Liam Davenport

Comprehensive evaluation, multidisciplinary care, individualized treatment, and ongoing follow-up are all key to the management of pediatric thyroid nodules and differentiated thyroid carcinoma (DTC), according to the first European guidelines for this rare disease.

The guidelines were recently published in the European Thyroid Journal.

Lead author Chantal A. Lebbink told this news organization one of the key takeaways for clinicians is that management of pediatric thyroid nodules and DTC is «challenging and cannot be captured in a one-size-fits-all model.”

She also underlined the need for a “multidisciplinary approach in pediatric thyroid cancer expertise centers.”

Above all, Ms. Lebbink, who is a PhD student in the department of pediatric endocrinology, Wilhelmina Children’s Hospital, Utrecht, the Netherlands, said that pediatric DTC “is not adult DTC in a small person; it has different genetics and a different clinical behavior.”

The authors noted that DTC may be a rare disease, but its worldwide incidence is rising. It has several histologic subtypes, although the “vast majority” of cases are papillary thyroid carcinoma.

Crucially, there are “important differences” between adult and pediatric DTC in terms of their clinical, molecular, and pathologic characteristics, with pediatric patients commonly presenting with more advanced disease with greater lymph node involvement, distant metastases, and multifocal disease.

“However, despite the aggressive presentation, the overall survival rates are excellent,” Ms. Lebbink said.

There are also differences in genetic alterations between adult and pediatric patients. RET-PTC and NTRK fusions are more common in pediatric patients, while mutations in BRAF V600E and RAS point mutations are less frequent.
 

First European guidelines on thyroid cancer, thyroid nodules in children

Despite these differences, and the existence of U.S. guidelines, until now there have been no European recommendations on the management of pediatric thyroid nodules and DTC.

The European Thyroid Association therefore convened a panel of experts in pediatric and adult endocrinology, pathology, endocrine surgery, nuclear medicine, clinical genetics, and oncology, and tasked them with looking at diagnostics and staging, treatment, and follow-up.

The 2015 American Thyroid Association pediatric guideline was used as framework for the European guideline, with the expert panel identifying areas of discordance and outstanding clinical questions (Thyroid. 2015 Jul;25[7]:716-59).

To answer these questions, they searched PubMed and identified 3,251 studies, of which 45 studies met the inclusion criteria. From this they developed a comprehensive set of recommendations. These include that a child with suspected or proven cancer be referred to an experienced multidisciplinary team and their likely benefit from higher- versus lower-intensity treatment be established.

In addition, children should undergo a preoperative evaluation, with neck palpation, comprehensive neck ultrasonography, and laboratory work-up as a minimum, with further testing suggested in case of a family history or extensive disease.

Total thyroidectomy is the recommended treatment, although the authors call for further studies to assess the impact of limited surgery, and they suggest that prophylactic central lymph node dissection be reserved for advanced cases.

Crucially, all children “should be operated on by high-volume pediatric thyroid cancer surgeons with experience in pediatric thyroid cancer and who are embedded in a center with expertise in the management of DTC,” they wrote.
 

RAI therapy recommended for all children, in contrast to ATA guidelines

Radioactive iodine (I-131) therapy is recommended for all children following total thyroidectomy, with treatment following an individual patient-based approach.

This differs slightly from the ATA guidelines, which recommend against radioactive iodine (RAI) therapy for children with low-risk differentiated thyroid cancer that is mostly confined to the thyroid (N0 or minimal N1a disease). A study presented at the recent 2022 annual meeting of the ATA found that such children who were spared RAI showed no increases in risk of remission compared with those who did receive it.

The ETA guidelines then go on to recommend that children should be followed up with thyroid-stimulating hormone monitoring and suppression to low-normal levels, as well as serum thyroglobulin measurement and neck ultrasound, although other imaging modalities are not recommended.

In children with persistent or recurrent cervical disease, “surgery or I-131 therapy are indicated depending on the size, tumor load, and degree of progression,” and the authors said that cases of radioactive refractory disease should be “thoroughly investigated.”

Patients should also be counseled on the risk of the late effects of treatment for DTC and undergo monitoring, with follow-up continued for at least 10 years. Any subsequent follow-up should be “the result of shared decision-making between the physician and the patient.”
 

Evidence for molecular testing is scarce

Ms. Lebbink said that developing the guidelines nevertheless revealed a series of gaps in current knowledge, notably that the evidence for molecular testing “and the clinical implications in the preoperative stage are scarce.”

Specifically, the “positive and negative predictive value of molecular testing in fine needle biopsy specimen for the presence of DTC in a thyroid nodule must be further investigated.»

She also said that there has been a shift towards less aggressive treatment, due to a reluctance to performed prophylactic central neck dissection, and to offer I-131 therapy after surgery.

“However, before less aggressive treatment could be recommended,” Ms. Lebbink said, “it first must be investigated if there are differences in outcomes,” such as recurrence rates, disease-free survival rates, and survival rates between patients who do and do not receive the treatments.

No funding was declared. One author has reported relationships with Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and GE. No other relevant financial relationships were reported.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Comprehensive evaluation, multidisciplinary care, individualized treatment, and ongoing follow-up are all key to the management of pediatric thyroid nodules and differentiated thyroid carcinoma (DTC), according to the first European guidelines for this rare disease.

The guidelines were recently published in the European Thyroid Journal.

Lead author Chantal A. Lebbink told this news organization one of the key takeaways for clinicians is that management of pediatric thyroid nodules and DTC is «challenging and cannot be captured in a one-size-fits-all model.”

She also underlined the need for a “multidisciplinary approach in pediatric thyroid cancer expertise centers.”

Above all, Ms. Lebbink, who is a PhD student in the department of pediatric endocrinology, Wilhelmina Children’s Hospital, Utrecht, the Netherlands, said that pediatric DTC “is not adult DTC in a small person; it has different genetics and a different clinical behavior.”

The authors noted that DTC may be a rare disease, but its worldwide incidence is rising. It has several histologic subtypes, although the “vast majority” of cases are papillary thyroid carcinoma.

Crucially, there are “important differences” between adult and pediatric DTC in terms of their clinical, molecular, and pathologic characteristics, with pediatric patients commonly presenting with more advanced disease with greater lymph node involvement, distant metastases, and multifocal disease.

“However, despite the aggressive presentation, the overall survival rates are excellent,” Ms. Lebbink said.

There are also differences in genetic alterations between adult and pediatric patients. RET-PTC and NTRK fusions are more common in pediatric patients, while mutations in BRAF V600E and RAS point mutations are less frequent.
 

First European guidelines on thyroid cancer, thyroid nodules in children

Despite these differences, and the existence of U.S. guidelines, until now there have been no European recommendations on the management of pediatric thyroid nodules and DTC.

The European Thyroid Association therefore convened a panel of experts in pediatric and adult endocrinology, pathology, endocrine surgery, nuclear medicine, clinical genetics, and oncology, and tasked them with looking at diagnostics and staging, treatment, and follow-up.

The 2015 American Thyroid Association pediatric guideline was used as framework for the European guideline, with the expert panel identifying areas of discordance and outstanding clinical questions (Thyroid. 2015 Jul;25[7]:716-59).

To answer these questions, they searched PubMed and identified 3,251 studies, of which 45 studies met the inclusion criteria. From this they developed a comprehensive set of recommendations. These include that a child with suspected or proven cancer be referred to an experienced multidisciplinary team and their likely benefit from higher- versus lower-intensity treatment be established.

In addition, children should undergo a preoperative evaluation, with neck palpation, comprehensive neck ultrasonography, and laboratory work-up as a minimum, with further testing suggested in case of a family history or extensive disease.

Total thyroidectomy is the recommended treatment, although the authors call for further studies to assess the impact of limited surgery, and they suggest that prophylactic central lymph node dissection be reserved for advanced cases.

Crucially, all children “should be operated on by high-volume pediatric thyroid cancer surgeons with experience in pediatric thyroid cancer and who are embedded in a center with expertise in the management of DTC,” they wrote.
 

RAI therapy recommended for all children, in contrast to ATA guidelines

Radioactive iodine (I-131) therapy is recommended for all children following total thyroidectomy, with treatment following an individual patient-based approach.

This differs slightly from the ATA guidelines, which recommend against radioactive iodine (RAI) therapy for children with low-risk differentiated thyroid cancer that is mostly confined to the thyroid (N0 or minimal N1a disease). A study presented at the recent 2022 annual meeting of the ATA found that such children who were spared RAI showed no increases in risk of remission compared with those who did receive it.

The ETA guidelines then go on to recommend that children should be followed up with thyroid-stimulating hormone monitoring and suppression to low-normal levels, as well as serum thyroglobulin measurement and neck ultrasound, although other imaging modalities are not recommended.

In children with persistent or recurrent cervical disease, “surgery or I-131 therapy are indicated depending on the size, tumor load, and degree of progression,” and the authors said that cases of radioactive refractory disease should be “thoroughly investigated.”

Patients should also be counseled on the risk of the late effects of treatment for DTC and undergo monitoring, with follow-up continued for at least 10 years. Any subsequent follow-up should be “the result of shared decision-making between the physician and the patient.”
 

Evidence for molecular testing is scarce

Ms. Lebbink said that developing the guidelines nevertheless revealed a series of gaps in current knowledge, notably that the evidence for molecular testing “and the clinical implications in the preoperative stage are scarce.”

Specifically, the “positive and negative predictive value of molecular testing in fine needle biopsy specimen for the presence of DTC in a thyroid nodule must be further investigated.»

She also said that there has been a shift towards less aggressive treatment, due to a reluctance to performed prophylactic central neck dissection, and to offer I-131 therapy after surgery.

“However, before less aggressive treatment could be recommended,” Ms. Lebbink said, “it first must be investigated if there are differences in outcomes,” such as recurrence rates, disease-free survival rates, and survival rates between patients who do and do not receive the treatments.

No funding was declared. One author has reported relationships with Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and GE. No other relevant financial relationships were reported.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Comprehensive evaluation, multidisciplinary care, individualized treatment, and ongoing follow-up are all key to the management of pediatric thyroid nodules and differentiated thyroid carcinoma (DTC), according to the first European guidelines for this rare disease.

The guidelines were recently published in the European Thyroid Journal.

Lead author Chantal A. Lebbink told this news organization one of the key takeaways for clinicians is that management of pediatric thyroid nodules and DTC is «challenging and cannot be captured in a one-size-fits-all model.”

She also underlined the need for a “multidisciplinary approach in pediatric thyroid cancer expertise centers.”

Above all, Ms. Lebbink, who is a PhD student in the department of pediatric endocrinology, Wilhelmina Children’s Hospital, Utrecht, the Netherlands, said that pediatric DTC “is not adult DTC in a small person; it has different genetics and a different clinical behavior.”

The authors noted that DTC may be a rare disease, but its worldwide incidence is rising. It has several histologic subtypes, although the “vast majority” of cases are papillary thyroid carcinoma.

Crucially, there are “important differences” between adult and pediatric DTC in terms of their clinical, molecular, and pathologic characteristics, with pediatric patients commonly presenting with more advanced disease with greater lymph node involvement, distant metastases, and multifocal disease.

“However, despite the aggressive presentation, the overall survival rates are excellent,” Ms. Lebbink said.

There are also differences in genetic alterations between adult and pediatric patients. RET-PTC and NTRK fusions are more common in pediatric patients, while mutations in BRAF V600E and RAS point mutations are less frequent.
 

First European guidelines on thyroid cancer, thyroid nodules in children

Despite these differences, and the existence of U.S. guidelines, until now there have been no European recommendations on the management of pediatric thyroid nodules and DTC.

The European Thyroid Association therefore convened a panel of experts in pediatric and adult endocrinology, pathology, endocrine surgery, nuclear medicine, clinical genetics, and oncology, and tasked them with looking at diagnostics and staging, treatment, and follow-up.

The 2015 American Thyroid Association pediatric guideline was used as framework for the European guideline, with the expert panel identifying areas of discordance and outstanding clinical questions (Thyroid. 2015 Jul;25[7]:716-59).

To answer these questions, they searched PubMed and identified 3,251 studies, of which 45 studies met the inclusion criteria. From this they developed a comprehensive set of recommendations. These include that a child with suspected or proven cancer be referred to an experienced multidisciplinary team and their likely benefit from higher- versus lower-intensity treatment be established.

In addition, children should undergo a preoperative evaluation, with neck palpation, comprehensive neck ultrasonography, and laboratory work-up as a minimum, with further testing suggested in case of a family history or extensive disease.

Total thyroidectomy is the recommended treatment, although the authors call for further studies to assess the impact of limited surgery, and they suggest that prophylactic central lymph node dissection be reserved for advanced cases.

Crucially, all children “should be operated on by high-volume pediatric thyroid cancer surgeons with experience in pediatric thyroid cancer and who are embedded in a center with expertise in the management of DTC,” they wrote.
 

RAI therapy recommended for all children, in contrast to ATA guidelines

Radioactive iodine (I-131) therapy is recommended for all children following total thyroidectomy, with treatment following an individual patient-based approach.

This differs slightly from the ATA guidelines, which recommend against radioactive iodine (RAI) therapy for children with low-risk differentiated thyroid cancer that is mostly confined to the thyroid (N0 or minimal N1a disease). A study presented at the recent 2022 annual meeting of the ATA found that such children who were spared RAI showed no increases in risk of remission compared with those who did receive it.

The ETA guidelines then go on to recommend that children should be followed up with thyroid-stimulating hormone monitoring and suppression to low-normal levels, as well as serum thyroglobulin measurement and neck ultrasound, although other imaging modalities are not recommended.

In children with persistent or recurrent cervical disease, “surgery or I-131 therapy are indicated depending on the size, tumor load, and degree of progression,” and the authors said that cases of radioactive refractory disease should be “thoroughly investigated.”

Patients should also be counseled on the risk of the late effects of treatment for DTC and undergo monitoring, with follow-up continued for at least 10 years. Any subsequent follow-up should be “the result of shared decision-making between the physician and the patient.”
 

Evidence for molecular testing is scarce

Ms. Lebbink said that developing the guidelines nevertheless revealed a series of gaps in current knowledge, notably that the evidence for molecular testing “and the clinical implications in the preoperative stage are scarce.”

Specifically, the “positive and negative predictive value of molecular testing in fine needle biopsy specimen for the presence of DTC in a thyroid nodule must be further investigated.»

She also said that there has been a shift towards less aggressive treatment, due to a reluctance to performed prophylactic central neck dissection, and to offer I-131 therapy after surgery.

