User login
Plasma exchange is ‘encouraging’ as a novel Alzheimer’s disease treatment
Results from the phase 2b/3 AMBAR study showed that the treatment, which aims to remove amyloid-beta (Abeta) from plasma, was associated with a 60% decrease in functional and cognitive decline in patients with moderate Alzheimer’s disease.
The reduction in cognitive decline uncovered by the study is more striking than that reported for other investigational treatments targeting Abeta, such as monoclonal antibodies, said coinvestigator Antonio Páez, MD, medical director of the AMBAR program, Alzheimer’s Research Group, Grifols, Barcelona.
The results “open a new path for the development of plasma protein replacement therapies not only in Alzheimer’s disease but also in other degenerative diseases that we are planning to investigate,” Dr. Páez said.
The findings were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference and were simultaneously published in Alzheimer’s and Dementia.
Removing amyloid
Plasma exchange treatments, which have been available for several decades, are used to treat a range of neurologic, immunologic, and metabolic disorders. The treatment involves plasmapheresis, whereby plasma is separated from blood cells (red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets, etc) and toxic substances are removed. The albumin in plasma, to which plasma Abeta is bound, is replaced with a fresh commercial albumin product made from plasma from healthy donors.
“Our initial hypothesis was that, by removing albumin together with Abeta and substituting it with newer albumin periodically, we may be removing Abeta from the cerebrospinal fluid and eventually from the brain,” Dr. Páez said.
The AMBAR study included 347 men and women aged 55-85 years with probable Alzheimer’s disease dementia who were enrolled at 41 sites in Spain and the United States. All were diagnosed with mild Alzheimer’s disease, as shown by a baseline Mini-Mental State Examination score of 22-26, or moderate Alzheimer’s disease, having a baseline MMSE score of 18-21.
Investigators randomly assigned the participants to four groups; one group received placebo, and each of the other three treatment arms received different doses of albumin and intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) replacement.
During the first 6-week study phase, patients received weekly sham or conventional plasma exchange treatments of 2.5-3 liters of plasma, which Dr. Páez referred to as the “intensive-treatment phase to remove as much Abeta as possible.”
This was followed by a 12-month maintenance phase, which involved monthly low-volume (700-800 mL) plasma exchange or sham treatments.
Although the volume of plasma removed was the same in all three active-treatment groups, the amount of albumin and IVIg that was subsequently replaced varied. In one group, the same amount of albumin and IVIg that was removed was replaced; in another, half the amount removed was replaced; and in the third, only albumin was replaced.
The researchers collected cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) samples at baseline and after each treatment period. They assessed Abeta40, Abeta42, total tau, and phosphorylated-tau biomarkers.
The two primary outcomes were change from baseline to 14 months in scores on the Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study–Activities of Daily Living (ADCS-ADL) scale and the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale–Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog).
Symptom reduction
Results showed a reduction in the progression of symptoms in the plasma exchange–treated patients for both primary endpoints.
The ADCS-ADL showed 52% less decline in the plasma exchange–treated group, compared with the placebo group (P = .03); the ADAS-Cog showed 66% less decline (P = 0.06). In the moderate group, both endpoints showed 61% less decline (P = .002 and .05, respectively).
There were no clear differences between the three active-treatment groups, “suggesting that any of them could be considered for further investigation,” said Dr. Páez.
Differences in baseline demographic characteristics did not appear to have an influence on the outcomes. ADAS-Cog was more than twice as effective as some candidate monoclonal antibodies targeting Abeta that are being investigated for Alzheimer’s disease, Dr. Páez noted.
Although the plasma exchange approach is relatively invasive, so too are monoclonal antibody therapies that are infused intravenously through a pump, he said. In addition, a low-volume plasma exchange maintenance treatment takes less than 2 hours, which is on a par with some monoclonal antibody treatments.
Key secondary outcomes
For both primary outcomes, changes were found in those with moderate but not mild Alzheimer’s disease, possibly because the ADAS-Cog was designed for patients with more severe symptoms and may not be sensitive enough for patients with better cognitive performance, said Dr. Páez.
However, the difference between mild and moderate Alzheimer’s disease did not hold up in post hoc analyses that included additional baseline characteristics, including amyloid and APOE e4 status.
“We observed that both mild and moderate subjects performed better than placebo even in the two coprimary endpoints,” Dr. Páez said. “It suggested that the differences between mild and moderate patients was not so apparent.”
The study’s key secondary outcomes included scores on the Clinical Dementia Rating Sum of Boxes (CDR-sb) and the Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study–Clinical Global Impression of Change (ADCS-CGIC) scales. Treated patients scored better than the placebo group on both the CDR-sb (71% less decline, P = .002) and the ADCS-CGIC (100% less decline, P < .0001) scales.
For disease biomarkers in the moderate Alzheimer’s disease study population, levels of CSF Abeta42 and tau protein remained stable in the treated patients. In the placebo group, Abeta42 was decreased and tau protein increased. Dr. Páez explained that, if amyloid in the brain comes from the CSF, this process may take some time.
The findings suggest that more than one mechanism may be involved in the plasma exchange approach, such as changes in oxidation status and inflammatory mediators, the investigators noted.
Safety profile
About 28% of the participants dropped out of the study, which the researchers note is a rate similar to that reported in studies of solanezumab and other treatments in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. “The high percentage (72%) of patients who completed the study further supports that this procedure is feasible in mild to moderate Alzheimer’s disease,” the investigators wrote.
Overall, adverse events were similar to the known safety profile of plasma exchange procedures for other indications. The two most common adverse events were catheter local reactions and hypotension.
Almost 90% of the apheresis procedures were “uneventful,” the researchers reported. Two patients (0.6%) died during the study, which is similar to the low mortality rates reported elsewhere.
However, the investigators stressed that, because many patients with Alzheimer’s disease are in fragile health, plasma exchange treatments should be undertaken with caution, because of its invasive nature.
Dr. Páez noted that a possible limitation of this treatment approach is the availability of plasma for manufacturing plasma products. In the future, this plasma exchange approach might be combined with current and future Alzheimer’s disease therapies.
They are currently in discussions with the American Society for Apheresis, which develops guidelines for plasma exchange. After additional research, the investigators hope to eventually receive Food and Drug Administration approval of plasma exchange with albumin replacement as a treatment for Alzheimer’s disease.
Speculative, yet reasonable approach
Commenting on the research findings, Pierre N. Tariot, MD, director of Banner Alzheimer’s Institute and research professor of psychiatry at the University of Arizona, both in Phoenix, said the study is “meaningful and large enough” to “come close” to determining whether the therapy is safe and effective. “The fundamental rationale for this experimental approach, while speculative, is reasonable and certainly seems to be worth testing,” said Dr. Tariot, who was not involved with the research.
However, “there’s a decent chance” that not all trial participants had Alzheimer’s disease. Although some CSF amyloid measures suggest levels consistent with AD, “this is not conclusive,” he said.
In addition, “there’s a slightly low rate of apolipoprotein E4 allele carriage [in the current study], compared with most Alzheimer’s disease trials,” Dr. Tariot said.
He also pointed out that the trial failed to show statistical significance on both coprimary outcomes. “It’s unclear what health authorities, if presented with these data, would decide to do with the file.”
Although it was “encouraging” that secondary endpoints were supportive, the fact that they had greater statistical significance than some of the other objective measures “raises at least the potential for partial unblinding as a result of side effects,” said Dr. Tariot. It is also unclear why changes would be more evident in the moderate subpopulation.
The study was funded by Grifols. Dr. Páez is an employee of Grifols. Dr. Tariot reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Results from the phase 2b/3 AMBAR study showed that the treatment, which aims to remove amyloid-beta (Abeta) from plasma, was associated with a 60% decrease in functional and cognitive decline in patients with moderate Alzheimer’s disease.
The reduction in cognitive decline uncovered by the study is more striking than that reported for other investigational treatments targeting Abeta, such as monoclonal antibodies, said coinvestigator Antonio Páez, MD, medical director of the AMBAR program, Alzheimer’s Research Group, Grifols, Barcelona.
The results “open a new path for the development of plasma protein replacement therapies not only in Alzheimer’s disease but also in other degenerative diseases that we are planning to investigate,” Dr. Páez said.
The findings were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference and were simultaneously published in Alzheimer’s and Dementia.
Removing amyloid
Plasma exchange treatments, which have been available for several decades, are used to treat a range of neurologic, immunologic, and metabolic disorders. The treatment involves plasmapheresis, whereby plasma is separated from blood cells (red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets, etc) and toxic substances are removed. The albumin in plasma, to which plasma Abeta is bound, is replaced with a fresh commercial albumin product made from plasma from healthy donors.
“Our initial hypothesis was that, by removing albumin together with Abeta and substituting it with newer albumin periodically, we may be removing Abeta from the cerebrospinal fluid and eventually from the brain,” Dr. Páez said.
The AMBAR study included 347 men and women aged 55-85 years with probable Alzheimer’s disease dementia who were enrolled at 41 sites in Spain and the United States. All were diagnosed with mild Alzheimer’s disease, as shown by a baseline Mini-Mental State Examination score of 22-26, or moderate Alzheimer’s disease, having a baseline MMSE score of 18-21.
Investigators randomly assigned the participants to four groups; one group received placebo, and each of the other three treatment arms received different doses of albumin and intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) replacement.
During the first 6-week study phase, patients received weekly sham or conventional plasma exchange treatments of 2.5-3 liters of plasma, which Dr. Páez referred to as the “intensive-treatment phase to remove as much Abeta as possible.”
This was followed by a 12-month maintenance phase, which involved monthly low-volume (700-800 mL) plasma exchange or sham treatments.
Although the volume of plasma removed was the same in all three active-treatment groups, the amount of albumin and IVIg that was subsequently replaced varied. In one group, the same amount of albumin and IVIg that was removed was replaced; in another, half the amount removed was replaced; and in the third, only albumin was replaced.
The researchers collected cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) samples at baseline and after each treatment period. They assessed Abeta40, Abeta42, total tau, and phosphorylated-tau biomarkers.
The two primary outcomes were change from baseline to 14 months in scores on the Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study–Activities of Daily Living (ADCS-ADL) scale and the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale–Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog).
Symptom reduction
Results showed a reduction in the progression of symptoms in the plasma exchange–treated patients for both primary endpoints.
The ADCS-ADL showed 52% less decline in the plasma exchange–treated group, compared with the placebo group (P = .03); the ADAS-Cog showed 66% less decline (P = 0.06). In the moderate group, both endpoints showed 61% less decline (P = .002 and .05, respectively).
There were no clear differences between the three active-treatment groups, “suggesting that any of them could be considered for further investigation,” said Dr. Páez.
Differences in baseline demographic characteristics did not appear to have an influence on the outcomes. ADAS-Cog was more than twice as effective as some candidate monoclonal antibodies targeting Abeta that are being investigated for Alzheimer’s disease, Dr. Páez noted.
Although the plasma exchange approach is relatively invasive, so too are monoclonal antibody therapies that are infused intravenously through a pump, he said. In addition, a low-volume plasma exchange maintenance treatment takes less than 2 hours, which is on a par with some monoclonal antibody treatments.
Key secondary outcomes
For both primary outcomes, changes were found in those with moderate but not mild Alzheimer’s disease, possibly because the ADAS-Cog was designed for patients with more severe symptoms and may not be sensitive enough for patients with better cognitive performance, said Dr. Páez.
However, the difference between mild and moderate Alzheimer’s disease did not hold up in post hoc analyses that included additional baseline characteristics, including amyloid and APOE e4 status.
“We observed that both mild and moderate subjects performed better than placebo even in the two coprimary endpoints,” Dr. Páez said. “It suggested that the differences between mild and moderate patients was not so apparent.”
The study’s key secondary outcomes included scores on the Clinical Dementia Rating Sum of Boxes (CDR-sb) and the Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study–Clinical Global Impression of Change (ADCS-CGIC) scales. Treated patients scored better than the placebo group on both the CDR-sb (71% less decline, P = .002) and the ADCS-CGIC (100% less decline, P < .0001) scales.
For disease biomarkers in the moderate Alzheimer’s disease study population, levels of CSF Abeta42 and tau protein remained stable in the treated patients. In the placebo group, Abeta42 was decreased and tau protein increased. Dr. Páez explained that, if amyloid in the brain comes from the CSF, this process may take some time.
The findings suggest that more than one mechanism may be involved in the plasma exchange approach, such as changes in oxidation status and inflammatory mediators, the investigators noted.
Safety profile
About 28% of the participants dropped out of the study, which the researchers note is a rate similar to that reported in studies of solanezumab and other treatments in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. “The high percentage (72%) of patients who completed the study further supports that this procedure is feasible in mild to moderate Alzheimer’s disease,” the investigators wrote.
Overall, adverse events were similar to the known safety profile of plasma exchange procedures for other indications. The two most common adverse events were catheter local reactions and hypotension.
Almost 90% of the apheresis procedures were “uneventful,” the researchers reported. Two patients (0.6%) died during the study, which is similar to the low mortality rates reported elsewhere.
However, the investigators stressed that, because many patients with Alzheimer’s disease are in fragile health, plasma exchange treatments should be undertaken with caution, because of its invasive nature.
Dr. Páez noted that a possible limitation of this treatment approach is the availability of plasma for manufacturing plasma products. In the future, this plasma exchange approach might be combined with current and future Alzheimer’s disease therapies.
They are currently in discussions with the American Society for Apheresis, which develops guidelines for plasma exchange. After additional research, the investigators hope to eventually receive Food and Drug Administration approval of plasma exchange with albumin replacement as a treatment for Alzheimer’s disease.
Speculative, yet reasonable approach
Commenting on the research findings, Pierre N. Tariot, MD, director of Banner Alzheimer’s Institute and research professor of psychiatry at the University of Arizona, both in Phoenix, said the study is “meaningful and large enough” to “come close” to determining whether the therapy is safe and effective. “The fundamental rationale for this experimental approach, while speculative, is reasonable and certainly seems to be worth testing,” said Dr. Tariot, who was not involved with the research.
However, “there’s a decent chance” that not all trial participants had Alzheimer’s disease. Although some CSF amyloid measures suggest levels consistent with AD, “this is not conclusive,” he said.
In addition, “there’s a slightly low rate of apolipoprotein E4 allele carriage [in the current study], compared with most Alzheimer’s disease trials,” Dr. Tariot said.
He also pointed out that the trial failed to show statistical significance on both coprimary outcomes. “It’s unclear what health authorities, if presented with these data, would decide to do with the file.”
Although it was “encouraging” that secondary endpoints were supportive, the fact that they had greater statistical significance than some of the other objective measures “raises at least the potential for partial unblinding as a result of side effects,” said Dr. Tariot. It is also unclear why changes would be more evident in the moderate subpopulation.
The study was funded by Grifols. Dr. Páez is an employee of Grifols. Dr. Tariot reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Results from the phase 2b/3 AMBAR study showed that the treatment, which aims to remove amyloid-beta (Abeta) from plasma, was associated with a 60% decrease in functional and cognitive decline in patients with moderate Alzheimer’s disease.
The reduction in cognitive decline uncovered by the study is more striking than that reported for other investigational treatments targeting Abeta, such as monoclonal antibodies, said coinvestigator Antonio Páez, MD, medical director of the AMBAR program, Alzheimer’s Research Group, Grifols, Barcelona.
The results “open a new path for the development of plasma protein replacement therapies not only in Alzheimer’s disease but also in other degenerative diseases that we are planning to investigate,” Dr. Páez said.
The findings were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference and were simultaneously published in Alzheimer’s and Dementia.
Removing amyloid
Plasma exchange treatments, which have been available for several decades, are used to treat a range of neurologic, immunologic, and metabolic disorders. The treatment involves plasmapheresis, whereby plasma is separated from blood cells (red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets, etc) and toxic substances are removed. The albumin in plasma, to which plasma Abeta is bound, is replaced with a fresh commercial albumin product made from plasma from healthy donors.
“Our initial hypothesis was that, by removing albumin together with Abeta and substituting it with newer albumin periodically, we may be removing Abeta from the cerebrospinal fluid and eventually from the brain,” Dr. Páez said.
The AMBAR study included 347 men and women aged 55-85 years with probable Alzheimer’s disease dementia who were enrolled at 41 sites in Spain and the United States. All were diagnosed with mild Alzheimer’s disease, as shown by a baseline Mini-Mental State Examination score of 22-26, or moderate Alzheimer’s disease, having a baseline MMSE score of 18-21.
Investigators randomly assigned the participants to four groups; one group received placebo, and each of the other three treatment arms received different doses of albumin and intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) replacement.
During the first 6-week study phase, patients received weekly sham or conventional plasma exchange treatments of 2.5-3 liters of plasma, which Dr. Páez referred to as the “intensive-treatment phase to remove as much Abeta as possible.”
This was followed by a 12-month maintenance phase, which involved monthly low-volume (700-800 mL) plasma exchange or sham treatments.
Although the volume of plasma removed was the same in all three active-treatment groups, the amount of albumin and IVIg that was subsequently replaced varied. In one group, the same amount of albumin and IVIg that was removed was replaced; in another, half the amount removed was replaced; and in the third, only albumin was replaced.
The researchers collected cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) samples at baseline and after each treatment period. They assessed Abeta40, Abeta42, total tau, and phosphorylated-tau biomarkers.
The two primary outcomes were change from baseline to 14 months in scores on the Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study–Activities of Daily Living (ADCS-ADL) scale and the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale–Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog).
Symptom reduction
Results showed a reduction in the progression of symptoms in the plasma exchange–treated patients for both primary endpoints.
