Molar pregnancy is an uncommon but serious condition that affects young women of reproductive age. The diagnosis and management of molar pregnancy is familiar to most gynecologists. However, in the days and weeks following evacuation of molar pregnancy, clinicians face a critical time period in which they must be vigilant for the development of postmolar gestational trophoblastic neoplasia (GTN). If recognized early and treated appropriately, it almost always can be cured; however, errors or delays in the management of this condition can have catastrophic consequences for patients, including decreasing the likelihood of cure. Here we will review some of the steps and actions that can be taken immediately following the diagnosis of a molar pregnancy to expeditiously identify postmolar GTN and ensure patients are appropriately prepared for further consultation and intervention.

Postmolar GTN includes the diagnoses of invasive mole and choriocarcinoma that contain highly atypical trophoblasts with the capacity for local invasion and metastasis. Typically, the diagnosis is made clinically and not distinguished with histology. While molar pregnancies are a benign condition, invasive moles and choriocarcinoma are malignant conditions in which the molar tissue infiltrates the uterine myometrium, vasculature, and frequently is associated with hematogenous spread with distant metastases. It is a highly chemosensitive disease, and cure with chemotherapy typically is achieved with the ability to preserve fertility if desired even in advanced stage disease.¹

After evacuation of a molar pregnancy, gynecologists should be on alert for the development of postmolar GTN if the following known risk factors are present: a history of a prior GTN diagnosis, complete mole on pathology (as opposed to partial mole), serum human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) levels greater than 100,000 mIU/mL, age greater than 40 years, an enlarged uterus or large ovarian theca lutein cysts, and slow to normalize (more than 2 months) hCG. Symptoms for the development of postmolar GTN include persistent vaginal bleeding after evacuation, a persistently enlarged or enlarging uterine size, and adnexal masses. Ultimately, the diagnosis is made through plateaued or rising serum hCG assessments.² (See graphic.)

Following the evacuation of a molar pregnancy, hCG levels should be drawn at the same laboratory every 1-2 weeks until normalization and then three consecutive normal values. Once this has been achieved, hCG levels should be tested once at 3 months and again at 6 months. During this 6 month period, patients should use reliable contraception, ideally, and through oral contraceptive pills that suppress the secretion of pituitary hCG if not contraindicated. Should a woman become pregnant during this 6-month surveillance, it becomes impossible to rule out occult postmolar GTN.

Typically after evacuation of a molar pregnancy, there is rapid fall in hCG levels, but this does not occur when the molar pregnancy has become invasive or is associated with choriocarcinoma. In these cases, after an initial drop in hCG levels, there is an observed rise or plateau in levels (as defined in the accompanying table), and this establishes the diagnosis of postmolar GTN. It is common for hCG to fall in fits and starts, rather than have a smooth, consistent diminution, and this can be worrying for gynecologists; however, provided there is a consistent reduction in values in accordance with the stated definitions, observation can continue.

Another source of confusion and concern is an HCG level that fails to completely normalize during observation, yet reaches a very low level. If this is observed, clinicians should consider the diagnosis of quiescent hCG, pituitary hCG, or phantom hCG.³ These can be difficult to distinguish from postmolar GTN, and consultation with a gynecologic oncologist with experience in the diagnosis and management of these rare tumors is helpful to determine if the persistent low levels in hCG require intervention.

Once a clinician has observed a plateau or rise in hCG levels, a gynecologic examination should be performed because the lower genital tract is a common site for metastatic postmolar GTN. If during this evaluation, a suspicious lesion is identified (typically a blue-black, slightly raised, hemorrhagic-appearing lesion), it should not be biopsied, but rather assumed to be a metastatic site. The vasculature of metastatic sites is extremely fragile, and biopsy or disruption can result in catastrophic hemorrhage, even from very small lesions.

In addition to physical examination, several diagnostic studies should be performed which may expedite the triage and management of the case. A pelvic ultrasound should evaluate the endometrial cavity for a new viable pregnancy, and residual molar tissue; sometimes, myometrial invasion consistent with an invasive mole can be appreciated. Chest x-ray or CT scan should be ordered to evaluate for pulmonary metastatic lesions. Additionally, CT scans of the abdomen and pelvis should be ordered, and if lung metastases are present, brain imaging with either MRI or CT scan also should be obtained. These imaging studies will provide the necessary information to stage the GTN (as metastatic or not).

Treatment for postmolar GTN is determined based on further prognostic categorization (“high risk” or “low risk”) in accordance with the WHO classification, which is derived using several prognostic clinical variables including age, antecedent pregnancy, interval from index pregnancy, pretreatment hCG, largest tumor size, sites and number of metastases, and response to previous chemotherapy.⁴ These assignments are necessary to determine whether single-agent or multiagent chemotherapy should be prescribed.

Laboratory studies are helpful to obtain at this time and include metabolic panels (which can ensure that renal and hepatic function are within normal limits in anticipation of future chemotherapy), and complete blood count ,which can establish viable bone marrow function prior to chemotherapy.

Once postmolar GTN has been diagnosed, it is most appropriate to refer the patient to a gynecologic oncologist with experience in the treatment of these relatively rare malignancies. At that point, the patient will be formally staged, and offered treatment based on these staging results.

Among women with low-risk, nonmetastatic GTN who desire future fertility it is appropriate to offer a repeat dilation and curettage (D&C) procedure rather than immediately proceeding with chemotherapy. Approximately two-thirds of women with low risk disease can avoid chemotherapy with repeat curettage.⁵ Risk factors for needing chemotherapy after repeat D&C include the presence of trophoblastic disease in the pathology specimen and urinary hCG levels greater than 1,500 mIU/mL at the time of curettage. In my experience, many women appreciate this option to potentially avoid toxic chemotherapy.

For women with low-risk, nonmetastatic postmolar GTN who do not desire future fertility, and hope to avoid chemotherapy, hysterectomy also is a reasonable first option. This can be performed via either minimally invasive, laparotomy, or vaginal route. If performing a minimally invasive procedure in the setting of GTN, there should be caution or avoidance of use of a uterine manipulator because the uterine wall typically is soft and prone to perforation, and bleeding can be significant secondary to disruption of the tumor.

If repeat D&C or hysterectomy are adopted instead of chemotherapy, it is important that patients are very closely monitored post operatively to ensure normalization of their hCG levels (as described above). If it fails to normalize, restaging scans and examinations should be performed, and referral for the appropriate chemotherapy regimen should be initiated without delay.

Postmolar GTN is a serious condition that usually can be cured with chemotherapy or, if appropriate, surgery. Gynecologists should be vigilant for the development of postmolar GTN following evacuation of a molar pregnancy, and refer to a gynecologic oncologist when criteria are met to ensure that overtreatment is avoided and essential therapy is ensured.
 

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at obnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Lancet Oncol. 2007 Aug;8(8):715-24.

2. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2019 Nov 1;17(11):1374-91.

3. Gynecol Oncol. 2009 Mar;112(3):663-72.

4. World Health Organ Tech Rep Ser. 1983;692:7-81.

5. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;128(3):535-42.

Molar pregnancy is an uncommon but serious condition that affects young women of reproductive age. The diagnosis and management of molar pregnancy is familiar to most gynecologists. However, in the days and weeks following evacuation of molar pregnancy, clinicians face a critical time period in which they must be vigilant for the development of postmolar gestational trophoblastic neoplasia (GTN). If recognized early and treated appropriately, it almost always can be cured; however, errors or delays in the management of this condition can have catastrophic consequences for patients, including decreasing the likelihood of cure. Here we will review some of the steps and actions that can be taken immediately following the diagnosis of a molar pregnancy to expeditiously identify postmolar GTN and ensure patients are appropriately prepared for further consultation and intervention.

Postmolar GTN includes the diagnoses of invasive mole and choriocarcinoma that contain highly atypical trophoblasts with the capacity for local invasion and metastasis. Typically, the diagnosis is made clinically and not distinguished with histology. While molar pregnancies are a benign condition, invasive moles and choriocarcinoma are malignant conditions in which the molar tissue infiltrates the uterine myometrium, vasculature, and frequently is associated with hematogenous spread with distant metastases. It is a highly chemosensitive disease, and cure with chemotherapy typically is achieved with the ability to preserve fertility if desired even in advanced stage disease.¹

After evacuation of a molar pregnancy, gynecologists should be on alert for the development of postmolar GTN if the following known risk factors are present: a history of a prior GTN diagnosis, complete mole on pathology (as opposed to partial mole), serum human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) levels greater than 100,000 mIU/mL, age greater than 40 years, an enlarged uterus or large ovarian theca lutein cysts, and slow to normalize (more than 2 months) hCG. Symptoms for the development of postmolar GTN include persistent vaginal bleeding after evacuation, a persistently enlarged or enlarging uterine size, and adnexal masses. Ultimately, the diagnosis is made through plateaued or rising serum hCG assessments.² (See graphic.)

Following the evacuation of a molar pregnancy, hCG levels should be drawn at the same laboratory every 1-2 weeks until normalization and then three consecutive normal values. Once this has been achieved, hCG levels should be tested once at 3 months and again at 6 months. During this 6 month period, patients should use reliable contraception, ideally, and through oral contraceptive pills that suppress the secretion of pituitary hCG if not contraindicated. Should a woman become pregnant during this 6-month surveillance, it becomes impossible to rule out occult postmolar GTN.

Typically after evacuation of a molar pregnancy, there is rapid fall in hCG levels, but this does not occur when the molar pregnancy has become invasive or is associated with choriocarcinoma. In these cases, after an initial drop in hCG levels, there is an observed rise or plateau in levels (as defined in the accompanying table), and this establishes the diagnosis of postmolar GTN. It is common for hCG to fall in fits and starts, rather than have a smooth, consistent diminution, and this can be worrying for gynecologists; however, provided there is a consistent reduction in values in accordance with the stated definitions, observation can continue.

Another source of confusion and concern is an HCG level that fails to completely normalize during observation, yet reaches a very low level. If this is observed, clinicians should consider the diagnosis of quiescent hCG, pituitary hCG, or phantom hCG.³ These can be difficult to distinguish from postmolar GTN, and consultation with a gynecologic oncologist with experience in the diagnosis and management of these rare tumors is helpful to determine if the persistent low levels in hCG require intervention.

Once a clinician has observed a plateau or rise in hCG levels, a gynecologic examination should be performed because the lower genital tract is a common site for metastatic postmolar GTN. If during this evaluation, a suspicious lesion is identified (typically a blue-black, slightly raised, hemorrhagic-appearing lesion), it should not be biopsied, but rather assumed to be a metastatic site. The vasculature of metastatic sites is extremely fragile, and biopsy or disruption can result in catastrophic hemorrhage, even from very small lesions.

In addition to physical examination, several diagnostic studies should be performed which may expedite the triage and management of the case. A pelvic ultrasound should evaluate the endometrial cavity for a new viable pregnancy, and residual molar tissue; sometimes, myometrial invasion consistent with an invasive mole can be appreciated. Chest x-ray or CT scan should be ordered to evaluate for pulmonary metastatic lesions. Additionally, CT scans of the abdomen and pelvis should be ordered, and if lung metastases are present, brain imaging with either MRI or CT scan also should be obtained. These imaging studies will provide the necessary information to stage the GTN (as metastatic or not).

Treatment for postmolar GTN is determined based on further prognostic categorization (“high risk” or “low risk”) in accordance with the WHO classification, which is derived using several prognostic clinical variables including age, antecedent pregnancy, interval from index pregnancy, pretreatment hCG, largest tumor size, sites and number of metastases, and response to previous chemotherapy.⁴ These assignments are necessary to determine whether single-agent or multiagent chemotherapy should be prescribed.

Laboratory studies are helpful to obtain at this time and include metabolic panels (which can ensure that renal and hepatic function are within normal limits in anticipation of future chemotherapy), and complete blood count ,which can establish viable bone marrow function prior to chemotherapy.

Once postmolar GTN has been diagnosed, it is most appropriate to refer the patient to a gynecologic oncologist with experience in the treatment of these relatively rare malignancies. At that point, the patient will be formally staged, and offered treatment based on these staging results.

Among women with low-risk, nonmetastatic GTN who desire future fertility it is appropriate to offer a repeat dilation and curettage (D&C) procedure rather than immediately proceeding with chemotherapy. Approximately two-thirds of women with low risk disease can avoid chemotherapy with repeat curettage.⁵ Risk factors for needing chemotherapy after repeat D&C include the presence of trophoblastic disease in the pathology specimen and urinary hCG levels greater than 1,500 mIU/mL at the time of curettage. In my experience, many women appreciate this option to potentially avoid toxic chemotherapy.

For women with low-risk, nonmetastatic postmolar GTN who do not desire future fertility, and hope to avoid chemotherapy, hysterectomy also is a reasonable first option. This can be performed via either minimally invasive, laparotomy, or vaginal route. If performing a minimally invasive procedure in the setting of GTN, there should be caution or avoidance of use of a uterine manipulator because the uterine wall typically is soft and prone to perforation, and bleeding can be significant secondary to disruption of the tumor.

If repeat D&C or hysterectomy are adopted instead of chemotherapy, it is important that patients are very closely monitored post operatively to ensure normalization of their hCG levels (as described above). If it fails to normalize, restaging scans and examinations should be performed, and referral for the appropriate chemotherapy regimen should be initiated without delay.

Postmolar GTN is a serious condition that usually can be cured with chemotherapy or, if appropriate, surgery. Gynecologists should be vigilant for the development of postmolar GTN following evacuation of a molar pregnancy, and refer to a gynecologic oncologist when criteria are met to ensure that overtreatment is avoided and essential therapy is ensured.
 

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at obnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Lancet Oncol. 2007 Aug;8(8):715-24.

2. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2019 Nov 1;17(11):1374-91.

3. Gynecol Oncol. 2009 Mar;112(3):663-72.

4. World Health Organ Tech Rep Ser. 1983;692:7-81.

5. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;128(3):535-42.

Molar pregnancy is an uncommon but serious condition that affects young women of reproductive age. The diagnosis and management of molar pregnancy is familiar to most gynecologists. However, in the days and weeks following evacuation of molar pregnancy, clinicians face a critical time period in which they must be vigilant for the development of postmolar gestational trophoblastic neoplasia (GTN). If recognized early and treated appropriately, it almost always can be cured; however, errors or delays in the management of this condition can have catastrophic consequences for patients, including decreasing the likelihood of cure. Here we will review some of the steps and actions that can be taken immediately following the diagnosis of a molar pregnancy to expeditiously identify postmolar GTN and ensure patients are appropriately prepared for further consultation and intervention.

Postmolar GTN includes the diagnoses of invasive mole and choriocarcinoma that contain highly atypical trophoblasts with the capacity for local invasion and metastasis. Typically, the diagnosis is made clinically and not distinguished with histology. While molar pregnancies are a benign condition, invasive moles and choriocarcinoma are malignant conditions in which the molar tissue infiltrates the uterine myometrium, vasculature, and frequently is associated with hematogenous spread with distant metastases. It is a highly chemosensitive disease, and cure with chemotherapy typically is achieved with the ability to preserve fertility if desired even in advanced stage disease.¹

After evacuation of a molar pregnancy, gynecologists should be on alert for the development of postmolar GTN if the following known risk factors are present: a history of a prior GTN diagnosis, complete mole on pathology (as opposed to partial mole), serum human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) levels greater than 100,000 mIU/mL, age greater than 40 years, an enlarged uterus or large ovarian theca lutein cysts, and slow to normalize (more than 2 months) hCG. Symptoms for the development of postmolar GTN include persistent vaginal bleeding after evacuation, a persistently enlarged or enlarging uterine size, and adnexal masses. Ultimately, the diagnosis is made through plateaued or rising serum hCG assessments.² (See graphic.)

Following the evacuation of a molar pregnancy, hCG levels should be drawn at the same laboratory every 1-2 weeks until normalization and then three consecutive normal values. Once this has been achieved, hCG levels should be tested once at 3 months and again at 6 months. During this 6 month period, patients should use reliable contraception, ideally, and through oral contraceptive pills that suppress the secretion of pituitary hCG if not contraindicated. Should a woman become pregnant during this 6-month surveillance, it becomes impossible to rule out occult postmolar GTN.

Typically after evacuation of a molar pregnancy, there is rapid fall in hCG levels, but this does not occur when the molar pregnancy has become invasive or is associated with choriocarcinoma. In these cases, after an initial drop in hCG levels, there is an observed rise or plateau in levels (as defined in the accompanying table), and this establishes the diagnosis of postmolar GTN. It is common for hCG to fall in fits and starts, rather than have a smooth, consistent diminution, and this can be worrying for gynecologists; however, provided there is a consistent reduction in values in accordance with the stated definitions, observation can continue.

Another source of confusion and concern is an HCG level that fails to completely normalize during observation, yet reaches a very low level. If this is observed, clinicians should consider the diagnosis of quiescent hCG, pituitary hCG, or phantom hCG.³ These can be difficult to distinguish from postmolar GTN, and consultation with a gynecologic oncologist with experience in the diagnosis and management of these rare tumors is helpful to determine if the persistent low levels in hCG require intervention.

Once a clinician has observed a plateau or rise in hCG levels, a gynecologic examination should be performed because the lower genital tract is a common site for metastatic postmolar GTN. If during this evaluation, a suspicious lesion is identified (typically a blue-black, slightly raised, hemorrhagic-appearing lesion), it should not be biopsied, but rather assumed to be a metastatic site. The vasculature of metastatic sites is extremely fragile, and biopsy or disruption can result in catastrophic hemorrhage, even from very small lesions.

In addition to physical examination, several diagnostic studies should be performed which may expedite the triage and management of the case. A pelvic ultrasound should evaluate the endometrial cavity for a new viable pregnancy, and residual molar tissue; sometimes, myometrial invasion consistent with an invasive mole can be appreciated. Chest x-ray or CT scan should be ordered to evaluate for pulmonary metastatic lesions. Additionally, CT scans of the abdomen and pelvis should be ordered, and if lung metastases are present, brain imaging with either MRI or CT scan also should be obtained. These imaging studies will provide the necessary information to stage the GTN (as metastatic or not).

Treatment for postmolar GTN is determined based on further prognostic categorization (“high risk” or “low risk”) in accordance with the WHO classification, which is derived using several prognostic clinical variables including age, antecedent pregnancy, interval from index pregnancy, pretreatment hCG, largest tumor size, sites and number of metastases, and response to previous chemotherapy.⁴ These assignments are necessary to determine whether single-agent or multiagent chemotherapy should be prescribed.

Laboratory studies are helpful to obtain at this time and include metabolic panels (which can ensure that renal and hepatic function are within normal limits in anticipation of future chemotherapy), and complete blood count ,which can establish viable bone marrow function prior to chemotherapy.

Once postmolar GTN has been diagnosed, it is most appropriate to refer the patient to a gynecologic oncologist with experience in the treatment of these relatively rare malignancies. At that point, the patient will be formally staged, and offered treatment based on these staging results.

Among women with low-risk, nonmetastatic GTN who desire future fertility it is appropriate to offer a repeat dilation and curettage (D&C) procedure rather than immediately proceeding with chemotherapy. Approximately two-thirds of women with low risk disease can avoid chemotherapy with repeat curettage.⁵ Risk factors for needing chemotherapy after repeat D&C include the presence of trophoblastic disease in the pathology specimen and urinary hCG levels greater than 1,500 mIU/mL at the time of curettage. In my experience, many women appreciate this option to potentially avoid toxic chemotherapy.

For women with low-risk, nonmetastatic postmolar GTN who do not desire future fertility, and hope to avoid chemotherapy, hysterectomy also is a reasonable first option. This can be performed via either minimally invasive, laparotomy, or vaginal route. If performing a minimally invasive procedure in the setting of GTN, there should be caution or avoidance of use of a uterine manipulator because the uterine wall typically is soft and prone to perforation, and bleeding can be significant secondary to disruption of the tumor.

If repeat D&C or hysterectomy are adopted instead of chemotherapy, it is important that patients are very closely monitored post operatively to ensure normalization of their hCG levels (as described above). If it fails to normalize, restaging scans and examinations should be performed, and referral for the appropriate chemotherapy regimen should be initiated without delay.

Postmolar GTN is a serious condition that usually can be cured with chemotherapy or, if appropriate, surgery. Gynecologists should be vigilant for the development of postmolar GTN following evacuation of a molar pregnancy, and refer to a gynecologic oncologist when criteria are met to ensure that overtreatment is avoided and essential therapy is ensured.
 

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at obnews@mdedge.com.

References

1. Lancet Oncol. 2007 Aug;8(8):715-24.

2. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2019 Nov 1;17(11):1374-91.

3. Gynecol Oncol. 2009 Mar;112(3):663-72.

4. World Health Organ Tech Rep Ser. 1983;692:7-81.

5. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;128(3):535-42.

Concerns abound regarding the workload created by electronic health records (EHRs), but little attention has been paid to the relationship between physicians’ well-being and the volume and sources of in-basket messages they receive.

kokouu/iStockphoto

According to a recent paper in Health Affairs, “in a survey, 36 percent of the physicians reported burnout symptoms, and 29 percent intended to reduce their clinical work time in the upcoming year. Receiving more than the average number of system-generated in-basket messages was associated with 40 percent higher probability of burnout and 38 percent higher probability of intending to reduce clinical work time.”
 

Reference

1. Tai-Seale M, Dillon EC, Yang Y, et al. Physicians’ Well-Being Linked To In-Basket Messages Generated By Algorithms In Electronic Health Records. Health Aff. 2019 Jul. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2018.05509.

Concerns abound regarding the workload created by electronic health records (EHRs), but little attention has been paid to the relationship between physicians’ well-being and the volume and sources of in-basket messages they receive.

kokouu/iStockphoto

According to a recent paper in Health Affairs, “in a survey, 36 percent of the physicians reported burnout symptoms, and 29 percent intended to reduce their clinical work time in the upcoming year. Receiving more than the average number of system-generated in-basket messages was associated with 40 percent higher probability of burnout and 38 percent higher probability of intending to reduce clinical work time.”
 

Reference

1. Tai-Seale M, Dillon EC, Yang Y, et al. Physicians’ Well-Being Linked To In-Basket Messages Generated By Algorithms In Electronic Health Records. Health Aff. 2019 Jul. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2018.05509.

Concerns abound regarding the workload created by electronic health records (EHRs), but little attention has been paid to the relationship between physicians’ well-being and the volume and sources of in-basket messages they receive.

kokouu/iStockphoto

According to a recent paper in Health Affairs, “in a survey, 36 percent of the physicians reported burnout symptoms, and 29 percent intended to reduce their clinical work time in the upcoming year. Receiving more than the average number of system-generated in-basket messages was associated with 40 percent higher probability of burnout and 38 percent higher probability of intending to reduce clinical work time.”
 

Reference

1. Tai-Seale M, Dillon EC, Yang Y, et al. Physicians’ Well-Being Linked To In-Basket Messages Generated By Algorithms In Electronic Health Records. Health Aff. 2019 Jul. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2018.05509.

A group of leading medical journal editors is seeking to improve the completeness and transparency of financial disclosure reporting with a proposed new disclosure form that puts more onus on readers to decide whether relationships and activities should influence how they view published papers.

The proposed changes are described in an editorial published simultaneously today in the Annals of Internal Medicine, British Medical Journal, Journal of the American Medical Association, The Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, and several other journals whose editors are members of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE).

“While no approach to disclosure will be perfect or foolproof, we hope the changes we propose will help promote transparency and trust,” the editorial stated (Ann Intern Med. 2020 Jan 27. doi: 10.7326/M19-3933).

The ICMJE adopted its currently used electronic form – the “ICMJE Form for the Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest” – 10 years ago in an effort to create some uniformity amidst a patchwork of differing disclosure requirements for authors.

It’s not known how many journals outside of the ICMJE’s member journals routinely use the disclosure form, but the organization’s website houses an extensive list of journals whose editors or publishers have requested to be listed as following the ICMJE’s recommendations for editing, reporting, and publishing, including those concerning disclosures. The ICMJE does not “certify” journals. The full set of recommendations was updated in December 2019.

Most authors are committed to transparent reporting, but “opinions differ over which relationships or activities to report,” the editorial stated.

An author might choose to omit an item that others deem important because of a difference in opinion regarding “relevance,” confusion over definitions, or a simple oversight. Some authors may be “concerned that readers will interpret the listing of any item as a ‘potential conflict of interest’ as indicative of problematic influence and wrongdoing,” the editorial stated.

The revised form, like the current one, asks authors to disclose relationships and activities that are directly related to the reported work, as well as those that are topically related (within the broadly defined field addressed in the work). But unlike the current form, the new version provides a checklist of relationships and activities and asks authors to check ‘yes’ or ‘no’ for each one (and to name them when the answer is ‘yes’).

Items in the checklist include grants, payments/honoraria for lectures, patents issued or planned, stock/stock options, and leadership or fiduciary roles in committees, boards, or societies.

The proposed new form makes no mention of “potential conflicts of interest” or “relevancy,” per say. Authors aren’t asked to determine what might be interpreted as a potential conflict of interest, but instead are asked for a “complete listing” of what readers may find “pertinent” to their work.

“We’re trying to move away from calling everything a [potential] ‘conflict,’ ” Darren B. Taichman, MD, PhD, secretary of ICMJE and executive editor of the Annals of Internal Medicine, said in an interview. “We want to remove for authors the concern or stigma, if you will, that anything listed on a form implies that there is something wrong, because that’s just not true. … We want readers to decide what relationships are important as they interpret the work.”

Dr. Taichman said in the interview that the ICMJE’s updating of the form was more a function of “good housekeeping” and continuous appreciation of disclosure as an important issue, rather than any one specific issue, such as concern over a “relevancy” approach to disclosures.

The ICMJE is seeking feedback about its proposed form, which is available with a link for providing comments, at www.icmje.org.

Broader national efforts

Editors and others have been increasingly moving, however, toward asking for more complete disclosures where authors aren’t asked to judge “relevancy” and where readers can make decisions on their own. The American Society of Clinical Oncology, which produces the Journal of Clinical Oncology (JCO) as well as practice guidelines and continuing medical education programs, moved about 5 years ago to a system of general disclosure that asks physicians and others to disclose all financial interests and industry relationships, with no qualifiers.

Earlier in January 2020, the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education issued proposed revisions to its Standards for Integrity and Independence in Accredited Continuing Education. These revisions, which are open for comment, require CME providers to collect disclosure information about all financial relationships of speakers and presenters. It’s up to the CME provider to then determine which relationships are relevant, according to the proposed document.

More change is on the way, as disclosure issues are being deliberated nationally in the wake of a highly publicized disclosure failure at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in 2018. Chief medical officer José Baselga, MD, PhD, failed to report millions of dollars of industry payments and ownership interests in journal articles he wrote or cowrote over several years.

In February 2019, leaders from journals, academia, medical societies, and other institutions gathered in Washington for a closed-door meeting to hash out various disclosure related issues.

Hosted by the Association of American Medical Colleges and cosponsored by Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, ASCO, JAMA, and the Council of Medical Specialty Societies, the meeting led to a series of working groups that are creating additional recommendations “due out soon in 2020,” Heather Pierce, senior director of science policy and regulatory counsel for the AAMC, said in an interview.

Among the questions being discussed: What disclosures should be verified and who should do so? How can disclosures be made more complete and easier for researchers? And, “most importantly,” said Ms. Pierce, how can policy requirements across each of these sectors be aligned so that there’s more coordination and oversight – and with it, public trust?

Some critics of current disclosure policies have called for more reporting of compensation amounts, and Ms. Pierce said that this has been part of cross-sector discussions.

The ICMJE’s proposed form invites, but does not require, authors to indicate what payments were made to them or their institutions. “Part of this is due to the fact that it’s hard to define, let alone agree on, what’s an important amount,” Dr. Taichman said.

A push for registries

The ICMJE is also aiming to make the disclosure process more efficient for authors – and to eliminate inconsistent and incomplete disclosures – by accepting disclosures from web-based repositories, according to the editorial. Repositories allow authors to maintain an inventory of their relationships and activities and then create electronic disclosures that are tailored to the requirements of the ICMJE, medical societies, and other entities.

The AAMC-run repository, called Convey, is consistent with ICMJE reporting requirements and other criteria (e.g., there are no fees for individuals to enter, store, or export their data), but the development of other repositories may be helpful “for meeting regional, linguistic, and regulatory needs” of authors across the world, the editorial stated.

The Annals of Internal Medicine and the New England Journal of Medicine are both currently collecting disclosures through Convey. The platform was born from discussions that followed a 2009 Institute of Medicine report on conflicts of interest.

Signers of the ICMJE editorial include representatives of the National Library of Medicine and the World Association of Medical Editors, in addition to editors in chief and other leaders of the ICMJE member journals.

A group of leading medical journal editors is seeking to improve the completeness and transparency of financial disclosure reporting with a proposed new disclosure form that puts more onus on readers to decide whether relationships and activities should influence how they view published papers.

The proposed changes are described in an editorial published simultaneously today in the Annals of Internal Medicine, British Medical Journal, Journal of the American Medical Association, The Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, and several other journals whose editors are members of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE).

“While no approach to disclosure will be perfect or foolproof, we hope the changes we propose will help promote transparency and trust,” the editorial stated (Ann Intern Med. 2020 Jan 27. doi: 10.7326/M19-3933).

The ICMJE adopted its currently used electronic form – the “ICMJE Form for the Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest” – 10 years ago in an effort to create some uniformity amidst a patchwork of differing disclosure requirements for authors.

It’s not known how many journals outside of the ICMJE’s member journals routinely use the disclosure form, but the organization’s website houses an extensive list of journals whose editors or publishers have requested to be listed as following the ICMJE’s recommendations for editing, reporting, and publishing, including those concerning disclosures. The ICMJE does not “certify” journals. The full set of recommendations was updated in December 2019.

Most authors are committed to transparent reporting, but “opinions differ over which relationships or activities to report,” the editorial stated.

An author might choose to omit an item that others deem important because of a difference in opinion regarding “relevance,” confusion over definitions, or a simple oversight. Some authors may be “concerned that readers will interpret the listing of any item as a ‘potential conflict of interest’ as indicative of problematic influence and wrongdoing,” the editorial stated.

The revised form, like the current one, asks authors to disclose relationships and activities that are directly related to the reported work, as well as those that are topically related (within the broadly defined field addressed in the work). But unlike the current form, the new version provides a checklist of relationships and activities and asks authors to check ‘yes’ or ‘no’ for each one (and to name them when the answer is ‘yes’).

Items in the checklist include grants, payments/honoraria for lectures, patents issued or planned, stock/stock options, and leadership or fiduciary roles in committees, boards, or societies.

The proposed new form makes no mention of “potential conflicts of interest” or “relevancy,” per say. Authors aren’t asked to determine what might be interpreted as a potential conflict of interest, but instead are asked for a “complete listing” of what readers may find “pertinent” to their work.

“We’re trying to move away from calling everything a [potential] ‘conflict,’ ” Darren B. Taichman, MD, PhD, secretary of ICMJE and executive editor of the Annals of Internal Medicine, said in an interview. “We want to remove for authors the concern or stigma, if you will, that anything listed on a form implies that there is something wrong, because that’s just not true. … We want readers to decide what relationships are important as they interpret the work.”

Dr. Taichman said in the interview that the ICMJE’s updating of the form was more a function of “good housekeeping” and continuous appreciation of disclosure as an important issue, rather than any one specific issue, such as concern over a “relevancy” approach to disclosures.

The ICMJE is seeking feedback about its proposed form, which is available with a link for providing comments, at www.icmje.org.

Broader national efforts

Editors and others have been increasingly moving, however, toward asking for more complete disclosures where authors aren’t asked to judge “relevancy” and where readers can make decisions on their own. The American Society of Clinical Oncology, which produces the Journal of Clinical Oncology (JCO) as well as practice guidelines and continuing medical education programs, moved about 5 years ago to a system of general disclosure that asks physicians and others to disclose all financial interests and industry relationships, with no qualifiers.

Earlier in January 2020, the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education issued proposed revisions to its Standards for Integrity and Independence in Accredited Continuing Education. These revisions, which are open for comment, require CME providers to collect disclosure information about all financial relationships of speakers and presenters. It’s up to the CME provider to then determine which relationships are relevant, according to the proposed document.

More change is on the way, as disclosure issues are being deliberated nationally in the wake of a highly publicized disclosure failure at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in 2018. Chief medical officer José Baselga, MD, PhD, failed to report millions of dollars of industry payments and ownership interests in journal articles he wrote or cowrote over several years.

In February 2019, leaders from journals, academia, medical societies, and other institutions gathered in Washington for a closed-door meeting to hash out various disclosure related issues.

Hosted by the Association of American Medical Colleges and cosponsored by Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, ASCO, JAMA, and the Council of Medical Specialty Societies, the meeting led to a series of working groups that are creating additional recommendations “due out soon in 2020,” Heather Pierce, senior director of science policy and regulatory counsel for the AAMC, said in an interview.

Among the questions being discussed: What disclosures should be verified and who should do so? How can disclosures be made more complete and easier for researchers? And, “most importantly,” said Ms. Pierce, how can policy requirements across each of these sectors be aligned so that there’s more coordination and oversight – and with it, public trust?

Some critics of current disclosure policies have called for more reporting of compensation amounts, and Ms. Pierce said that this has been part of cross-sector discussions.

The ICMJE’s proposed form invites, but does not require, authors to indicate what payments were made to them or their institutions. “Part of this is due to the fact that it’s hard to define, let alone agree on, what’s an important amount,” Dr. Taichman said.

A push for registries

The ICMJE is also aiming to make the disclosure process more efficient for authors – and to eliminate inconsistent and incomplete disclosures – by accepting disclosures from web-based repositories, according to the editorial. Repositories allow authors to maintain an inventory of their relationships and activities and then create electronic disclosures that are tailored to the requirements of the ICMJE, medical societies, and other entities.

The AAMC-run repository, called Convey, is consistent with ICMJE reporting requirements and other criteria (e.g., there are no fees for individuals to enter, store, or export their data), but the development of other repositories may be helpful “for meeting regional, linguistic, and regulatory needs” of authors across the world, the editorial stated.

The Annals of Internal Medicine and the New England Journal of Medicine are both currently collecting disclosures through Convey. The platform was born from discussions that followed a 2009 Institute of Medicine report on conflicts of interest.

Signers of the ICMJE editorial include representatives of the National Library of Medicine and the World Association of Medical Editors, in addition to editors in chief and other leaders of the ICMJE member journals.

A group of leading medical journal editors is seeking to improve the completeness and transparency of financial disclosure reporting with a proposed new disclosure form that puts more onus on readers to decide whether relationships and activities should influence how they view published papers.

The proposed changes are described in an editorial published simultaneously today in the Annals of Internal Medicine, British Medical Journal, Journal of the American Medical Association, The Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, and several other journals whose editors are members of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE).

“While no approach to disclosure will be perfect or foolproof, we hope the changes we propose will help promote transparency and trust,” the editorial stated (Ann Intern Med. 2020 Jan 27. doi: 10.7326/M19-3933).

The ICMJE adopted its currently used electronic form – the “ICMJE Form for the Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest” – 10 years ago in an effort to create some uniformity amidst a patchwork of differing disclosure requirements for authors.

It’s not known how many journals outside of the ICMJE’s member journals routinely use the disclosure form, but the organization’s website houses an extensive list of journals whose editors or publishers have requested to be listed as following the ICMJE’s recommendations for editing, reporting, and publishing, including those concerning disclosures. The ICMJE does not “certify” journals. The full set of recommendations was updated in December 2019.

Most authors are committed to transparent reporting, but “opinions differ over which relationships or activities to report,” the editorial stated.

An author might choose to omit an item that others deem important because of a difference in opinion regarding “relevance,” confusion over definitions, or a simple oversight. Some authors may be “concerned that readers will interpret the listing of any item as a ‘potential conflict of interest’ as indicative of problematic influence and wrongdoing,” the editorial stated.

The revised form, like the current one, asks authors to disclose relationships and activities that are directly related to the reported work, as well as those that are topically related (within the broadly defined field addressed in the work). But unlike the current form, the new version provides a checklist of relationships and activities and asks authors to check ‘yes’ or ‘no’ for each one (and to name them when the answer is ‘yes’).

Items in the checklist include grants, payments/honoraria for lectures, patents issued or planned, stock/stock options, and leadership or fiduciary roles in committees, boards, or societies.

The proposed new form makes no mention of “potential conflicts of interest” or “relevancy,” per say. Authors aren’t asked to determine what might be interpreted as a potential conflict of interest, but instead are asked for a “complete listing” of what readers may find “pertinent” to their work.

“We’re trying to move away from calling everything a [potential] ‘conflict,’ ” Darren B. Taichman, MD, PhD, secretary of ICMJE and executive editor of the Annals of Internal Medicine, said in an interview. “We want to remove for authors the concern or stigma, if you will, that anything listed on a form implies that there is something wrong, because that’s just not true. … We want readers to decide what relationships are important as they interpret the work.”

Dr. Taichman said in the interview that the ICMJE’s updating of the form was more a function of “good housekeeping” and continuous appreciation of disclosure as an important issue, rather than any one specific issue, such as concern over a “relevancy” approach to disclosures.

The ICMJE is seeking feedback about its proposed form, which is available with a link for providing comments, at www.icmje.org.

Broader national efforts

Editors and others have been increasingly moving, however, toward asking for more complete disclosures where authors aren’t asked to judge “relevancy” and where readers can make decisions on their own. The American Society of Clinical Oncology, which produces the Journal of Clinical Oncology (JCO) as well as practice guidelines and continuing medical education programs, moved about 5 years ago to a system of general disclosure that asks physicians and others to disclose all financial interests and industry relationships, with no qualifiers.

Earlier in January 2020, the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education issued proposed revisions to its Standards for Integrity and Independence in Accredited Continuing Education. These revisions, which are open for comment, require CME providers to collect disclosure information about all financial relationships of speakers and presenters. It’s up to the CME provider to then determine which relationships are relevant, according to the proposed document.

More change is on the way, as disclosure issues are being deliberated nationally in the wake of a highly publicized disclosure failure at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in 2018. Chief medical officer José Baselga, MD, PhD, failed to report millions of dollars of industry payments and ownership interests in journal articles he wrote or cowrote over several years.

In February 2019, leaders from journals, academia, medical societies, and other institutions gathered in Washington for a closed-door meeting to hash out various disclosure related issues.

Hosted by the Association of American Medical Colleges and cosponsored by Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, ASCO, JAMA, and the Council of Medical Specialty Societies, the meeting led to a series of working groups that are creating additional recommendations “due out soon in 2020,” Heather Pierce, senior director of science policy and regulatory counsel for the AAMC, said in an interview.

Among the questions being discussed: What disclosures should be verified and who should do so? How can disclosures be made more complete and easier for researchers? And, “most importantly,” said Ms. Pierce, how can policy requirements across each of these sectors be aligned so that there’s more coordination and oversight – and with it, public trust?

Some critics of current disclosure policies have called for more reporting of compensation amounts, and Ms. Pierce said that this has been part of cross-sector discussions.

The ICMJE’s proposed form invites, but does not require, authors to indicate what payments were made to them or their institutions. “Part of this is due to the fact that it’s hard to define, let alone agree on, what’s an important amount,” Dr. Taichman said.

A push for registries

The ICMJE is also aiming to make the disclosure process more efficient for authors – and to eliminate inconsistent and incomplete disclosures – by accepting disclosures from web-based repositories, according to the editorial. Repositories allow authors to maintain an inventory of their relationships and activities and then create electronic disclosures that are tailored to the requirements of the ICMJE, medical societies, and other entities.

The AAMC-run repository, called Convey, is consistent with ICMJE reporting requirements and other criteria (e.g., there are no fees for individuals to enter, store, or export their data), but the development of other repositories may be helpful “for meeting regional, linguistic, and regulatory needs” of authors across the world, the editorial stated.

The Annals of Internal Medicine and the New England Journal of Medicine are both currently collecting disclosures through Convey. The platform was born from discussions that followed a 2009 Institute of Medicine report on conflicts of interest.

Signers of the ICMJE editorial include representatives of the National Library of Medicine and the World Association of Medical Editors, in addition to editors in chief and other leaders of the ICMJE member journals.

A Chinese man became ill from a novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) 4 days after arriving in Vietnam to visit his 27-year-old son. Three days later the healthy young man was also stricken, according to a report published online Jan. 28 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“This family cluster of 2019-nCoV infection that occurred outside China arouses concern regarding human-to-human transmission,” the authors wrote.

The father, age 65 years and with multiple comorbidities including hypertension, type 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease with stent placement, and lung cancer, flew to Hanoi with his wife on January 13; they traveled from the Wuchang district in Wuhan, China, where outbreaks of 2019-nCoV have been occurring.

On Jan. 17, the older man and his wife met their adult son in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, and shared a hotel room with him for 3 days. The father developed a fever that same day and the son developed a dry cough, fever, diarrhea, and vomiting on Jan. 20. Both men went to a hospital ED on Jan. 22.

The authors say the timing of the son’s symptoms suggests the incubation period may have been 3 days or fewer.

Upon admission to the hospital, the father reported that he had not visited a “wet market” where live and dead animals are sold while he was in Wuhan. Throat swabs were positive for 2019-nCoV on real-time reverse-transcription–polymerase-chain-reaction assays.

The man was placed in isolation and “treated empirically with antiviral agents, broad-spectrum antibiotics, and supportive therapies,” wrote Lan T. Phan, PhD, from the Pasteur Institute Ho Chi Minh City and coauthors.

On admission, chest radiographs revealed an infiltrate in the upper lobe of his left lung; he developed worsening dyspnea with hypoxemia on Jan. 25 and required supplemental oxygen at 5 L/min by nasal cannula. Chest radiographs showed a progressive infiltrate and consolidation. His fever resolved on that day and he has progressively improved.

The man’s son had a fever of 39° C (102.2° F) when the two men arrived at the hospital on Jan. 22; hospital staff isolated the son, and chest radiographs and other laboratory tests were normal with the exception of an increased C-reactive protein level.

The son’s throat swab was positive for 2019-nCoV and he is believed to have been exposed from his father; however, the strains have not been ascertained.

“This family had traveled to four cities across Vietnam using various forms of transportation, including planes, trains, and taxis,” the authors wrote. A total of 28 close contacts were identified, none of whom have developed respiratory symptoms. The older man’s wife has been healthy as well.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A Chinese man became ill from a novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) 4 days after arriving in Vietnam to visit his 27-year-old son. Three days later the healthy young man was also stricken, according to a report published online Jan. 28 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“This family cluster of 2019-nCoV infection that occurred outside China arouses concern regarding human-to-human transmission,” the authors wrote.

The father, age 65 years and with multiple comorbidities including hypertension, type 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease with stent placement, and lung cancer, flew to Hanoi with his wife on January 13; they traveled from the Wuchang district in Wuhan, China, where outbreaks of 2019-nCoV have been occurring.

On Jan. 17, the older man and his wife met their adult son in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, and shared a hotel room with him for 3 days. The father developed a fever that same day and the son developed a dry cough, fever, diarrhea, and vomiting on Jan. 20. Both men went to a hospital ED on Jan. 22.

The authors say the timing of the son’s symptoms suggests the incubation period may have been 3 days or fewer.

Upon admission to the hospital, the father reported that he had not visited a “wet market” where live and dead animals are sold while he was in Wuhan. Throat swabs were positive for 2019-nCoV on real-time reverse-transcription–polymerase-chain-reaction assays.

The man was placed in isolation and “treated empirically with antiviral agents, broad-spectrum antibiotics, and supportive therapies,” wrote Lan T. Phan, PhD, from the Pasteur Institute Ho Chi Minh City and coauthors.

On admission, chest radiographs revealed an infiltrate in the upper lobe of his left lung; he developed worsening dyspnea with hypoxemia on Jan. 25 and required supplemental oxygen at 5 L/min by nasal cannula. Chest radiographs showed a progressive infiltrate and consolidation. His fever resolved on that day and he has progressively improved.

The man’s son had a fever of 39° C (102.2° F) when the two men arrived at the hospital on Jan. 22; hospital staff isolated the son, and chest radiographs and other laboratory tests were normal with the exception of an increased C-reactive protein level.

The son’s throat swab was positive for 2019-nCoV and he is believed to have been exposed from his father; however, the strains have not been ascertained.

“This family had traveled to four cities across Vietnam using various forms of transportation, including planes, trains, and taxis,” the authors wrote. A total of 28 close contacts were identified, none of whom have developed respiratory symptoms. The older man’s wife has been healthy as well.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A Chinese man became ill from a novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) 4 days after arriving in Vietnam to visit his 27-year-old son. Three days later the healthy young man was also stricken, according to a report published online Jan. 28 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“This family cluster of 2019-nCoV infection that occurred outside China arouses concern regarding human-to-human transmission,” the authors wrote.

The father, age 65 years and with multiple comorbidities including hypertension, type 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease with stent placement, and lung cancer, flew to Hanoi with his wife on January 13; they traveled from the Wuchang district in Wuhan, China, where outbreaks of 2019-nCoV have been occurring.

On Jan. 17, the older man and his wife met their adult son in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, and shared a hotel room with him for 3 days. The father developed a fever that same day and the son developed a dry cough, fever, diarrhea, and vomiting on Jan. 20. Both men went to a hospital ED on Jan. 22.

The authors say the timing of the son’s symptoms suggests the incubation period may have been 3 days or fewer.

Upon admission to the hospital, the father reported that he had not visited a “wet market” where live and dead animals are sold while he was in Wuhan. Throat swabs were positive for 2019-nCoV on real-time reverse-transcription–polymerase-chain-reaction assays.

The man was placed in isolation and “treated empirically with antiviral agents, broad-spectrum antibiotics, and supportive therapies,” wrote Lan T. Phan, PhD, from the Pasteur Institute Ho Chi Minh City and coauthors.

On admission, chest radiographs revealed an infiltrate in the upper lobe of his left lung; he developed worsening dyspnea with hypoxemia on Jan. 25 and required supplemental oxygen at 5 L/min by nasal cannula. Chest radiographs showed a progressive infiltrate and consolidation. His fever resolved on that day and he has progressively improved.

The man’s son had a fever of 39° C (102.2° F) when the two men arrived at the hospital on Jan. 22; hospital staff isolated the son, and chest radiographs and other laboratory tests were normal with the exception of an increased C-reactive protein level.

The son’s throat swab was positive for 2019-nCoV and he is believed to have been exposed from his father; however, the strains have not been ascertained.

“This family had traveled to four cities across Vietnam using various forms of transportation, including planes, trains, and taxis,” the authors wrote. A total of 28 close contacts were identified, none of whom have developed respiratory symptoms. The older man’s wife has been healthy as well.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN FRANCISCO – First-line dual immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy for microsatellite instability–high/DNA mismatch repair–deficient (MSI-H/dMMR) metastatic colorectal cancer has impressive durability, an update of the multicohort CheckMate 142 trial shows.

Susan London/MDedge News

“We all know that MSI-H colorectal cancer patients have a poor prognosis,” said lead investigator Heinz-Josef Lenz, MD, codirector of the Colorectal Center and section head of the GI oncology program at the University of Southern California Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles. First-line chemotherapy in this population yields median overall survival on the order of 20-22 months.

The cohort of 45 patients treated on the phase 2 trial received the programmed death–1 inhibitor nivolumab (Opdivo) every 2 weeks, plus a low dose of the CTLA4 inhibitor ipilimumab (Yervoy) every 6 weeks as first-line therapy for MSI-H metastatic colorectal cancer. (Nivolumab, with or without ipilimumab, has received Food and Drug Administration accelerated approval as second-line therapy based on data from other cohorts in the trial.)

Previously reported initial results, at a median follow-up of 13.8 months, showed that the investigator-assessed objective response rate was 60% (ESMO 2018, Abstract LBA18_PR). As of the update, now at a median follow-up of 19.9 months, that rate was 64%, according to data reported at the 2020 GI Cancers Symposium.

“Nivolumab and ipilimumab demonstrates clinically meaningful durable benefits and may present an option for first-line treatment for MSI-H metastatic colorectal cancer patients,” Dr. Lenz summarized.

“The incredible complete response rates and overall response rates seen are never seen with chemotherapy, and it’s very well tolerated, so if I have a choice, I would start with nivolumab-ipilimumab in first-line MSI-H,” he added. “The [National Comprehensive Cancer Network] guidelines recommend that you can start in first line with this combination if patients are not candidates for chemotherapy. So they leave this door open, that you have an opportunity to use immunotherapy in this patient population.”

Choosing single or dual immunotherapy

Given the so-called financial toxicity of dual nivolumab and ipilimumab therapy and lack of a randomized comparison against single-agent nivolumab, a session attendee said, can clinicians simply use the latter?

“Very importantly, in this clinical trial, ipilimumab was given every 6 weeks. As you know, the 2-week regimens are significantly more toxic,” Dr. Lenz noted. The combination using this low dose has safety similar to that seen with nivolumab alone. And in cross-trial comparisons, at least, “the combination seems to be a little bit more active, so I always choose both,” he said, adding that the financial aspects are beyond his purview.

Susan London/MDedge News

However, session cochair Joseph J.Y. Sung, MD, PhD, MBBS, the Mok Hing Yiu Professor of Medicine in the department of medicine and therapeutics at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, had a different view.

“I think there is still room for a randomized study to prove the combination’s superiority against single immunotherapy,” he said in an interview. “If I’m treating an MSI patient, I would stick to single immunotherapy until I see more evidence that this combination has a substantial improvement in the outcome that is worth the money.”

Study details

The patients studied were unselected for baseline tumor expression of programmed death–ligand 1, with 27% having expression of 1% or greater and 58% having expression below that threshold.

As of the data cutoff for the update, 47% of patients were still on treatment, Dr. Lenz reported at the symposium, sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology. The most common reason for stopping treatment was disease progression.

The investigator-assessed objective response rate, the primary endpoint, consisted of complete responses in 9% of patients and partial responses in 56%. (The rate as assessed by blinded independent central reviewers was 58%, consisting of complete responses in 18% and partial responses in 40%.)

“The high response rate was consistent among all evaluated subgroups,” Dr. Lenz noted, with no differences detected by presence or absence of Lynch syndrome and/or specific microsatellite-related mutations.

Median time to response was 2.6 months, and median duration of response was not reached. Median progression-free and overall survival were also not reached, but 15-month rates were 75% and 84%, respectively.

The rate of grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events was 20%, and the rate of grade 3-4 serious treatment-related adverse events was 11%. Only 4% of patients discontinued treatment because of such events.

Ongoing trials may take immunotherapy even further in this patient population, according to Dr. Lenz. “We are all waiting for the treatments with the immunotherapy in combination with chemo and bevacizumab in first line. Will that change the efficacy and toxicity?” he elaborated. “You can imagine, in the MSI-H patients with the immunotherapy alone, we haven’t reached median progression-free and overall survival, so it may take a long time to get this data.”

Dr. Lenz reported receiving honoraria from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck Serono, and Roche; consulting or advising with Bayer, Merck Serono, Pfizer, and Roche; receiving travel expenses from Bayer, Merck Serono, and Roche. The trial was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Sung reported that he had no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Lenz H-J et al. 2020 GI Cancers Symposium, Abstract 11.

SAN FRANCISCO – First-line dual immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy for microsatellite instability–high/DNA mismatch repair–deficient (MSI-H/dMMR) metastatic colorectal cancer has impressive durability, an update of the multicohort CheckMate 142 trial shows.

Susan London/MDedge News

“We all know that MSI-H colorectal cancer patients have a poor prognosis,” said lead investigator Heinz-Josef Lenz, MD, codirector of the Colorectal Center and section head of the GI oncology program at the University of Southern California Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles. First-line chemotherapy in this population yields median overall survival on the order of 20-22 months.

The cohort of 45 patients treated on the phase 2 trial received the programmed death–1 inhibitor nivolumab (Opdivo) every 2 weeks, plus a low dose of the CTLA4 inhibitor ipilimumab (Yervoy) every 6 weeks as first-line therapy for MSI-H metastatic colorectal cancer. (Nivolumab, with or without ipilimumab, has received Food and Drug Administration accelerated approval as second-line therapy based on data from other cohorts in the trial.)

Previously reported initial results, at a median follow-up of 13.8 months, showed that the investigator-assessed objective response rate was 60% (ESMO 2018, Abstract LBA18_PR). As of the update, now at a median follow-up of 19.9 months, that rate was 64%, according to data reported at the 2020 GI Cancers Symposium.

“Nivolumab and ipilimumab demonstrates clinically meaningful durable benefits and may present an option for first-line treatment for MSI-H metastatic colorectal cancer patients,” Dr. Lenz summarized.

“The incredible complete response rates and overall response rates seen are never seen with chemotherapy, and it’s very well tolerated, so if I have a choice, I would start with nivolumab-ipilimumab in first-line MSI-H,” he added. “The [National Comprehensive Cancer Network] guidelines recommend that you can start in first line with this combination if patients are not candidates for chemotherapy. So they leave this door open, that you have an opportunity to use immunotherapy in this patient population.”

Choosing single or dual immunotherapy

Given the so-called financial toxicity of dual nivolumab and ipilimumab therapy and lack of a randomized comparison against single-agent nivolumab, a session attendee said, can clinicians simply use the latter?

“Very importantly, in this clinical trial, ipilimumab was given every 6 weeks. As you know, the 2-week regimens are significantly more toxic,” Dr. Lenz noted. The combination using this low dose has safety similar to that seen with nivolumab alone. And in cross-trial comparisons, at least, “the combination seems to be a little bit more active, so I always choose both,” he said, adding that the financial aspects are beyond his purview.

Susan London/MDedge News

However, session cochair Joseph J.Y. Sung, MD, PhD, MBBS, the Mok Hing Yiu Professor of Medicine in the department of medicine and therapeutics at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, had a different view.

“I think there is still room for a randomized study to prove the combination’s superiority against single immunotherapy,” he said in an interview. “If I’m treating an MSI patient, I would stick to single immunotherapy until I see more evidence that this combination has a substantial improvement in the outcome that is worth the money.”

Study details

The patients studied were unselected for baseline tumor expression of programmed death–ligand 1, with 27% having expression of 1% or greater and 58% having expression below that threshold.

As of the data cutoff for the update, 47% of patients were still on treatment, Dr. Lenz reported at the symposium, sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology. The most common reason for stopping treatment was disease progression.

The investigator-assessed objective response rate, the primary endpoint, consisted of complete responses in 9% of patients and partial responses in 56%. (The rate as assessed by blinded independent central reviewers was 58%, consisting of complete responses in 18% and partial responses in 40%.)

“The high response rate was consistent among all evaluated subgroups,” Dr. Lenz noted, with no differences detected by presence or absence of Lynch syndrome and/or specific microsatellite-related mutations.

Median time to response was 2.6 months, and median duration of response was not reached. Median progression-free and overall survival were also not reached, but 15-month rates were 75% and 84%, respectively.

The rate of grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events was 20%, and the rate of grade 3-4 serious treatment-related adverse events was 11%. Only 4% of patients discontinued treatment because of such events.

Ongoing trials may take immunotherapy even further in this patient population, according to Dr. Lenz. “We are all waiting for the treatments with the immunotherapy in combination with chemo and bevacizumab in first line. Will that change the efficacy and toxicity?” he elaborated. “You can imagine, in the MSI-H patients with the immunotherapy alone, we haven’t reached median progression-free and overall survival, so it may take a long time to get this data.”

Dr. Lenz reported receiving honoraria from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck Serono, and Roche; consulting or advising with Bayer, Merck Serono, Pfizer, and Roche; receiving travel expenses from Bayer, Merck Serono, and Roche. The trial was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Sung reported that he had no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Lenz H-J et al. 2020 GI Cancers Symposium, Abstract 11.

SAN FRANCISCO – First-line dual immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy for microsatellite instability–high/DNA mismatch repair–deficient (MSI-H/dMMR) metastatic colorectal cancer has impressive durability, an update of the multicohort CheckMate 142 trial shows.

Susan London/MDedge News

“We all know that MSI-H colorectal cancer patients have a poor prognosis,” said lead investigator Heinz-Josef Lenz, MD, codirector of the Colorectal Center and section head of the GI oncology program at the University of Southern California Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles. First-line chemotherapy in this population yields median overall survival on the order of 20-22 months.

The cohort of 45 patients treated on the phase 2 trial received the programmed death–1 inhibitor nivolumab (Opdivo) every 2 weeks, plus a low dose of the CTLA4 inhibitor ipilimumab (Yervoy) every 6 weeks as first-line therapy for MSI-H metastatic colorectal cancer. (Nivolumab, with or without ipilimumab, has received Food and Drug Administration accelerated approval as second-line therapy based on data from other cohorts in the trial.)

Previously reported initial results, at a median follow-up of 13.8 months, showed that the investigator-assessed objective response rate was 60% (ESMO 2018, Abstract LBA18_PR). As of the update, now at a median follow-up of 19.9 months, that rate was 64%, according to data reported at the 2020 GI Cancers Symposium.

“Nivolumab and ipilimumab demonstrates clinically meaningful durable benefits and may present an option for first-line treatment for MSI-H metastatic colorectal cancer patients,” Dr. Lenz summarized.

“The incredible complete response rates and overall response rates seen are never seen with chemotherapy, and it’s very well tolerated, so if I have a choice, I would start with nivolumab-ipilimumab in first-line MSI-H,” he added. “The [National Comprehensive Cancer Network] guidelines recommend that you can start in first line with this combination if patients are not candidates for chemotherapy. So they leave this door open, that you have an opportunity to use immunotherapy in this patient population.”

Choosing single or dual immunotherapy

Given the so-called financial toxicity of dual nivolumab and ipilimumab therapy and lack of a randomized comparison against single-agent nivolumab, a session attendee said, can clinicians simply use the latter?

“Very importantly, in this clinical trial, ipilimumab was given every 6 weeks. As you know, the 2-week regimens are significantly more toxic,” Dr. Lenz noted. The combination using this low dose has safety similar to that seen with nivolumab alone. And in cross-trial comparisons, at least, “the combination seems to be a little bit more active, so I always choose both,” he said, adding that the financial aspects are beyond his purview.

Susan London/MDedge News

However, session cochair Joseph J.Y. Sung, MD, PhD, MBBS, the Mok Hing Yiu Professor of Medicine in the department of medicine and therapeutics at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, had a different view.

“I think there is still room for a randomized study to prove the combination’s superiority against single immunotherapy,” he said in an interview. “If I’m treating an MSI patient, I would stick to single immunotherapy until I see more evidence that this combination has a substantial improvement in the outcome that is worth the money.”

Study details

The patients studied were unselected for baseline tumor expression of programmed death–ligand 1, with 27% having expression of 1% or greater and 58% having expression below that threshold.

As of the data cutoff for the update, 47% of patients were still on treatment, Dr. Lenz reported at the symposium, sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology. The most common reason for stopping treatment was disease progression.

The investigator-assessed objective response rate, the primary endpoint, consisted of complete responses in 9% of patients and partial responses in 56%. (The rate as assessed by blinded independent central reviewers was 58%, consisting of complete responses in 18% and partial responses in 40%.)

“The high response rate was consistent among all evaluated subgroups,” Dr. Lenz noted, with no differences detected by presence or absence of Lynch syndrome and/or specific microsatellite-related mutations.

Median time to response was 2.6 months, and median duration of response was not reached. Median progression-free and overall survival were also not reached, but 15-month rates were 75% and 84%, respectively.

The rate of grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events was 20%, and the rate of grade 3-4 serious treatment-related adverse events was 11%. Only 4% of patients discontinued treatment because of such events.

Ongoing trials may take immunotherapy even further in this patient population, according to Dr. Lenz. “We are all waiting for the treatments with the immunotherapy in combination with chemo and bevacizumab in first line. Will that change the efficacy and toxicity?” he elaborated. “You can imagine, in the MSI-H patients with the immunotherapy alone, we haven’t reached median progression-free and overall survival, so it may take a long time to get this data.”

Dr. Lenz reported receiving honoraria from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck Serono, and Roche; consulting or advising with Bayer, Merck Serono, Pfizer, and Roche; receiving travel expenses from Bayer, Merck Serono, and Roche. The trial was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Sung reported that he had no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Lenz H-J et al. 2020 GI Cancers Symposium, Abstract 11.

ATLANTA – Psoriasis type and patient age at presentation among patients with psoriatic arthritis predict the timing of arthritis symptom synchronicity, according to findings from the Psoriatic Arthritis Registry of Turkey International Database.

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

However, in those who develop arthritis symptoms first, age at onset is not predictive of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) symptom synchronicity, Umut Kalyoncu, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Of 1,631 patients from the registry, 1,251 had psoriasis first, 71 had arthritis first, and 309 had synchronous onset, which was defined as the onset of both psoriasis and arthritis symptoms within a 12-month period. The time from skin disease to PsA was 155.6 months, –67.4 months, and 1.8 months, among the groups, respectively, and the mean age at PsA onset was similar, ranging from about 41 to 42 years in those who developed arthritis first, said Dr. Kalyoncu, of the department of rheumatology at Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey.

However, the mean age of PsA onset among those who developed psoriasis first was 29.4 years, compared with 46.3 years in those who developed arthritis first.

“So there is a really big difference between psoriasis beginning age,” he said.

PsA types also differed by onset symptoms: Axial involvement was more common with arthritis-first onset at 38.0%, compared with 28.8% for psoriasis first and 27.8% for synchronous onset). Oligoarthritis occurred more often with arthritis-first onset (45.1% vs. 30.7% and 29.4%, respectively), and polyarthritis occurred less often with arthritis-first onset (33.8% vs. 49.4% and 47.6%, respectively), he said.

Psoriasis type also differed among the groups: Pustular skin involvement was more common in arthritis-first patients (18.3% vs. 11.9% and 16.5% of psoriasis-first and synchronous-onset patients), scalp lesions as the initial lesion were more common in psoriasis-first patients (48.3% vs. 35.2% of arthritis-first patients and 39.8% of synchronous-onset patients), and genital involvement was present more often in arthritis-first patients (12.7% vs. 6.2% and 4.9% of psoriasis-first and synchronous-onset patients).

Early-onset (type 1) psoriasis was more common in psoriasis-first patients (74% vs. 28.1% and 51.8% of arthritis-first and synchronous-onset patients), whereas late-onset (type 2) psoriasis was more common in arthritis-first patients (71.9% vs. 26.0% and 48.2% for psoriasis-first and synchronous-onset patients).

A family history of psoriasis or PsA was more common in psoriasis-first patients (35.6% vs. 26.3% and 28.2% of arthritis-first and synchronous-onset patients), Dr. Kalyoncu said.

Treatment types did not differ between the groups.

Multiple linear regression analysis for the time elapsed from psoriasis to PsA symptom synchronicity, with all other independent variables set to baseline values, showed an overall intercept interval of 66 months, but with nail involvement, family history, or plaque psoriasis, the interval was extended by 28, 24, and 20 months, respectively. However, the presence of pustular psoriasis decreased the intercept interval by 28 months.

A temporal relationship between the onset of skin psoriasis and PsA is a well-known feature of psoriatic disease, with prior studies showing that the majority of cases involve psoriasis-first onset, Dr. Kalyoncu said, adding that heterogeneity in musculoskeletal and skin involvement is also a known feature.

However, little is known about the role of genetics, he noted.

Therefore, he and his colleagues used the Psoriatic Arthritis Registry of Turkey International Database, which was established in 2014 and now also includes data from patients in Canada and Italy, to explore the associations between disease characteristics and the temporal relationship of skin and musculoskeletal disease.

Based on the findings, age at the onset of psoriasis was the main factor that determined PsA symptom synchronicity, he said.

“We know that HLA-Cw6 is important in genetic susceptibility of psoriatic arthritis, but it is important only for early-onset arthritis, not late-onset psoriasis,” Dr. Kalyoncu said. “So our results make an indirect contribution [to the understanding of] these genetic and immunochemical differences between early-onset and late-onset psoriasis, and we need further future studies about this topic.”

Dr. Kalyoncu reported having no relevant disclosures.

sworcester@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Kalyoncu U et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019;71(suppl 10), Abstract 2854.

ATLANTA – Psoriasis type and patient age at presentation among patients with psoriatic arthritis predict the timing of arthritis symptom synchronicity, according to findings from the Psoriatic Arthritis Registry of Turkey International Database.

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

However, in those who develop arthritis symptoms first, age at onset is not predictive of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) symptom synchronicity, Umut Kalyoncu, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Of 1,631 patients from the registry, 1,251 had psoriasis first, 71 had arthritis first, and 309 had synchronous onset, which was defined as the onset of both psoriasis and arthritis symptoms within a 12-month period. The time from skin disease to PsA was 155.6 months, –67.4 months, and 1.8 months, among the groups, respectively, and the mean age at PsA onset was similar, ranging from about 41 to 42 years in those who developed arthritis first, said Dr. Kalyoncu, of the department of rheumatology at Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey.

However, the mean age of PsA onset among those who developed psoriasis first was 29.4 years, compared with 46.3 years in those who developed arthritis first.

“So there is a really big difference between psoriasis beginning age,” he said.

PsA types also differed by onset symptoms: Axial involvement was more common with arthritis-first onset at 38.0%, compared with 28.8% for psoriasis first and 27.8% for synchronous onset). Oligoarthritis occurred more often with arthritis-first onset (45.1% vs. 30.7% and 29.4%, respectively), and polyarthritis occurred less often with arthritis-first onset (33.8% vs. 49.4% and 47.6%, respectively), he said.

Psoriasis type also differed among the groups: Pustular skin involvement was more common in arthritis-first patients (18.3% vs. 11.9% and 16.5% of psoriasis-first and synchronous-onset patients), scalp lesions as the initial lesion were more common in psoriasis-first patients (48.3% vs. 35.2% of arthritis-first patients and 39.8% of synchronous-onset patients), and genital involvement was present more often in arthritis-first patients (12.7% vs. 6.2% and 4.9% of psoriasis-first and synchronous-onset patients).

Early-onset (type 1) psoriasis was more common in psoriasis-first patients (74% vs. 28.1% and 51.8% of arthritis-first and synchronous-onset patients), whereas late-onset (type 2) psoriasis was more common in arthritis-first patients (71.9% vs. 26.0% and 48.2% for psoriasis-first and synchronous-onset patients).

A family history of psoriasis or PsA was more common in psoriasis-first patients (35.6% vs. 26.3% and 28.2% of arthritis-first and synchronous-onset patients), Dr. Kalyoncu said.

Treatment types did not differ between the groups.

Multiple linear regression analysis for the time elapsed from psoriasis to PsA symptom synchronicity, with all other independent variables set to baseline values, showed an overall intercept interval of 66 months, but with nail involvement, family history, or plaque psoriasis, the interval was extended by 28, 24, and 20 months, respectively. However, the presence of pustular psoriasis decreased the intercept interval by 28 months.

A temporal relationship between the onset of skin psoriasis and PsA is a well-known feature of psoriatic disease, with prior studies showing that the majority of cases involve psoriasis-first onset, Dr. Kalyoncu said, adding that heterogeneity in musculoskeletal and skin involvement is also a known feature.

However, little is known about the role of genetics, he noted.

Therefore, he and his colleagues used the Psoriatic Arthritis Registry of Turkey International Database, which was established in 2014 and now also includes data from patients in Canada and Italy, to explore the associations between disease characteristics and the temporal relationship of skin and musculoskeletal disease.

Based on the findings, age at the onset of psoriasis was the main factor that determined PsA symptom synchronicity, he said.

“We know that HLA-Cw6 is important in genetic susceptibility of psoriatic arthritis, but it is important only for early-onset arthritis, not late-onset psoriasis,” Dr. Kalyoncu said. “So our results make an indirect contribution [to the understanding of] these genetic and immunochemical differences between early-onset and late-onset psoriasis, and we need further future studies about this topic.”

Dr. Kalyoncu reported having no relevant disclosures.

sworcester@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Kalyoncu U et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019;71(suppl 10), Abstract 2854.

ATLANTA – Psoriasis type and patient age at presentation among patients with psoriatic arthritis predict the timing of arthritis symptom synchronicity, according to findings from the Psoriatic Arthritis Registry of Turkey International Database.

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

However, in those who develop arthritis symptoms first, age at onset is not predictive of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) symptom synchronicity, Umut Kalyoncu, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Of 1,631 patients from the registry, 1,251 had psoriasis first, 71 had arthritis first, and 309 had synchronous onset, which was defined as the onset of both psoriasis and arthritis symptoms within a 12-month period. The time from skin disease to PsA was 155.6 months, –67.4 months, and 1.8 months, among the groups, respectively, and the mean age at PsA onset was similar, ranging from about 41 to 42 years in those who developed arthritis first, said Dr. Kalyoncu, of the department of rheumatology at Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey.

However, the mean age of PsA onset among those who developed psoriasis first was 29.4 years, compared with 46.3 years in those who developed arthritis first.

“So there is a really big difference between psoriasis beginning age,” he said.

PsA types also differed by onset symptoms: Axial involvement was more common with arthritis-first onset at 38.0%, compared with 28.8% for psoriasis first and 27.8% for synchronous onset). Oligoarthritis occurred more often with arthritis-first onset (45.1% vs. 30.7% and 29.4%, respectively), and polyarthritis occurred less often with arthritis-first onset (33.8% vs. 49.4% and 47.6%, respectively), he said.

Psoriasis type also differed among the groups: Pustular skin involvement was more common in arthritis-first patients (18.3% vs. 11.9% and 16.5% of psoriasis-first and synchronous-onset patients), scalp lesions as the initial lesion were more common in psoriasis-first patients (48.3% vs. 35.2% of arthritis-first patients and 39.8% of synchronous-onset patients), and genital involvement was present more often in arthritis-first patients (12.7% vs. 6.2% and 4.9% of psoriasis-first and synchronous-onset patients).

Early-onset (type 1) psoriasis was more common in psoriasis-first patients (74% vs. 28.1% and 51.8% of arthritis-first and synchronous-onset patients), whereas late-onset (type 2) psoriasis was more common in arthritis-first patients (71.9% vs. 26.0% and 48.2% for psoriasis-first and synchronous-onset patients).

A family history of psoriasis or PsA was more common in psoriasis-first patients (35.6% vs. 26.3% and 28.2% of arthritis-first and synchronous-onset patients), Dr. Kalyoncu said.

Treatment types did not differ between the groups.

Multiple linear regression analysis for the time elapsed from psoriasis to PsA symptom synchronicity, with all other independent variables set to baseline values, showed an overall intercept interval of 66 months, but with nail involvement, family history, or plaque psoriasis, the interval was extended by 28, 24, and 20 months, respectively. However, the presence of pustular psoriasis decreased the intercept interval by 28 months.

A temporal relationship between the onset of skin psoriasis and PsA is a well-known feature of psoriatic disease, with prior studies showing that the majority of cases involve psoriasis-first onset, Dr. Kalyoncu said, adding that heterogeneity in musculoskeletal and skin involvement is also a known feature.

However, little is known about the role of genetics, he noted.

Therefore, he and his colleagues used the Psoriatic Arthritis Registry of Turkey International Database, which was established in 2014 and now also includes data from patients in Canada and Italy, to explore the associations between disease characteristics and the temporal relationship of skin and musculoskeletal disease.

Based on the findings, age at the onset of psoriasis was the main factor that determined PsA symptom synchronicity, he said.

“We know that HLA-Cw6 is important in genetic susceptibility of psoriatic arthritis, but it is important only for early-onset arthritis, not late-onset psoriasis,” Dr. Kalyoncu said. “So our results make an indirect contribution [to the understanding of] these genetic and immunochemical differences between early-onset and late-onset psoriasis, and we need further future studies about this topic.”

Dr. Kalyoncu reported having no relevant disclosures.

sworcester@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Kalyoncu U et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019;71(suppl 10), Abstract 2854.

Modafinil exposure during pregnancy was associated with an approximately tripled risk of congenital malformations in a large Danish registry-based study.

Modafinil (Provigil) is commonly prescribed to address daytime sleepiness in narcolepsy and multiple sclerosis. An interim postmarketing safety analysis showed increased rates of major malformation in modafinil-exposed pregnancies, so the manufacturer issued an alert advising health care professionals of this safety signal in June 2019, wrote Per Damkier, MD, PhD, corresponding author of a JAMA research letter reporting the Danish study results. The postmarketing study had shown a major malformation rate of about 15% in modafinil-exposed pregnancies, much higher than the 3% background rate.

Dr. Damkier and Anne Broe, MD, PhD, both of the department of clinical biochemistry and pharmacology at Odense (Denmark) University Hospital, compared outcomes for pregnant women who were prescribed modafinil at any point during the first trimester of pregnancy with those who were prescribed an active comparator, methylphenidate, as well as with those who had neither exposure. Methylphenidate is not associated with congenital malformations and is used for indications similar to modafinil.

Looking at all pregnancies for whom complete records existed in Danish health registries between 2004 and 2017, the investigators found 49 modafinil-exposed pregnancies, 963 methylphenidate-exposed pregnancies, and 828,644 pregnancies with neither exposure.

Six major congenital malformations occurred in the modafinil-exposed group for an absolute risk of 12%. Major malformations occurred in 43 (4.5%) of the methylphenidate-exposed group and 32,466 (3.9%) of the unexposed group.

Using the extensive data available in public registries, the authors were able to perform logistic regression to adjust for concomitant use of other psychotropic medication; comorbidities such as diabetes and hypertension; and demographic and anthropometric measures such as maternal age, smoking status, and body mass index.

After this statistical adjustment, the researchers found that modafinil exposure during the first trimester of pregnancy was associated with an odds ratio of 3.4 (95% confidence interval, 1.2-9.7) for major congenital malformation, compared with first-trimester methylphenidate exposure. Compared with the unexposed cohort, modafinil-exposed pregnancies had an adjusted odds ratio of 2.7 (95% CI, 1.1-6.9) for major congenital malformation.

A total of 13 (27%) women who took modafinil had multiple sclerosis, but the authors excluded women who’d received a prescription for the multiple sclerosis drug teriflunomide (Aubagio), a known teratogen. Sleep disorders were reported for 39% of modafinil users, compared with 4.5% of methylphenidate users. Rates of psychoactive drug use were 41% for the modafinil group and 30% for the methylphenidate group.

The authors acknowledged the possibility of residual confounders affecting their results, and of the statistical problems with the very small sample size of modafinil-exposed pregnancies. Also, actual medication use – rather than prescription redemption – wasn’t captured in the study.

The study was partially funded by the Novo Nordisk Foundation. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

koakes@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Damkier P, Broe A. JAMA. 2020;323(4):374-6.

Modafinil exposure during pregnancy was associated with an approximately tripled risk of congenital malformations in a large Danish registry-based study.

Modafinil (Provigil) is commonly prescribed to address daytime sleepiness in narcolepsy and multiple sclerosis. An interim postmarketing safety analysis showed increased rates of major malformation in modafinil-exposed pregnancies, so the manufacturer issued an alert advising health care professionals of this safety signal in June 2019, wrote Per Damkier, MD, PhD, corresponding author of a JAMA research letter reporting the Danish study results. The postmarketing study had shown a major malformation rate of about 15% in modafinil-exposed pregnancies, much higher than the 3% background rate.

Dr. Damkier and Anne Broe, MD, PhD, both of the department of clinical biochemistry and pharmacology at Odense (Denmark) University Hospital, compared outcomes for pregnant women who were prescribed modafinil at any point during the first trimester of pregnancy with those who were prescribed an active comparator, methylphenidate, as well as with those who had neither exposure. Methylphenidate is not associated with congenital malformations and is used for indications similar to modafinil.

Looking at all pregnancies for whom complete records existed in Danish health registries between 2004 and 2017, the investigators found 49 modafinil-exposed pregnancies, 963 methylphenidate-exposed pregnancies, and 828,644 pregnancies with neither exposure.

Six major congenital malformations occurred in the modafinil-exposed group for an absolute risk of 12%. Major malformations occurred in 43 (4.5%) of the methylphenidate-exposed group and 32,466 (3.9%) of the unexposed group.

Using the extensive data available in public registries, the authors were able to perform logistic regression to adjust for concomitant use of other psychotropic medication; comorbidities such as diabetes and hypertension; and demographic and anthropometric measures such as maternal age, smoking status, and body mass index.

After this statistical adjustment, the researchers found that modafinil exposure during the first trimester of pregnancy was associated with an odds ratio of 3.4 (95% confidence interval, 1.2-9.7) for major congenital malformation, compared with first-trimester methylphenidate exposure. Compared with the unexposed cohort, modafinil-exposed pregnancies had an adjusted odds ratio of 2.7 (95% CI, 1.1-6.9) for major congenital malformation.

A total of 13 (27%) women who took modafinil had multiple sclerosis, but the authors excluded women who’d received a prescription for the multiple sclerosis drug teriflunomide (Aubagio), a known teratogen. Sleep disorders were reported for 39% of modafinil users, compared with 4.5% of methylphenidate users. Rates of psychoactive drug use were 41% for the modafinil group and 30% for the methylphenidate group.

The authors acknowledged the possibility of residual confounders affecting their results, and of the statistical problems with the very small sample size of modafinil-exposed pregnancies. Also, actual medication use – rather than prescription redemption – wasn’t captured in the study.

The study was partially funded by the Novo Nordisk Foundation. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

koakes@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Damkier P, Broe A. JAMA. 2020;323(4):374-6.

Modafinil exposure during pregnancy was associated with an approximately tripled risk of congenital malformations in a large Danish registry-based study.

Modafinil (Provigil) is commonly prescribed to address daytime sleepiness in narcolepsy and multiple sclerosis. An interim postmarketing safety analysis showed increased rates of major malformation in modafinil-exposed pregnancies, so the manufacturer issued an alert advising health care professionals of this safety signal in June 2019, wrote Per Damkier, MD, PhD, corresponding author of a JAMA research letter reporting the Danish study results. The postmarketing study had shown a major malformation rate of about 15% in modafinil-exposed pregnancies, much higher than the 3% background rate.

Dr. Damkier and Anne Broe, MD, PhD, both of the department of clinical biochemistry and pharmacology at Odense (Denmark) University Hospital, compared outcomes for pregnant women who were prescribed modafinil at any point during the first trimester of pregnancy with those who were prescribed an active comparator, methylphenidate, as well as with those who had neither exposure. Methylphenidate is not associated with congenital malformations and is used for indications similar to modafinil.

Looking at all pregnancies for whom complete records existed in Danish health registries between 2004 and 2017, the investigators found 49 modafinil-exposed pregnancies, 963 methylphenidate-exposed pregnancies, and 828,644 pregnancies with neither exposure.

Six major congenital malformations occurred in the modafinil-exposed group for an absolute risk of 12%. Major malformations occurred in 43 (4.5%) of the methylphenidate-exposed group and 32,466 (3.9%) of the unexposed group.

Using the extensive data available in public registries, the authors were able to perform logistic regression to adjust for concomitant use of other psychotropic medication; comorbidities such as diabetes and hypertension; and demographic and anthropometric measures such as maternal age, smoking status, and body mass index.

After this statistical adjustment, the researchers found that modafinil exposure during the first trimester of pregnancy was associated with an odds ratio of 3.4 (95% confidence interval, 1.2-9.7) for major congenital malformation, compared with first-trimester methylphenidate exposure. Compared with the unexposed cohort, modafinil-exposed pregnancies had an adjusted odds ratio of 2.7 (95% CI, 1.1-6.9) for major congenital malformation.

A total of 13 (27%) women who took modafinil had multiple sclerosis, but the authors excluded women who’d received a prescription for the multiple sclerosis drug teriflunomide (Aubagio), a known teratogen. Sleep disorders were reported for 39% of modafinil users, compared with 4.5% of methylphenidate users. Rates of psychoactive drug use were 41% for the modafinil group and 30% for the methylphenidate group.

The authors acknowledged the possibility of residual confounders affecting their results, and of the statistical problems with the very small sample size of modafinil-exposed pregnancies. Also, actual medication use – rather than prescription redemption – wasn’t captured in the study.

The study was partially funded by the Novo Nordisk Foundation. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

koakes@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Damkier P, Broe A. JAMA. 2020;323(4):374-6.

This CME supplement details results of the PROLONG (Progestin’s Role in Optimizing Neonatal Gestation) trial evaluating 17-OHPC in patients with a history of a prior spontaneous singleton preterm delivery.

Click Here to Read More

To receive CME credit, please
read the article and go to www.omniaeducation.com/ptb
to access the posttest and evaluation.

This CME supplement details results of the PROLONG (Progestin’s Role in Optimizing Neonatal Gestation) trial evaluating 17-OHPC in patients with a history of a prior spontaneous singleton preterm delivery.

Click Here to Read More

To receive CME credit, please
read the article and go to www.omniaeducation.com/ptb
to access the posttest and evaluation.

This CME supplement details results of the PROLONG (Progestin’s Role in Optimizing Neonatal Gestation) trial evaluating 17-OHPC in patients with a history of a prior spontaneous singleton preterm delivery.

Click Here to Read More

To receive CME credit, please
read the article and go to www.omniaeducation.com/ptb
to access the posttest and evaluation.

Nurse practitioners and physician assistants, rather than physicians, are the clinicians who have boosted capacity for buprenorphine prescribing in rural America, according to a study in a rural health–focused issue of the journal Health Affairs.

In the face of an ongoing crisis of opioid use disorder, and associated overdoses and deaths that have spared no sector of the U.S. population, the federal government expanded its waiver program for buprenorphine prescribing in 2017. The waiver expansion allows nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) – along with clinical nurse specialists, certified registered nurse anesthetists, and certified nurse-midwives – to use the drug for medication-assisted treatment (MAT) for opioid use disorder after completing 24 hours of mandated training; physicians are required to complete 8 hours of training to receive their waiver.

From 2016 to 2019, capacity for MAT in rural areas increased, with the number of clinicians with buprenorphine waivers more than doubling. Of the newly waivered prescribers accounting for this 111% increase, more than half were NPs and PAs.

In many areas, NPs and PAs led the way forward, wrote the study’s lead author Michael L. Barnett, MD, and coauthors, noting in the abstract accompanying the paper that “NPs and PAs accounted for more than half of this increase and were the first waivered clinicians in 285 rural counties with 5.7 million residents.” Overall, the proportion of people living in a county without a waivered clinician has decreased by 36% since NPs and PAs were permitted to obtain waivers.
 

SAMHSA data identifies trends

In an in-depth interview, Dr. Barnett, an internal medicine physician and health services researcher at the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, said the issue today is “not so much continuing to dissect the risks and benefits of opioids as a treatment for pain, but more trying to address the current overdose crisis, and the fact that our patient treatment infrastructure is woefully inadequate for the magnitude of the problem that we face.”

Dr. Barnett’s chief intention for this study, he said, was to generate information that will drive policy to implement effective opioid treatment. He’d always been interested in models of care delivery that move beyond seeing just the physician-patient dyad.

“There are a whole range of nonphysician providers that are probably better at providing many different types of care – things that physicians aren’t necessarily that well trained to do,” he said.

Expansion of buprenorphine waivers to NPs and PAs, said Dr. Barnett, presented “a very interesting opportunity to see: How does a nonphysician workforce respond to a new practice opportunity, to really be engaged in areas that many physicians really were neglecting?”

The researchers used information drawn from what Dr. Barnett characterized as a “gold-standard” dataset maintained by the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. They found that, by March 2019, 52% of U.S. rural residents lived in counties with at least one NP or PA holding a buprenorphine waiver, though there was wide geographic variation: Every county in Maine and New Hampshire had waivered NPs or PAs, but in Tennessee, just 3 of 95 counties had an NP or PA with a waiver.
 

Scope-of-practice regulations matter

The scope of practice permitted NPs and PAs varies by state, and Dr. Barnett and coauthors also looked to see whether broader scope of practice meant that more advanced practice clinicians were getting buprenorphine waivers. This did appear to be the case: In an analysis that dichotomized scope of practice into “broad” and “restricted,” states with broader practice scope saw twice as many waivered NPs per 100,000 rural residents as those with restrictive practice scope. This association was not seen for PAs, but Dr. Barnett pointed out that PAs are less likely overall to work in primary care.

This, he added, is where scope of practice starts to matter. “A lot of states are still bickering about scope of practice. We show in our paper the clear relationship between scope of practice and the degree to which providers are able to take up these waivers. We can’t prove causality, but I think it’s not a big stretch to think that these policies are playing a big role. I hope we’re working to try to advance that conversation.”

Helping address the unmet need for evidence-based treatment of opioid use disorder, he said, “is one of the more important examples, because doctors have been leaving rural areas in droves. We are lucky that there is a workforce of NPs that still seem to recognize the market opportunity; rural areas still need providers, and they have been willing to fill the gap.”

Waivered NPs or PAs can apply for an expanded waiver, permitting expansion of the buprenorphine panel from 30 to 100 patients after 1 year of holding their initial waiver. Physicians may apply for a waiver to treat up to 275 patients.
 

Effect on quality of care

The evidence doesn’t support big worries about quality of care, he said. “We don’t have any data on this in the clinical context of addiction, but all of the data that are out there in terms of evaluating the quality of care and level of care being offered by NPs and PAs versus primary care doctors – the types of things that we think of as within the scope of NP and PA practice typically – have shown that they are the same.” Dr. Barnett acknowledged that “there are a little bit of mixed results here and there in one direction or another, but largely, the care being delivered is much more the same than different.”

In addressing the opioid crisis as in the rest of medicine, it’s a mistake not to include this sector of the health care workforce when policies are being crafted, said Dr. Barnett. “People who are making policy and aren’t familiar with the workforce in rural areas could miss the boat. ... Everyone is often 10-20 years out of date in terms of how they think about the centrality of, specifically, the NP workforce, especially in rural areas. NPs aren’t just an asterisk to the workforce – they are an essential part of delivering medicine, just as much as physicians are.”

Dr. Barnett said that, in his estimation, “a lot of protectionist myths get physicians worked up around increased scope of practice for NPs.” However, “The truth is that there’s enough health care spending to go around for everybody and there’s plenty of work to go around.”

Dr. Barnett acknowledged that the current study captured only prescribing capacity, and not actual prescription volume. But, based on some preliminary data, “my sense is that NPs and PAs who acquire waivers are more likely to be prescribing to a larger number of patients proportionately than MDs.” He wasn’t surprised to see this, since the many more hours of training required for NPs and PAs to acquire a waiver means they’re likely to be committed to using the waiver in practice.

Stepping back to look at the bigger picture, Dr. Barnett remarked that, “taking a look at the waiver requirement, a part of me feels that it’s a bit of an anachronistic regulation, anyway – it’s really hard to justify clinically or ethically versus other things that we do.” The waiver program he said, is “a regulation barrier whose time should be limited. ... I’m hoping that the waiver disappears soon.”

Prescribing issues will linger beyond any future abolition of the waiver program, since many clinicians will still not be comfortable prescribing medication for MAT of opioid use disorder, said Dr. Barnett. “It’ll be a lot of the same stigma and structural barriers that were in place prior to the waiver.”

Dr. Barnett reported that he has been retained as an expert witness for plaintiffs in lawsuits against opioid manufacturers. The study was partly funded by the National Institutes of Health.

koakes@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Barnett ML et al. Health Aff. 2019 Jan;38(12):2048-56.

Nurse practitioners and physician assistants, rather than physicians, are the clinicians who have boosted capacity for buprenorphine prescribing in rural America, according to a study in a rural health–focused issue of the journal Health Affairs.

In the face of an ongoing crisis of opioid use disorder, and associated overdoses and deaths that have spared no sector of the U.S. population, the federal government expanded its waiver program for buprenorphine prescribing in 2017. The waiver expansion allows nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) – along with clinical nurse specialists, certified registered nurse anesthetists, and certified nurse-midwives – to use the drug for medication-assisted treatment (MAT) for opioid use disorder after completing 24 hours of mandated training; physicians are required to complete 8 hours of training to receive their waiver.

From 2016 to 2019, capacity for MAT in rural areas increased, with the number of clinicians with buprenorphine waivers more than doubling. Of the newly waivered prescribers accounting for this 111% increase, more than half were NPs and PAs.

In many areas, NPs and PAs led the way forward, wrote the study’s lead author Michael L. Barnett, MD, and coauthors, noting in the abstract accompanying the paper that “NPs and PAs accounted for more than half of this increase and were the first waivered clinicians in 285 rural counties with 5.7 million residents.” Overall, the proportion of people living in a county without a waivered clinician has decreased by 36% since NPs and PAs were permitted to obtain waivers.
 

SAMHSA data identifies trends

In an in-depth interview, Dr. Barnett, an internal medicine physician and health services researcher at the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, said the issue today is “not so much continuing to dissect the risks and benefits of opioids as a treatment for pain, but more trying to address the current overdose crisis, and the fact that our patient treatment infrastructure is woefully inadequate for the magnitude of the problem that we face.”

Dr. Barnett’s chief intention for this study, he said, was to generate information that will drive policy to implement effective opioid treatment. He’d always been interested in models of care delivery that move beyond seeing just the physician-patient dyad.

“There are a whole range of nonphysician providers that are probably better at providing many different types of care – things that physicians aren’t necessarily that well trained to do,” he said.

Expansion of buprenorphine waivers to NPs and PAs, said Dr. Barnett, presented “a very interesting opportunity to see: How does a nonphysician workforce respond to a new practice opportunity, to really be engaged in areas that many physicians really were neglecting?”

The researchers used information drawn from what Dr. Barnett characterized as a “gold-standard” dataset maintained by the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. They found that, by March 2019, 52% of U.S. rural residents lived in counties with at least one NP or PA holding a buprenorphine waiver, though there was wide geographic variation: Every county in Maine and New Hampshire had waivered NPs or PAs, but in Tennessee, just 3 of 95 counties had an NP or PA with a waiver.
 

Scope-of-practice regulations matter

The scope of practice permitted NPs and PAs varies by state, and Dr. Barnett and coauthors also looked to see whether broader scope of practice meant that more advanced practice clinicians were getting buprenorphine waivers. This did appear to be the case: In an analysis that dichotomized scope of practice into “broad” and “restricted,” states with broader practice scope saw twice as many waivered NPs per 100,000 rural residents as those with restrictive practice scope. This association was not seen for PAs, but Dr. Barnett pointed out that PAs are less likely overall to work in primary care.

This, he added, is where scope of practice starts to matter. “A lot of states are still bickering about scope of practice. We show in our paper the clear relationship between scope of practice and the degree to which providers are able to take up these waivers. We can’t prove causality, but I think it’s not a big stretch to think that these policies are playing a big role. I hope we’re working to try to advance that conversation.”

Helping address the unmet need for evidence-based treatment of opioid use disorder, he said, “is one of the more important examples, because doctors have been leaving rural areas in droves. We are lucky that there is a workforce of NPs that still seem to recognize the market opportunity; rural areas still need providers, and they have been willing to fill the gap.”

Waivered NPs or PAs can apply for an expanded waiver, permitting expansion of the buprenorphine panel from 30 to 100 patients after 1 year of holding their initial waiver. Physicians may apply for a waiver to treat up to 275 patients.
 

Effect on quality of care

The evidence doesn’t support big worries about quality of care, he said. “We don’t have any data on this in the clinical context of addiction, but all of the data that are out there in terms of evaluating the quality of care and level of care being offered by NPs and PAs versus primary care doctors – the types of things that we think of as within the scope of NP and PA practice typically – have shown that they are the same.” Dr. Barnett acknowledged that “there are a little bit of mixed results here and there in one direction or another, but largely, the care being delivered is much more the same than different.”

In addressing the opioid crisis as in the rest of medicine, it’s a mistake not to include this sector of the health care workforce when policies are being crafted, said Dr. Barnett. “People who are making policy and aren’t familiar with the workforce in rural areas could miss the boat. ... Everyone is often 10-20 years out of date in terms of how they think about the centrality of, specifically, the NP workforce, especially in rural areas. NPs aren’t just an asterisk to the workforce – they are an essential part of delivering medicine, just as much as physicians are.”

Dr. Barnett said that, in his estimation, “a lot of protectionist myths get physicians worked up around increased scope of practice for NPs.” However, “The truth is that there’s enough health care spending to go around for everybody and there’s plenty of work to go around.”

Dr. Barnett acknowledged that the current study captured only prescribing capacity, and not actual prescription volume. But, based on some preliminary data, “my sense is that NPs and PAs who acquire waivers are more likely to be prescribing to a larger number of patients proportionately than MDs.” He wasn’t surprised to see this, since the many more hours of training required for NPs and PAs to acquire a waiver means they’re likely to be committed to using the waiver in practice.

Stepping back to look at the bigger picture, Dr. Barnett remarked that, “taking a look at the waiver requirement, a part of me feels that it’s a bit of an anachronistic regulation, anyway – it’s really hard to justify clinically or ethically versus other things that we do.” The waiver program he said, is “a regulation barrier whose time should be limited. ... I’m hoping that the waiver disappears soon.”

Prescribing issues will linger beyond any future abolition of the waiver program, since many clinicians will still not be comfortable prescribing medication for MAT of opioid use disorder, said Dr. Barnett. “It’ll be a lot of the same stigma and structural barriers that were in place prior to the waiver.”

Dr. Barnett reported that he has been retained as an expert witness for plaintiffs in lawsuits against opioid manufacturers. The study was partly funded by the National Institutes of Health.

koakes@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Barnett ML et al. Health Aff. 2019 Jan;38(12):2048-56.

Nurse practitioners and physician assistants, rather than physicians, are the clinicians who have boosted capacity for buprenorphine prescribing in rural America, according to a study in a rural health–focused issue of the journal Health Affairs.

In the face of an ongoing crisis of opioid use disorder, and associated overdoses and deaths that have spared no sector of the U.S. population, the federal government expanded its waiver program for buprenorphine prescribing in 2017. The waiver expansion allows nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) – along with clinical nurse specialists, certified registered nurse anesthetists, and certified nurse-midwives – to use the drug for medication-assisted treatment (MAT) for opioid use disorder after completing 24 hours of mandated training; physicians are required to complete 8 hours of training to receive their waiver.

From 2016 to 2019, capacity for MAT in rural areas increased, with the number of clinicians with buprenorphine waivers more than doubling. Of the newly waivered prescribers accounting for this 111% increase, more than half were NPs and PAs.

In many areas, NPs and PAs led the way forward, wrote the study’s lead author Michael L. Barnett, MD, and coauthors, noting in the abstract accompanying the paper that “NPs and PAs accounted for more than half of this increase and were the first waivered clinicians in 285 rural counties with 5.7 million residents.” Overall, the proportion of people living in a county without a waivered clinician has decreased by 36% since NPs and PAs were permitted to obtain waivers.
 

SAMHSA data identifies trends

In an in-depth interview, Dr. Barnett, an internal medicine physician and health services researcher at the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, said the issue today is “not so much continuing to dissect the risks and benefits of opioids as a treatment for pain, but more trying to address the current overdose crisis, and the fact that our patient treatment infrastructure is woefully inadequate for the magnitude of the problem that we face.”

Dr. Barnett’s chief intention for this study, he said, was to generate information that will drive policy to implement effective opioid treatment. He’d always been interested in models of care delivery that move beyond seeing just the physician-patient dyad.

“There are a whole range of nonphysician providers that are probably better at providing many different types of care – things that physicians aren’t necessarily that well trained to do,” he said.

Expansion of buprenorphine waivers to NPs and PAs, said Dr. Barnett, presented “a very interesting opportunity to see: How does a nonphysician workforce respond to a new practice opportunity, to really be engaged in areas that many physicians really were neglecting?”

The researchers used information drawn from what Dr. Barnett characterized as a “gold-standard” dataset maintained by the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. They found that, by March 2019, 52% of U.S. rural residents lived in counties with at least one NP or PA holding a buprenorphine waiver, though there was wide geographic variation: Every county in Maine and New Hampshire had waivered NPs or PAs, but in Tennessee, just 3 of 95 counties had an NP or PA with a waiver.
 

Scope-of-practice regulations matter

The scope of practice permitted NPs and PAs varies by state, and Dr. Barnett and coauthors also looked to see whether broader scope of practice meant that more advanced practice clinicians were getting buprenorphine waivers. This did appear to be the case: In an analysis that dichotomized scope of practice into “broad” and “restricted,” states with broader practice scope saw twice as many waivered NPs per 100,000 rural residents as those with restrictive practice scope. This association was not seen for PAs, but Dr. Barnett pointed out that PAs are less likely overall to work in primary care.

This, he added, is where scope of practice starts to matter. “A lot of states are still bickering about scope of practice. We show in our paper the clear relationship between scope of practice and the degree to which providers are able to take up these waivers. We can’t prove causality, but I think it’s not a big stretch to think that these policies are playing a big role. I hope we’re working to try to advance that conversation.”

Helping address the unmet need for evidence-based treatment of opioid use disorder, he said, “is one of the more important examples, because doctors have been leaving rural areas in droves. We are lucky that there is a workforce of NPs that still seem to recognize the market opportunity; rural areas still need providers, and they have been willing to fill the gap.”

Waivered NPs or PAs can apply for an expanded waiver, permitting expansion of the buprenorphine panel from 30 to 100 patients after 1 year of holding their initial waiver. Physicians may apply for a waiver to treat up to 275 patients.
 

Effect on quality of care

The evidence doesn’t support big worries about quality of care, he said. “We don’t have any data on this in the clinical context of addiction, but all of the data that are out there in terms of evaluating the quality of care and level of care being offered by NPs and PAs versus primary care doctors – the types of things that we think of as within the scope of NP and PA practice typically – have shown that they are the same.” Dr. Barnett acknowledged that “there are a little bit of mixed results here and there in one direction or another, but largely, the care being delivered is much more the same than different.”

In addressing the opioid crisis as in the rest of medicine, it’s a mistake not to include this sector of the health care workforce when policies are being crafted, said Dr. Barnett. “People who are making policy and aren’t familiar with the workforce in rural areas could miss the boat. ... Everyone is often 10-20 years out of date in terms of how they think about the centrality of, specifically, the NP workforce, especially in rural areas. NPs aren’t just an asterisk to the workforce – they are an essential part of delivering medicine, just as much as physicians are.”

Dr. Barnett said that, in his estimation, “a lot of protectionist myths get physicians worked up around increased scope of practice for NPs.” However, “The truth is that there’s enough health care spending to go around for everybody and there’s plenty of work to go around.”

Dr. Barnett acknowledged that the current study captured only prescribing capacity, and not actual prescription volume. But, based on some preliminary data, “my sense is that NPs and PAs who acquire waivers are more likely to be prescribing to a larger number of patients proportionately than MDs.” He wasn’t surprised to see this, since the many more hours of training required for NPs and PAs to acquire a waiver means they’re likely to be committed to using the waiver in practice.

Stepping back to look at the bigger picture, Dr. Barnett remarked that, “taking a look at the waiver requirement, a part of me feels that it’s a bit of an anachronistic regulation, anyway – it’s really hard to justify clinically or ethically versus other things that we do.” The waiver program he said, is “a regulation barrier whose time should be limited. ... I’m hoping that the waiver disappears soon.”

Prescribing issues will linger beyond any future abolition of the waiver program, since many clinicians will still not be comfortable prescribing medication for MAT of opioid use disorder, said Dr. Barnett. “It’ll be a lot of the same stigma and structural barriers that were in place prior to the waiver.”

Dr. Barnett reported that he has been retained as an expert witness for plaintiffs in lawsuits against opioid manufacturers. The study was partly funded by the National Institutes of Health.

koakes@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Barnett ML et al. Health Aff. 2019 Jan;38(12):2048-56.

SNOWMASS, COLO. – A repeated theme threading through much of one prominent interventional cardiologist’s personal list of the top five coronary artery disease (CAD) trials of the past year is that aspirin is very often more trouble than it’s worth.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“For some years I’ve been concerned that the only thing that aspirin does [in patients after percutaneous coronary intervention] is increase your risk of bleeding. It doesn’t really provide any additional ischemic protection,” Malcolm R. Bell, MBBS, said at the annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.

“I’ll remind you that, when we go back to the early stent days, the combination of clopidogrel and aspirin was never compared in a proper trial to clopidogrel alone. We’ve just inherited this DAPT [dual-antiplatelet therapy] philosophy,” observed Dr. Bell, professor of medicine and vice chair of the department of cardiovascular medicine at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

Here are the key takeaway messages from his five most important randomized trials in CAD during the last year.
 

AUGUSTUS

For years, cardiologists have grappled with how to best manage high-cardiovascular-risk patients with atrial fibrillation who seem like they might benefit from triple-antithrombotic therapy. AUGUSTUS supplied the answer: Don’t do it. Skip the aspirin and turn instead to a P2Y12 inhibitor plus a non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant (NOAC), rather than warfarin.

“I would like you to think of triple therapy as a triple threat. That’s really what triple therapy is all about”– a three-pronged threat to patient safety, Dr. Bell commented.

In AUGUSTUS, 4,614 patients with atrial fibrillation and CAD with an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and/or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in 33 countries were placed on a P2Y12 inhibitor – most often clopidogrel – and randomized double blind to either apixaban (Eliquis) or warfarin, and further to aspirin or placebo, for 6 months of antithrombotic therapy. The strategy of a P2Y12 inhibitor and apixaban without aspirin was the clear winner, resulting in significantly less major bleeding, mortality, and hospitalizations than treatment with a P2Y12 inhibitor and warfarin, with or without aspirin. Most importantly, ischemic event rates didn’t differ between the apixaban and warfarin groups. And patients randomized to aspirin had rates of ischemic events and death or hospitalization similar to placebo-treated controls, meaning aspirin accomplished nothing (N Engl J Med. 2019 Apr 18;380[16]:1509-24).

Dr. Bell noted that a meta-analysis of AUGUSTUS and three smaller randomized trials including more than 10,000 AUGUSTUS-type patients with atrial fibrillation concluded that a treatment strategy utilizing a NOAC and a P2Y12 inhibitor resulted in less bleeding than warfarin plus DAPT, and at no cost in terms of excess ischemic events. Moreover, regimens without aspirin resulted in less intracranial and other major bleeding without any difference in major adverse cardiovascular events (JAMA Cardiol. 2019 Jun 19. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2019.1880).

A key message of these four trials is that a NOAC is preferable to warfarin, so much so that, in high-risk patients who are already on warfarin, it’s worth considering a switch to a NOAC.

“And we should really be avoiding DAPT,” Dr. Bell added.

How soon after an ACS and/or PCI should patients with atrial fibrillation stop taking aspirin?

“In AUGUSTUS, randomization occurred at a median of 6 days, so we know that half the patients stopped their aspirin by then. In our own practice, we’re just dropping the aspirin for the most part before the patient leaves the hospital. I think if you leave them with instructions to stop the aspirin in a week’s time or a month’s time it just leads to confusion. And we should also remember that half of the major bleeding after PCI or ACS happens in the first 30 days, so it doesn’t make a lot of sense to say that we should continue it for a month and then drop it,” according to the cardiologist.
 

SMART-CHOICE and STOPDAPT-2

These two large multicenter studies demonstrate that DAPT can safely be stopped early if needed. SMART-CHOICE from South Korea and STOPDAPT-2 from Japan each randomized roughly 3,000 patients undergoing PCI to 12 months of DAPT or to DAPT for only 3 months or 1 month, respectively, at which point the aspirin was dropped and patients in the abbreviated DAPT arm continued on P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy, mostly clopidogrel, for the remainder of the 12 months. In the Japanese STOPDAPT-2 trial, 1 month of DAPT proved superior to 12 months of DAPT for the primary composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, definite stent thrombosis, or major or minor bleeding at 12 months (JAMA. 2019 Jun 25;321[24]:2414-27). In the South Korean SMART-CHOICE trial, 3 months of DAPT was noninferior to 12 months for major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events, and superior in terms of bleeding risk (JAMA. 2019 Jun 25;321[24]:2428-37). Of note, roughly half of patients in the two trials were lower-risk individuals undergoing PCI for stable angina.

Dr. Bell noted that, while the TWILIGHT trial (Ticagrelor With or Without Aspirin in High-Risk Patients After PCI) didn’t make his top-five list, it certainly fits well with the two East Asian studies. The TWILIGHT investigators randomized more than 7,000 patients to 12 months of DAPT or discontinuation of aspirin after 3 months. The result: a lower incidence of clinically relevant bleeding with ticagrelor monotherapy, and with no increased risk of death, MI, or stroke, compared with 12 months of DAPT (N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 21;381[21]:2032-42).

“Again, I would just question what the added value of aspirin is here,” Dr. Bell commented. “Many interventional cardiologists are absolutely terrified of their patients having stent thrombosis, but with second-generation drug-eluting stents – the stents we’re putting in day in and day out – the risk of stent thrombosis is less than 1%. And in these two trials it was less than 0.5%. There’s more risk of having major bleeding events than there is of ischemia, so I think the balance is in favor of preventing bleeding. We know that major bleeding predicts short- and long-term mortality.”
 

COLCOT

This double-blind trial randomized 4,745 patients within 30 days post MI to low-dose colchicine or placebo on top of excellent rates of background guideline-directed medical therapy. The goal was to see if this anti-inflammatory agent could reduce cardiovascular events independent of any lipid-lowering effect, as was earlier seen with canakinumab in the CANTOS trial. It did so to a statistically significant but relatively modest degree, with a 5.5% rate of the composite cardiovascular events endpoint in the colchicine group and 7.1% in placebo-treated controls (N Engl J Med. 2019 Dec 26;381[26]:2497-505). But Dr. Bell was unimpressed.

“All-cause mortality was identical at 1.8% in both groups. So colchicine is not saving lives. In fact, the only real differences were in stroke – but the study wasn’t powered to look at stroke – and in urgent hospitalization for angina leading to revascularization, which is a soft endpoint,” he observed.

Plus, 2.5% of patients were lost to follow-up, which Dr. Bell considers “a little concerning” in a trial conducted in the current era.

“In my opinion, the evidence that colchicine is effective is weak, and I don’t think really supports the drug’s routine use post MI. We already send these patients out on numerous medications. We have to think about cost/benefit, and if a patient asks me: ‘Is this going to prevent another heart attack or make me live longer?’ I think the unequivocal answer is no,” he said.

These days colchicine is no longer an inexpensive drug, either, at an average cost of $300-$400 per month, the cardiologist added.
 

COMPLETE

This study randomized more than 4,000 patients with ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) and multivessel disease to primary PCI of the culprit lesion only or to staged complete revascularization via PCI of all angiographically significant nonculprit lesions. Complete revascularization proved to be the superior strategy, with a 26% reduction in the risk of the composite of cardiovascular death or MI at a median of 3 years (N Engl J Med. 2019 Oct 10;381[15]:1411-21).

The optimal timing of the staged procedure remains unclear, since the study didn’t specify a protocol.

“I’m still a bit uncomfortable doing multivessel PCI at 2 o’clock in the morning in the setting of STEMI in someone I’ve never met before. I don’t think there’s a rush to do anything then. Often in this middle-of-the-night stuff, we miss things or we overinterpret things. I think it’s better to let the patient cool down, get to know them,” according to Dr. Bell.
 

EXCEL

Publication of the 5-year outcomes of the largest-ever randomized trial of PCI versus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for left main coronary disease has led to furious controversy, with a few of the surgeons involved in the study opting to publically broadcast allegations of misbehavior on the part of the interventional cardiologist study leadership, charges that have been strongly denied.

The actual results are in line with findings reported from smaller randomized trials. At 5 years in EXCEL, there was no significant difference between the PCI and CABG groups in the primary composite endpoint of death, cerebrovascular accident, or MI (N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 7;381[19]:1820-30). The all-cause mortality rate was 13% in the PCI arm and 9.9% with CABG, but this finding comes with a caveat.

“I’ll emphasize this trial was never powered to look at mortality. Neither were any of the other randomized trials. On the other hand, I don’t think you can necessarily ignore the finding of an absolute 3.1% difference,” Dr. Bell said.

PCI and CABG are both very good, mature therapies for left main disease, in his view. In the setting of more-complex coronary disease in younger patients, he often views the complete revascularization offered by surgery as the preferred option. On the other hand, in an 80-year-old with severe comorbidities, clearly PCI is attractive.

He considers the highly public nature of this interspecialty spat a regrettable black eye for the entire field of cardiovascular medicine. And he predicted that an ongoing outside neutral-party review of the study data and procedures will conclude, as he has, “there was no malfeasance at all in the trial.”

Dr. Bell reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.

bjancin@mdedge.com

SNOWMASS, COLO. – A repeated theme threading through much of one prominent interventional cardiologist’s personal list of the top five coronary artery disease (CAD) trials of the past year is that aspirin is very often more trouble than it’s worth.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“For some years I’ve been concerned that the only thing that aspirin does [in patients after percutaneous coronary intervention] is increase your risk of bleeding. It doesn’t really provide any additional ischemic protection,” Malcolm R. Bell, MBBS, said at the annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.

“I’ll remind you that, when we go back to the early stent days, the combination of clopidogrel and aspirin was never compared in a proper trial to clopidogrel alone. We’ve just inherited this DAPT [dual-antiplatelet therapy] philosophy,” observed Dr. Bell, professor of medicine and vice chair of the department of cardiovascular medicine at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

Here are the key takeaway messages from his five most important randomized trials in CAD during the last year.
 

AUGUSTUS

For years, cardiologists have grappled with how to best manage high-cardiovascular-risk patients with atrial fibrillation who seem like they might benefit from triple-antithrombotic therapy. AUGUSTUS supplied the answer: Don’t do it. Skip the aspirin and turn instead to a P2Y12 inhibitor plus a non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant (NOAC), rather than warfarin.

“I would like you to think of triple therapy as a triple threat. That’s really what triple therapy is all about”– a three-pronged threat to patient safety, Dr. Bell commented.

In AUGUSTUS, 4,614 patients with atrial fibrillation and CAD with an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and/or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in 33 countries were placed on a P2Y12 inhibitor – most often clopidogrel – and randomized double blind to either apixaban (Eliquis) or warfarin, and further to aspirin or placebo, for 6 months of antithrombotic therapy. The strategy of a P2Y12 inhibitor and apixaban without aspirin was the clear winner, resulting in significantly less major bleeding, mortality, and hospitalizations than treatment with a P2Y12 inhibitor and warfarin, with or without aspirin. Most importantly, ischemic event rates didn’t differ between the apixaban and warfarin groups. And patients randomized to aspirin had rates of ischemic events and death or hospitalization similar to placebo-treated controls, meaning aspirin accomplished nothing (N Engl J Med. 2019 Apr 18;380[16]:1509-24).

Dr. Bell noted that a meta-analysis of AUGUSTUS and three smaller randomized trials including more than 10,000 AUGUSTUS-type patients with atrial fibrillation concluded that a treatment strategy utilizing a NOAC and a P2Y12 inhibitor resulted in less bleeding than warfarin plus DAPT, and at no cost in terms of excess ischemic events. Moreover, regimens without aspirin resulted in less intracranial and other major bleeding without any difference in major adverse cardiovascular events (JAMA Cardiol. 2019 Jun 19. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2019.1880).

A key message of these four trials is that a NOAC is preferable to warfarin, so much so that, in high-risk patients who are already on warfarin, it’s worth considering a switch to a NOAC.

“And we should really be avoiding DAPT,” Dr. Bell added.

How soon after an ACS and/or PCI should patients with atrial fibrillation stop taking aspirin?

“In AUGUSTUS, randomization occurred at a median of 6 days, so we know that half the patients stopped their aspirin by then. In our own practice, we’re just dropping the aspirin for the most part before the patient leaves the hospital. I think if you leave them with instructions to stop the aspirin in a week’s time or a month’s time it just leads to confusion. And we should also remember that half of the major bleeding after PCI or ACS happens in the first 30 days, so it doesn’t make a lot of sense to say that we should continue it for a month and then drop it,” according to the cardiologist.
 

SMART-CHOICE and STOPDAPT-2

These two large multicenter studies demonstrate that DAPT can safely be stopped early if needed. SMART-CHOICE from South Korea and STOPDAPT-2 from Japan each randomized roughly 3,000 patients undergoing PCI to 12 months of DAPT or to DAPT for only 3 months or 1 month, respectively, at which point the aspirin was dropped and patients in the abbreviated DAPT arm continued on P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy, mostly clopidogrel, for the remainder of the 12 months. In the Japanese STOPDAPT-2 trial, 1 month of DAPT proved superior to 12 months of DAPT for the primary composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, definite stent thrombosis, or major or minor bleeding at 12 months (JAMA. 2019 Jun 25;321[24]:2414-27). In the South Korean SMART-CHOICE trial, 3 months of DAPT was noninferior to 12 months for major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events, and superior in terms of bleeding risk (JAMA. 2019 Jun 25;321[24]:2428-37). Of note, roughly half of patients in the two trials were lower-risk individuals undergoing PCI for stable angina.

Dr. Bell noted that, while the TWILIGHT trial (Ticagrelor With or Without Aspirin in High-Risk Patients After PCI) didn’t make his top-five list, it certainly fits well with the two East Asian studies. The TWILIGHT investigators randomized more than 7,000 patients to 12 months of DAPT or discontinuation of aspirin after 3 months. The result: a lower incidence of clinically relevant bleeding with ticagrelor monotherapy, and with no increased risk of death, MI, or stroke, compared with 12 months of DAPT (N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 21;381[21]:2032-42).

“Again, I would just question what the added value of aspirin is here,” Dr. Bell commented. “Many interventional cardiologists are absolutely terrified of their patients having stent thrombosis, but with second-generation drug-eluting stents – the stents we’re putting in day in and day out – the risk of stent thrombosis is less than 1%. And in these two trials it was less than 0.5%. There’s more risk of having major bleeding events than there is of ischemia, so I think the balance is in favor of preventing bleeding. We know that major bleeding predicts short- and long-term mortality.”
 

COLCOT

This double-blind trial randomized 4,745 patients within 30 days post MI to low-dose colchicine or placebo on top of excellent rates of background guideline-directed medical therapy. The goal was to see if this anti-inflammatory agent could reduce cardiovascular events independent of any lipid-lowering effect, as was earlier seen with canakinumab in the CANTOS trial. It did so to a statistically significant but relatively modest degree, with a 5.5% rate of the composite cardiovascular events endpoint in the colchicine group and 7.1% in placebo-treated controls (N Engl J Med. 2019 Dec 26;381[26]:2497-505). But Dr. Bell was unimpressed.

“All-cause mortality was identical at 1.8% in both groups. So colchicine is not saving lives. In fact, the only real differences were in stroke – but the study wasn’t powered to look at stroke – and in urgent hospitalization for angina leading to revascularization, which is a soft endpoint,” he observed.

Plus, 2.5% of patients were lost to follow-up, which Dr. Bell considers “a little concerning” in a trial conducted in the current era.

“In my opinion, the evidence that colchicine is effective is weak, and I don’t think really supports the drug’s routine use post MI. We already send these patients out on numerous medications. We have to think about cost/benefit, and if a patient asks me: ‘Is this going to prevent another heart attack or make me live longer?’ I think the unequivocal answer is no,” he said.

These days colchicine is no longer an inexpensive drug, either, at an average cost of $300-$400 per month, the cardiologist added.
 

COMPLETE

This study randomized more than 4,000 patients with ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) and multivessel disease to primary PCI of the culprit lesion only or to staged complete revascularization via PCI of all angiographically significant nonculprit lesions. Complete revascularization proved to be the superior strategy, with a 26% reduction in the risk of the composite of cardiovascular death or MI at a median of 3 years (N Engl J Med. 2019 Oct 10;381[15]:1411-21).

The optimal timing of the staged procedure remains unclear, since the study didn’t specify a protocol.

“I’m still a bit uncomfortable doing multivessel PCI at 2 o’clock in the morning in the setting of STEMI in someone I’ve never met before. I don’t think there’s a rush to do anything then. Often in this middle-of-the-night stuff, we miss things or we overinterpret things. I think it’s better to let the patient cool down, get to know them,” according to Dr. Bell.
 

EXCEL

Publication of the 5-year outcomes of the largest-ever randomized trial of PCI versus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for left main coronary disease has led to furious controversy, with a few of the surgeons involved in the study opting to publically broadcast allegations of misbehavior on the part of the interventional cardiologist study leadership, charges that have been strongly denied.

The actual results are in line with findings reported from smaller randomized trials. At 5 years in EXCEL, there was no significant difference between the PCI and CABG groups in the primary composite endpoint of death, cerebrovascular accident, or MI (N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 7;381[19]:1820-30). The all-cause mortality rate was 13% in the PCI arm and 9.9% with CABG, but this finding comes with a caveat.

“I’ll emphasize this trial was never powered to look at mortality. Neither were any of the other randomized trials. On the other hand, I don’t think you can necessarily ignore the finding of an absolute 3.1% difference,” Dr. Bell said.

PCI and CABG are both very good, mature therapies for left main disease, in his view. In the setting of more-complex coronary disease in younger patients, he often views the complete revascularization offered by surgery as the preferred option. On the other hand, in an 80-year-old with severe comorbidities, clearly PCI is attractive.

He considers the highly public nature of this interspecialty spat a regrettable black eye for the entire field of cardiovascular medicine. And he predicted that an ongoing outside neutral-party review of the study data and procedures will conclude, as he has, “there was no malfeasance at all in the trial.”

Dr. Bell reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.

bjancin@mdedge.com

SNOWMASS, COLO. – A repeated theme threading through much of one prominent interventional cardiologist’s personal list of the top five coronary artery disease (CAD) trials of the past year is that aspirin is very often more trouble than it’s worth.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“For some years I’ve been concerned that the only thing that aspirin does [in patients after percutaneous coronary intervention] is increase your risk of bleeding. It doesn’t really provide any additional ischemic protection,” Malcolm R. Bell, MBBS, said at the annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.

“I’ll remind you that, when we go back to the early stent days, the combination of clopidogrel and aspirin was never compared in a proper trial to clopidogrel alone. We’ve just inherited this DAPT [dual-antiplatelet therapy] philosophy,” observed Dr. Bell, professor of medicine and vice chair of the department of cardiovascular medicine at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

Here are the key takeaway messages from his five most important randomized trials in CAD during the last year.
 

AUGUSTUS

For years, cardiologists have grappled with how to best manage high-cardiovascular-risk patients with atrial fibrillation who seem like they might benefit from triple-antithrombotic therapy. AUGUSTUS supplied the answer: Don’t do it. Skip the aspirin and turn instead to a P2Y12 inhibitor plus a non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant (NOAC), rather than warfarin.

“I would like you to think of triple therapy as a triple threat. That’s really what triple therapy is all about”– a three-pronged threat to patient safety, Dr. Bell commented.

In AUGUSTUS, 4,614 patients with atrial fibrillation and CAD with an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and/or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in 33 countries were placed on a P2Y12 inhibitor – most often clopidogrel – and randomized double blind to either apixaban (Eliquis) or warfarin, and further to aspirin or placebo, for 6 months of antithrombotic therapy. The strategy of a P2Y12 inhibitor and apixaban without aspirin was the clear winner, resulting in significantly less major bleeding, mortality, and hospitalizations than treatment with a P2Y12 inhibitor and warfarin, with or without aspirin. Most importantly, ischemic event rates didn’t differ between the apixaban and warfarin groups. And patients randomized to aspirin had rates of ischemic events and death or hospitalization similar to placebo-treated controls, meaning aspirin accomplished nothing (N Engl J Med. 2019 Apr 18;380[16]:1509-24).

Dr. Bell noted that a meta-analysis of AUGUSTUS and three smaller randomized trials including more than 10,000 AUGUSTUS-type patients with atrial fibrillation concluded that a treatment strategy utilizing a NOAC and a P2Y12 inhibitor resulted in less bleeding than warfarin plus DAPT, and at no cost in terms of excess ischemic events. Moreover, regimens without aspirin resulted in less intracranial and other major bleeding without any difference in major adverse cardiovascular events (JAMA Cardiol. 2019 Jun 19. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2019.1880).

A key message of these four trials is that a NOAC is preferable to warfarin, so much so that, in high-risk patients who are already on warfarin, it’s worth considering a switch to a NOAC.

“And we should really be avoiding DAPT,” Dr. Bell added.

How soon after an ACS and/or PCI should patients with atrial fibrillation stop taking aspirin?

“In AUGUSTUS, randomization occurred at a median of 6 days, so we know that half the patients stopped their aspirin by then. In our own practice, we’re just dropping the aspirin for the most part before the patient leaves the hospital. I think if you leave them with instructions to stop the aspirin in a week’s time or a month’s time it just leads to confusion. And we should also remember that half of the major bleeding after PCI or ACS happens in the first 30 days, so it doesn’t make a lot of sense to say that we should continue it for a month and then drop it,” according to the cardiologist.
 

SMART-CHOICE and STOPDAPT-2

These two large multicenter studies demonstrate that DAPT can safely be stopped early if needed. SMART-CHOICE from South Korea and STOPDAPT-2 from Japan each randomized roughly 3,000 patients undergoing PCI to 12 months of DAPT or to DAPT for only 3 months or 1 month, respectively, at which point the aspirin was dropped and patients in the abbreviated DAPT arm continued on P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy, mostly clopidogrel, for the remainder of the 12 months. In the Japanese STOPDAPT-2 trial, 1 month of DAPT proved superior to 12 months of DAPT for the primary composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, definite stent thrombosis, or major or minor bleeding at 12 months (JAMA. 2019 Jun 25;321[24]:2414-27). In the South Korean SMART-CHOICE trial, 3 months of DAPT was noninferior to 12 months for major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events, and superior in terms of bleeding risk (JAMA. 2019 Jun 25;321[24]:2428-37). Of note, roughly half of patients in the two trials were lower-risk individuals undergoing PCI for stable angina.

Dr. Bell noted that, while the TWILIGHT trial (Ticagrelor With or Without Aspirin in High-Risk Patients After PCI) didn’t make his top-five list, it certainly fits well with the two East Asian studies. The TWILIGHT investigators randomized more than 7,000 patients to 12 months of DAPT or discontinuation of aspirin after 3 months. The result: a lower incidence of clinically relevant bleeding with ticagrelor monotherapy, and with no increased risk of death, MI, or stroke, compared with 12 months of DAPT (N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 21;381[21]:2032-42).

“Again, I would just question what the added value of aspirin is here,” Dr. Bell commented. “Many interventional cardiologists are absolutely terrified of their patients having stent thrombosis, but with second-generation drug-eluting stents – the stents we’re putting in day in and day out – the risk of stent thrombosis is less than 1%. And in these two trials it was less than 0.5%. There’s more risk of having major bleeding events than there is of ischemia, so I think the balance is in favor of preventing bleeding. We know that major bleeding predicts short- and long-term mortality.”
 

COLCOT

This double-blind trial randomized 4,745 patients within 30 days post MI to low-dose colchicine or placebo on top of excellent rates of background guideline-directed medical therapy. The goal was to see if this anti-inflammatory agent could reduce cardiovascular events independent of any lipid-lowering effect, as was earlier seen with canakinumab in the CANTOS trial. It did so to a statistically significant but relatively modest degree, with a 5.5% rate of the composite cardiovascular events endpoint in the colchicine group and 7.1% in placebo-treated controls (N Engl J Med. 2019 Dec 26;381[26]:2497-505). But Dr. Bell was unimpressed.

“All-cause mortality was identical at 1.8% in both groups. So colchicine is not saving lives. In fact, the only real differences were in stroke – but the study wasn’t powered to look at stroke – and in urgent hospitalization for angina leading to revascularization, which is a soft endpoint,” he observed.

Plus, 2.5% of patients were lost to follow-up, which Dr. Bell considers “a little concerning” in a trial conducted in the current era.

“In my opinion, the evidence that colchicine is effective is weak, and I don’t think really supports the drug’s routine use post MI. We already send these patients out on numerous medications. We have to think about cost/benefit, and if a patient asks me: ‘Is this going to prevent another heart attack or make me live longer?’ I think the unequivocal answer is no,” he said.

These days colchicine is no longer an inexpensive drug, either, at an average cost of $300-$400 per month, the cardiologist added.
 

COMPLETE

This study randomized more than 4,000 patients with ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) and multivessel disease to primary PCI of the culprit lesion only or to staged complete revascularization via PCI of all angiographically significant nonculprit lesions. Complete revascularization proved to be the superior strategy, with a 26% reduction in the risk of the composite of cardiovascular death or MI at a median of 3 years (N Engl J Med. 2019 Oct 10;381[15]:1411-21).

The optimal timing of the staged procedure remains unclear, since the study didn’t specify a protocol.

“I’m still a bit uncomfortable doing multivessel PCI at 2 o’clock in the morning in the setting of STEMI in someone I’ve never met before. I don’t think there’s a rush to do anything then. Often in this middle-of-the-night stuff, we miss things or we overinterpret things. I think it’s better to let the patient cool down, get to know them,” according to Dr. Bell.
 

EXCEL

Publication of the 5-year outcomes of the largest-ever randomized trial of PCI versus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for left main coronary disease has led to furious controversy, with a few of the surgeons involved in the study opting to publically broadcast allegations of misbehavior on the part of the interventional cardiologist study leadership, charges that have been strongly denied.

The actual results are in line with findings reported from smaller randomized trials. At 5 years in EXCEL, there was no significant difference between the PCI and CABG groups in the primary composite endpoint of death, cerebrovascular accident, or MI (N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 7;381[19]:1820-30). The all-cause mortality rate was 13% in the PCI arm and 9.9% with CABG, but this finding comes with a caveat.

“I’ll emphasize this trial was never powered to look at mortality. Neither were any of the other randomized trials. On the other hand, I don’t think you can necessarily ignore the finding of an absolute 3.1% difference,” Dr. Bell said.

PCI and CABG are both very good, mature therapies for left main disease, in his view. In the setting of more-complex coronary disease in younger patients, he often views the complete revascularization offered by surgery as the preferred option. On the other hand, in an 80-year-old with severe comorbidities, clearly PCI is attractive.

He considers the highly public nature of this interspecialty spat a regrettable black eye for the entire field of cardiovascular medicine. And he predicted that an ongoing outside neutral-party review of the study data and procedures will conclude, as he has, “there was no malfeasance at all in the trial.”

Dr. Bell reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.

bjancin@mdedge.com