccinated versus vaccinated individuals with or without a booster, newer data suggest that emerging strains of Omicron are putting more people in the hospital.
A recent report by the CDC showed weekly hospitalization rates climbing from March 20 to May 31, 2022, which coincided with predominance of the newer Omicron BA.2 variant. While unvaccinated people were still around 3.5 times more likely to be hospitalized than vaccinated people, overall hospitalization rates jumped 3-fold for people 65 years and older, and 1.7-fold for adults younger than 65. Adding further complexity to this constantly evolving situation is that Omicron BA.2 has since been joined by the BA.4 and BA.5 lineages, for which vaccines are now available.
In the paper published in JAMA Internal Medicine, the CDC report, and in a comment for this article, the CDC offered the same take-home message: Get vaccinated.
“These findings reinforce previous research illustrating how vaccination provides protection from hospitalization due to COVID-19,” a CDC spokesperson said. “COVID-19 vaccines are proven to help prevent serious COVID-19 illness, and everyone ages 6 months and older should stay up to date with COVID-19 vaccines.”
The study published in JAMA Internal Medicine was supported by the CDC. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Sanofi, GSK, MedImmune, and others.
FROM JAMA INTERNAL MEDICINE
WIC review finds broad benefits, knowledge gaps
How exactly the national program achieves these outcomes, however, remains unclear, and study quality shows room for improvement, reported co–lead authors Maya Venkataramani, MD, MPH and S. Michelle Ogunwole, MD, PhD of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues.
The WIC program, which has been serving low-income women and young children since 1974, “provides supplemental foods, nutrition education and breastfeeding support, screening and referrals to medical and social services, and support for high-risk pregnancies,” the investigators wrote in Annals of Internal Medicine. The U.S. Food and Nutrition Service administers the program.
The authors conducted a systematic review of 20 observational studies aimed at determining the impacts of WIC participation on maternal, neonatal-birth, and infant-child health outcomes.
All studies included in the review began in or after 2009, when the WIC food package was revised to better address diet-related chronic diseases. For inclusion in the review, studies were required to have a WIC-eligible comparison group. Included research also evaluated the relationship between WIC participation and the prespecified health outcomes.
“We found only 20 studies that fulfilled our rigorous study inclusion criteria for these specific outcomes,” the investigators wrote. “In some areas, the evidence was absent, and in others, the strength of evidence (SOE) was moderate or low.”
Six outcome categories were assessed: maternal morbidity, maternal pregnancy outcomes, maternal health behaviors, maternal health care utilization, child morbidity, and childhood health care utilization. Of these, maternal health care utilization had the most robust body of evidence, while data from studies evaluating maternal morbidity and child morbidity were deemed insufficient.
Based on eligible studies, WIC participation was associated with reduced risks of insufficient weight gain in pregnancy, preterm birth, low infant birthweight, and infant mortality. Participation was also associated with an increased likelihood of infant and child health care utilization, such as routine immunizations.
Growing evidence should drive enrollment
“Growing evidence points to WIC as a way to reduce risk of preterm birth and other adverse outcomes,” said Laura Jelliffe-Pawlowski, PhD, MS, professor at the University of California, San Francisco and a director for the UCSF California Preterm Birth Initiative.
Dr. Jelliffe-Pawlowski, who conducted a California-based study included in the paper, said the review is noteworthy because it shows that WIC-associated benefits are observed across locations.
“It’s not just in California; it’s across the country,” she said. “It’s a national call to action – where there’s partnership between national-, state- and community-level WIC programs – to make WIC as accessible as possible, and reflect community wants and needs, so that more people enroll, and more people stay enrolled.”
Dr. Jelliffe-Pawlowski’s coauthor on the California study, Rita Hamad, MD, PhD, associate professor of family & community medicine at UCSF and associate director of the UCSF Center for Health Equity, encouraged health care providers to drive WIC enrollment, noting that, presently, only one in four eligible 4-year-olds participates.
“Physicians and other health care stakeholders can help patients benefit from this program by encouraging them to sign up, and even by providing sign-up support in the form of a social worker or other staff member,” Dr. Hamad said. “There is also literature on the types of interventions that improve take-up of safety net programs that providers can look to.”
Goals of future research
Optimizing WIC operations, however, is only half the battle, considering the evidence gaps revealed by the review.
“We still need stronger studies that use more rigorous study designs ... to provide more convincing evidence to policymakers, as well as more evidence on long-term impacts,” Dr. Hamad said. “We also need to better understand why take-up is low in these programs despite these potential health benefits. Then we can make sure that economically disadvantaged families receive the benefits for which they are eligible through interventions to improve participation rates.”
Ideally, WIC programs would receive additional funding for independent parties to evaluate health outcomes, according to Ashwini Lakshmanan, MD, MS, MPH, associate professor in the department of health systems science at Kaiser Permanente Bernard J. Tyson School of Medicine, Pasadena, Calif.
Dr. Lakshmanan, who previously evaluated the benefits of WIC participation for high-risk infants, noted that randomized clinical trials would be unethical in this setting, yet data collection can still be “very conscientious and intentional,” with a focus on policy-shaping outcome metrics like immunizations and pediatric health care visits.
“The main point is thinking about it at the forefront, and not retrospectively,” Dr. Lakshmanan said.
Dr. Ogunwole, who led the present review, suggested in a written comment that future studies “could employ robust statistical methods (propensity matching, fixed effects models, etc.) to help reduce bias.”
She also recommended evaluating innovations in WIC programs; for example, adding a health coach, or conducting a cooking skills intervention.
Studies are also needed to better understand the various obstacles to WIC success, such as misconceptions about the program, discrimination, and barriers to enrollment, Dr. Ogunwole added.
“WIC enrollment has been decreasing for a number of years, and this was occurring prepandemic as well,” she said. “More work needs to be done to understand this issue.”
The study was supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. The investigators and interviewees disclosed no conflicts of interest.
How exactly the national program achieves these outcomes, however, remains unclear, and study quality shows room for improvement, reported co–lead authors Maya Venkataramani, MD, MPH and S. Michelle Ogunwole, MD, PhD of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues.
The WIC program, which has been serving low-income women and young children since 1974, “provides supplemental foods, nutrition education and breastfeeding support, screening and referrals to medical and social services, and support for high-risk pregnancies,” the investigators wrote in Annals of Internal Medicine. The U.S. Food and Nutrition Service administers the program.
The authors conducted a systematic review of 20 observational studies aimed at determining the impacts of WIC participation on maternal, neonatal-birth, and infant-child health outcomes.
All studies included in the review began in or after 2009, when the WIC food package was revised to better address diet-related chronic diseases. For inclusion in the review, studies were required to have a WIC-eligible comparison group. Included research also evaluated the relationship between WIC participation and the prespecified health outcomes.
“We found only 20 studies that fulfilled our rigorous study inclusion criteria for these specific outcomes,” the investigators wrote. “In some areas, the evidence was absent, and in others, the strength of evidence (SOE) was moderate or low.”
Six outcome categories were assessed: maternal morbidity, maternal pregnancy outcomes, maternal health behaviors, maternal health care utilization, child morbidity, and childhood health care utilization. Of these, maternal health care utilization had the most robust body of evidence, while data from studies evaluating maternal morbidity and child morbidity were deemed insufficient.
Based on eligible studies, WIC participation was associated with reduced risks of insufficient weight gain in pregnancy, preterm birth, low infant birthweight, and infant mortality. Participation was also associated with an increased likelihood of infant and child health care utilization, such as routine immunizations.
Growing evidence should drive enrollment
“Growing evidence points to WIC as a way to reduce risk of preterm birth and other adverse outcomes,” said Laura Jelliffe-Pawlowski, PhD, MS, professor at the University of California, San Francisco and a director for the UCSF California Preterm Birth Initiative.
Dr. Jelliffe-Pawlowski, who conducted a California-based study included in the paper, said the review is noteworthy because it shows that WIC-associated benefits are observed across locations.
“It’s not just in California; it’s across the country,” she said. “It’s a national call to action – where there’s partnership between national-, state- and community-level WIC programs – to make WIC as accessible as possible, and reflect community wants and needs, so that more people enroll, and more people stay enrolled.”
Dr. Jelliffe-Pawlowski’s coauthor on the California study, Rita Hamad, MD, PhD, associate professor of family & community medicine at UCSF and associate director of the UCSF Center for Health Equity, encouraged health care providers to drive WIC enrollment, noting that, presently, only one in four eligible 4-year-olds participates.
“Physicians and other health care stakeholders can help patients benefit from this program by encouraging them to sign up, and even by providing sign-up support in the form of a social worker or other staff member,” Dr. Hamad said. “There is also literature on the types of interventions that improve take-up of safety net programs that providers can look to.”
Goals of future research
Optimizing WIC operations, however, is only half the battle, considering the evidence gaps revealed by the review.
“We still need stronger studies that use more rigorous study designs ... to provide more convincing evidence to policymakers, as well as more evidence on long-term impacts,” Dr. Hamad said. “We also need to better understand why take-up is low in these programs despite these potential health benefits. Then we can make sure that economically disadvantaged families receive the benefits for which they are eligible through interventions to improve participation rates.”
Ideally, WIC programs would receive additional funding for independent parties to evaluate health outcomes, according to Ashwini Lakshmanan, MD, MS, MPH, associate professor in the department of health systems science at Kaiser Permanente Bernard J. Tyson School of Medicine, Pasadena, Calif.
Dr. Lakshmanan, who previously evaluated the benefits of WIC participation for high-risk infants, noted that randomized clinical trials would be unethical in this setting, yet data collection can still be “very conscientious and intentional,” with a focus on policy-shaping outcome metrics like immunizations and pediatric health care visits.
“The main point is thinking about it at the forefront, and not retrospectively,” Dr. Lakshmanan said.
Dr. Ogunwole, who led the present review, suggested in a written comment that future studies “could employ robust statistical methods (propensity matching, fixed effects models, etc.) to help reduce bias.”
She also recommended evaluating innovations in WIC programs; for example, adding a health coach, or conducting a cooking skills intervention.
Studies are also needed to better understand the various obstacles to WIC success, such as misconceptions about the program, discrimination, and barriers to enrollment, Dr. Ogunwole added.
“WIC enrollment has been decreasing for a number of years, and this was occurring prepandemic as well,” she said. “More work needs to be done to understand this issue.”
The study was supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. The investigators and interviewees disclosed no conflicts of interest.
How exactly the national program achieves these outcomes, however, remains unclear, and study quality shows room for improvement, reported co–lead authors Maya Venkataramani, MD, MPH and S. Michelle Ogunwole, MD, PhD of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues.
The WIC program, which has been serving low-income women and young children since 1974, “provides supplemental foods, nutrition education and breastfeeding support, screening and referrals to medical and social services, and support for high-risk pregnancies,” the investigators wrote in Annals of Internal Medicine. The U.S. Food and Nutrition Service administers the program.
The authors conducted a systematic review of 20 observational studies aimed at determining the impacts of WIC participation on maternal, neonatal-birth, and infant-child health outcomes.
All studies included in the review began in or after 2009, when the WIC food package was revised to better address diet-related chronic diseases. For inclusion in the review, studies were required to have a WIC-eligible comparison group. Included research also evaluated the relationship between WIC participation and the prespecified health outcomes.