The ADCS-ADL showed 52% less decline in the plasma exchange–treated group, compared with the placebo group (P = .03); the ADAS-Cog showed 66% less decline (P = 0.06). In the moderate group, both endpoints showed 61% less decline (P = .002 and .05, respectively).
There were no clear differences between the three active-treatment groups, “suggesting that any of them could be considered for further investigation,” said Dr. Páez.
Differences in baseline demographic characteristics did not appear to have an influence on the outcomes. ADAS-Cog was more than twice as effective as some candidate monoclonal antibodies targeting Abeta that are being investigated for Alzheimer’s disease, Dr. Páez noted.
Although the plasma exchange approach is relatively invasive, so too are monoclonal antibody therapies that are infused intravenously through a pump, he said. In addition, a low-volume plasma exchange maintenance treatment takes less than 2 hours, which is on a par with some monoclonal antibody treatments.
Key secondary outcomes
For both primary outcomes, changes were found in those with moderate but not mild Alzheimer’s disease, possibly because the ADAS-Cog was designed for patients with more severe symptoms and may not be sensitive enough for patients with better cognitive performance, said Dr. Páez.
However, the difference between mild and moderate Alzheimer’s disease did not hold up in post hoc analyses that included additional baseline characteristics, including amyloid and APOE e4 status.
“We observed that both mild and moderate subjects performed better than placebo even in the two coprimary endpoints,” Dr. Páez said. “It suggested that the differences between mild and moderate patients was not so apparent.”
The study’s key secondary outcomes included scores on the Clinical Dementia Rating Sum of Boxes (CDR-sb) and the Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study–Clinical Global Impression of Change (ADCS-CGIC) scales. Treated patients scored better than the placebo group on both the CDR-sb (71% less decline, P = .002) and the ADCS-CGIC (100% less decline, P < .0001) scales.
For disease biomarkers in the moderate Alzheimer’s disease study population, levels of CSF Abeta42 and tau protein remained stable in the treated patients. In the placebo group, Abeta42 was decreased and tau protein increased. Dr. Páez explained that, if amyloid in the brain comes from the CSF, this process may take some time.
The findings suggest that more than one mechanism may be involved in the plasma exchange approach, such as changes in oxidation status and inflammatory mediators, the investigators noted.
Safety profile
About 28% of the participants dropped out of the study, which the researchers note is a rate similar to that reported in studies of solanezumab and other treatments in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. “The high percentage (72%) of patients who completed the study further supports that this procedure is feasible in mild to moderate Alzheimer’s disease,” the investigators wrote.
Overall, adverse events were similar to the known safety profile of plasma exchange procedures for other indications. The two most common adverse events were catheter local reactions and hypotension.
Almost 90% of the apheresis procedures were “uneventful,” the researchers reported. Two patients (0.6%) died during the study, which is similar to the low mortality rates reported elsewhere.
However, the investigators stressed that, because many patients with Alzheimer’s disease are in fragile health, plasma exchange treatments should be undertaken with caution, because of its invasive nature.
Dr. Páez noted that a possible limitation of this treatment approach is the availability of plasma for manufacturing plasma products. In the future, this plasma exchange approach might be combined with current and future Alzheimer’s disease therapies.
They are currently in discussions with the American Society for Apheresis, which develops guidelines for plasma exchange. After additional research, the investigators hope to eventually receive Food and Drug Administration approval of plasma exchange with albumin replacement as a treatment for Alzheimer’s disease.
Speculative, yet reasonable approach
Commenting on the research findings, Pierre N. Tariot, MD, director of Banner Alzheimer’s Institute and research professor of psychiatry at the University of Arizona, both in Phoenix, said the study is “meaningful and large enough” to “come close” to determining whether the therapy is safe and effective. “The fundamental rationale for this experimental approach, while speculative, is reasonable and certainly seems to be worth testing,” said Dr. Tariot, who was not involved with the research.
However, “there’s a decent chance” that not all trial participants had Alzheimer’s disease. Although some CSF amyloid measures suggest levels consistent with AD, “this is not conclusive,” he said.
In addition, “there’s a slightly low rate of apolipoprotein E4 allele carriage [in the current study], compared with most Alzheimer’s disease trials,” Dr. Tariot said.
He also pointed out that the trial failed to show statistical significance on both coprimary outcomes. “It’s unclear what health authorities, if presented with these data, would decide to do with the file.”
Although it was “encouraging” that secondary endpoints were supportive, the fact that they had greater statistical significance than some of the other objective measures “raises at least the potential for partial unblinding as a result of side effects,” said Dr. Tariot. It is also unclear why changes would be more evident in the moderate subpopulation.
The study was funded by Grifols. Dr. Páez is an employee of Grifols. Dr. Tariot reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM AAIC 2020
Most younger MI patients wouldn’t get statins under guidelines
Clinical guidelines for cholesterol management may have two blind spots when it comes to heart attack prevention: Most younger adults with premature coronary artery disease who’ve had a myocardial infarction don’t meet guideline criteria for preventative statin therapy, and survivors under age 55 don’t meet the criteria for continuing nonstatin lipid-lowering treatments, a large single-center retrospective study has shown.
“The classic approach we’ve taken to identifying young adults for prevention is inadequate in younger adults,” corresponding author Ann Marie Navar, MD, PhD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., said in an interview. “While awaiting more definitive research we should at minimum be using all the tools at our disposal, including broader use of coronary artery calcium [CAC] scoring, to identify young people who may benefit from statin therapy.”
The retrospective observational study analyzed records of 6,639 adults who had cardiac catheterization at Duke University Medical Center from 1995 to 2012 for a first myocardial infarction with obstructive coronary artery disease. The study considered those under age 55 years as “younger” patients, comprising 41% of the study group (2,733); 35% were “middle-aged” at 55-65 years (2,324) and 24% were “older,” at 66-75 years (1,582).
The report, published online Aug. 3 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, noted that most of the adults with premature CAD did not meet criteria for preventative statin therapy before their first MI based on ACC/American Heart Association clinical guidelines from 2013 and 2018. It also noted that younger MI survivors are also less frequently eligible for secondary prevention with intensive nonstatin lipid-lowering therapies than are older adults despite a much longer potential life span – and opportunity for another MI – for the former.
The researchers sought to evaluate the real-world implications of changes made in the 2018 guideline for adults who develop premature ischemic heart disease, and found that fewer younger patients qualify for preventative statin therapy under the 2018 guidelines.
“Younger individuals with very high-risk criteria are at higher risk of major adverse cardiovascular events, a finding supporting the appropriate implementation of intensive lipid-lowering therapies in these patients,” wrote lead author Michel Zeitouni, MD, MSc, and colleagues.
Key findings
The investigators reported that younger adults were significantly less likely to meet a class I recommendation for statins under the 2013 guideline (42.9%), compared with their middle-aged (70%) and older (82.5%) counterparts; and under the 2018 guideline, at 39.4%, 59.5%, and 77.4%, respectively (both P < .001).
Similarly, when both class I and class IIa recommendations were accounted for, younger patients were significantly less likely than were middle-aged and older patients to be eligible for statins before their index MI under both the 2013 (56.7%, 79.5%, and 85.2%, respectively and 2018 guidelines (46.4%, 73.5%, and 88.2%, respectively (both P < .01).
After their first MI, one in four younger patients (28.3%) met the very high-risk criteria compared with 40% of middle-aged and 81.4% of older patients (P trend < .001). In 8 years of follow-up, patients with very high-risk criteria based on the 2018 guideline had twice the rate of death, nonfatal MI, or stroke (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.15; 95% confidence interval, 1.98-2.33; P < .001).
The researchers acknowledged that the 2018 guideline took the important step of implementing risk enhancers – patient characteristics such as obesity and metabolic syndrome – along with the 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk score to better identify high-risk young individuals who need statins. However, they also noted that the ability of the guidelines to identify young adults before their first MI “remains suboptimal.”
How to protect younger patients
“The 2018 guidelines will be most effective if we as providers do our best to identify risk enhancers and if we can use CAC scoring more broadly,” Dr. Navar said, noting that although CAC scoring has been shown to improve risk prediction, insurance coverage can be problematic.
“We also need to be careful to screen for the presence of the risk enhancers, such as inflammatory disease, family history, and women-specific risk factors, to make sure we aren’t missing an important high-risk group,” she added.
Other solutions to better identify at-risk younger adults include considering upgrades to the guidelines’ class IIb recommendation to class IIa to emphasize the importance of recognizing lower-risk younger adults, and recommending statins for patients at higher lifetime risk than age- and sex-matched peers, the researchers noted. “In our cohort, young individuals admitted for a first MI had a higher lifetime ASCVD risk score than did patients in the older age categories,” Dr. Zeitouni and colleagues wrote.
Dr. Navar said that these findings are a reminder that guidelines aren’t mandates. “Guidelines are meant to be a starting point for patients and physicians,” she said. “The absence of a recommendation doesn’t mean something isn’t recommended, but that there is not enough data to say one way or another.”
The study “provides important evidence” that the 2018 guidelines exempted about half of the younger adults who had a first MI from preventative statin therapy, Ron Blankstein, MD, and Avinainder Singh, MD, MMSc, noted in an editorial (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;76:665-8).
“Data from both the Duke and Young-MI registries should force us to reexamine how we allocate statin use among young individuals,” they noted. Dr. Blankstein is with Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston. Dr. Singh is with Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
Dr. Zeitouni reported receiving lecture fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer. Dr. Navar reported financial relationships with Amarin, Janssen, Amgen, Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Esperion, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, The Medicine Company, New Amsterdam, Cerner and Pfizer. Dr. Blankstein reported receiving research support from Amgen. Dr. Singh has no relevant financial relationships to report.
SOURCE: M. Zeitouni et al. J Am Coll Cardiol 2020 Aug 3;76:653-64.
Clinical guidelines for cholesterol management may have two blind spots when it comes to heart attack prevention: Most younger adults with premature coronary artery disease who’ve had a myocardial infarction don’t meet guideline criteria for preventative statin therapy, and survivors under age 55 don’t meet the criteria for continuing nonstatin lipid-lowering treatments, a large single-center retrospective study has shown.
“The classic approach we’ve taken to identifying young adults for prevention is inadequate in younger adults,” corresponding author Ann Marie Navar, MD, PhD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., said in an interview. “While awaiting more definitive research we should at minimum be using all the tools at our disposal, including broader use of coronary artery calcium [CAC] scoring, to identify young people who may benefit from statin therapy.”
The retrospective observational study analyzed records of 6,639 adults who had cardiac catheterization at Duke University Medical Center from 1995 to 2012 for a first myocardial infarction with obstructive coronary artery disease. The study considered those under age 55 years as “younger” patients, comprising 41% of the study group (2,733); 35% were “middle-aged” at 55-65 years (2,324) and 24% were “older,” at 66-75 years (1,582).
The report, published online Aug. 3 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, noted that most of the adults with premature CAD did not meet criteria for preventative statin therapy before their first MI based on ACC/American Heart Association clinical guidelines from 2013 and 2018. It also noted that younger MI survivors are also less frequently eligible for secondary prevention with intensive nonstatin lipid-lowering therapies than are older adults despite a much longer potential life span – and opportunity for another MI – for the former.
The researchers sought to evaluate the real-world implications of changes made in the 2018 guideline for adults who develop premature ischemic heart disease, and found that fewer younger patients qualify for preventative statin therapy under the 2018 guidelines.
“Younger individuals with very high-risk criteria are at higher risk of major adverse cardiovascular events, a finding supporting the appropriate implementation of intensive lipid-lowering therapies in these patients,” wrote lead author Michel Zeitouni, MD, MSc, and colleagues.
Key findings
The investigators reported that younger adults were significantly less likely to meet a class I recommendation for statins under the 2013 guideline (42.9%), compared with their middle-aged (70%) and older (82.5%) counterparts; and under the 2018 guideline, at 39.4%, 59.5%, and 77.4%, respectively (both P < .001).
Similarly, when both class I and class IIa recommendations were accounted for, younger patients were significantly less likely than were middle-aged and older patients to be eligible for statins before their index MI under both the 2013 (56.7%, 79.5%, and 85.2%, respectively and 2018 guidelines (46.4%, 73.5%, and 88.2%, respectively (both P < .01).
After their first MI, one in four younger patients (28.3%) met the very high-risk criteria compared with 40% of middle-aged and 81.4% of older patients (P trend < .001). In 8 years of follow-up, patients with very high-risk criteria based on the 2018 guideline had twice the rate of death, nonfatal MI, or stroke (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.15; 95% confidence interval, 1.98-2.33; P < .001).
The researchers acknowledged that the 2018 guideline took the important step of implementing risk enhancers – patient characteristics such as obesity and metabolic syndrome – along with the 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk score to better identify high-risk young individuals who need statins. However, they also noted that the ability of the guidelines to identify young adults before their first MI “remains suboptimal.”
How to protect younger patients
“The 2018 guidelines will be most effective if we as providers do our best to identify risk enhancers and if we can use CAC scoring more broadly,” Dr. Navar said, noting that although CAC scoring has been shown to improve risk prediction, insurance coverage can be problematic.
“We also need to be careful to screen for the presence of the risk enhancers, such as inflammatory disease, family history, and women-specific risk factors, to make sure we aren’t missing an important high-risk group,” she added.
Other solutions to better identify at-risk younger adults include considering upgrades to the guidelines’ class IIb recommendation to class IIa to emphasize the importance of recognizing lower-risk younger adults, and recommending statins for patients at higher lifetime risk than age- and sex-matched peers, the researchers noted. “In our cohort, young individuals admitted for a first MI had a higher lifetime ASCVD risk score than did patients in the older age categories,” Dr. Zeitouni and colleagues wrote.
Dr. Navar said that these findings are a reminder that guidelines aren’t mandates. “Guidelines are meant to be a starting point for patients and physicians,” she said. “The absence of a recommendation doesn’t mean something isn’t recommended, but that there is not enough data to say one way or another.”
The study “provides important evidence” that the 2018 guidelines exempted about half of the younger adults who had a first MI from preventative statin therapy, Ron Blankstein, MD, and Avinainder Singh, MD, MMSc, noted in an editorial (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;76:665-8).
“Data from both the Duke and Young-MI registries should force us to reexamine how we allocate statin use among young individuals,” they noted. Dr. Blankstein is with Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston. Dr. Singh is with Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
Dr. Zeitouni reported receiving lecture fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer. Dr. Navar reported financial relationships with Amarin, Janssen, Amgen, Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Esperion, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, The Medicine Company, New Amsterdam, Cerner and Pfizer. Dr. Blankstein reported receiving research support from Amgen. Dr. Singh has no relevant financial relationships to report.
SOURCE: M. Zeitouni et al. J Am Coll Cardiol 2020 Aug 3;76:653-64.
Clinical guidelines for cholesterol management may have two blind spots when it comes to heart attack prevention: Most younger adults with premature coronary artery disease who’ve had a myocardial infarction don’t meet guideline criteria for preventative statin therapy, and survivors under age 55 don’t meet the criteria for continuing nonstatin lipid-lowering treatments, a large single-center retrospective study has shown.
“The classic approach we’ve taken to identifying young adults for prevention is inadequate in younger adults,” corresponding author Ann Marie Navar, MD, PhD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., said in an interview. “While awaiting more definitive research we should at minimum be using all the tools at our disposal, including broader use of coronary artery calcium [CAC] scoring, to identify young people who may benefit from statin therapy.”
The retrospective observational study analyzed records of 6,639 adults who had cardiac catheterization at Duke University Medical Center from 1995 to 2012 for a first myocardial infarction with obstructive coronary artery disease. The study considered those under age 55 years as “younger” patients, comprising 41% of the study group (2,733); 35% were “middle-aged” at 55-65 years (2,324) and 24% were “older,” at 66-75 years (1,582).
The report, published online Aug. 3 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, noted that most of the adults with premature CAD did not meet criteria for preventative statin therapy before their first MI based on ACC/American Heart Association clinical guidelines from 2013 and 2018. It also noted that younger MI survivors are also less frequently eligible for secondary prevention with intensive nonstatin lipid-lowering therapies than are older adults despite a much longer potential life span – and opportunity for another MI – for the former.
The researchers sought to evaluate the real-world implications of changes made in the 2018 guideline for adults who develop premature ischemic heart disease, and found that fewer younger patients qualify for preventative statin therapy under the 2018 guidelines.
“Younger individuals with very high-risk criteria are at higher risk of major adverse cardiovascular events, a finding supporting the appropriate implementation of intensive lipid-lowering therapies in these patients,” wrote lead author Michel Zeitouni, MD, MSc, and colleagues.
Key findings
The investigators reported that younger adults were significantly less likely to meet a class I recommendation for statins under the 2013 guideline (42.9%), compared with their middle-aged (70%) and older (82.5%) counterparts; and under the 2018 guideline, at 39.4%, 59.5%, and 77.4%, respectively (both P < .001).
Similarly, when both class I and class IIa recommendations were accounted for, younger patients were significantly less likely than were middle-aged and older patients to be eligible for statins before their index MI under both the 2013 (56.7%, 79.5%, and 85.2%, respectively and 2018 guidelines (46.4%, 73.5%, and 88.2%, respectively (both P < .01).
After their first MI, one in four younger patients (28.3%) met the very high-risk criteria compared with 40% of middle-aged and 81.4% of older patients (P trend < .001). In 8 years of follow-up, patients with very high-risk criteria based on the 2018 guideline had twice the rate of death, nonfatal MI, or stroke (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.15; 95% confidence interval, 1.98-2.33; P < .001).
The researchers acknowledged that the 2018 guideline took the important step of implementing risk enhancers – patient characteristics such as obesity and metabolic syndrome – along with the 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk score to better identify high-risk young individuals who need statins. However, they also noted that the ability of the guidelines to identify young adults before their first MI “remains suboptimal.”
