A meta-analysis of relevant clinical trials has found that lowering blood pressure with antihypertensive agents was statistically significantly associated with reducing the risk of dementia or cognitive impairment, though the risk reduction was modest.

“Although observational studies report hypertension to be an important risk factor for dementia, the benefit of blood pressure lowering on dementia or cognitive impairment in clinical trials is modest and lower than the risk reduction for stroke,” wrote Diarmaid Hughes, MB, of the NUI Galway and Saolta University Hospital Group in Galway, Ireland, and coauthors. They added, however, that “these findings have the potential to inform public health strategies to reduce the burden of dementia globally.” The study was published online ahead of print May 19 in JAMA.
 

A rich data set

To assess the relationship between lowering blood pressure and cognitive issues, the researchers performed a systemic search of randomized, clinical trials that compared blood pressure lowering via antihypertensive agents with a control, had at least 1 year of follow-up, included more than 1,000 participants, and reported on either dementia, cognitive impairment, cognitive decline, or a change in cognitive test scores as outcomes. Of the 14 studies deemed eligible, 12 reported either the incidence of dementia (n = 9) or a composite of dementia or cognitive impairment (n = 3) at follow-up and thus were included in the primary meta-analysis. The other two studies were used for secondary outcomes only.

The studies included 96,158 participants in total – 42.2% were women – and their mean age was 69 years. At baseline, participants’ mean systolic blood pressure was 154 mm Hg and their mean diastolic blood pressure was 83.3 mm Hg. The mean duration of follow-up was 49.24 months.

In the 12 trials that reported dementia or cognitive impairment, blood pressure lowering via antihypertensive agents, compared with control, was significantly associated with a reduction in those two outcomes (7.0% vs. 7.5% over a mean trial follow-up of 4.1 years; odds ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.88-0.98; absolute risk reduction, 0.39%; 95% CI, 0.09%-0.68%). Blood pressure lowering, compared with control, was also significantly associated with a reduction in cognitive decline (20.2% vs. 21.1% over a mean trial follow-up of 4.1 years; OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.88-0.99; ARR, 0.71%; 95% CI, 0.19%-1.2%) in the eight trials that reported it as an outcome. An analysis of the eight trials that reported a change in cognitive scores did not find a significant association between that outcome and blood pressure lowering.
 

Subpopulations should be examined

“This is a very broad brush stroke study, albeit a definitive one,” Richard J. Caselli, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix said in an interview. “With all the thousands of people in this meta-analysis, there are going to be subpopulations of patients with certain characteristics or common conditions in which blood pressure lowering might have a bigger or a lesser impact on their risk factor. Is there a difference between certain racial groups? Does it matter what antihypertensive strategies are used? You can look at the interactions between blood pressure lowering and other conditions: diabetes, head injuries, air pollution, certain genetic risk factors. There are a number of additional findings that could come from a very rich data set like this.”

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including the challenges of performing a meta-analysis of studies that drew from different populations and had potentially different definitions of dementia, cognitive impairment, and cognitive decline outcomes. In addition, the low incidence of dementia across clinical trials limited the researchers, and its underdetection in trials and the potential of survivor bias for healthier participants with blood pressure reductions were noted as “unmeasured sources of potential error.”

Three authors reported receiving grants or personal fees from the Wellcome Trust and the Health Research Board, the Chief Scientist Office, and Bayer AG, respectively.

SOURCE: Hughes D et al. JAMA. 2020 May 19. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.4249.

A meta-analysis of relevant clinical trials has found that lowering blood pressure with antihypertensive agents was statistically significantly associated with reducing the risk of dementia or cognitive impairment, though the risk reduction was modest.

“Although observational studies report hypertension to be an important risk factor for dementia, the benefit of blood pressure lowering on dementia or cognitive impairment in clinical trials is modest and lower than the risk reduction for stroke,” wrote Diarmaid Hughes, MB, of the NUI Galway and Saolta University Hospital Group in Galway, Ireland, and coauthors. They added, however, that “these findings have the potential to inform public health strategies to reduce the burden of dementia globally.” The study was published online ahead of print May 19 in JAMA.
 

A rich data set

To assess the relationship between lowering blood pressure and cognitive issues, the researchers performed a systemic search of randomized, clinical trials that compared blood pressure lowering via antihypertensive agents with a control, had at least 1 year of follow-up, included more than 1,000 participants, and reported on either dementia, cognitive impairment, cognitive decline, or a change in cognitive test scores as outcomes. Of the 14 studies deemed eligible, 12 reported either the incidence of dementia (n = 9) or a composite of dementia or cognitive impairment (n = 3) at follow-up and thus were included in the primary meta-analysis. The other two studies were used for secondary outcomes only.

The studies included 96,158 participants in total – 42.2% were women – and their mean age was 69 years. At baseline, participants’ mean systolic blood pressure was 154 mm Hg and their mean diastolic blood pressure was 83.3 mm Hg. The mean duration of follow-up was 49.24 months.

In the 12 trials that reported dementia or cognitive impairment, blood pressure lowering via antihypertensive agents, compared with control, was significantly associated with a reduction in those two outcomes (7.0% vs. 7.5% over a mean trial follow-up of 4.1 years; odds ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.88-0.98; absolute risk reduction, 0.39%; 95% CI, 0.09%-0.68%). Blood pressure lowering, compared with control, was also significantly associated with a reduction in cognitive decline (20.2% vs. 21.1% over a mean trial follow-up of 4.1 years; OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.88-0.99; ARR, 0.71%; 95% CI, 0.19%-1.2%) in the eight trials that reported it as an outcome. An analysis of the eight trials that reported a change in cognitive scores did not find a significant association between that outcome and blood pressure lowering.
 

Subpopulations should be examined

“This is a very broad brush stroke study, albeit a definitive one,” Richard J. Caselli, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix said in an interview. “With all the thousands of people in this meta-analysis, there are going to be subpopulations of patients with certain characteristics or common conditions in which blood pressure lowering might have a bigger or a lesser impact on their risk factor. Is there a difference between certain racial groups? Does it matter what antihypertensive strategies are used? You can look at the interactions between blood pressure lowering and other conditions: diabetes, head injuries, air pollution, certain genetic risk factors. There are a number of additional findings that could come from a very rich data set like this.”

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including the challenges of performing a meta-analysis of studies that drew from different populations and had potentially different definitions of dementia, cognitive impairment, and cognitive decline outcomes. In addition, the low incidence of dementia across clinical trials limited the researchers, and its underdetection in trials and the potential of survivor bias for healthier participants with blood pressure reductions were noted as “unmeasured sources of potential error.”

Three authors reported receiving grants or personal fees from the Wellcome Trust and the Health Research Board, the Chief Scientist Office, and Bayer AG, respectively.

SOURCE: Hughes D et al. JAMA. 2020 May 19. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.4249.

A meta-analysis of relevant clinical trials has found that lowering blood pressure with antihypertensive agents was statistically significantly associated with reducing the risk of dementia or cognitive impairment, though the risk reduction was modest.

“Although observational studies report hypertension to be an important risk factor for dementia, the benefit of blood pressure lowering on dementia or cognitive impairment in clinical trials is modest and lower than the risk reduction for stroke,” wrote Diarmaid Hughes, MB, of the NUI Galway and Saolta University Hospital Group in Galway, Ireland, and coauthors. They added, however, that “these findings have the potential to inform public health strategies to reduce the burden of dementia globally.” The study was published online ahead of print May 19 in JAMA.
 

A rich data set

To assess the relationship between lowering blood pressure and cognitive issues, the researchers performed a systemic search of randomized, clinical trials that compared blood pressure lowering via antihypertensive agents with a control, had at least 1 year of follow-up, included more than 1,000 participants, and reported on either dementia, cognitive impairment, cognitive decline, or a change in cognitive test scores as outcomes. Of the 14 studies deemed eligible, 12 reported either the incidence of dementia (n = 9) or a composite of dementia or cognitive impairment (n = 3) at follow-up and thus were included in the primary meta-analysis. The other two studies were used for secondary outcomes only.

The studies included 96,158 participants in total – 42.2% were women – and their mean age was 69 years. At baseline, participants’ mean systolic blood pressure was 154 mm Hg and their mean diastolic blood pressure was 83.3 mm Hg. The mean duration of follow-up was 49.24 months.

In the 12 trials that reported dementia or cognitive impairment, blood pressure lowering via antihypertensive agents, compared with control, was significantly associated with a reduction in those two outcomes (7.0% vs. 7.5% over a mean trial follow-up of 4.1 years; odds ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.88-0.98; absolute risk reduction, 0.39%; 95% CI, 0.09%-0.68%). Blood pressure lowering, compared with control, was also significantly associated with a reduction in cognitive decline (20.2% vs. 21.1% over a mean trial follow-up of 4.1 years; OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.88-0.99; ARR, 0.71%; 95% CI, 0.19%-1.2%) in the eight trials that reported it as an outcome. An analysis of the eight trials that reported a change in cognitive scores did not find a significant association between that outcome and blood pressure lowering.
 

Subpopulations should be examined

“This is a very broad brush stroke study, albeit a definitive one,” Richard J. Caselli, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix said in an interview. “With all the thousands of people in this meta-analysis, there are going to be subpopulations of patients with certain characteristics or common conditions in which blood pressure lowering might have a bigger or a lesser impact on their risk factor. Is there a difference between certain racial groups? Does it matter what antihypertensive strategies are used? You can look at the interactions between blood pressure lowering and other conditions: diabetes, head injuries, air pollution, certain genetic risk factors. There are a number of additional findings that could come from a very rich data set like this.”

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including the challenges of performing a meta-analysis of studies that drew from different populations and had potentially different definitions of dementia, cognitive impairment, and cognitive decline outcomes. In addition, the low incidence of dementia across clinical trials limited the researchers, and its underdetection in trials and the potential of survivor bias for healthier participants with blood pressure reductions were noted as “unmeasured sources of potential error.”

Three authors reported receiving grants or personal fees from the Wellcome Trust and the Health Research Board, the Chief Scientist Office, and Bayer AG, respectively.

SOURCE: Hughes D et al. JAMA. 2020 May 19. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.4249.

A completely new approach to the treatment of prostate cancer is now available to clinicians through the approval of the first PARP inhibitor for use in certain patients with this disease.

Rucaparib (Rubraca, Clovis Oncology) is the first PARP inhibitor approved for use in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) that harbors deleterious BRCA mutations (germline and/or somatic). The drug is indicated for use in patients who have already been treated with androgen receptor–directed therapy and a taxane-based chemotherapy.

The drug is already marketed for use in ovarian cancer.

The new prostate cancer indication was granted an accelerated approval by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on the basis of response rates and effect on levels of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) from the TRITON2 clinical trial. A confirmatory phase 3 trial, TRITON3, is currently underway.

“Standard treatment options for men with mCRPC have been limited to androgen receptor–targeting therapies, taxane chemotherapy, radium-223, and sipuleucel-T,” said Wassim Abida, MD, a medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, in a statement.

“Rucaparib is the first in a class of drugs to become newly available to patients with mCRPC who harbor a deleterious BRCA mutation,” said Abida, who is also the principal investigator of the TRITON2 study. “Given the level and duration of responses observed with rucaparib in men with mCRPC and these mutations, it represents an important and timely new treatment option for this patient population.”
 

Other indications, another PARP inhibitor

Rucaparib is already approved for the treatment of women with advanced BRCA mutation–positive ovarian cancer who have received two or more prior chemotherapies. It is also approved as maintenance treatment for patients with recurrent epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer who demonstrate a complete or partial response to platinum-based chemotherapy, regardless of BRCA status.

Another PARP inhibitor, olaparib (Lynparza, AstraZeneca), is awaiting approval for use in prostate cancer in men with BRCA mutations. That pending approval is based on results from the phase 3 PROfound trial, which was hailed as a “landmark trial” when it was presented last year. The results showed a significant improved in disease-free progression. The company recently announced that there was also a significant improvement in overall survival.

Olaparib is already approved for the maintenance treatment of platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer regardless of BRCA status and as first-line maintenance treatment in BRCA-mutated advanced ovarian cancer following response to platinum-based chemotherapy. It is also approved for germline BRCA-mutated HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer previously treated with chemotherapy and for the maintenance treatment of germline BRCA-mutated advanced pancreatic cancer following first-line platinum-based chemotherapy.
 

Details of the TRITON2 study

The accelerated approval for use of rucaparib in BRCA prostate cancer was based on efficacy data from the multicenter, single-arm TRITON2 clinical trial. The cohort included 62 patients with a BRCA (germline and/or somatic) mutation and measurable disease; 115 patients with a BRCA (germline and/or somatic) mutation and measurable or nonmeasurable disease; and 209 patients with homologous recombination deficiency (HRD)–positive mCRPC.

The major efficacy outcomes were objective response rate (ORR) and duration of response. Confirmed PSA response rate was also a prespecified endpoint. Data were assessed by independent radiologic review.

For the patients with measurable disease and a BRCA mutation, the ORR was 44%. The ORR was similar for patients with a germline BRCA mutation.

Median duration of response was not evaluable at data cutoff but ranged from 1.7 to 24+ months. Of the 27 patients with a confirmed objective response, 15 (56%) patients showed a response that lasted 6 months or longer.

In an analysis of 115 patients with a deleterious BRCA mutation (germline and/or somatic) and measurable or nonmeasurable disease, the confirmed PSA response rate was 55%.

The safety evaluation was based on an analysis of the 209 patients with HRD-positive mCRPC and included 115 with deleterious BRCA mutations. The most common adverse events (≥20%; grade 1-4) in the patients with BRCA mutations were fatigue/asthenia (62%), nausea (52%), anemia (43%), AST/ALT elevation (33%), decreased appetite (28%), rash (27%), constipation (27%), thrombocytopenia (25%), vomiting (22%), and diarrhea (20%).

Rucaparib has been associated with hematologic toxicity, including myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) and acute myeloid leukemia (AML). However, MDS/AML was not observed in the TRITON2 study, regardless of HRD mutation.
 

Confirmation with TRITON3

A phase 3, randomized, open-label study, TRITON3, is currently underway and is expected to serve as the confirmatory study for the accelerated approval in mCRPC. TRITON3 is comparing rucaparib with physician’s choice of therapy in patients with mCRPC who have specific gene alterations, including BRCA and ATM alterations, and who have experienced disease progression after androgen receptor–directed therapy but have not yet received chemotherapy. The primary endpoint for TRITON3 is radiographic progression-free survival.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A completely new approach to the treatment of prostate cancer is now available to clinicians through the approval of the first PARP inhibitor for use in certain patients with this disease.

Rucaparib (Rubraca, Clovis Oncology) is the first PARP inhibitor approved for use in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) that harbors deleterious BRCA mutations (germline and/or somatic). The drug is indicated for use in patients who have already been treated with androgen receptor–directed therapy and a taxane-based chemotherapy.

The drug is already marketed for use in ovarian cancer.

The new prostate cancer indication was granted an accelerated approval by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on the basis of response rates and effect on levels of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) from the TRITON2 clinical trial. A confirmatory phase 3 trial, TRITON3, is currently underway.

“Standard treatment options for men with mCRPC have been limited to androgen receptor–targeting therapies, taxane chemotherapy, radium-223, and sipuleucel-T,” said Wassim Abida, MD, a medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, in a statement.

“Rucaparib is the first in a class of drugs to become newly available to patients with mCRPC who harbor a deleterious BRCA mutation,” said Abida, who is also the principal investigator of the TRITON2 study. “Given the level and duration of responses observed with rucaparib in men with mCRPC and these mutations, it represents an important and timely new treatment option for this patient population.”
 

Other indications, another PARP inhibitor

Rucaparib is already approved for the treatment of women with advanced BRCA mutation–positive ovarian cancer who have received two or more prior chemotherapies. It is also approved as maintenance treatment for patients with recurrent epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer who demonstrate a complete or partial response to platinum-based chemotherapy, regardless of BRCA status.

Another PARP inhibitor, olaparib (Lynparza, AstraZeneca), is awaiting approval for use in prostate cancer in men with BRCA mutations. That pending approval is based on results from the phase 3 PROfound trial, which was hailed as a “landmark trial” when it was presented last year. The results showed a significant improved in disease-free progression. The company recently announced that there was also a significant improvement in overall survival.

Olaparib is already approved for the maintenance treatment of platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer regardless of BRCA status and as first-line maintenance treatment in BRCA-mutated advanced ovarian cancer following response to platinum-based chemotherapy. It is also approved for germline BRCA-mutated HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer previously treated with chemotherapy and for the maintenance treatment of germline BRCA-mutated advanced pancreatic cancer following first-line platinum-based chemotherapy.
 

Details of the TRITON2 study

The accelerated approval for use of rucaparib in BRCA prostate cancer was based on efficacy data from the multicenter, single-arm TRITON2 clinical trial. The cohort included 62 patients with a BRCA (germline and/or somatic) mutation and measurable disease; 115 patients with a BRCA (germline and/or somatic) mutation and measurable or nonmeasurable disease; and 209 patients with homologous recombination deficiency (HRD)–positive mCRPC.

The major efficacy outcomes were objective response rate (ORR) and duration of response. Confirmed PSA response rate was also a prespecified endpoint. Data were assessed by independent radiologic review.

For the patients with measurable disease and a BRCA mutation, the ORR was 44%. The ORR was similar for patients with a germline BRCA mutation.

Median duration of response was not evaluable at data cutoff but ranged from 1.7 to 24+ months. Of the 27 patients with a confirmed objective response, 15 (56%) patients showed a response that lasted 6 months or longer.

In an analysis of 115 patients with a deleterious BRCA mutation (germline and/or somatic) and measurable or nonmeasurable disease, the confirmed PSA response rate was 55%.

The safety evaluation was based on an analysis of the 209 patients with HRD-positive mCRPC and included 115 with deleterious BRCA mutations. The most common adverse events (≥20%; grade 1-4) in the patients with BRCA mutations were fatigue/asthenia (62%), nausea (52%), anemia (43%), AST/ALT elevation (33%), decreased appetite (28%), rash (27%), constipation (27%), thrombocytopenia (25%), vomiting (22%), and diarrhea (20%).

Rucaparib has been associated with hematologic toxicity, including myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) and acute myeloid leukemia (AML). However, MDS/AML was not observed in the TRITON2 study, regardless of HRD mutation.
 

Confirmation with TRITON3

A phase 3, randomized, open-label study, TRITON3, is currently underway and is expected to serve as the confirmatory study for the accelerated approval in mCRPC. TRITON3 is comparing rucaparib with physician’s choice of therapy in patients with mCRPC who have specific gene alterations, including BRCA and ATM alterations, and who have experienced disease progression after androgen receptor–directed therapy but have not yet received chemotherapy. The primary endpoint for TRITON3 is radiographic progression-free survival.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A completely new approach to the treatment of prostate cancer is now available to clinicians through the approval of the first PARP inhibitor for use in certain patients with this disease.

Rucaparib (Rubraca, Clovis Oncology) is the first PARP inhibitor approved for use in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) that harbors deleterious BRCA mutations (germline and/or somatic). The drug is indicated for use in patients who have already been treated with androgen receptor–directed therapy and a taxane-based chemotherapy.

The drug is already marketed for use in ovarian cancer.

The new prostate cancer indication was granted an accelerated approval by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on the basis of response rates and effect on levels of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) from the TRITON2 clinical trial. A confirmatory phase 3 trial, TRITON3, is currently underway.

“Standard treatment options for men with mCRPC have been limited to androgen receptor–targeting therapies, taxane chemotherapy, radium-223, and sipuleucel-T,” said Wassim Abida, MD, a medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, in a statement.

“Rucaparib is the first in a class of drugs to become newly available to patients with mCRPC who harbor a deleterious BRCA mutation,” said Abida, who is also the principal investigator of the TRITON2 study. “Given the level and duration of responses observed with rucaparib in men with mCRPC and these mutations, it represents an important and timely new treatment option for this patient population.”
 

Other indications, another PARP inhibitor

Rucaparib is already approved for the treatment of women with advanced BRCA mutation–positive ovarian cancer who have received two or more prior chemotherapies. It is also approved as maintenance treatment for patients with recurrent epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer who demonstrate a complete or partial response to platinum-based chemotherapy, regardless of BRCA status.

Another PARP inhibitor, olaparib (Lynparza, AstraZeneca), is awaiting approval for use in prostate cancer in men with BRCA mutations. That pending approval is based on results from the phase 3 PROfound trial, which was hailed as a “landmark trial” when it was presented last year. The results showed a significant improved in disease-free progression. The company recently announced that there was also a significant improvement in overall survival.

Olaparib is already approved for the maintenance treatment of platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer regardless of BRCA status and as first-line maintenance treatment in BRCA-mutated advanced ovarian cancer following response to platinum-based chemotherapy. It is also approved for germline BRCA-mutated HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer previously treated with chemotherapy and for the maintenance treatment of germline BRCA-mutated advanced pancreatic cancer following first-line platinum-based chemotherapy.
 

Details of the TRITON2 study

The accelerated approval for use of rucaparib in BRCA prostate cancer was based on efficacy data from the multicenter, single-arm TRITON2 clinical trial. The cohort included 62 patients with a BRCA (germline and/or somatic) mutation and measurable disease; 115 patients with a BRCA (germline and/or somatic) mutation and measurable or nonmeasurable disease; and 209 patients with homologous recombination deficiency (HRD)–positive mCRPC.

The major efficacy outcomes were objective response rate (ORR) and duration of response. Confirmed PSA response rate was also a prespecified endpoint. Data were assessed by independent radiologic review.

For the patients with measurable disease and a BRCA mutation, the ORR was 44%. The ORR was similar for patients with a germline BRCA mutation.

Median duration of response was not evaluable at data cutoff but ranged from 1.7 to 24+ months. Of the 27 patients with a confirmed objective response, 15 (56%) patients showed a response that lasted 6 months or longer.

In an analysis of 115 patients with a deleterious BRCA mutation (germline and/or somatic) and measurable or nonmeasurable disease, the confirmed PSA response rate was 55%.

The safety evaluation was based on an analysis of the 209 patients with HRD-positive mCRPC and included 115 with deleterious BRCA mutations. The most common adverse events (≥20%; grade 1-4) in the patients with BRCA mutations were fatigue/asthenia (62%), nausea (52%), anemia (43%), AST/ALT elevation (33%), decreased appetite (28%), rash (27%), constipation (27%), thrombocytopenia (25%), vomiting (22%), and diarrhea (20%).

Rucaparib has been associated with hematologic toxicity, including myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) and acute myeloid leukemia (AML). However, MDS/AML was not observed in the TRITON2 study, regardless of HRD mutation.
 

Confirmation with TRITON3

A phase 3, randomized, open-label study, TRITON3, is currently underway and is expected to serve as the confirmatory study for the accelerated approval in mCRPC. TRITON3 is comparing rucaparib with physician’s choice of therapy in patients with mCRPC who have specific gene alterations, including BRCA and ATM alterations, and who have experienced disease progression after androgen receptor–directed therapy but have not yet received chemotherapy. The primary endpoint for TRITON3 is radiographic progression-free survival.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

There is no denying that over the last few months, the world has become a very different and uncertain place. We all are slowly adjusting to our new “normal” and whether it has been through longer and more grueling hours, volunteering in areas of greater need, or switching your practice to function through an online platform, I commend you for the extra time, focus, and energy you have undoubtedly put into your everyday patient care routines throughout the pandemic.

There have been a lot of questions coming in about what the plan is for CHEST Annual Meeting 2020 in October. Will we be able to gather in large groups at that time? Will there be alternative education options if some are unable to travel to Chicago, Illinois, due to travel restrictions or an increased workload? What is our plan?

As the Program Chair of this year’s meeting, and as a practicing pulmonary and critical care physician, I will be honest with you. There is still a lot of unknown. We cannot confidently say what the world will look like come October. We do not know what travel restrictions will still be in place, or if any new ones will have been implemented. We do not know what the volume of COVID-19 cases will be at that point in time. But, we do know that the community of clinical professionals that has grown at previous CHEST Annual Meetings, and at other live CHEST education courses, is eager for an opportunity to once again connect with their peers, make new connections, and learn in new ways at the premier event in clinical pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine. Not forgetting, that now, more than ever, colleagues outside of our specialties are looking for the education that CHEST has to offer in management of coagulation and ARDS, and more.

I do not have all of the answers, but I do know that the staff at CHEST Global Headquarters are working tirelessly to build a meeting that is at present, still planned to take place in Chicago, but that also will be translated onto an online platform that will allow for anyone and everyone to participate, either in person or online. The CHEST team is working closely with our Scientific Program Committee to produce an innovative meeting with live interactive education, networking events, CHEST Games, and so much more.

Here at CHEST, the hope is to create a “light at the end of the tunnel,” to give you and your colleagues something to look forward to – an opportunity to relax, learn, explore, and reconnect with your peers in the chest medicine field. CHEST leadership and staff are continually monitoring the pandemic, weighing the shifting trajectory of the infection and infection control measures implemented nationally and locally, while ensuring that we have flexible offerings available to meet your short- and long-term educational needs.

There will be more updates available in the coming months, so I encourage you to visit chestmeeting.chestnet.org to stay up to date. I am looking forward to seeing the great community of clinical professionals at CHEST Annual Meeting 2020, this October 17-21, whether it is in-person, or online.

Best,

Victor Test, MD, FCCP

There is no denying that over the last few months, the world has become a very different and uncertain place. We all are slowly adjusting to our new “normal” and whether it has been through longer and more grueling hours, volunteering in areas of greater need, or switching your practice to function through an online platform, I commend you for the extra time, focus, and energy you have undoubtedly put into your everyday patient care routines throughout the pandemic.

There have been a lot of questions coming in about what the plan is for CHEST Annual Meeting 2020 in October. Will we be able to gather in large groups at that time? Will there be alternative education options if some are unable to travel to Chicago, Illinois, due to travel restrictions or an increased workload? What is our plan?

As the Program Chair of this year’s meeting, and as a practicing pulmonary and critical care physician, I will be honest with you. There is still a lot of unknown. We cannot confidently say what the world will look like come October. We do not know what travel restrictions will still be in place, or if any new ones will have been implemented. We do not know what the volume of COVID-19 cases will be at that point in time. But, we do know that the community of clinical professionals that has grown at previous CHEST Annual Meetings, and at other live CHEST education courses, is eager for an opportunity to once again connect with their peers, make new connections, and learn in new ways at the premier event in clinical pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine. Not forgetting, that now, more than ever, colleagues outside of our specialties are looking for the education that CHEST has to offer in management of coagulation and ARDS, and more.

I do not have all of the answers, but I do know that the staff at CHEST Global Headquarters are working tirelessly to build a meeting that is at present, still planned to take place in Chicago, but that also will be translated onto an online platform that will allow for anyone and everyone to participate, either in person or online. The CHEST team is working closely with our Scientific Program Committee to produce an innovative meeting with live interactive education, networking events, CHEST Games, and so much more.

Here at CHEST, the hope is to create a “light at the end of the tunnel,” to give you and your colleagues something to look forward to – an opportunity to relax, learn, explore, and reconnect with your peers in the chest medicine field. CHEST leadership and staff are continually monitoring the pandemic, weighing the shifting trajectory of the infection and infection control measures implemented nationally and locally, while ensuring that we have flexible offerings available to meet your short- and long-term educational needs.

There will be more updates available in the coming months, so I encourage you to visit chestmeeting.chestnet.org to stay up to date. I am looking forward to seeing the great community of clinical professionals at CHEST Annual Meeting 2020, this October 17-21, whether it is in-person, or online.

Best,

Victor Test, MD, FCCP

There is no denying that over the last few months, the world has become a very different and uncertain place. We all are slowly adjusting to our new “normal” and whether it has been through longer and more grueling hours, volunteering in areas of greater need, or switching your practice to function through an online platform, I commend you for the extra time, focus, and energy you have undoubtedly put into your everyday patient care routines throughout the pandemic.

There have been a lot of questions coming in about what the plan is for CHEST Annual Meeting 2020 in October. Will we be able to gather in large groups at that time? Will there be alternative education options if some are unable to travel to Chicago, Illinois, due to travel restrictions or an increased workload? What is our plan?

As the Program Chair of this year’s meeting, and as a practicing pulmonary and critical care physician, I will be honest with you. There is still a lot of unknown. We cannot confidently say what the world will look like come October. We do not know what travel restrictions will still be in place, or if any new ones will have been implemented. We do not know what the volume of COVID-19 cases will be at that point in time. But, we do know that the community of clinical professionals that has grown at previous CHEST Annual Meetings, and at other live CHEST education courses, is eager for an opportunity to once again connect with their peers, make new connections, and learn in new ways at the premier event in clinical pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine. Not forgetting, that now, more than ever, colleagues outside of our specialties are looking for the education that CHEST has to offer in management of coagulation and ARDS, and more.

I do not have all of the answers, but I do know that the staff at CHEST Global Headquarters are working tirelessly to build a meeting that is at present, still planned to take place in Chicago, but that also will be translated onto an online platform that will allow for anyone and everyone to participate, either in person or online. The CHEST team is working closely with our Scientific Program Committee to produce an innovative meeting with live interactive education, networking events, CHEST Games, and so much more.

Here at CHEST, the hope is to create a “light at the end of the tunnel,” to give you and your colleagues something to look forward to – an opportunity to relax, learn, explore, and reconnect with your peers in the chest medicine field. CHEST leadership and staff are continually monitoring the pandemic, weighing the shifting trajectory of the infection and infection control measures implemented nationally and locally, while ensuring that we have flexible offerings available to meet your short- and long-term educational needs.

There will be more updates available in the coming months, so I encourage you to visit chestmeeting.chestnet.org to stay up to date. I am looking forward to seeing the great community of clinical professionals at CHEST Annual Meeting 2020, this October 17-21, whether it is in-person, or online.

Best,

Victor Test, MD, FCCP

Read Now

Though a common neurologic disease with substantial impact, migraine is underdiagnosed and undertreated.^1,2 The American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention study of 18,968 people found that approximately 44% of subjects who met the International Classification of Headache Disorders 2nd edition (ICHD-2) criteria for migraine had never received a medical diagnosis of
migraine.²

This sponsored content discusses the pathophysiology, characteristic symptoms, and burden of migraine, as well as how to help facilitate the diagnosis of migraine in the primary care setting.

This content is sponsored by Amgen Inc. and Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation.

Reference:

¹ GBD 2017 Disease and Injury Incidence and Prevalence Collaborators. Lancet. 2018;392(10159): 1789-1858.

² Diamond S, Bigal ME, Silberstein S, Loder E, Reed M, Lipton RB. Headache. 2007;47(3):355-363.

USA-334-83661

Read Now

Read Now

Though a common neurologic disease with substantial impact, migraine is underdiagnosed and undertreated.^1,2 The American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention study of 18,968 people found that approximately 44% of subjects who met the International Classification of Headache Disorders 2nd edition (ICHD-2) criteria for migraine had never received a medical diagnosis of
migraine.²

This sponsored content discusses the pathophysiology, characteristic symptoms, and burden of migraine, as well as how to help facilitate the diagnosis of migraine in the primary care setting.

This content is sponsored by Amgen Inc. and Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation.

Reference:

¹ GBD 2017 Disease and Injury Incidence and Prevalence Collaborators. Lancet. 2018;392(10159): 1789-1858.

² Diamond S, Bigal ME, Silberstein S, Loder E, Reed M, Lipton RB. Headache. 2007;47(3):355-363.

USA-334-83661

Read Now

Read Now

Though a common neurologic disease with substantial impact, migraine is underdiagnosed and undertreated.^1,2 The American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention study of 18,968 people found that approximately 44% of subjects who met the International Classification of Headache Disorders 2nd edition (ICHD-2) criteria for migraine had never received a medical diagnosis of
migraine.²

This sponsored content discusses the pathophysiology, characteristic symptoms, and burden of migraine, as well as how to help facilitate the diagnosis of migraine in the primary care setting.

This content is sponsored by Amgen Inc. and Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation.

Reference:

¹ GBD 2017 Disease and Injury Incidence and Prevalence Collaborators. Lancet. 2018;392(10159): 1789-1858.

² Diamond S, Bigal ME, Silberstein S, Loder E, Reed M, Lipton RB. Headache. 2007;47(3):355-363.

USA-334-83661

Read Now

CHEST is known for innovative learning. This stems from an appetite for experimentation, a highly engaged membership, strong volunteer leaders, and a responsive staff. We are leaders in gaming, simulation, and hands-on and applied learning, and we’re best in class in key areas – namely our annual conference – that demonstrate organizational responsiveness.

I serve as Chief Learning Officer and Senior Vice President of Education and have been with CHEST for nearly a year. I was drawn to CHEST for its strong mission and look forward to sharing ideas for how we can develop and deliver learning in a changed world.

The charge for developing an organization-wide learning strategy comes from the CHEST Board and Robert Musacchio, PhD, CHEST CEO and Executive Vice President, and it is reflected in an ambitious strategic statement that links our shared direction to broad-based growth through expansion of our clinical audience and reach, resulting in an increased ability to improve the lives of patients.

CHEST will crush lung disease by creating exceptional educational experiences relevant to clinicians, patients, caregivers, and industry, applying our trusted brand and data and employing our highly respected staff and volunteers with clinical expertise.

To meet this challenge, we gathered insights from across the membership and identified that our learning strategy should be built on the three anchors of choice:

• Choice – Emphasizes easy-to-find learning that adapts to learner need through engagement, pathways, and social interaction. This is known as personalized learning.
• Responsiveness – Combines our ability to understand and respond to learners with new and enhanced programs, products, and learning experiences.
• Connection – Provides learners with immediate, longitudinal, and engaging communities to maximize their connection to CHEST over the length of their career.

The coronavirus pandemic requires us to come together as a community and further our focus. Our values remain unchanged: to meet our learners where they are. Now, more than ever, that means we need to deliver CHEST learning with an emphasis on digital. Three areas make up CHEST digital learning: virtual programming, e-learning, and game-based learning. Some concrete examples of what you can expect:

• We are currently preparing and will be prepared to deliver virtual versions of our Annual Conference and Board Review (should either event not run in-person).
• We will release a game hub called Arcades this summer, which will allow for you to access our games online.
• We continue to enhance the offerings available in our e-learning subscription.
• We continue to release fresh educational content on the CHEST COVID-19 site.

CHEST is known for innovative learning. This stems from an appetite for experimentation, a highly engaged membership, strong volunteer leaders, and a responsive staff. We are leaders in gaming, simulation, and hands-on and applied learning, and we’re best in class in key areas – namely our annual conference – that demonstrate organizational responsiveness.

I serve as Chief Learning Officer and Senior Vice President of Education and have been with CHEST for nearly a year. I was drawn to CHEST for its strong mission and look forward to sharing ideas for how we can develop and deliver learning in a changed world.

The charge for developing an organization-wide learning strategy comes from the CHEST Board and Robert Musacchio, PhD, CHEST CEO and Executive Vice President, and it is reflected in an ambitious strategic statement that links our shared direction to broad-based growth through expansion of our clinical audience and reach, resulting in an increased ability to improve the lives of patients.

CHEST will crush lung disease by creating exceptional educational experiences relevant to clinicians, patients, caregivers, and industry, applying our trusted brand and data and employing our highly respected staff and volunteers with clinical expertise.

To meet this challenge, we gathered insights from across the membership and identified that our learning strategy should be built on the three anchors of choice:

• Choice – Emphasizes easy-to-find learning that adapts to learner need through engagement, pathways, and social interaction. This is known as personalized learning.
• Responsiveness – Combines our ability to understand and respond to learners with new and enhanced programs, products, and learning experiences.
• Connection – Provides learners with immediate, longitudinal, and engaging communities to maximize their connection to CHEST over the length of their career.

The coronavirus pandemic requires us to come together as a community and further our focus. Our values remain unchanged: to meet our learners where they are. Now, more than ever, that means we need to deliver CHEST learning with an emphasis on digital. Three areas make up CHEST digital learning: virtual programming, e-learning, and game-based learning. Some concrete examples of what you can expect:

• We are currently preparing and will be prepared to deliver virtual versions of our Annual Conference and Board Review (should either event not run in-person).
• We will release a game hub called Arcades this summer, which will allow for you to access our games online.
• We continue to enhance the offerings available in our e-learning subscription.
• We continue to release fresh educational content on the CHEST COVID-19 site.

CHEST is known for innovative learning. This stems from an appetite for experimentation, a highly engaged membership, strong volunteer leaders, and a responsive staff. We are leaders in gaming, simulation, and hands-on and applied learning, and we’re best in class in key areas – namely our annual conference – that demonstrate organizational responsiveness.

I serve as Chief Learning Officer and Senior Vice President of Education and have been with CHEST for nearly a year. I was drawn to CHEST for its strong mission and look forward to sharing ideas for how we can develop and deliver learning in a changed world.

The charge for developing an organization-wide learning strategy comes from the CHEST Board and Robert Musacchio, PhD, CHEST CEO and Executive Vice President, and it is reflected in an ambitious strategic statement that links our shared direction to broad-based growth through expansion of our clinical audience and reach, resulting in an increased ability to improve the lives of patients.

CHEST will crush lung disease by creating exceptional educational experiences relevant to clinicians, patients, caregivers, and industry, applying our trusted brand and data and employing our highly respected staff and volunteers with clinical expertise.

To meet this challenge, we gathered insights from across the membership and identified that our learning strategy should be built on the three anchors of choice:

• Choice – Emphasizes easy-to-find learning that adapts to learner need through engagement, pathways, and social interaction. This is known as personalized learning.
• Responsiveness – Combines our ability to understand and respond to learners with new and enhanced programs, products, and learning experiences.
• Connection – Provides learners with immediate, longitudinal, and engaging communities to maximize their connection to CHEST over the length of their career.

The coronavirus pandemic requires us to come together as a community and further our focus. Our values remain unchanged: to meet our learners where they are. Now, more than ever, that means we need to deliver CHEST learning with an emphasis on digital. Three areas make up CHEST digital learning: virtual programming, e-learning, and game-based learning. Some concrete examples of what you can expect:

• We are currently preparing and will be prepared to deliver virtual versions of our Annual Conference and Board Review (should either event not run in-person).
• We will release a game hub called Arcades this summer, which will allow for you to access our games online.
• We continue to enhance the offerings available in our e-learning subscription.
• We continue to release fresh educational content on the CHEST COVID-19 site.

Children with congenital heart disease exposed to low-dose ionizing radiation from cardiac procedures had a cancer risk more than triple that of pediatric congenital heart disease (CHD) patients without such exposures, according to a large Canadian nested case-control study presented at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. The meeting was conducted online after its cancellation because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

This cancer risk was dose dependent. It rose stepwise with the number of cardiac procedures involving exposure to low-dose ionizing radiation (LDIR) and the total radiation dose. Moreover, roughly 80% of the cancers were of types known to be associated with radiation exposure in children, reported Elie Ganni, a medical student at McGill University, Montreal, working with MAUDE, the McGill Adult Unit for Congenital Heart Disease.

The MAUDE group previously published the first large, population-based study analyzing the association between LDIR from cardiac procedures and incident cancer in adults with CHD. The study, which included nearly 25,000 adult CHD patients aged 18-64 years with more than 250,000 person-years of follow-up, concluded that individuals with LDIR exposure from six or more cardiac procedures had a 140% greater cancer incidence than those with no or one exposure (Circulation. 2018 Mar 27;137[13]:1334-45).

Because children are considered to be more sensitive to the carcinogenic effects of LDIR than adults, the MAUDE group next did a similar study in a pediatric CHD population included in the Quebec Congenital Heart Disease Database. This nested case-control study included 232 children with CHD who were first diagnosed with cancer at a median age of 3.9 years and 8,160 pediatric CHD controls matched for gender and birth year. About 76% of cancers were diagnosed before age 7, 20% at ages 7-12 years, and the remaining 4% at ages 13-18. Hematologic malignancies accounted for 61% of the pediatric cancers, CNS cancers for another 12.5%, and thyroid cancers 6.6%; all three types of cancer are associated with radiation exposure.

After excluding all cardiac procedures involving LDIR performed within 6 months prior to cancer diagnosis, the risk of developing a pediatric cancer was 230% greater in children with LDIR exposure from cardiac procedures than in CHD patients without such exposure. For every 4 mSv in estimated LDIR exposure from cardiac procedures, the risk of cancer rose by 15.5%. In contrast, in the earlier study in adults with CHD, cancer risk climbed by 10% per 10 mSv. Patients with six or more LDIR cardiac procedures – not at all unusual in contemporary practice – were 2.4 times more likely to have cancer than those with no or one such radiation exposure.

Current ACC guidelines on radiation exposure from cardiac procedures recommend calculating an individual’s lifetime attributable cancer incidence and mortality risks, as well as adhering to the time-honored principle of ensuring that radiation exposure is as low as reasonably achievable without sacrificing quality of care.

“Our findings strongly support these ACC recommendations and moreover suggest that radiation surveillance for patients with congenital heart disease should be considered using radiation badges. Also, cancer surveillance guidelines should be considered for CHD patients exposed to LDIR,” Mr. Ganni said.

These suggestions for creation of patient radiation passports and cancer surveillance guidelines take on greater weight in light of two trends: the increasing life expectancy of children with CHD during the past 3 decades as a result of procedural advances that entail LDIR exposure, mostly for imaging, and the growing number of such procedures performed per patient earlier and earlier in life.

He and the MAUDE group plan to confirm their latest findings in other, larger data sets and hope to identify threshold effects for LDIR for specific cancers, with hematologic malignancies as the top priority.

Mr. Ganni reported having no financial conflicts regarding his study, funded by the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, the Quebec Foundation for Health Research, and the Canadian Institutes for Health Research.

bjancin@mdedge.com

Children with congenital heart disease exposed to low-dose ionizing radiation from cardiac procedures had a cancer risk more than triple that of pediatric congenital heart disease (CHD) patients without such exposures, according to a large Canadian nested case-control study presented at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. The meeting was conducted online after its cancellation because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

This cancer risk was dose dependent. It rose stepwise with the number of cardiac procedures involving exposure to low-dose ionizing radiation (LDIR) and the total radiation dose. Moreover, roughly 80% of the cancers were of types known to be associated with radiation exposure in children, reported Elie Ganni, a medical student at McGill University, Montreal, working with MAUDE, the McGill Adult Unit for Congenital Heart Disease.

The MAUDE group previously published the first large, population-based study analyzing the association between LDIR from cardiac procedures and incident cancer in adults with CHD. The study, which included nearly 25,000 adult CHD patients aged 18-64 years with more than 250,000 person-years of follow-up, concluded that individuals with LDIR exposure from six or more cardiac procedures had a 140% greater cancer incidence than those with no or one exposure (Circulation. 2018 Mar 27;137[13]:1334-45).

Because children are considered to be more sensitive to the carcinogenic effects of LDIR than adults, the MAUDE group next did a similar study in a pediatric CHD population included in the Quebec Congenital Heart Disease Database. This nested case-control study included 232 children with CHD who were first diagnosed with cancer at a median age of 3.9 years and 8,160 pediatric CHD controls matched for gender and birth year. About 76% of cancers were diagnosed before age 7, 20% at ages 7-12 years, and the remaining 4% at ages 13-18. Hematologic malignancies accounted for 61% of the pediatric cancers, CNS cancers for another 12.5%, and thyroid cancers 6.6%; all three types of cancer are associated with radiation exposure.

After excluding all cardiac procedures involving LDIR performed within 6 months prior to cancer diagnosis, the risk of developing a pediatric cancer was 230% greater in children with LDIR exposure from cardiac procedures than in CHD patients without such exposure. For every 4 mSv in estimated LDIR exposure from cardiac procedures, the risk of cancer rose by 15.5%. In contrast, in the earlier study in adults with CHD, cancer risk climbed by 10% per 10 mSv. Patients with six or more LDIR cardiac procedures – not at all unusual in contemporary practice – were 2.4 times more likely to have cancer than those with no or one such radiation exposure.

Current ACC guidelines on radiation exposure from cardiac procedures recommend calculating an individual’s lifetime attributable cancer incidence and mortality risks, as well as adhering to the time-honored principle of ensuring that radiation exposure is as low as reasonably achievable without sacrificing quality of care.

“Our findings strongly support these ACC recommendations and moreover suggest that radiation surveillance for patients with congenital heart disease should be considered using radiation badges. Also, cancer surveillance guidelines should be considered for CHD patients exposed to LDIR,” Mr. Ganni said.

These suggestions for creation of patient radiation passports and cancer surveillance guidelines take on greater weight in light of two trends: the increasing life expectancy of children with CHD during the past 3 decades as a result of procedural advances that entail LDIR exposure, mostly for imaging, and the growing number of such procedures performed per patient earlier and earlier in life.

He and the MAUDE group plan to confirm their latest findings in other, larger data sets and hope to identify threshold effects for LDIR for specific cancers, with hematologic malignancies as the top priority.

Mr. Ganni reported having no financial conflicts regarding his study, funded by the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, the Quebec Foundation for Health Research, and the Canadian Institutes for Health Research.

bjancin@mdedge.com

Children with congenital heart disease exposed to low-dose ionizing radiation from cardiac procedures had a cancer risk more than triple that of pediatric congenital heart disease (CHD) patients without such exposures, according to a large Canadian nested case-control study presented at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. The meeting was conducted online after its cancellation because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

This cancer risk was dose dependent. It rose stepwise with the number of cardiac procedures involving exposure to low-dose ionizing radiation (LDIR) and the total radiation dose. Moreover, roughly 80% of the cancers were of types known to be associated with radiation exposure in children, reported Elie Ganni, a medical student at McGill University, Montreal, working with MAUDE, the McGill Adult Unit for Congenital Heart Disease.

The MAUDE group previously published the first large, population-based study analyzing the association between LDIR from cardiac procedures and incident cancer in adults with CHD. The study, which included nearly 25,000 adult CHD patients aged 18-64 years with more than 250,000 person-years of follow-up, concluded that individuals with LDIR exposure from six or more cardiac procedures had a 140% greater cancer incidence than those with no or one exposure (Circulation. 2018 Mar 27;137[13]:1334-45).

Because children are considered to be more sensitive to the carcinogenic effects of LDIR than adults, the MAUDE group next did a similar study in a pediatric CHD population included in the Quebec Congenital Heart Disease Database. This nested case-control study included 232 children with CHD who were first diagnosed with cancer at a median age of 3.9 years and 8,160 pediatric CHD controls matched for gender and birth year. About 76% of cancers were diagnosed before age 7, 20% at ages 7-12 years, and the remaining 4% at ages 13-18. Hematologic malignancies accounted for 61% of the pediatric cancers, CNS cancers for another 12.5%, and thyroid cancers 6.6%; all three types of cancer are associated with radiation exposure.

After excluding all cardiac procedures involving LDIR performed within 6 months prior to cancer diagnosis, the risk of developing a pediatric cancer was 230% greater in children with LDIR exposure from cardiac procedures than in CHD patients without such exposure. For every 4 mSv in estimated LDIR exposure from cardiac procedures, the risk of cancer rose by 15.5%. In contrast, in the earlier study in adults with CHD, cancer risk climbed by 10% per 10 mSv. Patients with six or more LDIR cardiac procedures – not at all unusual in contemporary practice – were 2.4 times more likely to have cancer than those with no or one such radiation exposure.

Current ACC guidelines on radiation exposure from cardiac procedures recommend calculating an individual’s lifetime attributable cancer incidence and mortality risks, as well as adhering to the time-honored principle of ensuring that radiation exposure is as low as reasonably achievable without sacrificing quality of care.

“Our findings strongly support these ACC recommendations and moreover suggest that radiation surveillance for patients with congenital heart disease should be considered using radiation badges. Also, cancer surveillance guidelines should be considered for CHD patients exposed to LDIR,” Mr. Ganni said.

These suggestions for creation of patient radiation passports and cancer surveillance guidelines take on greater weight in light of two trends: the increasing life expectancy of children with CHD during the past 3 decades as a result of procedural advances that entail LDIR exposure, mostly for imaging, and the growing number of such procedures performed per patient earlier and earlier in life.

He and the MAUDE group plan to confirm their latest findings in other, larger data sets and hope to identify threshold effects for LDIR for specific cancers, with hematologic malignancies as the top priority.

Mr. Ganni reported having no financial conflicts regarding his study, funded by the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, the Quebec Foundation for Health Research, and the Canadian Institutes for Health Research.

bjancin@mdedge.com

Fewer than a third of U.S. infants have vitamin D levels consistent with current guidelines, with breastfed infants less likely to have adequate levels than formula-fed infants, according to results of a study.

patrisyu/Thinkstock

The American Association of Pediatrics has recommended since 2008 that breastfeeding babies under 1 year of age receive 400 IU of vitamin D supplementation daily, usually in the form of drops, to prevent rickets. For formula-fed infants, the AAP recommends that infants be fed one liter of formula daily, as formulas must contain 400 IU of vitamin D per liter.

A study looking at caregiver-reported dietary data through 2012 suggested that the guideline was having little impact, with only 27% of U.S. infants considered to be getting adequate vitamin D. The same researchers have now updated those findings with data through 2016 to report virtually no improvement over time. For their research, published in Pediatrics, Alan E. Simon, MD, of the National Institutes of Health in Rockville, Md., and Katherine A. Ahrens, PhD, of the University of Southern Maine in Portland, analyzed data for 1,435 infants aged 0-11 months. All data were recorded during 2009-2016 as part of the ongoing National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES).

Overall, 27% of infants in the study were considered likely to meet the guidelines. Among nonbreastfeeding infants, 31% were deemed to have adequate levels, compared with 21% of breastfeeding infants (P less than .01).

Parents’ income and education affected infants’ likelihood of meeting guidelines. Breastfeeding infants in families with incomes above 400% of the federal poverty level were twice as likely to meet guidelines (31% vs. 14%-16% for lower income brackets, P less than .05). Babies from families whose head of household had a college degree had a 26% likelihood of having enough vitamin D, compared with less than 11% of those in whose parents had less than a high school education (P less than .05). Babies from families with private insurance also had a better chance of meeting guidelines, compared with those with public insurance (24% vs. 13%; P less than .05).

Ethnicity was seen as affecting vitamin D intake only insofar as some groups had more formula use than breastfeeding. The only ethnic or racial subgroup in the study that saw more than 40% of infants likely to meet guidelines was nonbreastfeeding infants of Asian, American Indian, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, or multiracial parentage, with 46% considered to have adequate vitamin D levels. This group makes up 6% of the infant population in the United States.

“Reasons for low rates of meeting guidelines in the United States and little improvement over time are not fully known,” Dr. Simon and Dr. Ahrens wrote in their analysis. “One factor may be that the impact of low vitamin D in infancy is not highly visible to physicians because rickets is an uncommon diagnosis in the United States.” They noted that recent studies from Canada, where public health officials have done more to promote supplementation, have shown rates of adequate vitamin D in breastfeeding babies to be as high as 90%.

The researchers listed among limitations of their study the fact that the data source, NHANES, captured nutrition information only for the previous 24 hours; that it relied on parental report, and did not confirm serum levels of vitamin D; and that it was possible that cow’s milk – which is not recommended before age 1 but frequently given to older infants anyway – could be a hidden source of vitamin D that was not taken into consideration.

In an editorial comment, Jaspreet Loyal, MD, and Annette Cameron, MD, of Yale University in New Haven, Conn., faulted “a combination of inconsistent prescribing by clinicians and poor adherence to the use of a supplement by parents of infants … further complicated by a lack of awareness of the consequences of vitamin D deficiency in infants among the public” for the low adherence to guidelines in the United States, compared with other countries.

Also, the editorialists noted, the dropper used to administer liquid supplements has been associated with “inconsistent precision” and concerns about infants gagging on the liquid. More research is needed to better understand “prescribing patterns, barriers to adherence by parents of infants, and alternate strategies for vitamin D supplementation to inform novel public health programs in the United States,” they wrote.

The National Institutes of Health funded the study, and Dr. Ahrens is supported by a faculty development grant from the Maine Economic Improvement Fund. The researchers declared no conflicts of interest. Dr. Loyal and Dr. Cameron disclosed no funding and no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Simon AE and Ahrens KA. Pediatrics 2020 May. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-3574; Loyal J and Cameron A. Pediatrics. 2020 May. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-0504.

Fewer than a third of U.S. infants have vitamin D levels consistent with current guidelines, with breastfed infants less likely to have adequate levels than formula-fed infants, according to results of a study.

patrisyu/Thinkstock

The American Association of Pediatrics has recommended since 2008 that breastfeeding babies under 1 year of age receive 400 IU of vitamin D supplementation daily, usually in the form of drops, to prevent rickets. For formula-fed infants, the AAP recommends that infants be fed one liter of formula daily, as formulas must contain 400 IU of vitamin D per liter.

A study looking at caregiver-reported dietary data through 2012 suggested that the guideline was having little impact, with only 27% of U.S. infants considered to be getting adequate vitamin D. The same researchers have now updated those findings with data through 2016 to report virtually no improvement over time. For their research, published in Pediatrics, Alan E. Simon, MD, of the National Institutes of Health in Rockville, Md., and Katherine A. Ahrens, PhD, of the University of Southern Maine in Portland, analyzed data for 1,435 infants aged 0-11 months. All data were recorded during 2009-2016 as part of the ongoing National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES).

Overall, 27% of infants in the study were considered likely to meet the guidelines. Among nonbreastfeeding infants, 31% were deemed to have adequate levels, compared with 21% of breastfeeding infants (P less than .01).

Parents’ income and education affected infants’ likelihood of meeting guidelines. Breastfeeding infants in families with incomes above 400% of the federal poverty level were twice as likely to meet guidelines (31% vs. 14%-16% for lower income brackets, P less than .05). Babies from families whose head of household had a college degree had a 26% likelihood of having enough vitamin D, compared with less than 11% of those in whose parents had less than a high school education (P less than .05). Babies from families with private insurance also had a better chance of meeting guidelines, compared with those with public insurance (24% vs. 13%; P less than .05).

Ethnicity was seen as affecting vitamin D intake only insofar as some groups had more formula use than breastfeeding. The only ethnic or racial subgroup in the study that saw more than 40% of infants likely to meet guidelines was nonbreastfeeding infants of Asian, American Indian, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, or multiracial parentage, with 46% considered to have adequate vitamin D levels. This group makes up 6% of the infant population in the United States.

“Reasons for low rates of meeting guidelines in the United States and little improvement over time are not fully known,” Dr. Simon and Dr. Ahrens wrote in their analysis. “One factor may be that the impact of low vitamin D in infancy is not highly visible to physicians because rickets is an uncommon diagnosis in the United States.” They noted that recent studies from Canada, where public health officials have done more to promote supplementation, have shown rates of adequate vitamin D in breastfeeding babies to be as high as 90%.

The researchers listed among limitations of their study the fact that the data source, NHANES, captured nutrition information only for the previous 24 hours; that it relied on parental report, and did not confirm serum levels of vitamin D; and that it was possible that cow’s milk – which is not recommended before age 1 but frequently given to older infants anyway – could be a hidden source of vitamin D that was not taken into consideration.

In an editorial comment, Jaspreet Loyal, MD, and Annette Cameron, MD, of Yale University in New Haven, Conn., faulted “a combination of inconsistent prescribing by clinicians and poor adherence to the use of a supplement by parents of infants … further complicated by a lack of awareness of the consequences of vitamin D deficiency in infants among the public” for the low adherence to guidelines in the United States, compared with other countries.

Also, the editorialists noted, the dropper used to administer liquid supplements has been associated with “inconsistent precision” and concerns about infants gagging on the liquid. More research is needed to better understand “prescribing patterns, barriers to adherence by parents of infants, and alternate strategies for vitamin D supplementation to inform novel public health programs in the United States,” they wrote.

The National Institutes of Health funded the study, and Dr. Ahrens is supported by a faculty development grant from the Maine Economic Improvement Fund. The researchers declared no conflicts of interest. Dr. Loyal and Dr. Cameron disclosed no funding and no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Simon AE and Ahrens KA. Pediatrics 2020 May. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-3574; Loyal J and Cameron A. Pediatrics. 2020 May. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-0504.

Fewer than a third of U.S. infants have vitamin D levels consistent with current guidelines, with breastfed infants less likely to have adequate levels than formula-fed infants, according to results of a study.

patrisyu/Thinkstock

The American Association of Pediatrics has recommended since 2008 that breastfeeding babies under 1 year of age receive 400 IU of vitamin D supplementation daily, usually in the form of drops, to prevent rickets. For formula-fed infants, the AAP recommends that infants be fed one liter of formula daily, as formulas must contain 400 IU of vitamin D per liter.

A study looking at caregiver-reported dietary data through 2012 suggested that the guideline was having little impact, with only 27% of U.S. infants considered to be getting adequate vitamin D. The same researchers have now updated those findings with data through 2016 to report virtually no improvement over time. For their research, published in Pediatrics, Alan E. Simon, MD, of the National Institutes of Health in Rockville, Md., and Katherine A. Ahrens, PhD, of the University of Southern Maine in Portland, analyzed data for 1,435 infants aged 0-11 months. All data were recorded during 2009-2016 as part of the ongoing National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES).

Overall, 27% of infants in the study were considered likely to meet the guidelines. Among nonbreastfeeding infants, 31% were deemed to have adequate levels, compared with 21% of breastfeeding infants (P less than .01).

Parents’ income and education affected infants’ likelihood of meeting guidelines. Breastfeeding infants in families with incomes above 400% of the federal poverty level were twice as likely to meet guidelines (31% vs. 14%-16% for lower income brackets, P less than .05). Babies from families whose head of household had a college degree had a 26% likelihood of having enough vitamin D, compared with less than 11% of those in whose parents had less than a high school education (P less than .05). Babies from families with private insurance also had a better chance of meeting guidelines, compared with those with public insurance (24% vs. 13%; P less than .05).

Ethnicity was seen as affecting vitamin D intake only insofar as some groups had more formula use than breastfeeding. The only ethnic or racial subgroup in the study that saw more than 40% of infants likely to meet guidelines was nonbreastfeeding infants of Asian, American Indian, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, or multiracial parentage, with 46% considered to have adequate vitamin D levels. This group makes up 6% of the infant population in the United States.

“Reasons for low rates of meeting guidelines in the United States and little improvement over time are not fully known,” Dr. Simon and Dr. Ahrens wrote in their analysis. “One factor may be that the impact of low vitamin D in infancy is not highly visible to physicians because rickets is an uncommon diagnosis in the United States.” They noted that recent studies from Canada, where public health officials have done more to promote supplementation, have shown rates of adequate vitamin D in breastfeeding babies to be as high as 90%.

The researchers listed among limitations of their study the fact that the data source, NHANES, captured nutrition information only for the previous 24 hours; that it relied on parental report, and did not confirm serum levels of vitamin D; and that it was possible that cow’s milk – which is not recommended before age 1 but frequently given to older infants anyway – could be a hidden source of vitamin D that was not taken into consideration.

In an editorial comment, Jaspreet Loyal, MD, and Annette Cameron, MD, of Yale University in New Haven, Conn., faulted “a combination of inconsistent prescribing by clinicians and poor adherence to the use of a supplement by parents of infants … further complicated by a lack of awareness of the consequences of vitamin D deficiency in infants among the public” for the low adherence to guidelines in the United States, compared with other countries.

Also, the editorialists noted, the dropper used to administer liquid supplements has been associated with “inconsistent precision” and concerns about infants gagging on the liquid. More research is needed to better understand “prescribing patterns, barriers to adherence by parents of infants, and alternate strategies for vitamin D supplementation to inform novel public health programs in the United States,” they wrote.

The National Institutes of Health funded the study, and Dr. Ahrens is supported by a faculty development grant from the Maine Economic Improvement Fund. The researchers declared no conflicts of interest. Dr. Loyal and Dr. Cameron disclosed no funding and no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Simon AE and Ahrens KA. Pediatrics 2020 May. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-3574; Loyal J and Cameron A. Pediatrics. 2020 May. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-0504.

A leadless right-ventricular pacemaker continued to show an edge over conventional transvenous pacemakers by triggering a substantially reduced rate of complications during the 6 months following placement in a review of more than 10,000 Medicare patients treated over 2 years.

The “largest leadless pacemaker cohort to date” showed that in propensity score–matched cohorts, the 3,276 patients who received the Micra leadless transcatheter pacemaker during routine management and were followed for 6 months had a 3.3% rate of total complications, compared with a 9.4% rate among 7,256 patients who received a conventional VVI pacemaker with a transvenous lead, a statistically significant 66% relative risk reduction, Jonathan P. Piccini, MD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the Heart Rhythm Society, held online because of COVID-19.

The 66% reduced rate of complications – both acutely and with further follow-up – was similar to the complication reductions seen with Micra, compared with historical controls who received transvenous single-chamber pacemakers in both the pivotal study for the device (Heart Rhythm. 2017 May 1;14[3]:702-9) and in a postapproval registry study (Heart Rhythm. 2018 Dec 1;15[12]:1800-7). However, the newly reported advantage came in a population that was notably older and had significantly more comorbidities than in the prior leadless pacemaker studies, said Dr. Piccini, a cardiac electrophysiologist at Duke University, Durham, N.C.

The new Medicare data “tell us that physicians are reaching for these devices [leadless pacemakers] in patients with more comorbidities and a higher risk for complications to give them a [device with] better safety profile,” he said during a press briefing. “At Duke, and I suspect at other centers, when a patients is eligible for a leadless pacemaker that’s the preferred option.”

However, Dr. Piccini cited three examples of the small proportion of patients who are appropriate for the type of pacing the leadless pacemaker supplies but would be better candidates for a device with a transvenous lead: patients who failed treatment with a initial leadless pacemaker and have no suitable alternative subcutaneous spot to place the replacement device in a stable way, those with severe right ventricular enlargement that interferes with optimal placement, and those who don’t currently meet criteria for biventricular pacing but appear likely to switch to that pacing mode in the near term.

The 66% relative reduction in complications was “impressive; I hope this will be a message,” commented Nassir F. Marrouche, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist and professor of medicine at Tulane University, New Orleans. Importantly, this reduced complication rate occurred in a real-world population that was sicker than any patient group previously studied with the device, he noted as a designated discussant for the report.

But the report’s second designated discussant, Roderick Tung, MD, highlighted some caveats when interpreting the lower complication rate with the leadless device compared with historical controls. He cited the absence of any episodes of pneumothorax among the patients reviewed by Dr. Piccini who received a leadless pacemaker, compared with a 5% rate among the control patients who had received a device with a transvenous lead, a major driver of the overall difference in complication rates. This difference “may not be relevant to operators who use either an axillary extrathoracic vein route for lead placement or a cephalic vein approach,” said Dr. Tung, director of cardiac electrophysiology at the University of Chicago. “There should not be a 5% rate of pneumothorax when implanting a VVI device.” The results reported by Dr. Piccini have the advantages of coming from many patients and from real-world practice, he acknowledged, but interpretation is limited by the lack of a randomized control group and the outsized impact of pneumothorax complications on the safety comparison.

The other major component of the 6-month complication tally was device-related events, which were twice as common in the historical controls who received a transvenous lead at a rate of 3.4%. The sole 6-month event more common among the patients who received a leadless pacemaker was pericarditis, at a rate of 1.3% in the Micra group and 0.5% in the transvenous lead controls, Dr. Piccini reported. The 6-month rate of device revisions was 1.7% with the leadless device and 2.8% with transvenous lead pacemakers, a difference that was not statistically significant. The two treatment arms had virtually identical 6-month mortality rates.

The rate of acute complications during the first 30 days after implant was also virtually the same in the two study arms. Patient who received the leadless device had significantly more puncture-site events, at a rate of 1.2%, and significantly more cardiac effusions or perforations, at a rate of 0.8%. The historical control patients who received devices with transvenous leads had significantly more device-related complications after 30 days, a 2.5% rate.

The 30-day cohorts examined had larger numbers of patients than at 6 months, 5,746 leadless pacemaker recipients and 9,662 matched historical controls who had received a transvenous lead pacemaker. The clinical and demographic profile of the 30-day cohort who received the leadless pacemaker highlighted the sicker nature of these patients compared with earlier studies of the device. They were an average age of 79 years, compared with average ages of 76 years in the two prior Micra studies, and they also had double the prevalence of coronary disease, triple the prevalence of heart failure, more than twice the rate of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and almost twice the prevalence of diabetes.

During the period examined in this report from Micra CED (Longitudinal Coverage With Evidence Development Study on Micra Leadless Pacemakers), in 2017-2018, the leadless pacemaker’s initial approved indications were for a circumscribed portion of the overall patient population that needs pacing. Essentially, they were elderly patients with persistent atrial fibrillation who only need ventricular pacing, roughly 15% of the overall cohort of pacing candidates. In January 2020, the FDA added an indication for high-grade atrioventricular block, an expanded population of candidates that roughly tripled the number of potentially appropriate recipients, said Larry A. Chinitz, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist and a coinvestigator on some of the studies that led to the new indication, in an interview at the time of the revised labeling.

The study was sponsored by Medtronic, which markets the Micra leadless pacemaker. Dr. Piccini has received honoraria from Medtronic and several other companies. Dr. Marrouche has been a consultant to Medtronic as well as to Biosense Webster, Biotronik, Cardiac Design, and Preventice, and has received research funding from Abbott, Biosense Webster, Boston Scientific, and GE Healthcare. Dr. Tung has been a speaker on behalf of Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Biosense Webster. Dr. Chinitz has received fees and fellowship support from Medtronic, and has also received fees from Abbott, Biosense Webster, Biotronik, and Pfizer.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Piccini JP et al. Heart Rhythm 2020, Abstract D-LBCT04-01.

A leadless right-ventricular pacemaker continued to show an edge over conventional transvenous pacemakers by triggering a substantially reduced rate of complications during the 6 months following placement in a review of more than 10,000 Medicare patients treated over 2 years.

The “largest leadless pacemaker cohort to date” showed that in propensity score–matched cohorts, the 3,276 patients who received the Micra leadless transcatheter pacemaker during routine management and were followed for 6 months had a 3.3% rate of total complications, compared with a 9.4% rate among 7,256 patients who received a conventional VVI pacemaker with a transvenous lead, a statistically significant 66% relative risk reduction, Jonathan P. Piccini, MD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the Heart Rhythm Society, held online because of COVID-19.

The 66% reduced rate of complications – both acutely and with further follow-up – was similar to the complication reductions seen with Micra, compared with historical controls who received transvenous single-chamber pacemakers in both the pivotal study for the device (Heart Rhythm. 2017 May 1;14[3]:702-9) and in a postapproval registry study (Heart Rhythm. 2018 Dec 1;15[12]:1800-7). However, the newly reported advantage came in a population that was notably older and had significantly more comorbidities than in the prior leadless pacemaker studies, said Dr. Piccini, a cardiac electrophysiologist at Duke University, Durham, N.C.

The new Medicare data “tell us that physicians are reaching for these devices [leadless pacemakers] in patients with more comorbidities and a higher risk for complications to give them a [device with] better safety profile,” he said during a press briefing. “At Duke, and I suspect at other centers, when a patients is eligible for a leadless pacemaker that’s the preferred option.”

However, Dr. Piccini cited three examples of the small proportion of patients who are appropriate for the type of pacing the leadless pacemaker supplies but would be better candidates for a device with a transvenous lead: patients who failed treatment with a initial leadless pacemaker and have no suitable alternative subcutaneous spot to place the replacement device in a stable way, those with severe right ventricular enlargement that interferes with optimal placement, and those who don’t currently meet criteria for biventricular pacing but appear likely to switch to that pacing mode in the near term.

The 66% relative reduction in complications was “impressive; I hope this will be a message,” commented Nassir F. Marrouche, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist and professor of medicine at Tulane University, New Orleans. Importantly, this reduced complication rate occurred in a real-world population that was sicker than any patient group previously studied with the device, he noted as a designated discussant for the report.

But the report’s second designated discussant, Roderick Tung, MD, highlighted some caveats when interpreting the lower complication rate with the leadless device compared with historical controls. He cited the absence of any episodes of pneumothorax among the patients reviewed by Dr. Piccini who received a leadless pacemaker, compared with a 5% rate among the control patients who had received a device with a transvenous lead, a major driver of the overall difference in complication rates. This difference “may not be relevant to operators who use either an axillary extrathoracic vein route for lead placement or a cephalic vein approach,” said Dr. Tung, director of cardiac electrophysiology at the University of Chicago. “There should not be a 5% rate of pneumothorax when implanting a VVI device.” The results reported by Dr. Piccini have the advantages of coming from many patients and from real-world practice, he acknowledged, but interpretation is limited by the lack of a randomized control group and the outsized impact of pneumothorax complications on the safety comparison.

The other major component of the 6-month complication tally was device-related events, which were twice as common in the historical controls who received a transvenous lead at a rate of 3.4%. The sole 6-month event more common among the patients who received a leadless pacemaker was pericarditis, at a rate of 1.3% in the Micra group and 0.5% in the transvenous lead controls, Dr. Piccini reported. The 6-month rate of device revisions was 1.7% with the leadless device and 2.8% with transvenous lead pacemakers, a difference that was not statistically significant. The two treatment arms had virtually identical 6-month mortality rates.

The rate of acute complications during the first 30 days after implant was also virtually the same in the two study arms. Patient who received the leadless device had significantly more puncture-site events, at a rate of 1.2%, and significantly more cardiac effusions or perforations, at a rate of 0.8%. The historical control patients who received devices with transvenous leads had significantly more device-related complications after 30 days, a 2.5% rate.

The 30-day cohorts examined had larger numbers of patients than at 6 months, 5,746 leadless pacemaker recipients and 9,662 matched historical controls who had received a transvenous lead pacemaker. The clinical and demographic profile of the 30-day cohort who received the leadless pacemaker highlighted the sicker nature of these patients compared with earlier studies of the device. They were an average age of 79 years, compared with average ages of 76 years in the two prior Micra studies, and they also had double the prevalence of coronary disease, triple the prevalence of heart failure, more than twice the rate of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and almost twice the prevalence of diabetes.

During the period examined in this report from Micra CED (Longitudinal Coverage With Evidence Development Study on Micra Leadless Pacemakers), in 2017-2018, the leadless pacemaker’s initial approved indications were for a circumscribed portion of the overall patient population that needs pacing. Essentially, they were elderly patients with persistent atrial fibrillation who only need ventricular pacing, roughly 15% of the overall cohort of pacing candidates. In January 2020, the FDA added an indication for high-grade atrioventricular block, an expanded population of candidates that roughly tripled the number of potentially appropriate recipients, said Larry A. Chinitz, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist and a coinvestigator on some of the studies that led to the new indication, in an interview at the time of the revised labeling.

The study was sponsored by Medtronic, which markets the Micra leadless pacemaker. Dr. Piccini has received honoraria from Medtronic and several other companies. Dr. Marrouche has been a consultant to Medtronic as well as to Biosense Webster, Biotronik, Cardiac Design, and Preventice, and has received research funding from Abbott, Biosense Webster, Boston Scientific, and GE Healthcare. Dr. Tung has been a speaker on behalf of Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Biosense Webster. Dr. Chinitz has received fees and fellowship support from Medtronic, and has also received fees from Abbott, Biosense Webster, Biotronik, and Pfizer.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Piccini JP et al. Heart Rhythm 2020, Abstract D-LBCT04-01.

A leadless right-ventricular pacemaker continued to show an edge over conventional transvenous pacemakers by triggering a substantially reduced rate of complications during the 6 months following placement in a review of more than 10,000 Medicare patients treated over 2 years.

The “largest leadless pacemaker cohort to date” showed that in propensity score–matched cohorts, the 3,276 patients who received the Micra leadless transcatheter pacemaker during routine management and were followed for 6 months had a 3.3% rate of total complications, compared with a 9.4% rate among 7,256 patients who received a conventional VVI pacemaker with a transvenous lead, a statistically significant 66% relative risk reduction, Jonathan P. Piccini, MD, said at the annual scientific sessions of the Heart Rhythm Society, held online because of COVID-19.

The 66% reduced rate of complications – both acutely and with further follow-up – was similar to the complication reductions seen with Micra, compared with historical controls who received transvenous single-chamber pacemakers in both the pivotal study for the device (Heart Rhythm. 2017 May 1;14[3]:702-9) and in a postapproval registry study (Heart Rhythm. 2018 Dec 1;15[12]:1800-7). However, the newly reported advantage came in a population that was notably older and had significantly more comorbidities than in the prior leadless pacemaker studies, said Dr. Piccini, a cardiac electrophysiologist at Duke University, Durham, N.C.

The new Medicare data “tell us that physicians are reaching for these devices [leadless pacemakers] in patients with more comorbidities and a higher risk for complications to give them a [device with] better safety profile,” he said during a press briefing. “At Duke, and I suspect at other centers, when a patients is eligible for a leadless pacemaker that’s the preferred option.”

However, Dr. Piccini cited three examples of the small proportion of patients who are appropriate for the type of pacing the leadless pacemaker supplies but would be better candidates for a device with a transvenous lead: patients who failed treatment with a initial leadless pacemaker and have no suitable alternative subcutaneous spot to place the replacement device in a stable way, those with severe right ventricular enlargement that interferes with optimal placement, and those who don’t currently meet criteria for biventricular pacing but appear likely to switch to that pacing mode in the near term.

The 66% relative reduction in complications was “impressive; I hope this will be a message,” commented Nassir F. Marrouche, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist and professor of medicine at Tulane University, New Orleans. Importantly, this reduced complication rate occurred in a real-world population that was sicker than any patient group previously studied with the device, he noted as a designated discussant for the report.

But the report’s second designated discussant, Roderick Tung, MD, highlighted some caveats when interpreting the lower complication rate with the leadless device compared with historical controls. He cited the absence of any episodes of pneumothorax among the patients reviewed by Dr. Piccini who received a leadless pacemaker, compared with a 5% rate among the control patients who had received a device with a transvenous lead, a major driver of the overall difference in complication rates. This difference “may not be relevant to operators who use either an axillary extrathoracic vein route for lead placement or a cephalic vein approach,” said Dr. Tung, director of cardiac electrophysiology at the University of Chicago. “There should not be a 5% rate of pneumothorax when implanting a VVI device.” The results reported by Dr. Piccini have the advantages of coming from many patients and from real-world practice, he acknowledged, but interpretation is limited by the lack of a randomized control group and the outsized impact of pneumothorax complications on the safety comparison.

The other major component of the 6-month complication tally was device-related events, which were twice as common in the historical controls who received a transvenous lead at a rate of 3.4%. The sole 6-month event more common among the patients who received a leadless pacemaker was pericarditis, at a rate of 1.3% in the Micra group and 0.5% in the transvenous lead controls, Dr. Piccini reported. The 6-month rate of device revisions was 1.7% with the leadless device and 2.8% with transvenous lead pacemakers, a difference that was not statistically significant. The two treatment arms had virtually identical 6-month mortality rates.

The rate of acute complications during the first 30 days after implant was also virtually the same in the two study arms. Patient who received the leadless device had significantly more puncture-site events, at a rate of 1.2%, and significantly more cardiac effusions or perforations, at a rate of 0.8%. The historical control patients who received devices with transvenous leads had significantly more device-related complications after 30 days, a 2.5% rate.

The 30-day cohorts examined had larger numbers of patients than at 6 months, 5,746 leadless pacemaker recipients and 9,662 matched historical controls who had received a transvenous lead pacemaker. The clinical and demographic profile of the 30-day cohort who received the leadless pacemaker highlighted the sicker nature of these patients compared with earlier studies of the device. They were an average age of 79 years, compared with average ages of 76 years in the two prior Micra studies, and they also had double the prevalence of coronary disease, triple the prevalence of heart failure, more than twice the rate of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and almost twice the prevalence of diabetes.

During the period examined in this report from Micra CED (Longitudinal Coverage With Evidence Development Study on Micra Leadless Pacemakers), in 2017-2018, the leadless pacemaker’s initial approved indications were for a circumscribed portion of the overall patient population that needs pacing. Essentially, they were elderly patients with persistent atrial fibrillation who only need ventricular pacing, roughly 15% of the overall cohort of pacing candidates. In January 2020, the FDA added an indication for high-grade atrioventricular block, an expanded population of candidates that roughly tripled the number of potentially appropriate recipients, said Larry A. Chinitz, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist and a coinvestigator on some of the studies that led to the new indication, in an interview at the time of the revised labeling.

The study was sponsored by Medtronic, which markets the Micra leadless pacemaker. Dr. Piccini has received honoraria from Medtronic and several other companies. Dr. Marrouche has been a consultant to Medtronic as well as to Biosense Webster, Biotronik, Cardiac Design, and Preventice, and has received research funding from Abbott, Biosense Webster, Boston Scientific, and GE Healthcare. Dr. Tung has been a speaker on behalf of Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Biosense Webster. Dr. Chinitz has received fees and fellowship support from Medtronic, and has also received fees from Abbott, Biosense Webster, Biotronik, and Pfizer.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Piccini JP et al. Heart Rhythm 2020, Abstract D-LBCT04-01.

Children and young adults in all age groups can develop severe illness after SARS-CoV-2 infection, but the oldest and youngest appear most likely to be hospitalized and possibly critically ill, based on data from a retrospective cohort study of 177 pediatric patients seen at a single center.

“Although children and young adults clearly are susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection, attention has focused primarily on their potential role in influencing spread and community transmission rather than the potential severity of infection in children and young adults themselves,” wrote Roberta L. DeBiasi, MD, chief of the division of pediatric infectious diseases at Children’s National Hospital, Washington, and colleagues.

In a study published in the Journal of Pediatrics, the researchers reviewed data from 44 hospitalized and 133 non-hospitalized children and young adults infected with SARS-CoV-2. Of the 44 hospitalized patients, 35 were noncritically ill and 9 were critically ill. The study population ranged from 0.1-34 years of age, with a median of 10 years, which was similar between hospitalized and nonhospitalized patients. However, the median age of critically ill patients was significantly higher, compared with noncritically ill patients (17 years vs. 4 years). All age groups were represented in all cohorts. “However, we noted a bimodal distribution of patients less than 1 year of age and patients greater than 15 years of age representing the largest proportion of patients within the SARS-CoV-2–infected hospitalized and critically ill cohorts,” the researchers noted. Children less than 1 year and adolescents/young adults over 15 years each represented 32% of the 44 hospitalized patients.

Overall, 39% of the 177 patients had underlying medical conditions, the most frequent of which was asthma (20%), which was not significantly more common between hospitalized/nonhospitalized patients or critically ill/noncritically ill patients. Patients also presented with neurologic conditions (6%), diabetes (3%), obesity (2%), cardiac conditions (3%), hematologic conditions (3%) and oncologic conditions (1%). Underlying conditions occurred more commonly in the hospitalized cohort (63%) than in the nonhospitalized cohort (32%).

Neurologic disorders, cardiac conditions, hematologic conditions, and oncologic conditions were significantly more common in hospitalized patients, but not significantly more common among those critically ill versus noncritically ill.

About 76% of the patients presented with respiratory symptoms including rhinorrhea, congestion, sore throat, cough, or shortness of breath – with or without fever; 66% had fevers; and 48% had both respiratory symptoms and fever. Shortness of breath was significantly more common among hospitalized patients versus nonhospitalized patients (26% vs. 12%), but less severe respiratory symptoms were significantly more common among nonhospitalized patients, the researchers noted.

Other symptoms – such as diarrhea, vomiting, chest pain, and loss of sense or smell occurred in a small percentage of patients – but were not more likely to occur in any of the cohorts.

Among the critically ill patients, eight of nine needed some level of respiratory support, and four were on ventilators.

“One patient had features consistent with the recently emerged Kawasaki disease–like presentation with hyperinflammatory state, hypotension, and profound myocardial depression,” Dr. DiBiasi and associates noted.

The researchers found coinfection with routine coronavirus, respiratory syncytial virus, or rhinovirus/enterovirus in 4 of 63 (6%) patients, but the clinical impact of these coinfections are unclear.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the retrospective design and the ongoing transmission of COVID-19 in the Washington area, the researchers noted. “One potential bias of this study is our regional role in providing critical care for young adults age 21-35 years with COVID-19.” In addition, “we plan to address the role of race and ethnicity after validation of current administrative data and have elected to defer this analysis until completed.”

“Our findings highlight the potential for severe disease in this age group and inform other regions to anticipate and prepare their COVID-19 response to include a significant burden of hospitalized and critically ill children and young adults. As SARS-CoV-2 spreads within the United States, regional differences may be apparent based on virus and host factors that are yet to be identified,” Dr. DeBiasi and colleagues concluded.

Robin Steinhorn, MD, serves as an associate editor for the Journal of Pediatrics. The other researchers declared no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: DeBiasi RL et al. J Pediatr. 2020 May 6. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2020.05.007.

This article was updated 5/19/20.

Children and young adults in all age groups can develop severe illness after SARS-CoV-2 infection, but the oldest and youngest appear most likely to be hospitalized and possibly critically ill, based on data from a retrospective cohort study of 177 pediatric patients seen at a single center.

“Although children and young adults clearly are susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection, attention has focused primarily on their potential role in influencing spread and community transmission rather than the potential severity of infection in children and young adults themselves,” wrote Roberta L. DeBiasi, MD, chief of the division of pediatric infectious diseases at Children’s National Hospital, Washington, and colleagues.

In a study published in the Journal of Pediatrics, the researchers reviewed data from 44 hospitalized and 133 non-hospitalized children and young adults infected with SARS-CoV-2. Of the 44 hospitalized patients, 35 were noncritically ill and 9 were critically ill. The study population ranged from 0.1-34 years of age, with a median of 10 years, which was similar between hospitalized and nonhospitalized patients. However, the median age of critically ill patients was significantly higher, compared with noncritically ill patients (17 years vs. 4 years). All age groups were represented in all cohorts. “However, we noted a bimodal distribution of patients less than 1 year of age and patients greater than 15 years of age representing the largest proportion of patients within the SARS-CoV-2–infected hospitalized and critically ill cohorts,” the researchers noted. Children less than 1 year and adolescents/young adults over 15 years each represented 32% of the 44 hospitalized patients.

Overall, 39% of the 177 patients had underlying medical conditions, the most frequent of which was asthma (20%), which was not significantly more common between hospitalized/nonhospitalized patients or critically ill/noncritically ill patients. Patients also presented with neurologic conditions (6%), diabetes (3%), obesity (2%), cardiac conditions (3%), hematologic conditions (3%) and oncologic conditions (1%). Underlying conditions occurred more commonly in the hospitalized cohort (63%) than in the nonhospitalized cohort (32%).

Neurologic disorders, cardiac conditions, hematologic conditions, and oncologic conditions were significantly more common in hospitalized patients, but not significantly more common among those critically ill versus noncritically ill.

About 76% of the patients presented with respiratory symptoms including rhinorrhea, congestion, sore throat, cough, or shortness of breath – with or without fever; 66% had fevers; and 48% had both respiratory symptoms and fever. Shortness of breath was significantly more common among hospitalized patients versus nonhospitalized patients (26% vs. 12%), but less severe respiratory symptoms were significantly more common among nonhospitalized patients, the researchers noted.

Other symptoms – such as diarrhea, vomiting, chest pain, and loss of sense or smell occurred in a small percentage of patients – but were not more likely to occur in any of the cohorts.

Among the critically ill patients, eight of nine needed some level of respiratory support, and four were on ventilators.

“One patient had features consistent with the recently emerged Kawasaki disease–like presentation with hyperinflammatory state, hypotension, and profound myocardial depression,” Dr. DiBiasi and associates noted.

The researchers found coinfection with routine coronavirus, respiratory syncytial virus, or rhinovirus/enterovirus in 4 of 63 (6%) patients, but the clinical impact of these coinfections are unclear.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the retrospective design and the ongoing transmission of COVID-19 in the Washington area, the researchers noted. “One potential bias of this study is our regional role in providing critical care for young adults age 21-35 years with COVID-19.” In addition, “we plan to address the role of race and ethnicity after validation of current administrative data and have elected to defer this analysis until completed.”

“Our findings highlight the potential for severe disease in this age group and inform other regions to anticipate and prepare their COVID-19 response to include a significant burden of hospitalized and critically ill children and young adults. As SARS-CoV-2 spreads within the United States, regional differences may be apparent based on virus and host factors that are yet to be identified,” Dr. DeBiasi and colleagues concluded.

Robin Steinhorn, MD, serves as an associate editor for the Journal of Pediatrics. The other researchers declared no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: DeBiasi RL et al. J Pediatr. 2020 May 6. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2020.05.007.

This article was updated 5/19/20.

Children and young adults in all age groups can develop severe illness after SARS-CoV-2 infection, but the oldest and youngest appear most likely to be hospitalized and possibly critically ill, based on data from a retrospective cohort study of 177 pediatric patients seen at a single center.

“Although children and young adults clearly are susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection, attention has focused primarily on their potential role in influencing spread and community transmission rather than the potential severity of infection in children and young adults themselves,” wrote Roberta L. DeBiasi, MD, chief of the division of pediatric infectious diseases at Children’s National Hospital, Washington, and colleagues.

In a study published in the Journal of Pediatrics, the researchers reviewed data from 44 hospitalized and 133 non-hospitalized children and young adults infected with SARS-CoV-2. Of the 44 hospitalized patients, 35 were noncritically ill and 9 were critically ill. The study population ranged from 0.1-34 years of age, with a median of 10 years, which was similar between hospitalized and nonhospitalized patients. However, the median age of critically ill patients was significantly higher, compared with noncritically ill patients (17 years vs. 4 years). All age groups were represented in all cohorts. “However, we noted a bimodal distribution of patients less than 1 year of age and patients greater than 15 years of age representing the largest proportion of patients within the SARS-CoV-2–infected hospitalized and critically ill cohorts,” the researchers noted. Children less than 1 year and adolescents/young adults over 15 years each represented 32% of the 44 hospitalized patients.

Overall, 39% of the 177 patients had underlying medical conditions, the most frequent of which was asthma (20%), which was not significantly more common between hospitalized/nonhospitalized patients or critically ill/noncritically ill patients. Patients also presented with neurologic conditions (6%), diabetes (3%), obesity (2%), cardiac conditions (3%), hematologic conditions (3%) and oncologic conditions (1%). Underlying conditions occurred more commonly in the hospitalized cohort (63%) than in the nonhospitalized cohort (32%).

Neurologic disorders, cardiac conditions, hematologic conditions, and oncologic conditions were significantly more common in hospitalized patients, but not significantly more common among those critically ill versus noncritically ill.

About 76% of the patients presented with respiratory symptoms including rhinorrhea, congestion, sore throat, cough, or shortness of breath – with or without fever; 66% had fevers; and 48% had both respiratory symptoms and fever. Shortness of breath was significantly more common among hospitalized patients versus nonhospitalized patients (26% vs. 12%), but less severe respiratory symptoms were significantly more common among nonhospitalized patients, the researchers noted.

Other symptoms – such as diarrhea, vomiting, chest pain, and loss of sense or smell occurred in a small percentage of patients – but were not more likely to occur in any of the cohorts.

Among the critically ill patients, eight of nine needed some level of respiratory support, and four were on ventilators.

“One patient had features consistent with the recently emerged Kawasaki disease–like presentation with hyperinflammatory state, hypotension, and profound myocardial depression,” Dr. DiBiasi and associates noted.

The researchers found coinfection with routine coronavirus, respiratory syncytial virus, or rhinovirus/enterovirus in 4 of 63 (6%) patients, but the clinical impact of these coinfections are unclear.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the retrospective design and the ongoing transmission of COVID-19 in the Washington area, the researchers noted. “One potential bias of this study is our regional role in providing critical care for young adults age 21-35 years with COVID-19.” In addition, “we plan to address the role of race and ethnicity after validation of current administrative data and have elected to defer this analysis until completed.”

“Our findings highlight the potential for severe disease in this age group and inform other regions to anticipate and prepare their COVID-19 response to include a significant burden of hospitalized and critically ill children and young adults. As SARS-CoV-2 spreads within the United States, regional differences may be apparent based on virus and host factors that are yet to be identified,” Dr. DeBiasi and colleagues concluded.

Robin Steinhorn, MD, serves as an associate editor for the Journal of Pediatrics. The other researchers declared no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: DeBiasi RL et al. J Pediatr. 2020 May 6. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2020.05.007.

This article was updated 5/19/20.

It is time to broaden the definition of osteoporosis used in clinical guidelines, states an article published in Age and Ageing, the official journal of the British Geriatrics Society.

The authors recommend that the World Health Organization and the International Society for Clinical Densitometry consider a broader definition of osteoporosis, which encompasses clinical diagnosis, providing clear guidance on communicating bone mineral density (BMD) results to patients.

The WHO definition of osteoporosis, which is endorsed as a diagnostic threshold in current U.K. and European guidance, still relies purely on BMD testing (T score of −2.5 SD or more). The authors say this definition no longer relates to the population for whom osteoporosis drugs are recommended.

In the past 15 years, they write, there has been a change in the field of osteoporosis, namely to base osteoporosis management not just on absolute values of BMD but also on broader consideration of future fracture risk. This change has been underpinned by observations that the majority of patients with a fragility fracture do not have osteoporotic BMD.

Coauthor Zoe Paskins, MBChB, a senior lecturer at Keele (England) University and clinical lead for the osteoporosis service in North Staffordshire, argues that many people with osteoporosis do not receive the treatment they need because of inconsistencies in how the condition is diagnosed around the world, resulting in confusion for both clinicians and patients.

“We think it is time for the WHO to reconsider the definition of osteoporosis, which is now more than 25 years old. A new definition is needed to acknowledge that it is possible, in some circumstances, to give a clinical diagnosis of osteoporosis in those who have osteoporotic fractures. In our view, this would help address current confusion and improve uptake of treatments,” she said.

This article first appeared on Univadis.

It is time to broaden the definition of osteoporosis used in clinical guidelines, states an article published in Age and Ageing, the official journal of the British Geriatrics Society.

The authors recommend that the World Health Organization and the International Society for Clinical Densitometry consider a broader definition of osteoporosis, which encompasses clinical diagnosis, providing clear guidance on communicating bone mineral density (BMD) results to patients.

The WHO definition of osteoporosis, which is endorsed as a diagnostic threshold in current U.K. and European guidance, still relies purely on BMD testing (T score of −2.5 SD or more). The authors say this definition no longer relates to the population for whom osteoporosis drugs are recommended.

In the past 15 years, they write, there has been a change in the field of osteoporosis, namely to base osteoporosis management not just on absolute values of BMD but also on broader consideration of future fracture risk. This change has been underpinned by observations that the majority of patients with a fragility fracture do not have osteoporotic BMD.

Coauthor Zoe Paskins, MBChB, a senior lecturer at Keele (England) University and clinical lead for the osteoporosis service in North Staffordshire, argues that many people with osteoporosis do not receive the treatment they need because of inconsistencies in how the condition is diagnosed around the world, resulting in confusion for both clinicians and patients.

“We think it is time for the WHO to reconsider the definition of osteoporosis, which is now more than 25 years old. A new definition is needed to acknowledge that it is possible, in some circumstances, to give a clinical diagnosis of osteoporosis in those who have osteoporotic fractures. In our view, this would help address current confusion and improve uptake of treatments,” she said.

This article first appeared on Univadis.

It is time to broaden the definition of osteoporosis used in clinical guidelines, states an article published in Age and Ageing, the official journal of the British Geriatrics Society.

The authors recommend that the World Health Organization and the International Society for Clinical Densitometry consider a broader definition of osteoporosis, which encompasses clinical diagnosis, providing clear guidance on communicating bone mineral density (BMD) results to patients.

The WHO definition of osteoporosis, which is endorsed as a diagnostic threshold in current U.K. and European guidance, still relies purely on BMD testing (T score of −2.5 SD or more). The authors say this definition no longer relates to the population for whom osteoporosis drugs are recommended.

In the past 15 years, they write, there has been a change in the field of osteoporosis, namely to base osteoporosis management not just on absolute values of BMD but also on broader consideration of future fracture risk. This change has been underpinned by observations that the majority of patients with a fragility fracture do not have osteoporotic BMD.

Coauthor Zoe Paskins, MBChB, a senior lecturer at Keele (England) University and clinical lead for the osteoporosis service in North Staffordshire, argues that many people with osteoporosis do not receive the treatment they need because of inconsistencies in how the condition is diagnosed around the world, resulting in confusion for both clinicians and patients.

“We think it is time for the WHO to reconsider the definition of osteoporosis, which is now more than 25 years old. A new definition is needed to acknowledge that it is possible, in some circumstances, to give a clinical diagnosis of osteoporosis in those who have osteoporotic fractures. In our view, this would help address current confusion and improve uptake of treatments,” she said.

This article first appeared on Univadis.