“We found only 20 studies that fulfilled our rigorous study inclusion criteria for these specific outcomes,” the investigators wrote. “In some areas, the evidence was absent, and in others, the strength of evidence (SOE) was moderate or low.”
Six outcome categories were assessed: maternal morbidity, maternal pregnancy outcomes, maternal health behaviors, maternal health care utilization, child morbidity, and childhood health care utilization. Of these, maternal health care utilization had the most robust body of evidence, while data from studies evaluating maternal morbidity and child morbidity were deemed insufficient.
Based on eligible studies, WIC participation was associated with reduced risks of insufficient weight gain in pregnancy, preterm birth, low infant birthweight, and infant mortality. Participation was also associated with an increased likelihood of infant and child health care utilization, such as routine immunizations.
Growing evidence should drive enrollment
“Growing evidence points to WIC as a way to reduce risk of preterm birth and other adverse outcomes,” said Laura Jelliffe-Pawlowski, PhD, MS, professor at the University of California, San Francisco and a director for the UCSF California Preterm Birth Initiative.
Dr. Jelliffe-Pawlowski, who conducted a California-based study included in the paper, said the review is noteworthy because it shows that WIC-associated benefits are observed across locations.
“It’s not just in California; it’s across the country,” she said. “It’s a national call to action – where there’s partnership between national-, state- and community-level WIC programs – to make WIC as accessible as possible, and reflect community wants and needs, so that more people enroll, and more people stay enrolled.”
Dr. Jelliffe-Pawlowski’s coauthor on the California study, Rita Hamad, MD, PhD, associate professor of family & community medicine at UCSF and associate director of the UCSF Center for Health Equity, encouraged health care providers to drive WIC enrollment, noting that, presently, only one in four eligible 4-year-olds participates.
“Physicians and other health care stakeholders can help patients benefit from this program by encouraging them to sign up, and even by providing sign-up support in the form of a social worker or other staff member,” Dr. Hamad said. “There is also literature on the types of interventions that improve take-up of safety net programs that providers can look to.”
Goals of future research
Optimizing WIC operations, however, is only half the battle, considering the evidence gaps revealed by the review.
“We still need stronger studies that use more rigorous study designs ... to provide more convincing evidence to policymakers, as well as more evidence on long-term impacts,” Dr. Hamad said. “We also need to better understand why take-up is low in these programs despite these potential health benefits. Then we can make sure that economically disadvantaged families receive the benefits for which they are eligible through interventions to improve participation rates.”
Ideally, WIC programs would receive additional funding for independent parties to evaluate health outcomes, according to Ashwini Lakshmanan, MD, MS, MPH, associate professor in the department of health systems science at Kaiser Permanente Bernard J. Tyson School of Medicine, Pasadena, Calif.
Dr. Lakshmanan, who previously evaluated the benefits of WIC participation for high-risk infants, noted that randomized clinical trials would be unethical in this setting, yet data collection can still be “very conscientious and intentional,” with a focus on policy-shaping outcome metrics like immunizations and pediatric health care visits.
“The main point is thinking about it at the forefront, and not retrospectively,” Dr. Lakshmanan said.
Dr. Ogunwole, who led the present review, suggested in a written comment that future studies “could employ robust statistical methods (propensity matching, fixed effects models, etc.) to help reduce bias.”
She also recommended evaluating innovations in WIC programs; for example, adding a health coach, or conducting a cooking skills intervention.
Studies are also needed to better understand the various obstacles to WIC success, such as misconceptions about the program, discrimination, and barriers to enrollment, Dr. Ogunwole added.
“WIC enrollment has been decreasing for a number of years, and this was occurring prepandemic as well,” she said. “More work needs to be done to understand this issue.”
The study was supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. The investigators and interviewees disclosed no conflicts of interest.
FROM ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE
Early rhythm control improves cardiovascular outcomes in AFib patients regardless of stroke risk
These findings broaden support for early rhythm control, suggesting that physicians should be presenting the option to all patients diagnosed with AFib in routine clinical practice, lead author Daehoon Kim, MD, of Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea, and colleagues reported.
In 2020, the EAST-AFNET 4 trial showed that early rhythm control was better than rate control for reducing adverse cardiovascular outcomes, but the trial only included patients at risk of stroke with a CHA2DS2-VASc score of at least 2, leaving it unclear whether healthier patients might benefit from the same approach.
“Although the primary indication for rhythm control is to alleviate AF[ib]-related symptoms and improve quality of life, the current guidelines suggest younger age and no or few comorbid conditions as factors favoring rhythm control,” the investigators wrote in Annals of Internal Medicine. “Thus, the effect of rhythm control on cardiovascular outcomes in this population requires elucidation.”
Methods and results
The present study aimed to address this knowledge gap by reviewing data from 54,216 patients with AFib who had rhythm control (ablation or medication) or rate control within one year of diagnosis. Among these patients, 69.3% would have qualified for the EAST-AFNET 4 trial based on higher stroke risk, while the remaining 30.7% of patients would not have been eligible because of lower stroke risk. Median age, consequently, was higher in the former group, at 70 years, versus 54 years in the latter group.
Evaluating the same primary composite outcome as the EAST-AFNET 4 trial (cardiovascular death, ischemic stroke, hospitalization for heart failure, or MI) showed that patients benefited from rhythm control over rate control regardless of risk group.
Those in the higher risk group had a 14% reduced risk of negative cardiovascular outcomes (weighted hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.81-0.92), while those in the lower risk group had a 19% reduced risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes (weighted HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.66-0.98). Safety profiles were similar across groups and management strategies.
Rhythm control well supported from statistical perspective
“We think that physicians should pursue early rhythm control in all patients diagnosed with AF[ib],” principal author Boyoung Joung, MD, PhD, of Yonsei University said in an interview. “Like catheter ablation, we support the idea that early rhythm control can be more effective and safely performed in younger and less frail populations.”
Xiaoxi Yao, PhD, MPH, associate professor of health services research at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., agreed that rhythm control is now well supported from a statistical perspective, but patients and physicians need to look beyond relative risk improvements, and remain pragmatic.
“There is a benefit, but the benefit is consistent in terms of hazard ratio, or relative risk,” Dr. Yao said in an interview. “You still find a smaller absolute risk difference.”
Patients in the United States – versus Korea where the investigators are based – also need to consider the out-of-pocket costs involved in rhythm control, Dr. Yao said, noting that unclear cost effectiveness may also prevent changes to American guidelines. Medication side effects and procedural risks should also be considered, she added, as well as time off from work needed for ablation.
Dr. Yao, who published a similar paper in June and previously evaluated the role of catheter ablation in routine practice, suggested that the youngest patients may have the most to gain from rhythm control. This is because even a small absolute benefit is magnified with time, she said.
“Since [younger patients] have another several decades to live ... then yes, there might be very significant long-term effects in terms of both symptom control and cardiovascular death and stroke,” Dr. Yao said.
For optimal patient selection, however, more advanced tools are needed, which is why Dr. Yao and her colleagues are exploring new technologies to improve risk-benefit analysis.
“We are not only interested in [a patient’s] baseline high or low risk, but also the extent of risk reduction [that rhythm control provides],” Dr. Yao said. “We are trying to see if there is an [artificial intelligence] or machine-learning approach that can help us provide each patient with a more accurate, individualized estimate to help them make their decision.”
Until then, Dr. Yao encouraged physicians to engage in shared decision-making with patients, making sure to discuss both statistical and practical considerations.
The study was funded by the Ministry of Health and Welfare and the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety of the Republic of Korea. The investigators and Dr. Yao reported no conflicts.
These findings broaden support for early rhythm control, suggesting that physicians should be presenting the option to all patients diagnosed with AFib in routine clinical practice, lead author Daehoon Kim, MD, of Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea, and colleagues reported.
In 2020, the EAST-AFNET 4 trial showed that early rhythm control was better than rate control for reducing adverse cardiovascular outcomes, but the trial only included patients at risk of stroke with a CHA2DS2-VASc score of at least 2, leaving it unclear whether healthier patients might benefit from the same approach.
“Although the primary indication for rhythm control is to alleviate AF[ib]-related symptoms and improve quality of life, the current guidelines suggest younger age and no or few comorbid conditions as factors favoring rhythm control,” the investigators wrote in Annals of Internal Medicine. “Thus, the effect of rhythm control on cardiovascular outcomes in this population requires elucidation.”
Methods and results
The present study aimed to address this knowledge gap by reviewing data from 54,216 patients with AFib who had rhythm control (ablation or medication) or rate control within one year of diagnosis. Among these patients, 69.3% would have qualified for the EAST-AFNET 4 trial based on higher stroke risk, while the remaining 30.7% of patients would not have been eligible because of lower stroke risk. Median age, consequently, was higher in the former group, at 70 years, versus 54 years in the latter group.
Evaluating the same primary composite outcome as the EAST-AFNET 4 trial (cardiovascular death, ischemic stroke, hospitalization for heart failure, or MI) showed that patients benefited from rhythm control over rate control regardless of risk group.
Those in the higher risk group had a 14% reduced risk of negative cardiovascular outcomes (weighted hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.81-0.92), while those in the lower risk group had a 19% reduced risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes (weighted HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.66-0.98). Safety profiles were similar across groups and management strategies.
Rhythm control well supported from statistical perspective
“We think that physicians should pursue early rhythm control in all patients diagnosed with AF[ib],” principal author Boyoung Joung, MD, PhD, of Yonsei University said in an interview. “Like catheter ablation, we support the idea that early rhythm control can be more effective and safely performed in younger and less frail populations.”
Xiaoxi Yao, PhD, MPH, associate professor of health services research at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., agreed that rhythm control is now well supported from a statistical perspective, but patients and physicians need to look beyond relative risk improvements, and remain pragmatic.
“There is a benefit, but the benefit is consistent in terms of hazard ratio, or relative risk,” Dr. Yao said in an interview. “You still find a smaller absolute risk difference.”
Patients in the United States – versus Korea where the investigators are based – also need to consider the out-of-pocket costs involved in rhythm control, Dr. Yao said, noting that unclear cost effectiveness may also prevent changes to American guidelines. Medication side effects and procedural risks should also be considered, she added, as well as time off from work needed for ablation.
Dr. Yao, who published a similar paper in June and previously evaluated the role of catheter ablation in routine practice, suggested that the youngest patients may have the most to gain from rhythm control. This is because even a small absolute benefit is magnified with time, she said.
“Since [younger patients] have another several decades to live ... then yes, there might be very significant long-term effects in terms of both symptom control and cardiovascular death and stroke,” Dr. Yao said.
For optimal patient selection, however, more advanced tools are needed, which is why Dr. Yao and her colleagues are exploring new technologies to improve risk-benefit analysis.
“We are not only interested in [a patient’s] baseline high or low risk, but also the extent of risk reduction [that rhythm control provides],” Dr. Yao said. “We are trying to see if there is an [artificial intelligence] or machine-learning approach that can help us provide each patient with a more accurate, individualized estimate to help them make their decision.”
Until then, Dr. Yao encouraged physicians to engage in shared decision-making with patients, making sure to discuss both statistical and practical considerations.