How to protect younger patients
“The 2018 guidelines will be most effective if we as providers do our best to identify risk enhancers and if we can use CAC scoring more broadly,” Dr. Navar said, noting that although CAC scoring has been shown to improve risk prediction, insurance coverage can be problematic.
“We also need to be careful to screen for the presence of the risk enhancers, such as inflammatory disease, family history, and women-specific risk factors, to make sure we aren’t missing an important high-risk group,” she added.
Other solutions to better identify at-risk younger adults include considering upgrades to the guidelines’ class IIb recommendation to class IIa to emphasize the importance of recognizing lower-risk younger adults, and recommending statins for patients at higher lifetime risk than age- and sex-matched peers, the researchers noted. “In our cohort, young individuals admitted for a first MI had a higher lifetime ASCVD risk score than did patients in the older age categories,” Dr. Zeitouni and colleagues wrote.
Dr. Navar said that these findings are a reminder that guidelines aren’t mandates. “Guidelines are meant to be a starting point for patients and physicians,” she said. “The absence of a recommendation doesn’t mean something isn’t recommended, but that there is not enough data to say one way or another.”
The study “provides important evidence” that the 2018 guidelines exempted about half of the younger adults who had a first MI from preventative statin therapy, Ron Blankstein, MD, and Avinainder Singh, MD, MMSc, noted in an editorial (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;76:665-8).
“Data from both the Duke and Young-MI registries should force us to reexamine how we allocate statin use among young individuals,” they noted. Dr. Blankstein is with Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston. Dr. Singh is with Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
Dr. Zeitouni reported receiving lecture fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer. Dr. Navar reported financial relationships with Amarin, Janssen, Amgen, Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Esperion, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, The Medicine Company, New Amsterdam, Cerner and Pfizer. Dr. Blankstein reported receiving research support from Amgen. Dr. Singh has no relevant financial relationships to report.
SOURCE: M. Zeitouni et al. J Am Coll Cardiol 2020 Aug 3;76:653-64.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY
FDA approves new drug for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma
A novel drug, tafasitamab-cxix (Monjuvi, MorphoSys US), has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL).
The product is a humanized Fc-modified cytolytic CD19 targeting monoclonal antibody. It mediates B-cell lysis through apoptosis and immune effector mechanism, including antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity (ADCC) and antibody-dependent cellular phagocytosis (ADCP).
It is indicated for use in combination with lenalidomide for adult patients with relapsed/refractory DLBCL that is not otherwise specified, including DLBCL arising from low-grade lymphoma, and in patients who are not eligible for autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT).
Tafasitamab-cxix in combination with lenalidomide is the first treatment that approved by the FDA for second-line use for patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL, notes the manufacturer.
The approval “brings a new treatment option to patients in dire need across the United States,” said Gilles Salles, MD, chair of the clinical hematology department at the University of Lyon (France), and lead investigator of the L-MIND study.
The FDA granted an accelerated approval on the basis of overall response rate from an open-label, single-arm, phase 2 trial in 81 patients (known as L-MIND). Further trials are underway to confirm clinical benefit.
The L-MIND trial was conducted in patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL who had received at least one, but no more than three, prior lines of therapy, including an anti-CD20 targeting therapy (e.g., rituximab), who were not eligible for high-dose chemotherapy or who refused subsequent ASCT.
All patients received tafasitamab-cxix 12 mg/kg intravenously with lenalidomide (25 mg orally on days 1-21 of each 28-day cycle) for a maximum of 12 cycles, followed by tafasitamab-cxix as monotherapy.
The best ORR (defined as complete and partial responders) in 71 patients with a diagnosis of DLBCL confirmed by central pathology was 55%, with complete responses in 37% and partial responses in 18% of patients. The median response duration was 21.7 months (range, 0-24).
The most common adverse reactions (≥20%) were neutropenia, fatigue, anemia, diarrhea, thrombocytopenia, cough, fever, peripheral edema, respiratory tract infection, and decreased appetite.
Precautions and warnings include infusion-related reactions (6%), serious or severe myelosuppression (including neutropenia [50%], thrombocytopenia [18%], and anemia [7%]), infections (73%), and embryo-fetal toxicity.
DLBCL is the most common type of non-Hodgkin lymphoma in adults worldwide, characterized by rapidly growing masses of malignant B-cells in the lymph nodes, spleen, liver, bone marrow or other organs. It is an aggressive disease with about one in three patients not responding to initial therapy or relapsing thereafter, notes the manufacturer. In the United States each year approximately 10,000 patients who are not eligible for ASCT are diagnosed with relapsed or refractory DLBCL.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A novel drug, tafasitamab-cxix (Monjuvi, MorphoSys US), has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL).
The product is a humanized Fc-modified cytolytic CD19 targeting monoclonal antibody. It mediates B-cell lysis through apoptosis and immune effector mechanism, including antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity (ADCC) and antibody-dependent cellular phagocytosis (ADCP).
It is indicated for use in combination with lenalidomide for adult patients with relapsed/refractory DLBCL that is not otherwise specified, including DLBCL arising from low-grade lymphoma, and in patients who are not eligible for autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT).
Tafasitamab-cxix in combination with lenalidomide is the first treatment that approved by the FDA for second-line use for patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL, notes the manufacturer.
The approval “brings a new treatment option to patients in dire need across the United States,” said Gilles Salles, MD, chair of the clinical hematology department at the University of Lyon (France), and lead investigator of the L-MIND study.
The FDA granted an accelerated approval on the basis of overall response rate from an open-label, single-arm, phase 2 trial in 81 patients (known as L-MIND). Further trials are underway to confirm clinical benefit.
The L-MIND trial was conducted in patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL who had received at least one, but no more than three, prior lines of therapy, including an anti-CD20 targeting therapy (e.g., rituximab), who were not eligible for high-dose chemotherapy or who refused subsequent ASCT.
All patients received tafasitamab-cxix 12 mg/kg intravenously with lenalidomide (25 mg orally on days 1-21 of each 28-day cycle) for a maximum of 12 cycles, followed by tafasitamab-cxix as monotherapy.
The best ORR (defined as complete and partial responders) in 71 patients with a diagnosis of DLBCL confirmed by central pathology was 55%, with complete responses in 37% and partial responses in 18% of patients. The median response duration was 21.7 months (range, 0-24).
The most common adverse reactions (≥20%) were neutropenia, fatigue, anemia, diarrhea, thrombocytopenia, cough, fever, peripheral edema, respiratory tract infection, and decreased appetite.
Precautions and warnings include infusion-related reactions (6%), serious or severe myelosuppression (including neutropenia [50%], thrombocytopenia [18%], and anemia [7%]), infections (73%), and embryo-fetal toxicity.
DLBCL is the most common type of non-Hodgkin lymphoma in adults worldwide, characterized by rapidly growing masses of malignant B-cells in the lymph nodes, spleen, liver, bone marrow or other organs. It is an aggressive disease with about one in three patients not responding to initial therapy or relapsing thereafter, notes the manufacturer. In the United States each year approximately 10,000 patients who are not eligible for ASCT are diagnosed with relapsed or refractory DLBCL.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A novel drug, tafasitamab-cxix (Monjuvi, MorphoSys US), has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL).
The product is a humanized Fc-modified cytolytic CD19 targeting monoclonal antibody. It mediates B-cell lysis through apoptosis and immune effector mechanism, including antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity (ADCC) and antibody-dependent cellular phagocytosis (ADCP).
It is indicated for use in combination with lenalidomide for adult patients with relapsed/refractory DLBCL that is not otherwise specified, including DLBCL arising from low-grade lymphoma, and in patients who are not eligible for autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT).
Tafasitamab-cxix in combination with lenalidomide is the first treatment that approved by the FDA for second-line use for patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL, notes the manufacturer.
The approval “brings a new treatment option to patients in dire need across the United States,” said Gilles Salles, MD, chair of the clinical hematology department at the University of Lyon (France), and lead investigator of the L-MIND study.
The FDA granted an accelerated approval on the basis of overall response rate from an open-label, single-arm, phase 2 trial in 81 patients (known as L-MIND). Further trials are underway to confirm clinical benefit.
The L-MIND trial was conducted in patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL who had received at least one, but no more than three, prior lines of therapy, including an anti-CD20 targeting therapy (e.g., rituximab), who were not eligible for high-dose chemotherapy or who refused subsequent ASCT.
All patients received tafasitamab-cxix 12 mg/kg intravenously with lenalidomide (25 mg orally on days 1-21 of each 28-day cycle) for a maximum of 12 cycles, followed by tafasitamab-cxix as monotherapy.
The best ORR (defined as complete and partial responders) in 71 patients with a diagnosis of DLBCL confirmed by central pathology was 55%, with complete responses in 37% and partial responses in 18% of patients. The median response duration was 21.7 months (range, 0-24).
The most common adverse reactions (≥20%) were neutropenia, fatigue, anemia, diarrhea, thrombocytopenia, cough, fever, peripheral edema, respiratory tract infection, and decreased appetite.
Precautions and warnings include infusion-related reactions (6%), serious or severe myelosuppression (including neutropenia [50%], thrombocytopenia [18%], and anemia [7%]), infections (73%), and embryo-fetal toxicity.
DLBCL is the most common type of non-Hodgkin lymphoma in adults worldwide, characterized by rapidly growing masses of malignant B-cells in the lymph nodes, spleen, liver, bone marrow or other organs. It is an aggressive disease with about one in three patients not responding to initial therapy or relapsing thereafter, notes the manufacturer. In the United States each year approximately 10,000 patients who are not eligible for ASCT are diagnosed with relapsed or refractory DLBCL.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Many older adults ‘overscreened’ for cancer
Older adults are being “overscreened” for cancer, say researchers who discovered that many patients reported undergoing screening for cancer even though they were older than the upper age limit recommended.
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends an upper age limit on cancer screening that varies by cancer type – 75 years old for colorectal cancer, 74 for breast cancer, and 65 for cervical cancer.
The study found that 59.3% of men and 56.2% of women being screening for colorectal cancer were above that cut-off age, as were 45.8% of women being screened for cervical cancer and 74.1% of women being screened for breast cancer.
Overscreening was particularly high for women living in metropolitan areas.
The finding is of concern, say the researchers, because “continuing to screen patients who are older and/or who have limited life expectancy may cause more harms than benefits.”
“The development of successful interventions to address this problem are thus essential,” they write.
The study was published online July 27 in JAMA Network Open.
Clinicians, patients, and health care systems can be changed – and should be changed – to minimize overscreening,” said lead author Jennifer L. Moss, PhD, assistant professor of family and community medicine and public health sciences at Penn State University, Hershey.
“It will probably take many changes to meaningfully decrease overscreening,” she told Medscape Medical News.
One change that would help is if health insurance companies stopped reimbursing providers for screening after the recommended upper age limit, she continued. “Another change is if providers had evidence-based tools to guide conversations about stopping screening, given an individual patient’s demographics, health status, and risks and benefits of the screening test.”
Approached for comment on the study, Nancy Schoenborn, MD, MHS, an associate professor of medicine in the Division of Geriatric Medicine and Gerontology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, noted that the finding of high overscreening is not surprising and is consistent with prior works that found similar results.
“One value of this paper is that the timing of the study is more recent and confirms that the issue of overscreening is one that is still ongoing,” she told Medscape Medical News. Schoenborn was not associated with the study.
As for what physicians should do about the findings in this study, Schoenborn suggested the first step is to simply recognize that overscreening is likely a problem and “to reflect if there are instances in one’s own practice where overscreening may occur.”
In her own work, Schoenborn continued, “I was recently surprised that a substantial minority of clinicians actually do not believe overscreening to be a problem in older adults, and they have a number of concerns about how overscreening is defined and about unintended consequences that can occur from efforts to reduce overscreening.”
She added that there are a number of reasons why overscreening occurs. These include guideline inconsistencies, inertia, patient request, clinician knowledge gaps, and discomfort with discussing stopping. “A lot of work is ongoing to address each of these issues, but I think the first step would be the clinician recognizing and agreeing that this is a problem that needs to be addressed,” she said.
Unnecessary screening
The authors note that the prevalence estimates for overscreening have not been reported on a national level, and it is also unclear how overscreening may vary among subgroups.
“The reason I focused on colorectal, cervical, and breast cancers is because USPSTF has very clear, age-based recommendations for these cancers in terms of who should and should not get screened routinely,” explained Moss. “This was important because it allowed me and my coauthors to clearly say, based on age alone, this person probably was screened unnecessarily, and this person was not.”
She noted that the age-based recommendations for routine screening are based on very large clinical trials to examine the effectiveness of the screening tool. “The recommendations for lung and prostate cancer screening are not so clear cut, and we would not be able to tell, based only on the available survey data, if someone was overscreened,” she said.
For their study, the team used data from the 2018 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, administered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Overscreening was assessed in a cohort of 20,937 men and 34,244 women for colorectal cancer, 82,811 women for cervical cancer, and 38,356 women for breast cancer. Most the participants lived in a metropolitan area (about 80%) and were white (about 80%).
Being overscreened was also more common in metropolitan vs. nonmetropolitan areas for colorectal cancer in women (adjusted odds ratio, 1.23), cervical cancer (aOR, 1.20), and breast cancer (aOR, 1.36).
Overscreening for cervical and breast cancers was also associated with having a usual source of care, good/very good/excellent self-reported health, education beyond a high school diploma, and being married or living as married.
The study was carried out in 2018, and the situation is likely to have changed over recent months during the COVID-19 pandemic.
“We have already seen dramatic reductions in routine cancer screening among age-eligible adults, so part of this problem of overscreening among older adults will likely diminish,” said Moss. “State and national cancer surveillance systems will continue to monitor trends in cancer screening, including overscreening, cancer incidence, and cancer mortality.”
Johns Hopkins’ Schoenborn said one finding of particular interest was that the colorectal cancer overscreening rate was higher in those older than 80 and in those with higher mortality risk.
“It makes me wonder if this is due to the increasing use of noninvasive colorectal cancer screening modalities, such as the fecal immunochemical test FIT or Cologuard,” Schoenborn commented. “It would be important for clinicians to consider downstream effects even when the initial test is low risk, such as if the stool test screens positive, would the patient still need a colonoscopy, and is that something the patient can undergo and wants to undergo?”
The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute and American Cancer Society. Moss, study coauthors, and Schoenborn have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Older adults are being “overscreened” for cancer, say researchers who discovered that many patients reported undergoing screening for cancer even though they were older than the upper age limit recommended.
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends an upper age limit on cancer screening that varies by cancer type – 75 years old for colorectal cancer, 74 for breast cancer, and 65 for cervical cancer.
The study found that 59.3% of men and 56.2% of women being screening for colorectal cancer were above that cut-off age, as were 45.8% of women being screened for cervical cancer and 74.1% of women being screened for breast cancer.
Overscreening was particularly high for women living in metropolitan areas.
The finding is of concern, say the researchers, because “continuing to screen patients who are older and/or who have limited life expectancy may cause more harms than benefits.”
“The development of successful interventions to address this problem are thus essential,” they write.
The study was published online July 27 in JAMA Network Open.
Clinicians, patients, and health care systems can be changed – and should be changed – to minimize overscreening,” said lead author Jennifer L. Moss, PhD, assistant professor of family and community medicine and public health sciences at Penn State University, Hershey.
“It will probably take many changes to meaningfully decrease overscreening,” she told Medscape Medical News.
One change that would help is if health insurance companies stopped reimbursing providers for screening after the recommended upper age limit, she continued. “Another change is if providers had evidence-based tools to guide conversations about stopping screening, given an individual patient’s demographics, health status, and risks and benefits of the screening test.”
Approached for comment on the study, Nancy Schoenborn, MD, MHS, an associate professor of medicine in the Division of Geriatric Medicine and Gerontology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, noted that the finding of high overscreening is not surprising and is consistent with prior works that found similar results.
“One value of this paper is that the timing of the study is more recent and confirms that the issue of overscreening is one that is still ongoing,” she told Medscape Medical News. Schoenborn was not associated with the study.
As for what physicians should do about the findings in this study, Schoenborn suggested the first step is to simply recognize that overscreening is likely a problem and “to reflect if there are instances in one’s own practice where overscreening may occur.”
In her own work, Schoenborn continued, “I was recently surprised that a substantial minority of clinicians actually do not believe overscreening to be a problem in older adults, and they have a number of concerns about how overscreening is defined and about unintended consequences that can occur from efforts to reduce overscreening.”
She added that there are a number of reasons why overscreening occurs. These include guideline inconsistencies, inertia, patient request, clinician knowledge gaps, and discomfort with discussing stopping. “A lot of work is ongoing to address each of these issues, but I think the first step would be the clinician recognizing and agreeing that this is a problem that needs to be addressed,” she said.
Unnecessary screening
The authors note that the prevalence estimates for overscreening have not been reported on a national level, and it is also unclear how overscreening may vary among subgroups.
“The reason I focused on colorectal, cervical, and breast cancers is because USPSTF has very clear, age-based recommendations for these cancers in terms of who should and should not get screened routinely,” explained Moss. “This was important because it allowed me and my coauthors to clearly say, based on age alone, this person probably was screened unnecessarily, and this person was not.”
She noted that the age-based recommendations for routine screening are based on very large clinical trials to examine the effectiveness of the screening tool. “The recommendations for lung and prostate cancer screening are not so clear cut, and we would not be able to tell, based only on the available survey data, if someone was overscreened,” she said.
For their study, the team used data from the 2018 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, administered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Overscreening was assessed in a cohort of 20,937 men and 34,244 women for colorectal cancer, 82,811 women for cervical cancer, and 38,356 women for breast cancer. Most the participants lived in a metropolitan area (about 80%) and were white (about 80%).
Being overscreened was also more common in metropolitan vs. nonmetropolitan areas for colorectal cancer in women (adjusted odds ratio, 1.23), cervical cancer (aOR, 1.20), and breast cancer (aOR, 1.36).
Overscreening for cervical and breast cancers was also associated with having a usual source of care, good/very good/excellent self-reported health, education beyond a high school diploma, and being married or living as married.
The study was carried out in 2018, and the situation is likely to have changed over recent months during the COVID-19 pandemic.
“We have already seen dramatic reductions in routine cancer screening among age-eligible adults, so part of this problem of overscreening among older adults will likely diminish,” said Moss. “State and national cancer surveillance systems will continue to monitor trends in cancer screening, including overscreening, cancer incidence, and cancer mortality.”
Johns Hopkins’ Schoenborn said one finding of particular interest was that the colorectal cancer overscreening rate was higher in those older than 80 and in those with higher mortality risk.
“It makes me wonder if this is due to the increasing use of noninvasive colorectal cancer screening modalities, such as the fecal immunochemical test FIT or Cologuard,” Schoenborn commented. “It would be important for clinicians to consider downstream effects even when the initial test is low risk, such as if the stool test screens positive, would the patient still need a colonoscopy, and is that something the patient can undergo and wants to undergo?”
The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute and American Cancer Society. Moss, study coauthors, and Schoenborn have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Older adults are being “overscreened” for cancer, say researchers who discovered that many patients reported undergoing screening for cancer even though they were older than the upper age limit recommended.
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends an upper age limit on cancer screening that varies by cancer type – 75 years old for colorectal cancer, 74 for breast cancer, and 65 for cervical cancer.
The study found that 59.3% of men and 56.2% of women being screening for colorectal cancer were above that cut-off age, as were 45.8% of women being screened for cervical cancer and 74.1% of women being screened for breast cancer.
Overscreening was particularly high for women living in metropolitan areas.
The finding is of concern, say the researchers, because “continuing to screen patients who are older and/or who have limited life expectancy may cause more harms than benefits.”
“The development of successful interventions to address this problem are thus essential,” they write.
The study was published online July 27 in JAMA Network Open.
Clinicians, patients, and health care systems can be changed – and should be changed – to minimize overscreening,” said lead author Jennifer L. Moss, PhD, assistant professor of family and community medicine and public health sciences at Penn State University, Hershey.
“It will probably take many changes to meaningfully decrease overscreening,” she told Medscape Medical News.
One change that would help is if health insurance companies stopped reimbursing providers for screening after the recommended upper age limit, she continued. “Another change is if providers had evidence-based tools to guide conversations about stopping screening, given an individual patient’s demographics, health status, and risks and benefits of the screening test.”
Approached for comment on the study, Nancy Schoenborn, MD, MHS, an associate professor of medicine in the Division of Geriatric Medicine and Gerontology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, noted that the finding of high overscreening is not surprising and is consistent with prior works that found similar results.
“One value of this paper is that the timing of the study is more recent and confirms that the issue of overscreening is one that is still ongoing,” she told Medscape Medical News. Schoenborn was not associated with the study.
As for what physicians should do about the findings in this study, Schoenborn suggested the first step is to simply recognize that overscreening is likely a problem and “to reflect if there are instances in one’s own practice where overscreening may occur.”
In her own work, Schoenborn continued, “I was recently surprised that a substantial minority of clinicians actually do not believe overscreening to be a problem in older adults, and they have a number of concerns about how overscreening is defined and about unintended consequences that can occur from efforts to reduce overscreening.”
She added that there are a number of reasons why overscreening occurs. These include guideline inconsistencies, inertia, patient request, clinician knowledge gaps, and discomfort with discussing stopping. “A lot of work is ongoing to address each of these issues, but I think the first step would be the clinician recognizing and agreeing that this is a problem that needs to be addressed,” she said.
Unnecessary screening
The authors note that the prevalence estimates for overscreening have not been reported on a national level, and it is also unclear how overscreening may vary among subgroups.
“The reason I focused on colorectal, cervical, and breast cancers is because USPSTF has very clear, age-based recommendations for these cancers in terms of who should and should not get screened routinely,” explained Moss. “This was important because it allowed me and my coauthors to clearly say, based on age alone, this person probably was screened unnecessarily, and this person was not.”
She noted that the age-based recommendations for routine screening are based on very large clinical trials to examine the effectiveness of the screening tool. “The recommendations for lung and prostate cancer screening are not so clear cut, and we would not be able to tell, based only on the available survey data, if someone was overscreened,” she said.
For their study, the team used data from the 2018 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, administered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Overscreening was assessed in a cohort of 20,937 men and 34,244 women for colorectal cancer, 82,811 women for cervical cancer, and 38,356 women for breast cancer. Most the participants lived in a metropolitan area (about 80%) and were white (about 80%).
Being overscreened was also more common in metropolitan vs. nonmetropolitan areas for colorectal cancer in women (adjusted odds ratio, 1.23), cervical cancer (aOR, 1.20), and breast cancer (aOR, 1.36).
Overscreening for cervical and breast cancers was also associated with having a usual source of care, good/very good/excellent self-reported health, education beyond a high school diploma, and being married or living as married.
The study was carried out in 2018, and the situation is likely to have changed over recent months during the COVID-19 pandemic.
“We have already seen dramatic reductions in routine cancer screening among age-eligible adults, so part of this problem of overscreening among older adults will likely diminish,” said Moss. “State and national cancer surveillance systems will continue to monitor trends in cancer screening, including overscreening, cancer incidence, and cancer mortality.”
Johns Hopkins’ Schoenborn said one finding of particular interest was that the colorectal cancer overscreening rate was higher in those older than 80 and in those with higher mortality risk.
“It makes me wonder if this is due to the increasing use of noninvasive colorectal cancer screening modalities, such as the fecal immunochemical test FIT or Cologuard,” Schoenborn commented. “It would be important for clinicians to consider downstream effects even when the initial test is low risk, such as if the stool test screens positive, would the patient still need a colonoscopy, and is that something the patient can undergo and wants to undergo?”
The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute and American Cancer Society. Moss, study coauthors, and Schoenborn have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Reflections from PHM’s chief fellow
The education of a new generation of subspecialists
Editor’s note: The Hospitalist is excited to debut a quarterly Pediatric Hospital Medicine Fellows column with this article by pediatric hospitalist Dr. Adam Cohen.
In June 2019, I was offered the new role of chief fellow of pediatric hospital medicine at Baylor College of Medicine and Texas Children’s Hospital, both in Houston. After messaging colleagues and friends at PHM fellowships across the country, I discovered that I wasn’t only Baylor’s first chief fellow of PHM, but I was the only chief fellow of PHM in the nation.
At first, this seemed to be a daunting prospect that left me wondering what my experiences would be like. However, as any good academician knows, the only way to properly answer a question with such existential considerations is a literature review.
While the role of chief fellow exists in other pediatric subspecialty fellowships, the literature on this role is not yet developed. I focused my literature review on using the chief resident role as a surrogate. The chief resident position is filled with opportunities to work administratively and educationally and even has the potential to drive interinstitutional educational change.1 However, many chief residents feel their administrative roles outweigh their educational ones.2,3 This worried me, as the administrative side of program leadership was something that I had little experience in. Would I be weighed down with answering emails and fielding grievances from other fellows? While I did occasionally have that responsibility, my experiences as a chief fellow meant being intimately involved in one program’s response and growth during a national change to PHM as a field, while also coaching those from other programs on how to respond to these many changes.
The dawn of this new era of PHM saw the first board-certified hospitalists crowned and the first fellowships accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education within the past academic year. I experienced this in a unique position as a chief fellow – an insider as part of the administration and an outsider as a prospective specialist. Prior to the recent accreditation and certification, PHM fellowship graduates were becoming successful academic physicians. A 2014 study of over 80% of all graduated PHM fellows showed nearly all had academic positions in which they taught students and residents. Many of these graduates also participated in research, with two-thirds being the first author on at least one peer-reviewed article.4
However, we also know that, prior to accreditation, fellowship training was varied, with clinical time ranging from 20% to 65%, in addition to wide variability in billing practices, scholarly practices, and the ability to pursue advanced nonclinical training, such as coursework or master’s degrees in quality improvement or education.5 With PHM fellowships becoming accredited and hospitalists becoming board certified, this is going to change, hopefully for the better.
National accrediting bodies like the ACGME create standards for programs to follow, but as a field we have to make sure we know what those standards mean for our future fellows and our educators. At my own program, these standards meant a significant reduction in clinical time, which was the main way fellows obtained content mastery in PHM. There were also concerns from practicing hospitalists about what it would mean if they did not or could not “grandfather in” to board certification. Would they be pushed out of their jobs or forced into less desirable ones? Would they be able to continue teaching and working with fellows?
As I reflect on experiencing this tumultuous time of change for our specialty, my main takeaway is that board certification of PHM faculty and accreditation of fellowships is an important step to creating the next generation of productive academic hospitalists. The greatest benefit for PHM fellows is that ACGME accreditation mandates that they be treated as learners, and not just junior attendings who are paid less. Many programs rely on fellow billing to fund fellowships, which can create a culture where the focus falls away from exploring a wide variety of educational opportunities and toward an exclusive or near-exclusive service-learning model.
This old model can come at the expense of opportunities such as conferences or secondary degrees. Under ACGME accreditation, fellowships will also be required to provide a regimented system of mentorship and support, more than just nonclinical time, to allow fellows to follow their interests and passions, whether that be in clinical hospital medicine, education, quality, advocacy or more. When these fellows graduate and become board certified, they will truly have recognition as specialists in the field, and be able to advance the field in any setting they choose to practice.
Like any change, this shift in our field also comes with our fair share of risks. Fellowship programs have to be careful about what they take away from an accreditation process that can be incredibly time-consuming and difficult. Leadership at these programs need to look critically at the changes they are required to make, and ensure they are integrated intelligently in a way that benefits the fellows.
At Baylor, while a decrease in clinical time was required, our leadership saw it as an opportunity to implement active learning and assessment techniques to improve clinical mastery with less clinical time. While many programs may need to make significant changes to align with ACGME standards, a key lesson in education is that these changes also need to reflect the goal of the program, to create expert academicians, clinicians, and leaders in PHM.
One of the largest challenges brought about by these changes is how we take into account pediatric hospitalists with clinical expertise who either are not academically oriented or are not eligible for board certification. Excluding them from participating in fellowship training or as productive members of our groups can create a hidden curriculum that board certification and academic practice are the only way forward in our field. We also risk excluding those with the ability to fill the largest need in our specialty, those who practice clinically in the community.6
We must ensure that our desire to have productive academic faculty does not result in the loss of those with clinical expertise, both for the care of our patients and the education of our learners. Whether that solution lies with alternative certification procedures or through thoughtful hiring and educational policies is yet to be seen.
Overall, as PHM’s chief fellow this past academic year, I found that we have a lot to be excited for as our field continues to grow. With this growth, we need be careful about how we move forward with the standardization of our training, education, and faculty practices to align with our core values of excellent care for children and advancement of our field to meet their needs and the needs of our medical system. I am grateful to the many PHM leaders and providers who have thoughtfully stimulated so much growth in the field and paved the way for current and future generations of fellows to benefit from that growth.
Dr. Cohen is an assistant professor of pediatrics in the section of hospital medicine at Baylor College of Medicine and Texas Children’s Hospital. He graduated from PHM fellowship in June 2020 at Baylor, dedicating himself to developing expertise in medical education. He would like to thank Dr. Michelle Lopez for her assistance in revising this article.
References
1. Myers RE et al. Pediatric chief resident exchange program: A novel method to share educational ideas across training programs. Acad Pediatr. 2019. doi: S1876-2859(19)30386-9.
2. Norris T et al. Do program directors and their chief residents view the role of chief resident similarly? Family Medicine. 1996;28(5):343-5.
3. Dabrow SM et al. Two perspectives on the educational and administrative roles of the pediatric chief resident. J Grad Med Educ. 2011;3(1):17-20.
4. Oshimura JM et al. Current roles and perceived needs of pediatric hospital medicine fellowship graduates. Hosp Pediatr. 2016;6(10):633-7.
5. Shah NH et al. The current state of pediatric hospital medicine fellowships: A survey of program directors. J Hosp Med. 2016;11(5):324-8.
6. Leyenaar JK et al. Epidemiology of pediatric hospitalizations at general hospitals and freestanding children’s hospitals in the United States. J Hosp Med. 2016;11(11):743-9.
The education of a new generation of subspecialists
The education of a new generation of subspecialists
Editor’s note: The Hospitalist is excited to debut a quarterly Pediatric Hospital Medicine Fellows column with this article by pediatric hospitalist Dr. Adam Cohen.
In June 2019, I was offered the new role of chief fellow of pediatric hospital medicine at Baylor College of Medicine and Texas Children’s Hospital, both in Houston. After messaging colleagues and friends at PHM fellowships across the country, I discovered that I wasn’t only Baylor’s first chief fellow of PHM, but I was the only chief fellow of PHM in the nation.
At first, this seemed to be a daunting prospect that left me wondering what my experiences would be like. However, as any good academician knows, the only way to properly answer a question with such existential considerations is a literature review.
While the role of chief fellow exists in other pediatric subspecialty fellowships, the literature on this role is not yet developed. I focused my literature review on using the chief resident role as a surrogate. The chief resident position is filled with opportunities to work administratively and educationally and even has the potential to drive interinstitutional educational change.1 However, many chief residents feel their administrative roles outweigh their educational ones.2,3 This worried me, as the administrative side of program leadership was something that I had little experience in. Would I be weighed down with answering emails and fielding grievances from other fellows? While I did occasionally have that responsibility, my experiences as a chief fellow meant being intimately involved in one program’s response and growth during a national change to PHM as a field, while also coaching those from other programs on how to respond to these many changes.
The dawn of this new era of PHM saw the first board-certified hospitalists crowned and the first fellowships accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education within the past academic year. I experienced this in a unique position as a chief fellow – an insider as part of the administration and an outsider as a prospective specialist. Prior to the recent accreditation and certification, PHM fellowship graduates were becoming successful academic physicians. A 2014 study of over 80% of all graduated PHM fellows showed nearly all had academic positions in which they taught students and residents. Many of these graduates also participated in research, with two-thirds being the first author on at least one peer-reviewed article.4
However, we also know that, prior to accreditation, fellowship training was varied, with clinical time ranging from 20% to 65%, in addition to wide variability in billing practices, scholarly practices, and the ability to pursue advanced nonclinical training, such as coursework or master’s degrees in quality improvement or education.5 With PHM fellowships becoming accredited and hospitalists becoming board certified, this is going to change, hopefully for the better.
National accrediting bodies like the ACGME create standards for programs to follow, but as a field we have to make sure we know what those standards mean for our future fellows and our educators. At my own program, these standards meant a significant reduction in clinical time, which was the main way fellows obtained content mastery in PHM. There were also concerns from practicing hospitalists about what it would mean if they did not or could not “grandfather in” to board certification. Would they be pushed out of their jobs or forced into less desirable ones? Would they be able to continue teaching and working with fellows?
As I reflect on experiencing this tumultuous time of change for our specialty, my main takeaway is that board certification of PHM faculty and accreditation of fellowships is an important step to creating the next generation of productive academic hospitalists. The greatest benefit for PHM fellows is that ACGME accreditation mandates that they be treated as learners, and not just junior attendings who are paid less. Many programs rely on fellow billing to fund fellowships, which can create a culture where the focus falls away from exploring a wide variety of educational opportunities and toward an exclusive or near-exclusive service-learning model.
This old model can come at the expense of opportunities such as conferences or secondary degrees. Under ACGME accreditation, fellowships will also be required to provide a regimented system of mentorship and support, more than just nonclinical time, to allow fellows to follow their interests and passions, whether that be in clinical hospital medicine, education, quality, advocacy or more. When these fellows graduate and become board certified, they will truly have recognition as specialists in the field, and be able to advance the field in any setting they choose to practice.
Like any change, this shift in our field also comes with our fair share of risks. Fellowship programs have to be careful about what they take away from an accreditation process that can be incredibly time-consuming and difficult. Leadership at these programs need to look critically at the changes they are required to make, and ensure they are integrated intelligently in a way that benefits the fellows.
At Baylor, while a decrease in clinical time was required, our leadership saw it as an opportunity to implement active learning and assessment techniques to improve clinical mastery with less clinical time. While many programs may need to make significant changes to align with ACGME standards, a key lesson in education is that these changes also need to reflect the goal of the program, to create expert academicians, clinicians, and leaders in PHM.
One of the largest challenges brought about by these changes is how we take into account pediatric hospitalists with clinical expertise who either are not academically oriented or are not eligible for board certification. Excluding them from participating in fellowship training or as productive members of our groups can create a hidden curriculum that board certification and academic practice are the only way forward in our field. We also risk excluding those with the ability to fill the largest need in our specialty, those who practice clinically in the community.6
We must ensure that our desire to have productive academic faculty does not result in the loss of those with clinical expertise, both for the care of our patients and the education of our learners. Whether that solution lies with alternative certification procedures or through thoughtful hiring and educational policies is yet to be seen.
Overall, as PHM’s chief fellow this past academic year, I found that we have a lot to be excited for as our field continues to grow. With this growth, we need be careful about how we move forward with the standardization of our training, education, and faculty practices to align with our core values of excellent care for children and advancement of our field to meet their needs and the needs of our medical system. I am grateful to the many PHM leaders and providers who have thoughtfully stimulated so much growth in the field and paved the way for current and future generations of fellows to benefit from that growth.
Dr. Cohen is an assistant professor of pediatrics in the section of hospital medicine at Baylor College of Medicine and Texas Children’s Hospital. He graduated from PHM fellowship in June 2020 at Baylor, dedicating himself to developing expertise in medical education. He would like to thank Dr. Michelle Lopez for her assistance in revising this article.
References
1. Myers RE et al. Pediatric chief resident exchange program: A novel method to share educational ideas across training programs. Acad Pediatr. 2019. doi: S1876-2859(19)30386-9.
2. Norris T et al. Do program directors and their chief residents view the role of chief resident similarly? Family Medicine. 1996;28(5):343-5.
3. Dabrow SM et al. Two perspectives on the educational and administrative roles of the pediatric chief resident. J Grad Med Educ. 2011;3(1):17-20.
4. Oshimura JM et al. Current roles and perceived needs of pediatric hospital medicine fellowship graduates. Hosp Pediatr. 2016;6(10):633-7.
5. Shah NH et al. The current state of pediatric hospital medicine fellowships: A survey of program directors. J Hosp Med. 2016;11(5):324-8.
6. Leyenaar JK et al. Epidemiology of pediatric hospitalizations at general hospitals and freestanding children’s hospitals in the United States. J Hosp Med. 2016;11(11):743-9.
Editor’s note: The Hospitalist is excited to debut a quarterly Pediatric Hospital Medicine Fellows column with this article by pediatric hospitalist Dr. Adam Cohen.
In June 2019, I was offered the new role of chief fellow of pediatric hospital medicine at Baylor College of Medicine and Texas Children’s Hospital, both in Houston. After messaging colleagues and friends at PHM fellowships across the country, I discovered that I wasn’t only Baylor’s first chief fellow of PHM, but I was the only chief fellow of PHM in the nation.
At first, this seemed to be a daunting prospect that left me wondering what my experiences would be like. However, as any good academician knows, the only way to properly answer a question with such existential considerations is a literature review.
While the role of chief fellow exists in other pediatric subspecialty fellowships, the literature on this role is not yet developed. I focused my literature review on using the chief resident role as a surrogate. The chief resident position is filled with opportunities to work administratively and educationally and even has the potential to drive interinstitutional educational change.1 However, many chief residents feel their administrative roles outweigh their educational ones.2,3 This worried me, as the administrative side of program leadership was something that I had little experience in. Would I be weighed down with answering emails and fielding grievances from other fellows? While I did occasionally have that responsibility, my experiences as a chief fellow meant being intimately involved in one program’s response and growth during a national change to PHM as a field, while also coaching those from other programs on how to respond to these many changes.
The dawn of this new era of PHM saw the first board-certified hospitalists crowned and the first fellowships accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education within the past academic year. I experienced this in a unique position as a chief fellow – an insider as part of the administration and an outsider as a prospective specialist. Prior to the recent accreditation and certification, PHM fellowship graduates were becoming successful academic physicians. A 2014 study of over 80% of all graduated PHM fellows showed nearly all had academic positions in which they taught students and residents. Many of these graduates also participated in research, with two-thirds being the first author on at least one peer-reviewed article.4
However, we also know that, prior to accreditation, fellowship training was varied, with clinical time ranging from 20% to 65%, in addition to wide variability in billing practices, scholarly practices, and the ability to pursue advanced nonclinical training, such as coursework or master’s degrees in quality improvement or education.5 With PHM fellowships becoming accredited and hospitalists becoming board certified, this is going to change, hopefully for the better.
National accrediting bodies like the ACGME create standards for programs to follow, but as a field we have to make sure we know what those standards mean for our future fellows and our educators. At my own program, these standards meant a significant reduction in clinical time, which was the main way fellows obtained content mastery in PHM. There were also concerns from practicing hospitalists about what it would mean if they did not or could not “grandfather in” to board certification. Would they be pushed out of their jobs or forced into less desirable ones? Would they be able to continue teaching and working with fellows?
As I reflect on experiencing this tumultuous time of change for our specialty, my main takeaway is that board certification of PHM faculty and accreditation of fellowships is an important step to creating the next generation of productive academic hospitalists. The greatest benefit for PHM fellows is that ACGME accreditation mandates that they be treated as learners, and not just junior attendings who are paid less. Many programs rely on fellow billing to fund fellowships, which can create a culture where the focus falls away from exploring a wide variety of educational opportunities and toward an exclusive or near-exclusive service-learning model.
This old model can come at the expense of opportunities such as conferences or secondary degrees. Under ACGME accreditation, fellowships will also be required to provide a regimented system of mentorship and support, more than just nonclinical time, to allow fellows to follow their interests and passions, whether that be in clinical hospital medicine, education, quality, advocacy or more. When these fellows graduate and become board certified, they will truly have recognition as specialists in the field, and be able to advance the field in any setting they choose to practice.
Like any change, this shift in our field also comes with our fair share of risks. Fellowship programs have to be careful about what they take away from an accreditation process that can be incredibly time-consuming and difficult. Leadership at these programs need to look critically at the changes they are required to make, and ensure they are integrated intelligently in a way that benefits the fellows.
At Baylor, while a decrease in clinical time was required, our leadership saw it as an opportunity to implement active learning and assessment techniques to improve clinical mastery with less clinical time. While many programs may need to make significant changes to align with ACGME standards, a key lesson in education is that these changes also need to reflect the goal of the program, to create expert academicians, clinicians, and leaders in PHM.
One of the largest challenges brought about by these changes is how we take into account pediatric hospitalists with clinical expertise who either are not academically oriented or are not eligible for board certification. Excluding them from participating in fellowship training or as productive members of our groups can create a hidden curriculum that board certification and academic practice are the only way forward in our field. We also risk excluding those with the ability to fill the largest need in our specialty, those who practice clinically in the community.6
We must ensure that our desire to have productive academic faculty does not result in the loss of those with clinical expertise, both for the care of our patients and the education of our learners. Whether that solution lies with alternative certification procedures or through thoughtful hiring and educational policies is yet to be seen.
Overall, as PHM’s chief fellow this past academic year, I found that we have a lot to be excited for as our field continues to grow. With this growth, we need be careful about how we move forward with the standardization of our training, education, and faculty practices to align with our core values of excellent care for children and advancement of our field to meet their needs and the needs of our medical system. I am grateful to the many PHM leaders and providers who have thoughtfully stimulated so much growth in the field and paved the way for current and future generations of fellows to benefit from that growth.
Dr. Cohen is an assistant professor of pediatrics in the section of hospital medicine at Baylor College of Medicine and Texas Children’s Hospital. He graduated from PHM fellowship in June 2020 at Baylor, dedicating himself to developing expertise in medical education. He would like to thank Dr. Michelle Lopez for her assistance in revising this article.
References
1. Myers RE et al. Pediatric chief resident exchange program: A novel method to share educational ideas across training programs. Acad Pediatr. 2019. doi: S1876-2859(19)30386-9.
2. Norris T et al. Do program directors and their chief residents view the role of chief resident similarly? Family Medicine. 1996;28(5):343-5.
3. Dabrow SM et al. Two perspectives on the educational and administrative roles of the pediatric chief resident. J Grad Med Educ. 2011;3(1):17-20.
4. Oshimura JM et al. Current roles and perceived needs of pediatric hospital medicine fellowship graduates. Hosp Pediatr. 2016;6(10):633-7.
5. Shah NH et al. The current state of pediatric hospital medicine fellowships: A survey of program directors. J Hosp Med. 2016;11(5):324-8.
6. Leyenaar JK et al. Epidemiology of pediatric hospitalizations at general hospitals and freestanding children’s hospitals in the United States. J Hosp Med. 2016;11(11):743-9.
FDA okays new indication for esketamine nasal spray
The Food and Drug Administration has approved the supplemental new drug application for esketamine nasal spray (Spravato, Janssen Pharmaceuticals) to treat depressive symptoms in adults with major depressive disorder (MDD) and acute suicidal ideation or behavior.
The FDA approved esketamine nasal spray for treatment-resistant depression in March 2019, as reported by Medscape Medical News.
– which evaluated the efficacy and safety of the nasal spray in addition to a comprehensive standard of care in adults with MDD who had active suicidal ideation with intent.
The standard of care included initial hospitalization, a newly initiated or optimized oral antidepressant, and twice-weekly treatment visits for 4 weeks. During that time, patients received esketamine nasal spray 84 mg or placebo nasal spray.
Results from the trials showed that the active treatment significantly reduced depressive symptoms within 24 hours, with some patients starting to respond as early as 4 hours after the first dose.
“Traditional oral antidepressants need weeks or more to take effect, so the availability of a medicine that can begin providing relief within a day is potentially life changing,” Theresa Nguyen, chief program officer at Mental Health America, said in a company news release.
“The clinical trials supporting this new indication provide compelling evidence that esketamine may offer clinicians a new way to provide support to patients quickly in the midst of an urgent depressive episode and help set them on the path to remission,” Gerard Sanacora, MD, PhD, director of the Yale Depression Research Program, New Haven, Conn., and esketamine clinical trial investigator, said in the same release.
A full course of treatment for MDD with acute suicidal ideation or behavior is twice weekly for 4 weeks, “after which evidence of therapeutic benefit should be evaluated to determine need for continued treatment,” the company said.
Because of the risk for serious adverse events, including sedation and dissociation, and the potential for abuse or misuse, esketamine nasal spray is only available through a restricted distribution system – the Spravato Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS).
The patient self-administers esketamine nasal spray only in REMS-certified health care settings. Patients are not permitted to take the drug home.
Full prescribing information is available online.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved the supplemental new drug application for esketamine nasal spray (Spravato, Janssen Pharmaceuticals) to treat depressive symptoms in adults with major depressive disorder (MDD) and acute suicidal ideation or behavior.
The FDA approved esketamine nasal spray for treatment-resistant depression in March 2019, as reported by Medscape Medical News.
– which evaluated the efficacy and safety of the nasal spray in addition to a comprehensive standard of care in adults with MDD who had active suicidal ideation with intent.
The standard of care included initial hospitalization, a newly initiated or optimized oral antidepressant, and twice-weekly treatment visits for 4 weeks. During that time, patients received esketamine nasal spray 84 mg or placebo nasal spray.
Results from the trials showed that the active treatment significantly reduced depressive symptoms within 24 hours, with some patients starting to respond as early as 4 hours after the first dose.
“Traditional oral antidepressants need weeks or more to take effect, so the availability of a medicine that can begin providing relief within a day is potentially life changing,” Theresa Nguyen, chief program officer at Mental Health America, said in a company news release.
“The clinical trials supporting this new indication provide compelling evidence that esketamine may offer clinicians a new way to provide support to patients quickly in the midst of an urgent depressive episode and help set them on the path to remission,” Gerard Sanacora, MD, PhD, director of the Yale Depression Research Program, New Haven, Conn., and esketamine clinical trial investigator, said in the same release.
A full course of treatment for MDD with acute suicidal ideation or behavior is twice weekly for 4 weeks, “after which evidence of therapeutic benefit should be evaluated to determine need for continued treatment,” the company said.
Because of the risk for serious adverse events, including sedation and dissociation, and the potential for abuse or misuse, esketamine nasal spray is only available through a restricted distribution system – the Spravato Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS).
The patient self-administers esketamine nasal spray only in REMS-certified health care settings. Patients are not permitted to take the drug home.
Full prescribing information is available online.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved the supplemental new drug application for esketamine nasal spray (Spravato, Janssen Pharmaceuticals) to treat depressive symptoms in adults with major depressive disorder (MDD) and acute suicidal ideation or behavior.
The FDA approved esketamine nasal spray for treatment-resistant depression in March 2019, as reported by Medscape Medical News.
– which evaluated the efficacy and safety of the nasal spray in addition to a comprehensive standard of care in adults with MDD who had active suicidal ideation with intent.
The standard of care included initial hospitalization, a newly initiated or optimized oral antidepressant, and twice-weekly treatment visits for 4 weeks. During that time, patients received esketamine nasal spray 84 mg or placebo nasal spray.
Results from the trials showed that the active treatment significantly reduced depressive symptoms within 24 hours, with some patients starting to respond as early as 4 hours after the first dose.
“Traditional oral antidepressants need weeks or more to take effect, so the availability of a medicine that can begin providing relief within a day is potentially life changing,” Theresa Nguyen, chief program officer at Mental Health America, said in a company news release.
“The clinical trials supporting this new indication provide compelling evidence that esketamine may offer clinicians a new way to provide support to patients quickly in the midst of an urgent depressive episode and help set them on the path to remission,” Gerard Sanacora, MD, PhD, director of the Yale Depression Research Program, New Haven, Conn., and esketamine clinical trial investigator, said in the same release.
A full course of treatment for MDD with acute suicidal ideation or behavior is twice weekly for 4 weeks, “after which evidence of therapeutic benefit should be evaluated to determine need for continued treatment,” the company said.
Because of the risk for serious adverse events, including sedation and dissociation, and the potential for abuse or misuse, esketamine nasal spray is only available through a restricted distribution system – the Spravato Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS).
The patient self-administers esketamine nasal spray only in REMS-certified health care settings. Patients are not permitted to take the drug home.
Full prescribing information is available online.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Global study to track COVID-19’s impact on the brain
At its annual meeting, the Alzheimer’s Association announced the launch of a global study to examine the impact of COVID-19 on the brain, as well as policy recommendations to better address the COVID-19 crisis in long-term care facilities. The study will be led by researchers at the Alzheimer’s Association and the University of Texas Health, San Antonio, with participation from more than 30 countries and technical guidance from the World Health Organization.
The target sample size is 20,000-40,000 total participants.
Maria C. Carrillo, PhD, chief science officer for the Alzheimer’s Association, announced the study’s launch during a COVID-19–focused panel discussion at the virtual annual meeting of the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference 2020.
“To build a strong foundation for this research, we will align with existing studies, such as the Framingham Heart Study, and clinicians from around the world on how the data are going to be collected, obtained, and shared. We are going to have cross-study collaborations to understand the impact of the virus on the brain directly,” said Dr. Carrillo. “We will have some very good data to present next year at AAIC.”
‘Frightening’ headlines
As previously reported, mounting evidence suggests that SARS-CoV-2 invades the central nervous system, causing a wide range of neurologic and neuropsychiatric complications, including stroke, psychosis, altered mental state, and dementia-like syndrome. It’s likely that “dementia does not increase the risk for COVID-19, just like dementia does not increase risk for the flu. But increased age, being in a long-term care setting, and common health conditions that often accompany dementia may increase the risk,” Dr. Carrillo said.
Panel member Beth Kallmyer, MSW, vice president of care and support at the Alzheimer’s Association, spoke about the ongoing challenges long-term care facilities are facing during the pandemic. “You’ve all seen the headlines, and they’re frightening, frankly,” she said. An estimated 59,000 residents and employees of long-term care have died as a result of COVID-19, which is 42% of all U.S. deaths.
The long-term care community is being impacted at “significantly greater rates than the rest of society and yet we don’t have things in place to protect them. We also know that individuals living with dementia make up a large percentage of those that are living in long-term care,” Ms. Kallmyer said.
She noted that infection control is always a challenge in long-term care settings, but infection control during a pandemic “takes it to a whole other level.” Quarantining is hard for anyone, “but when you layer dementia on top of that we have a real challenge.” One long-term care provider told Ms. Kallmyer that “we might be saving them from COVID, but we’re losing them to social isolation and cognitive decline.”
New recommendations
Ms. Kallmyer outlined new policy recommendations from the Alzheimer’s Association to address the COVID-19 crisis in long-term and community-based care settings. They include:
- Testing every resident, employee, and visitor each time they leave and come back, so residents would not need to be confined to their own rooms
- Having a single portal that is easy and efficient for reporting cases
- Developing “surge activation” protocols to respond to hot spots, including the possibility of “strike teams” that go in and help during an outbreak
- Making sure all long-term care providers have full access to all needed personal protective equipment (PPE)
“Five months in and long-term care providers still don’t have adequate PPE. This is unacceptable,” said Ms. Kallmyer. “We have to be able to provide them with PPE.”
Panel member Gregory A. Jicha, MD, PhD, Sanders-Brown Center on Aging, University of Kentucky, Lexington, spoke about the critical need to continue Alzheimer’s disease research during the pandemic, noting that the number of promising targets for Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias has “never been higher or more comprehensive.”
Measures to ensure safety of researchers and participants include screening for symptoms (50% effective), social distancing (93% effective), minimizing exposure time (50% effective), limiting staff to 50% (50% effective), cloth/paper masks (80% effective), and testing (99.25% effective), Dr. Jicha noted.
With no safety measures in place, the risk of getting COVID-19 from a research visit is 1 in 20; when all these safety measures are combined, the risk is 1 in over 1.5 million, so “we can essentially eradicate or minimize the risks for COVID to less that of a lightning strike,” he said.
Dr. Carrillo, Ms. Kallmyer, and Dr. Jicha disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
At its annual meeting, the Alzheimer’s Association announced the launch of a global study to examine the impact of COVID-19 on the brain, as well as policy recommendations to better address the COVID-19 crisis in long-term care facilities. The study will be led by researchers at the Alzheimer’s Association and the University of Texas Health, San Antonio, with participation from more than 30 countries and technical guidance from the World Health Organization.
The target sample size is 20,000-40,000 total participants.
Maria C. Carrillo, PhD, chief science officer for the Alzheimer’s Association, announced the study’s launch during a COVID-19–focused panel discussion at the virtual annual meeting of the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference 2020.
“To build a strong foundation for this research, we will align with existing studies, such as the Framingham Heart Study, and clinicians from around the world on how the data are going to be collected, obtained, and shared. We are going to have cross-study collaborations to understand the impact of the virus on the brain directly,” said Dr. Carrillo. “We will have some very good data to present next year at AAIC.”
‘Frightening’ headlines
As previously reported, mounting evidence suggests that SARS-CoV-2 invades the central nervous system, causing a wide range of neurologic and neuropsychiatric complications, including stroke, psychosis, altered mental state, and dementia-like syndrome. It’s likely that “dementia does not increase the risk for COVID-19, just like dementia does not increase risk for the flu. But increased age, being in a long-term care setting, and common health conditions that often accompany dementia may increase the risk,” Dr. Carrillo said.
Panel member Beth Kallmyer, MSW, vice president of care and support at the Alzheimer’s Association, spoke about the ongoing challenges long-term care facilities are facing during the pandemic. “You’ve all seen the headlines, and they’re frightening, frankly,” she said. An estimated 59,000 residents and employees of long-term care have died as a result of COVID-19, which is 42% of all U.S. deaths.
The long-term care community is being impacted at “significantly greater rates than the rest of society and yet we don’t have things in place to protect them. We also know that individuals living with dementia make up a large percentage of those that are living in long-term care,” Ms. Kallmyer said.
She noted that infection control is always a challenge in long-term care settings, but infection control during a pandemic “takes it to a whole other level.” Quarantining is hard for anyone, “but when you layer dementia on top of that we have a real challenge.” One long-term care provider told Ms. Kallmyer that “we might be saving them from COVID, but we’re losing them to social isolation and cognitive decline.”
New recommendations
Ms. Kallmyer outlined new policy recommendations from the Alzheimer’s Association to address the COVID-19 crisis in long-term and community-based care settings. They include:
- Testing every resident, employee, and visitor each time they leave and come back, so residents would not need to be confined to their own rooms
- Having a single portal that is easy and efficient for reporting cases
- Developing “surge activation” protocols to respond to hot spots, including the possibility of “strike teams” that go in and help during an outbreak
- Making sure all long-term care providers have full access to all needed personal protective equipment (PPE)
“Five months in and long-term care providers still don’t have adequate PPE. This is unacceptable,” said Ms. Kallmyer. “We have to be able to provide them with PPE.”
Panel member Gregory A. Jicha, MD, PhD, Sanders-Brown Center on Aging, University of Kentucky, Lexington, spoke about the critical need to continue Alzheimer’s disease research during the pandemic, noting that the number of promising targets for Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias has “never been higher or more comprehensive.”
Measures to ensure safety of researchers and participants include screening for symptoms (50% effective), social distancing (93% effective), minimizing exposure time (50% effective), limiting staff to 50% (50% effective), cloth/paper masks (80% effective), and testing (99.25% effective), Dr. Jicha noted.
With no safety measures in place, the risk of getting COVID-19 from a research visit is 1 in 20; when all these safety measures are combined, the risk is 1 in over 1.5 million, so “we can essentially eradicate or minimize the risks for COVID to less that of a lightning strike,” he said.
Dr. Carrillo, Ms. Kallmyer, and Dr. Jicha disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
At its annual meeting, the Alzheimer’s Association announced the launch of a global study to examine the impact of COVID-19 on the brain, as well as policy recommendations to better address the COVID-19 crisis in long-term care facilities. The study will be led by researchers at the Alzheimer’s Association and the University of Texas Health, San Antonio, with participation from more than 30 countries and technical guidance from the World Health Organization.
The target sample size is 20,000-40,000 total participants.
Maria C. Carrillo, PhD, chief science officer for the Alzheimer’s Association, announced the study’s launch during a COVID-19–focused panel discussion at the virtual annual meeting of the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference 2020.
“To build a strong foundation for this research, we will align with existing studies, such as the Framingham Heart Study, and clinicians from around the world on how the data are going to be collected, obtained, and shared. We are going to have cross-study collaborations to understand the impact of the virus on the brain directly,” said Dr. Carrillo. “We will have some very good data to present next year at AAIC.”
‘Frightening’ headlines
As previously reported, mounting evidence suggests that SARS-CoV-2 invades the central nervous system, causing a wide range of neurologic and neuropsychiatric complications, including stroke, psychosis, altered mental state, and dementia-like syndrome. It’s likely that “dementia does not increase the risk for COVID-19, just like dementia does not increase risk for the flu. But increased age, being in a long-term care setting, and common health conditions that often accompany dementia may increase the risk,” Dr. Carrillo said.
Panel member Beth Kallmyer, MSW, vice president of care and support at the Alzheimer’s Association, spoke about the ongoing challenges long-term care facilities are facing during the pandemic. “You’ve all seen the headlines, and they’re frightening, frankly,” she said. An estimated 59,000 residents and employees of long-term care have died as a result of COVID-19, which is 42% of all U.S. deaths.
The long-term care community is being impacted at “significantly greater rates than the rest of society and yet we don’t have things in place to protect them. We also know that individuals living with dementia make up a large percentage of those that are living in long-term care,” Ms. Kallmyer said.
She noted that infection control is always a challenge in long-term care settings, but infection control during a pandemic “takes it to a whole other level.” Quarantining is hard for anyone, “but when you layer dementia on top of that we have a real challenge.” One long-term care provider told Ms. Kallmyer that “we might be saving them from COVID, but we’re losing them to social isolation and cognitive decline.”
New recommendations
Ms. Kallmyer outlined new policy recommendations from the Alzheimer’s Association to address the COVID-19 crisis in long-term and community-based care settings. They include:
- Testing every resident, employee, and visitor each time they leave and come back, so residents would not need to be confined to their own rooms
- Having a single portal that is easy and efficient for reporting cases
- Developing “surge activation” protocols to respond to hot spots, including the possibility of “strike teams” that go in and help during an outbreak
- Making sure all long-term care providers have full access to all needed personal protective equipment (PPE)
“Five months in and long-term care providers still don’t have adequate PPE. This is unacceptable,” said Ms. Kallmyer. “We have to be able to provide them with PPE.”
Panel member Gregory A. Jicha, MD, PhD, Sanders-Brown Center on Aging, University of Kentucky, Lexington, spoke about the critical need to continue Alzheimer’s disease research during the pandemic, noting that the number of promising targets for Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias has “never been higher or more comprehensive.”
Measures to ensure safety of researchers and participants include screening for symptoms (50% effective), social distancing (93% effective), minimizing exposure time (50% effective), limiting staff to 50% (50% effective), cloth/paper masks (80% effective), and testing (99.25% effective), Dr. Jicha noted.
With no safety measures in place, the risk of getting COVID-19 from a research visit is 1 in 20; when all these safety measures are combined, the risk is 1 in over 1.5 million, so “we can essentially eradicate or minimize the risks for COVID to less that of a lightning strike,” he said.
Dr. Carrillo, Ms. Kallmyer, and Dr. Jicha disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM AAIC 2020
PANS may be more prevalent than thought
Pediatric acute-onset neuropsychiatric syndrome (PANS), a rare acute onset of psychiatric symptoms, might be more common than initially thought, according to Kiki D. Chang, MD.
PANS is characterized by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences Genetic and Rare Diseases Information Center as a “sudden onset of obsessive-compulsive symptoms and/or severe eating restrictions, along with at least two other cognitive, behavioral, or neurological symptoms.” These symptoms can include anxiety, depression, oppositional behavior, difficulty concentrating, abnormalities in motor and sensory skills, and other somatic symptoms. The condition develops as a result of an infection that causes an autoimmune or inflammatory response in the brain, and patients tend to respond well to treatment from antibiotics, anti-inflammatory medication, and immunomodulatory therapy.
Both PANS and a subtype condition, pediatric autoimmune neuropsychiatric disorders associated with Streptococcus infections (PANDAS), are underrecognized, Dr. Chang said in a virtual meeting presented by Current Psychiatry and the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists. It is often misdiagnosed as Tourette syndrome or obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) because tics are present in about half of cases, he said, but more severe associated symptoms, such as psychosis, can be misdiagnosed as psychotic disorders or mood disorders. Currently, neither PANS nor PANDAS are officially recognized by the American Academy of Pediatrics or the DSM-5.
“We’re hoping that it is soon because it clearly exists,” Dr. Chang said at the meeting, presented by Global Academy for Medical Education. “If you’ve ever treated a child with PANS or PANDAS and you have seen antibiotics totally reverse OCD and tic-like behavior, if you’ve seen prednisone actually treat symptoms of mania or even psychosis and actually make those things better rather than worse, it’s really eye-opening and it makes a believer out of you.”
Anxiety is the most common psychiatric symptom in youth, and anxiety disorders are also common, said Dr. Chang. According to the National Comorbidity Survey: Adolescent Supplement, 2001-2004, 31.9% adolescents overall reported an anxiety disorder, and 8.3% said their anxiety disorder caused severe impairment. The COVID-19 pandemic has increased the level of anxiety for children and adolescents, which can lead to other disorders, such as separation anxiety disorder, panic disorder, specific phobia, social anxiety disorder, acute stress disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, OCD, or posttraumatic stress disorder. Psychiatrists should be suspicious of any sudden onset of symptoms that overlap with PANS, said Dr. Chang, who is now in private practice in Palo Alto, Calif.
“Anxiety disorders are incredibly common. Remember that you’ve got to carefully screen for other anxiety disorders, because they’re highly comorbid,” Dr. Chang said. “You’ve got to do a full workup. If there are other things going on, you’ve got to think PANS. If it’s acute onset, you’ve really got to think [PANS], and you should do that workup or refer to someone who does.”
The prevalence of PANS and PANDAS is not known, but it may be more common than psychiatrists realize, Dr. Chang said. “I’ve been doing this for about 10 years now in the PANS and PANDAS field, and it’s very clear to me that this is something that is prevalent,” he said.
Together with Jennifer Frankovich, MD, Dr. Chang founded a clinic at the Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital Stanford, and also helped to develop treatment guidelines for youth with PANS. At the clinic, patients are approximately 7.7 years old when developing the first symptoms, and are 10.7 years old when presenting for treatment. Most patients at the clinic are male (78%), and 40% are acute onset cases. Nearly all patients have symptoms of anxiety (92%), mood disorder (88%), OCD (86%), sensory/motor abnormalities (88%), irritability/aggression (82%), somatic symptoms, deterioration in school (76%), and behavioral regression (59%). More than one-third present with suicidal ideation (38%) and violence to themselves (29%), others (38%), or objects. About one-fourth have symptoms of psychosis (24%).
“These can be really sick kids,” Dr. Chang said. not able to eat because they’re afraid of things, not able to take care of their body or daily living. These were sometimes highly functional people beforehand, sometimes they weren’t, but it was still an acute change.”
Treatment for PANS
Treatment guidelines released by the PANS/PANDAS Consortium in 2017 recommend a first course of antistreptococcal treatment for new PANS cases. Psychiatrists should look for evidence of strep or other infection and use antibiotics to eradicate any underlying acute or residual infection.
“Very commonly, we’ll use things like azithromycin, or Augmentin, or amoxicillin, and you’ll see suddenly the OCD go away or at least diminish, the sleep return to normal, the mood come back down,” Dr. Chang said. “It’s pretty amazing when you see it.”
In other cases, ongoing treatment is needed for longer than the normal 5-day or 10-day course of antibiotics. “We’re not exactly sure how long: sometimes it’s 3 weeks, sometimes it’s 4 weeks, but you have to give it more than a week. Sometimes it’s the anti-inflammatory properties that are helping.” While concerns about haphazardly prescribing antibiotics are valid, “if you can cure this stuff on antibiotics, it’s low-hanging fruit,” Dr. Chang said.
There is evidence in the literature that prescribing antibiotics for PANS is beneficial. A randomized controlled trial published in 2017 showed that patients with PANS prescribed azithromycin for 4 weeks had greater reductions in severity of OCD, compared with placebo.
“We need more studies, but clearly, antibiotics do have the potential to help with certain kids. And certainly, in my practice, I see sometimes a slam-dunk response,” Dr. Chang said. “Unfortunately, sometimes you don’t see a slam-dunk response or you can’t find an infection. That’s when it might be more of an inflammation from some other reason. It could be a leftover infection, or it could be an anti-inflammatory situation.”
Immunomodulatory treatment for PANS includes use of NSAIDs, such as ibuprofen or naproxen sodium; steroids, such as prednisone or intravenous corticosteroids; intravenous immunoglobulin; or plasma exchange. Other therapies to consider are rituximab, mycophenolate mofetil, and cyclophosphamide.
Some psychiatric treatments may help patients with PANS. While there is no empirical evidence that psychotropics are effective in treating PANS, some SSRIs might help if patients are able to handle any adverse events. Psychotherapy and education of the family are also important for patients with PANS and their caregivers.
“Basically, [PANS] has as high a caregiver burden as having someone in the household with Alzheimer’s disease or cancer. It’s a huge burden, it’s very stressful, and the family needs support for this,” Dr. Chang said.
Global Academy and this news organization are owned by the same parent company. Dr. Chang reports he is a consultant for Allergan, Impel NeuroPharma, and Sunovion. He is also on the speaker’s bureau for Sunovion.
Pediatric acute-onset neuropsychiatric syndrome (PANS), a rare acute onset of psychiatric symptoms, might be more common than initially thought, according to Kiki D. Chang, MD.
PANS is characterized by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences Genetic and Rare Diseases Information Center as a “sudden onset of obsessive-compulsive symptoms and/or severe eating restrictions, along with at least two other cognitive, behavioral, or neurological symptoms.” These symptoms can include anxiety, depression, oppositional behavior, difficulty concentrating, abnormalities in motor and sensory skills, and other somatic symptoms. The condition develops as a result of an infection that causes an autoimmune or inflammatory response in the brain, and patients tend to respond well to treatment from antibiotics, anti-inflammatory medication, and immunomodulatory therapy.
Both PANS and a subtype condition, pediatric autoimmune neuropsychiatric disorders associated with Streptococcus infections (PANDAS), are underrecognized, Dr. Chang said in a virtual meeting presented by Current Psychiatry and the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists. It is often misdiagnosed as Tourette syndrome or obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) because tics are present in about half of cases, he said, but more severe associated symptoms, such as psychosis, can be misdiagnosed as psychotic disorders or mood disorders. Currently, neither PANS nor PANDAS are officially recognized by the American Academy of Pediatrics or the DSM-5.
“We’re hoping that it is soon because it clearly exists,” Dr. Chang said at the meeting, presented by Global Academy for Medical Education. “If you’ve ever treated a child with PANS or PANDAS and you have seen antibiotics totally reverse OCD and tic-like behavior, if you’ve seen prednisone actually treat symptoms of mania or even psychosis and actually make those things better rather than worse, it’s really eye-opening and it makes a believer out of you.”
Anxiety is the most common psychiatric symptom in youth, and anxiety disorders are also common, said Dr. Chang. According to the National Comorbidity Survey: Adolescent Supplement, 2001-2004, 31.9% adolescents overall reported an anxiety disorder, and 8.3% said their anxiety disorder caused severe impairment. The COVID-19 pandemic has increased the level of anxiety for children and adolescents, which can lead to other disorders, such as separation anxiety disorder, panic disorder, specific phobia, social anxiety disorder, acute stress disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, OCD, or posttraumatic stress disorder. Psychiatrists should be suspicious of any sudden onset of symptoms that overlap with PANS, said Dr. Chang, who is now in private practice in Palo Alto, Calif.
“Anxiety disorders are incredibly common. Remember that you’ve got to carefully screen for other anxiety disorders, because they’re highly comorbid,” Dr. Chang said. “You’ve got to do a full workup. If there are other things going on, you’ve got to think PANS. If it’s acute onset, you’ve really got to think [PANS], and you should do that workup or refer to someone who does.”
The prevalence of PANS and PANDAS is not known, but it may be more common than psychiatrists realize, Dr. Chang said. “I’ve been doing this for about 10 years now in the PANS and PANDAS field, and it’s very clear to me that this is something that is prevalent,” he said.
Together with Jennifer Frankovich, MD, Dr. Chang founded a clinic at the Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital Stanford, and also helped to develop treatment guidelines for youth with PANS. At the clinic, patients are approximately 7.7 years old when developing the first symptoms, and are 10.7 years old when presenting for treatment. Most patients at the clinic are male (78%), and 40% are acute onset cases. Nearly all patients have symptoms of anxiety (92%), mood disorder (88%), OCD (86%), sensory/motor abnormalities (88%), irritability/aggression (82%), somatic symptoms, deterioration in school (76%), and behavioral regression (59%). More than one-third present with suicidal ideation (38%) and violence to themselves (29%), others (38%), or objects. About one-fourth have symptoms of psychosis (24%).
“These can be really sick kids,” Dr. Chang said. not able to eat because they’re afraid of things, not able to take care of their body or daily living. These were sometimes highly functional people beforehand, sometimes they weren’t, but it was still an acute change.”
Treatment for PANS
Treatment guidelines released by the PANS/PANDAS Consortium in 2017 recommend a first course of antistreptococcal treatment for new PANS cases. Psychiatrists should look for evidence of strep or other infection and use antibiotics to eradicate any underlying acute or residual infection.
“Very commonly, we’ll use things like azithromycin, or Augmentin, or amoxicillin, and you’ll see suddenly the OCD go away or at least diminish, the sleep return to normal, the mood come back down,” Dr. Chang said. “It’s pretty amazing when you see it.”
In other cases, ongoing treatment is needed for longer than the normal 5-day or 10-day course of antibiotics. “We’re not exactly sure how long: sometimes it’s 3 weeks, sometimes it’s 4 weeks, but you have to give it more than a week. Sometimes it’s the anti-inflammatory properties that are helping.” While concerns about haphazardly prescribing antibiotics are valid, “if you can cure this stuff on antibiotics, it’s low-hanging fruit,” Dr. Chang said.
There is evidence in the literature that prescribing antibiotics for PANS is beneficial. A randomized controlled trial published in 2017 showed that patients with PANS prescribed azithromycin for 4 weeks had greater reductions in severity of OCD, compared with placebo.
“We need more studies, but clearly, antibiotics do have the potential to help with certain kids. And certainly, in my practice, I see sometimes a slam-dunk response,” Dr. Chang said. “Unfortunately, sometimes you don’t see a slam-dunk response or you can’t find an infection. That’s when it might be more of an inflammation from some other reason. It could be a leftover infection, or it could be an anti-inflammatory situation.”
Immunomodulatory treatment for PANS includes use of NSAIDs, such as ibuprofen or naproxen sodium; steroids, such as prednisone or intravenous corticosteroids; intravenous immunoglobulin; or plasma exchange. Other therapies to consider are rituximab, mycophenolate mofetil, and cyclophosphamide.
Some psychiatric treatments may help patients with PANS. While there is no empirical evidence that psychotropics are effective in treating PANS, some SSRIs might help if patients are able to handle any adverse events. Psychotherapy and education of the family are also important for patients with PANS and their caregivers.
“Basically, [PANS] has as high a caregiver burden as having someone in the household with Alzheimer’s disease or cancer. It’s a huge burden, it’s very stressful, and the family needs support for this,” Dr. Chang said.
Global Academy and this news organization are owned by the same parent company. Dr. Chang reports he is a consultant for Allergan, Impel NeuroPharma, and Sunovion. He is also on the speaker’s bureau for Sunovion.
Pediatric acute-onset neuropsychiatric syndrome (PANS), a rare acute onset of psychiatric symptoms, might be more common than initially thought, according to Kiki D. Chang, MD.
PANS is characterized by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences Genetic and Rare Diseases Information Center as a “sudden onset of obsessive-compulsive symptoms and/or severe eating restrictions, along with at least two other cognitive, behavioral, or neurological symptoms.” These symptoms can include anxiety, depression, oppositional behavior, difficulty concentrating, abnormalities in motor and sensory skills, and other somatic symptoms. The condition develops as a result of an infection that causes an autoimmune or inflammatory response in the brain, and patients tend to respond well to treatment from antibiotics, anti-inflammatory medication, and immunomodulatory therapy.
Both PANS and a subtype condition, pediatric autoimmune neuropsychiatric disorders associated with Streptococcus infections (PANDAS), are underrecognized, Dr. Chang said in a virtual meeting presented by Current Psychiatry and the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists. It is often misdiagnosed as Tourette syndrome or obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) because tics are present in about half of cases, he said, but more severe associated symptoms, such as psychosis, can be misdiagnosed as psychotic disorders or mood disorders. Currently, neither PANS nor PANDAS are officially recognized by the American Academy of Pediatrics or the DSM-5.
“We’re hoping that it is soon because it clearly exists,” Dr. Chang said at the meeting, presented by Global Academy for Medical Education. “If you’ve ever treated a child with PANS or PANDAS and you have seen antibiotics totally reverse OCD and tic-like behavior, if you’ve seen prednisone actually treat symptoms of mania or even psychosis and actually make those things better rather than worse, it’s really eye-opening and it makes a believer out of you.”
Anxiety is the most common psychiatric symptom in youth, and anxiety disorders are also common, said Dr. Chang. According to the National Comorbidity Survey: Adolescent Supplement, 2001-2004, 31.9% adolescents overall reported an anxiety disorder, and 8.3% said their anxiety disorder caused severe impairment. The COVID-19 pandemic has increased the level of anxiety for children and adolescents, which can lead to other disorders, such as separation anxiety disorder, panic disorder, specific phobia, social anxiety disorder, acute stress disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, OCD, or posttraumatic stress disorder. Psychiatrists should be suspicious of any sudden onset of symptoms that overlap with PANS, said Dr. Chang, who is now in private practice in Palo Alto, Calif.
“Anxiety disorders are incredibly common. Remember that you’ve got to carefully screen for other anxiety disorders, because they’re highly comorbid,” Dr. Chang said. “You’ve got to do a full workup. If there are other things going on, you’ve got to think PANS. If it’s acute onset, you’ve really got to think [PANS], and you should do that workup or refer to someone who does.”
The prevalence of PANS and PANDAS is not known, but it may be more common than psychiatrists realize, Dr. Chang said. “I’ve been doing this for about 10 years now in the PANS and PANDAS field, and it’s very clear to me that this is something that is prevalent,” he said.
Together with Jennifer Frankovich, MD, Dr. Chang founded a clinic at the Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital Stanford, and also helped to develop treatment guidelines for youth with PANS. At the clinic, patients are approximately 7.7 years old when developing the first symptoms, and are 10.7 years old when presenting for treatment. Most patients at the clinic are male (78%), and 40% are acute onset cases. Nearly all patients have symptoms of anxiety (92%), mood disorder (88%), OCD (86%), sensory/motor abnormalities (88%), irritability/aggression (82%), somatic symptoms, deterioration in school (76%), and behavioral regression (59%). More than one-third present with suicidal ideation (38%) and violence to themselves (29%), others (38%), or objects. About one-fourth have symptoms of psychosis (24%).
“These can be really sick kids,” Dr. Chang said. not able to eat because they’re afraid of things, not able to take care of their body or daily living. These were sometimes highly functional people beforehand, sometimes they weren’t, but it was still an acute change.”
Treatment for PANS
Treatment guidelines released by the PANS/PANDAS Consortium in 2017 recommend a first course of antistreptococcal treatment for new PANS cases. Psychiatrists should look for evidence of strep or other infection and use antibiotics to eradicate any underlying acute or residual infection.
“Very commonly, we’ll use things like azithromycin, or Augmentin, or amoxicillin, and you’ll see suddenly the OCD go away or at least diminish, the sleep return to normal, the mood come back down,” Dr. Chang said. “It’s pretty amazing when you see it.”
In other cases, ongoing treatment is needed for longer than the normal 5-day or 10-day course of antibiotics. “We’re not exactly sure how long: sometimes it’s 3 weeks, sometimes it’s 4 weeks, but you have to give it more than a week. Sometimes it’s the anti-inflammatory properties that are helping.” While concerns about haphazardly prescribing antibiotics are valid, “if you can cure this stuff on antibiotics, it’s low-hanging fruit,” Dr. Chang said.
There is evidence in the literature that prescribing antibiotics for PANS is beneficial. A randomized controlled trial published in 2017 showed that patients with PANS prescribed azithromycin for 4 weeks had greater reductions in severity of OCD, compared with placebo.
“We need more studies, but clearly, antibiotics do have the potential to help with certain kids. And certainly, in my practice, I see sometimes a slam-dunk response,” Dr. Chang said. “Unfortunately, sometimes you don’t see a slam-dunk response or you can’t find an infection. That’s when it might be more of an inflammation from some other reason. It could be a leftover infection, or it could be an anti-inflammatory situation.”
Immunomodulatory treatment for PANS includes use of NSAIDs, such as ibuprofen or naproxen sodium; steroids, such as prednisone or intravenous corticosteroids; intravenous immunoglobulin; or plasma exchange. Other therapies to consider are rituximab, mycophenolate mofetil, and cyclophosphamide.
Some psychiatric treatments may help patients with PANS. While there is no empirical evidence that psychotropics are effective in treating PANS, some SSRIs might help if patients are able to handle any adverse events. Psychotherapy and education of the family are also important for patients with PANS and their caregivers.
“Basically, [PANS] has as high a caregiver burden as having someone in the household with Alzheimer’s disease or cancer. It’s a huge burden, it’s very stressful, and the family needs support for this,” Dr. Chang said.
Global Academy and this news organization are owned by the same parent company. Dr. Chang reports he is a consultant for Allergan, Impel NeuroPharma, and Sunovion. He is also on the speaker’s bureau for Sunovion.
FROM CP/AACP PSYCHIATRY UPDATE
‘Long sleep’ or apnea in middle age double risk for Alzheimer’s disease
new research suggests. A U.K. Biobank study of more than 500,000 individuals also showed that excessive daytime sleepiness was associated with increased risk for Alzheimer’s disease.
“Addressing sleep problems in middle-age may play a role in improving brain health,” said lead author Lei Gao, MD, assistant professor of anesthesia at Harvard Medical School and associate scientist in the division of sleep and circadian disorders at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston.
The findings were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference 2020.
Intricately linked
Sleep disturbances are common and on the rise around the world. In recent years, researchers have become increasingly aware of the intricate link between sleep health and brain health, Dr. Gao noted.
The current study included 502,538 individuals from the U.K. Biobank (mean age, 57 years) who were free from Alzheimer’s disease at baseline. They were followed for up to 12 years. The participants self-reported sleep traits, including hours of nighttime sleep, daytime sleepiness, sleep apnea diagnosis, snoring, and napping. Researchers determined Alzheimer’s disease diagnoses from hospital admissions and from death registries.
In addition to adjusting for age, sex, education, and ethnicity, the full model adjusted for socioeconomic status, body mass index, physical activity, smoking and alcohol use, cardiovascular diseases and risk factors, neurological diseases, respiratory diseases, depression/anxiety, and medication use. Over the course of a mean follow-up of 6.4 years, 932 participants developed Alzheimer’s disease.
Complex disorder
Compared with those who got an average of 6-9 hours of sleep per night, those getting more than 9 hours had a higher risk for Alzheimer’s disease (hazard ratio, 2.04; 95% confidence interval, 1.56-2.67; P < .001). Having sleep apnea also raised the risk significantly (HR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.23-3.42; P = .006), as did daytime sleepiness (HR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.18-2.03; P = .001).
Dr. Gao noted that daytime sleepiness and sleep apnea remained predictive after controlling for sleep duration. “In fact, all three sleep traits remained associated with Alzheimer’s disease within the same model, suggesting some degree of independence.”
Interestingly, snoring, which is a common symptom of sleep apnea, was not linked to Alzheimer’s disease risk. The “vast majority” of people who snore don’t meet criteria for a diagnosis of sleep apnea, which was particularly true for this large cohort of relatively healthy study participants, Dr. Gao noted.
“Sleep apnea is a complex, multisystemic sleep disorder associated with obesity, high blood pressure, and often other heart problems,” he said.
He added that, as an anesthesiologist, he is particularly wary if patients have this condition, “given their increased risk for airway difficulties, adverse cardiac events, postoperative respiratory complications, and confusion or delirium, which is also associated with higher risk for eventual Alzheimer’s disease and death.”
These multisystemic factors may be driving the link to Alzheimer’s disease. “We certainly need to address this better as the population ages and obesity rates rise,” Dr. Gao said.
No association with napping
Unlike another of Dr. Gao’s studies that was conducted in a much older population, napping was not a risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease in the current study’s younger participants. It could be that the impacts of different sleep traits on health outcome change with age, Dr. Gao said, or this could represent a limitation of using self-reported sleep measures as opposed to objective and/or quantitative measures, such as actigraphy. The reasons for napping, which differ around the world with the habit being common in certain parts, may also help explain differences in observed associations.
Although the investigators tried to control for comorbidities and medication use, there “most certainly” could be a reverse causation at work. For example, sleeping too much could be both a cause and a symptom of dementia. Dr. Gao noted that sleep disturbances often become more prevalent with dementia, and sleeping too much or complaining of daytime sleepiness may be a result of preclinical Alzheimer’s disease. Even if there is a reverse causation, however, the average time to Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis was over 6 years in this study. “This may be a significant window of time to intervene,” he said.
To improve sleep health, he recommends going to bed and waking at similar times every day, avoiding caffeine or alcohol close to bedtime, limiting screen time before bed, dimming lights, and reducing noise.
It’s also important to have sleep apnea treated. “While more studies are needed, it’s generally believed that addressing the pauses in breathing, the apnea episodes, will help reduce cardiovascular health risks such as obesity, high blood pressure and heart failure. All are known to be strongly linked to dementia risk,” Dr. Gao said.
Results from an assessment of 100,000 actigraphy records from a subset of the same population are expected soon and will add objective confirmation of these self-reported results, he added.
Unique, powerful
Commenting on the findings, Alberto Ramos, MD, associate professor of clinical neurology and research director of the sleep medicine program at the University of Miami, called the study “unique” and “powerful” because of its prospective design and large sample size.
“Another strength of the study was that it included a population-based sample as opposed to one from a memory or sleep clinic where people already have symptoms or are already sick,” said Dr. Ramos, who was not involved with the research.
In addition, while most studies that have linked sleep disturbances with dementia risk have been in older adults, this study’s population was middle-aged to start out, he noted.
Dr. Gao and Dr. Ramos reported no relevant financial relationships. Although Dr. Gao’s lab receives funding from the National Institutes of Health, the BrightFocus Foundation, the University of Manchester, the Medical Biodynamics Program, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and the Broad Institute, the study itself does not have its own specific funding.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
new research suggests. A U.K. Biobank study of more than 500,000 individuals also showed that excessive daytime sleepiness was associated with increased risk for Alzheimer’s disease.
“Addressing sleep problems in middle-age may play a role in improving brain health,” said lead author Lei Gao, MD, assistant professor of anesthesia at Harvard Medical School and associate scientist in the division of sleep and circadian disorders at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston.
The findings were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference 2020.
Intricately linked
Sleep disturbances are common and on the rise around the world. In recent years, researchers have become increasingly aware of the intricate link between sleep health and brain health, Dr. Gao noted.
The current study included 502,538 individuals from the U.K. Biobank (mean age, 57 years) who were free from Alzheimer’s disease at baseline. They were followed for up to 12 years. The participants self-reported sleep traits, including hours of nighttime sleep, daytime sleepiness, sleep apnea diagnosis, snoring, and napping. Researchers determined Alzheimer’s disease diagnoses from hospital admissions and from death registries.
In addition to adjusting for age, sex, education, and ethnicity, the full model adjusted for socioeconomic status, body mass index, physical activity, smoking and alcohol use, cardiovascular diseases and risk factors, neurological diseases, respiratory diseases, depression/anxiety, and medication use. Over the course of a mean follow-up of 6.4 years, 932 participants developed Alzheimer’s disease.
Complex disorder
Compared with those who got an average of 6-9 hours of sleep per night, those getting more than 9 hours had a higher risk for Alzheimer’s disease (hazard ratio, 2.04; 95% confidence interval, 1.56-2.67; P < .001). Having sleep apnea also raised the risk significantly (HR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.23-3.42; P = .006), as did daytime sleepiness (HR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.18-2.03; P = .001).
Dr. Gao noted that daytime sleepiness and sleep apnea remained predictive after controlling for sleep duration. “In fact, all three sleep traits remained associated with Alzheimer’s disease within the same model, suggesting some degree of independence.”
Interestingly, snoring, which is a common symptom of sleep apnea, was not linked to Alzheimer’s disease risk. The “vast majority” of people who snore don’t meet criteria for a diagnosis of sleep apnea, which was particularly true for this large cohort of relatively healthy study participants, Dr. Gao noted.
“Sleep apnea is a complex, multisystemic sleep disorder associated with obesity, high blood pressure, and often other heart problems,” he said.
He added that, as an anesthesiologist, he is particularly wary if patients have this condition, “given their increased risk for airway difficulties, adverse cardiac events, postoperative respiratory complications, and confusion or delirium, which is also associated with higher risk for eventual Alzheimer’s disease and death.”
These multisystemic factors may be driving the link to Alzheimer’s disease. “We certainly need to address this better as the population ages and obesity rates rise,” Dr. Gao said.
No association with napping
Unlike another of Dr. Gao’s studies that was conducted in a much older population, napping was not a risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease in the current study’s younger participants. It could be that the impacts of different sleep traits on health outcome change with age, Dr. Gao said, or this could represent a limitation of using self-reported sleep measures as opposed to objective and/or quantitative measures, such as actigraphy. The reasons for napping, which differ around the world with the habit being common in certain parts, may also help explain differences in observed associations.
Although the investigators tried to control for comorbidities and medication use, there “most certainly” could be a reverse causation at work. For example, sleeping too much could be both a cause and a symptom of dementia. Dr. Gao noted that sleep disturbances often become more prevalent with dementia, and sleeping too much or complaining of daytime sleepiness may be a result of preclinical Alzheimer’s disease. Even if there is a reverse causation, however, the average time to Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis was over 6 years in this study. “This may be a significant window of time to intervene,” he said.
To improve sleep health, he recommends going to bed and waking at similar times every day, avoiding caffeine or alcohol close to bedtime, limiting screen time before bed, dimming lights, and reducing noise.
It’s also important to have sleep apnea treated. “While more studies are needed, it’s generally believed that addressing the pauses in breathing, the apnea episodes, will help reduce cardiovascular health risks such as obesity, high blood pressure and heart failure. All are known to be strongly linked to dementia risk,” Dr. Gao said.
Results from an assessment of 100,000 actigraphy records from a subset of the same population are expected soon and will add objective confirmation of these self-reported results, he added.
Unique, powerful
Commenting on the findings, Alberto Ramos, MD, associate professor of clinical neurology and research director of the sleep medicine program at the University of Miami, called the study “unique” and “powerful” because of its prospective design and large sample size.
“Another strength of the study was that it included a population-based sample as opposed to one from a memory or sleep clinic where people already have symptoms or are already sick,” said Dr. Ramos, who was not involved with the research.
In addition, while most studies that have linked sleep disturbances with dementia risk have been in older adults, this study’s population was middle-aged to start out, he noted.
Dr. Gao and Dr. Ramos reported no relevant financial relationships. Although Dr. Gao’s lab receives funding from the National Institutes of Health, the BrightFocus Foundation, the University of Manchester, the Medical Biodynamics Program, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and the Broad Institute, the study itself does not have its own specific funding.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
new research suggests. A U.K. Biobank study of more than 500,000 individuals also showed that excessive daytime sleepiness was associated with increased risk for Alzheimer’s disease.
“Addressing sleep problems in middle-age may play a role in improving brain health,” said lead author Lei Gao, MD, assistant professor of anesthesia at Harvard Medical School and associate scientist in the division of sleep and circadian disorders at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston.
The findings were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference 2020.
Intricately linked
Sleep disturbances are common and on the rise around the world. In recent years, researchers have become increasingly aware of the intricate link between sleep health and brain health, Dr. Gao noted.
The current study included 502,538 individuals from the U.K. Biobank (mean age, 57 years) who were free from Alzheimer’s disease at baseline. They were followed for up to 12 years. The participants self-reported sleep traits, including hours of nighttime sleep, daytime sleepiness, sleep apnea diagnosis, snoring, and napping. Researchers determined Alzheimer’s disease diagnoses from hospital admissions and from death registries.
In addition to adjusting for age, sex, education, and ethnicity, the full model adjusted for socioeconomic status, body mass index, physical activity, smoking and alcohol use, cardiovascular diseases and risk factors, neurological diseases, respiratory diseases, depression/anxiety, and medication use. Over the course of a mean follow-up of 6.4 years, 932 participants developed Alzheimer’s disease.
Complex disorder
Compared with those who got an average of 6-9 hours of sleep per night, those getting more than 9 hours had a higher risk for Alzheimer’s disease (hazard ratio, 2.04; 95% confidence interval, 1.56-2.67; P < .001). Having sleep apnea also raised the risk significantly (HR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.23-3.42; P = .006), as did daytime sleepiness (HR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.18-2.03; P = .001).
Dr. Gao noted that daytime sleepiness and sleep apnea remained predictive after controlling for sleep duration. “In fact, all three sleep traits remained associated with Alzheimer’s disease within the same model, suggesting some degree of independence.”
Interestingly, snoring, which is a common symptom of sleep apnea, was not linked to Alzheimer’s disease risk. The “vast majority” of people who snore don’t meet criteria for a diagnosis of sleep apnea, which was particularly true for this large cohort of relatively healthy study participants, Dr. Gao noted.
“Sleep apnea is a complex, multisystemic sleep disorder associated with obesity, high blood pressure, and often other heart problems,” he said.
He added that, as an anesthesiologist, he is particularly wary if patients have this condition, “given their increased risk for airway difficulties, adverse cardiac events, postoperative respiratory complications, and confusion or delirium, which is also associated with higher risk for eventual Alzheimer’s disease and death.”
These multisystemic factors may be driving the link to Alzheimer’s disease. “We certainly need to address this better as the population ages and obesity rates rise,” Dr. Gao said.
No association with napping
Unlike another of Dr. Gao’s studies that was conducted in a much older population, napping was not a risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease in the current study’s younger participants. It could be that the impacts of different sleep traits on health outcome change with age, Dr. Gao said, or this could represent a limitation of using self-reported sleep measures as opposed to objective and/or quantitative measures, such as actigraphy. The reasons for napping, which differ around the world with the habit being common in certain parts, may also help explain differences in observed associations.
Although the investigators tried to control for comorbidities and medication use, there “most certainly” could be a reverse causation at work. For example, sleeping too much could be both a cause and a symptom of dementia. Dr. Gao noted that sleep disturbances often become more prevalent with dementia, and sleeping too much or complaining of daytime sleepiness may be a result of preclinical Alzheimer’s disease. Even if there is a reverse causation, however, the average time to Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis was over 6 years in this study. “This may be a significant window of time to intervene,” he said.
To improve sleep health, he recommends going to bed and waking at similar times every day, avoiding caffeine or alcohol close to bedtime, limiting screen time before bed, dimming lights, and reducing noise.
It’s also important to have sleep apnea treated. “While more studies are needed, it’s generally believed that addressing the pauses in breathing, the apnea episodes, will help reduce cardiovascular health risks such as obesity, high blood pressure and heart failure. All are known to be strongly linked to dementia risk,” Dr. Gao said.
Results from an assessment of 100,000 actigraphy records from a subset of the same population are expected soon and will add objective confirmation of these self-reported results, he added.
Unique, powerful
Commenting on the findings, Alberto Ramos, MD, associate professor of clinical neurology and research director of the sleep medicine program at the University of Miami, called the study “unique” and “powerful” because of its prospective design and large sample size.
“Another strength of the study was that it included a population-based sample as opposed to one from a memory or sleep clinic where people already have symptoms or are already sick,” said Dr. Ramos, who was not involved with the research.
In addition, while most studies that have linked sleep disturbances with dementia risk have been in older adults, this study’s population was middle-aged to start out, he noted.
Dr. Gao and Dr. Ramos reported no relevant financial relationships. Although Dr. Gao’s lab receives funding from the National Institutes of Health, the BrightFocus Foundation, the University of Manchester, the Medical Biodynamics Program, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and the Broad Institute, the study itself does not have its own specific funding.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM AAIC 2020
PEGPH20 strikeout raises doubts about stroma-targeting agents in pancreatic cancer
The median overall survival was 11.2 months with PEGPH20 plus AG and 11.5 months with placebo plus AG. The median progression-free survival was 7.1 months in both treatment arms.
Eric Van Cutsem, MD, PhD, of University Hospitals Gasthuisberg Leuven and KU Leuven in Belgium, and colleagues reported these findings in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
The authors explained that, in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, “a dense fibrotic stroma (i.e., desmoplasia) surrounds the growing tumor mass, which can compress tumor vasculature within the microenvironment and increase interstitial pressure, impeding perfusion and delivery of systemic agents.”
PEGPH20 is an enzyme that degrades hyaluronan, a major component of the stroma. The researchers’ hypothesis was that PEGPH20 would weaken the stromal barrier and facilitate greater penetration of the AG combination into the tumor.
However, PEGPH20 failed to improve upon results with AG in this trial, which led Halozyme Therapeutics to halt further development of PEGPH20.
The negative findings in this trial, as well as the failure of other stroma-remodeling agents in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, “collectively indicates the need to reevaluate this treatment strategy,” Dr. Van Cutsem and colleagues wrote.
“More preclinical and retrospective analyses are needed to better understand the failures of tumor stroma remodeling and whether and how it should continue to be pursued,” the authors added.
Phase 3 results
The intent-to-treat analysis included 492 adults with previously untreated metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. All patients expressed high hyaluronan levels, as defined by at least 50% hyaluronan staining in the extracellular matrix from tumor samples.
There were 165 subjects randomized to receive placebo plus AG and 327 randomized to receive PEGPH20 plus AG. Baseline characteristics were similar between the treatment arms.
The overall response rate was 47% with PEGPH20-AG and 36% with placebo-AG. The median duration of response was 6.1 months and 7.4 months, respectively.
The overall survival analysis was performed after 330 deaths. There were no significant differences between the PEGPH20 and placebo arms with regard to median overall survival (11.2 months and 11.5 months, respectively; hazard ratio, 1.00, P = .97) or progression-free survival (7.1 months in both arms; HR, 0.97).
All patients experienced at least one treatment-emergent adverse event (AE). The most common AEs of any grade that were more frequent in the PEGPH20 arm than in the placebo arm (≥ 2%) were peripheral edema (61.8% vs. 33.3%), muscle spasms (51.4% vs. 9.6%), myalgia (28.9% vs. 14.7%), and arthralgia (19.4% vs. 11.5%).
Grade 3 or higher AEs that were more common with PEGPH20 (≥ 2%) included fatigue (16.0% vs. 9.6%), muscle spasms (6.5% vs. 0.6%), and hyponatremia (8.0% vs. 3.8%).
“[T]here were no apparent safety signals that affected study treatment exposure or survival,” the investigators noted.
Two failed trials
“We now have two failed clinical trials for PEGPH20. Could it be perhaps that our theory of targeting the desmoplastic response is simply not enough?” Nausheen Hakim, DO, of Northwell Health Cancer Institute in New York, and colleagues wrote in a commentary shortly after Halozyme released topline results from the phase 3 trial (Pancreas [Fairfax]. 2019;3[1]:e1-e4. doi: 10.17140/POJ-3-e010).
The second study the editorialists were referring to is a phase 1b/2 trial of PEGPH20 added to fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (J Clin Oncol. 2019 May 1;37[13]:1062-9).
In this trial, the median overall survival was worse with PEGPH20 than without it, at 7.7 months and 14.4 months, respectively. The difference was probably due to the increased toxicity with the PEGPH20 regimen, which led to subjects receiving only half the number of chemotherapy cycles as the control group, Dr. Hakim and colleagues wrote.
“Perhaps it is not solely the desmoplastic reaction that is the cause of chemoresistance of pancreatic cells but additional intrinsic factors at play,” the editorialists wrote. “It may indeed be a combination of stroma-modifying agents as well as other strategies to overcome chemoresistance to better fight pancreatic cancer. Further studies in molecular biology to better characterize the complex interaction between the microenvironment and cancer cells are warranted.”
The phase 3 study was funded by Halozyme Therapeutics. The authors disclosed relationships with Halozyme and many other companies. The editorialists disclosed no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Van Cutsem E et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Jul 24;JCO2000590. doi: 10.1200/JCO.20.00590.
The median overall survival was 11.2 months with PEGPH20 plus AG and 11.5 months with placebo plus AG. The median progression-free survival was 7.1 months in both treatment arms.
Eric Van Cutsem, MD, PhD, of University Hospitals Gasthuisberg Leuven and KU Leuven in Belgium, and colleagues reported these findings in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
The authors explained that, in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, “a dense fibrotic stroma (i.e., desmoplasia) surrounds the growing tumor mass, which can compress tumor vasculature within the microenvironment and increase interstitial pressure, impeding perfusion and delivery of systemic agents.”
PEGPH20 is an enzyme that degrades hyaluronan, a major component of the stroma. The researchers’ hypothesis was that PEGPH20 would weaken the stromal barrier and facilitate greater penetration of the AG combination into the tumor.
However, PEGPH20 failed to improve upon results with AG in this trial, which led Halozyme Therapeutics to halt further development of PEGPH20.
The negative findings in this trial, as well as the failure of other stroma-remodeling agents in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, “collectively indicates the need to reevaluate this treatment strategy,” Dr. Van Cutsem and colleagues wrote.
“More preclinical and retrospective analyses are needed to better understand the failures of tumor stroma remodeling and whether and how it should continue to be pursued,” the authors added.
Phase 3 results
The intent-to-treat analysis included 492 adults with previously untreated metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. All patients expressed high hyaluronan levels, as defined by at least 50% hyaluronan staining in the extracellular matrix from tumor samples.
There were 165 subjects randomized to receive placebo plus AG and 327 randomized to receive PEGPH20 plus AG. Baseline characteristics were similar between the treatment arms.
The overall response rate was 47% with PEGPH20-AG and 36% with placebo-AG. The median duration of response was 6.1 months and 7.4 months, respectively.
The overall survival analysis was performed after 330 deaths. There were no significant differences between the PEGPH20 and placebo arms with regard to median overall survival (11.2 months and 11.5 months, respectively; hazard ratio, 1.00, P = .97) or progression-free survival (7.1 months in both arms; HR, 0.97).
All patients experienced at least one treatment-emergent adverse event (AE). The most common AEs of any grade that were more frequent in the PEGPH20 arm than in the placebo arm (≥ 2%) were peripheral edema (61.8% vs. 33.3%), muscle spasms (51.4% vs. 9.6%), myalgia (28.9% vs. 14.7%), and arthralgia (19.4% vs. 11.5%).
Grade 3 or higher AEs that were more common with PEGPH20 (≥ 2%) included fatigue (16.0% vs. 9.6%), muscle spasms (6.5% vs. 0.6%), and hyponatremia (8.0% vs. 3.8%).
“[T]here were no apparent safety signals that affected study treatment exposure or survival,” the investigators noted.
Two failed trials
“We now have two failed clinical trials for PEGPH20. Could it be perhaps that our theory of targeting the desmoplastic response is simply not enough?” Nausheen Hakim, DO, of Northwell Health Cancer Institute in New York, and colleagues wrote in a commentary shortly after Halozyme released topline results from the phase 3 trial (Pancreas [Fairfax]. 2019;3[1]:e1-e4. doi: 10.17140/POJ-3-e010).
The second study the editorialists were referring to is a phase 1b/2 trial of PEGPH20 added to fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (J Clin Oncol. 2019 May 1;37[13]:1062-9).
In this trial, the median overall survival was worse with PEGPH20 than without it, at 7.7 months and 14.4 months, respectively. The difference was probably due to the increased toxicity with the PEGPH20 regimen, which led to subjects receiving only half the number of chemotherapy cycles as the control group, Dr. Hakim and colleagues wrote.
“Perhaps it is not solely the desmoplastic reaction that is the cause of chemoresistance of pancreatic cells but additional intrinsic factors at play,” the editorialists wrote. “It may indeed be a combination of stroma-modifying agents as well as other strategies to overcome chemoresistance to better fight pancreatic cancer. Further studies in molecular biology to better characterize the complex interaction between the microenvironment and cancer cells are warranted.”
The phase 3 study was funded by Halozyme Therapeutics. The authors disclosed relationships with Halozyme and many other companies. The editorialists disclosed no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Van Cutsem E et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Jul 24;JCO2000590. doi: 10.1200/JCO.20.00590.
The median overall survival was 11.2 months with PEGPH20 plus AG and 11.5 months with placebo plus AG. The median progression-free survival was 7.1 months in both treatment arms.
Eric Van Cutsem, MD, PhD, of University Hospitals Gasthuisberg Leuven and KU Leuven in Belgium, and colleagues reported these findings in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.
The authors explained that, in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, “a dense fibrotic stroma (i.e., desmoplasia) surrounds the growing tumor mass, which can compress tumor vasculature within the microenvironment and increase interstitial pressure, impeding perfusion and delivery of systemic agents.”
PEGPH20 is an enzyme that degrades hyaluronan, a major component of the stroma. The researchers’ hypothesis was that PEGPH20 would weaken the stromal barrier and facilitate greater penetration of the AG combination into the tumor.
However, PEGPH20 failed to improve upon results with AG in this trial, which led Halozyme Therapeutics to halt further development of PEGPH20.
The negative findings in this trial, as well as the failure of other stroma-remodeling agents in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, “collectively indicates the need to reevaluate this treatment strategy,” Dr. Van Cutsem and colleagues wrote.
“More preclinical and retrospective analyses are needed to better understand the failures of tumor stroma remodeling and whether and how it should continue to be pursued,” the authors added.
Phase 3 results
The intent-to-treat analysis included 492 adults with previously untreated metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. All patients expressed high hyaluronan levels, as defined by at least 50% hyaluronan staining in the extracellular matrix from tumor samples.
There were 165 subjects randomized to receive placebo plus AG and 327 randomized to receive PEGPH20 plus AG. Baseline characteristics were similar between the treatment arms.
The overall response rate was 47% with PEGPH20-AG and 36% with placebo-AG. The median duration of response was 6.1 months and 7.4 months, respectively.
The overall survival analysis was performed after 330 deaths. There were no significant differences between the PEGPH20 and placebo arms with regard to median overall survival (11.2 months and 11.5 months, respectively; hazard ratio, 1.00, P = .97) or progression-free survival (7.1 months in both arms; HR, 0.97).
All patients experienced at least one treatment-emergent adverse event (AE). The most common AEs of any grade that were more frequent in the PEGPH20 arm than in the placebo arm (≥ 2%) were peripheral edema (61.8% vs. 33.3%), muscle spasms (51.4% vs. 9.6%), myalgia (28.9% vs. 14.7%), and arthralgia (19.4% vs. 11.5%).
Grade 3 or higher AEs that were more common with PEGPH20 (≥ 2%) included fatigue (16.0% vs. 9.6%), muscle spasms (6.5% vs. 0.6%), and hyponatremia (8.0% vs. 3.8%).
“[T]here were no apparent safety signals that affected study treatment exposure or survival,” the investigators noted.
Two failed trials
“We now have two failed clinical trials for PEGPH20. Could it be perhaps that our theory of targeting the desmoplastic response is simply not enough?” Nausheen Hakim, DO, of Northwell Health Cancer Institute in New York, and colleagues wrote in a commentary shortly after Halozyme released topline results from the phase 3 trial (Pancreas [Fairfax]. 2019;3[1]:e1-e4. doi: 10.17140/POJ-3-e010).
The second study the editorialists were referring to is a phase 1b/2 trial of PEGPH20 added to fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (J Clin Oncol. 2019 May 1;37[13]:1062-9).
In this trial, the median overall survival was worse with PEGPH20 than without it, at 7.7 months and 14.4 months, respectively. The difference was probably due to the increased toxicity with the PEGPH20 regimen, which led to subjects receiving only half the number of chemotherapy cycles as the control group, Dr. Hakim and colleagues wrote.
“Perhaps it is not solely the desmoplastic reaction that is the cause of chemoresistance of pancreatic cells but additional intrinsic factors at play,” the editorialists wrote. “It may indeed be a combination of stroma-modifying agents as well as other strategies to overcome chemoresistance to better fight pancreatic cancer. Further studies in molecular biology to better characterize the complex interaction between the microenvironment and cancer cells are warranted.”
The phase 3 study was funded by Halozyme Therapeutics. The authors disclosed relationships with Halozyme and many other companies. The editorialists disclosed no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Van Cutsem E et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020 Jul 24;JCO2000590. doi: 10.1200/JCO.20.00590.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY