MILAN – Among the dermatologic adverse effects of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy, bullous disorders are relatively infrequent but associated with a high likelihood of treatment interruption, according to results of a single-center study described at the World Congress of Dermatology.

Bullous disorders were seen in about 1% of patients receiving anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 therapy in the single-center retrospective review, and nearly all required systemic steroids and were associated with interruptions and discontinuations of the anti-cancer treatment, reported Jonathan Leventhal, MD, director of the oncodermatology clinic at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

“This series highlights a very important, clinically relevant, cutaneous immune-related adverse event,” Dr. Leventhal said in an oral presentation at the congress. “These disorders manifested in most patients as bullous pemphigoid, occurred several months after starting therapy, and at a frequency rate of 1%” among all patients treated with these agents, “at least in our institution.”

The retrospective review presented by Dr. Leventhal was based on medical records of patients evaluated at Yale New Haven Hospital between 2016 and 2018. This included a total of 853 patients who received anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy, of whom 98 (11.5%) were evaluated at the oncodermatology clinic or inpatient consultative service.

Nine patients – five men, four women – developed bullous disorders, representing about 1% of patients treated with PD-1/PD-L1 blocking therapy, according to Dr. Leventhal. The mean age of the patients was 67.4 years. Seven of the nine patients had received PD-1 inhibitors, while two received PD-L1 inhibitors, for tumors of the lung in four cases, melanoma in two, genitourinary tumors in two, and acute myeloid leukemia in one.

“The time from rash onset to first administration of the drug was over 6 months, which is quite long compared to a lot of the other (checkpoint inhibitor–associated) toxicities that we see more commonly, which often occur in several weeks to just a few months,” Dr. Leventhal said.

Of the 853 patients in this retrospective study, 463 (54.3%) were treated with nivolumab (Opdivo) and 242 (28.4%) were treated with pembrolizumab (Keytruda), both PD-1 blockers. Of the remainder, 112 (13.1%) received the PD-L1 blockers atezolizumab (Tecentriq), 29 (3.4%) received durvalumab (Imfinzi), and 7 (0.8%) received avelumab (Bavencio), Dr. Leventhal reported.

All these patients presented with both pruritus and vesiculobullous eruptions seen mainly on the trunk and extremities, while two patients had oral ulcerations. Other presentations included urticarial-predominant bullous pemphigoid, dyshidrosiform pemphigoid, and lichenoid papules and vesicles. The diagnosis was bullous pemphigoid in seven of nine cases, Dr. Leventhal said.

The best management approach for immune-related bullous disorders would be use of high-potency topical steroids to avoid systemic steroids and avoid interruptions in checkpoint inhibitor therapy, he pointed out. However, eight of the nine patients in this retrospective series required systemic steroids due to progression of the bullae, he added.

Several notable cases were described, including one patient refractory to prednisone and omalizumab who eventually achieved control with methotrexate, a second patient who was well controlled with omalizumab monotherapy and able to resume treatment with an anti PD-1 inhibitor, and another patient who responded to prednisone and dapsone maintenance therapy.

The immunotherapy treatment for cancer was interrupted in four of nine patients due to the bullous disorders, and was permanently discontinued in another four, Dr. Leventhal said.

It’s not clear why patients receiving cancer immunotherapy treatment develop bullous pemphigoid. However, the 180-kd bullous pemphigoid antigen (BP180) is expressed in melanoma and non-small cell lung cancer, which may lead to production of antibodies against tumor cell antigens that also impact the skin, according to Dr. Leventhal.

Further studies are needed to evaluate whether immune-related bullous disorders have any prognostic significance in cancer patients, he added.

Dr. Leventhal reported that he had no relevant disclosures.

MILAN – Among the dermatologic adverse effects of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy, bullous disorders are relatively infrequent but associated with a high likelihood of treatment interruption, according to results of a single-center study described at the World Congress of Dermatology.

Bullous disorders were seen in about 1% of patients receiving anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 therapy in the single-center retrospective review, and nearly all required systemic steroids and were associated with interruptions and discontinuations of the anti-cancer treatment, reported Jonathan Leventhal, MD, director of the oncodermatology clinic at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

“This series highlights a very important, clinically relevant, cutaneous immune-related adverse event,” Dr. Leventhal said in an oral presentation at the congress. “These disorders manifested in most patients as bullous pemphigoid, occurred several months after starting therapy, and at a frequency rate of 1%” among all patients treated with these agents, “at least in our institution.”

The retrospective review presented by Dr. Leventhal was based on medical records of patients evaluated at Yale New Haven Hospital between 2016 and 2018. This included a total of 853 patients who received anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy, of whom 98 (11.5%) were evaluated at the oncodermatology clinic or inpatient consultative service.

Nine patients – five men, four women – developed bullous disorders, representing about 1% of patients treated with PD-1/PD-L1 blocking therapy, according to Dr. Leventhal. The mean age of the patients was 67.4 years. Seven of the nine patients had received PD-1 inhibitors, while two received PD-L1 inhibitors, for tumors of the lung in four cases, melanoma in two, genitourinary tumors in two, and acute myeloid leukemia in one.

“The time from rash onset to first administration of the drug was over 6 months, which is quite long compared to a lot of the other (checkpoint inhibitor–associated) toxicities that we see more commonly, which often occur in several weeks to just a few months,” Dr. Leventhal said.

Of the 853 patients in this retrospective study, 463 (54.3%) were treated with nivolumab (Opdivo) and 242 (28.4%) were treated with pembrolizumab (Keytruda), both PD-1 blockers. Of the remainder, 112 (13.1%) received the PD-L1 blockers atezolizumab (Tecentriq), 29 (3.4%) received durvalumab (Imfinzi), and 7 (0.8%) received avelumab (Bavencio), Dr. Leventhal reported.

All these patients presented with both pruritus and vesiculobullous eruptions seen mainly on the trunk and extremities, while two patients had oral ulcerations. Other presentations included urticarial-predominant bullous pemphigoid, dyshidrosiform pemphigoid, and lichenoid papules and vesicles. The diagnosis was bullous pemphigoid in seven of nine cases, Dr. Leventhal said.

The best management approach for immune-related bullous disorders would be use of high-potency topical steroids to avoid systemic steroids and avoid interruptions in checkpoint inhibitor therapy, he pointed out. However, eight of the nine patients in this retrospective series required systemic steroids due to progression of the bullae, he added.

Several notable cases were described, including one patient refractory to prednisone and omalizumab who eventually achieved control with methotrexate, a second patient who was well controlled with omalizumab monotherapy and able to resume treatment with an anti PD-1 inhibitor, and another patient who responded to prednisone and dapsone maintenance therapy.

The immunotherapy treatment for cancer was interrupted in four of nine patients due to the bullous disorders, and was permanently discontinued in another four, Dr. Leventhal said.

It’s not clear why patients receiving cancer immunotherapy treatment develop bullous pemphigoid. However, the 180-kd bullous pemphigoid antigen (BP180) is expressed in melanoma and non-small cell lung cancer, which may lead to production of antibodies against tumor cell antigens that also impact the skin, according to Dr. Leventhal.

Further studies are needed to evaluate whether immune-related bullous disorders have any prognostic significance in cancer patients, he added.

Dr. Leventhal reported that he had no relevant disclosures.

MILAN – Among the dermatologic adverse effects of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy, bullous disorders are relatively infrequent but associated with a high likelihood of treatment interruption, according to results of a single-center study described at the World Congress of Dermatology.

Bullous disorders were seen in about 1% of patients receiving anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 therapy in the single-center retrospective review, and nearly all required systemic steroids and were associated with interruptions and discontinuations of the anti-cancer treatment, reported Jonathan Leventhal, MD, director of the oncodermatology clinic at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

“This series highlights a very important, clinically relevant, cutaneous immune-related adverse event,” Dr. Leventhal said in an oral presentation at the congress. “These disorders manifested in most patients as bullous pemphigoid, occurred several months after starting therapy, and at a frequency rate of 1%” among all patients treated with these agents, “at least in our institution.”

The retrospective review presented by Dr. Leventhal was based on medical records of patients evaluated at Yale New Haven Hospital between 2016 and 2018. This included a total of 853 patients who received anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy, of whom 98 (11.5%) were evaluated at the oncodermatology clinic or inpatient consultative service.

Nine patients – five men, four women – developed bullous disorders, representing about 1% of patients treated with PD-1/PD-L1 blocking therapy, according to Dr. Leventhal. The mean age of the patients was 67.4 years. Seven of the nine patients had received PD-1 inhibitors, while two received PD-L1 inhibitors, for tumors of the lung in four cases, melanoma in two, genitourinary tumors in two, and acute myeloid leukemia in one.

“The time from rash onset to first administration of the drug was over 6 months, which is quite long compared to a lot of the other (checkpoint inhibitor–associated) toxicities that we see more commonly, which often occur in several weeks to just a few months,” Dr. Leventhal said.

Of the 853 patients in this retrospective study, 463 (54.3%) were treated with nivolumab (Opdivo) and 242 (28.4%) were treated with pembrolizumab (Keytruda), both PD-1 blockers. Of the remainder, 112 (13.1%) received the PD-L1 blockers atezolizumab (Tecentriq), 29 (3.4%) received durvalumab (Imfinzi), and 7 (0.8%) received avelumab (Bavencio), Dr. Leventhal reported.

All these patients presented with both pruritus and vesiculobullous eruptions seen mainly on the trunk and extremities, while two patients had oral ulcerations. Other presentations included urticarial-predominant bullous pemphigoid, dyshidrosiform pemphigoid, and lichenoid papules and vesicles. The diagnosis was bullous pemphigoid in seven of nine cases, Dr. Leventhal said.

The best management approach for immune-related bullous disorders would be use of high-potency topical steroids to avoid systemic steroids and avoid interruptions in checkpoint inhibitor therapy, he pointed out. However, eight of the nine patients in this retrospective series required systemic steroids due to progression of the bullae, he added.

Several notable cases were described, including one patient refractory to prednisone and omalizumab who eventually achieved control with methotrexate, a second patient who was well controlled with omalizumab monotherapy and able to resume treatment with an anti PD-1 inhibitor, and another patient who responded to prednisone and dapsone maintenance therapy.

The immunotherapy treatment for cancer was interrupted in four of nine patients due to the bullous disorders, and was permanently discontinued in another four, Dr. Leventhal said.

It’s not clear why patients receiving cancer immunotherapy treatment develop bullous pemphigoid. However, the 180-kd bullous pemphigoid antigen (BP180) is expressed in melanoma and non-small cell lung cancer, which may lead to production of antibodies against tumor cell antigens that also impact the skin, according to Dr. Leventhal.

Further studies are needed to evaluate whether immune-related bullous disorders have any prognostic significance in cancer patients, he added.

Dr. Leventhal reported that he had no relevant disclosures.

MADRID – Tocilizumab (Actemra) preserved lung function in patients with early systemic sclerosis (SSc), according to a secondary endpoint analysis of the phase 3, double-blind, randomized, controlled focuSSced trial.

Vidyard Video

After 48 weeks, a significantly lower proportion of patients treated with tocilizumab than placebo experienced any decline in lung function from baseline (50.5% versus 70.3% (P = .015), as defined by the percentage increase in predicted forced vital capacity (%pFVC). When only patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD) were considered, the respective percentages were 51.7% and 75.5% (P = .003).

In SSc-ILD patients, a clinically meaningful decline of 10% or more of the %pFVC in lung function was seen in 24.5% given placebo but in just 8.6% of those treated with tocilizumab.

“ILD is a major complication of scleroderma; it has high morbidity and mortality ... and it’s largely irreversible,” Dinesh Khanna, MD, said at the European Congress of Rheumatology.

“In this day and age, when we treat ILD, we wait for a patient to develop clinical ILD,” added Dr. Khanna, director of the scleroderma program at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Clinical ILD can be defined by symptoms, abnormal pulmonary function tests, and marked abnormalities on high resolution computed tomography (HRCT) scans. He indicated that if improving ILD was not possible, then the next best thing would be to stabilize the disease and ensure there was no worsening in lung function.

As yet, there are no disease-modifying treatments available to treat SSc but there are “ample data that interleukin-6 plays a very important role in the pathogenesis of scleroderma,” Dr. Khanna observed. Tocilizumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody against the interleukin-6 receptor.

Data from the phase 2 faSScinate trial showed initial promise for the drug in SSc where a numerical, but not statistically significant, improvement in skin thickening was seen, and the results had hinted at a possible benefit on lung function (Lancet. 2016 Jun 25;387:2630-40).

However, in the phase 3 focuSSced trial, there was no statistically significant difference in the change from baseline to week 48 modified Rodnan skin score (mRSS) between tocilizumab and placebo, which was the primary endpoint. The least square mean change in mRSS was –6.14 for tocilizumab and –4.41 for placebo (P = .0983).

A total of 205 patients with SSc were studied and randomized, 1:1 in a double-blind fashion, to receive either a once-weekly, subcutaneous dose of 162 mg tocilizumab or a weekly subcutaneous placebo injection for 48 weeks.

For inclusion in the study, patients had to have SSc that met American College of Rheumatology and European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) criteria and be diagnosed less than 60 months previously. Patients had to have an mRSS of 10-35 units and active disease with one or more of the following: C-reactive protein of 6 mg/L or higher; erythrocyte sedimentation rate of 28 mm/h or higher; and platelet count of330 x 10⁹ L.


“What was astonishing in the trial was that every patient had HRCT at baseline and at the end of the study,” Dr. Khanna reported. These scans showed that 64% of patients had evidence of ILD at baseline and that those treated with tocilizumab had less evidence of fibrosis at week 48 versus placebo, indicating a stabilization rather than worsening of disease.

A time to treatment failure analysis also favored tocilizumab over placebo, but there were no significant changes in patient-reported outcomes.

Dr. Khanna’s slides stated that “given that the primary endpoint for mRSS was not met, all other P values are presented for information purposes only and cannot be considered statistically significant despite the strength of the evidence.” During the Q&A after his presentation, he noted that it was unlikely that the study’s sponsors (Roche/Genentech) will now pursue a license for tocilizumab in SSc.

Nevertheless, Dr. Khanna concluded, “we have the opportunity, based on these data, to treat these patients early on, where you can preserve the lung function, which is a paradigm shift versus waiting for the lung function to decline, become clinically meaningful, significant, and then treat this patient population.”

Roche/Genentech sponsored the study. Dr. Khanna acts as a consultant to Roche/Genentech and eight other pharmaceutical companies. He owns stock in Eicos Sciences.

SOURCE: Khanna D et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):202-3. Abstract OP0245, doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.2120

MADRID – Tocilizumab (Actemra) preserved lung function in patients with early systemic sclerosis (SSc), according to a secondary endpoint analysis of the phase 3, double-blind, randomized, controlled focuSSced trial.

Vidyard Video

After 48 weeks, a significantly lower proportion of patients treated with tocilizumab than placebo experienced any decline in lung function from baseline (50.5% versus 70.3% (P = .015), as defined by the percentage increase in predicted forced vital capacity (%pFVC). When only patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD) were considered, the respective percentages were 51.7% and 75.5% (P = .003).

In SSc-ILD patients, a clinically meaningful decline of 10% or more of the %pFVC in lung function was seen in 24.5% given placebo but in just 8.6% of those treated with tocilizumab.

“ILD is a major complication of scleroderma; it has high morbidity and mortality ... and it’s largely irreversible,” Dinesh Khanna, MD, said at the European Congress of Rheumatology.

“In this day and age, when we treat ILD, we wait for a patient to develop clinical ILD,” added Dr. Khanna, director of the scleroderma program at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Clinical ILD can be defined by symptoms, abnormal pulmonary function tests, and marked abnormalities on high resolution computed tomography (HRCT) scans. He indicated that if improving ILD was not possible, then the next best thing would be to stabilize the disease and ensure there was no worsening in lung function.

As yet, there are no disease-modifying treatments available to treat SSc but there are “ample data that interleukin-6 plays a very important role in the pathogenesis of scleroderma,” Dr. Khanna observed. Tocilizumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody against the interleukin-6 receptor.

Data from the phase 2 faSScinate trial showed initial promise for the drug in SSc where a numerical, but not statistically significant, improvement in skin thickening was seen, and the results had hinted at a possible benefit on lung function (Lancet. 2016 Jun 25;387:2630-40).

However, in the phase 3 focuSSced trial, there was no statistically significant difference in the change from baseline to week 48 modified Rodnan skin score (mRSS) between tocilizumab and placebo, which was the primary endpoint. The least square mean change in mRSS was –6.14 for tocilizumab and –4.41 for placebo (P = .0983).

A total of 205 patients with SSc were studied and randomized, 1:1 in a double-blind fashion, to receive either a once-weekly, subcutaneous dose of 162 mg tocilizumab or a weekly subcutaneous placebo injection for 48 weeks.

For inclusion in the study, patients had to have SSc that met American College of Rheumatology and European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) criteria and be diagnosed less than 60 months previously. Patients had to have an mRSS of 10-35 units and active disease with one or more of the following: C-reactive protein of 6 mg/L or higher; erythrocyte sedimentation rate of 28 mm/h or higher; and platelet count of330 x 10⁹ L.


“What was astonishing in the trial was that every patient had HRCT at baseline and at the end of the study,” Dr. Khanna reported. These scans showed that 64% of patients had evidence of ILD at baseline and that those treated with tocilizumab had less evidence of fibrosis at week 48 versus placebo, indicating a stabilization rather than worsening of disease.

A time to treatment failure analysis also favored tocilizumab over placebo, but there were no significant changes in patient-reported outcomes.

Dr. Khanna’s slides stated that “given that the primary endpoint for mRSS was not met, all other P values are presented for information purposes only and cannot be considered statistically significant despite the strength of the evidence.” During the Q&A after his presentation, he noted that it was unlikely that the study’s sponsors (Roche/Genentech) will now pursue a license for tocilizumab in SSc.

Nevertheless, Dr. Khanna concluded, “we have the opportunity, based on these data, to treat these patients early on, where you can preserve the lung function, which is a paradigm shift versus waiting for the lung function to decline, become clinically meaningful, significant, and then treat this patient population.”

Roche/Genentech sponsored the study. Dr. Khanna acts as a consultant to Roche/Genentech and eight other pharmaceutical companies. He owns stock in Eicos Sciences.

SOURCE: Khanna D et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):202-3. Abstract OP0245, doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.2120

MADRID – Tocilizumab (Actemra) preserved lung function in patients with early systemic sclerosis (SSc), according to a secondary endpoint analysis of the phase 3, double-blind, randomized, controlled focuSSced trial.

Vidyard Video

After 48 weeks, a significantly lower proportion of patients treated with tocilizumab than placebo experienced any decline in lung function from baseline (50.5% versus 70.3% (P = .015), as defined by the percentage increase in predicted forced vital capacity (%pFVC). When only patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD) were considered, the respective percentages were 51.7% and 75.5% (P = .003).

In SSc-ILD patients, a clinically meaningful decline of 10% or more of the %pFVC in lung function was seen in 24.5% given placebo but in just 8.6% of those treated with tocilizumab.

“ILD is a major complication of scleroderma; it has high morbidity and mortality ... and it’s largely irreversible,” Dinesh Khanna, MD, said at the European Congress of Rheumatology.

“In this day and age, when we treat ILD, we wait for a patient to develop clinical ILD,” added Dr. Khanna, director of the scleroderma program at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Clinical ILD can be defined by symptoms, abnormal pulmonary function tests, and marked abnormalities on high resolution computed tomography (HRCT) scans. He indicated that if improving ILD was not possible, then the next best thing would be to stabilize the disease and ensure there was no worsening in lung function.

As yet, there are no disease-modifying treatments available to treat SSc but there are “ample data that interleukin-6 plays a very important role in the pathogenesis of scleroderma,” Dr. Khanna observed. Tocilizumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody against the interleukin-6 receptor.

Data from the phase 2 faSScinate trial showed initial promise for the drug in SSc where a numerical, but not statistically significant, improvement in skin thickening was seen, and the results had hinted at a possible benefit on lung function (Lancet. 2016 Jun 25;387:2630-40).

However, in the phase 3 focuSSced trial, there was no statistically significant difference in the change from baseline to week 48 modified Rodnan skin score (mRSS) between tocilizumab and placebo, which was the primary endpoint. The least square mean change in mRSS was –6.14 for tocilizumab and –4.41 for placebo (P = .0983).

A total of 205 patients with SSc were studied and randomized, 1:1 in a double-blind fashion, to receive either a once-weekly, subcutaneous dose of 162 mg tocilizumab or a weekly subcutaneous placebo injection for 48 weeks.

For inclusion in the study, patients had to have SSc that met American College of Rheumatology and European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) criteria and be diagnosed less than 60 months previously. Patients had to have an mRSS of 10-35 units and active disease with one or more of the following: C-reactive protein of 6 mg/L or higher; erythrocyte sedimentation rate of 28 mm/h or higher; and platelet count of330 x 10⁹ L.


“What was astonishing in the trial was that every patient had HRCT at baseline and at the end of the study,” Dr. Khanna reported. These scans showed that 64% of patients had evidence of ILD at baseline and that those treated with tocilizumab had less evidence of fibrosis at week 48 versus placebo, indicating a stabilization rather than worsening of disease.

A time to treatment failure analysis also favored tocilizumab over placebo, but there were no significant changes in patient-reported outcomes.

Dr. Khanna’s slides stated that “given that the primary endpoint for mRSS was not met, all other P values are presented for information purposes only and cannot be considered statistically significant despite the strength of the evidence.” During the Q&A after his presentation, he noted that it was unlikely that the study’s sponsors (Roche/Genentech) will now pursue a license for tocilizumab in SSc.

Nevertheless, Dr. Khanna concluded, “we have the opportunity, based on these data, to treat these patients early on, where you can preserve the lung function, which is a paradigm shift versus waiting for the lung function to decline, become clinically meaningful, significant, and then treat this patient population.”

Roche/Genentech sponsored the study. Dr. Khanna acts as a consultant to Roche/Genentech and eight other pharmaceutical companies. He owns stock in Eicos Sciences.

SOURCE: Khanna D et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):202-3. Abstract OP0245, doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.2120

Clinical question: Do repeated quick Sepsis-Related Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) measurements improve predictive validity for sepsis using in-hospital mortality, compared with a single qSOFA measurement at the time a clinician first suspects infection?

Background: Sepsis in hospitalized patients is associated with poor outcomes, but it is not clear how to best identify patients at risk. For non-ICU patients, the qSOFA score (made up of three simple clinical variables: respiratory rate greater than or equal to 22 breaths/minute, systolic blood pressure less than or equal to 100 mm Hg, and Glasgow Coma Scale score less than 15) has predictive validity for important outcomes including in-hospital mortality. qSOFA is relatively new in clinical practice, and the optimal utilization of the score has not yet been defined.

Study design: Retrospective Cohort Study.

Setting: All adult medical and surgical encounters in the ED, hospital ward, postanesthesia care unit (PACU), and ICU at 12 hospitals in Pennsylvania in 2012.

Synopsis: Kievlan et al. studied whether repeated qSOFA scores improved prediction of in-hospital mortality and allowed identification of specific clinical trajectories. The study included approximately 37,600 encounters. Authors abstracted demographic data, vital signs, laboratory results, and antibiotic/culture orders. An infection cohort was identified by a combination of orders for body fluid culture and antibiotics. The qSOFA scores were gathered at 6-hour intervals from the culture/antibiotic event (suspected sepsis). Scores were low (0), moderate (1), or high (greater than or equal to 2). Mean initial qSOFA scores were greater for patients who died, and remained higher during the 48-hours after suspected infection. Mortality was less than 2% in patients with an initial low qSOFA. 25% of patients with an initial moderate qSOFA had subsequent higher qSOFAs, and they had higher mortality, compared with patients with subsequent low qSOFA scores (16% vs. 4%).

Only those patients with initial qSOFA scores at the time of suspected infection were included, and missing data was common. The results may not be applicable to hospitals with a different sepsis case mix from the those of study institutions.

Bottom line: Repeated qSOFA measurements improve predictive validity for in-hospital mortality for patients with sepsis. Patients with low initial qSOFA scores have a low chance (less than 2%) of in-hospital mortality. Further studies are needed to determine how repeat qSOFA measurements can be used to improve management of patients with sepsis.

Citation: Kievlan DR et al. Evaluation of repeated quick sepsis-related organ failure assessment measurements among patients with suspected infection. Crit Care Med. 2018. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000003360.
 

Dr. Linker is an assistant professor of medicine in the division of hospital medicine at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York.

Clinical question: Do repeated quick Sepsis-Related Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) measurements improve predictive validity for sepsis using in-hospital mortality, compared with a single qSOFA measurement at the time a clinician first suspects infection?

Background: Sepsis in hospitalized patients is associated with poor outcomes, but it is not clear how to best identify patients at risk. For non-ICU patients, the qSOFA score (made up of three simple clinical variables: respiratory rate greater than or equal to 22 breaths/minute, systolic blood pressure less than or equal to 100 mm Hg, and Glasgow Coma Scale score less than 15) has predictive validity for important outcomes including in-hospital mortality. qSOFA is relatively new in clinical practice, and the optimal utilization of the score has not yet been defined.

Study design: Retrospective Cohort Study.

Setting: All adult medical and surgical encounters in the ED, hospital ward, postanesthesia care unit (PACU), and ICU at 12 hospitals in Pennsylvania in 2012.

Synopsis: Kievlan et al. studied whether repeated qSOFA scores improved prediction of in-hospital mortality and allowed identification of specific clinical trajectories. The study included approximately 37,600 encounters. Authors abstracted demographic data, vital signs, laboratory results, and antibiotic/culture orders. An infection cohort was identified by a combination of orders for body fluid culture and antibiotics. The qSOFA scores were gathered at 6-hour intervals from the culture/antibiotic event (suspected sepsis). Scores were low (0), moderate (1), or high (greater than or equal to 2). Mean initial qSOFA scores were greater for patients who died, and remained higher during the 48-hours after suspected infection. Mortality was less than 2% in patients with an initial low qSOFA. 25% of patients with an initial moderate qSOFA had subsequent higher qSOFAs, and they had higher mortality, compared with patients with subsequent low qSOFA scores (16% vs. 4%).

Only those patients with initial qSOFA scores at the time of suspected infection were included, and missing data was common. The results may not be applicable to hospitals with a different sepsis case mix from the those of study institutions.

Bottom line: Repeated qSOFA measurements improve predictive validity for in-hospital mortality for patients with sepsis. Patients with low initial qSOFA scores have a low chance (less than 2%) of in-hospital mortality. Further studies are needed to determine how repeat qSOFA measurements can be used to improve management of patients with sepsis.

Citation: Kievlan DR et al. Evaluation of repeated quick sepsis-related organ failure assessment measurements among patients with suspected infection. Crit Care Med. 2018. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000003360.
 

Dr. Linker is an assistant professor of medicine in the division of hospital medicine at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York.

Clinical question: Do repeated quick Sepsis-Related Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) measurements improve predictive validity for sepsis using in-hospital mortality, compared with a single qSOFA measurement at the time a clinician first suspects infection?

Background: Sepsis in hospitalized patients is associated with poor outcomes, but it is not clear how to best identify patients at risk. For non-ICU patients, the qSOFA score (made up of three simple clinical variables: respiratory rate greater than or equal to 22 breaths/minute, systolic blood pressure less than or equal to 100 mm Hg, and Glasgow Coma Scale score less than 15) has predictive validity for important outcomes including in-hospital mortality. qSOFA is relatively new in clinical practice, and the optimal utilization of the score has not yet been defined.

Study design: Retrospective Cohort Study.

Setting: All adult medical and surgical encounters in the ED, hospital ward, postanesthesia care unit (PACU), and ICU at 12 hospitals in Pennsylvania in 2012.

Synopsis: Kievlan et al. studied whether repeated qSOFA scores improved prediction of in-hospital mortality and allowed identification of specific clinical trajectories. The study included approximately 37,600 encounters. Authors abstracted demographic data, vital signs, laboratory results, and antibiotic/culture orders. An infection cohort was identified by a combination of orders for body fluid culture and antibiotics. The qSOFA scores were gathered at 6-hour intervals from the culture/antibiotic event (suspected sepsis). Scores were low (0), moderate (1), or high (greater than or equal to 2). Mean initial qSOFA scores were greater for patients who died, and remained higher during the 48-hours after suspected infection. Mortality was less than 2% in patients with an initial low qSOFA. 25% of patients with an initial moderate qSOFA had subsequent higher qSOFAs, and they had higher mortality, compared with patients with subsequent low qSOFA scores (16% vs. 4%).

Only those patients with initial qSOFA scores at the time of suspected infection were included, and missing data was common. The results may not be applicable to hospitals with a different sepsis case mix from the those of study institutions.

Bottom line: Repeated qSOFA measurements improve predictive validity for in-hospital mortality for patients with sepsis. Patients with low initial qSOFA scores have a low chance (less than 2%) of in-hospital mortality. Further studies are needed to determine how repeat qSOFA measurements can be used to improve management of patients with sepsis.

Citation: Kievlan DR et al. Evaluation of repeated quick sepsis-related organ failure assessment measurements among patients with suspected infection. Crit Care Med. 2018. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000003360.
 

Dr. Linker is an assistant professor of medicine in the division of hospital medicine at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York.

After 20 years on the rise, new cases of diagnosed diabetes mellitus (DM) in the US have declined by 35%, from 1.7 million in 2008 to 1.3 million in 2017, according to CDC researchers. Not only that: The number of people living with diagnosed DM in the US has remained stable for the past 8 years.

The findings represent the longest decline in new DM cases and the longest sustained plateau in existing cases. Between 1990 and 2009, the number of people living with diagnosed diabetes (DD) rose 4.4% per year, peaked at 8.2 per 100 adults, then leveled off at 8 per 100 in 2017. The trends were similar across age groups, racial and ethnic groups, and genders.

In part, the plateau may be due to the fact that people with DM are living longer, the researchers suggest, pointing to recent reports of a decline in cardiovascular and all-cause mortality in adults with DD.

But maybe the work to “stem the tide of type 2 diabetes” is finally having an effect, says Ann Albright, PhD, director of the CDC Division of Diabetes Translation. She stresses the importance of “putting science-proven programs into action,” citing the National Diabetes Prevention Program as a prime example. But she adds, “We must also increase access to affordable, healthier foods, and safe places to be active.”

The news about the decrease in new diabetes cases comes simultaneously with findings from the Restoring Insulin Secretion (RISE) Adult and Pediatric Medication Studies, which found that type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) progression slows during treatment but resumes after treatment stops.

The research, funded by National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK), was aimed at finding ways to preserve β-cell function. The adult study randomly assigned participants aged 20 to 65 years to receive long-acting insulin (glargine) for 3 months, followed by metformin for 9 months; liraglutide with metformin for 12 months; metformin alone for 12 months; or placebo. Participants’ β-cell function and blood glucose control improved on the treatments, with those in the liraglutide/metformin group showing the most improvement. But the improvements did not persist after treatment ended. “[T]reatment options were equally effective while people were actively on them,” says study chair Dr. Steven Kahn, from the VA Puget Sound Health Care System. “But people need to stay on treatment to maintain the benefits.”

The youth study (participants aged 10-19 years) study compared 3 months of insulin glargine, followed by metformin for 9 months, to metformin alone for 12 months. (Insulin glargine and metformin are the only FDA-approved drugs for young people with T2D )  β-cell function declined in the 2 pediatric treatment groups and even worsened after treatment ended. The studies support earlier evidence that T2DM affects young people differently and more aggressively than it does in adults, NIDDK Director Dr. Griffin Rodgers says.

Other research news is brighter for people at risk for type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM): An NIH-funded study found that treatment with teplizumab, an anti-CD3 monoclonal antibody, delayed clinical T1DM by ≥ 2 years.

Previous research had found that teplizumab slows the loss of β cells in people with recent-onset clinical T1DM, but the drug had not been tested in people without clinical disease. The researchers wanted to see whether early intervention would have a benefit for people at high risk. They compared a 14-day course of teplizumab with placebo in 76 participants aged 8 to 49 years who were relatives of people with T1DM, had at ≥ 2 types of DM-related autoantibodies, and had abnormal glucose tolerance.

During the trial, 72% of people on placebo developed clinical DM compared with 43% of those in the treatment group. The median time for the control participants to develop DM was just over 24 months vs 48 months in the teplizumab group. The effects of the drug were greatest in the first year after it was given, when 41% of the participants—mainly in the placebo group—developed clinical diabetes.

At-risk children and adolescents are known to progress to T1DM faster than adults, the researchers note. They say faster progression is associated with a highly active immune system, which may explain the impact of immune system-modulating drugs like teplizumab.

The study “illustrates how decades of research on the biology of T1D can lead to promising treatments that have a real impact on people’s lives,” NIDDK Director Rodgers says.

But the T1DM and T2DM studies, although highlighting areas of effectiveness, also underscore the continued need for new approaches to prevent and treat DM in young people.

Although the drop in new cases of T2DM are still unclear, the CDC researchers suggest that they are driven in part by increased awareness of DM prevention, changes in diet, changes in physical activity, and changes in diagnostic and screening practices. In other words, prevention also remains an urgent need.

After 20 years on the rise, new cases of diagnosed diabetes mellitus (DM) in the US have declined by 35%, from 1.7 million in 2008 to 1.3 million in 2017, according to CDC researchers. Not only that: The number of people living with diagnosed DM in the US has remained stable for the past 8 years.

The findings represent the longest decline in new DM cases and the longest sustained plateau in existing cases. Between 1990 and 2009, the number of people living with diagnosed diabetes (DD) rose 4.4% per year, peaked at 8.2 per 100 adults, then leveled off at 8 per 100 in 2017. The trends were similar across age groups, racial and ethnic groups, and genders.

In part, the plateau may be due to the fact that people with DM are living longer, the researchers suggest, pointing to recent reports of a decline in cardiovascular and all-cause mortality in adults with DD.

But maybe the work to “stem the tide of type 2 diabetes” is finally having an effect, says Ann Albright, PhD, director of the CDC Division of Diabetes Translation. She stresses the importance of “putting science-proven programs into action,” citing the National Diabetes Prevention Program as a prime example. But she adds, “We must also increase access to affordable, healthier foods, and safe places to be active.”

The news about the decrease in new diabetes cases comes simultaneously with findings from the Restoring Insulin Secretion (RISE) Adult and Pediatric Medication Studies, which found that type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) progression slows during treatment but resumes after treatment stops.

The research, funded by National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK), was aimed at finding ways to preserve β-cell function. The adult study randomly assigned participants aged 20 to 65 years to receive long-acting insulin (glargine) for 3 months, followed by metformin for 9 months; liraglutide with metformin for 12 months; metformin alone for 12 months; or placebo. Participants’ β-cell function and blood glucose control improved on the treatments, with those in the liraglutide/metformin group showing the most improvement. But the improvements did not persist after treatment ended. “[T]reatment options were equally effective while people were actively on them,” says study chair Dr. Steven Kahn, from the VA Puget Sound Health Care System. “But people need to stay on treatment to maintain the benefits.”

The youth study (participants aged 10-19 years) study compared 3 months of insulin glargine, followed by metformin for 9 months, to metformin alone for 12 months. (Insulin glargine and metformin are the only FDA-approved drugs for young people with T2D )  β-cell function declined in the 2 pediatric treatment groups and even worsened after treatment ended. The studies support earlier evidence that T2DM affects young people differently and more aggressively than it does in adults, NIDDK Director Dr. Griffin Rodgers says.

Other research news is brighter for people at risk for type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM): An NIH-funded study found that treatment with teplizumab, an anti-CD3 monoclonal antibody, delayed clinical T1DM by ≥ 2 years.

Previous research had found that teplizumab slows the loss of β cells in people with recent-onset clinical T1DM, but the drug had not been tested in people without clinical disease. The researchers wanted to see whether early intervention would have a benefit for people at high risk. They compared a 14-day course of teplizumab with placebo in 76 participants aged 8 to 49 years who were relatives of people with T1DM, had at ≥ 2 types of DM-related autoantibodies, and had abnormal glucose tolerance.

During the trial, 72% of people on placebo developed clinical DM compared with 43% of those in the treatment group. The median time for the control participants to develop DM was just over 24 months vs 48 months in the teplizumab group. The effects of the drug were greatest in the first year after it was given, when 41% of the participants—mainly in the placebo group—developed clinical diabetes.

At-risk children and adolescents are known to progress to T1DM faster than adults, the researchers note. They say faster progression is associated with a highly active immune system, which may explain the impact of immune system-modulating drugs like teplizumab.

The study “illustrates how decades of research on the biology of T1D can lead to promising treatments that have a real impact on people’s lives,” NIDDK Director Rodgers says.

But the T1DM and T2DM studies, although highlighting areas of effectiveness, also underscore the continued need for new approaches to prevent and treat DM in young people.

Although the drop in new cases of T2DM are still unclear, the CDC researchers suggest that they are driven in part by increased awareness of DM prevention, changes in diet, changes in physical activity, and changes in diagnostic and screening practices. In other words, prevention also remains an urgent need.

After 20 years on the rise, new cases of diagnosed diabetes mellitus (DM) in the US have declined by 35%, from 1.7 million in 2008 to 1.3 million in 2017, according to CDC researchers. Not only that: The number of people living with diagnosed DM in the US has remained stable for the past 8 years.

The findings represent the longest decline in new DM cases and the longest sustained plateau in existing cases. Between 1990 and 2009, the number of people living with diagnosed diabetes (DD) rose 4.4% per year, peaked at 8.2 per 100 adults, then leveled off at 8 per 100 in 2017. The trends were similar across age groups, racial and ethnic groups, and genders.

In part, the plateau may be due to the fact that people with DM are living longer, the researchers suggest, pointing to recent reports of a decline in cardiovascular and all-cause mortality in adults with DD.

But maybe the work to “stem the tide of type 2 diabetes” is finally having an effect, says Ann Albright, PhD, director of the CDC Division of Diabetes Translation. She stresses the importance of “putting science-proven programs into action,” citing the National Diabetes Prevention Program as a prime example. But she adds, “We must also increase access to affordable, healthier foods, and safe places to be active.”

The news about the decrease in new diabetes cases comes simultaneously with findings from the Restoring Insulin Secretion (RISE) Adult and Pediatric Medication Studies, which found that type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) progression slows during treatment but resumes after treatment stops.

The research, funded by National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK), was aimed at finding ways to preserve β-cell function. The adult study randomly assigned participants aged 20 to 65 years to receive long-acting insulin (glargine) for 3 months, followed by metformin for 9 months; liraglutide with metformin for 12 months; metformin alone for 12 months; or placebo. Participants’ β-cell function and blood glucose control improved on the treatments, with those in the liraglutide/metformin group showing the most improvement. But the improvements did not persist after treatment ended. “[T]reatment options were equally effective while people were actively on them,” says study chair Dr. Steven Kahn, from the VA Puget Sound Health Care System. “But people need to stay on treatment to maintain the benefits.”

The youth study (participants aged 10-19 years) study compared 3 months of insulin glargine, followed by metformin for 9 months, to metformin alone for 12 months. (Insulin glargine and metformin are the only FDA-approved drugs for young people with T2D )  β-cell function declined in the 2 pediatric treatment groups and even worsened after treatment ended. The studies support earlier evidence that T2DM affects young people differently and more aggressively than it does in adults, NIDDK Director Dr. Griffin Rodgers says.

Other research news is brighter for people at risk for type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM): An NIH-funded study found that treatment with teplizumab, an anti-CD3 monoclonal antibody, delayed clinical T1DM by ≥ 2 years.

Previous research had found that teplizumab slows the loss of β cells in people with recent-onset clinical T1DM, but the drug had not been tested in people without clinical disease. The researchers wanted to see whether early intervention would have a benefit for people at high risk. They compared a 14-day course of teplizumab with placebo in 76 participants aged 8 to 49 years who were relatives of people with T1DM, had at ≥ 2 types of DM-related autoantibodies, and had abnormal glucose tolerance.

During the trial, 72% of people on placebo developed clinical DM compared with 43% of those in the treatment group. The median time for the control participants to develop DM was just over 24 months vs 48 months in the teplizumab group. The effects of the drug were greatest in the first year after it was given, when 41% of the participants—mainly in the placebo group—developed clinical diabetes.

At-risk children and adolescents are known to progress to T1DM faster than adults, the researchers note. They say faster progression is associated with a highly active immune system, which may explain the impact of immune system-modulating drugs like teplizumab.

The study “illustrates how decades of research on the biology of T1D can lead to promising treatments that have a real impact on people’s lives,” NIDDK Director Rodgers says.

But the T1DM and T2DM studies, although highlighting areas of effectiveness, also underscore the continued need for new approaches to prevent and treat DM in young people.

Although the drop in new cases of T2DM are still unclear, the CDC researchers suggest that they are driven in part by increased awareness of DM prevention, changes in diet, changes in physical activity, and changes in diagnostic and screening practices. In other words, prevention also remains an urgent need.

SAN FRANCISCO – A new meta-analysis suggests – but does not prove – that black patients with type 2 diabetes may not benefit from the widely heralded cardioprotective effects of the diabetes drugs classified as sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitors and glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonists.

“Both are excellent classes of medications that improve hemoglobin A_1c, reduce weight, and may have a renal-protective effect. But because there is no clear evidence of [their] cardiovascular benefit in [black] patients, it may remain appropriate to use other [drugs] when metformin fails,” said internist and lead study author Basem Mishriky, MD, of East Carolina University, Greenville, N.C. He spoke after the report was presented at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

Dr. Mishriky cautioned that the findings of the analysis were not conclusive because the trials included in their analysis had a low number of black patients and were not powered to uncover racial differences.

Recent study results have suggested that sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor (GLP-1R) agonists have significant positive effects on cardiovascular risk. In a 2019 meta-analysis, researchers examined the results of eight trials with 60,082 participants and found that the risk of a composite measure of nonfatal stroke, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and cardiovascular mortality fell by about 12% (SGLT2 inhibitors: hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-1.01 and GLP-1R agonists: HR, 0.88, 95% CI, 0.78-0.98). The study was published in Diabetic Medicine (2019;36[4]:444-52).

Dr. Mishriky and his colleagues decided to conduct their analysis after noticing the high number of white patients included in the cardiac safety trials of these medications. “We cannot assume that a drug causes benefit in [black] patients just because it improved outcomes in a population that was predominantly white,” he said. “The onset of the traditional risk factors for cardiovascular disease, such as diabetes, obesity, and hypertension, occur at an earlier age in [black] patients, and there is a high prevalence of sickle cell trait in [black] patients, which is associated with increased risk for diabetes-related complications.”

In addition, some medications, such as angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, may result in lower reductions in blood pressure in black patients, compared with their white counterparts, he noted.

For the new study, Dr. Mishriky and his colleagues included six cardiovascular safety trials of medications in the two classes of drugs (two for SGLT2 inhibitors and four for GLP-1R agonists) that reported statistically significant decreases in cardiovascular risk. The trials included a total of 53,978 patients, of whom 2,794 (5%) were black.

The researchers found no significant evidence of a difference in the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal stroke) between the diabetes medications (SGLT2 inhibitors or GLP-1R agonists) and placebo among black patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, Dr. Mishriky said.

When the two classes of drugs were pooled, the cardiovascular risk in patients who took the drugs, compared with those who received placebo, was statistically insignificant (risk ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.68-1.39, P = .88). The risk was also statistically insignificant when the SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1R agonists were compared separately with placebo (RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.47-2.14; P = .99 and RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.61-1.53; P = .87; respectively). A comparison of the results for the SGLT2 inhibitors and the GLP-1R agonists showed no difference either.

Dr Mishriky said the results suggest that alternative medications to SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1R agonists, such as pioglitazone (Actos) and dipeptidyl peptidase–4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, might be considered for black patients who fail metformin.

He noted that, given the limitations of the trials included in the analysis, additional trials with SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1R agonists were needed to evaluate cardiovascular benefit in black patients.

An expanded version of the meta-analysis will be published soon, he added.

Dr Mishriky and his colleagues reported no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Mishriky B et al. ADA 2019, Abstract 242-OR.

SAN FRANCISCO – A new meta-analysis suggests – but does not prove – that black patients with type 2 diabetes may not benefit from the widely heralded cardioprotective effects of the diabetes drugs classified as sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitors and glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonists.

“Both are excellent classes of medications that improve hemoglobin A_1c, reduce weight, and may have a renal-protective effect. But because there is no clear evidence of [their] cardiovascular benefit in [black] patients, it may remain appropriate to use other [drugs] when metformin fails,” said internist and lead study author Basem Mishriky, MD, of East Carolina University, Greenville, N.C. He spoke after the report was presented at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

Dr. Mishriky cautioned that the findings of the analysis were not conclusive because the trials included in their analysis had a low number of black patients and were not powered to uncover racial differences.

Recent study results have suggested that sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor (GLP-1R) agonists have significant positive effects on cardiovascular risk. In a 2019 meta-analysis, researchers examined the results of eight trials with 60,082 participants and found that the risk of a composite measure of nonfatal stroke, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and cardiovascular mortality fell by about 12% (SGLT2 inhibitors: hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-1.01 and GLP-1R agonists: HR, 0.88, 95% CI, 0.78-0.98). The study was published in Diabetic Medicine (2019;36[4]:444-52).

Dr. Mishriky and his colleagues decided to conduct their analysis after noticing the high number of white patients included in the cardiac safety trials of these medications. “We cannot assume that a drug causes benefit in [black] patients just because it improved outcomes in a population that was predominantly white,” he said. “The onset of the traditional risk factors for cardiovascular disease, such as diabetes, obesity, and hypertension, occur at an earlier age in [black] patients, and there is a high prevalence of sickle cell trait in [black] patients, which is associated with increased risk for diabetes-related complications.”

In addition, some medications, such as angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, may result in lower reductions in blood pressure in black patients, compared with their white counterparts, he noted.

For the new study, Dr. Mishriky and his colleagues included six cardiovascular safety trials of medications in the two classes of drugs (two for SGLT2 inhibitors and four for GLP-1R agonists) that reported statistically significant decreases in cardiovascular risk. The trials included a total of 53,978 patients, of whom 2,794 (5%) were black.

The researchers found no significant evidence of a difference in the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal stroke) between the diabetes medications (SGLT2 inhibitors or GLP-1R agonists) and placebo among black patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, Dr. Mishriky said.

When the two classes of drugs were pooled, the cardiovascular risk in patients who took the drugs, compared with those who received placebo, was statistically insignificant (risk ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.68-1.39, P = .88). The risk was also statistically insignificant when the SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1R agonists were compared separately with placebo (RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.47-2.14; P = .99 and RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.61-1.53; P = .87; respectively). A comparison of the results for the SGLT2 inhibitors and the GLP-1R agonists showed no difference either.

Dr Mishriky said the results suggest that alternative medications to SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1R agonists, such as pioglitazone (Actos) and dipeptidyl peptidase–4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, might be considered for black patients who fail metformin.

He noted that, given the limitations of the trials included in the analysis, additional trials with SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1R agonists were needed to evaluate cardiovascular benefit in black patients.

An expanded version of the meta-analysis will be published soon, he added.

Dr Mishriky and his colleagues reported no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Mishriky B et al. ADA 2019, Abstract 242-OR.

SAN FRANCISCO – A new meta-analysis suggests – but does not prove – that black patients with type 2 diabetes may not benefit from the widely heralded cardioprotective effects of the diabetes drugs classified as sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitors and glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonists.

“Both are excellent classes of medications that improve hemoglobin A_1c, reduce weight, and may have a renal-protective effect. But because there is no clear evidence of [their] cardiovascular benefit in [black] patients, it may remain appropriate to use other [drugs] when metformin fails,” said internist and lead study author Basem Mishriky, MD, of East Carolina University, Greenville, N.C. He spoke after the report was presented at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

Dr. Mishriky cautioned that the findings of the analysis were not conclusive because the trials included in their analysis had a low number of black patients and were not powered to uncover racial differences.

Recent study results have suggested that sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor (GLP-1R) agonists have significant positive effects on cardiovascular risk. In a 2019 meta-analysis, researchers examined the results of eight trials with 60,082 participants and found that the risk of a composite measure of nonfatal stroke, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and cardiovascular mortality fell by about 12% (SGLT2 inhibitors: hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-1.01 and GLP-1R agonists: HR, 0.88, 95% CI, 0.78-0.98). The study was published in Diabetic Medicine (2019;36[4]:444-52).

Dr. Mishriky and his colleagues decided to conduct their analysis after noticing the high number of white patients included in the cardiac safety trials of these medications. “We cannot assume that a drug causes benefit in [black] patients just because it improved outcomes in a population that was predominantly white,” he said. “The onset of the traditional risk factors for cardiovascular disease, such as diabetes, obesity, and hypertension, occur at an earlier age in [black] patients, and there is a high prevalence of sickle cell trait in [black] patients, which is associated with increased risk for diabetes-related complications.”

In addition, some medications, such as angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, may result in lower reductions in blood pressure in black patients, compared with their white counterparts, he noted.

For the new study, Dr. Mishriky and his colleagues included six cardiovascular safety trials of medications in the two classes of drugs (two for SGLT2 inhibitors and four for GLP-1R agonists) that reported statistically significant decreases in cardiovascular risk. The trials included a total of 53,978 patients, of whom 2,794 (5%) were black.

The researchers found no significant evidence of a difference in the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal stroke) between the diabetes medications (SGLT2 inhibitors or GLP-1R agonists) and placebo among black patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, Dr. Mishriky said.

When the two classes of drugs were pooled, the cardiovascular risk in patients who took the drugs, compared with those who received placebo, was statistically insignificant (risk ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.68-1.39, P = .88). The risk was also statistically insignificant when the SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1R agonists were compared separately with placebo (RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.47-2.14; P = .99 and RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.61-1.53; P = .87; respectively). A comparison of the results for the SGLT2 inhibitors and the GLP-1R agonists showed no difference either.

Dr Mishriky said the results suggest that alternative medications to SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1R agonists, such as pioglitazone (Actos) and dipeptidyl peptidase–4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, might be considered for black patients who fail metformin.

He noted that, given the limitations of the trials included in the analysis, additional trials with SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1R agonists were needed to evaluate cardiovascular benefit in black patients.

An expanded version of the meta-analysis will be published soon, he added.

Dr Mishriky and his colleagues reported no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Mishriky B et al. ADA 2019, Abstract 242-OR.

AMSTERDAM – When predicting the risk of thromboembolism in lymphoma patients receiving chemotherapy, clinicians can rely on a routine diagnostic tool: complete blood count, investigators reported.

Will Pass/MDedge News

A recent study found that high neutrophil to lymphocyte (NLR) and platelet to lymphocyte (PLR) ratios were prognostic for thromboembolism in this setting, reported lead author Vladimir Otasevic, MD, of the Clinical Centre of Serbia in Belgrade.

“Because of the presence of a broad spectrum of risk factors [in patients with lymphoma undergoing chemotherapy], some authors have published risk-assessment models for prediction of thromboembolism,” Dr. Otasevic said during a presentation at the annual congress of the European Hematology Association. While the underlying pathophysiology that precedes thromboembolism is complex, Dr. Otasevic suggested that risk prediction may not have to be, noting that NLR and PLR were recently proposed as risk biomarkers.

To test the utility of these potential biomarkers, Dr. Otasevic and his colleagues retrospectively analyzed data from 484 patients with non-Hodgkin and Hodgkin lymphoma who had undergone at least one cycle of chemotherapy at the Clinic for Hematology, Clinical Centre of Serbia. Patients were followed for venous and arterial thromboembolic events from the time of diagnosis to 3 months beyond their final cycle of chemotherapy. NLR and PLR ratios were calculated from complete blood count. Thromboembolism was diagnosed by radiography, clinical exam, and laboratory evaluation, with probable diagnoses reviewed by an internist and radiologist.

The median patient age was 53 years with a range from 18 to 89 years. Most patients were recently diagnosed with advanced disease (21.1% stage III and 42.5% stage IV). Half of the population had high-grade non-Hodgkin lymphoma (50.0%) and slightly more than a quarter had low-grade non-Hodgkin lymphoma (28.3%). Low-grade Hodgkin lymphoma was less common (17.4%) and followed distantly by other forms (4.3%).

Thirty-five patients (7.2%) developed thromboembolic events; of these, 30 had venous thromboembolism (6.2%), 6 had arterial thromboembolism (1.2%), and 1 had both. Patients who experienced thromboembolic events had significantly higher NLR and PLR than patients without thromboembolism, and both ratios were significantly associated with one another.

A positive NLR, defined as a ratio of 3.1 or more, was associated with a relative risk of 4.1 for thromboembolism (P less than .001), while a positive PLR, defined as a ratio of 10 or more, was associated with a relative risk of 2.9 (P = .008). Using a multivariate model, a positive NLR was associated with an even higher relative risk (RR = 4.5; P less than .001).

“NLR and PLR demonstrated significant powerfulness in prediction of future risk of [thromboembolism] in lymphoma patients,” the investigators concluded. “Simplicity, effectiveness, modesty, and practicability qualify these new tools for routine [thromboembolism] prognostic assessment.”

Dr. Otasevic said that he and his colleagues have plans to build on these findings with further analysis involving progression-free and overall survival.

The investigators reported no disclosures.

SOURCE: Otasevic V et al. EHA Congress, Abstract S1645.

AMSTERDAM – When predicting the risk of thromboembolism in lymphoma patients receiving chemotherapy, clinicians can rely on a routine diagnostic tool: complete blood count, investigators reported.

Will Pass/MDedge News

A recent study found that high neutrophil to lymphocyte (NLR) and platelet to lymphocyte (PLR) ratios were prognostic for thromboembolism in this setting, reported lead author Vladimir Otasevic, MD, of the Clinical Centre of Serbia in Belgrade.

“Because of the presence of a broad spectrum of risk factors [in patients with lymphoma undergoing chemotherapy], some authors have published risk-assessment models for prediction of thromboembolism,” Dr. Otasevic said during a presentation at the annual congress of the European Hematology Association. While the underlying pathophysiology that precedes thromboembolism is complex, Dr. Otasevic suggested that risk prediction may not have to be, noting that NLR and PLR were recently proposed as risk biomarkers.

To test the utility of these potential biomarkers, Dr. Otasevic and his colleagues retrospectively analyzed data from 484 patients with non-Hodgkin and Hodgkin lymphoma who had undergone at least one cycle of chemotherapy at the Clinic for Hematology, Clinical Centre of Serbia. Patients were followed for venous and arterial thromboembolic events from the time of diagnosis to 3 months beyond their final cycle of chemotherapy. NLR and PLR ratios were calculated from complete blood count. Thromboembolism was diagnosed by radiography, clinical exam, and laboratory evaluation, with probable diagnoses reviewed by an internist and radiologist.

The median patient age was 53 years with a range from 18 to 89 years. Most patients were recently diagnosed with advanced disease (21.1% stage III and 42.5% stage IV). Half of the population had high-grade non-Hodgkin lymphoma (50.0%) and slightly more than a quarter had low-grade non-Hodgkin lymphoma (28.3%). Low-grade Hodgkin lymphoma was less common (17.4%) and followed distantly by other forms (4.3%).

Thirty-five patients (7.2%) developed thromboembolic events; of these, 30 had venous thromboembolism (6.2%), 6 had arterial thromboembolism (1.2%), and 1 had both. Patients who experienced thromboembolic events had significantly higher NLR and PLR than patients without thromboembolism, and both ratios were significantly associated with one another.

A positive NLR, defined as a ratio of 3.1 or more, was associated with a relative risk of 4.1 for thromboembolism (P less than .001), while a positive PLR, defined as a ratio of 10 or more, was associated with a relative risk of 2.9 (P = .008). Using a multivariate model, a positive NLR was associated with an even higher relative risk (RR = 4.5; P less than .001).

“NLR and PLR demonstrated significant powerfulness in prediction of future risk of [thromboembolism] in lymphoma patients,” the investigators concluded. “Simplicity, effectiveness, modesty, and practicability qualify these new tools for routine [thromboembolism] prognostic assessment.”

Dr. Otasevic said that he and his colleagues have plans to build on these findings with further analysis involving progression-free and overall survival.

The investigators reported no disclosures.

SOURCE: Otasevic V et al. EHA Congress, Abstract S1645.

AMSTERDAM – When predicting the risk of thromboembolism in lymphoma patients receiving chemotherapy, clinicians can rely on a routine diagnostic tool: complete blood count, investigators reported.

Will Pass/MDedge News

A recent study found that high neutrophil to lymphocyte (NLR) and platelet to lymphocyte (PLR) ratios were prognostic for thromboembolism in this setting, reported lead author Vladimir Otasevic, MD, of the Clinical Centre of Serbia in Belgrade.

“Because of the presence of a broad spectrum of risk factors [in patients with lymphoma undergoing chemotherapy], some authors have published risk-assessment models for prediction of thromboembolism,” Dr. Otasevic said during a presentation at the annual congress of the European Hematology Association. While the underlying pathophysiology that precedes thromboembolism is complex, Dr. Otasevic suggested that risk prediction may not have to be, noting that NLR and PLR were recently proposed as risk biomarkers.

To test the utility of these potential biomarkers, Dr. Otasevic and his colleagues retrospectively analyzed data from 484 patients with non-Hodgkin and Hodgkin lymphoma who had undergone at least one cycle of chemotherapy at the Clinic for Hematology, Clinical Centre of Serbia. Patients were followed for venous and arterial thromboembolic events from the time of diagnosis to 3 months beyond their final cycle of chemotherapy. NLR and PLR ratios were calculated from complete blood count. Thromboembolism was diagnosed by radiography, clinical exam, and laboratory evaluation, with probable diagnoses reviewed by an internist and radiologist.

The median patient age was 53 years with a range from 18 to 89 years. Most patients were recently diagnosed with advanced disease (21.1% stage III and 42.5% stage IV). Half of the population had high-grade non-Hodgkin lymphoma (50.0%) and slightly more than a quarter had low-grade non-Hodgkin lymphoma (28.3%). Low-grade Hodgkin lymphoma was less common (17.4%) and followed distantly by other forms (4.3%).

Thirty-five patients (7.2%) developed thromboembolic events; of these, 30 had venous thromboembolism (6.2%), 6 had arterial thromboembolism (1.2%), and 1 had both. Patients who experienced thromboembolic events had significantly higher NLR and PLR than patients without thromboembolism, and both ratios were significantly associated with one another.

A positive NLR, defined as a ratio of 3.1 or more, was associated with a relative risk of 4.1 for thromboembolism (P less than .001), while a positive PLR, defined as a ratio of 10 or more, was associated with a relative risk of 2.9 (P = .008). Using a multivariate model, a positive NLR was associated with an even higher relative risk (RR = 4.5; P less than .001).

“NLR and PLR demonstrated significant powerfulness in prediction of future risk of [thromboembolism] in lymphoma patients,” the investigators concluded. “Simplicity, effectiveness, modesty, and practicability qualify these new tools for routine [thromboembolism] prognostic assessment.”

Dr. Otasevic said that he and his colleagues have plans to build on these findings with further analysis involving progression-free and overall survival.

The investigators reported no disclosures.

SOURCE: Otasevic V et al. EHA Congress, Abstract S1645.

MILAN – DC-HIL is a novel immune checkpoint with “great promise” as a treatment target for melanoma and other cancers, Ponciano D. Cruz Jr., MD, said at the World Congress of Dermatology.

Andrew D. Bowser/MDedge News

Dr. Cruz, who along with colleagues discovered the immune checkpoint, have generated an anti–DC-HIL monoclonal antibody, which he said dramatically reduces melanoma growth and metastasis in animal models.

That antibody has also been shown to block the T-cell suppressor function of myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs), according to Dr. Cruz, who is with the department of dermatology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

“To date, we haven’t subjected our antibodies to clinical trials, but that will happen soon,” he said in an oral presentation at the meeting.

Also referred to as GPNMB, DC-HIL exists as a cell-bound receptor, and as a soluble factor secreted into circulation, according to Dr. Cruz.

In healthy subjects, DC-HIL is expressed in low levels by certain immune cells but is highly expressed by MDSCs in patients with melanoma, as well as other cancers including breast, colorectal, kidney, lung, and prostate cancers, he said. Those MDSCs expand exponentially as malignancies progress, he noted.

Soluble DC-HIL can be detected in the blood of many patients, and at increasing levels with metastasis, he added. DC-HIL–positive MDSC, and soluble DC-HIL, are blood markers that “may prognosticate the course and response to treatment of these cancers,” he said.

The researchers have demonstrated that DC-HIL inhibits T-cell activation by binding to its ligand, syndecan-4, on effector T cells, Dr. Cruz told attendees. “Thus, DC-HIL/syndecan-4 is a coinhibitory pathway akin to immune checkpoints CTLA4 [cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4] and PD-1 [programmed death-1],” he said.

In DC-HIL knockout mice, melanoma growth is suppressed in comparison to melanoma growth in wild-type mice, Dr. Cruz and colleagues have found in previous experiments. They subsequently found that their anti–DC-HIL monoclonal antibody reduced melanoma growth and metastasis in mice.

The antibody reversed the T-cell suppressor effect of MDSC in patients with metastatic melanoma and other cancers, he said.

Dr. Cruz has reported a disclosure (patents, royalties, other intellectual property) related to the use of anti–DC-HIL antibodies for cancer diagnosis, prognosis, and therapy.

MILAN – DC-HIL is a novel immune checkpoint with “great promise” as a treatment target for melanoma and other cancers, Ponciano D. Cruz Jr., MD, said at the World Congress of Dermatology.

Andrew D. Bowser/MDedge News

Dr. Cruz, who along with colleagues discovered the immune checkpoint, have generated an anti–DC-HIL monoclonal antibody, which he said dramatically reduces melanoma growth and metastasis in animal models.

That antibody has also been shown to block the T-cell suppressor function of myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs), according to Dr. Cruz, who is with the department of dermatology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

“To date, we haven’t subjected our antibodies to clinical trials, but that will happen soon,” he said in an oral presentation at the meeting.

Also referred to as GPNMB, DC-HIL exists as a cell-bound receptor, and as a soluble factor secreted into circulation, according to Dr. Cruz.

In healthy subjects, DC-HIL is expressed in low levels by certain immune cells but is highly expressed by MDSCs in patients with melanoma, as well as other cancers including breast, colorectal, kidney, lung, and prostate cancers, he said. Those MDSCs expand exponentially as malignancies progress, he noted.

Soluble DC-HIL can be detected in the blood of many patients, and at increasing levels with metastasis, he added. DC-HIL–positive MDSC, and soluble DC-HIL, are blood markers that “may prognosticate the course and response to treatment of these cancers,” he said.

The researchers have demonstrated that DC-HIL inhibits T-cell activation by binding to its ligand, syndecan-4, on effector T cells, Dr. Cruz told attendees. “Thus, DC-HIL/syndecan-4 is a coinhibitory pathway akin to immune checkpoints CTLA4 [cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4] and PD-1 [programmed death-1],” he said.

In DC-HIL knockout mice, melanoma growth is suppressed in comparison to melanoma growth in wild-type mice, Dr. Cruz and colleagues have found in previous experiments. They subsequently found that their anti–DC-HIL monoclonal antibody reduced melanoma growth and metastasis in mice.

The antibody reversed the T-cell suppressor effect of MDSC in patients with metastatic melanoma and other cancers, he said.

Dr. Cruz has reported a disclosure (patents, royalties, other intellectual property) related to the use of anti–DC-HIL antibodies for cancer diagnosis, prognosis, and therapy.

MILAN – DC-HIL is a novel immune checkpoint with “great promise” as a treatment target for melanoma and other cancers, Ponciano D. Cruz Jr., MD, said at the World Congress of Dermatology.

Andrew D. Bowser/MDedge News

Dr. Cruz, who along with colleagues discovered the immune checkpoint, have generated an anti–DC-HIL monoclonal antibody, which he said dramatically reduces melanoma growth and metastasis in animal models.

That antibody has also been shown to block the T-cell suppressor function of myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs), according to Dr. Cruz, who is with the department of dermatology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

“To date, we haven’t subjected our antibodies to clinical trials, but that will happen soon,” he said in an oral presentation at the meeting.

Also referred to as GPNMB, DC-HIL exists as a cell-bound receptor, and as a soluble factor secreted into circulation, according to Dr. Cruz.

In healthy subjects, DC-HIL is expressed in low levels by certain immune cells but is highly expressed by MDSCs in patients with melanoma, as well as other cancers including breast, colorectal, kidney, lung, and prostate cancers, he said. Those MDSCs expand exponentially as malignancies progress, he noted.

Soluble DC-HIL can be detected in the blood of many patients, and at increasing levels with metastasis, he added. DC-HIL–positive MDSC, and soluble DC-HIL, are blood markers that “may prognosticate the course and response to treatment of these cancers,” he said.

The researchers have demonstrated that DC-HIL inhibits T-cell activation by binding to its ligand, syndecan-4, on effector T cells, Dr. Cruz told attendees. “Thus, DC-HIL/syndecan-4 is a coinhibitory pathway akin to immune checkpoints CTLA4 [cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4] and PD-1 [programmed death-1],” he said.

In DC-HIL knockout mice, melanoma growth is suppressed in comparison to melanoma growth in wild-type mice, Dr. Cruz and colleagues have found in previous experiments. They subsequently found that their anti–DC-HIL monoclonal antibody reduced melanoma growth and metastasis in mice.

The antibody reversed the T-cell suppressor effect of MDSC in patients with metastatic melanoma and other cancers, he said.

Dr. Cruz has reported a disclosure (patents, royalties, other intellectual property) related to the use of anti–DC-HIL antibodies for cancer diagnosis, prognosis, and therapy.

MADRID – Electrically stimulating the vagus nerve produced clinically meaningful responses in disease activity measures in patients with refractory RA in a small safety study.

A minimal clinically important difference in the 28-joint Disease Activity Score using C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) and the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) at 12 weeks was achieved or exceeded by 5 out of 10 patients; with 2 patients achieving DAS28-CRP–defined remission.

The disease activity scores also were paired with MRI scans and showed, in a handful of individuals, that there was improvement in erosions in those with a clinical response. Greater reductions in proinflammatory cytokines – interleukin (IL)-1-beta, IL-6, IL-17, IL-23, and tumor necrosis factor – were seen with neurostimulation, compared with a sham control group.

“The goal here was to use electrical stimulation to modify or modulate, and improve the treatment of active rheumatoid arthritis,” Mark C. Genovese, MD, said in an interview at the European Congress of Rheumatology.

“The reason for choosing refractory patients is, one, there’s a clear unmet need, but two, because this was a first-in-human study using a novel microregulatory device stimulating the vagus nerve, we thought the benefits-to-risk ratio was most appropriate for its first trial in patients with refractory disease,” explained Dr. Genovese, professor of medicine and director of the rheumatology clinic in the division of immunology and rheumatology at Stanford (Calif.) University.

He added: “Over time, if the device proves successful for modulating disease, one can see it potentially being used earlier in the disease. Whether it is developed as a stand-alone or used as an adjunct on additional therapy will have to be determined based on both its efficacy and its safety.”

Neurostimulation is a novel concept in rheumatology but has been used with success in other areas of medicine – including epilepsy and depression – using electrical pulses instead of drugs. The idea behind it is that it stimulates the inflammatory reflex that modulates multiple the inflammatory pathways. Essentially, it’s thought that electrically stimulating the vagus nerve sends signals to the spleen where T-lymphocytes then signal to other immune cells, such as macrophages and monocytes, to temper their production of proinflammatory cytokines and other mediators.

“Unlike traditional immunosuppressive biologics that may be specifically targeting one inflammatory process, by suppressing the inflammatory reflex we believe we can suppress a variety of inflammatory cytokines in the region of between 30% and 70%,” Dr. Genovese said at a press briefing.

Data from a 12-week, open-label study (Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016;113:8284-9) have already shown that the approach works in patients with refractory RA (n = 17). Once-daily electrical vagus nerve stimulation using an existing device made for treating epilepsy showed that clinically meaningful changes in DAS28-CRP could be achieved through TNF suppression. The effects on systemic TNF release lasted for around 24-48 hours after stimulation.

For the current study, a much smaller, leadless, investigational neurostimulation device was used. Called a MicroRegulator (SetPoint Medical), it is about 1 inch long, less than 2 cc in total volume, and is surgically implanted by a neurosurgeon at the top of the vagus nerve. When activated through an iPad app by the health care professional, it sends electrical impulses down the vagus nerve. The device’s battery is charged externally and wirelessly a few minutes each week. Dr. Genovese noted that the device needs to be turned on for only 60 seconds at a time to have an effect and that patients may feel a vibration but this was not reported in the study as an adverse event.

Results of the first in-human study with the device were presented by Dr. Genovese during the late-breaking clinical trials session at the meeting. He described how a total of 14 patients had the device implanted, the first 3 of whom received once-daily, open-label neurostimulation. The remaining 11 patients were randomized to either once-daily or four-times-daily neurostimulation via the device, or to receive sham therapy in which the device was implanted but not switched on. The patients had moderate to severe RA, defined as four or more tender joints, four or more swollen joints, and a CDAI score greater than 10, plus they had radiologically active disease and an insufficient response to at least two biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs with differing mechanisms of action.

All patients went through the same schedule of device charging and they did not know if they were in the active or sham groups. At the end of the study, patients had the option to continue in a long-term safety extension phase, have the device switched off, or could have it surgically removed.

“This trial was specifically a pilot trial to assess the MicroRegulator from a safety standpoint,” Dr. Genovese noted, but it also was designed to “help understand whether or not there was going to be clinical efficacy and applicability.”

While “there were no device or treatment-related serious adverse events,” there were some “surgical complications associated with the initial procedure.” One patient experienced paralysis of the left vocal cord during implantation that later resolved, and others experienced the following: Horner’s syndrome, tenderness and swelling at the surgical site, acute postoperative pain, and rash and pruritus. That said, there were no withdrawals from the study due to adverse events.

Commenting in a press release issued by the European League Against Rheumatism, Thomas Dörner, MD, of Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, said, “This is a really exciting development. For many patients suffering from rheumatoid arthritis, current treatments don’t work, or aren’t tolerated. These results open the door to a novel approach to treating not only rheumatoid arthritis, but other chronic inflammatory diseases. This is certainly an area for further study.”

The study was sponsored by SetPoint Medical. Dr. Genovese disclosed receiving consulting fees from and having contracts with/grants with the company and acting as a consultant to Galvani and Vorso. He has also received research support from and served as a consultant to Sanofi/Genzyme, Genentech/Roche, and R-Pharm. Dr. Dörner was not involved in the study and commented as part of his role as the chairperson of the EULAR Scientific Program Committee.

SOURCE: Genovese M et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019; 78(Suppl 2):264. Abstract LB0009, doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.8716

MADRID – Electrically stimulating the vagus nerve produced clinically meaningful responses in disease activity measures in patients with refractory RA in a small safety study.

A minimal clinically important difference in the 28-joint Disease Activity Score using C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) and the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) at 12 weeks was achieved or exceeded by 5 out of 10 patients; with 2 patients achieving DAS28-CRP–defined remission.

The disease activity scores also were paired with MRI scans and showed, in a handful of individuals, that there was improvement in erosions in those with a clinical response. Greater reductions in proinflammatory cytokines – interleukin (IL)-1-beta, IL-6, IL-17, IL-23, and tumor necrosis factor – were seen with neurostimulation, compared with a sham control group.

“The goal here was to use electrical stimulation to modify or modulate, and improve the treatment of active rheumatoid arthritis,” Mark C. Genovese, MD, said in an interview at the European Congress of Rheumatology.

“The reason for choosing refractory patients is, one, there’s a clear unmet need, but two, because this was a first-in-human study using a novel microregulatory device stimulating the vagus nerve, we thought the benefits-to-risk ratio was most appropriate for its first trial in patients with refractory disease,” explained Dr. Genovese, professor of medicine and director of the rheumatology clinic in the division of immunology and rheumatology at Stanford (Calif.) University.

He added: “Over time, if the device proves successful for modulating disease, one can see it potentially being used earlier in the disease. Whether it is developed as a stand-alone or used as an adjunct on additional therapy will have to be determined based on both its efficacy and its safety.”

Neurostimulation is a novel concept in rheumatology but has been used with success in other areas of medicine – including epilepsy and depression – using electrical pulses instead of drugs. The idea behind it is that it stimulates the inflammatory reflex that modulates multiple the inflammatory pathways. Essentially, it’s thought that electrically stimulating the vagus nerve sends signals to the spleen where T-lymphocytes then signal to other immune cells, such as macrophages and monocytes, to temper their production of proinflammatory cytokines and other mediators.

“Unlike traditional immunosuppressive biologics that may be specifically targeting one inflammatory process, by suppressing the inflammatory reflex we believe we can suppress a variety of inflammatory cytokines in the region of between 30% and 70%,” Dr. Genovese said at a press briefing.

Data from a 12-week, open-label study (Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016;113:8284-9) have already shown that the approach works in patients with refractory RA (n = 17). Once-daily electrical vagus nerve stimulation using an existing device made for treating epilepsy showed that clinically meaningful changes in DAS28-CRP could be achieved through TNF suppression. The effects on systemic TNF release lasted for around 24-48 hours after stimulation.

For the current study, a much smaller, leadless, investigational neurostimulation device was used. Called a MicroRegulator (SetPoint Medical), it is about 1 inch long, less than 2 cc in total volume, and is surgically implanted by a neurosurgeon at the top of the vagus nerve. When activated through an iPad app by the health care professional, it sends electrical impulses down the vagus nerve. The device’s battery is charged externally and wirelessly a few minutes each week. Dr. Genovese noted that the device needs to be turned on for only 60 seconds at a time to have an effect and that patients may feel a vibration but this was not reported in the study as an adverse event.

Results of the first in-human study with the device were presented by Dr. Genovese during the late-breaking clinical trials session at the meeting. He described how a total of 14 patients had the device implanted, the first 3 of whom received once-daily, open-label neurostimulation. The remaining 11 patients were randomized to either once-daily or four-times-daily neurostimulation via the device, or to receive sham therapy in which the device was implanted but not switched on. The patients had moderate to severe RA, defined as four or more tender joints, four or more swollen joints, and a CDAI score greater than 10, plus they had radiologically active disease and an insufficient response to at least two biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs with differing mechanisms of action.

All patients went through the same schedule of device charging and they did not know if they were in the active or sham groups. At the end of the study, patients had the option to continue in a long-term safety extension phase, have the device switched off, or could have it surgically removed.

“This trial was specifically a pilot trial to assess the MicroRegulator from a safety standpoint,” Dr. Genovese noted, but it also was designed to “help understand whether or not there was going to be clinical efficacy and applicability.”

While “there were no device or treatment-related serious adverse events,” there were some “surgical complications associated with the initial procedure.” One patient experienced paralysis of the left vocal cord during implantation that later resolved, and others experienced the following: Horner’s syndrome, tenderness and swelling at the surgical site, acute postoperative pain, and rash and pruritus. That said, there were no withdrawals from the study due to adverse events.

Commenting in a press release issued by the European League Against Rheumatism, Thomas Dörner, MD, of Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, said, “This is a really exciting development. For many patients suffering from rheumatoid arthritis, current treatments don’t work, or aren’t tolerated. These results open the door to a novel approach to treating not only rheumatoid arthritis, but other chronic inflammatory diseases. This is certainly an area for further study.”

The study was sponsored by SetPoint Medical. Dr. Genovese disclosed receiving consulting fees from and having contracts with/grants with the company and acting as a consultant to Galvani and Vorso. He has also received research support from and served as a consultant to Sanofi/Genzyme, Genentech/Roche, and R-Pharm. Dr. Dörner was not involved in the study and commented as part of his role as the chairperson of the EULAR Scientific Program Committee.

SOURCE: Genovese M et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019; 78(Suppl 2):264. Abstract LB0009, doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.8716

MADRID – Electrically stimulating the vagus nerve produced clinically meaningful responses in disease activity measures in patients with refractory RA in a small safety study.

A minimal clinically important difference in the 28-joint Disease Activity Score using C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) and the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) at 12 weeks was achieved or exceeded by 5 out of 10 patients; with 2 patients achieving DAS28-CRP–defined remission.

The disease activity scores also were paired with MRI scans and showed, in a handful of individuals, that there was improvement in erosions in those with a clinical response. Greater reductions in proinflammatory cytokines – interleukin (IL)-1-beta, IL-6, IL-17, IL-23, and tumor necrosis factor – were seen with neurostimulation, compared with a sham control group.

“The goal here was to use electrical stimulation to modify or modulate, and improve the treatment of active rheumatoid arthritis,” Mark C. Genovese, MD, said in an interview at the European Congress of Rheumatology.

“The reason for choosing refractory patients is, one, there’s a clear unmet need, but two, because this was a first-in-human study using a novel microregulatory device stimulating the vagus nerve, we thought the benefits-to-risk ratio was most appropriate for its first trial in patients with refractory disease,” explained Dr. Genovese, professor of medicine and director of the rheumatology clinic in the division of immunology and rheumatology at Stanford (Calif.) University.

He added: “Over time, if the device proves successful for modulating disease, one can see it potentially being used earlier in the disease. Whether it is developed as a stand-alone or used as an adjunct on additional therapy will have to be determined based on both its efficacy and its safety.”

Neurostimulation is a novel concept in rheumatology but has been used with success in other areas of medicine – including epilepsy and depression – using electrical pulses instead of drugs. The idea behind it is that it stimulates the inflammatory reflex that modulates multiple the inflammatory pathways. Essentially, it’s thought that electrically stimulating the vagus nerve sends signals to the spleen where T-lymphocytes then signal to other immune cells, such as macrophages and monocytes, to temper their production of proinflammatory cytokines and other mediators.

“Unlike traditional immunosuppressive biologics that may be specifically targeting one inflammatory process, by suppressing the inflammatory reflex we believe we can suppress a variety of inflammatory cytokines in the region of between 30% and 70%,” Dr. Genovese said at a press briefing.

Data from a 12-week, open-label study (Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016;113:8284-9) have already shown that the approach works in patients with refractory RA (n = 17). Once-daily electrical vagus nerve stimulation using an existing device made for treating epilepsy showed that clinically meaningful changes in DAS28-CRP could be achieved through TNF suppression. The effects on systemic TNF release lasted for around 24-48 hours after stimulation.

For the current study, a much smaller, leadless, investigational neurostimulation device was used. Called a MicroRegulator (SetPoint Medical), it is about 1 inch long, less than 2 cc in total volume, and is surgically implanted by a neurosurgeon at the top of the vagus nerve. When activated through an iPad app by the health care professional, it sends electrical impulses down the vagus nerve. The device’s battery is charged externally and wirelessly a few minutes each week. Dr. Genovese noted that the device needs to be turned on for only 60 seconds at a time to have an effect and that patients may feel a vibration but this was not reported in the study as an adverse event.

Results of the first in-human study with the device were presented by Dr. Genovese during the late-breaking clinical trials session at the meeting. He described how a total of 14 patients had the device implanted, the first 3 of whom received once-daily, open-label neurostimulation. The remaining 11 patients were randomized to either once-daily or four-times-daily neurostimulation via the device, or to receive sham therapy in which the device was implanted but not switched on. The patients had moderate to severe RA, defined as four or more tender joints, four or more swollen joints, and a CDAI score greater than 10, plus they had radiologically active disease and an insufficient response to at least two biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs with differing mechanisms of action.

All patients went through the same schedule of device charging and they did not know if they were in the active or sham groups. At the end of the study, patients had the option to continue in a long-term safety extension phase, have the device switched off, or could have it surgically removed.

“This trial was specifically a pilot trial to assess the MicroRegulator from a safety standpoint,” Dr. Genovese noted, but it also was designed to “help understand whether or not there was going to be clinical efficacy and applicability.”

While “there were no device or treatment-related serious adverse events,” there were some “surgical complications associated with the initial procedure.” One patient experienced paralysis of the left vocal cord during implantation that later resolved, and others experienced the following: Horner’s syndrome, tenderness and swelling at the surgical site, acute postoperative pain, and rash and pruritus. That said, there were no withdrawals from the study due to adverse events.

Commenting in a press release issued by the European League Against Rheumatism, Thomas Dörner, MD, of Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, said, “This is a really exciting development. For many patients suffering from rheumatoid arthritis, current treatments don’t work, or aren’t tolerated. These results open the door to a novel approach to treating not only rheumatoid arthritis, but other chronic inflammatory diseases. This is certainly an area for further study.”

The study was sponsored by SetPoint Medical. Dr. Genovese disclosed receiving consulting fees from and having contracts with/grants with the company and acting as a consultant to Galvani and Vorso. He has also received research support from and served as a consultant to Sanofi/Genzyme, Genentech/Roche, and R-Pharm. Dr. Dörner was not involved in the study and commented as part of his role as the chairperson of the EULAR Scientific Program Committee.

SOURCE: Genovese M et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019; 78(Suppl 2):264. Abstract LB0009, doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.8716

Patients benefit from multidisciplinary care that coordinates management of complex medical problems. Traditionally, multidisciplinary cancer care involves oncology specialty providers in fields that include medical oncology, radiation oncology, and surgical oncology. Multidisciplinary cancer care intends to improve patient outcomes by bringing together different health care providers (HCPs) who are involved in the treatment of patients with cancer. Because new therapies are more effective and allow patients with cancer to live longer, adverse effects (AEs) are more likely to impact patients’ well-being, both while receiving treatment and long after it has completed. Thus, this population may benefit from an expanded approach to multidisciplinary care that includes input from specialty and primary care providers (PCPs), clinical pharmacy specialists (CPS), physical and occupational therapists, and patient navigators and educators.

We present 4 hypothetical cases, based on actual patients, that illustrate opportunities where multidisciplinary care coordination may improve patient experiences. These cases draw on current quality initiatives from the National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program, which has focused on improving the quality of multidisciplinary cancer care at selected community centers, and the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) patient-aligned care team (PACT) model, which brings together different health professionals to optimize primary care coordination.^1,2 In addition, the National Committee for Quality Assurance has introduced an educational initiative to facilitate implementation of an oncologic medical home.³ This initiative stresses increased multidisciplinary communication, patient-centered care delivery, and reduced fragmentation of care for this population. Despite these guidelines and experiences from other medical specialties, models for integrated cancer care have not been implemented in a prospective fashion within the VHA.

In this article, we focus on opportunities to take collaborative care approaches for the treatment of patients with follicular lymphoma (FL): a common, incurable, and often indolent B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma.⁴ FL was selected because these patients may be treated numerous times and long-term sequalae can accumulate throughout their cancer continuum (a series of health events encompassing cancer screening, diagnosis, treatment, survivorship, relapse, and death).⁵ HCPs in distinct roles can assist patients with cancer in optimizing their health outcomes and overall wellbeing.⁶

Case Example 1

A 70-year-old male was diagnosed with stage IV FL. Because of his advanced disease, he began therapy with R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone). Prednisone was administered at 100 mg daily on the first 5 days of each 21-day cycle. On day 4 of the first treatment cycle, the patient notified his oncologist that he had been very thirsty and his random blood sugar values on 2 different days were 283 mg/dL and 312 mg/dL. A laboratory review revealed his hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c) 7 months prior was 5.6%.

Discussion

The high-dose prednisone component of this and other lymphoma therapy regimens can worsen diabetes mellitus (DM) control and/or worsen prediabetes. Patient characteristics that increase the risk of developing glucocorticoid-induced DM after CHOP chemotherapy include age ≥ 60 years, HbA_1c > 6.1%, and body mass index > 30.⁷ This patient did not have DM prior to the FL therapy initiation, but afterwards he met diagnostic criteria for DM. For completeness, other causes for elevated blood glucose should be ruled out (ie, infection, laboratory error, etc.). An oncologist often will triage acute hyperglycemia, treating immediately with IV fluids and/or insulin. Thereafter, ongoing chronic disease management for DM may be best managed by PCPs, certified DM educators, and registered dieticians.

Several programs involving multidisciplinary DM care, comprised of physicians, advanced practice providers, nurses, certified DM educators, and/or pharmacists have been shown to improve HbA_1c, cardiovascular outcomes, and all-cause mortality, while reducing health care costs.⁸ In addition, patient navigators can assist patients with coordinating visits to disease-state specialists and identifying further educational needs. For example, in 1 program, nonclinical peer navigators were shown to improve the number of appointments attended and reduce HbA_1c in a population of patients with DM who were primarily minority, urban, and of low socioeconomic status.⁹ Thus, integrating DM care shows potential to improve outcomes for patients with lymphoma who develop glucocorticoid-induced DM.

Case Example 2

A 75-year-old male was diagnosed with FL. He was treated initially with bendamustine and rituximab. He required reinitiation of therapy 20 months later when he developed lymphadenopathy, fatigue, and night sweats and began treatment with oral idelalisib, a second-line therapy. Later, the patient presented to his PCP for a routine visit, and on medication reconciliation review, the patient reported regular use of trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole.

Discussion

Upon consultation with the CPS and the patient’s oncologist, the PCP confirmed trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole should be continued during therapy and for about 6 months following completion of therapy. Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole is used for prophylaxis against Pneumocystis jirovecii (formerly Pneumocystis carinii). While use of prophylactic therapy is not necessary for all patients with FL, idelalisib impairs the function of circulating lymphoid B-cells and thus has been associated with an increased risk of serious infection.¹⁰ A CPS can provide insight that maximizes medication adherence and efficacy while minimizing food-drug, drug-drug interactions, and AEs. CPS have been shown to: improve adherence to oral therapies, increase prospective monitoring required for safe therapy dose selection, and document assessment of chemotherapy-related AEs.^11,12 Thus, multidisciplinary, integrated care is an important component of providing quality oncology care.

Case Example 3

A 60-year-old female presented to her PCP with a 2-week history of shortness of breath and leg swelling. She was treated for FL 4 years previously with 6 cycles of R-CHOP. She reported no chest pain and did not have a prior history of hypertension, DM, or heart disease. On physical exam, she had elevated jugular venous pressure to jaw at 45°, bilateral pulmonary rales, and 2+ pitting pretibial edema. Laboratory tests that included complete blood count, basic chemistries, and thyroid stimulating hormone were unremarkable, though brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) was elevated at 425 pg/mL.

As this patient’s laboratory results and physical examination suggested new-onset congestive heart failure, the PCP obtained an echocardiogram, which demonstrated an ejection fraction of 35% and global hypokinesis. Because the patient was symptomatic, she was admitted to the hospital to begin guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) including IV diuresis.

Discussion

Given the absence of significant risk factors and prior history of coronary artery disease, the most probable cause for this patient’s cardiomyopathy is doxorubicin. Doxorubicin is an anthracycline chemotherapy that can cause nonischemic, dilated cardiomyopathy, particularly when cumulative doses > 400 mg/m² are administered, or when combined with chest radiation.¹³ This patient benefited from GDMT for reduced ejection-fraction heart failure (HFrEF). Studies have demonstrated positive outcomes when HFrEF patients are cared for by a multidisciplinary team who focus of volume management as well as uptitration of therapies to target doses.¹⁴

Case Example 4

An 80-year-old female was diagnosed with stage III FL but did not require immediate therapy. After developing discomfort due to enlarging lymphadenopathy, she initiated therapy with rituximab, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CVP). She presented to her oncologist for consideration of her fifth cycle of R-CVP and reported a burning sensation on the soles of her feet and numbness in her fingertips and toes. On examination, her pulses were intact and there were no signs of infection, reduced blood flow, or edema. The patient demonstrated decreased sensation on monofilament testing. She had no history of DM and a recent HbA_1c test was 4.9% An evaluation for other causes of neuropathy, such as hypothyroidism and vitamin B₁₂ deficiency was negative. Thus, vincristine therapy was identified as the most likely etiology for her peripheral neuropathy. The oncologist decided to proceed with cycle 5 of chemotherapy but reduced the dose of vincristine by 50%.

Discussion

Vincristine is a microtubule inhibitor used in many chemotherapy regimens and may cause reversible or permanent neuropathy, including autonomic (constipation), sensory (stocking-glove distribution), or motor (foot-drop).¹⁵ A nerve conduction study may be indicated as part of the diagnostic evaluation. Treatment for painful sensory neuropathy may include pharmacologic therapy (such as gabapentin, pregabalin, capsaicin cream).¹⁶ Podiatrists can provide foot care and may provide shoes and inserts if appropriate. Physical therapists may assist with safety and mobility evaluations and can provide therapeutic exercises and assistive devices that improve function and quality of life.¹⁷

Conclusion

As cancer becomes more curable and more manageable, patients with cancer and survivors no longer rely exclusively on their oncologists for medical care. This is increasingly prevalent for patients with incurable but indolent cancers that may be present for years to decades, as acute and cumulative toxicities may complicate existing comorbidities. Thus, in this era of increasingly complex cancer therapies, multidisciplinary medical care that involves PCPs, specialists, and allied medical professionals, is essential for providing care that optimizes health and fully addresses patients’ needs.

Patients benefit from multidisciplinary care that coordinates management of complex medical problems. Traditionally, multidisciplinary cancer care involves oncology specialty providers in fields that include medical oncology, radiation oncology, and surgical oncology. Multidisciplinary cancer care intends to improve patient outcomes by bringing together different health care providers (HCPs) who are involved in the treatment of patients with cancer. Because new therapies are more effective and allow patients with cancer to live longer, adverse effects (AEs) are more likely to impact patients’ well-being, both while receiving treatment and long after it has completed. Thus, this population may benefit from an expanded approach to multidisciplinary care that includes input from specialty and primary care providers (PCPs), clinical pharmacy specialists (CPS), physical and occupational therapists, and patient navigators and educators.

We present 4 hypothetical cases, based on actual patients, that illustrate opportunities where multidisciplinary care coordination may improve patient experiences. These cases draw on current quality initiatives from the National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program, which has focused on improving the quality of multidisciplinary cancer care at selected community centers, and the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) patient-aligned care team (PACT) model, which brings together different health professionals to optimize primary care coordination.^1,2 In addition, the National Committee for Quality Assurance has introduced an educational initiative to facilitate implementation of an oncologic medical home.³ This initiative stresses increased multidisciplinary communication, patient-centered care delivery, and reduced fragmentation of care for this population. Despite these guidelines and experiences from other medical specialties, models for integrated cancer care have not been implemented in a prospective fashion within the VHA.

In this article, we focus on opportunities to take collaborative care approaches for the treatment of patients with follicular lymphoma (FL): a common, incurable, and often indolent B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma.⁴ FL was selected because these patients may be treated numerous times and long-term sequalae can accumulate throughout their cancer continuum (a series of health events encompassing cancer screening, diagnosis, treatment, survivorship, relapse, and death).⁵ HCPs in distinct roles can assist patients with cancer in optimizing their health outcomes and overall wellbeing.⁶

Case Example 1

A 70-year-old male was diagnosed with stage IV FL. Because of his advanced disease, he began therapy with R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone). Prednisone was administered at 100 mg daily on the first 5 days of each 21-day cycle. On day 4 of the first treatment cycle, the patient notified his oncologist that he had been very thirsty and his random blood sugar values on 2 different days were 283 mg/dL and 312 mg/dL. A laboratory review revealed his hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c) 7 months prior was 5.6%.

Discussion

The high-dose prednisone component of this and other lymphoma therapy regimens can worsen diabetes mellitus (DM) control and/or worsen prediabetes. Patient characteristics that increase the risk of developing glucocorticoid-induced DM after CHOP chemotherapy include age ≥ 60 years, HbA_1c > 6.1%, and body mass index > 30.⁷ This patient did not have DM prior to the FL therapy initiation, but afterwards he met diagnostic criteria for DM. For completeness, other causes for elevated blood glucose should be ruled out (ie, infection, laboratory error, etc.). An oncologist often will triage acute hyperglycemia, treating immediately with IV fluids and/or insulin. Thereafter, ongoing chronic disease management for DM may be best managed by PCPs, certified DM educators, and registered dieticians.

Several programs involving multidisciplinary DM care, comprised of physicians, advanced practice providers, nurses, certified DM educators, and/or pharmacists have been shown to improve HbA_1c, cardiovascular outcomes, and all-cause mortality, while reducing health care costs.⁸ In addition, patient navigators can assist patients with coordinating visits to disease-state specialists and identifying further educational needs. For example, in 1 program, nonclinical peer navigators were shown to improve the number of appointments attended and reduce HbA_1c in a population of patients with DM who were primarily minority, urban, and of low socioeconomic status.⁹ Thus, integrating DM care shows potential to improve outcomes for patients with lymphoma who develop glucocorticoid-induced DM.

Case Example 2

A 75-year-old male was diagnosed with FL. He was treated initially with bendamustine and rituximab. He required reinitiation of therapy 20 months later when he developed lymphadenopathy, fatigue, and night sweats and began treatment with oral idelalisib, a second-line therapy. Later, the patient presented to his PCP for a routine visit, and on medication reconciliation review, the patient reported regular use of trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole.

Discussion

Upon consultation with the CPS and the patient’s oncologist, the PCP confirmed trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole should be continued during therapy and for about 6 months following completion of therapy. Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole is used for prophylaxis against Pneumocystis jirovecii (formerly Pneumocystis carinii). While use of prophylactic therapy is not necessary for all patients with FL, idelalisib impairs the function of circulating lymphoid B-cells and thus has been associated with an increased risk of serious infection.¹⁰ A CPS can provide insight that maximizes medication adherence and efficacy while minimizing food-drug, drug-drug interactions, and AEs. CPS have been shown to: improve adherence to oral therapies, increase prospective monitoring required for safe therapy dose selection, and document assessment of chemotherapy-related AEs.^11,12 Thus, multidisciplinary, integrated care is an important component of providing quality oncology care.

Case Example 3

A 60-year-old female presented to her PCP with a 2-week history of shortness of breath and leg swelling. She was treated for FL 4 years previously with 6 cycles of R-CHOP. She reported no chest pain and did not have a prior history of hypertension, DM, or heart disease. On physical exam, she had elevated jugular venous pressure to jaw at 45°, bilateral pulmonary rales, and 2+ pitting pretibial edema. Laboratory tests that included complete blood count, basic chemistries, and thyroid stimulating hormone were unremarkable, though brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) was elevated at 425 pg/mL.

As this patient’s laboratory results and physical examination suggested new-onset congestive heart failure, the PCP obtained an echocardiogram, which demonstrated an ejection fraction of 35% and global hypokinesis. Because the patient was symptomatic, she was admitted to the hospital to begin guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) including IV diuresis.

Discussion

Given the absence of significant risk factors and prior history of coronary artery disease, the most probable cause for this patient’s cardiomyopathy is doxorubicin. Doxorubicin is an anthracycline chemotherapy that can cause nonischemic, dilated cardiomyopathy, particularly when cumulative doses > 400 mg/m² are administered, or when combined with chest radiation.¹³ This patient benefited from GDMT for reduced ejection-fraction heart failure (HFrEF). Studies have demonstrated positive outcomes when HFrEF patients are cared for by a multidisciplinary team who focus of volume management as well as uptitration of therapies to target doses.¹⁴

Case Example 4

An 80-year-old female was diagnosed with stage III FL but did not require immediate therapy. After developing discomfort due to enlarging lymphadenopathy, she initiated therapy with rituximab, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CVP). She presented to her oncologist for consideration of her fifth cycle of R-CVP and reported a burning sensation on the soles of her feet and numbness in her fingertips and toes. On examination, her pulses were intact and there were no signs of infection, reduced blood flow, or edema. The patient demonstrated decreased sensation on monofilament testing. She had no history of DM and a recent HbA_1c test was 4.9% An evaluation for other causes of neuropathy, such as hypothyroidism and vitamin B₁₂ deficiency was negative. Thus, vincristine therapy was identified as the most likely etiology for her peripheral neuropathy. The oncologist decided to proceed with cycle 5 of chemotherapy but reduced the dose of vincristine by 50%.

Discussion

Vincristine is a microtubule inhibitor used in many chemotherapy regimens and may cause reversible or permanent neuropathy, including autonomic (constipation), sensory (stocking-glove distribution), or motor (foot-drop).¹⁵ A nerve conduction study may be indicated as part of the diagnostic evaluation. Treatment for painful sensory neuropathy may include pharmacologic therapy (such as gabapentin, pregabalin, capsaicin cream).¹⁶ Podiatrists can provide foot care and may provide shoes and inserts if appropriate. Physical therapists may assist with safety and mobility evaluations and can provide therapeutic exercises and assistive devices that improve function and quality of life.¹⁷

Conclusion

As cancer becomes more curable and more manageable, patients with cancer and survivors no longer rely exclusively on their oncologists for medical care. This is increasingly prevalent for patients with incurable but indolent cancers that may be present for years to decades, as acute and cumulative toxicities may complicate existing comorbidities. Thus, in this era of increasingly complex cancer therapies, multidisciplinary medical care that involves PCPs, specialists, and allied medical professionals, is essential for providing care that optimizes health and fully addresses patients’ needs.

Patients benefit from multidisciplinary care that coordinates management of complex medical problems. Traditionally, multidisciplinary cancer care involves oncology specialty providers in fields that include medical oncology, radiation oncology, and surgical oncology. Multidisciplinary cancer care intends to improve patient outcomes by bringing together different health care providers (HCPs) who are involved in the treatment of patients with cancer. Because new therapies are more effective and allow patients with cancer to live longer, adverse effects (AEs) are more likely to impact patients’ well-being, both while receiving treatment and long after it has completed. Thus, this population may benefit from an expanded approach to multidisciplinary care that includes input from specialty and primary care providers (PCPs), clinical pharmacy specialists (CPS), physical and occupational therapists, and patient navigators and educators.

We present 4 hypothetical cases, based on actual patients, that illustrate opportunities where multidisciplinary care coordination may improve patient experiences. These cases draw on current quality initiatives from the National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program, which has focused on improving the quality of multidisciplinary cancer care at selected community centers, and the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) patient-aligned care team (PACT) model, which brings together different health professionals to optimize primary care coordination.^1,2 In addition, the National Committee for Quality Assurance has introduced an educational initiative to facilitate implementation of an oncologic medical home.³ This initiative stresses increased multidisciplinary communication, patient-centered care delivery, and reduced fragmentation of care for this population. Despite these guidelines and experiences from other medical specialties, models for integrated cancer care have not been implemented in a prospective fashion within the VHA.

In this article, we focus on opportunities to take collaborative care approaches for the treatment of patients with follicular lymphoma (FL): a common, incurable, and often indolent B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma.⁴ FL was selected because these patients may be treated numerous times and long-term sequalae can accumulate throughout their cancer continuum (a series of health events encompassing cancer screening, diagnosis, treatment, survivorship, relapse, and death).⁵ HCPs in distinct roles can assist patients with cancer in optimizing their health outcomes and overall wellbeing.⁶

Case Example 1

A 70-year-old male was diagnosed with stage IV FL. Because of his advanced disease, he began therapy with R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone). Prednisone was administered at 100 mg daily on the first 5 days of each 21-day cycle. On day 4 of the first treatment cycle, the patient notified his oncologist that he had been very thirsty and his random blood sugar values on 2 different days were 283 mg/dL and 312 mg/dL. A laboratory review revealed his hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c) 7 months prior was 5.6%.

Discussion

The high-dose prednisone component of this and other lymphoma therapy regimens can worsen diabetes mellitus (DM) control and/or worsen prediabetes. Patient characteristics that increase the risk of developing glucocorticoid-induced DM after CHOP chemotherapy include age ≥ 60 years, HbA_1c > 6.1%, and body mass index > 30.⁷ This patient did not have DM prior to the FL therapy initiation, but afterwards he met diagnostic criteria for DM. For completeness, other causes for elevated blood glucose should be ruled out (ie, infection, laboratory error, etc.). An oncologist often will triage acute hyperglycemia, treating immediately with IV fluids and/or insulin. Thereafter, ongoing chronic disease management for DM may be best managed by PCPs, certified DM educators, and registered dieticians.

Several programs involving multidisciplinary DM care, comprised of physicians, advanced practice providers, nurses, certified DM educators, and/or pharmacists have been shown to improve HbA_1c, cardiovascular outcomes, and all-cause mortality, while reducing health care costs.⁸ In addition, patient navigators can assist patients with coordinating visits to disease-state specialists and identifying further educational needs. For example, in 1 program, nonclinical peer navigators were shown to improve the number of appointments attended and reduce HbA_1c in a population of patients with DM who were primarily minority, urban, and of low socioeconomic status.⁹ Thus, integrating DM care shows potential to improve outcomes for patients with lymphoma who develop glucocorticoid-induced DM.

Case Example 2

A 75-year-old male was diagnosed with FL. He was treated initially with bendamustine and rituximab. He required reinitiation of therapy 20 months later when he developed lymphadenopathy, fatigue, and night sweats and began treatment with oral idelalisib, a second-line therapy. Later, the patient presented to his PCP for a routine visit, and on medication reconciliation review, the patient reported regular use of trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole.

Discussion

Upon consultation with the CPS and the patient’s oncologist, the PCP confirmed trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole should be continued during therapy and for about 6 months following completion of therapy. Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole is used for prophylaxis against Pneumocystis jirovecii (formerly Pneumocystis carinii). While use of prophylactic therapy is not necessary for all patients with FL, idelalisib impairs the function of circulating lymphoid B-cells and thus has been associated with an increased risk of serious infection.¹⁰ A CPS can provide insight that maximizes medication adherence and efficacy while minimizing food-drug, drug-drug interactions, and AEs. CPS have been shown to: improve adherence to oral therapies, increase prospective monitoring required for safe therapy dose selection, and document assessment of chemotherapy-related AEs.^11,12 Thus, multidisciplinary, integrated care is an important component of providing quality oncology care.

Case Example 3

A 60-year-old female presented to her PCP with a 2-week history of shortness of breath and leg swelling. She was treated for FL 4 years previously with 6 cycles of R-CHOP. She reported no chest pain and did not have a prior history of hypertension, DM, or heart disease. On physical exam, she had elevated jugular venous pressure to jaw at 45°, bilateral pulmonary rales, and 2+ pitting pretibial edema. Laboratory tests that included complete blood count, basic chemistries, and thyroid stimulating hormone were unremarkable, though brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) was elevated at 425 pg/mL.

As this patient’s laboratory results and physical examination suggested new-onset congestive heart failure, the PCP obtained an echocardiogram, which demonstrated an ejection fraction of 35% and global hypokinesis. Because the patient was symptomatic, she was admitted to the hospital to begin guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) including IV diuresis.

Discussion

Given the absence of significant risk factors and prior history of coronary artery disease, the most probable cause for this patient’s cardiomyopathy is doxorubicin. Doxorubicin is an anthracycline chemotherapy that can cause nonischemic, dilated cardiomyopathy, particularly when cumulative doses > 400 mg/m² are administered, or when combined with chest radiation.¹³ This patient benefited from GDMT for reduced ejection-fraction heart failure (HFrEF). Studies have demonstrated positive outcomes when HFrEF patients are cared for by a multidisciplinary team who focus of volume management as well as uptitration of therapies to target doses.¹⁴

Case Example 4

An 80-year-old female was diagnosed with stage III FL but did not require immediate therapy. After developing discomfort due to enlarging lymphadenopathy, she initiated therapy with rituximab, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CVP). She presented to her oncologist for consideration of her fifth cycle of R-CVP and reported a burning sensation on the soles of her feet and numbness in her fingertips and toes. On examination, her pulses were intact and there were no signs of infection, reduced blood flow, or edema. The patient demonstrated decreased sensation on monofilament testing. She had no history of DM and a recent HbA_1c test was 4.9% An evaluation for other causes of neuropathy, such as hypothyroidism and vitamin B₁₂ deficiency was negative. Thus, vincristine therapy was identified as the most likely etiology for her peripheral neuropathy. The oncologist decided to proceed with cycle 5 of chemotherapy but reduced the dose of vincristine by 50%.

Discussion

Vincristine is a microtubule inhibitor used in many chemotherapy regimens and may cause reversible or permanent neuropathy, including autonomic (constipation), sensory (stocking-glove distribution), or motor (foot-drop).¹⁵ A nerve conduction study may be indicated as part of the diagnostic evaluation. Treatment for painful sensory neuropathy may include pharmacologic therapy (such as gabapentin, pregabalin, capsaicin cream).¹⁶ Podiatrists can provide foot care and may provide shoes and inserts if appropriate. Physical therapists may assist with safety and mobility evaluations and can provide therapeutic exercises and assistive devices that improve function and quality of life.¹⁷

Conclusion

As cancer becomes more curable and more manageable, patients with cancer and survivors no longer rely exclusively on their oncologists for medical care. This is increasingly prevalent for patients with incurable but indolent cancers that may be present for years to decades, as acute and cumulative toxicities may complicate existing comorbidities. Thus, in this era of increasingly complex cancer therapies, multidisciplinary medical care that involves PCPs, specialists, and allied medical professionals, is essential for providing care that optimizes health and fully addresses patients’ needs.

SAN FRANCISCO – Outside of prescription products for chemotherapy nausea/vomiting, AIDS anorexia, and rare pediatric epilepsies, medical cannabis has the strongest evidence for chronic pain, neuropathic pain, and multiple sclerosis spasticity, according to Kevin P. Hill, MD, director of the division of addiction psychiatry at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

“We are talking about multiple, positive RCTs [randomized, controlled trials]. I think you can’t ignore that. For people who are staunchly opposed to medical cannabis, [it’s becoming] harder and harder to take that tack. I do think we need to come to an understanding that there is some evidence,” Dr. Hill said at the American Psychiatric Association annual meeting.

However, “there’s incredible interest in using cannabinoids for a whole host of [other] conditions for which the level of evidence isn’t where we’d like it to be. In many ways,” legalization has “far outpaced the evidence. We need to be careful,” he said.

Perhaps that’s most true for psychiatric disorders. Although many patients swear by cannabis, what little evidence there is comes from observational studies, and those have mostly been disappointing.

Whole-plant cannabis, for instance, has been associated with an increased risk of depression in a dose-dependent fashion, and increased depression and anxiety symptoms, including panic attacks, among inexperienced users. Cutting back has been associated with symptom relief.

No placebo-controlled trials have been conducted to address cause and effect, so it’s unknown whether people use because they have worse disease or have worse disease because they use.

For now, “whole-plant cannabis to treat anxiety is probably not a good idea. We may ultimately find that cannabidiol” – CBD, the nonpsychoactive component of cannabis – “may have utility. If patients are already using, CBD is a better bet; it has no abuse potential,” Dr. Hill said.

He sometimes recommends CBD when patients fail traditional options, but over-the-counter or online products rather than the “exorbitantly expensive” Food and Drug Administration–approved version Epidiolex, indicated for the rare pediatric epilepsies Lennox-Gastaut and Dravet syndromes.

He asks patients to “tell me what you’re going to buy and we’ll go from there, and try to dose it.” Dr. Hill has confidence in only a few CBD brands to be accurately labeled, one of which is Charlotte’s Web.

There’s been a lot of excitement over cannabis for PTSD, but at this point, positive findings are mostly anecdotal, and use was associated with worse symptoms, increased violence, more alcohol and drug use, and worse therapy outcomes in a longitudinal study of 2,276 veterans. At least one ongoing RCT is underway that should address cause-and-effect (J Clin Psychiatry. 2015 Sep;76[9]:1174-80).

Like anxiety, CBD “would probably have more promise than whole-plant cannabis” for PTSD, Dr. Hill said.

That also might be the case for bipolar disorder. Whole-plant use is particularly common among patients, and it, again, seems to make symptoms worse.

The data for insomnia are much like that seen with alcohol: quicker asleep but worse sleep quality. “One of the myths about CBD is that it improves sleep; I don’t think that’s really been shown to be the case. A lot of it has to do with other chemicals included in the CBD preparation,” he said.

Dr. Hill is the author of Marijuana: The Unbiased Truth about the World’s Most Popular Weed (Center City, Minn.: Hazelden Publishing, 2015). He had no industry disclosures.

aotto@mdedge.com

SAN FRANCISCO – Outside of prescription products for chemotherapy nausea/vomiting, AIDS anorexia, and rare pediatric epilepsies, medical cannabis has the strongest evidence for chronic pain, neuropathic pain, and multiple sclerosis spasticity, according to Kevin P. Hill, MD, director of the division of addiction psychiatry at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

“We are talking about multiple, positive RCTs [randomized, controlled trials]. I think you can’t ignore that. For people who are staunchly opposed to medical cannabis, [it’s becoming] harder and harder to take that tack. I do think we need to come to an understanding that there is some evidence,” Dr. Hill said at the American Psychiatric Association annual meeting.

However, “there’s incredible interest in using cannabinoids for a whole host of [other] conditions for which the level of evidence isn’t where we’d like it to be. In many ways,” legalization has “far outpaced the evidence. We need to be careful,” he said.

Perhaps that’s most true for psychiatric disorders. Although many patients swear by cannabis, what little evidence there is comes from observational studies, and those have mostly been disappointing.

Whole-plant cannabis, for instance, has been associated with an increased risk of depression in a dose-dependent fashion, and increased depression and anxiety symptoms, including panic attacks, among inexperienced users. Cutting back has been associated with symptom relief.

No placebo-controlled trials have been conducted to address cause and effect, so it’s unknown whether people use because they have worse disease or have worse disease because they use.

For now, “whole-plant cannabis to treat anxiety is probably not a good idea. We may ultimately find that cannabidiol” – CBD, the nonpsychoactive component of cannabis – “may have utility. If patients are already using, CBD is a better bet; it has no abuse potential,” Dr. Hill said.

He sometimes recommends CBD when patients fail traditional options, but over-the-counter or online products rather than the “exorbitantly expensive” Food and Drug Administration–approved version Epidiolex, indicated for the rare pediatric epilepsies Lennox-Gastaut and Dravet syndromes.

He asks patients to “tell me what you’re going to buy and we’ll go from there, and try to dose it.” Dr. Hill has confidence in only a few CBD brands to be accurately labeled, one of which is Charlotte’s Web.

There’s been a lot of excitement over cannabis for PTSD, but at this point, positive findings are mostly anecdotal, and use was associated with worse symptoms, increased violence, more alcohol and drug use, and worse therapy outcomes in a longitudinal study of 2,276 veterans. At least one ongoing RCT is underway that should address cause-and-effect (J Clin Psychiatry. 2015 Sep;76[9]:1174-80).

Like anxiety, CBD “would probably have more promise than whole-plant cannabis” for PTSD, Dr. Hill said.

That also might be the case for bipolar disorder. Whole-plant use is particularly common among patients, and it, again, seems to make symptoms worse.

The data for insomnia are much like that seen with alcohol: quicker asleep but worse sleep quality. “One of the myths about CBD is that it improves sleep; I don’t think that’s really been shown to be the case. A lot of it has to do with other chemicals included in the CBD preparation,” he said.

Dr. Hill is the author of Marijuana: The Unbiased Truth about the World’s Most Popular Weed (Center City, Minn.: Hazelden Publishing, 2015). He had no industry disclosures.

aotto@mdedge.com

SAN FRANCISCO – Outside of prescription products for chemotherapy nausea/vomiting, AIDS anorexia, and rare pediatric epilepsies, medical cannabis has the strongest evidence for chronic pain, neuropathic pain, and multiple sclerosis spasticity, according to Kevin P. Hill, MD, director of the division of addiction psychiatry at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

“We are talking about multiple, positive RCTs [randomized, controlled trials]. I think you can’t ignore that. For people who are staunchly opposed to medical cannabis, [it’s becoming] harder and harder to take that tack. I do think we need to come to an understanding that there is some evidence,” Dr. Hill said at the American Psychiatric Association annual meeting.

However, “there’s incredible interest in using cannabinoids for a whole host of [other] conditions for which the level of evidence isn’t where we’d like it to be. In many ways,” legalization has “far outpaced the evidence. We need to be careful,” he said.

Perhaps that’s most true for psychiatric disorders. Although many patients swear by cannabis, what little evidence there is comes from observational studies, and those have mostly been disappointing.

Whole-plant cannabis, for instance, has been associated with an increased risk of depression in a dose-dependent fashion, and increased depression and anxiety symptoms, including panic attacks, among inexperienced users. Cutting back has been associated with symptom relief.

No placebo-controlled trials have been conducted to address cause and effect, so it’s unknown whether people use because they have worse disease or have worse disease because they use.

For now, “whole-plant cannabis to treat anxiety is probably not a good idea. We may ultimately find that cannabidiol” – CBD, the nonpsychoactive component of cannabis – “may have utility. If patients are already using, CBD is a better bet; it has no abuse potential,” Dr. Hill said.

He sometimes recommends CBD when patients fail traditional options, but over-the-counter or online products rather than the “exorbitantly expensive” Food and Drug Administration–approved version Epidiolex, indicated for the rare pediatric epilepsies Lennox-Gastaut and Dravet syndromes.

He asks patients to “tell me what you’re going to buy and we’ll go from there, and try to dose it.” Dr. Hill has confidence in only a few CBD brands to be accurately labeled, one of which is Charlotte’s Web.

There’s been a lot of excitement over cannabis for PTSD, but at this point, positive findings are mostly anecdotal, and use was associated with worse symptoms, increased violence, more alcohol and drug use, and worse therapy outcomes in a longitudinal study of 2,276 veterans. At least one ongoing RCT is underway that should address cause-and-effect (J Clin Psychiatry. 2015 Sep;76[9]:1174-80).

Like anxiety, CBD “would probably have more promise than whole-plant cannabis” for PTSD, Dr. Hill said.

That also might be the case for bipolar disorder. Whole-plant use is particularly common among patients, and it, again, seems to make symptoms worse.

The data for insomnia are much like that seen with alcohol: quicker asleep but worse sleep quality. “One of the myths about CBD is that it improves sleep; I don’t think that’s really been shown to be the case. A lot of it has to do with other chemicals included in the CBD preparation,” he said.

Dr. Hill is the author of Marijuana: The Unbiased Truth about the World’s Most Popular Weed (Center City, Minn.: Hazelden Publishing, 2015). He had no industry disclosures.

aotto@mdedge.com