The study was funded by the Ministry of Health and Welfare and the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety of the Republic of Korea. The investigators and Dr. Yao reported no conflicts.
These findings broaden support for early rhythm control, suggesting that physicians should be presenting the option to all patients diagnosed with AFib in routine clinical practice, lead author Daehoon Kim, MD, of Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea, and colleagues reported.
In 2020, the EAST-AFNET 4 trial showed that early rhythm control was better than rate control for reducing adverse cardiovascular outcomes, but the trial only included patients at risk of stroke with a CHA2DS2-VASc score of at least 2, leaving it unclear whether healthier patients might benefit from the same approach.
“Although the primary indication for rhythm control is to alleviate AF[ib]-related symptoms and improve quality of life, the current guidelines suggest younger age and no or few comorbid conditions as factors favoring rhythm control,” the investigators wrote in Annals of Internal Medicine. “Thus, the effect of rhythm control on cardiovascular outcomes in this population requires elucidation.”
Methods and results
The present study aimed to address this knowledge gap by reviewing data from 54,216 patients with AFib who had rhythm control (ablation or medication) or rate control within one year of diagnosis. Among these patients, 69.3% would have qualified for the EAST-AFNET 4 trial based on higher stroke risk, while the remaining 30.7% of patients would not have been eligible because of lower stroke risk. Median age, consequently, was higher in the former group, at 70 years, versus 54 years in the latter group.
Evaluating the same primary composite outcome as the EAST-AFNET 4 trial (cardiovascular death, ischemic stroke, hospitalization for heart failure, or MI) showed that patients benefited from rhythm control over rate control regardless of risk group.
Those in the higher risk group had a 14% reduced risk of negative cardiovascular outcomes (weighted hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.81-0.92), while those in the lower risk group had a 19% reduced risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes (weighted HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.66-0.98). Safety profiles were similar across groups and management strategies.
Rhythm control well supported from statistical perspective
“We think that physicians should pursue early rhythm control in all patients diagnosed with AF[ib],” principal author Boyoung Joung, MD, PhD, of Yonsei University said in an interview. “Like catheter ablation, we support the idea that early rhythm control can be more effective and safely performed in younger and less frail populations.”
Xiaoxi Yao, PhD, MPH, associate professor of health services research at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., agreed that rhythm control is now well supported from a statistical perspective, but patients and physicians need to look beyond relative risk improvements, and remain pragmatic.
“There is a benefit, but the benefit is consistent in terms of hazard ratio, or relative risk,” Dr. Yao said in an interview. “You still find a smaller absolute risk difference.”
Patients in the United States – versus Korea where the investigators are based – also need to consider the out-of-pocket costs involved in rhythm control, Dr. Yao said, noting that unclear cost effectiveness may also prevent changes to American guidelines. Medication side effects and procedural risks should also be considered, she added, as well as time off from work needed for ablation.
Dr. Yao, who published a similar paper in June and previously evaluated the role of catheter ablation in routine practice, suggested that the youngest patients may have the most to gain from rhythm control. This is because even a small absolute benefit is magnified with time, she said.
“Since [younger patients] have another several decades to live ... then yes, there might be very significant long-term effects in terms of both symptom control and cardiovascular death and stroke,” Dr. Yao said.
For optimal patient selection, however, more advanced tools are needed, which is why Dr. Yao and her colleagues are exploring new technologies to improve risk-benefit analysis.
“We are not only interested in [a patient’s] baseline high or low risk, but also the extent of risk reduction [that rhythm control provides],” Dr. Yao said. “We are trying to see if there is an [artificial intelligence] or machine-learning approach that can help us provide each patient with a more accurate, individualized estimate to help them make their decision.”
Until then, Dr. Yao encouraged physicians to engage in shared decision-making with patients, making sure to discuss both statistical and practical considerations.
The study was funded by the Ministry of Health and Welfare and the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety of the Republic of Korea. The investigators and Dr. Yao reported no conflicts.
FROM ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE
Fine-needle aspiration alternative allows closer look at pancreatic cystic lesions
Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)–guided through-the-needle biopsies (TTNBs) of pancreatic cystic lesions are sufficient for accurate molecular analysis, which offers a superior alternative to cyst fluid obtained via fine-needle aspiration, based on a prospective study.
For highest diagnostic clarity, next-generation sequencing (NGS) of TTNBs can be paired with histology, lead author Charlotte Vestrup Rift, MD, PhD, of Copenhagen University Hospital, and colleagues reported.
“The diagnostic algorithm for the management of [pancreatic cystic lesions] includes endoscopic ultrasound examination with aspiration of cyst fluid for cytology,” the investigators wrote in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. “However, the reported sensitivity of cytology is low [at 54%]. A new microforceps, introduced through a 19-gauge needle, has proven useful for procurement of [TTNBs] that represent both the epithelial and stromal component of the cyst wall. TTNBs have a high sensitivity of 86% for the diagnosis of mucinous cysts.”
Dr. Rift and colleagues evaluated the impact of introducing NGS to the diagnostic process. They noted that concomitant mutations in GNAS and KRAS are diagnostic for intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs), while other mutations have been linked with progression to cancer.
The study involved 101 patients with pancreatic cystic lesions larger than 15 mm in diameter, mean age of 68 years, among whom 91 had residual TTNBs available after microscopic analysis. These samples underwent a 51-gene NGS panel that included the “most prevalent hot-spot mutations.” Diagnoses were sorted into four categories: neoplastic cyst, mucinous cyst, IPMN, or serous cystic neoplasm.
The primary endpoint was diagnostic yield, both for molecular analysis of TTNBs and for molecular analysis plus histopathology of TTNBs. Sensitivity and specificity of NGS were also determined using histopathology as the gold standard.
Relying on NGS alone, diagnostic yields were 44.5% and 27.7% for detecting a mucinous cyst and determining type of cyst, respectively. These yields rose to 73.3% and 70.3%, respectively, when NGS was used with microscopic evaluation. Continuing with this combined approach, sensitivity and specificity were 83.7% and 81.8%, respectively, for the diagnosis of a mucinous cyst. Sensitivity and specificity were higher still, at 87.2% and 84.6%, respectively, for identifying IPMNs.
The adverse-event rate was 9.9%, with a risk of postprocedure acute pancreatitis of 8.9 % and procedure-associated intracystic bleeding of 3%, according to the authors.
Limitations of the study include the relatively small sample size and the single-center design.
“TTNB-NGS is not sufficient as a stand-alone diagnostic tool as of yet but has a high diagnostic yield when combined with microscopic evaluation and subtyping by immunohistochemistry,” the investigators concluded. “The advantage of EUS-TTNB over EUS–[fine-needle aspiration] is the ability to perform detailed cyst subtyping and the high technical success rate of the procedure. ... However, the procedure comes with a risk of adverse events and thus should be offered to patients where the value of an exact diagnosis outweighs the risks.”
“Molecular subtyping is emerging as a useful clinical test for diagnosing pancreatic cysts,” said Margaret Geraldine Keane, MBBS, MSc, of Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, although she noted that NGS remains expensive and sporadically available, “which limits its clinical utility and incorporation into diagnostic algorithms for pancreatic cysts. In the future, as the cost of sequencing reduces, and availability improves, this may change.”
For now, Dr. Keane advised physicians to reserve molecular subtyping for cases in which “accurate cyst subtyping will change management ... or when other tests have not provided a clear diagnosis.”
She said the present study is valuable because better diagnostic tests are badly needed for patients with pancreatic cysts, considering the high rate of surgical overtreatment.
“Having more diagnostic tests, such as those described in this publication [to be used on their own or in combination] to decide which patients need surgery, is important,” Dr. Keane said who was not involved in the study.
Better diagnostic tests could also improve outcomes for patients with pancreatic cancer, she said, noting a 5-year survival rate of 10%.
“This outcome is in large part attributable to the late stage at which the majority of patients are diagnosed,” Dr. Keane said. “If patients can be diagnosed earlier, survival dramatically improves. Improvements in diagnostic tests for premalignant pancreatic cystic lesions are therefore vital.”
The study was supported by Rigshospitalets Research Foundation, The Novo Nordisk Foundation, The Danish Cancer Society, and others, although they did not have a role in conducting the study or preparing the manuscript. One investigator disclosed a relationship with MediGlobe. The other investigators reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Keane disclosed no conflicts of interest.
Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)–guided through-the-needle biopsies (TTNBs) of pancreatic cystic lesions are sufficient for accurate molecular analysis, which offers a superior alternative to cyst fluid obtained via fine-needle aspiration, based on a prospective study.
For highest diagnostic clarity, next-generation sequencing (NGS) of TTNBs can be paired with histology, lead author Charlotte Vestrup Rift, MD, PhD, of Copenhagen University Hospital, and colleagues reported.
“The diagnostic algorithm for the management of [pancreatic cystic lesions] includes endoscopic ultrasound examination with aspiration of cyst fluid for cytology,” the investigators wrote in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. “However, the reported sensitivity of cytology is low [at 54%]. A new microforceps, introduced through a 19-gauge needle, has proven useful for procurement of [TTNBs] that represent both the epithelial and stromal component of the cyst wall. TTNBs have a high sensitivity of 86% for the diagnosis of mucinous cysts.”
Dr. Rift and colleagues evaluated the impact of introducing NGS to the diagnostic process. They noted that concomitant mutations in GNAS and KRAS are diagnostic for intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs), while other mutations have been linked with progression to cancer.
The study involved 101 patients with pancreatic cystic lesions larger than 15 mm in diameter, mean age of 68 years, among whom 91 had residual TTNBs available after microscopic analysis. These samples underwent a 51-gene NGS panel that included the “most prevalent hot-spot mutations.” Diagnoses were sorted into four categories: neoplastic cyst, mucinous cyst, IPMN, or serous cystic neoplasm.
The primary endpoint was diagnostic yield, both for molecular analysis of TTNBs and for molecular analysis plus histopathology of TTNBs. Sensitivity and specificity of NGS were also determined using histopathology as the gold standard.
Relying on NGS alone, diagnostic yields were 44.5% and 27.7% for detecting a mucinous cyst and determining type of cyst, respectively. These yields rose to 73.3% and 70.3%, respectively, when NGS was used with microscopic evaluation. Continuing with this combined approach, sensitivity and specificity were 83.7% and 81.8%, respectively, for the diagnosis of a mucinous cyst. Sensitivity and specificity were higher still, at 87.2% and 84.6%, respectively, for identifying IPMNs.
The adverse-event rate was 9.9%, with a risk of postprocedure acute pancreatitis of 8.9 % and procedure-associated intracystic bleeding of 3%, according to the authors.
Limitations of the study include the relatively small sample size and the single-center design.
“TTNB-NGS is not sufficient as a stand-alone diagnostic tool as of yet but has a high diagnostic yield when combined with microscopic evaluation and subtyping by immunohistochemistry,” the investigators concluded. “The advantage of EUS-TTNB over EUS–[fine-needle aspiration] is the ability to perform detailed cyst subtyping and the high technical success rate of the procedure. ... However, the procedure comes with a risk of adverse events and thus should be offered to patients where the value of an exact diagnosis outweighs the risks.”
“Molecular subtyping is emerging as a useful clinical test for diagnosing pancreatic cysts,” said Margaret Geraldine Keane, MBBS, MSc, of Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, although she noted that NGS remains expensive and sporadically available, “which limits its clinical utility and incorporation into diagnostic algorithms for pancreatic cysts. In the future, as the cost of sequencing reduces, and availability improves, this may change.”
For now, Dr. Keane advised physicians to reserve molecular subtyping for cases in which “accurate cyst subtyping will change management ... or when other tests have not provided a clear diagnosis.”
She said the present study is valuable because better diagnostic tests are badly needed for patients with pancreatic cysts, considering the high rate of surgical overtreatment.
“Having more diagnostic tests, such as those described in this publication [to be used on their own or in combination] to decide which patients need surgery, is important,” Dr. Keane said who was not involved in the study.
Better diagnostic tests could also improve outcomes for patients with pancreatic cancer, she said, noting a 5-year survival rate of 10%.
“This outcome is in large part attributable to the late stage at which the majority of patients are diagnosed,” Dr. Keane said. “If patients can be diagnosed earlier, survival dramatically improves. Improvements in diagnostic tests for premalignant pancreatic cystic lesions are therefore vital.”
The study was supported by Rigshospitalets Research Foundation, The Novo Nordisk Foundation, The Danish Cancer Society, and others, although they did not have a role in conducting the study or preparing the manuscript. One investigator disclosed a relationship with MediGlobe. The other investigators reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Keane disclosed no conflicts of interest.
Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)–guided through-the-needle biopsies (TTNBs) of pancreatic cystic lesions are sufficient for accurate molecular analysis, which offers a superior alternative to cyst fluid obtained via fine-needle aspiration, based on a prospective study.
For highest diagnostic clarity, next-generation sequencing (NGS) of TTNBs can be paired with histology, lead author Charlotte Vestrup Rift, MD, PhD, of Copenhagen University Hospital, and colleagues reported.
“The diagnostic algorithm for the management of [pancreatic cystic lesions] includes endoscopic ultrasound examination with aspiration of cyst fluid for cytology,” the investigators wrote in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. “However, the reported sensitivity of cytology is low [at 54%]. A new microforceps, introduced through a 19-gauge needle, has proven useful for procurement of [TTNBs] that represent both the epithelial and stromal component of the cyst wall. TTNBs have a high sensitivity of 86% for the diagnosis of mucinous cysts.”
Dr. Rift and colleagues evaluated the impact of introducing NGS to the diagnostic process. They noted that concomitant mutations in GNAS and KRAS are diagnostic for intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs), while other mutations have been linked with progression to cancer.
The study involved 101 patients with pancreatic cystic lesions larger than 15 mm in diameter, mean age of 68 years, among whom 91 had residual TTNBs available after microscopic analysis. These samples underwent a 51-gene NGS panel that included the “most prevalent hot-spot mutations.” Diagnoses were sorted into four categories: neoplastic cyst, mucinous cyst, IPMN, or serous cystic neoplasm.
The primary endpoint was diagnostic yield, both for molecular analysis of TTNBs and for molecular analysis plus histopathology of TTNBs. Sensitivity and specificity of NGS were also determined using histopathology as the gold standard.
Relying on NGS alone, diagnostic yields were 44.5% and 27.7% for detecting a mucinous cyst and determining type of cyst, respectively. These yields rose to 73.3% and 70.3%, respectively, when NGS was used with microscopic evaluation. Continuing with this combined approach, sensitivity and specificity were 83.7% and 81.8%, respectively, for the diagnosis of a mucinous cyst. Sensitivity and specificity were higher still, at 87.2% and 84.6%, respectively, for identifying IPMNs.
The adverse-event rate was 9.9%, with a risk of postprocedure acute pancreatitis of 8.9 % and procedure-associated intracystic bleeding of 3%, according to the authors.
Limitations of the study include the relatively small sample size and the single-center design.
“TTNB-NGS is not sufficient as a stand-alone diagnostic tool as of yet but has a high diagnostic yield when combined with microscopic evaluation and subtyping by immunohistochemistry,” the investigators concluded. “The advantage of EUS-TTNB over EUS–[fine-needle aspiration] is the ability to perform detailed cyst subtyping and the high technical success rate of the procedure. ... However, the procedure comes with a risk of adverse events and thus should be offered to patients where the value of an exact diagnosis outweighs the risks.”
“Molecular subtyping is emerging as a useful clinical test for diagnosing pancreatic cysts,” said Margaret Geraldine Keane, MBBS, MSc, of Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, although she noted that NGS remains expensive and sporadically available, “which limits its clinical utility and incorporation into diagnostic algorithms for pancreatic cysts. In the future, as the cost of sequencing reduces, and availability improves, this may change.”
For now, Dr. Keane advised physicians to reserve molecular subtyping for cases in which “accurate cyst subtyping will change management ... or when other tests have not provided a clear diagnosis.”
She said the present study is valuable because better diagnostic tests are badly needed for patients with pancreatic cysts, considering the high rate of surgical overtreatment.
“Having more diagnostic tests, such as those described in this publication [to be used on their own or in combination] to decide which patients need surgery, is important,” Dr. Keane said who was not involved in the study.
Better diagnostic tests could also improve outcomes for patients with pancreatic cancer, she said, noting a 5-year survival rate of 10%.
“This outcome is in large part attributable to the late stage at which the majority of patients are diagnosed,” Dr. Keane said. “If patients can be diagnosed earlier, survival dramatically improves. Improvements in diagnostic tests for premalignant pancreatic cystic lesions are therefore vital.”
The study was supported by Rigshospitalets Research Foundation, The Novo Nordisk Foundation, The Danish Cancer Society, and others, although they did not have a role in conducting the study or preparing the manuscript. One investigator disclosed a relationship with MediGlobe. The other investigators reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Keane disclosed no conflicts of interest.
FROM GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY
Ultrasound on par with CT for evaluating sarcopenia in patients with cirrhosis
Using ultrasound (US) to evaluate sarcopenic obesity in patients with cirrhosis may offer accuracy on par with computed tomography (CT), according to investigators.
US-based assessment presents a more affordable point-of-care strategy that limits radiation exposure, which enables sequential monitoring, reported lead author Sukhpal Dhariwal, MBBS, MD, of the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.
“Preliminary data in patients with liver disease ... suggest that US muscle assessment–derived indices, especially thigh muscle thickness, identify sarcopenia CT-skeletal muscle index (SMI) and also predict hospitalization and mortality,” the investigators wrote in Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology. “However, the applicability of US-based techniques to measure muscle mass in the high-risk group of patients with cirrhosis and sarcopenic obesity has not been evaluated.”
To address this knowledge gap, the investigators performed both US- and CT-based muscle assessments in 52 patients with obesity and evidence of cirrhosis; 40 patients were male and the mean age was 50.9 years. In all, 20 (38.5%) were diagnosed with sarcopenia based on CT-determined SMI scores of less than 39 cm2/m2 for women and 50 cm2/m2 for men.
US showed that it was similarly capable of categorizing patients. The modality significantly differentiated individuals with or without sarcopenia based on high area under the curve values in four muscle indices: quadriceps muscle thickness (0.98), quadriceps muscle feather index (0.95), forearm muscle thickness (0.85), and forearm feather index (0.80).
Direct comparison of US-based assessment against CT-based SMI revealed positive correlations, with significant r values ranging from 0.40 to 0.58. These correlations were stronger in a male-only subgroup analysis, in which r values ranged from 0.52 to 0.70. R values were not calculated in the female subgroup because of the small sample size (n = 12).
The investigators adjusted indices for height, which may pose bias for overestimating muscle mass. Another limitation is the small sample size.
“US-based assessment of sarcopenia has excellent diagnostic accuracy and correlates highly with cross-sectional imaging-based SMI in cirrhosis patients with sarcopenic obesity,” the investigators concluded. “US may serve as an easy-to-use, point-of-care tool for assessing sarcopenia in sarcopenic obesity with the advantage of repeated sequential assessment.”
According to Jamile Wakim-Fleming, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic, “US-based muscle mass assessment seems to be reliable, reproducible, and simple to perform and should be encouraged along with nutrition assessments in all patients with cirrhosis and obesity.”
In a written comment, Dr. Wakim-Fleming noted the importance of timely monitoring and intervention in this patient population.
“Considering the morbidity and the poor outcomes associated with sarcopenic obesity and its frequency in cirrhosis, it is important to make early diagnosis and institute a management plan to improve muscle mass and function,” she said.
The study was supported the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, the American Medical Association, and the American Heart Association. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Novartis. Dr. Wakim-Fleming reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
Using ultrasound (US) to evaluate sarcopenic obesity in patients with cirrhosis may offer accuracy on par with computed tomography (CT), according to investigators.
US-based assessment presents a more affordable point-of-care strategy that limits radiation exposure, which enables sequential monitoring, reported lead author Sukhpal Dhariwal, MBBS, MD, of the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.
“Preliminary data in patients with liver disease ... suggest that US muscle assessment–derived indices, especially thigh muscle thickness, identify sarcopenia CT-skeletal muscle index (SMI) and also predict hospitalization and mortality,” the investigators wrote in Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology. “However, the applicability of US-based techniques to measure muscle mass in the high-risk group of patients with cirrhosis and sarcopenic obesity has not been evaluated.”
To address this knowledge gap, the investigators performed both US- and CT-based muscle assessments in 52 patients with obesity and evidence of cirrhosis; 40 patients were male and the mean age was 50.9 years. In all, 20 (38.5%) were diagnosed with sarcopenia based on CT-determined SMI scores of less than 39 cm2/m2 for women and 50 cm2/m2 for men.
US showed that it was similarly capable of categorizing patients. The modality significantly differentiated individuals with or without sarcopenia based on high area under the curve values in four muscle indices: quadriceps muscle thickness (0.98), quadriceps muscle feather index (0.95), forearm muscle thickness (0.85), and forearm feather index (0.80).
Direct comparison of US-based assessment against CT-based SMI revealed positive correlations, with significant r values ranging from 0.40 to 0.58. These correlations were stronger in a male-only subgroup analysis, in which r values ranged from 0.52 to 0.70. R values were not calculated in the female subgroup because of the small sample size (n = 12).
The investigators adjusted indices for height, which may pose bias for overestimating muscle mass. Another limitation is the small sample size.
“US-based assessment of sarcopenia has excellent diagnostic accuracy and correlates highly with cross-sectional imaging-based SMI in cirrhosis patients with sarcopenic obesity,” the investigators concluded. “US may serve as an easy-to-use, point-of-care tool for assessing sarcopenia in sarcopenic obesity with the advantage of repeated sequential assessment.”
According to Jamile Wakim-Fleming, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic, “US-based muscle mass assessment seems to be reliable, reproducible, and simple to perform and should be encouraged along with nutrition assessments in all patients with cirrhosis and obesity.”
In a written comment, Dr. Wakim-Fleming noted the importance of timely monitoring and intervention in this patient population.
“Considering the morbidity and the poor outcomes associated with sarcopenic obesity and its frequency in cirrhosis, it is important to make early diagnosis and institute a management plan to improve muscle mass and function,” she said.
The study was supported the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, the American Medical Association, and the American Heart Association. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Novartis. Dr. Wakim-Fleming reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
Using ultrasound (US) to evaluate sarcopenic obesity in patients with cirrhosis may offer accuracy on par with computed tomography (CT), according to investigators.
US-based assessment presents a more affordable point-of-care strategy that limits radiation exposure, which enables sequential monitoring, reported lead author Sukhpal Dhariwal, MBBS, MD, of the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.
“Preliminary data in patients with liver disease ... suggest that US muscle assessment–derived indices, especially thigh muscle thickness, identify sarcopenia CT-skeletal muscle index (SMI) and also predict hospitalization and mortality,” the investigators wrote in Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology. “However, the applicability of US-based techniques to measure muscle mass in the high-risk group of patients with cirrhosis and sarcopenic obesity has not been evaluated.”
To address this knowledge gap, the investigators performed both US- and CT-based muscle assessments in 52 patients with obesity and evidence of cirrhosis; 40 patients were male and the mean age was 50.9 years. In all, 20 (38.5%) were diagnosed with sarcopenia based on CT-determined SMI scores of less than 39 cm2/m2 for women and 50 cm2/m2 for men.
US showed that it was similarly capable of categorizing patients. The modality significantly differentiated individuals with or without sarcopenia based on high area under the curve values in four muscle indices: quadriceps muscle thickness (0.98), quadriceps muscle feather index (0.95), forearm muscle thickness (0.85), and forearm feather index (0.80).
Direct comparison of US-based assessment against CT-based SMI revealed positive correlations, with significant r values ranging from 0.40 to 0.58. These correlations were stronger in a male-only subgroup analysis, in which r values ranged from 0.52 to 0.70. R values were not calculated in the female subgroup because of the small sample size (n = 12).
The investigators adjusted indices for height, which may pose bias for overestimating muscle mass. Another limitation is the small sample size.
“US-based assessment of sarcopenia has excellent diagnostic accuracy and correlates highly with cross-sectional imaging-based SMI in cirrhosis patients with sarcopenic obesity,” the investigators concluded. “US may serve as an easy-to-use, point-of-care tool for assessing sarcopenia in sarcopenic obesity with the advantage of repeated sequential assessment.”
According to Jamile Wakim-Fleming, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic, “US-based muscle mass assessment seems to be reliable, reproducible, and simple to perform and should be encouraged along with nutrition assessments in all patients with cirrhosis and obesity.”
In a written comment, Dr. Wakim-Fleming noted the importance of timely monitoring and intervention in this patient population.
“Considering the morbidity and the poor outcomes associated with sarcopenic obesity and its frequency in cirrhosis, it is important to make early diagnosis and institute a management plan to improve muscle mass and function,” she said.
The study was supported the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, the American Medical Association, and the American Heart Association. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Novartis. Dr. Wakim-Fleming reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
FROM JAMA INTERNAL MEDICINE
Blood pressure smartphone app fails to beat standard self-monitoring
Here’s another vote for less screen time.
“By itself, standard self-measured blood pressure (SMBP) has minimal effect on BP control,” wrote lead author Mark J. Pletcher, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues in JAMA Internal Medicine. “To improve BP control, SMBP must be accompanied by patient feedback, counseling, or other cointerventions, and the BP-lowering effects of SMBP appear to be proportional to the intensity of the cointervention.”
While this is known, higher-intensity cointerventions demand both money and time, prompting development of new devices that link with smartphone apps, they continued.
In the prospective randomized trial, patients with hypertension were randomly assigned to self-measure their blood pressure using a standard device that paired with a connected smartphone application or to self-measure their blood pressure with a standard device alone. Both groups achieved about an 11 mm Hg reduction in systolic BP over 6 months, reported similar levels of satisfaction with the monitoring process, and shared their readings with their physicians with similar frequency.
Methods
Dr. Pletcher and colleagues enrolled 2,101 adults who self-reported a systolic BP greater than 145 mm Hg and expressed a commitment to reduce their BP by at least 10 points in their trial. The participants, who were generally middle-aged or older, were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to monitor their BP using standard SMBP or “enhanced” SMBP. The standard group used the OMRON BP monitor alone, while the enhanced group used the same BP monitor coupled with the OMRON Connect smartphone app.
After 6 months of follow-up for each patient, mean BP reduction from baseline in the standard group was 10.6 mm Hg, compared with 10.7 mm Hg in the enhanced group, a nonsignificant difference (P = .81). While slightly more patients in the enhanced group achieved a BP lower than 140/90 mm Hg (32% vs. 29%; odds ratio, 1.17; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.34), this trend did not extend below the 130/80 mm Hg threshold.
Other secondary outcomes were also similar between groups. For example, 70% of participants in the enhanced group said they would recommend their SMBP process to a friend, compared with 69% of participants who followed the standard monitoring approach. The smartphone app had little impact on sharing readings with physicians, either, based on a 44% share rate in the enhanced group versus 48% in the standard group (P = .22).
“Enhanced SMBP does not provide any additional reduction in BP,” the investigators concluded.
New devices that link with smartphone apps, like the one used in this trial, “transmit BP measurements via wireless connection to the patient’s smartphone, where they are processed in a smartphone application to support tracking, visualization, interpretation, reminders to measure BP and/or take medications; recommendations for lifestyle interventions, medication adherence, or to discuss their BP with their clinician; and communications (for example, emailing a summary to a family member or clinician),” the researchers explained. While these devices are “only slightly more expensive than standard SMBP devices,” their relative efficacy over standard SMBP is “unclear.”
Findings can likely be extrapolated to other apps
Although the trial evaluated just one smartphone app, Dr. Pletcher suggested that the findings can likely be extrapolated to other apps.
“Most basic BP-tracking apps have some version or subset of the same essential functionality,” he said, in an interview. “My guess is that apps that meet this description without some substantially different technology or feature would likely show the same basic results as we did.”
Making a similar remark, Matthew Jung, MD, of Keck Medicine of USC, Los Angeles, stated that the findings can be “reasonably extrapolated” to other BP-tracking apps with similar functionality “if we put aside the study’s issues with power.”
When it comes to smartphone apps, active engagement is needed to achieve greater impacts on blood pressure, Dr. Pletcher said, but “there is so much competition for people’s attention on their phone that it is hard to maintain active engagement with any health-related app for long.”
Still, Dr. Pletcher hasn’t given up on biometric apps, noting that “with the right technology and connectivity and user experience (for both patient and clinician), they still could be game-changing for managing chronic conditions like hypertension.”
To this end, he and his colleagues are exploring technologies to passively monitor health-related measurements like BP, potentially sidestepping the pitfall of active engagement.
Dr. Jung said the study is noteworthy for several reasons, including its large size, similar level of comfort with technology reported by both groups, and representation of Black and Hispanic participants, who accounted for almost one-third of the population.
Study limitations
Dr. Jung pointed out several study limitations, including the lack of standardized measurement of BP, which left more than one-third of patients unevaluated via chart review, as well as gaps in usage data, such as that one-third of the participants never confirmed receipt of a device, and less than half of the enhanced group reported using the smartphone application.
These limitations “may have detracted from its ability to identify the true efficacy of an enhanced app-based BP tracking device,” he said. “In contrast, each of these issues also helped us get a better picture for how well these devices may work in the real world.”
Dr. Jung also commented on the duration of the study, noting that only 10 weeks passed, on average, from baseline to follow-up BP measurement, which “may not have been sufficient for a possible difference between enhanced and standard BP monitoring to become noticeable.”
“This may be especially important when taking into consideration the time required to mail the devices out to patients, for patients to become familiar with usage of the devices, and for them to start using the devices in a meaningful way,” he added.
The study was supported the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, the American Medical Association, and the American Heart Association. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Novartis. Dr. Jung, who was not involved in the study, disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
Here’s another vote for less screen time.
“By itself, standard self-measured blood pressure (SMBP) has minimal effect on BP control,” wrote lead author Mark J. Pletcher, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues in JAMA Internal Medicine. “To improve BP control, SMBP must be accompanied by patient feedback, counseling, or other cointerventions, and the BP-lowering effects of SMBP appear to be proportional to the intensity of the cointervention.”
While this is known, higher-intensity cointerventions demand both money and time, prompting development of new devices that link with smartphone apps, they continued.
In the prospective randomized trial, patients with hypertension were randomly assigned to self-measure their blood pressure using a standard device that paired with a connected smartphone application or to self-measure their blood pressure with a standard device alone. Both groups achieved about an 11 mm Hg reduction in systolic BP over 6 months, reported similar levels of satisfaction with the monitoring process, and shared their readings with their physicians with similar frequency.
Methods
Dr. Pletcher and colleagues enrolled 2,101 adults who self-reported a systolic BP greater than 145 mm Hg and expressed a commitment to reduce their BP by at least 10 points in their trial. The participants, who were generally middle-aged or older, were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to monitor their BP using standard SMBP or “enhanced” SMBP. The standard group used the OMRON BP monitor alone, while the enhanced group used the same BP monitor coupled with the OMRON Connect smartphone app.
After 6 months of follow-up for each patient, mean BP reduction from baseline in the standard group was 10.6 mm Hg, compared with 10.7 mm Hg in the enhanced group, a nonsignificant difference (P = .81). While slightly more patients in the enhanced group achieved a BP lower than 140/90 mm Hg (32% vs. 29%; odds ratio, 1.17; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.34), this trend did not extend below the 130/80 mm Hg threshold.
Other secondary outcomes were also similar between groups. For example, 70% of participants in the enhanced group said they would recommend their SMBP process to a friend, compared with 69% of participants who followed the standard monitoring approach. The smartphone app had little impact on sharing readings with physicians, either, based on a 44% share rate in the enhanced group versus 48% in the standard group (P = .22).
“Enhanced SMBP does not provide any additional reduction in BP,” the investigators concluded.
New devices that link with smartphone apps, like the one used in this trial, “transmit BP measurements via wireless connection to the patient’s smartphone, where they are processed in a smartphone application to support tracking, visualization, interpretation, reminders to measure BP and/or take medications; recommendations for lifestyle interventions, medication adherence, or to discuss their BP with their clinician; and communications (for example, emailing a summary to a family member or clinician),” the researchers explained. While these devices are “only slightly more expensive than standard SMBP devices,” their relative efficacy over standard SMBP is “unclear.”
Findings can likely be extrapolated to other apps
Although the trial evaluated just one smartphone app, Dr. Pletcher suggested that the findings can likely be extrapolated to other apps.
“Most basic BP-tracking apps have some version or subset of the same essential functionality,” he said, in an interview. “My guess is that apps that meet this description without some substantially different technology or feature would likely show the same basic results as we did.”
Making a similar remark, Matthew Jung, MD, of Keck Medicine of USC, Los Angeles, stated that the findings can be “reasonably extrapolated” to other BP-tracking apps with similar functionality “if we put aside the study’s issues with power.”
When it comes to smartphone apps, active engagement is needed to achieve greater impacts on blood pressure, Dr. Pletcher said, but “there is so much competition for people’s attention on their phone that it is hard to maintain active engagement with any health-related app for long.”
Still, Dr. Pletcher hasn’t given up on biometric apps, noting that “with the right technology and connectivity and user experience (for both patient and clinician), they still could be game-changing for managing chronic conditions like hypertension.”
To this end, he and his colleagues are exploring technologies to passively monitor health-related measurements like BP, potentially sidestepping the pitfall of active engagement.
Dr. Jung said the study is noteworthy for several reasons, including its large size, similar level of comfort with technology reported by both groups, and representation of Black and Hispanic participants, who accounted for almost one-third of the population.
Study limitations
Dr. Jung pointed out several study limitations, including the lack of standardized measurement of BP, which left more than one-third of patients unevaluated via chart review, as well as gaps in usage data, such as that one-third of the participants never confirmed receipt of a device, and less than half of the enhanced group reported using the smartphone application.
These limitations “may have detracted from its ability to identify the true efficacy of an enhanced app-based BP tracking device,” he said. “In contrast, each of these issues also helped us get a better picture for how well these devices may work in the real world.”
Dr. Jung also commented on the duration of the study, noting that only 10 weeks passed, on average, from baseline to follow-up BP measurement, which “may not have been sufficient for a possible difference between enhanced and standard BP monitoring to become noticeable.”
“This may be especially important when taking into consideration the time required to mail the devices out to patients, for patients to become familiar with usage of the devices, and for them to start using the devices in a meaningful way,” he added.
The study was supported the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, the American Medical Association, and the American Heart Association. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Novartis. Dr. Jung, who was not involved in the study, disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
Here’s another vote for less screen time.
“By itself, standard self-measured blood pressure (SMBP) has minimal effect on BP control,” wrote lead author Mark J. Pletcher, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues in JAMA Internal Medicine. “To improve BP control, SMBP must be accompanied by patient feedback, counseling, or other cointerventions, and the BP-lowering effects of SMBP appear to be proportional to the intensity of the cointervention.”
While this is known, higher-intensity cointerventions demand both money and time, prompting development of new devices that link with smartphone apps, they continued.
In the prospective randomized trial, patients with hypertension were randomly assigned to self-measure their blood pressure using a standard device that paired with a connected smartphone application or to self-measure their blood pressure with a standard device alone. Both groups achieved about an 11 mm Hg reduction in systolic BP over 6 months, reported similar levels of satisfaction with the monitoring process, and shared their readings with their physicians with similar frequency.
Methods
Dr. Pletcher and colleagues enrolled 2,101 adults who self-reported a systolic BP greater than 145 mm Hg and expressed a commitment to reduce their BP by at least 10 points in their trial. The participants, who were generally middle-aged or older, were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to monitor their BP using standard SMBP or “enhanced” SMBP. The standard group used the OMRON BP monitor alone, while the enhanced group used the same BP monitor coupled with the OMRON Connect smartphone app.
After 6 months of follow-up for each patient, mean BP reduction from baseline in the standard group was 10.6 mm Hg, compared with 10.7 mm Hg in the enhanced group, a nonsignificant difference (P = .81). While slightly more patients in the enhanced group achieved a BP lower than 140/90 mm Hg (32% vs. 29%; odds ratio, 1.17; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.34), this trend did not extend below the 130/80 mm Hg threshold.
Other secondary outcomes were also similar between groups. For example, 70% of participants in the enhanced group said they would recommend their SMBP process to a friend, compared with 69% of participants who followed the standard monitoring approach. The smartphone app had little impact on sharing readings with physicians, either, based on a 44% share rate in the enhanced group versus 48% in the standard group (P = .22).
“Enhanced SMBP does not provide any additional reduction in BP,” the investigators concluded.
New devices that link with smartphone apps, like the one used in this trial, “transmit BP measurements via wireless connection to the patient’s smartphone, where they are processed in a smartphone application to support tracking, visualization, interpretation, reminders to measure BP and/or take medications; recommendations for lifestyle interventions, medication adherence, or to discuss their BP with their clinician; and communications (for example, emailing a summary to a family member or clinician),” the researchers explained. While these devices are “only slightly more expensive than standard SMBP devices,” their relative efficacy over standard SMBP is “unclear.”
Findings can likely be extrapolated to other apps
Although the trial evaluated just one smartphone app, Dr. Pletcher suggested that the findings can likely be extrapolated to other apps.
“Most basic BP-tracking apps have some version or subset of the same essential functionality,” he said, in an interview. “My guess is that apps that meet this description without some substantially different technology or feature would likely show the same basic results as we did.”
Making a similar remark, Matthew Jung, MD, of Keck Medicine of USC, Los Angeles, stated that the findings can be “reasonably extrapolated” to other BP-tracking apps with similar functionality “if we put aside the study’s issues with power.”
When it comes to smartphone apps, active engagement is needed to achieve greater impacts on blood pressure, Dr. Pletcher said, but “there is so much competition for people’s attention on their phone that it is hard to maintain active engagement with any health-related app for long.”
Still, Dr. Pletcher hasn’t given up on biometric apps, noting that “with the right technology and connectivity and user experience (for both patient and clinician), they still could be game-changing for managing chronic conditions like hypertension.”
To this end, he and his colleagues are exploring technologies to passively monitor health-related measurements like BP, potentially sidestepping the pitfall of active engagement.
Dr. Jung said the study is noteworthy for several reasons, including its large size, similar level of comfort with technology reported by both groups, and representation of Black and Hispanic participants, who accounted for almost one-third of the population.
Study limitations
Dr. Jung pointed out several study limitations, including the lack of standardized measurement of BP, which left more than one-third of patients unevaluated via chart review, as well as gaps in usage data, such as that one-third of the participants never confirmed receipt of a device, and less than half of the enhanced group reported using the smartphone application.
These limitations “may have detracted from its ability to identify the true efficacy of an enhanced app-based BP tracking device,” he said. “In contrast, each of these issues also helped us get a better picture for how well these devices may work in the real world.”
Dr. Jung also commented on the duration of the study, noting that only 10 weeks passed, on average, from baseline to follow-up BP measurement, which “may not have been sufficient for a possible difference between enhanced and standard BP monitoring to become noticeable.”
“This may be especially important when taking into consideration the time required to mail the devices out to patients, for patients to become familiar with usage of the devices, and for them to start using the devices in a meaningful way,” he added.
The study was supported the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, the American Medical Association, and the American Heart Association. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Novartis. Dr. Jung, who was not involved in the study, disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
FROM JAMA INTERNAL MEDICINE
HCV reinfection uncommon among people who inject drugs
The findings, which are based on prospective data from 13 countries, including the United States, and were published in Annals of Internal Medicine (2022 Aug 8. doi: 10.7326/M21-4119), should encourage physicians to treat HCV in people with a history of injection drug use, said lead author Jason Grebely, PhD. They should also pressure payers to lift reimbursement restrictions on the same population.
“Direct-acting antiviral medications for HCV infection are safe and effective among people receiving OAT and people with recent injecting-drug use,” the investigators wrote. “Concerns remain, however, that HCV reinfection may reduce the benefits of cure among people who inject drugs and compromise HCV elimination efforts.”
They explored these concerns through a 3-year extension of the phase 3 CO-STAR trial that evaluated elbasvir and grazoprevir in people consistently taking OAT. Participants in the CO-STAR trial, which had a 96% sustained virologic response rate among those who completed therapy, could elect to participate in the present study, offering a prospective look at long-term reinfection.
Out of 296 participants in the CO-STAR trial, 286 were evaluable for reinfection and 199 enrolled in the present extension. The majority were White (79.4%) and male (75.9%), with most taking methadone (79%), followed by buprenorphine (20%). At 6 months, 40 out of 191 respondents (21%) reported injection-drug use in the previous month. At the 3-year mark, 26 out of 142 respondents (18%) disclosed injection-drug use in the previous month.
For all participants in the CO-STAR trial, the overall rate of reinfection at 3 years was 1.7 per 100 person-years (95% confidence interval, 0.8-3.0), which is lower than the rate reported in systematic reviews (3.8 per 100 person-years), according to the investigators.
In the extension analysis, the 3-year reinfection rate was lower still, at 1.2 per 100 person-years. The rate was slightly higher among people who reported injection-drug use in the previous month (1.9 per 100 person-years), and slightly lower among those who did not report injection-drug use in the prior month (0.5 per 100 person-years). More pronounced differences in reinfection were observed among participants who shared needles (6.4 per 100 person-years), versus those who didn’t share needles (1.5 per 100 person years).
Low reinfection rate may help facilitate removal of reimbursement restrictions
“Most of the reinfections in this study occurred within 24 weeks of completing treatment, suggesting that this is a key period for optimizing treatment of opioid use disorder and for providing access to needle and syringe programs that have documented benefits in preventing HCV transmission,” the investigators wrote.
This is one of the largest observational studies of its kind to date, bolstered by “excellent study retention” and a “well-characterized cohort,” with findings that should prompt real-world action, said Dr. Grebely, who is head of the hepatitis C and drug use group in the viral hepatitis clinical research program at the Kirby Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney.
“Given that reinfection has often been cited ... by some providers as a reason for not offering treatment to people receiving OAT, the low reinfection rate in this study will be incredibly important for guiding practice and ensuring therapy is not withheld from this group,” Dr. Grebely said in an interview. “In terms of policy implications, these data may also help to facilitate the removal of reimbursement restrictions based on recent drug/alcohol use criteria that are in place among many payers in the United States.”
More research needed to determine optimal intervention strategies
Carl Latkin, PhD, professor and vice chair of the department of health, behavior, and society at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, called the present publication a “great article and well-done study with long-term follow-up.”
Dr. Latkin, who investigates biobehavioral interventions for disadvantaged communities, said the reported rate of reinfection is “very low among a group of current and former injectors.”
Affirming Dr. Grebely’s call for supportive practices by physicians and payers, Dr. Latkin said: “The study highlights the importance of improving access to medication for opioid use disorder. This level of treatment adherence in this group is much higher than for many other medications. Given these data, it would be difficult for payers to have a rational reason for blanket restrictions for HCV treatment among people who use drugs.”
Dr. Latkin explained that “it isn’t simply injection drug use per se” that drives HCV reinfection; instead, he cited social factors, such as lack of housing, as well as withdrawal symptoms, especially among those without access to medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD).
Dr. Latkin and Grebely also agreed that more research is needed to determine optimal intervention strategies.
Dr. Grebely called for one to enhance HCV testing and linkage to care, a topic he covered in a recent review article (Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022 May;7[5]:426-45.).
Dr. Latkin said that, while it’s clear that “syringe services programs, accessible HCV treatment, and MOUD are needed,” it is unclear how much coverage is necessary for a given population.
Findings support critical nature of needle and syringe exchange programs
Sarah M. Kattakuzhy, MD, an associate professor in the division of clinical care & research at the Institute of Human Virology, University of Maryland, Baltimore, agreed that the findings “support the critical nature of needle and syringe exchange programs.”
“As most cities in the United States fall well below the high coverage needle and syringe program threshold required to maximally prevent disease transmission, the study serves as a push toward an evidence-based harm reduction policy,” she said.
Dr. Kattakuzhy he added that the study “supports the need to longitudinally engage individuals after HCV treatment to monitor reinfection risk behaviors and test for reinfection,” she continued.
When it came to translating all the data to populations in the United States, she offered a more guarded view.
“Critically, the study population included only individuals who were engaged with OAT and adherent for 3 or more months, selecting to a population of individuals with high adherence and engagement in care,” Dr. Kattakuzhy said in an interview. “As such, the study findings are not applicable to other cross sections of the drug-using community, including individuals not engaged in OAT, and cohorts with higher rates of ongoing injection drug use. Furthermore, there are known genetic impacts on spontaneous clearance, and emerging data on the immunology of reinfection.
“Studies with a focus on less engaged, higher-risk, and minority populations with active drug use are required to answer the remaining questions in HCV reinfection,” she said.
The study was supported by Merck, the Australian Government Department of Health, and the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. Dr. Grebely disclosed receiving funding from Cepheid, the manufacturer of the Xpert HCV assay. The other investigators disclosed additional relationships with Gilead, AbbVie, Cepheid, and others. Dr. Latkin and Dr. Kattakuzhy disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
The findings, which are based on prospective data from 13 countries, including the United States, and were published in Annals of Internal Medicine (2022 Aug 8. doi: 10.7326/M21-4119), should encourage physicians to treat HCV in people with a history of injection drug use, said lead author Jason Grebely, PhD. They should also pressure payers to lift reimbursement restrictions on the same population.
“Direct-acting antiviral medications for HCV infection are safe and effective among people receiving OAT and people with recent injecting-drug use,” the investigators wrote. “Concerns remain, however, that HCV reinfection may reduce the benefits of cure among people who inject drugs and compromise HCV elimination efforts.”
They explored these concerns through a 3-year extension of the phase 3 CO-STAR trial that evaluated elbasvir and grazoprevir in people consistently taking OAT. Participants in the CO-STAR trial, which had a 96% sustained virologic response rate among those who completed therapy, could elect to participate in the present study, offering a prospective look at long-term reinfection.
Out of 296 participants in the CO-STAR trial, 286 were evaluable for reinfection and 199 enrolled in the present extension. The majority were White (79.4%) and male (75.9%), with most taking methadone (79%), followed by buprenorphine (20%). At 6 months, 40 out of 191 respondents (21%) reported injection-drug use in the previous month. At the 3-year mark, 26 out of 142 respondents (18%) disclosed injection-drug use in the previous month.
For all participants in the CO-STAR trial, the overall rate of reinfection at 3 years was 1.7 per 100 person-years (95% confidence interval, 0.8-3.0), which is lower than the rate reported in systematic reviews (3.8 per 100 person-years), according to the investigators.
In the extension analysis, the 3-year reinfection rate was lower still, at 1.2 per 100 person-years. The rate was slightly higher among people who reported injection-drug use in the previous month (1.9 per 100 person-years), and slightly lower among those who did not report injection-drug use in the prior month (0.5 per 100 person-years). More pronounced differences in reinfection were observed among participants who shared needles (6.4 per 100 person-years), versus those who didn’t share needles (1.5 per 100 person years).
Low reinfection rate may help facilitate removal of reimbursement restrictions
“Most of the reinfections in this study occurred within 24 weeks of completing treatment, suggesting that this is a key period for optimizing treatment of opioid use disorder and for providing access to needle and syringe programs that have documented benefits in preventing HCV transmission,” the investigators wrote.
This is one of the largest observational studies of its kind to date, bolstered by “excellent study retention” and a “well-characterized cohort,” with findings that should prompt real-world action, said Dr. Grebely, who is head of the hepatitis C and drug use group in the viral hepatitis clinical research program at the Kirby Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney.
“Given that reinfection has often been cited ... by some providers as a reason for not offering treatment to people receiving OAT, the low reinfection rate in this study will be incredibly important for guiding practice and ensuring therapy is not withheld from this group,” Dr. Grebely said in an interview. “In terms of policy implications, these data may also help to facilitate the removal of reimbursement restrictions based on recent drug/alcohol use criteria that are in place among many payers in the United States.”
More research needed to determine optimal intervention strategies
Carl Latkin, PhD, professor and vice chair of the department of health, behavior, and society at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, called the present publication a “great article and well-done study with long-term follow-up.”
Dr. Latkin, who investigates biobehavioral interventions for disadvantaged communities, said the reported rate of reinfection is “very low among a group of current and former injectors.”
Affirming Dr. Grebely’s call for supportive practices by physicians and payers, Dr. Latkin said: “The study highlights the importance of improving access to medication for opioid use disorder. This level of treatment adherence in this group is much higher than for many other medications. Given these data, it would be difficult for payers to have a rational reason for blanket restrictions for HCV treatment among people who use drugs.”
Dr. Latkin explained that “it isn’t simply injection drug use per se” that drives HCV reinfection; instead, he cited social factors, such as lack of housing, as well as withdrawal symptoms, especially among those without access to medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD).
Dr. Latkin and Grebely also agreed that more research is needed to determine optimal intervention strategies.
Dr. Grebely called for one to enhance HCV testing and linkage to care, a topic he covered in a recent review article (Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022 May;7[5]:426-45.).
Dr. Latkin said that, while it’s clear that “syringe services programs, accessible HCV treatment, and MOUD are needed,” it is unclear how much coverage is necessary for a given population.
Findings support critical nature of needle and syringe exchange programs
Sarah M. Kattakuzhy, MD, an associate professor in the division of clinical care & research at the Institute of Human Virology, University of Maryland, Baltimore, agreed that the findings “support the critical nature of needle and syringe exchange programs.”
“As most cities in the United States fall well below the high coverage needle and syringe program threshold required to maximally prevent disease transmission, the study serves as a push toward an evidence-based harm reduction policy,” she said.
Dr. Kattakuzhy he added that the study “supports the need to longitudinally engage individuals after HCV treatment to monitor reinfection risk behaviors and test for reinfection,” she continued.
When it came to translating all the data to populations in the United States, she offered a more guarded view.
“Critically, the study population included only individuals who were engaged with OAT and adherent for 3 or more months, selecting to a population of individuals with high adherence and engagement in care,” Dr. Kattakuzhy said in an interview. “As such, the study findings are not applicable to other cross sections of the drug-using community, including individuals not engaged in OAT, and cohorts with higher rates of ongoing injection drug use. Furthermore, there are known genetic impacts on spontaneous clearance, and emerging data on the immunology of reinfection.
“Studies with a focus on less engaged, higher-risk, and minority populations with active drug use are required to answer the remaining questions in HCV reinfection,” she said.
The study was supported by Merck, the Australian Government Department of Health, and the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. Dr. Grebely disclosed receiving funding from Cepheid, the manufacturer of the Xpert HCV assay. The other investigators disclosed additional relationships with Gilead, AbbVie, Cepheid, and others. Dr. Latkin and Dr. Kattakuzhy disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
The findings, which are based on prospective data from 13 countries, including the United States, and were published in Annals of Internal Medicine (2022 Aug 8. doi: 10.7326/M21-4119), should encourage physicians to treat HCV in people with a history of injection drug use, said lead author Jason Grebely, PhD. They should also pressure payers to lift reimbursement restrictions on the same population.
“Direct-acting antiviral medications for HCV infection are safe and effective among people receiving OAT and people with recent injecting-drug use,” the investigators wrote. “Concerns remain, however, that HCV reinfection may reduce the benefits of cure among people who inject drugs and compromise HCV elimination efforts.”
They explored these concerns through a 3-year extension of the phase 3 CO-STAR trial that evaluated elbasvir and grazoprevir in people consistently taking OAT. Participants in the CO-STAR trial, which had a 96% sustained virologic response rate among those who completed therapy, could elect to participate in the present study, offering a prospective look at long-term reinfection.
Out of 296 participants in the CO-STAR trial, 286 were evaluable for reinfection and 199 enrolled in the present extension. The majority were White (79.4%) and male (75.9%), with most taking methadone (79%), followed by buprenorphine (20%). At 6 months, 40 out of 191 respondents (21%) reported injection-drug use in the previous month. At the 3-year mark, 26 out of 142 respondents (18%) disclosed injection-drug use in the previous month.
For all participants in the CO-STAR trial, the overall rate of reinfection at 3 years was 1.7 per 100 person-years (95% confidence interval, 0.8-3.0), which is lower than the rate reported in systematic reviews (3.8 per 100 person-years), according to the investigators.
In the extension analysis, the 3-year reinfection rate was lower still, at 1.2 per 100 person-years. The rate was slightly higher among people who reported injection-drug use in the previous month (1.9 per 100 person-years), and slightly lower among those who did not report injection-drug use in the prior month (0.5 per 100 person-years). More pronounced differences in reinfection were observed among participants who shared needles (6.4 per 100 person-years), versus those who didn’t share needles (1.5 per 100 person years).
Low reinfection rate may help facilitate removal of reimbursement restrictions
“Most of the reinfections in this study occurred within 24 weeks of completing treatment, suggesting that this is a key period for optimizing treatment of opioid use disorder and for providing access to needle and syringe programs that have documented benefits in preventing HCV transmission,” the investigators wrote.
This is one of the largest observational studies of its kind to date, bolstered by “excellent study retention” and a “well-characterized cohort,” with findings that should prompt real-world action, said Dr. Grebely, who is head of the hepatitis C and drug use group in the viral hepatitis clinical research program at the Kirby Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney.
“Given that reinfection has often been cited ... by some providers as a reason for not offering treatment to people receiving OAT, the low reinfection rate in this study will be incredibly important for guiding practice and ensuring therapy is not withheld from this group,” Dr. Grebely said in an interview. “In terms of policy implications, these data may also help to facilitate the removal of reimbursement restrictions based on recent drug/alcohol use criteria that are in place among many payers in the United States.”
More research needed to determine optimal intervention strategies
Carl Latkin, PhD, professor and vice chair of the department of health, behavior, and society at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, called the present publication a “great article and well-done study with long-term follow-up.”
Dr. Latkin, who investigates biobehavioral interventions for disadvantaged communities, said the reported rate of reinfection is “very low among a group of current and former injectors.”
Affirming Dr. Grebely’s call for supportive practices by physicians and payers, Dr. Latkin said: “The study highlights the importance of improving access to medication for opioid use disorder. This level of treatment adherence in this group is much higher than for many other medications. Given these data, it would be difficult for payers to have a rational reason for blanket restrictions for HCV treatment among people who use drugs.”
Dr. Latkin explained that “it isn’t simply injection drug use per se” that drives HCV reinfection; instead, he cited social factors, such as lack of housing, as well as withdrawal symptoms, especially among those without access to medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD).
Dr. Latkin and Grebely also agreed that more research is needed to determine optimal intervention strategies.
Dr. Grebely called for one to enhance HCV testing and linkage to care, a topic he covered in a recent review article (Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022 May;7[5]:426-45.).
Dr. Latkin said that, while it’s clear that “syringe services programs, accessible HCV treatment, and MOUD are needed,” it is unclear how much coverage is necessary for a given population.
Findings support critical nature of needle and syringe exchange programs
Sarah M. Kattakuzhy, MD, an associate professor in the division of clinical care & research at the Institute of Human Virology, University of Maryland, Baltimore, agreed that the findings “support the critical nature of needle and syringe exchange programs.”
“As most cities in the United States fall well below the high coverage needle and syringe program threshold required to maximally prevent disease transmission, the study serves as a push toward an evidence-based harm reduction policy,” she said.
Dr. Kattakuzhy he added that the study “supports the need to longitudinally engage individuals after HCV treatment to monitor reinfection risk behaviors and test for reinfection,” she continued.
When it came to translating all the data to populations in the United States, she offered a more guarded view.
“Critically, the study population included only individuals who were engaged with OAT and adherent for 3 or more months, selecting to a population of individuals with high adherence and engagement in care,” Dr. Kattakuzhy said in an interview. “As such, the study findings are not applicable to other cross sections of the drug-using community, including individuals not engaged in OAT, and cohorts with higher rates of ongoing injection drug use. Furthermore, there are known genetic impacts on spontaneous clearance, and emerging data on the immunology of reinfection.
“Studies with a focus on less engaged, higher-risk, and minority populations with active drug use are required to answer the remaining questions in HCV reinfection,” she said.
The study was supported by Merck, the Australian Government Department of Health, and the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. Dr. Grebely disclosed receiving funding from Cepheid, the manufacturer of the Xpert HCV assay. The other investigators disclosed additional relationships with Gilead, AbbVie, Cepheid, and others. Dr. Latkin and Dr. Kattakuzhy disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
FROM ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE
Acute pancreatitis: Procalcitonin algorithm safely reduces antibiotic overuse
A procalcitonin-based algorithm could safely reduce unnecessary usage of antibiotics in patients with acute pancreatitis, based on results of a randomized controlled trial.
Physicians should consider incorporating the decision-making process into their daily practice, suggested lead author Ajith K. Siriwardena, MD, of Manchester (England) University and colleagues, who also recommended that the algorithm be added to future guidelines.
“Overuse of antibiotics and the resultant emergence of multidrug resistant microorganisms is a potent threat to the welfare of humanity in the 21st century,” the investigators wrote in The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology.
Antibiotic overuse is common in cases of acute pancreatitis, they noted, because clinical features are typically insufficient to distinguish between inflammation and infection. While measuring procalcitonin can help can detect infection, “indiscriminate measurement” of the biomarker is not cost effective, according to the investigators, leading previous reviews and analyses to conclude that further research is needed before widespread usage can be recommended.
Dr. Siriwardena and colleagues aimed to meet this need by conducting a randomized controlled trial involving 260 patients hospitalized for acute pancreatitis at Manchester Royal Infirmary. Patients were randomized in a near 1:1 ratio. Both the intervention group (n = 132) and the control group (n = 128) received guideline-based care; however, in addition to standard of care, procalcitonin was measured in the intervention group at days 0, 4, and 7 then weekly. Among these patients, antibiotics were stopped or not started when procalcitonin was below 1.0 ng/mL, but antibiotics were started or continued when procalcitonin was 1.0 ng/mL or more.
The primary outcome was presence or absence of antibiotic use during hospital stay. A range of secondary outcomes were also reported, included all-cause mortality, days of antibiotic use, rates of infection, and endoscopic, radiological, or surgical intervention.
Significantly fewer patients in the procalcitonin group received antibiotics during their stay, compared with the usual-care group (45% vs. 63%), which translated to an adjusted risk difference of –15.6% (P = .0071). Patients in the procalcitonin group who did receive antibiotics received about 1 day less of antibiotic treatment.
Despite the reduced antibiotic usage, length of hospital stay was similar between groups, as were rates of clinical infection, hospital-acquired infection, death, and adverse events, which suggests that the algorithm safely reduced antibiotic usage without negatively impacting clinical outcomes, according to investigators.
“Procalcitonin-based algorithms to guide antibiotic use should be considered in the care of this group of patients and be incorporated into future guidelines on the management of acute pancreatitis,” the investigators concluded.
Aaron Sasson, MD, director of the pancreatic cancer center and codirector of the gastrointestinal oncology team at Stony Brook (N.Y.) Medicine, said the study is noteworthy because it addresses an important topic with a large prospective randomized trial; however, he pointed out some limitations.
“There are several issues with this trial,” Dr. Sasson said in a written comment. “First, it included a large percentage of patients with mild acute pancreatitis, a group of patients for whom the use of antibiotics is not controversial. Secondly, the rate of infected pancreatic necrosis was 5% in both arms of the study, indicating the lack of severity of the cohort of patients.”
Dr. Sasson said that the algorithm “could be useful” to differentiate between inflammation and infection in patients with acute pancreatitis, “but only as an adjunct with other clinical parameters.”
He suggested that the algorithm would offer more utility if it could distinguish between pancreatic necrosis and infected pancreatic necrosis. “Unfortunately, this trial did not answer this question,” he said, noting that a similar trial involving “only patients with severe pancreatitis” would be needed.
The investigators and Dr. Sasson disclosed no competing interests.
A procalcitonin-based algorithm could safely reduce unnecessary usage of antibiotics in patients with acute pancreatitis, based on results of a randomized controlled trial.
Physicians should consider incorporating the decision-making process into their daily practice, suggested lead author Ajith K. Siriwardena, MD, of Manchester (England) University and colleagues, who also recommended that the algorithm be added to future guidelines.
“Overuse of antibiotics and the resultant emergence of multidrug resistant microorganisms is a potent threat to the welfare of humanity in the 21st century,” the investigators wrote in The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology.
Antibiotic overuse is common in cases of acute pancreatitis, they noted, because clinical features are typically insufficient to distinguish between inflammation and infection. While measuring procalcitonin can help can detect infection, “indiscriminate measurement” of the biomarker is not cost effective, according to the investigators, leading previous reviews and analyses to conclude that further research is needed before widespread usage can be recommended.
Dr. Siriwardena and colleagues aimed to meet this need by conducting a randomized controlled trial involving 260 patients hospitalized for acute pancreatitis at Manchester Royal Infirmary. Patients were randomized in a near 1:1 ratio. Both the intervention group (n = 132) and the control group (n = 128) received guideline-based care; however, in addition to standard of care, procalcitonin was measured in the intervention group at days 0, 4, and 7 then weekly. Among these patients, antibiotics were stopped or not started when procalcitonin was below 1.0 ng/mL, but antibiotics were started or continued when procalcitonin was 1.0 ng/mL or more.
The primary outcome was presence or absence of antibiotic use during hospital stay. A range of secondary outcomes were also reported, included all-cause mortality, days of antibiotic use, rates of infection, and endoscopic, radiological, or surgical intervention.
Significantly fewer patients in the procalcitonin group received antibiotics during their stay, compared with the usual-care group (45% vs. 63%), which translated to an adjusted risk difference of –15.6% (P = .0071). Patients in the procalcitonin group who did receive antibiotics received about 1 day less of antibiotic treatment.
Despite the reduced antibiotic usage, length of hospital stay was similar between groups, as were rates of clinical infection, hospital-acquired infection, death, and adverse events, which suggests that the algorithm safely reduced antibiotic usage without negatively impacting clinical outcomes, according to investigators.
“Procalcitonin-based algorithms to guide antibiotic use should be considered in the care of this group of patients and be incorporated into future guidelines on the management of acute pancreatitis,” the investigators concluded.
Aaron Sasson, MD, director of the pancreatic cancer center and codirector of the gastrointestinal oncology team at Stony Brook (N.Y.) Medicine, said the study is noteworthy because it addresses an important topic with a large prospective randomized trial; however, he pointed out some limitations.
“There are several issues with this trial,” Dr. Sasson said in a written comment. “First, it included a large percentage of patients with mild acute pancreatitis, a group of patients for whom the use of antibiotics is not controversial. Secondly, the rate of infected pancreatic necrosis was 5% in both arms of the study, indicating the lack of severity of the cohort of patients.”
Dr. Sasson said that the algorithm “could be useful” to differentiate between inflammation and infection in patients with acute pancreatitis, “but only as an adjunct with other clinical parameters.”
He suggested that the algorithm would offer more utility if it could distinguish between pancreatic necrosis and infected pancreatic necrosis. “Unfortunately, this trial did not answer this question,” he said, noting that a similar trial involving “only patients with severe pancreatitis” would be needed.
The investigators and Dr. Sasson disclosed no competing interests.
A procalcitonin-based algorithm could safely reduce unnecessary usage of antibiotics in patients with acute pancreatitis, based on results of a randomized controlled trial.
Physicians should consider incorporating the decision-making process into their daily practice, suggested lead author Ajith K. Siriwardena, MD, of Manchester (England) University and colleagues, who also recommended that the algorithm be added to future guidelines.
“Overuse of antibiotics and the resultant emergence of multidrug resistant microorganisms is a potent threat to the welfare of humanity in the 21st century,” the investigators wrote in The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology.
Antibiotic overuse is common in cases of acute pancreatitis, they noted, because clinical features are typically insufficient to distinguish between inflammation and infection. While measuring procalcitonin can help can detect infection, “indiscriminate measurement” of the biomarker is not cost effective, according to the investigators, leading previous reviews and analyses to conclude that further research is needed before widespread usage can be recommended.
Dr. Siriwardena and colleagues aimed to meet this need by conducting a randomized controlled trial involving 260 patients hospitalized for acute pancreatitis at Manchester Royal Infirmary. Patients were randomized in a near 1:1 ratio. Both the intervention group (n = 132) and the control group (n = 128) received guideline-based care; however, in addition to standard of care, procalcitonin was measured in the intervention group at days 0, 4, and 7 then weekly. Among these patients, antibiotics were stopped or not started when procalcitonin was below 1.0 ng/mL, but antibiotics were started or continued when procalcitonin was 1.0 ng/mL or more.
The primary outcome was presence or absence of antibiotic use during hospital stay. A range of secondary outcomes were also reported, included all-cause mortality, days of antibiotic use, rates of infection, and endoscopic, radiological, or surgical intervention.
Significantly fewer patients in the procalcitonin group received antibiotics during their stay, compared with the usual-care group (45% vs. 63%), which translated to an adjusted risk difference of –15.6% (P = .0071). Patients in the procalcitonin group who did receive antibiotics received about 1 day less of antibiotic treatment.
Despite the reduced antibiotic usage, length of hospital stay was similar between groups, as were rates of clinical infection, hospital-acquired infection, death, and adverse events, which suggests that the algorithm safely reduced antibiotic usage without negatively impacting clinical outcomes, according to investigators.
“Procalcitonin-based algorithms to guide antibiotic use should be considered in the care of this group of patients and be incorporated into future guidelines on the management of acute pancreatitis,” the investigators concluded.
Aaron Sasson, MD, director of the pancreatic cancer center and codirector of the gastrointestinal oncology team at Stony Brook (N.Y.) Medicine, said the study is noteworthy because it addresses an important topic with a large prospective randomized trial; however, he pointed out some limitations.
“There are several issues with this trial,” Dr. Sasson said in a written comment. “First, it included a large percentage of patients with mild acute pancreatitis, a group of patients for whom the use of antibiotics is not controversial. Secondly, the rate of infected pancreatic necrosis was 5% in both arms of the study, indicating the lack of severity of the cohort of patients.”
Dr. Sasson said that the algorithm “could be useful” to differentiate between inflammation and infection in patients with acute pancreatitis, “but only as an adjunct with other clinical parameters.”
He suggested that the algorithm would offer more utility if it could distinguish between pancreatic necrosis and infected pancreatic necrosis. “Unfortunately, this trial did not answer this question,” he said, noting that a similar trial involving “only patients with severe pancreatitis” would be needed.
The investigators and Dr. Sasson disclosed no competing interests.
FROM THE LANCET GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY