Eosinophil levels affect glucocorticoid response in mild, persistent asthma

For mild asthma, albuterol isn’t enough
Article Type
Changed
Sun, 05/19/2019 - 11:15

 

Patients with mild asthma who rely solely on short-acting beta2-agonists (SABAs) to control their asthma symptoms remain at increased risk of exacerbations, according to investigators.

Two recent studies presented at the American Thoracic Society’s international conference demonstrated the benefits of glucocorticoid therapy among patients with mild persistent or intermittent asthma while highlighting differential responses to steroids among patients with high versus low levels of eosinophils in sputum. Both studies were simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The first study, SIENA, led by Stephen C. Lazarus, MD of the University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues, involved 295 patients with mild, persistent asthma. Patients were classified as having either a high or low level of eosinophils in sputum, with a low level defined by two sputum samples consisting of less than 2% eosinophils. After a single-blind placebo run-in period of 6 weeks, patients were randomized to receive either mometasone (an inhaled glucocorticoid), tiotropium (a long-acting muscarinic antagonist [LAMA]), or placebo for 12 weeks each, with subsequent crossover through the two remaining treatments. The primary outcome was the response to each active agent, compared with placebo among low-eosinophil patients who had a differential response to a trial agent.

Out of 295 patients, 221 (75%) had low eosinophils and 74 (25%) had high eosinophils. In the low-eosinophil subgroup, 59% of patients had a differential response to a trial agent; among these, 57% responded better to mometasone, compared with 43% who responded better to placebo, and 60% responded better to tiotropium, compared with 40% who responded better to placebo.

Turning to secondary analyses, among patients with high eosinophil levels who had a differential response, 74% responded better to mometasone, compared with 26% who responded better to placebo, and 57% responded better to tiotropium, compared with 43% who responded better to placebo.

In an additional exploratory analysis, adults with low eosinophil levels had better responses to tiotropium than placebo (62% vs 38%).

The researchers stated that a key finding of the study is that three-quarters of the mild, persistent asthma population had low eosinophil levels, far fewer than expected and that the difference in their response to mometasone compared to tiotropium was not significant.

“Our results raise the question of whether treatment guidelines should be reevaluated for patients with mild, persistent asthma for whom evidence of type 2 inflammation is lacking,” the investigators wrote. “The need for a change in treatment strategy is further highlighted by a growing body of literature suggesting that mild, persistent asthma can be managed safely without the daily use of inhaled glucocorticoids and by data showing that patients with a low eosinophil level may not have a favorable response to inhaled glucocorticoids” (New Engl J Med. 2019 May 19. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1814917).

The second study, Novel START, conducted by lead author Richard Beasley, DSc, of the Medical Research Institute of New Zealand, Wellington, and colleagues, compared the efficacy of two inhaled glucocorticoid regimens and albuterol alone for patients with mild persistent or intermittent asthma, measured by annualized exacerbation rate.

Initial randomization involved 675 patients, of whom 668 were included in the final analysis. Patients were randomized into three groups: albuterol as needed (100 mcg, two inhalations as needed for asthma symptoms), budesonide maintenance (200 mcg, one inhalation twice daily with as-needed albuterol), or budesonide/formoterol (budesonide 200 mcg and formoterol 6 mcg, one inhalation as needed). Along with annualized exacerbation rate, several secondary outcomes assessed symptoms, respiratory function, and number of severe exacerbations.

Data analysis showed that patients in the budesonide groups had similar rates of annualized exacerbation, both of which were significantly better than the exacerbation rate in the albuterol-only group; the absolute rate of exacerbations per patient per year was 0.175, 0.195, and 0.400 for budesonide maintenance, budesonide/formoterol, and albuterol only, respectively. Similarly, the median fraction of exhaled nitric oxide (FENO) was lower in the budesonide groups than in the albuterol-only group. Patients in the budesonide/formoterol group had a 56% lower relative risk of severe pulmonary exacerbation than patients in the budesonide maintenance group and a 60% lower relative risk than the albuterol group. However, maintenance budesonide provided better symptom relief than budesonide/formoterol, “which suggests that for the patient for whom asthma symptoms rather than exacerbations are the most bothersome, maintenance treatment has value,” the investigators wrote (New Engl J Med. 2019 May 19. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1901963).

“The findings of our trial are consistent with evidence regarding the treatment of moderate and severe asthma – that maintenance and reliever therapy” with inhaled glucocorticoid/formoterol “results in a lower risk of severe exacerbations than maintenance therapy with an inhaled glucocorticoid–[long-acting beta agonist] and as-needed SABA,” the investigators concluded.

SIENA was funded by National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, with medications provided by Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, and Teva; the investigators reported relationships with Sanofi, Vectura, Circassia, DBV Technologies, and others. Novel START was funded by AstraZeneca and the Health Research Council of New Zealand; the investigators reported relationships with GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech, Theravance Biopharma, and others.

SOURCES: Beasley et al. New Engl J Med. 2019 May 19. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1901963; Lazarus et al. New Engl J Med. 2019 May 19. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1814917.

Body

 

Gary W. K. Wong, MD, commented in an editorial accompanying the two studies, “Approximately 1 year ago, the SYGMA 1 and SYGMA 2 trials, involving patients with mild persistent asthma, suggested that as-needed use of a budesonide–formoterol combination was as effective as budesonide maintenance therapy in the prevention of exacerbations, with the added benefit of decreased overall glucocorticoid exposure; however, it remained unknown if this strategy was appropriate for patients with mild intermittent asthma and among patients lacking eosinophilic inflammation. The two reported studies attempt to address these knowledge gaps.”
 

He noted that both trials showed that “patients with mild asthma whose only asthma treatment was a SABA [short-acting beta2-agonists] as needed for relief of asthma symptoms were at considerable risk for exacerbations. Replacement of as-needed SABA treatment with as-needed budesonide/formoterol or inhaled glucocorticoid maintenance therapy could reduce such risk by approximately 50%. When considering maintenance therapy for persistent asthma, one must be aware that not all types of airway inflammation respond equally well to inhaled glucocorticoid therapy.”
 

Gary W.K. Wong, MD, is a professor in the department of pediatrics at Prince of Wales Hospital, Chinese University of Hong Kong. He made his remarks in an editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine (2019 May 19. doi: 10.1056/NEJMe1905354). Dr. Wong disclosed that he has no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

Meeting/Event
Publications
Topics
Sections
Meeting/Event
Meeting/Event
Body

 

Gary W. K. Wong, MD, commented in an editorial accompanying the two studies, “Approximately 1 year ago, the SYGMA 1 and SYGMA 2 trials, involving patients with mild persistent asthma, suggested that as-needed use of a budesonide–formoterol combination was as effective as budesonide maintenance therapy in the prevention of exacerbations, with the added benefit of decreased overall glucocorticoid exposure; however, it remained unknown if this strategy was appropriate for patients with mild intermittent asthma and among patients lacking eosinophilic inflammation. The two reported studies attempt to address these knowledge gaps.”
 

He noted that both trials showed that “patients with mild asthma whose only asthma treatment was a SABA [short-acting beta2-agonists] as needed for relief of asthma symptoms were at considerable risk for exacerbations. Replacement of as-needed SABA treatment with as-needed budesonide/formoterol or inhaled glucocorticoid maintenance therapy could reduce such risk by approximately 50%. When considering maintenance therapy for persistent asthma, one must be aware that not all types of airway inflammation respond equally well to inhaled glucocorticoid therapy.”
 

Gary W.K. Wong, MD, is a professor in the department of pediatrics at Prince of Wales Hospital, Chinese University of Hong Kong. He made his remarks in an editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine (2019 May 19. doi: 10.1056/NEJMe1905354). Dr. Wong disclosed that he has no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

Body

 

Gary W. K. Wong, MD, commented in an editorial accompanying the two studies, “Approximately 1 year ago, the SYGMA 1 and SYGMA 2 trials, involving patients with mild persistent asthma, suggested that as-needed use of a budesonide–formoterol combination was as effective as budesonide maintenance therapy in the prevention of exacerbations, with the added benefit of decreased overall glucocorticoid exposure; however, it remained unknown if this strategy was appropriate for patients with mild intermittent asthma and among patients lacking eosinophilic inflammation. The two reported studies attempt to address these knowledge gaps.”
 

He noted that both trials showed that “patients with mild asthma whose only asthma treatment was a SABA [short-acting beta2-agonists] as needed for relief of asthma symptoms were at considerable risk for exacerbations. Replacement of as-needed SABA treatment with as-needed budesonide/formoterol or inhaled glucocorticoid maintenance therapy could reduce such risk by approximately 50%. When considering maintenance therapy for persistent asthma, one must be aware that not all types of airway inflammation respond equally well to inhaled glucocorticoid therapy.”
 

Gary W.K. Wong, MD, is a professor in the department of pediatrics at Prince of Wales Hospital, Chinese University of Hong Kong. He made his remarks in an editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine (2019 May 19. doi: 10.1056/NEJMe1905354). Dr. Wong disclosed that he has no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

Title
For mild asthma, albuterol isn’t enough
For mild asthma, albuterol isn’t enough

 

Patients with mild asthma who rely solely on short-acting beta2-agonists (SABAs) to control their asthma symptoms remain at increased risk of exacerbations, according to investigators.

Two recent studies presented at the American Thoracic Society’s international conference demonstrated the benefits of glucocorticoid therapy among patients with mild persistent or intermittent asthma while highlighting differential responses to steroids among patients with high versus low levels of eosinophils in sputum. Both studies were simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The first study, SIENA, led by Stephen C. Lazarus, MD of the University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues, involved 295 patients with mild, persistent asthma. Patients were classified as having either a high or low level of eosinophils in sputum, with a low level defined by two sputum samples consisting of less than 2% eosinophils. After a single-blind placebo run-in period of 6 weeks, patients were randomized to receive either mometasone (an inhaled glucocorticoid), tiotropium (a long-acting muscarinic antagonist [LAMA]), or placebo for 12 weeks each, with subsequent crossover through the two remaining treatments. The primary outcome was the response to each active agent, compared with placebo among low-eosinophil patients who had a differential response to a trial agent.

Out of 295 patients, 221 (75%) had low eosinophils and 74 (25%) had high eosinophils. In the low-eosinophil subgroup, 59% of patients had a differential response to a trial agent; among these, 57% responded better to mometasone, compared with 43% who responded better to placebo, and 60% responded better to tiotropium, compared with 40% who responded better to placebo.

Turning to secondary analyses, among patients with high eosinophil levels who had a differential response, 74% responded better to mometasone, compared with 26% who responded better to placebo, and 57% responded better to tiotropium, compared with 43% who responded better to placebo.

In an additional exploratory analysis, adults with low eosinophil levels had better responses to tiotropium than placebo (62% vs 38%).

The researchers stated that a key finding of the study is that three-quarters of the mild, persistent asthma population had low eosinophil levels, far fewer than expected and that the difference in their response to mometasone compared to tiotropium was not significant.

“Our results raise the question of whether treatment guidelines should be reevaluated for patients with mild, persistent asthma for whom evidence of type 2 inflammation is lacking,” the investigators wrote. “The need for a change in treatment strategy is further highlighted by a growing body of literature suggesting that mild, persistent asthma can be managed safely without the daily use of inhaled glucocorticoids and by data showing that patients with a low eosinophil level may not have a favorable response to inhaled glucocorticoids” (New Engl J Med. 2019 May 19. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1814917).

The second study, Novel START, conducted by lead author Richard Beasley, DSc, of the Medical Research Institute of New Zealand, Wellington, and colleagues, compared the efficacy of two inhaled glucocorticoid regimens and albuterol alone for patients with mild persistent or intermittent asthma, measured by annualized exacerbation rate.

Initial randomization involved 675 patients, of whom 668 were included in the final analysis. Patients were randomized into three groups: albuterol as needed (100 mcg, two inhalations as needed for asthma symptoms), budesonide maintenance (200 mcg, one inhalation twice daily with as-needed albuterol), or budesonide/formoterol (budesonide 200 mcg and formoterol 6 mcg, one inhalation as needed). Along with annualized exacerbation rate, several secondary outcomes assessed symptoms, respiratory function, and number of severe exacerbations.

Data analysis showed that patients in the budesonide groups had similar rates of annualized exacerbation, both of which were significantly better than the exacerbation rate in the albuterol-only group; the absolute rate of exacerbations per patient per year was 0.175, 0.195, and 0.400 for budesonide maintenance, budesonide/formoterol, and albuterol only, respectively. Similarly, the median fraction of exhaled nitric oxide (FENO) was lower in the budesonide groups than in the albuterol-only group. Patients in the budesonide/formoterol group had a 56% lower relative risk of severe pulmonary exacerbation than patients in the budesonide maintenance group and a 60% lower relative risk than the albuterol group. However, maintenance budesonide provided better symptom relief than budesonide/formoterol, “which suggests that for the patient for whom asthma symptoms rather than exacerbations are the most bothersome, maintenance treatment has value,” the investigators wrote (New Engl J Med. 2019 May 19. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1901963).

“The findings of our trial are consistent with evidence regarding the treatment of moderate and severe asthma – that maintenance and reliever therapy” with inhaled glucocorticoid/formoterol “results in a lower risk of severe exacerbations than maintenance therapy with an inhaled glucocorticoid–[long-acting beta agonist] and as-needed SABA,” the investigators concluded.

SIENA was funded by National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, with medications provided by Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, and Teva; the investigators reported relationships with Sanofi, Vectura, Circassia, DBV Technologies, and others. Novel START was funded by AstraZeneca and the Health Research Council of New Zealand; the investigators reported relationships with GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech, Theravance Biopharma, and others.

SOURCES: Beasley et al. New Engl J Med. 2019 May 19. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1901963; Lazarus et al. New Engl J Med. 2019 May 19. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1814917.

 

Patients with mild asthma who rely solely on short-acting beta2-agonists (SABAs) to control their asthma symptoms remain at increased risk of exacerbations, according to investigators.

Two recent studies presented at the American Thoracic Society’s international conference demonstrated the benefits of glucocorticoid therapy among patients with mild persistent or intermittent asthma while highlighting differential responses to steroids among patients with high versus low levels of eosinophils in sputum. Both studies were simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The first study, SIENA, led by Stephen C. Lazarus, MD of the University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues, involved 295 patients with mild, persistent asthma. Patients were classified as having either a high or low level of eosinophils in sputum, with a low level defined by two sputum samples consisting of less than 2% eosinophils. After a single-blind placebo run-in period of 6 weeks, patients were randomized to receive either mometasone (an inhaled glucocorticoid), tiotropium (a long-acting muscarinic antagonist [LAMA]), or placebo for 12 weeks each, with subsequent crossover through the two remaining treatments. The primary outcome was the response to each active agent, compared with placebo among low-eosinophil patients who had a differential response to a trial agent.

Out of 295 patients, 221 (75%) had low eosinophils and 74 (25%) had high eosinophils. In the low-eosinophil subgroup, 59% of patients had a differential response to a trial agent; among these, 57% responded better to mometasone, compared with 43% who responded better to placebo, and 60% responded better to tiotropium, compared with 40% who responded better to placebo.

Turning to secondary analyses, among patients with high eosinophil levels who had a differential response, 74% responded better to mometasone, compared with 26% who responded better to placebo, and 57% responded better to tiotropium, compared with 43% who responded better to placebo.

In an additional exploratory analysis, adults with low eosinophil levels had better responses to tiotropium than placebo (62% vs 38%).

The researchers stated that a key finding of the study is that three-quarters of the mild, persistent asthma population had low eosinophil levels, far fewer than expected and that the difference in their response to mometasone compared to tiotropium was not significant.

“Our results raise the question of whether treatment guidelines should be reevaluated for patients with mild, persistent asthma for whom evidence of type 2 inflammation is lacking,” the investigators wrote. “The need for a change in treatment strategy is further highlighted by a growing body of literature suggesting that mild, persistent asthma can be managed safely without the daily use of inhaled glucocorticoids and by data showing that patients with a low eosinophil level may not have a favorable response to inhaled glucocorticoids” (New Engl J Med. 2019 May 19. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1814917).

The second study, Novel START, conducted by lead author Richard Beasley, DSc, of the Medical Research Institute of New Zealand, Wellington, and colleagues, compared the efficacy of two inhaled glucocorticoid regimens and albuterol alone for patients with mild persistent or intermittent asthma, measured by annualized exacerbation rate.

Initial randomization involved 675 patients, of whom 668 were included in the final analysis. Patients were randomized into three groups: albuterol as needed (100 mcg, two inhalations as needed for asthma symptoms), budesonide maintenance (200 mcg, one inhalation twice daily with as-needed albuterol), or budesonide/formoterol (budesonide 200 mcg and formoterol 6 mcg, one inhalation as needed). Along with annualized exacerbation rate, several secondary outcomes assessed symptoms, respiratory function, and number of severe exacerbations.

Data analysis showed that patients in the budesonide groups had similar rates of annualized exacerbation, both of which were significantly better than the exacerbation rate in the albuterol-only group; the absolute rate of exacerbations per patient per year was 0.175, 0.195, and 0.400 for budesonide maintenance, budesonide/formoterol, and albuterol only, respectively. Similarly, the median fraction of exhaled nitric oxide (FENO) was lower in the budesonide groups than in the albuterol-only group. Patients in the budesonide/formoterol group had a 56% lower relative risk of severe pulmonary exacerbation than patients in the budesonide maintenance group and a 60% lower relative risk than the albuterol group. However, maintenance budesonide provided better symptom relief than budesonide/formoterol, “which suggests that for the patient for whom asthma symptoms rather than exacerbations are the most bothersome, maintenance treatment has value,” the investigators wrote (New Engl J Med. 2019 May 19. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1901963).

“The findings of our trial are consistent with evidence regarding the treatment of moderate and severe asthma – that maintenance and reliever therapy” with inhaled glucocorticoid/formoterol “results in a lower risk of severe exacerbations than maintenance therapy with an inhaled glucocorticoid–[long-acting beta agonist] and as-needed SABA,” the investigators concluded.

SIENA was funded by National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, with medications provided by Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, and Teva; the investigators reported relationships with Sanofi, Vectura, Circassia, DBV Technologies, and others. Novel START was funded by AstraZeneca and the Health Research Council of New Zealand; the investigators reported relationships with GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech, Theravance Biopharma, and others.

SOURCES: Beasley et al. New Engl J Med. 2019 May 19. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1901963; Lazarus et al. New Engl J Med. 2019 May 19. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1814917.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Article Source

FROM ATS 2019

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Vitals

 

Key clinical point: Inhaled glucocorticoid/formoterol therapy for mild persistent or intermittent asthma is effective, but responses to steroids differ among patients with high versus low levels of eosinophils in sputum.

Major finding: Among patients with low eosinophils levels of, 57% responded better to mometasone versus 43% who responded better to placebo. Among those with high eosinophil levels, 74% responded better to mometasone versus 26% who responded better to placebo.

Study details: The SIENA study included 295 patients with mild, persistent asthma and eosinophils measured in sputum samples, and the Novel START study included 688 patients with the mild persistent or intermittent asthma, measured by annualized exacerbation rate.

Disclosures: SIENA was funded by National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, with medications provided by Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, and Teva; the investigators reported relationships with Sanofi, Vectura, Circassia, DBV Technologies, and others. Novel START was funded by AstraZeneca and the Health Research Council of New Zealand; the investigators reported relationships with GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech, Theravance Biopharma, and others.

Sources: Beasley et al. New Engl J Med. 2019 May 19. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1901963; Lazarus et al. New Engl J Med. 2019 May 19. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1814917.

Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.

Use of Oncotype DX to tailor breast cancer treatment likely to reduce costs

Article Type
Changed
Thu, 12/15/2022 - 17:43

 

Routine use of the Oncotype DX recurrence score to personalize treatment of early breast cancer could reduce the first-year costs of care, according to results of a population-based cohort study.

“Practice changes based on evidence from the TAILORx trial on using tumor genomic profiles to personalize care could result in small decreases in U.S. national cancer care costs in the initial 12 months post breast cancer diagnosis,” Angela Mariotto, PhD, and colleagues concluded in a study published in JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute. “Longer-term studies will be needed to evaluate the true long-term economic impact and nonmonetary benefits of personalized breast cancer care.”

Findings of the landmark TAILORx trial showed that, with use of the 21-gene score, the majority of women who have node-negative, hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative breast cancers could safely skip adjuvant chemotherapy (N Engl J Med. 2018;379:111-21). But cost impact of its uptake into routine practice is unclear.

Dr. Mariotto, of the National Cancer Institute and her colleagues used data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER), SEER-Medicare, and SEER–Genomic Health datasets to assess how expected changes in practice after the trial might affect costs. They estimated Oncotype DX testing and chemotherapy rates and mean initial costs in 2018 dollars in the pre-TAILORx period (2010-2015) and post-TAILORx period (2018), assuming all women in the latter period received the test and score-suggested therapy.

Going from the pretrial period to the posttrial period, Oncotype DX testing costs were projected to increase from $115 million to $231 million, but chemotherapy use was projected to decrease from 25% to 17%. Mean total initial costs of care fell from $2.816 billion in the pretrial period to $2.766 billion in the posttrial period, for a net savings of $49 million (a 1.8% decrease).

Findings were similar in a variety of sensitivity scenarios entailing alternative compliance with testing, score-suggested treatment, and estimation methods. The only exception was the scenario in which all women aged 50 years or younger having a recurrence score of 16-25 opted to receive chemotherapy, wherein initial care costs could increase by $105 million (a 4% increase).

The investigators reported that they had no relevant conflicts of interest. The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute and its Coordinating Center For Clinical Trials; a Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center American Cancer Society Young Investigator Award; and the Cancer Prevention Research Fellowship, sponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology and Breast Cancer Research Foundation.

SOURCE: Mariotto A et al. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2019 Apr 24. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djz068.

Publications
Topics
Sections

 

Routine use of the Oncotype DX recurrence score to personalize treatment of early breast cancer could reduce the first-year costs of care, according to results of a population-based cohort study.

“Practice changes based on evidence from the TAILORx trial on using tumor genomic profiles to personalize care could result in small decreases in U.S. national cancer care costs in the initial 12 months post breast cancer diagnosis,” Angela Mariotto, PhD, and colleagues concluded in a study published in JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute. “Longer-term studies will be needed to evaluate the true long-term economic impact and nonmonetary benefits of personalized breast cancer care.”

Findings of the landmark TAILORx trial showed that, with use of the 21-gene score, the majority of women who have node-negative, hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative breast cancers could safely skip adjuvant chemotherapy (N Engl J Med. 2018;379:111-21). But cost impact of its uptake into routine practice is unclear.

Dr. Mariotto, of the National Cancer Institute and her colleagues used data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER), SEER-Medicare, and SEER–Genomic Health datasets to assess how expected changes in practice after the trial might affect costs. They estimated Oncotype DX testing and chemotherapy rates and mean initial costs in 2018 dollars in the pre-TAILORx period (2010-2015) and post-TAILORx period (2018), assuming all women in the latter period received the test and score-suggested therapy.

Going from the pretrial period to the posttrial period, Oncotype DX testing costs were projected to increase from $115 million to $231 million, but chemotherapy use was projected to decrease from 25% to 17%. Mean total initial costs of care fell from $2.816 billion in the pretrial period to $2.766 billion in the posttrial period, for a net savings of $49 million (a 1.8% decrease).

Findings were similar in a variety of sensitivity scenarios entailing alternative compliance with testing, score-suggested treatment, and estimation methods. The only exception was the scenario in which all women aged 50 years or younger having a recurrence score of 16-25 opted to receive chemotherapy, wherein initial care costs could increase by $105 million (a 4% increase).

The investigators reported that they had no relevant conflicts of interest. The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute and its Coordinating Center For Clinical Trials; a Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center American Cancer Society Young Investigator Award; and the Cancer Prevention Research Fellowship, sponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology and Breast Cancer Research Foundation.

SOURCE: Mariotto A et al. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2019 Apr 24. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djz068.

 

Routine use of the Oncotype DX recurrence score to personalize treatment of early breast cancer could reduce the first-year costs of care, according to results of a population-based cohort study.

“Practice changes based on evidence from the TAILORx trial on using tumor genomic profiles to personalize care could result in small decreases in U.S. national cancer care costs in the initial 12 months post breast cancer diagnosis,” Angela Mariotto, PhD, and colleagues concluded in a study published in JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute. “Longer-term studies will be needed to evaluate the true long-term economic impact and nonmonetary benefits of personalized breast cancer care.”

Findings of the landmark TAILORx trial showed that, with use of the 21-gene score, the majority of women who have node-negative, hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative breast cancers could safely skip adjuvant chemotherapy (N Engl J Med. 2018;379:111-21). But cost impact of its uptake into routine practice is unclear.

Dr. Mariotto, of the National Cancer Institute and her colleagues used data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER), SEER-Medicare, and SEER–Genomic Health datasets to assess how expected changes in practice after the trial might affect costs. They estimated Oncotype DX testing and chemotherapy rates and mean initial costs in 2018 dollars in the pre-TAILORx period (2010-2015) and post-TAILORx period (2018), assuming all women in the latter period received the test and score-suggested therapy.

Going from the pretrial period to the posttrial period, Oncotype DX testing costs were projected to increase from $115 million to $231 million, but chemotherapy use was projected to decrease from 25% to 17%. Mean total initial costs of care fell from $2.816 billion in the pretrial period to $2.766 billion in the posttrial period, for a net savings of $49 million (a 1.8% decrease).

Findings were similar in a variety of sensitivity scenarios entailing alternative compliance with testing, score-suggested treatment, and estimation methods. The only exception was the scenario in which all women aged 50 years or younger having a recurrence score of 16-25 opted to receive chemotherapy, wherein initial care costs could increase by $105 million (a 4% increase).

The investigators reported that they had no relevant conflicts of interest. The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute and its Coordinating Center For Clinical Trials; a Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center American Cancer Society Young Investigator Award; and the Cancer Prevention Research Fellowship, sponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology and Breast Cancer Research Foundation.

SOURCE: Mariotto A et al. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2019 Apr 24. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djz068.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Click for Credit Status
Ready
Sections
Article Source

FROM JNCI: JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.

Patients lack confidence in their skin self-exam abilities

Article Type
Changed
Mon, 05/20/2019 - 08:05

 

Elderly patients with a history of localized melanoma recognized the importance of skin self-examination (SSE), but expressed low confidence in their abilities to do it correctly, based on results of a small study. While many were willing to use teledermoscopy to assist them in self-exams, patients still preferred to rely on regularly scheduled exams by physicians.

“Low confidence in SSE is a key barrier to patient-led surveillance and to the use of digital technologies for SSE,” wrote Mbathio Dieng, PhD, of the University of Sydney and her coauthors in a study published in JAMA Dermatology.

The Australian researchers conducted semistructured interviews with 37 patients from Sydney. Patients’ median age was 67 years; 26 of 37 (70%) were men.

Barriers to SSE included a perceived lack of competence in self-exams; the patients said they doubted they would catch anything that needed to be caught.

As for digitally supported SSE, many patients expressed a willingness to consider tools that would assist in the self-assessment process. Several said they valued the additional reassurance between clinical visits and the ability to create their own action plan.

The authors acknowledged that they only recruited from a single tertiary center so the results are limited. However, in terms of steps forward, they noted that their study was one of the first “to assess the perceptions of patients with melanoma of the use of new digital technologies in surveillance for recurrent or new primary melanomas.”

The study was supported by a grant from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). One author reported receiving salary support from an Australian NHMRC fellowship; another received fellowships from the NHMRC and Cancer Institute New South Wales. Another author received scholarships and awards from the University of Sydney and the Sydney Catalyst Translational Cancer Research Centre.

SOURCE: Dieng M et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2019 May 15. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2019.0434.

Publications
Topics
Sections

 

Elderly patients with a history of localized melanoma recognized the importance of skin self-examination (SSE), but expressed low confidence in their abilities to do it correctly, based on results of a small study. While many were willing to use teledermoscopy to assist them in self-exams, patients still preferred to rely on regularly scheduled exams by physicians.

“Low confidence in SSE is a key barrier to patient-led surveillance and to the use of digital technologies for SSE,” wrote Mbathio Dieng, PhD, of the University of Sydney and her coauthors in a study published in JAMA Dermatology.

The Australian researchers conducted semistructured interviews with 37 patients from Sydney. Patients’ median age was 67 years; 26 of 37 (70%) were men.

Barriers to SSE included a perceived lack of competence in self-exams; the patients said they doubted they would catch anything that needed to be caught.

As for digitally supported SSE, many patients expressed a willingness to consider tools that would assist in the self-assessment process. Several said they valued the additional reassurance between clinical visits and the ability to create their own action plan.

The authors acknowledged that they only recruited from a single tertiary center so the results are limited. However, in terms of steps forward, they noted that their study was one of the first “to assess the perceptions of patients with melanoma of the use of new digital technologies in surveillance for recurrent or new primary melanomas.”

The study was supported by a grant from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). One author reported receiving salary support from an Australian NHMRC fellowship; another received fellowships from the NHMRC and Cancer Institute New South Wales. Another author received scholarships and awards from the University of Sydney and the Sydney Catalyst Translational Cancer Research Centre.

SOURCE: Dieng M et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2019 May 15. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2019.0434.

 

Elderly patients with a history of localized melanoma recognized the importance of skin self-examination (SSE), but expressed low confidence in their abilities to do it correctly, based on results of a small study. While many were willing to use teledermoscopy to assist them in self-exams, patients still preferred to rely on regularly scheduled exams by physicians.

“Low confidence in SSE is a key barrier to patient-led surveillance and to the use of digital technologies for SSE,” wrote Mbathio Dieng, PhD, of the University of Sydney and her coauthors in a study published in JAMA Dermatology.

The Australian researchers conducted semistructured interviews with 37 patients from Sydney. Patients’ median age was 67 years; 26 of 37 (70%) were men.

Barriers to SSE included a perceived lack of competence in self-exams; the patients said they doubted they would catch anything that needed to be caught.

As for digitally supported SSE, many patients expressed a willingness to consider tools that would assist in the self-assessment process. Several said they valued the additional reassurance between clinical visits and the ability to create their own action plan.

The authors acknowledged that they only recruited from a single tertiary center so the results are limited. However, in terms of steps forward, they noted that their study was one of the first “to assess the perceptions of patients with melanoma of the use of new digital technologies in surveillance for recurrent or new primary melanomas.”

The study was supported by a grant from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). One author reported receiving salary support from an Australian NHMRC fellowship; another received fellowships from the NHMRC and Cancer Institute New South Wales. Another author received scholarships and awards from the University of Sydney and the Sydney Catalyst Translational Cancer Research Centre.

SOURCE: Dieng M et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2019 May 15. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2019.0434.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Click for Credit Status
Ready
Sections
Article Source

FROM JAMA DERMATOLOGY

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.

Significant increase in low-attenuation coronary plaques found in lupus

Article Type
Changed
Sat, 05/18/2019 - 15:53

 

Lupus patients have about 10 times as many low-attenuation, noncalcified coronary artery plaques – a highly dangerous kind of plaque – as healthy people, and those plaques do not regress over time, according to an investigation from Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

Dr. George Stojan of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore
M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News
Dr. George Stojan

All of the 102 lupus patients in the coronary artery CT angiography study also had positive plaque remodeling, meaning that at least one low-attenuation plaque was growing into the lumen wall, not the lumen itself, which makes them difficult to detect on standard imaging. Low-attenuation plaques were defined in the study as a plaque larger than 1 mm2 with a radiodensity below 30 Hounsfield units.

Low-attenuation plaques are inherently unstable; they’re fatty, necrotic, and have a high risk of rupturing; their presence in the lumen wall is especially worrisome. In the general population, they sometimes regress, scarring down over time and no longer posing a threat. That didn’t happen in the 30 lupus patients who had follow-up CT angiographies, some 9 years after their first.

The team conducted the study to help understand why cardiovascular disease is so common in lupus, and the leading cause of death. Hopkins investigators have shown previously that statins have no effect on the risk or plaque occurrence and progression, and the cardiovascular risk doesn’t always seem to correlate with disease control. For those and other reasons, the current thinking at Hopkins is that cardiovascular disease in lupus is somehow different than in the general population, said George Stojan, MD, an assistant professor of rheumatology at the school and codirector of the Hopkins Lupus Center.

The goal is “to figure out exactly what to look for when we assess the risk; I don’t think we understand that at this point. We assume patients with lupus behave exactly like patients who don’t have lupus, but they obviously don’t. They do not respond to statins. They have a higher risk no matter what you do for them, even when their disease activity is low, and how much plaque they have over time doesn’t really correlate with disease activity,” he said at an international conference on systemic lupus erythematosus.

“Once we understand” the mechanism, “then we can try to [alter] it. Maybe we can look at new drugs, like the PCSK9 inhibitors which have shown a lot of promise in the general population.” At this point, however, “we don’t really know how to intervene,” Dr. Stojan said.

In the meantime, positive remodeling and low-attenuation, noncalcified plaques (LANCPs) might be something to look for when assessing systemic lupus erythematosus cardiovascular risk. “A simple coronary calcium score, something that all doctors do,” is not enough in lupus, nor is simply checking for lumen obstruction. Also, it’s important not to be misled by an overall reduction in noncalcified plaques. “Low-attenuation, noncalcified plaques don’t [regress] over time in lupus, and they are the ones that lead to cardiovascular events,” he said.

The CT angiography findings were compared with findings in 100 healthy controls who had two CT angiograms in a University of California, Los Angeles, cohort. Overall, there was a mean of 458 LANCPs among lupus patients, versus 42 among controls, a more than 900% difference (P less than .001).

Women with lupus aged under 44 years had a mean of 63 LANCPs; none were detected in healthy women under 44 years. Among women aged 45-59 years, there was a mean of 451 LANCPs in the lupus group versus 53 in the control arm. The findings were highly statistically significant, and almost statistically significant for women 60 years or older, 695 lesions among lupus patients versus 22 (P = .0576).

There were only nine men with lupus in the study, but the findings were similar versus male controls.

While mean LANCP volume regressed over time in the control group (mean, –6.90 mm3; P = .0002), a mean regression of –13.56 mm3 in the lupus group was not statistically significant (P = .4570).

Both controls and lupus patients had a positive remodeling index. It progressed in the lupus group over time, and regressed in controls, but the findings were not statistically significant.

“Statins did nothing for the lupus patients. They didn’t affect progress of coronary plaques at all. We still treat patients because theoretically we don’t have anything better, but we know that they don’t really work in this population,” Dr. Stojan said

The work is funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Stojan didn’t report any relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Stojan G et al. Lupus Sci Med. 2019;6[suppl 1]:A200, Abstract 274.

Meeting/Event
Publications
Topics
Sections
Meeting/Event
Meeting/Event

 

Lupus patients have about 10 times as many low-attenuation, noncalcified coronary artery plaques – a highly dangerous kind of plaque – as healthy people, and those plaques do not regress over time, according to an investigation from Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

Dr. George Stojan of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore
M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News
Dr. George Stojan

All of the 102 lupus patients in the coronary artery CT angiography study also had positive plaque remodeling, meaning that at least one low-attenuation plaque was growing into the lumen wall, not the lumen itself, which makes them difficult to detect on standard imaging. Low-attenuation plaques were defined in the study as a plaque larger than 1 mm2 with a radiodensity below 30 Hounsfield units.

Low-attenuation plaques are inherently unstable; they’re fatty, necrotic, and have a high risk of rupturing; their presence in the lumen wall is especially worrisome. In the general population, they sometimes regress, scarring down over time and no longer posing a threat. That didn’t happen in the 30 lupus patients who had follow-up CT angiographies, some 9 years after their first.

The team conducted the study to help understand why cardiovascular disease is so common in lupus, and the leading cause of death. Hopkins investigators have shown previously that statins have no effect on the risk or plaque occurrence and progression, and the cardiovascular risk doesn’t always seem to correlate with disease control. For those and other reasons, the current thinking at Hopkins is that cardiovascular disease in lupus is somehow different than in the general population, said George Stojan, MD, an assistant professor of rheumatology at the school and codirector of the Hopkins Lupus Center.

The goal is “to figure out exactly what to look for when we assess the risk; I don’t think we understand that at this point. We assume patients with lupus behave exactly like patients who don’t have lupus, but they obviously don’t. They do not respond to statins. They have a higher risk no matter what you do for them, even when their disease activity is low, and how much plaque they have over time doesn’t really correlate with disease activity,” he said at an international conference on systemic lupus erythematosus.

“Once we understand” the mechanism, “then we can try to [alter] it. Maybe we can look at new drugs, like the PCSK9 inhibitors which have shown a lot of promise in the general population.” At this point, however, “we don’t really know how to intervene,” Dr. Stojan said.

In the meantime, positive remodeling and low-attenuation, noncalcified plaques (LANCPs) might be something to look for when assessing systemic lupus erythematosus cardiovascular risk. “A simple coronary calcium score, something that all doctors do,” is not enough in lupus, nor is simply checking for lumen obstruction. Also, it’s important not to be misled by an overall reduction in noncalcified plaques. “Low-attenuation, noncalcified plaques don’t [regress] over time in lupus, and they are the ones that lead to cardiovascular events,” he said.

The CT angiography findings were compared with findings in 100 healthy controls who had two CT angiograms in a University of California, Los Angeles, cohort. Overall, there was a mean of 458 LANCPs among lupus patients, versus 42 among controls, a more than 900% difference (P less than .001).

Women with lupus aged under 44 years had a mean of 63 LANCPs; none were detected in healthy women under 44 years. Among women aged 45-59 years, there was a mean of 451 LANCPs in the lupus group versus 53 in the control arm. The findings were highly statistically significant, and almost statistically significant for women 60 years or older, 695 lesions among lupus patients versus 22 (P = .0576).

There were only nine men with lupus in the study, but the findings were similar versus male controls.

While mean LANCP volume regressed over time in the control group (mean, –6.90 mm3; P = .0002), a mean regression of –13.56 mm3 in the lupus group was not statistically significant (P = .4570).

Both controls and lupus patients had a positive remodeling index. It progressed in the lupus group over time, and regressed in controls, but the findings were not statistically significant.

“Statins did nothing for the lupus patients. They didn’t affect progress of coronary plaques at all. We still treat patients because theoretically we don’t have anything better, but we know that they don’t really work in this population,” Dr. Stojan said

The work is funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Stojan didn’t report any relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Stojan G et al. Lupus Sci Med. 2019;6[suppl 1]:A200, Abstract 274.

 

Lupus patients have about 10 times as many low-attenuation, noncalcified coronary artery plaques – a highly dangerous kind of plaque – as healthy people, and those plaques do not regress over time, according to an investigation from Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

Dr. George Stojan of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore
M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News
Dr. George Stojan

All of the 102 lupus patients in the coronary artery CT angiography study also had positive plaque remodeling, meaning that at least one low-attenuation plaque was growing into the lumen wall, not the lumen itself, which makes them difficult to detect on standard imaging. Low-attenuation plaques were defined in the study as a plaque larger than 1 mm2 with a radiodensity below 30 Hounsfield units.

Low-attenuation plaques are inherently unstable; they’re fatty, necrotic, and have a high risk of rupturing; their presence in the lumen wall is especially worrisome. In the general population, they sometimes regress, scarring down over time and no longer posing a threat. That didn’t happen in the 30 lupus patients who had follow-up CT angiographies, some 9 years after their first.

The team conducted the study to help understand why cardiovascular disease is so common in lupus, and the leading cause of death. Hopkins investigators have shown previously that statins have no effect on the risk or plaque occurrence and progression, and the cardiovascular risk doesn’t always seem to correlate with disease control. For those and other reasons, the current thinking at Hopkins is that cardiovascular disease in lupus is somehow different than in the general population, said George Stojan, MD, an assistant professor of rheumatology at the school and codirector of the Hopkins Lupus Center.

The goal is “to figure out exactly what to look for when we assess the risk; I don’t think we understand that at this point. We assume patients with lupus behave exactly like patients who don’t have lupus, but they obviously don’t. They do not respond to statins. They have a higher risk no matter what you do for them, even when their disease activity is low, and how much plaque they have over time doesn’t really correlate with disease activity,” he said at an international conference on systemic lupus erythematosus.

“Once we understand” the mechanism, “then we can try to [alter] it. Maybe we can look at new drugs, like the PCSK9 inhibitors which have shown a lot of promise in the general population.” At this point, however, “we don’t really know how to intervene,” Dr. Stojan said.

In the meantime, positive remodeling and low-attenuation, noncalcified plaques (LANCPs) might be something to look for when assessing systemic lupus erythematosus cardiovascular risk. “A simple coronary calcium score, something that all doctors do,” is not enough in lupus, nor is simply checking for lumen obstruction. Also, it’s important not to be misled by an overall reduction in noncalcified plaques. “Low-attenuation, noncalcified plaques don’t [regress] over time in lupus, and they are the ones that lead to cardiovascular events,” he said.

The CT angiography findings were compared with findings in 100 healthy controls who had two CT angiograms in a University of California, Los Angeles, cohort. Overall, there was a mean of 458 LANCPs among lupus patients, versus 42 among controls, a more than 900% difference (P less than .001).

Women with lupus aged under 44 years had a mean of 63 LANCPs; none were detected in healthy women under 44 years. Among women aged 45-59 years, there was a mean of 451 LANCPs in the lupus group versus 53 in the control arm. The findings were highly statistically significant, and almost statistically significant for women 60 years or older, 695 lesions among lupus patients versus 22 (P = .0576).

There were only nine men with lupus in the study, but the findings were similar versus male controls.

While mean LANCP volume regressed over time in the control group (mean, –6.90 mm3; P = .0002), a mean regression of –13.56 mm3 in the lupus group was not statistically significant (P = .4570).

Both controls and lupus patients had a positive remodeling index. It progressed in the lupus group over time, and regressed in controls, but the findings were not statistically significant.

“Statins did nothing for the lupus patients. They didn’t affect progress of coronary plaques at all. We still treat patients because theoretically we don’t have anything better, but we know that they don’t really work in this population,” Dr. Stojan said

The work is funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Stojan didn’t report any relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Stojan G et al. Lupus Sci Med. 2019;6[suppl 1]:A200, Abstract 274.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Article Source

REPORTING FROM LUPUS 2019

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Vitals

 

Key clinical point: Positive remodeling and low-attenuation, noncalcified plaques might be something to look for when assessing systemic lupus erythematosus cardiovascular risk.

Major finding: There was a mean of 458 low-attenuation, noncalcified plaques among lupus patients versus 42 among controls, a more than 900% difference (P less than .001)

Study details: Coronary CT angiography in 102 lupus patients and 100 healthy controls

Disclosures: The National Institutes of Health funded the work. The lead investigator didn’t report any relevant disclosures.

Source: Stojan G et al. Lupus Sci Med. 2019;6[suppl 1]:A200, Abstract 274.

Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.

Systemic anticoagulation found to benefit acute pancreatitis patients

Article Type
Changed
Tue, 05/21/2019 - 16:17

Patients on systemic anticoagulation had decreased odds of acute pancreatitis occurrence, reduced mortality, and improved outcomes, compared with patients who were not on systemic anticoagulation, results from a large retrospective analysis showed.

Dr. Yan Bi of the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla.
Dr. Yan Bi

“Acute pancreatitis is a very common disease,” lead study author Yan Bi, MD, PhD, a senior associate consultant and assistant professor in the department of gastroenterology and hepatology at Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Fla., said in an interview in advance of the annual Digestive Disease Week. “It’s the number one GI cause for hospitalization. Unfortunately, even after decades of basic science and clinical research, there’s still no cure; there’s nothing to prevent it from happening. The only treatment we can offer is supportive care, which includes fluid hydration, pain control, and nutrition support.”

The pathogenesis of acute pancreatitis (AP) is complex, she continued, and represents a sequence of distinct and interconnected pathologic events. “Both animal data and human studies have shown that acute pancreatitis is a hypercoagulable state,” she said. “We hypothesize that coagulation plays important roles in the development of pancreatitis.”

To test their hypothesis, Dr. Bi and associates performed a retrospective study. They drew from the 2014 National Inpatient Sample to evaluate the effect of systemic anticoagulation prior to AP onset on outcomes of the condition. They used ICD-9 codes to identify patients with a primary diagnosis of AP as well as those who were taking systemic anticoagulation. The primary outcome was the odds of AP in patients taking systemic anticoagulation, compared with those who were not. Secondary outcomes were mortality, morbidity, length of hospital stay, and total hospitalization charges and costs. The researchers used propensity score matching to create a 1:1 matching population for sex, age, and Charlson Comorbidity Index, and multivariate regression to adjust for patient ZIP code, income, hospital region, location, size, and teaching status.


Dr. Bi presented results from 442,535 patients with AP. Of these, 12,735 were on systemic anticoagulation prior to AP. Their mean age was 66 and 47% were female. After adjustment for confounders, patients on systemic anticoagulation prior to AP onset displayed a decreased odds of AP occurrence, compared with those who were not on anticoagulation (OR 0.56; P less than .01). In addition, patients on anticoagulation displayed improved outcomes in a number of variables, compared with their counterparts who were not on anticoagulation: mortality (OR 0.65), shock (OR 0.68), acute kidney injury (OR 0.83), ICU admission (OR 0.57), multiorgan failure (OR 0.85), and hospital charges (a mean reduction of $9,275), as well as AP induced by alcohol use (OR 0.26; P less than .01 for all associations). “These data suggest that the majority of AP associated with alcohol was prevented by anticoagulation medication,” Dr. Bi said. “This is very striking. Anticoagulation may hold promise in both the prevention and treatment of AP.”

To further prove their points, Dr. Bi teamed with Baoan Ji, MD, PhD, a basic research scientist at Mayo Clinic, and developed a humanized AP animal model. With this model, they showed that Pradaxa, a Food and Drug Administration–approved anticoagulant, is effective in experimental AP prevention and treatment. “We are currently enrolling patients into a prospective clinical trial to further prove this in humans,” Dr. Bi said. The experimental therapeutic study will be reported at DDW on May 20.

She cautioned against using systemic anticoagulants in this patient population before results of the trial currently underway at Mayo Clinic’s Florida campus are known. “That should be sometime in mid-2020,” she said. “And the bleeding risk should be carefully monitored when using anticoagulants.”

The researchers were supported by funding from the Mayo Clinic and the Department of Defense.

SOURCE: Bi Y et al. DDW 2019, Abstract Sa1381.

Meeting/Event
Publications
Topics
Sections
Meeting/Event
Meeting/Event

Patients on systemic anticoagulation had decreased odds of acute pancreatitis occurrence, reduced mortality, and improved outcomes, compared with patients who were not on systemic anticoagulation, results from a large retrospective analysis showed.

Dr. Yan Bi of the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla.
Dr. Yan Bi

“Acute pancreatitis is a very common disease,” lead study author Yan Bi, MD, PhD, a senior associate consultant and assistant professor in the department of gastroenterology and hepatology at Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Fla., said in an interview in advance of the annual Digestive Disease Week. “It’s the number one GI cause for hospitalization. Unfortunately, even after decades of basic science and clinical research, there’s still no cure; there’s nothing to prevent it from happening. The only treatment we can offer is supportive care, which includes fluid hydration, pain control, and nutrition support.”

The pathogenesis of acute pancreatitis (AP) is complex, she continued, and represents a sequence of distinct and interconnected pathologic events. “Both animal data and human studies have shown that acute pancreatitis is a hypercoagulable state,” she said. “We hypothesize that coagulation plays important roles in the development of pancreatitis.”

To test their hypothesis, Dr. Bi and associates performed a retrospective study. They drew from the 2014 National Inpatient Sample to evaluate the effect of systemic anticoagulation prior to AP onset on outcomes of the condition. They used ICD-9 codes to identify patients with a primary diagnosis of AP as well as those who were taking systemic anticoagulation. The primary outcome was the odds of AP in patients taking systemic anticoagulation, compared with those who were not. Secondary outcomes were mortality, morbidity, length of hospital stay, and total hospitalization charges and costs. The researchers used propensity score matching to create a 1:1 matching population for sex, age, and Charlson Comorbidity Index, and multivariate regression to adjust for patient ZIP code, income, hospital region, location, size, and teaching status.


Dr. Bi presented results from 442,535 patients with AP. Of these, 12,735 were on systemic anticoagulation prior to AP. Their mean age was 66 and 47% were female. After adjustment for confounders, patients on systemic anticoagulation prior to AP onset displayed a decreased odds of AP occurrence, compared with those who were not on anticoagulation (OR 0.56; P less than .01). In addition, patients on anticoagulation displayed improved outcomes in a number of variables, compared with their counterparts who were not on anticoagulation: mortality (OR 0.65), shock (OR 0.68), acute kidney injury (OR 0.83), ICU admission (OR 0.57), multiorgan failure (OR 0.85), and hospital charges (a mean reduction of $9,275), as well as AP induced by alcohol use (OR 0.26; P less than .01 for all associations). “These data suggest that the majority of AP associated with alcohol was prevented by anticoagulation medication,” Dr. Bi said. “This is very striking. Anticoagulation may hold promise in both the prevention and treatment of AP.”

To further prove their points, Dr. Bi teamed with Baoan Ji, MD, PhD, a basic research scientist at Mayo Clinic, and developed a humanized AP animal model. With this model, they showed that Pradaxa, a Food and Drug Administration–approved anticoagulant, is effective in experimental AP prevention and treatment. “We are currently enrolling patients into a prospective clinical trial to further prove this in humans,” Dr. Bi said. The experimental therapeutic study will be reported at DDW on May 20.

She cautioned against using systemic anticoagulants in this patient population before results of the trial currently underway at Mayo Clinic’s Florida campus are known. “That should be sometime in mid-2020,” she said. “And the bleeding risk should be carefully monitored when using anticoagulants.”

The researchers were supported by funding from the Mayo Clinic and the Department of Defense.

SOURCE: Bi Y et al. DDW 2019, Abstract Sa1381.

Patients on systemic anticoagulation had decreased odds of acute pancreatitis occurrence, reduced mortality, and improved outcomes, compared with patients who were not on systemic anticoagulation, results from a large retrospective analysis showed.

Dr. Yan Bi of the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla.
Dr. Yan Bi

“Acute pancreatitis is a very common disease,” lead study author Yan Bi, MD, PhD, a senior associate consultant and assistant professor in the department of gastroenterology and hepatology at Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Fla., said in an interview in advance of the annual Digestive Disease Week. “It’s the number one GI cause for hospitalization. Unfortunately, even after decades of basic science and clinical research, there’s still no cure; there’s nothing to prevent it from happening. The only treatment we can offer is supportive care, which includes fluid hydration, pain control, and nutrition support.”

The pathogenesis of acute pancreatitis (AP) is complex, she continued, and represents a sequence of distinct and interconnected pathologic events. “Both animal data and human studies have shown that acute pancreatitis is a hypercoagulable state,” she said. “We hypothesize that coagulation plays important roles in the development of pancreatitis.”

To test their hypothesis, Dr. Bi and associates performed a retrospective study. They drew from the 2014 National Inpatient Sample to evaluate the effect of systemic anticoagulation prior to AP onset on outcomes of the condition. They used ICD-9 codes to identify patients with a primary diagnosis of AP as well as those who were taking systemic anticoagulation. The primary outcome was the odds of AP in patients taking systemic anticoagulation, compared with those who were not. Secondary outcomes were mortality, morbidity, length of hospital stay, and total hospitalization charges and costs. The researchers used propensity score matching to create a 1:1 matching population for sex, age, and Charlson Comorbidity Index, and multivariate regression to adjust for patient ZIP code, income, hospital region, location, size, and teaching status.


Dr. Bi presented results from 442,535 patients with AP. Of these, 12,735 were on systemic anticoagulation prior to AP. Their mean age was 66 and 47% were female. After adjustment for confounders, patients on systemic anticoagulation prior to AP onset displayed a decreased odds of AP occurrence, compared with those who were not on anticoagulation (OR 0.56; P less than .01). In addition, patients on anticoagulation displayed improved outcomes in a number of variables, compared with their counterparts who were not on anticoagulation: mortality (OR 0.65), shock (OR 0.68), acute kidney injury (OR 0.83), ICU admission (OR 0.57), multiorgan failure (OR 0.85), and hospital charges (a mean reduction of $9,275), as well as AP induced by alcohol use (OR 0.26; P less than .01 for all associations). “These data suggest that the majority of AP associated with alcohol was prevented by anticoagulation medication,” Dr. Bi said. “This is very striking. Anticoagulation may hold promise in both the prevention and treatment of AP.”

To further prove their points, Dr. Bi teamed with Baoan Ji, MD, PhD, a basic research scientist at Mayo Clinic, and developed a humanized AP animal model. With this model, they showed that Pradaxa, a Food and Drug Administration–approved anticoagulant, is effective in experimental AP prevention and treatment. “We are currently enrolling patients into a prospective clinical trial to further prove this in humans,” Dr. Bi said. The experimental therapeutic study will be reported at DDW on May 20.

She cautioned against using systemic anticoagulants in this patient population before results of the trial currently underway at Mayo Clinic’s Florida campus are known. “That should be sometime in mid-2020,” she said. “And the bleeding risk should be carefully monitored when using anticoagulants.”

The researchers were supported by funding from the Mayo Clinic and the Department of Defense.

SOURCE: Bi Y et al. DDW 2019, Abstract Sa1381.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Click for Credit Status
Ready
Sections
Article Source

REPORTING FROM DDW 2019

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Vitals

 

Key clinical point: Anticoagulation may hold promise in both the prevention and treatment of acute pancreatitis (AP).

Major finding: Patients on systemic anticoagulation prior to AP onset displayed a decreased odds of AP occurrence, compared with those who were not on anticoagulation (OR 0.56; P less than .01).

Study details: A retrospective analysis of 442,535 patients with AP.

Disclosures: The researchers were supported by funding from the Mayo Clinic and the Department of Defense.

Source: Bi Y et al. DDW 2019, Abstract Sa1381.

Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.

AFib on the rise in end-stage COPD patients hospitalized for exacerbations

Article Type
Changed
Mon, 05/20/2019 - 15:16

 

Atrial fibrillation is being seen with increasing frequency in patients admitted to U.S. hospitals for exacerbations of end-stage chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, based on a retrospective analysis of data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample.

The prevalence of atrial fibrillation (AFib) among patients with end-stage chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) on home oxygen who were admitted with COPD exacerbations increased from 12.9% in 2003 to 21.3% in 2014, according to Xiaochun Xiao of the department of health statistics at Second Military Medical University in Shanghai and colleagues.

Additionally, “we found that comorbid [AFib] was associated with an increased risk of the need for mechanical ventilation, especially invasive mechanical ventilation. Moreover, comorbid [AFib] was associated with adverse clinical outcomes, including increased in-hospital death, acute respiratory failure, acute kidney injury, sepsis, and stroke,” the researchers wrote in the study published in the journal CHEST.

Patients included in the study were aged at least 18 years, were diagnosed with end-stage COPD and on home oxygen, and were hospitalized because of a COPD-related exacerbation. Based on 1,345,270 weighted hospital admissions of adults with end-stage COPD on home oxygen who met the inclusion criteria for the study, 18.2% (244,488 admissions) of patients had AFib, and the prevalence of AFib in COPD patients increased over time from 2003 (12.9%) to 2014 (21.3%; P less than .0001).

Patients with AFib, compared with patients without AFib, were older (75.5 years vs. 69.6 years; P less than .0001) and more likely to be male (50.7% vs. 59.1%; P less than .0001) and white (80.9% vs. 74.4%; P less than .0001). Patients with AFib also had higher stroke risk reflected in higher CHA2DS2-VASc scores (3.26 vs. 2.45; P less than .0001), and higher likelihood of in-hospital mortality and readmission reflected in Elixhauser scores greater than or equal to 4 (51.2% vs. 35.6%).

In addition, the prevalence of AFib increased with increasing income. Larger hospitals in terms of bed size, urban environment, and Medicare insurance status also were associated with a higher AFib prevalence.

AFib was associated with an increased cost of $1,415 and an increased length of stay of 0.6 days after adjustment for potential confounders. AFib also predicted risk for several adverse events, including stroke (odds ratio, 1.80; in-hospital death, [OR, 1.54]), invasive mechanical ventilation (OR, 1.37), sepsis (OR, 1.23), noninvasive mechanical ventilation (OR, 1.14), acute kidney injury (OR, 1.09), and acute respiratory failure (OR, 1.09).

The researchers noted the database could have potentially overinflated AFib prevalence, as they could not differentiate index admissions and readmissions. The database also does not contain information about secondary diagnoses codes present on admission, which could make it difficult to identify adverse events that occurred during hospitalization.

“Our findings should prompt further efforts to identify the reasons for increased [AFib] prevalence and provide better management strategies for end-stage COPD patients comorbid with [AFib],” the researchers concluded.

This study was funded by a grant from the Fourth Round of the Shanghai 3-year Action Plan on Public Health Discipline and Talent Program. The authors reported no relevant conflict of interest.

SOURCE: Xiao X et al. CHEST. 2019 Jan 23. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2018.12.021.

Publications
Topics
Sections

 

Atrial fibrillation is being seen with increasing frequency in patients admitted to U.S. hospitals for exacerbations of end-stage chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, based on a retrospective analysis of data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample.

The prevalence of atrial fibrillation (AFib) among patients with end-stage chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) on home oxygen who were admitted with COPD exacerbations increased from 12.9% in 2003 to 21.3% in 2014, according to Xiaochun Xiao of the department of health statistics at Second Military Medical University in Shanghai and colleagues.

Additionally, “we found that comorbid [AFib] was associated with an increased risk of the need for mechanical ventilation, especially invasive mechanical ventilation. Moreover, comorbid [AFib] was associated with adverse clinical outcomes, including increased in-hospital death, acute respiratory failure, acute kidney injury, sepsis, and stroke,” the researchers wrote in the study published in the journal CHEST.

Patients included in the study were aged at least 18 years, were diagnosed with end-stage COPD and on home oxygen, and were hospitalized because of a COPD-related exacerbation. Based on 1,345,270 weighted hospital admissions of adults with end-stage COPD on home oxygen who met the inclusion criteria for the study, 18.2% (244,488 admissions) of patients had AFib, and the prevalence of AFib in COPD patients increased over time from 2003 (12.9%) to 2014 (21.3%; P less than .0001).

Patients with AFib, compared with patients without AFib, were older (75.5 years vs. 69.6 years; P less than .0001) and more likely to be male (50.7% vs. 59.1%; P less than .0001) and white (80.9% vs. 74.4%; P less than .0001). Patients with AFib also had higher stroke risk reflected in higher CHA2DS2-VASc scores (3.26 vs. 2.45; P less than .0001), and higher likelihood of in-hospital mortality and readmission reflected in Elixhauser scores greater than or equal to 4 (51.2% vs. 35.6%).

In addition, the prevalence of AFib increased with increasing income. Larger hospitals in terms of bed size, urban environment, and Medicare insurance status also were associated with a higher AFib prevalence.

AFib was associated with an increased cost of $1,415 and an increased length of stay of 0.6 days after adjustment for potential confounders. AFib also predicted risk for several adverse events, including stroke (odds ratio, 1.80; in-hospital death, [OR, 1.54]), invasive mechanical ventilation (OR, 1.37), sepsis (OR, 1.23), noninvasive mechanical ventilation (OR, 1.14), acute kidney injury (OR, 1.09), and acute respiratory failure (OR, 1.09).

The researchers noted the database could have potentially overinflated AFib prevalence, as they could not differentiate index admissions and readmissions. The database also does not contain information about secondary diagnoses codes present on admission, which could make it difficult to identify adverse events that occurred during hospitalization.

“Our findings should prompt further efforts to identify the reasons for increased [AFib] prevalence and provide better management strategies for end-stage COPD patients comorbid with [AFib],” the researchers concluded.

This study was funded by a grant from the Fourth Round of the Shanghai 3-year Action Plan on Public Health Discipline and Talent Program. The authors reported no relevant conflict of interest.

SOURCE: Xiao X et al. CHEST. 2019 Jan 23. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2018.12.021.

 

Atrial fibrillation is being seen with increasing frequency in patients admitted to U.S. hospitals for exacerbations of end-stage chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, based on a retrospective analysis of data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample.

The prevalence of atrial fibrillation (AFib) among patients with end-stage chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) on home oxygen who were admitted with COPD exacerbations increased from 12.9% in 2003 to 21.3% in 2014, according to Xiaochun Xiao of the department of health statistics at Second Military Medical University in Shanghai and colleagues.

Additionally, “we found that comorbid [AFib] was associated with an increased risk of the need for mechanical ventilation, especially invasive mechanical ventilation. Moreover, comorbid [AFib] was associated with adverse clinical outcomes, including increased in-hospital death, acute respiratory failure, acute kidney injury, sepsis, and stroke,” the researchers wrote in the study published in the journal CHEST.

Patients included in the study were aged at least 18 years, were diagnosed with end-stage COPD and on home oxygen, and were hospitalized because of a COPD-related exacerbation. Based on 1,345,270 weighted hospital admissions of adults with end-stage COPD on home oxygen who met the inclusion criteria for the study, 18.2% (244,488 admissions) of patients had AFib, and the prevalence of AFib in COPD patients increased over time from 2003 (12.9%) to 2014 (21.3%; P less than .0001).

Patients with AFib, compared with patients without AFib, were older (75.5 years vs. 69.6 years; P less than .0001) and more likely to be male (50.7% vs. 59.1%; P less than .0001) and white (80.9% vs. 74.4%; P less than .0001). Patients with AFib also had higher stroke risk reflected in higher CHA2DS2-VASc scores (3.26 vs. 2.45; P less than .0001), and higher likelihood of in-hospital mortality and readmission reflected in Elixhauser scores greater than or equal to 4 (51.2% vs. 35.6%).

In addition, the prevalence of AFib increased with increasing income. Larger hospitals in terms of bed size, urban environment, and Medicare insurance status also were associated with a higher AFib prevalence.

AFib was associated with an increased cost of $1,415 and an increased length of stay of 0.6 days after adjustment for potential confounders. AFib also predicted risk for several adverse events, including stroke (odds ratio, 1.80; in-hospital death, [OR, 1.54]), invasive mechanical ventilation (OR, 1.37), sepsis (OR, 1.23), noninvasive mechanical ventilation (OR, 1.14), acute kidney injury (OR, 1.09), and acute respiratory failure (OR, 1.09).

The researchers noted the database could have potentially overinflated AFib prevalence, as they could not differentiate index admissions and readmissions. The database also does not contain information about secondary diagnoses codes present on admission, which could make it difficult to identify adverse events that occurred during hospitalization.

“Our findings should prompt further efforts to identify the reasons for increased [AFib] prevalence and provide better management strategies for end-stage COPD patients comorbid with [AFib],” the researchers concluded.

This study was funded by a grant from the Fourth Round of the Shanghai 3-year Action Plan on Public Health Discipline and Talent Program. The authors reported no relevant conflict of interest.

SOURCE: Xiao X et al. CHEST. 2019 Jan 23. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2018.12.021.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Article Source

FROM CHEST

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Vitals

 

Key clinical point: Comorbid atrial fibrillation was associated with an increased risk of the need for mechanical ventilation, especially invasive mechanical ventilation, and of adverse outcomes including in-hospital death, acute respiratory failure, acute kidney injury, sepsis, and stroke.

Major finding: The prevalence of atrial fibrillation with end-stage chronic obstructive pulmonary disease increased over time from 2003 (12.9%) to 2014 (21.3%). Study details: A retrospective analysis based on 1,345,270 weighted hospital admissions of adults with end-stage chronic obstructive pulmonary disease on home oxygen from the Nationwide Impatient Sample during 2003-2014.

Disclosures: The study was funded by a grant from the Fourth Round of the Shanghai 3-Year Action Plan on Public Health Discipline and Talent Program. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

Source: Xiao X et al. CHEST. 2019 Jan 23. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2018.12.021.

Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.

Hormone use linked to hair loss in transgender adults

Article Type
Changed
Tue, 05/28/2019 - 18:32

 

Gender-affirming hormone use was significantly associated with reports of androgenetic alopecia in transgender men, based on data from a survey of 991 individuals.

Given the importance of hair in body image and gender identity, hair concerns are important to the quality of life of gender-minority individuals, wrote Dustin Marks, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and colleagues.

To explore the impact of hormone use on hair loss in gender-minority patients, the researchers conducted a web-based survey of transgender individuals aged 18 years and older, who self-identified as gender minority. Participants were invited based on profiles on Facebook, YouTube, and Instagram. The findings were published in a research letter in the British Journal of Dermatology.

The 991 survey respondents included 59% transmen, 31% transwomen, and 9% gender nonbinary or gender queer. The average age of the participants was 33 years; 79% were white, 89% had medical insurance, and 91% reported using gender-affirming hormones.

Overall, 65% of transwomen, 43% of transmen, and 35% of nonbinary individuals reported scalp hair loss or thinning. Scalp hair loss was significantly more common among transmen on masculinizing hormones compared to transmen not on hormones (45% vs. 17%). Scalp hair loss was not significantly different between transwomen on feminizing hormones and those not on hormones.

The transwomen who reported scalp hair loss and were on hormones reported significantly less severe Sinclair grades, compared with transwomen with scalp hair loss and were not on hormones. By contrast, transmen and nonbinary individuals on testosterone reported significantly more hair loss (using Hamilton-Norwood and Sinclair scores) between a baseline before hormone use and their present state of hormone use.

The findings support the impact of testosterone use on androgenic alopecia (AGA) in gender-minority patients similar to the established role of testosterone in male pattern hair loss overall, the researchers wrote.

“Some transmen, moreover, may view AGA as a wanted masculine trait, while others seek dermatologic evaluation and treatment for their hair loss,” they noted. By contrast, some transwomen may find AGA especially distressing. In this study, AGA scores were stable for transwomen, which suggests that feminizing hormones may be enough to stabilize hair loss in these patients.

The study was limited by several factors including use of a convenience sample study population without cisgender controls, lack of data on the duration of hormone use, and specific focus on AGE, the researchers noted.

“Mindful of these limitations, clinicians should appreciate the impact of gender-affirming hormones on androgenetic alopecia severity and continue to address the hair concerns of each patient individually,” they wrote.

The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose, and no sources of study funding were reported.

SOURCE: Marks D et al. Br J Dermatol. 2019 May 3. doi: 10.1111/bjd.18099.

Publications
Topics
Sections

 

Gender-affirming hormone use was significantly associated with reports of androgenetic alopecia in transgender men, based on data from a survey of 991 individuals.

Given the importance of hair in body image and gender identity, hair concerns are important to the quality of life of gender-minority individuals, wrote Dustin Marks, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and colleagues.

To explore the impact of hormone use on hair loss in gender-minority patients, the researchers conducted a web-based survey of transgender individuals aged 18 years and older, who self-identified as gender minority. Participants were invited based on profiles on Facebook, YouTube, and Instagram. The findings were published in a research letter in the British Journal of Dermatology.

The 991 survey respondents included 59% transmen, 31% transwomen, and 9% gender nonbinary or gender queer. The average age of the participants was 33 years; 79% were white, 89% had medical insurance, and 91% reported using gender-affirming hormones.

Overall, 65% of transwomen, 43% of transmen, and 35% of nonbinary individuals reported scalp hair loss or thinning. Scalp hair loss was significantly more common among transmen on masculinizing hormones compared to transmen not on hormones (45% vs. 17%). Scalp hair loss was not significantly different between transwomen on feminizing hormones and those not on hormones.

The transwomen who reported scalp hair loss and were on hormones reported significantly less severe Sinclair grades, compared with transwomen with scalp hair loss and were not on hormones. By contrast, transmen and nonbinary individuals on testosterone reported significantly more hair loss (using Hamilton-Norwood and Sinclair scores) between a baseline before hormone use and their present state of hormone use.

The findings support the impact of testosterone use on androgenic alopecia (AGA) in gender-minority patients similar to the established role of testosterone in male pattern hair loss overall, the researchers wrote.

“Some transmen, moreover, may view AGA as a wanted masculine trait, while others seek dermatologic evaluation and treatment for their hair loss,” they noted. By contrast, some transwomen may find AGA especially distressing. In this study, AGA scores were stable for transwomen, which suggests that feminizing hormones may be enough to stabilize hair loss in these patients.

The study was limited by several factors including use of a convenience sample study population without cisgender controls, lack of data on the duration of hormone use, and specific focus on AGE, the researchers noted.

“Mindful of these limitations, clinicians should appreciate the impact of gender-affirming hormones on androgenetic alopecia severity and continue to address the hair concerns of each patient individually,” they wrote.

The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose, and no sources of study funding were reported.

SOURCE: Marks D et al. Br J Dermatol. 2019 May 3. doi: 10.1111/bjd.18099.

 

Gender-affirming hormone use was significantly associated with reports of androgenetic alopecia in transgender men, based on data from a survey of 991 individuals.

Given the importance of hair in body image and gender identity, hair concerns are important to the quality of life of gender-minority individuals, wrote Dustin Marks, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and colleagues.

To explore the impact of hormone use on hair loss in gender-minority patients, the researchers conducted a web-based survey of transgender individuals aged 18 years and older, who self-identified as gender minority. Participants were invited based on profiles on Facebook, YouTube, and Instagram. The findings were published in a research letter in the British Journal of Dermatology.

The 991 survey respondents included 59% transmen, 31% transwomen, and 9% gender nonbinary or gender queer. The average age of the participants was 33 years; 79% were white, 89% had medical insurance, and 91% reported using gender-affirming hormones.

Overall, 65% of transwomen, 43% of transmen, and 35% of nonbinary individuals reported scalp hair loss or thinning. Scalp hair loss was significantly more common among transmen on masculinizing hormones compared to transmen not on hormones (45% vs. 17%). Scalp hair loss was not significantly different between transwomen on feminizing hormones and those not on hormones.

The transwomen who reported scalp hair loss and were on hormones reported significantly less severe Sinclair grades, compared with transwomen with scalp hair loss and were not on hormones. By contrast, transmen and nonbinary individuals on testosterone reported significantly more hair loss (using Hamilton-Norwood and Sinclair scores) between a baseline before hormone use and their present state of hormone use.

The findings support the impact of testosterone use on androgenic alopecia (AGA) in gender-minority patients similar to the established role of testosterone in male pattern hair loss overall, the researchers wrote.

“Some transmen, moreover, may view AGA as a wanted masculine trait, while others seek dermatologic evaluation and treatment for their hair loss,” they noted. By contrast, some transwomen may find AGA especially distressing. In this study, AGA scores were stable for transwomen, which suggests that feminizing hormones may be enough to stabilize hair loss in these patients.

The study was limited by several factors including use of a convenience sample study population without cisgender controls, lack of data on the duration of hormone use, and specific focus on AGE, the researchers noted.

“Mindful of these limitations, clinicians should appreciate the impact of gender-affirming hormones on androgenetic alopecia severity and continue to address the hair concerns of each patient individually,” they wrote.

The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose, and no sources of study funding were reported.

SOURCE: Marks D et al. Br J Dermatol. 2019 May 3. doi: 10.1111/bjd.18099.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Click for Credit Status
Active
Sections
Article Source

FROM THE BRITISH JOURNAL OF DERMATOLOGY

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
CME ID
201192
Vitals

 

Key clinical point: Use of hormone therapy had a significant impact on scalp and hair loss in trans men who used masculinizing hormones.

Major finding: Scalp hair loss or hair thinning was reported by 65% of trans women, 43% of trans men, and 35% of nonbinary individuals.

Study details: The data come from a cross-sectional study including 991 adults self-identifying as gender minorities.

Disclosures: The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose, and no sources of study funding were reported.

Source: Marks D et al. Br J Dermatol. 2019 May 3. doi: 10.1111/bjd.18099.

Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.

Antiangiogenics linked to fatal bleeds after RT in patients with “ultracentral” lung tumors

Article Type
Changed
Sat, 05/18/2019 - 10:03

 

In patients with tumors bordering the central airway, use of antiangiogenic agents has been linked to fatal hemorrhage after radiation treatment, according to investigators reporting a large, retrospective case series.

Most hemorrhagic events in these patients with so-called “ultracentral” lung tumors occurred in those who received bevacizumab or pazopanib within 30 days of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), according to radiation oncologist Abraham J. Wu, MD, and coinvestigators at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

Based on these new data, the combination of antiangiogenic agents (AAAs) and SBRT should be avoided in patients with ultracentral lung tumors, the researchers wrote.

“Although this report is limited by its retrospective nature, these findings strongly suggest that AAAs potentiate severe SBRT-related toxic effects,” Dr. Wu and coinvestigators wrote in a report on the study in JAMA Oncology. While AAAs are not indicated for treatment of patients with early-stage lung cancer, they may be used to treat oligometastatic disease, which may also be treated with SBRT.

The study included 88 patients with a median age of 74 years who had a lung tumor abutting the proximal bronchial tree, a planned target volume overlapping the esophagus, or both. There were lung metastases in 35 patients.

Nine patients had received bevacizumab, pazopanib, or ramucirumab, stopping a median of 30 days prior to SBRT and resuming a median of 29 days after the end of the radiation treatment.

There were six fatal pulmonary hemorrhages in 19.6 months of follow-up, Dr. Wu and coinvestigators reported. Of those six patients, four had received an antiangiogenic agent (three bevacizumab, one pazopanib) within 30 days of SBRT.

The probability of fatal pulmonary hemorrhage was significantly higher in the patients receiving AAAs versus those who did not (hazard ratio, 16.9; 95% confidence interval, 3.2-88.8; P less than .001).

Another six patients received AAAs more than 90 days before or after SBRT, and none of them had fatal hemorrhages.

A high rate of fatal hemorrhage was reported in another recent study of patients with ultracentral lung tumors, but that study did not identify any risk factors related to this toxic effect, Dr. Wu and coauthors wrote.

The research was partly supported by the National Institutes of Health, the China Scholarship Council, and the Joanne & John Dallepezze Foundation. The investigators reported disclosures related to AstraZeneca, CivaTech Oncology, Alpha Tau Medical, Varian Medical Systems, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Merck, and Elekta.

SOURCE: Wu AJ et al. JAMA Oncol. 2019 Apr 4. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.0205.

Publications
Topics
Sections

 

In patients with tumors bordering the central airway, use of antiangiogenic agents has been linked to fatal hemorrhage after radiation treatment, according to investigators reporting a large, retrospective case series.

Most hemorrhagic events in these patients with so-called “ultracentral” lung tumors occurred in those who received bevacizumab or pazopanib within 30 days of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), according to radiation oncologist Abraham J. Wu, MD, and coinvestigators at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

Based on these new data, the combination of antiangiogenic agents (AAAs) and SBRT should be avoided in patients with ultracentral lung tumors, the researchers wrote.

“Although this report is limited by its retrospective nature, these findings strongly suggest that AAAs potentiate severe SBRT-related toxic effects,” Dr. Wu and coinvestigators wrote in a report on the study in JAMA Oncology. While AAAs are not indicated for treatment of patients with early-stage lung cancer, they may be used to treat oligometastatic disease, which may also be treated with SBRT.

The study included 88 patients with a median age of 74 years who had a lung tumor abutting the proximal bronchial tree, a planned target volume overlapping the esophagus, or both. There were lung metastases in 35 patients.

Nine patients had received bevacizumab, pazopanib, or ramucirumab, stopping a median of 30 days prior to SBRT and resuming a median of 29 days after the end of the radiation treatment.

There were six fatal pulmonary hemorrhages in 19.6 months of follow-up, Dr. Wu and coinvestigators reported. Of those six patients, four had received an antiangiogenic agent (three bevacizumab, one pazopanib) within 30 days of SBRT.

The probability of fatal pulmonary hemorrhage was significantly higher in the patients receiving AAAs versus those who did not (hazard ratio, 16.9; 95% confidence interval, 3.2-88.8; P less than .001).

Another six patients received AAAs more than 90 days before or after SBRT, and none of them had fatal hemorrhages.

A high rate of fatal hemorrhage was reported in another recent study of patients with ultracentral lung tumors, but that study did not identify any risk factors related to this toxic effect, Dr. Wu and coauthors wrote.

The research was partly supported by the National Institutes of Health, the China Scholarship Council, and the Joanne & John Dallepezze Foundation. The investigators reported disclosures related to AstraZeneca, CivaTech Oncology, Alpha Tau Medical, Varian Medical Systems, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Merck, and Elekta.

SOURCE: Wu AJ et al. JAMA Oncol. 2019 Apr 4. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.0205.

 

In patients with tumors bordering the central airway, use of antiangiogenic agents has been linked to fatal hemorrhage after radiation treatment, according to investigators reporting a large, retrospective case series.

Most hemorrhagic events in these patients with so-called “ultracentral” lung tumors occurred in those who received bevacizumab or pazopanib within 30 days of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), according to radiation oncologist Abraham J. Wu, MD, and coinvestigators at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

Based on these new data, the combination of antiangiogenic agents (AAAs) and SBRT should be avoided in patients with ultracentral lung tumors, the researchers wrote.

“Although this report is limited by its retrospective nature, these findings strongly suggest that AAAs potentiate severe SBRT-related toxic effects,” Dr. Wu and coinvestigators wrote in a report on the study in JAMA Oncology. While AAAs are not indicated for treatment of patients with early-stage lung cancer, they may be used to treat oligometastatic disease, which may also be treated with SBRT.

The study included 88 patients with a median age of 74 years who had a lung tumor abutting the proximal bronchial tree, a planned target volume overlapping the esophagus, or both. There were lung metastases in 35 patients.

Nine patients had received bevacizumab, pazopanib, or ramucirumab, stopping a median of 30 days prior to SBRT and resuming a median of 29 days after the end of the radiation treatment.

There were six fatal pulmonary hemorrhages in 19.6 months of follow-up, Dr. Wu and coinvestigators reported. Of those six patients, four had received an antiangiogenic agent (three bevacizumab, one pazopanib) within 30 days of SBRT.

The probability of fatal pulmonary hemorrhage was significantly higher in the patients receiving AAAs versus those who did not (hazard ratio, 16.9; 95% confidence interval, 3.2-88.8; P less than .001).

Another six patients received AAAs more than 90 days before or after SBRT, and none of them had fatal hemorrhages.

A high rate of fatal hemorrhage was reported in another recent study of patients with ultracentral lung tumors, but that study did not identify any risk factors related to this toxic effect, Dr. Wu and coauthors wrote.

The research was partly supported by the National Institutes of Health, the China Scholarship Council, and the Joanne & John Dallepezze Foundation. The investigators reported disclosures related to AstraZeneca, CivaTech Oncology, Alpha Tau Medical, Varian Medical Systems, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Merck, and Elekta.

SOURCE: Wu AJ et al. JAMA Oncol. 2019 Apr 4. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.0205.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Click for Credit Status
Ready
Sections
Article Source

FROM JAMA ONCOLOGY

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Vitals

 

Key clinical point: In patients with tumors bordering the central airway, use of antiangiogenic agents has been linked to fatal hemorrhage after stereotactic body radiation therapy.

Major finding: There were six fatal pulmonary hemorrhages, of which four occurred in patients receiving bevacizumab or pazopanib within 30 days of stereotactic body radiation therapy.

Study details: A retrospective case series including 88 patients with lung tumors abutting the proximal bronchial tree or a planned target volume overlapping the esophagus.

Disclosures: Partial support came from the National Institutes of Health, the China Scholarship Council, and the Joanne & John Dallepezze Foundation. The investigators reported disclosures related to AstraZeneca, CivaTech Oncology, Alpha Tau Medical, Varian Medical Systems, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Merck, and Elekta.

Source: Wu AJ et al. JAMA Oncol. 2019 Apr 4. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.0205.

Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.

Skip metastasis rate low in node-negative oral cancers

Actually, doctors should include neck level IV in these scenarios
Article Type
Changed
Tue, 05/28/2019 - 18:32

 

In patients with clinically node-negative oral cavity cancers, the rate of skip metastasis to neck level IV is extremely low, according to authors of a recent meta-analysis.

The rate of level IV involvement was about 2.5%, and the rate of skip metastasis was 0.5% in the analysis, which comprised 11 retrospective studies and 2 randomized clinical trials including a total of 1,359 patients with clinically node-negative oral cavity squamous cell carcinomas.

Encountering a suspected positive lymph node during neck dissection does not appear to be an indicator of high rates of level IV involvement, according to Anton Warshavsky, MD, and colleagues in the department of otolaryngology–head and neck surgery and maxillofacial surgery at Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Israel.

“Supraomohyoid neck dissection [SOHND] is adequate for this subset of patients,” Dr. Warshavsky and coauthors wrote in a report on the study that appears in JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery.

SOHND, a type of selective neck dissection, refers to removal of lymph nodes in levels I-III. This approach is now frequently used in managing clinically node-negative oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma and provides control rates similar to those associated with more extensive neck dissections, Dr. Warshavsky and colleagues wrote.

However, concern regarding the risk of skip metastases, or involvement of neck level IV without involvement of lower levels, has stirred controversy. SOHND might not be adequate in these patients because of the possibility of occult metastasis to neck level IV.

Accordingly, Dr. Warshavsky and colleagues combed the available medical literature to find relevant articles for a meta-analysis to better characterize the rate of skip metastasis to level IV in patients who had undergone neck dissection.

Level IV involvement rates in clinically node-negative patients ranged from 0% to 11.4% in the 13 included studies. Based on fixed-effects modeling, the rate of involvement was 2.53% (95% CI, 1.64-3.55%), according to the published report.

The rate of skip metastasis was “extremely low,” wrote Dr. Warshavsky and coauthors. Rates ranged from 0% to 5.50%, with a fixed-effects model of 0.50% (95% CI, 0.09%-1.11%).

Cases involving higher levels of the neck did not impact the rate of level IV metastasis, results of a subgroup analysis found. Likewise, an analysis based on T stage showed that rates of level 4 involvement were comparable and low for T stages I-II and III-IV.

These findings are limited, however, not only by the retrospective nature of this study, but also by the fact that many studies reported limited data, hampering the investigators’ ability to run statistics and perform subgroup analyses.

“Unfortunately, data in almost all of the analyzed articles failed to report the relations between the primary tumor site and the neck levels involved by metastatic tumor,” they wrote. “Only primary lesions of the tongue could be accurately assessed.”

Dr. Warshavsky and coauthors reported no conflicts of interest related to the research.

SOURCE: Warshavsky A et al. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2019 May 9. doi: 10.1001/jamaoto.2019.0784.

Body

 

Although this meta-analysis shows that the risk of level IV involvement is less than 5% in patients with clinically node-negative (cN0) oral cavity cancers, going beyond standard supraomohyoid neck dissection (SOHND) may still be warranted for specific patients.

While the authors conclude that elective treatment of level IV is not required in patients with cN0 oral cavity cancer, there are two situations in which clinicians should consider adding level IV to standard SOHND.

The first is when a patient has gross macroscopic disease in upper levels, particularly level III. Most studies in the meta-analysis had insufficient data to determine whether involvement of upper levels increased risk of level IV involvement. When encountering gross disease during an elective neck dissection, some researchers have recommended including level IV and V.

The second scenario is when a posterolateral oral tongue cancer is near or at the tongue base, since oropharyngeal cancers are known to drain to levels II-IV.

The decision to make exceptions in these two situations should be based on the combination of clinical judgment and evidence-based medicine in certain situations. That said, for most patients with cNO oral cavity cancer, SOHND is enough.

Arun Sharma, MD, MS , is with the division of otolaryngology–head and neck surgery at Southern Illinois University, Springfield. He had no conflict of interest related to his editorial, which appears in JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery .

Publications
Topics
Sections
Body

 

Although this meta-analysis shows that the risk of level IV involvement is less than 5% in patients with clinically node-negative (cN0) oral cavity cancers, going beyond standard supraomohyoid neck dissection (SOHND) may still be warranted for specific patients.

While the authors conclude that elective treatment of level IV is not required in patients with cN0 oral cavity cancer, there are two situations in which clinicians should consider adding level IV to standard SOHND.

The first is when a patient has gross macroscopic disease in upper levels, particularly level III. Most studies in the meta-analysis had insufficient data to determine whether involvement of upper levels increased risk of level IV involvement. When encountering gross disease during an elective neck dissection, some researchers have recommended including level IV and V.

The second scenario is when a posterolateral oral tongue cancer is near or at the tongue base, since oropharyngeal cancers are known to drain to levels II-IV.

The decision to make exceptions in these two situations should be based on the combination of clinical judgment and evidence-based medicine in certain situations. That said, for most patients with cNO oral cavity cancer, SOHND is enough.

Arun Sharma, MD, MS , is with the division of otolaryngology–head and neck surgery at Southern Illinois University, Springfield. He had no conflict of interest related to his editorial, which appears in JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery .

Body

 

Although this meta-analysis shows that the risk of level IV involvement is less than 5% in patients with clinically node-negative (cN0) oral cavity cancers, going beyond standard supraomohyoid neck dissection (SOHND) may still be warranted for specific patients.

While the authors conclude that elective treatment of level IV is not required in patients with cN0 oral cavity cancer, there are two situations in which clinicians should consider adding level IV to standard SOHND.

The first is when a patient has gross macroscopic disease in upper levels, particularly level III. Most studies in the meta-analysis had insufficient data to determine whether involvement of upper levels increased risk of level IV involvement. When encountering gross disease during an elective neck dissection, some researchers have recommended including level IV and V.

The second scenario is when a posterolateral oral tongue cancer is near or at the tongue base, since oropharyngeal cancers are known to drain to levels II-IV.

The decision to make exceptions in these two situations should be based on the combination of clinical judgment and evidence-based medicine in certain situations. That said, for most patients with cNO oral cavity cancer, SOHND is enough.

Arun Sharma, MD, MS , is with the division of otolaryngology–head and neck surgery at Southern Illinois University, Springfield. He had no conflict of interest related to his editorial, which appears in JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery .

Title
Actually, doctors should include neck level IV in these scenarios
Actually, doctors should include neck level IV in these scenarios

 

In patients with clinically node-negative oral cavity cancers, the rate of skip metastasis to neck level IV is extremely low, according to authors of a recent meta-analysis.

The rate of level IV involvement was about 2.5%, and the rate of skip metastasis was 0.5% in the analysis, which comprised 11 retrospective studies and 2 randomized clinical trials including a total of 1,359 patients with clinically node-negative oral cavity squamous cell carcinomas.

Encountering a suspected positive lymph node during neck dissection does not appear to be an indicator of high rates of level IV involvement, according to Anton Warshavsky, MD, and colleagues in the department of otolaryngology–head and neck surgery and maxillofacial surgery at Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Israel.

“Supraomohyoid neck dissection [SOHND] is adequate for this subset of patients,” Dr. Warshavsky and coauthors wrote in a report on the study that appears in JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery.

SOHND, a type of selective neck dissection, refers to removal of lymph nodes in levels I-III. This approach is now frequently used in managing clinically node-negative oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma and provides control rates similar to those associated with more extensive neck dissections, Dr. Warshavsky and colleagues wrote.

However, concern regarding the risk of skip metastases, or involvement of neck level IV without involvement of lower levels, has stirred controversy. SOHND might not be adequate in these patients because of the possibility of occult metastasis to neck level IV.

Accordingly, Dr. Warshavsky and colleagues combed the available medical literature to find relevant articles for a meta-analysis to better characterize the rate of skip metastasis to level IV in patients who had undergone neck dissection.

Level IV involvement rates in clinically node-negative patients ranged from 0% to 11.4% in the 13 included studies. Based on fixed-effects modeling, the rate of involvement was 2.53% (95% CI, 1.64-3.55%), according to the published report.

The rate of skip metastasis was “extremely low,” wrote Dr. Warshavsky and coauthors. Rates ranged from 0% to 5.50%, with a fixed-effects model of 0.50% (95% CI, 0.09%-1.11%).

Cases involving higher levels of the neck did not impact the rate of level IV metastasis, results of a subgroup analysis found. Likewise, an analysis based on T stage showed that rates of level 4 involvement were comparable and low for T stages I-II and III-IV.

These findings are limited, however, not only by the retrospective nature of this study, but also by the fact that many studies reported limited data, hampering the investigators’ ability to run statistics and perform subgroup analyses.

“Unfortunately, data in almost all of the analyzed articles failed to report the relations between the primary tumor site and the neck levels involved by metastatic tumor,” they wrote. “Only primary lesions of the tongue could be accurately assessed.”

Dr. Warshavsky and coauthors reported no conflicts of interest related to the research.

SOURCE: Warshavsky A et al. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2019 May 9. doi: 10.1001/jamaoto.2019.0784.

 

In patients with clinically node-negative oral cavity cancers, the rate of skip metastasis to neck level IV is extremely low, according to authors of a recent meta-analysis.

The rate of level IV involvement was about 2.5%, and the rate of skip metastasis was 0.5% in the analysis, which comprised 11 retrospective studies and 2 randomized clinical trials including a total of 1,359 patients with clinically node-negative oral cavity squamous cell carcinomas.

Encountering a suspected positive lymph node during neck dissection does not appear to be an indicator of high rates of level IV involvement, according to Anton Warshavsky, MD, and colleagues in the department of otolaryngology–head and neck surgery and maxillofacial surgery at Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Israel.

“Supraomohyoid neck dissection [SOHND] is adequate for this subset of patients,” Dr. Warshavsky and coauthors wrote in a report on the study that appears in JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery.

SOHND, a type of selective neck dissection, refers to removal of lymph nodes in levels I-III. This approach is now frequently used in managing clinically node-negative oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma and provides control rates similar to those associated with more extensive neck dissections, Dr. Warshavsky and colleagues wrote.

However, concern regarding the risk of skip metastases, or involvement of neck level IV without involvement of lower levels, has stirred controversy. SOHND might not be adequate in these patients because of the possibility of occult metastasis to neck level IV.

Accordingly, Dr. Warshavsky and colleagues combed the available medical literature to find relevant articles for a meta-analysis to better characterize the rate of skip metastasis to level IV in patients who had undergone neck dissection.

Level IV involvement rates in clinically node-negative patients ranged from 0% to 11.4% in the 13 included studies. Based on fixed-effects modeling, the rate of involvement was 2.53% (95% CI, 1.64-3.55%), according to the published report.

The rate of skip metastasis was “extremely low,” wrote Dr. Warshavsky and coauthors. Rates ranged from 0% to 5.50%, with a fixed-effects model of 0.50% (95% CI, 0.09%-1.11%).

Cases involving higher levels of the neck did not impact the rate of level IV metastasis, results of a subgroup analysis found. Likewise, an analysis based on T stage showed that rates of level 4 involvement were comparable and low for T stages I-II and III-IV.

These findings are limited, however, not only by the retrospective nature of this study, but also by the fact that many studies reported limited data, hampering the investigators’ ability to run statistics and perform subgroup analyses.

“Unfortunately, data in almost all of the analyzed articles failed to report the relations between the primary tumor site and the neck levels involved by metastatic tumor,” they wrote. “Only primary lesions of the tongue could be accurately assessed.”

Dr. Warshavsky and coauthors reported no conflicts of interest related to the research.

SOURCE: Warshavsky A et al. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2019 May 9. doi: 10.1001/jamaoto.2019.0784.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Click for Credit Status
Active
Sections
Article Source

FROM JAMA OTOLARYNGOLOGY–HEAD & NECK SURGERY

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
CME ID
201190
Vitals

 

Key clinical point: In patients with clinically node-negative oral cavity cancers, rates of skip metastasis to neck level IV are extremely low, meaning that supraomohyoid neck dissection is likely sufficient for most cases.

Major finding: The rate of level IV involvement was about 2.5%, and the rate of skip metastasis was 0.5%.

Study details: A meta-analysis of 11 retrospective studies and 2 randomized clinical trials, including a total of 1,359 patients who had undergone neck dissection.

Disclosures: The study authors reported no conflicts of interest.

Source: Warshavsky A et al. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2019 May 9. doi: 10.1001/jamaoto.2019.0784.

Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.

Smoking rates remain steady among the poor

Article Type
Changed
Tue, 05/28/2019 - 18:32

While an increasing number of U.S. citizens are saying no to cigarettes, current smoking rates are holding steady among people who face multiple forms of socioeconomic or health-related disadvantages, a recent study shows.

A hand holds a burning cigarette over an ashtray full of butts.
Terroa/iStock/Getty Images

The odds of current smoking, versus never smoking, declined significantly during 2008-2017 for individuals with none of six disadvantages tied to cigarette use, including disability, unemployment, poverty, low education, psychological distress, and heavy alcohol intake, according to researchers.

Individuals with one or two of those disadvantages have also been cutting back, the data suggest. But, by contrast, odds of current versus never smoking did not significantly change for those with three or more disadvantages, according to Adam M. Leventhal, PhD, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and coinvestigators.

“How this pattern can inform a cohesive policy agenda is unknown, but it is clear from these findings that the crux of the recently expanding tobacco-related health disparity problem in the United States is not tied to groups facing merely a single form of disadvantage,” Dr. Leventhal and coauthors wrote in a report on the study in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The cross-sectional analysis by Dr. Leventhal and colleagues was based on National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) data from 2008-2017 including more than 278,000 respondents aged 25 years or older.

A snapshot of that 10-year period showed that current smoking prevalence was successively higher depending on the number of socioeconomic or health-related disadvantages.

The mean prevalence of current smoking over that entire time period was just 13.8% for people with zero of the six disadvantages, 21.4% for those with one disadvantage, and so on, up to 58.2% for those with all six disadvantages, according to data in the published report.

Encouragingly, overall smoking prevalence fell from 20.8% in 2008-2009 to 15.8% in 2016-2017, the researchers found. However, the decreasing trend was not apparent for individuals with many disadvantages.

The odds ratio for change in odds of smoking per year was 0.951 (95% confidence interval, 0.944-0.958) for those with zero disadvantages, 0.96 (95% CI, 0.95-0.97) for one disadvantage, and 0.98 (95% CI, 0.97-0.99) for two, all representing significant annual reductions in current versus never smoking, investigators said. By contrast, no such significant changes were apparent for those with three, four, five, or six such disadvantages.

Tobacco control or regulatory policies that consider these disadvantages separately may be overlooking a “broader pattern” showing that the cumulative number of disadvantages correlates with the magnitude of disparity, wrote Dr. Leventhal and colleagues in their report.

“Successful prevention of smoking initiation and promotion of smoking cessation in multi-disadvantaged populations would substantially reduce the smoking-related public health burden in the United States,” they concluded.

Dr. Leventhal and colleagues reported no conflicts related to their research, which was supported in part by a Tobacco Centers of Regulatory Science award from the National Cancer Institute and the Food and Drug Administration, among other sources.

SOURCE: Leventhal AM et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2019 Apr 22. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.0192.

Publications
Topics
Sections

While an increasing number of U.S. citizens are saying no to cigarettes, current smoking rates are holding steady among people who face multiple forms of socioeconomic or health-related disadvantages, a recent study shows.

A hand holds a burning cigarette over an ashtray full of butts.
Terroa/iStock/Getty Images

The odds of current smoking, versus never smoking, declined significantly during 2008-2017 for individuals with none of six disadvantages tied to cigarette use, including disability, unemployment, poverty, low education, psychological distress, and heavy alcohol intake, according to researchers.

Individuals with one or two of those disadvantages have also been cutting back, the data suggest. But, by contrast, odds of current versus never smoking did not significantly change for those with three or more disadvantages, according to Adam M. Leventhal, PhD, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and coinvestigators.

“How this pattern can inform a cohesive policy agenda is unknown, but it is clear from these findings that the crux of the recently expanding tobacco-related health disparity problem in the United States is not tied to groups facing merely a single form of disadvantage,” Dr. Leventhal and coauthors wrote in a report on the study in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The cross-sectional analysis by Dr. Leventhal and colleagues was based on National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) data from 2008-2017 including more than 278,000 respondents aged 25 years or older.

A snapshot of that 10-year period showed that current smoking prevalence was successively higher depending on the number of socioeconomic or health-related disadvantages.

The mean prevalence of current smoking over that entire time period was just 13.8% for people with zero of the six disadvantages, 21.4% for those with one disadvantage, and so on, up to 58.2% for those with all six disadvantages, according to data in the published report.

Encouragingly, overall smoking prevalence fell from 20.8% in 2008-2009 to 15.8% in 2016-2017, the researchers found. However, the decreasing trend was not apparent for individuals with many disadvantages.

The odds ratio for change in odds of smoking per year was 0.951 (95% confidence interval, 0.944-0.958) for those with zero disadvantages, 0.96 (95% CI, 0.95-0.97) for one disadvantage, and 0.98 (95% CI, 0.97-0.99) for two, all representing significant annual reductions in current versus never smoking, investigators said. By contrast, no such significant changes were apparent for those with three, four, five, or six such disadvantages.

Tobacco control or regulatory policies that consider these disadvantages separately may be overlooking a “broader pattern” showing that the cumulative number of disadvantages correlates with the magnitude of disparity, wrote Dr. Leventhal and colleagues in their report.

“Successful prevention of smoking initiation and promotion of smoking cessation in multi-disadvantaged populations would substantially reduce the smoking-related public health burden in the United States,” they concluded.

Dr. Leventhal and colleagues reported no conflicts related to their research, which was supported in part by a Tobacco Centers of Regulatory Science award from the National Cancer Institute and the Food and Drug Administration, among other sources.

SOURCE: Leventhal AM et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2019 Apr 22. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.0192.

While an increasing number of U.S. citizens are saying no to cigarettes, current smoking rates are holding steady among people who face multiple forms of socioeconomic or health-related disadvantages, a recent study shows.

A hand holds a burning cigarette over an ashtray full of butts.
Terroa/iStock/Getty Images

The odds of current smoking, versus never smoking, declined significantly during 2008-2017 for individuals with none of six disadvantages tied to cigarette use, including disability, unemployment, poverty, low education, psychological distress, and heavy alcohol intake, according to researchers.

Individuals with one or two of those disadvantages have also been cutting back, the data suggest. But, by contrast, odds of current versus never smoking did not significantly change for those with three or more disadvantages, according to Adam M. Leventhal, PhD, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and coinvestigators.

“How this pattern can inform a cohesive policy agenda is unknown, but it is clear from these findings that the crux of the recently expanding tobacco-related health disparity problem in the United States is not tied to groups facing merely a single form of disadvantage,” Dr. Leventhal and coauthors wrote in a report on the study in JAMA Internal Medicine.

The cross-sectional analysis by Dr. Leventhal and colleagues was based on National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) data from 2008-2017 including more than 278,000 respondents aged 25 years or older.

A snapshot of that 10-year period showed that current smoking prevalence was successively higher depending on the number of socioeconomic or health-related disadvantages.

The mean prevalence of current smoking over that entire time period was just 13.8% for people with zero of the six disadvantages, 21.4% for those with one disadvantage, and so on, up to 58.2% for those with all six disadvantages, according to data in the published report.

Encouragingly, overall smoking prevalence fell from 20.8% in 2008-2009 to 15.8% in 2016-2017, the researchers found. However, the decreasing trend was not apparent for individuals with many disadvantages.

The odds ratio for change in odds of smoking per year was 0.951 (95% confidence interval, 0.944-0.958) for those with zero disadvantages, 0.96 (95% CI, 0.95-0.97) for one disadvantage, and 0.98 (95% CI, 0.97-0.99) for two, all representing significant annual reductions in current versus never smoking, investigators said. By contrast, no such significant changes were apparent for those with three, four, five, or six such disadvantages.

Tobacco control or regulatory policies that consider these disadvantages separately may be overlooking a “broader pattern” showing that the cumulative number of disadvantages correlates with the magnitude of disparity, wrote Dr. Leventhal and colleagues in their report.

“Successful prevention of smoking initiation and promotion of smoking cessation in multi-disadvantaged populations would substantially reduce the smoking-related public health burden in the United States,” they concluded.

Dr. Leventhal and colleagues reported no conflicts related to their research, which was supported in part by a Tobacco Centers of Regulatory Science award from the National Cancer Institute and the Food and Drug Administration, among other sources.

SOURCE: Leventhal AM et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2019 Apr 22. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.0192.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Click for Credit Status
Active
Sections
Article Source

FROM JAMA INTERNAL MEDICINE

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
CME ID
201189
Vitals

 

Key clinical point: Current U.S. smoking rates have not declined among individuals with multiple socioeconomic or health-related disadvantages.

Major finding: The odds ratio for change in odds of smoking per year was 0.951 for individuals with zero disadvantages, 0.96 for one disadvantage, and 0.97-0.99 for two, with no significant annual reductions in those with three or more disadvantages.

Study details: Cross-sectional analysis of 278,048 respondents aged 25 years or older in the National Health Interview Survey during 2008-2017.

Disclosures: Authors reported no conflicts of interest related to the study, which was supported in part by a Tobacco Centers of Regulatory Science award from the National Cancer Institute and the Food and Drug Administration, among other sources.

Source: Leventhal AM et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2019 Apr 22. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.0192.

Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.