“However, before less aggressive treatment could be recommended,” Ms. Lebbink said, “it first must be investigated if there are differences in outcomes,” such as recurrence rates, disease-free survival rates, and survival rates between patients who do and do not receive the treatments.

No funding was declared. One author has reported relationships with Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and GE. No other relevant financial relationships were reported.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA – Following a healthy, balanced diet and avoiding excessive consumption of stressful news helped prevent anxiety and depressive symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic, new research suggests.

Results from a longitudinal Spanish survey study of more than 1,000 adults showed that being outside, relaxing, participating in physical activities, and drinking plenty of water were also beneficial. However, social contact with friends and relatives, following a routine, and pursuing hobbies had no significant impact.

“This was a little surprising,” lead author Joaquim Radua, MD, PhD, August Pi i Sunyer Biomedical Research Institute (IDIBAPS), Barcelona, said in a release.

“Like many people, we had assumed that personal contact would play a bigger part in avoiding anxiety and depression during stressful times,” he added.

However, Dr. Radua said that because the study was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, “people who socialized may also have been anxious about getting infected.”

Consequently, “it may be that this specific behavior cannot be extrapolated to other times, when there is no pandemic,” he said.

The findings were presented at the 35th European College of Neuropsychopharmacology (ECNP) Congress.
 

Correlational versus longitudinal studies

Dr. Radua emphasized that individuals “should socialize,” of course.

“We think it’s important that people continue to follow what works for them and that if you enjoy seeing friends or following a hobby, you continue to do so,” he said.

“Our work was centered on COVID, but we now need to see if these factors apply to other stressful circumstances. These simple behaviors may prevent anxiety and depression, and prevention is better than cure,” he added.

The researchers note that, in “times of uncertainty” such as the COVID-19 pandemic, many individuals experience increases in both anxiety and depressive symptoms.

Although a range of behaviors are recommended to help people cope, the investigators add that some of the recommendations are based on correlational studies.

Indeed, the researchers previously identified a correlation between following a healthy/balanced diet, among other measures, and lower anxiety and depressive symptoms during the pandemic.

However, it is unclear from cross-sectional studies whether the behavior alters the symptoms, in which case the behavior could be considered “helpful,” or conversely whether the symptoms alter an individual’s behavior, in which case the behaviors “may be useless,” the investigators note.

The investigative team therefore set out to provide more robust evidence for making recommendations and conducted a prospective longitudinal study.

They recruited 1,049 adults online via social networks, matching them to the regional, age and sex, and urbanicity distribution of the overall Spanish population.

Every 2 weeks for 12 months, the researchers administered the General Anxiety Disorder (GAD)-7, the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ)-9, and a two-item ecological momentary assessment to minimize recall bias, among other measures. They also asked about 10 self-report coping behaviors.
 

Significant coping behaviors

The study was completed by 942 individuals, indicating a retention of 90%.

Among both completers and non-completers there was an over-representation of individuals aged 18-34 years and women, compared with the general population, and fewer participants aged at least 65 years.

Pre-recruitment, the mean baseline GAD-7 score among completers was 7.4, falling to around 5.5 at the time of the first questionnaire. Scores on the PHQ-9 were 7.6 and 5.6, respectively.

Performing population-weighted autoregressive moving average models to analyze the relationship between the current frequency of the coping behaviors and future changes in anxiety and depressive symptoms, the investigators found that the greatest effect was from following a healthy, balanced diet, with an impact size of 0.95.

This was followed by avoiding too much stressful news (impact size, 0.91), staying outdoors or looking outside (0.40), doing relaxing activities (0.33), participating in physical exercise (0.32), and drinking water to hydrate (0.25).

Overall, these coping behaviors were associated with a significant reduction in anxiety and depressive symptoms (all, P < .001).

On the other hand, there was no impact on future symptoms from socializing with friends and relatives, whether or not they lived in the same household. There was also no effect from following a routine, pursuing hobbies, or performing home tasks.

The researchers note that similar results were obtained when excluding participants with hazardous alcohol consumption, defined as a score on the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test of 8 or higher.

However, they point out that despite its prospective design and large cohort, the study was not interventional. Therefore, they “cannot rule out the possibility that decreasing the frequency of a behavior is an early sign of some mechanism that later leads to increased anxiety and depression symptoms.”

Nevertheless, they believe that possibility “seems unlikely.”
 

Reflective of a unique time?

Commenting on the findings, Catherine Harmer, PhD, director of the Psychopharmacology and Emotional Research Lab, department of psychiatry, University of Oxford (England), said in the release this was an “interesting study” that “provides some important insights as to which behaviors may protect our mental health during times of significant stress.”

She said the finding that social contact was not beneficial was “surprising” but may reflect the fact that, during the pandemic, it was “stressful even to have those social contacts, even if we managed to meet a friend outside.”

The results of the study may therefore be “reflective of the unique experience” of the COVID-19 pandemic, said Dr. Harmer, who was not involved with the research.

“I wouldn’t think that reading too much news would generally be something that has a negative impact on depression and anxiety, but I think it was very much at the time,” she said.

With the pandemic overwhelming one country after another, “the more you read about it, the more frightening it was,” she added, noting that it is “easy to forget how frightened we were at the beginning.”

Dr. Harmer noted that “it would be interesting” if the study was repeated and the same factors came out – or if they were unique to that time.

This would be “useful to know, as these times may come again. And the more information we have to cope with a pandemic, the better,” she concluded.

The research was supported by the AXA Research Fund via an AXA Award granted to Dr. Radua from the call for projects “mitigating risk in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.” The investigators and Dr. Harmer report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA – Following a healthy, balanced diet and avoiding excessive consumption of stressful news helped prevent anxiety and depressive symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic, new research suggests.

Results from a longitudinal Spanish survey study of more than 1,000 adults showed that being outside, relaxing, participating in physical activities, and drinking plenty of water were also beneficial. However, social contact with friends and relatives, following a routine, and pursuing hobbies had no significant impact.

“This was a little surprising,” lead author Joaquim Radua, MD, PhD, August Pi i Sunyer Biomedical Research Institute (IDIBAPS), Barcelona, said in a release.

“Like many people, we had assumed that personal contact would play a bigger part in avoiding anxiety and depression during stressful times,” he added.

However, Dr. Radua said that because the study was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, “people who socialized may also have been anxious about getting infected.”

Consequently, “it may be that this specific behavior cannot be extrapolated to other times, when there is no pandemic,” he said.

The findings were presented at the 35th European College of Neuropsychopharmacology (ECNP) Congress.
 

Correlational versus longitudinal studies

Dr. Radua emphasized that individuals “should socialize,” of course.

“We think it’s important that people continue to follow what works for them and that if you enjoy seeing friends or following a hobby, you continue to do so,” he said.

“Our work was centered on COVID, but we now need to see if these factors apply to other stressful circumstances. These simple behaviors may prevent anxiety and depression, and prevention is better than cure,” he added.

The researchers note that, in “times of uncertainty” such as the COVID-19 pandemic, many individuals experience increases in both anxiety and depressive symptoms.

Although a range of behaviors are recommended to help people cope, the investigators add that some of the recommendations are based on correlational studies.

Indeed, the researchers previously identified a correlation between following a healthy/balanced diet, among other measures, and lower anxiety and depressive symptoms during the pandemic.

However, it is unclear from cross-sectional studies whether the behavior alters the symptoms, in which case the behavior could be considered “helpful,” or conversely whether the symptoms alter an individual’s behavior, in which case the behaviors “may be useless,” the investigators note.

The investigative team therefore set out to provide more robust evidence for making recommendations and conducted a prospective longitudinal study.

They recruited 1,049 adults online via social networks, matching them to the regional, age and sex, and urbanicity distribution of the overall Spanish population.

Every 2 weeks for 12 months, the researchers administered the General Anxiety Disorder (GAD)-7, the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ)-9, and a two-item ecological momentary assessment to minimize recall bias, among other measures. They also asked about 10 self-report coping behaviors.
 

Significant coping behaviors

The study was completed by 942 individuals, indicating a retention of 90%.

Among both completers and non-completers there was an over-representation of individuals aged 18-34 years and women, compared with the general population, and fewer participants aged at least 65 years.

Pre-recruitment, the mean baseline GAD-7 score among completers was 7.4, falling to around 5.5 at the time of the first questionnaire. Scores on the PHQ-9 were 7.6 and 5.6, respectively.

Performing population-weighted autoregressive moving average models to analyze the relationship between the current frequency of the coping behaviors and future changes in anxiety and depressive symptoms, the investigators found that the greatest effect was from following a healthy, balanced diet, with an impact size of 0.95.

This was followed by avoiding too much stressful news (impact size, 0.91), staying outdoors or looking outside (0.40), doing relaxing activities (0.33), participating in physical exercise (0.32), and drinking water to hydrate (0.25).

Overall, these coping behaviors were associated with a significant reduction in anxiety and depressive symptoms (all, P < .001).

On the other hand, there was no impact on future symptoms from socializing with friends and relatives, whether or not they lived in the same household. There was also no effect from following a routine, pursuing hobbies, or performing home tasks.

The researchers note that similar results were obtained when excluding participants with hazardous alcohol consumption, defined as a score on the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test of 8 or higher.

However, they point out that despite its prospective design and large cohort, the study was not interventional. Therefore, they “cannot rule out the possibility that decreasing the frequency of a behavior is an early sign of some mechanism that later leads to increased anxiety and depression symptoms.”

Nevertheless, they believe that possibility “seems unlikely.”
 

Reflective of a unique time?

Commenting on the findings, Catherine Harmer, PhD, director of the Psychopharmacology and Emotional Research Lab, department of psychiatry, University of Oxford (England), said in the release this was an “interesting study” that “provides some important insights as to which behaviors may protect our mental health during times of significant stress.”

She said the finding that social contact was not beneficial was “surprising” but may reflect the fact that, during the pandemic, it was “stressful even to have those social contacts, even if we managed to meet a friend outside.”

The results of the study may therefore be “reflective of the unique experience” of the COVID-19 pandemic, said Dr. Harmer, who was not involved with the research.

“I wouldn’t think that reading too much news would generally be something that has a negative impact on depression and anxiety, but I think it was very much at the time,” she said.

With the pandemic overwhelming one country after another, “the more you read about it, the more frightening it was,” she added, noting that it is “easy to forget how frightened we were at the beginning.”

Dr. Harmer noted that “it would be interesting” if the study was repeated and the same factors came out – or if they were unique to that time.

This would be “useful to know, as these times may come again. And the more information we have to cope with a pandemic, the better,” she concluded.

The research was supported by the AXA Research Fund via an AXA Award granted to Dr. Radua from the call for projects “mitigating risk in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.” The investigators and Dr. Harmer report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA – Following a healthy, balanced diet and avoiding excessive consumption of stressful news helped prevent anxiety and depressive symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic, new research suggests.

Results from a longitudinal Spanish survey study of more than 1,000 adults showed that being outside, relaxing, participating in physical activities, and drinking plenty of water were also beneficial. However, social contact with friends and relatives, following a routine, and pursuing hobbies had no significant impact.

“This was a little surprising,” lead author Joaquim Radua, MD, PhD, August Pi i Sunyer Biomedical Research Institute (IDIBAPS), Barcelona, said in a release.

“Like many people, we had assumed that personal contact would play a bigger part in avoiding anxiety and depression during stressful times,” he added.

However, Dr. Radua said that because the study was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, “people who socialized may also have been anxious about getting infected.”

Consequently, “it may be that this specific behavior cannot be extrapolated to other times, when there is no pandemic,” he said.

The findings were presented at the 35th European College of Neuropsychopharmacology (ECNP) Congress.
 

Correlational versus longitudinal studies

Dr. Radua emphasized that individuals “should socialize,” of course.

“We think it’s important that people continue to follow what works for them and that if you enjoy seeing friends or following a hobby, you continue to do so,” he said.

“Our work was centered on COVID, but we now need to see if these factors apply to other stressful circumstances. These simple behaviors may prevent anxiety and depression, and prevention is better than cure,” he added.

The researchers note that, in “times of uncertainty” such as the COVID-19 pandemic, many individuals experience increases in both anxiety and depressive symptoms.

Although a range of behaviors are recommended to help people cope, the investigators add that some of the recommendations are based on correlational studies.

Indeed, the researchers previously identified a correlation between following a healthy/balanced diet, among other measures, and lower anxiety and depressive symptoms during the pandemic.

However, it is unclear from cross-sectional studies whether the behavior alters the symptoms, in which case the behavior could be considered “helpful,” or conversely whether the symptoms alter an individual’s behavior, in which case the behaviors “may be useless,” the investigators note.

The investigative team therefore set out to provide more robust evidence for making recommendations and conducted a prospective longitudinal study.

They recruited 1,049 adults online via social networks, matching them to the regional, age and sex, and urbanicity distribution of the overall Spanish population.

Every 2 weeks for 12 months, the researchers administered the General Anxiety Disorder (GAD)-7, the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ)-9, and a two-item ecological momentary assessment to minimize recall bias, among other measures. They also asked about 10 self-report coping behaviors.
 

Significant coping behaviors

The study was completed by 942 individuals, indicating a retention of 90%.

Among both completers and non-completers there was an over-representation of individuals aged 18-34 years and women, compared with the general population, and fewer participants aged at least 65 years.

Pre-recruitment, the mean baseline GAD-7 score among completers was 7.4, falling to around 5.5 at the time of the first questionnaire. Scores on the PHQ-9 were 7.6 and 5.6, respectively.

Performing population-weighted autoregressive moving average models to analyze the relationship between the current frequency of the coping behaviors and future changes in anxiety and depressive symptoms, the investigators found that the greatest effect was from following a healthy, balanced diet, with an impact size of 0.95.

This was followed by avoiding too much stressful news (impact size, 0.91), staying outdoors or looking outside (0.40), doing relaxing activities (0.33), participating in physical exercise (0.32), and drinking water to hydrate (0.25).

Overall, these coping behaviors were associated with a significant reduction in anxiety and depressive symptoms (all, P < .001).

On the other hand, there was no impact on future symptoms from socializing with friends and relatives, whether or not they lived in the same household. There was also no effect from following a routine, pursuing hobbies, or performing home tasks.

The researchers note that similar results were obtained when excluding participants with hazardous alcohol consumption, defined as a score on the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test of 8 or higher.

However, they point out that despite its prospective design and large cohort, the study was not interventional. Therefore, they “cannot rule out the possibility that decreasing the frequency of a behavior is an early sign of some mechanism that later leads to increased anxiety and depression symptoms.”

Nevertheless, they believe that possibility “seems unlikely.”
 

Reflective of a unique time?

Commenting on the findings, Catherine Harmer, PhD, director of the Psychopharmacology and Emotional Research Lab, department of psychiatry, University of Oxford (England), said in the release this was an “interesting study” that “provides some important insights as to which behaviors may protect our mental health during times of significant stress.”

She said the finding that social contact was not beneficial was “surprising” but may reflect the fact that, during the pandemic, it was “stressful even to have those social contacts, even if we managed to meet a friend outside.”

The results of the study may therefore be “reflective of the unique experience” of the COVID-19 pandemic, said Dr. Harmer, who was not involved with the research.

“I wouldn’t think that reading too much news would generally be something that has a negative impact on depression and anxiety, but I think it was very much at the time,” she said.

With the pandemic overwhelming one country after another, “the more you read about it, the more frightening it was,” she added, noting that it is “easy to forget how frightened we were at the beginning.”

Dr. Harmer noted that “it would be interesting” if the study was repeated and the same factors came out – or if they were unique to that time.

This would be “useful to know, as these times may come again. And the more information we have to cope with a pandemic, the better,” she concluded.

The research was supported by the AXA Research Fund via an AXA Award granted to Dr. Radua from the call for projects “mitigating risk in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.” The investigators and Dr. Harmer report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA – Prescription drugs designed to boost cognition in neurodevelopmental disorders do not increase overall cognitive performance in healthy individuals – and may even reduce productivity, new research suggests.

In a randomized controlled trial, 40 healthy adults were given the attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) treatments methylphenidate or dexamphetamine or the wakefulness-promoting drug modafinil vs. placebo.

While receiving the so-called “smart drugs,” participants spent more time and made more moves more quickly while solving each problem on a complex cognitive task than when given the placebo. But with no significant improvement in overall performance, all drugs were associated with a significant reduction in efficiency.

The findings “reinforce the idea that, while the drugs administered were motivational, the resulting increase in effort came at a cost in the loss of productivity,” said study presenter David Coghill, MD, PhD, chair of developmental mental health, the University of Melbourne.

This was especially true for individuals who scored high when receiving placebo, “who ended up producing below average productivity when on the drugs,” he noted.

“Overall, these drugs don’t increase the performance. Instead, they cause a regression to the mean, and appear to have a more negative effect on those who performed best at baseline,” Dr. Coghill added.

He presented the findings at the 35th European College of Neuropsychopharmacology (ECNP) Congress.
 

Past evidence ambiguous

Dr. Coghill noted that prescription-only stimulant drugs are increasingly used by employees and students as “smart drugs” to enhance workplace or academic productivity.

He conducted the study with colleagues from the department of economics at his institution, because of “their interest in people using cognitive enhancers within the financial industry, in the hope that that would increase their productivity in what is a very competitive industry on the floor of the trading rooms.”

However, while “there’s a subjective belief” that these drugs are effective as cognitive enhancers, the evidence to actually demonstrate that in healthy individuals “is, at best, ambiguous,” he told meeting attendees.

Improvements in cognitive capacities, such as working memory and improved planning, are most evident in clinical populations such as those with ADHD, which could be due to a “ceiling effect” of the cognitive tasks in healthy individuals, Dr. Coghill noted.

To investigate further, the researchers conducted a randomized, double-blinded trial of standard adult doses of methylphenidate (30 mg), dexamphetamine (15 mg), and modafinil (200 mg) vs. placebo. The healthy participants (n = 40), all of whom were aged 18-35 years, crossed to each of the other treatment groups over the course of four intervention sessions.

All were asked to solve eight instances of the knapsack task, the aim of which is to place theoretical objects in a knapsack to achieve the maximum value within a certain weight limit.

“This looks very simple but as the number of items increases, it becomes incredibly complex to compute, and actually is not computable using standard approaches. You have to deal with trial and error,” Dr. Coghill said.

The participants also completed several CANTAB cognitive tasks.

‘Surprising’ findings

Results showed that, overall, the drugs did not have a significant effect on task performance (slope = –0.16; P = .011).

Moreover, the drugs, both individually and collectively, had a significant negative effect on the value attained during any one attempt at the knapsack task (slope = –0.003; P = .02), an effect that extended “across the whole range” of task complexity, Dr. Coghill reported.

He went on to show that “participants actually looked as if they were working harder” when they took the three active drugs than when they were given a placebo. They also “spent more time solving each problem,” he added.

When taking the active drugs, participants made more moves during each task than when taking placebo, and made their moves more quickly.

“So these medications increased motivation,” Dr. Coghill said. “If you were sitting [and] watching this person, you would think that they were working harder.”

Yet their productivity, defined as the average gain in value per move on the knapsack task, was lower. Regression analysis identified a “significant and sizable drop in productivity” vs. placebo, Dr. Coghill noted.

This was the case for methylphenidate (P < .001), dexamphetamine (P < .001), and modafinil (P < .05), “whether you looked at the mean or median performance,” he said.

“Breaking it down a little bit more, when you looked at the individual participant level, you find substantial heterogeneity across participants,” noted Dr. Coghill.

“More than that, we found a significant negative correlation between productivity under methylphenidate compared to productivity under placebo, and this suggests a regression to the mean,” with participants who performed better under placebo performing worse with methylphenidate, he explained.

While the relationship was “exactly the same with modafinil,” it was not found with dexamphetamine, with a strong negative correlation between the productivity effects between dexamphetamine and methylphenidate (slope = –0.29; P < .0001).

“This is surprising because we assume that methylphenidate and dexamphetamine are working in very similar ways,” Dr. Coghill said.
 

Time to rethink, rewind?

Commenting for this article, session chair John F. Cryan, PhD, department of anatomy and neuroscience, University College Cork, Ireland, said that, based on the current data, “we might need to rethink [how] ‘smart’ psychopharmacological agents are.”

Dr. Cryan, chair of the ECNP Scientific Program Committee, added that there may be a need to revisit the difficulty of different types of cognitive tasks used in studies assessing the abilities of cognitive enhancing drugs and to “rewind conventional wisdom” around them.

Also commenting, Andrew Westbrook, PhD, of the department of cognitive linguistics and psychological sciences, Brown University, Providence, R.I., said the results seem “reasonable” and are “consistent with my own perspective.”

However, he told this news organization, “some caveats are warranted,” not least that the context of the task can have an impact on the results it obtains.

“We have hypothesized that pharmacologically-enhanced striatal dopamine signaling can boost a kind of cognitive impulsivity, leading to errors and diminished performance, especially for people who already have high striatal dopamine functioning.”

He added that this impulsivity can also lead to errors “in situations where there are highly likely actions, thoughts, or behaviors” in a task, “which they would have to override to be successful” in performing it.

Dr. Westbrook gave the example of the “Stroop task where you are presented with words presented in some color ink and your job is to name the color of the ink but not read the word.”

If the word “green,” for example, was presented in green ink, “you may have no trouble naming the ink color,” but if it was presented in red ink “then you may impulsively read the word, because that is what we normally do with words. 

“Overriding this kind of habitual action can be particularly slippery business when striatal dopamine signaling is pharmacologically enhanced,” Dr. Westbrook said.

No funding for the study was reported. Dr. Coghill reported relationships with Medice, Novartis, Servier, Takeda/Shire Cambridge University Press, and Oxford University Press.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA – Prescription drugs designed to boost cognition in neurodevelopmental disorders do not increase overall cognitive performance in healthy individuals – and may even reduce productivity, new research suggests.

In a randomized controlled trial, 40 healthy adults were given the attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) treatments methylphenidate or dexamphetamine or the wakefulness-promoting drug modafinil vs. placebo.

While receiving the so-called “smart drugs,” participants spent more time and made more moves more quickly while solving each problem on a complex cognitive task than when given the placebo. But with no significant improvement in overall performance, all drugs were associated with a significant reduction in efficiency.

The findings “reinforce the idea that, while the drugs administered were motivational, the resulting increase in effort came at a cost in the loss of productivity,” said study presenter David Coghill, MD, PhD, chair of developmental mental health, the University of Melbourne.

This was especially true for individuals who scored high when receiving placebo, “who ended up producing below average productivity when on the drugs,” he noted.

“Overall, these drugs don’t increase the performance. Instead, they cause a regression to the mean, and appear to have a more negative effect on those who performed best at baseline,” Dr. Coghill added.

He presented the findings at the 35th European College of Neuropsychopharmacology (ECNP) Congress.
 

Past evidence ambiguous

Dr. Coghill noted that prescription-only stimulant drugs are increasingly used by employees and students as “smart drugs” to enhance workplace or academic productivity.

He conducted the study with colleagues from the department of economics at his institution, because of “their interest in people using cognitive enhancers within the financial industry, in the hope that that would increase their productivity in what is a very competitive industry on the floor of the trading rooms.”

However, while “there’s a subjective belief” that these drugs are effective as cognitive enhancers, the evidence to actually demonstrate that in healthy individuals “is, at best, ambiguous,” he told meeting attendees.

Improvements in cognitive capacities, such as working memory and improved planning, are most evident in clinical populations such as those with ADHD, which could be due to a “ceiling effect” of the cognitive tasks in healthy individuals, Dr. Coghill noted.

To investigate further, the researchers conducted a randomized, double-blinded trial of standard adult doses of methylphenidate (30 mg), dexamphetamine (15 mg), and modafinil (200 mg) vs. placebo. The healthy participants (n = 40), all of whom were aged 18-35 years, crossed to each of the other treatment groups over the course of four intervention sessions.

All were asked to solve eight instances of the knapsack task, the aim of which is to place theoretical objects in a knapsack to achieve the maximum value within a certain weight limit.

“This looks very simple but as the number of items increases, it becomes incredibly complex to compute, and actually is not computable using standard approaches. You have to deal with trial and error,” Dr. Coghill said.

The participants also completed several CANTAB cognitive tasks.

‘Surprising’ findings

Results showed that, overall, the drugs did not have a significant effect on task performance (slope = –0.16; P = .011).

Moreover, the drugs, both individually and collectively, had a significant negative effect on the value attained during any one attempt at the knapsack task (slope = –0.003; P = .02), an effect that extended “across the whole range” of task complexity, Dr. Coghill reported.

He went on to show that “participants actually looked as if they were working harder” when they took the three active drugs than when they were given a placebo. They also “spent more time solving each problem,” he added.

When taking the active drugs, participants made more moves during each task than when taking placebo, and made their moves more quickly.

“So these medications increased motivation,” Dr. Coghill said. “If you were sitting [and] watching this person, you would think that they were working harder.”

Yet their productivity, defined as the average gain in value per move on the knapsack task, was lower. Regression analysis identified a “significant and sizable drop in productivity” vs. placebo, Dr. Coghill noted.

This was the case for methylphenidate (P < .001), dexamphetamine (P < .001), and modafinil (P < .05), “whether you looked at the mean or median performance,” he said.

“Breaking it down a little bit more, when you looked at the individual participant level, you find substantial heterogeneity across participants,” noted Dr. Coghill.

“More than that, we found a significant negative correlation between productivity under methylphenidate compared to productivity under placebo, and this suggests a regression to the mean,” with participants who performed better under placebo performing worse with methylphenidate, he explained.

While the relationship was “exactly the same with modafinil,” it was not found with dexamphetamine, with a strong negative correlation between the productivity effects between dexamphetamine and methylphenidate (slope = –0.29; P < .0001).

“This is surprising because we assume that methylphenidate and dexamphetamine are working in very similar ways,” Dr. Coghill said.
 

Time to rethink, rewind?

Commenting for this article, session chair John F. Cryan, PhD, department of anatomy and neuroscience, University College Cork, Ireland, said that, based on the current data, “we might need to rethink [how] ‘smart’ psychopharmacological agents are.”

Dr. Cryan, chair of the ECNP Scientific Program Committee, added that there may be a need to revisit the difficulty of different types of cognitive tasks used in studies assessing the abilities of cognitive enhancing drugs and to “rewind conventional wisdom” around them.

Also commenting, Andrew Westbrook, PhD, of the department of cognitive linguistics and psychological sciences, Brown University, Providence, R.I., said the results seem “reasonable” and are “consistent with my own perspective.”

However, he told this news organization, “some caveats are warranted,” not least that the context of the task can have an impact on the results it obtains.

“We have hypothesized that pharmacologically-enhanced striatal dopamine signaling can boost a kind of cognitive impulsivity, leading to errors and diminished performance, especially for people who already have high striatal dopamine functioning.”

He added that this impulsivity can also lead to errors “in situations where there are highly likely actions, thoughts, or behaviors” in a task, “which they would have to override to be successful” in performing it.

Dr. Westbrook gave the example of the “Stroop task where you are presented with words presented in some color ink and your job is to name the color of the ink but not read the word.”

If the word “green,” for example, was presented in green ink, “you may have no trouble naming the ink color,” but if it was presented in red ink “then you may impulsively read the word, because that is what we normally do with words. 

“Overriding this kind of habitual action can be particularly slippery business when striatal dopamine signaling is pharmacologically enhanced,” Dr. Westbrook said.

No funding for the study was reported. Dr. Coghill reported relationships with Medice, Novartis, Servier, Takeda/Shire Cambridge University Press, and Oxford University Press.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA – Prescription drugs designed to boost cognition in neurodevelopmental disorders do not increase overall cognitive performance in healthy individuals – and may even reduce productivity, new research suggests.

In a randomized controlled trial, 40 healthy adults were given the attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) treatments methylphenidate or dexamphetamine or the wakefulness-promoting drug modafinil vs. placebo.

While receiving the so-called “smart drugs,” participants spent more time and made more moves more quickly while solving each problem on a complex cognitive task than when given the placebo. But with no significant improvement in overall performance, all drugs were associated with a significant reduction in efficiency.

The findings “reinforce the idea that, while the drugs administered were motivational, the resulting increase in effort came at a cost in the loss of productivity,” said study presenter David Coghill, MD, PhD, chair of developmental mental health, the University of Melbourne.

This was especially true for individuals who scored high when receiving placebo, “who ended up producing below average productivity when on the drugs,” he noted.

“Overall, these drugs don’t increase the performance. Instead, they cause a regression to the mean, and appear to have a more negative effect on those who performed best at baseline,” Dr. Coghill added.

He presented the findings at the 35th European College of Neuropsychopharmacology (ECNP) Congress.
 

Past evidence ambiguous

Dr. Coghill noted that prescription-only stimulant drugs are increasingly used by employees and students as “smart drugs” to enhance workplace or academic productivity.

He conducted the study with colleagues from the department of economics at his institution, because of “their interest in people using cognitive enhancers within the financial industry, in the hope that that would increase their productivity in what is a very competitive industry on the floor of the trading rooms.”

However, while “there’s a subjective belief” that these drugs are effective as cognitive enhancers, the evidence to actually demonstrate that in healthy individuals “is, at best, ambiguous,” he told meeting attendees.

Improvements in cognitive capacities, such as working memory and improved planning, are most evident in clinical populations such as those with ADHD, which could be due to a “ceiling effect” of the cognitive tasks in healthy individuals, Dr. Coghill noted.

To investigate further, the researchers conducted a randomized, double-blinded trial of standard adult doses of methylphenidate (30 mg), dexamphetamine (15 mg), and modafinil (200 mg) vs. placebo. The healthy participants (n = 40), all of whom were aged 18-35 years, crossed to each of the other treatment groups over the course of four intervention sessions.

All were asked to solve eight instances of the knapsack task, the aim of which is to place theoretical objects in a knapsack to achieve the maximum value within a certain weight limit.

“This looks very simple but as the number of items increases, it becomes incredibly complex to compute, and actually is not computable using standard approaches. You have to deal with trial and error,” Dr. Coghill said.

The participants also completed several CANTAB cognitive tasks.

‘Surprising’ findings

Results showed that, overall, the drugs did not have a significant effect on task performance (slope = –0.16; P = .011).

Moreover, the drugs, both individually and collectively, had a significant negative effect on the value attained during any one attempt at the knapsack task (slope = –0.003; P = .02), an effect that extended “across the whole range” of task complexity, Dr. Coghill reported.

He went on to show that “participants actually looked as if they were working harder” when they took the three active drugs than when they were given a placebo. They also “spent more time solving each problem,” he added.

When taking the active drugs, participants made more moves during each task than when taking placebo, and made their moves more quickly.

“So these medications increased motivation,” Dr. Coghill said. “If you were sitting [and] watching this person, you would think that they were working harder.”

Yet their productivity, defined as the average gain in value per move on the knapsack task, was lower. Regression analysis identified a “significant and sizable drop in productivity” vs. placebo, Dr. Coghill noted.

This was the case for methylphenidate (P < .001), dexamphetamine (P < .001), and modafinil (P < .05), “whether you looked at the mean or median performance,” he said.

“Breaking it down a little bit more, when you looked at the individual participant level, you find substantial heterogeneity across participants,” noted Dr. Coghill.

“More than that, we found a significant negative correlation between productivity under methylphenidate compared to productivity under placebo, and this suggests a regression to the mean,” with participants who performed better under placebo performing worse with methylphenidate, he explained.

While the relationship was “exactly the same with modafinil,” it was not found with dexamphetamine, with a strong negative correlation between the productivity effects between dexamphetamine and methylphenidate (slope = –0.29; P < .0001).

“This is surprising because we assume that methylphenidate and dexamphetamine are working in very similar ways,” Dr. Coghill said.
 

Time to rethink, rewind?

Commenting for this article, session chair John F. Cryan, PhD, department of anatomy and neuroscience, University College Cork, Ireland, said that, based on the current data, “we might need to rethink [how] ‘smart’ psychopharmacological agents are.”

Dr. Cryan, chair of the ECNP Scientific Program Committee, added that there may be a need to revisit the difficulty of different types of cognitive tasks used in studies assessing the abilities of cognitive enhancing drugs and to “rewind conventional wisdom” around them.

Also commenting, Andrew Westbrook, PhD, of the department of cognitive linguistics and psychological sciences, Brown University, Providence, R.I., said the results seem “reasonable” and are “consistent with my own perspective.”

However, he told this news organization, “some caveats are warranted,” not least that the context of the task can have an impact on the results it obtains.

“We have hypothesized that pharmacologically-enhanced striatal dopamine signaling can boost a kind of cognitive impulsivity, leading to errors and diminished performance, especially for people who already have high striatal dopamine functioning.”

He added that this impulsivity can also lead to errors “in situations where there are highly likely actions, thoughts, or behaviors” in a task, “which they would have to override to be successful” in performing it.

Dr. Westbrook gave the example of the “Stroop task where you are presented with words presented in some color ink and your job is to name the color of the ink but not read the word.”

If the word “green,” for example, was presented in green ink, “you may have no trouble naming the ink color,” but if it was presented in red ink “then you may impulsively read the word, because that is what we normally do with words. 

“Overriding this kind of habitual action can be particularly slippery business when striatal dopamine signaling is pharmacologically enhanced,” Dr. Westbrook said.

No funding for the study was reported. Dr. Coghill reported relationships with Medice, Novartis, Servier, Takeda/Shire Cambridge University Press, and Oxford University Press.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA – The investigational agent xanomeline-trospium (KarXT, Karuna Therapeutics) achieves significant and clinically meaningful improvements in schizophrenia symptom scores without causing problematic adverse effects, new research suggests.

Results from the phase 3 EMERGENT-2 trial, which included more than 250 patients with schizophrenia, showed that those who received xanomeline-trospium for 5 weeks achieved a significant reduction in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total scores of more than nine points compared with their peers who received placebo. In addition, the improvements started at week 2.

Alongside significant reductions in both positive and negative symptoms, the results suggest the agent was well tolerated, with treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) largely mild to moderate and transient in nature.

Lead investigator Christoph U. Correll, MD, professor of psychiatry at the Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Uniondale, New York, told this news organization that the upcoming EMERGENT-3 study will have a “European component” and that the “readout is expected most likely in the first quarter of next year.”

Dr. Correll suggested that if leads to “two positive studies and reasonable safety,” the novel agent may become part of the “next generation of antipsychotics that are not related to postsynaptic dopamine blockade.”

The findings for EMERGENT-2, presented at the 35th European College of Neuropsychopharmacology (ECNP) Congress as a poster and as an oral presentation, were an update of topline results released earlier this year.
 

Novel compound

Xanomeline-trospium is a novel compound that combines the dual M1/M4-preferring muscarinic receptor agonist effect of xanomeline with the peripherally restricted muscarinic receptor antagonist effect of trospium.

A previous phase 2 trial that compared the drug with placebo in almost 200 patients suggested it significantly reduced psychosis symptoms, leading to the current phase 3 trial.

Dr. Correll noted that xanomeline-trospium reduces psychosis via a “bottom up and top down approach.”

He said that on one hand, M4 agonism decreases acetylcholine in the ventral tegmental area and the associated stratum, “which then decreases dopamine levels from the bottom up,” while the M1 agonism stimulates GABA and decreases dopamine from the “top down.”

M1 agonism, however, also stimulates the cholinergic system peripherally, “which can give you nausea, vomiting, and also some blood pressure and pulse” problems, Dr. Correll said.

That was the limitation when this approach was studied by Lilly as a treatment for patients with Alzheimer’s disease, but the addition of trospium means “you’re buffering somewhat the cholinergic peripheral effects,” he said.

While that can conversely lead to dyspepsia, dry mouth, and constipation, Dr. Correll noted that the adverse effects of the novel agent are “mitigated by titration,” with patients taking up to 8 days to reach the full dose.

The result is that the drug was “overall tolerated, and the effect sizes were quite astounding,” he reported.
 

Intermittent, time limited TEAEs

The current trial included 252 patients aged 18-65 years (mean age, 45 years) who were confirmed to have schizophrenia and who had recently experienced a worsening of psychotic symptoms that warranted hospitalization. Three-quarters of the participants were men, and a similar proportion were Black. Approximately one quarter were White.

All were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either xanomeline-trospium or placebo following a 2-week screening period.

Xanomeline and trospium were titrated from 50 mg/20 mg twice daily to 125 mg/30 mg twice daily, and patients were treated for a total of 5 weeks. Efficacy and safety analyses were conducted in those who had received at least one dose of the study drug.

At the end of the treatment period, xanomeline-trospium was associated with a significant 9.6-point reduction in PANSS total scores relative to placebo; scores fell by 21.2 points with the active treatment, vs. 11.6 points with placebo (P < .0001).

The significant improvement in PANSS total score began at week 2 (P < .05) and continued to accrue over the course of the study.

Xanomeline-trospium was also associated with significant reductions in PANSS positive subscale scores in comparison with placebo (P < .0001), as well as with reductions in PANSS negative subscale scores (P < .01) and PANSS Marder negative subscale scores (P < .01).

Although 75.4% of patients who received xanomeline-trospium experienced a TEAE, in comparison with 58.4% of the placebo group, very few experienced a serious TEAE (just 1.6% in both groups).

TEAEs leading to discontinuation occurred in 7.1% of the active-treatment group, vs. 5.6% of the placebo group. The overall discontinuation rates from the trial were 25% and 21%, respectively.

The most common TEAEs with xanomeline-trospium were constipation (21.4%), dyspepsia (19.0%), nausea (19.0%), vomiting (14.3%), and headache (13.5%).

The results showed that cholinergic TEAEs typically began within the first 2 weeks of treatment and were “intermittent and time limited in nature,” the investigators noted. Moreover, average blood pressure levels were “similar” between the xanomeline-trospium and placebo groups “at each time point throughout the trial,” they added.

Dr. Correll reported that whereas the EMERGENT studies are testing xanomeline-trospium as a monotherapy, the ARISE program will be examining it as an “augmentation” treatment. “And that’s relevant because, let’s face it, patients do not switch” treatments, he said.

He suggested that if xanomeline-trospium is able to have a synergistic effect with other drugs, “we might be able to treat people who are currently not benefiting enough from postsynaptic dopamine blockade to maybe get a little bit closer” to the benefits seen with clozapine, which “also has problematic side effects.”
 

‘Really revolutionary’

Following the oral presentation of the study by coauthor Stephen K. Brannan, MD, chief medical officer, Karuna Therapeutics, Boston, the results were warmly received.

Session cochair Mark Weiser, MD, chairman at the department of psychiatry, Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Israel, said the agent is “really revolutionary in the field.

“It’s a non-dopamine compound which helps for schizophrenia, so we’re all very optimistic about it,” Dr. Weiser added.

Nevertheless, he asked Dr. Brannan whether the occurrence of gastrointestinal adverse effects with xanomeline-trospium led to “functional unblinding of the study.”

Dr. Brannan answered that the investigators were “really worried about this prior to EMERGENT-1” but that formal testing suggested it was not a problem.

Dr. Brannan said that although this has not yet been formally tested for the current trial, he believes that it is “highly unlikely” that functional unblinding occurred, inasmuch as the “percentages are about in the same range as we saw in EMERGENT-1.”

Speaking to ECNP Congress Daily in a conference roundup video, session cochair Andreas Reif, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry, psychosomatic medicine, and psychotherapy at the University Hospital of Frankfurt (Germany), also highlighted the study.

He said that along with a study of dexmedetomidine sublingual film for agitation associated with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder that was also presented in the session, the current trial is “pivotal.”

Dr. Reif noted that the effect size shown with xanomeline-trospium was “really amazing.”

“We are in a really exciting time in treating mental disorders,” he said. “Industry is finally investing again, and really has new compounds that will make it to the market.”

Karuna plans to submit a new drug application with the Food and Drug Administration for KarXT in mid-2023. The drug is also in development for the treatment of psychiatric and neurologic conditions other than schizophrenia, including Alzheimer’s disease.

The study was funded by Karuna Therapeutics. Dr. Correll has reported relationships with Karuna, as well as AbbVie, Acadia, Alkermes, Allergan, Angelini, Aristo, Axsome, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Cardio Diagnostics, Cerevel, CNX Therapeutics, Compass Pathways, Damitsa, Gedeon Richter, Hikma, Holmusk, IntraCellular Therapies, Janssen/J&J, LB Pharma, Lundbeck, MedAvante-ProPhase, MedInCell, Medscape, Merck, Mindpax, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, Mylan, Neurocrine, Newron, Noven, Otsuka, Pfizer, Pharmabrain, PPD Biotech, Recordati, Relmada, Reviva, Rovi, Seqirus, Servier, SK Life Science, Sumitomo Dainippon, Sunovion, Sun Pharma, Supernus, Takeda, Teva, Viatris, Otsuka, and UpToDate.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA – The investigational agent xanomeline-trospium (KarXT, Karuna Therapeutics) achieves significant and clinically meaningful improvements in schizophrenia symptom scores without causing problematic adverse effects, new research suggests.

Results from the phase 3 EMERGENT-2 trial, which included more than 250 patients with schizophrenia, showed that those who received xanomeline-trospium for 5 weeks achieved a significant reduction in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total scores of more than nine points compared with their peers who received placebo. In addition, the improvements started at week 2.

Alongside significant reductions in both positive and negative symptoms, the results suggest the agent was well tolerated, with treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) largely mild to moderate and transient in nature.

Lead investigator Christoph U. Correll, MD, professor of psychiatry at the Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Uniondale, New York, told this news organization that the upcoming EMERGENT-3 study will have a “European component” and that the “readout is expected most likely in the first quarter of next year.”

Dr. Correll suggested that if leads to “two positive studies and reasonable safety,” the novel agent may become part of the “next generation of antipsychotics that are not related to postsynaptic dopamine blockade.”

The findings for EMERGENT-2, presented at the 35th European College of Neuropsychopharmacology (ECNP) Congress as a poster and as an oral presentation, were an update of topline results released earlier this year.
 

Novel compound

Xanomeline-trospium is a novel compound that combines the dual M1/M4-preferring muscarinic receptor agonist effect of xanomeline with the peripherally restricted muscarinic receptor antagonist effect of trospium.

A previous phase 2 trial that compared the drug with placebo in almost 200 patients suggested it significantly reduced psychosis symptoms, leading to the current phase 3 trial.

Dr. Correll noted that xanomeline-trospium reduces psychosis via a “bottom up and top down approach.”

He said that on one hand, M4 agonism decreases acetylcholine in the ventral tegmental area and the associated stratum, “which then decreases dopamine levels from the bottom up,” while the M1 agonism stimulates GABA and decreases dopamine from the “top down.”

M1 agonism, however, also stimulates the cholinergic system peripherally, “which can give you nausea, vomiting, and also some blood pressure and pulse” problems, Dr. Correll said.

That was the limitation when this approach was studied by Lilly as a treatment for patients with Alzheimer’s disease, but the addition of trospium means “you’re buffering somewhat the cholinergic peripheral effects,” he said.

While that can conversely lead to dyspepsia, dry mouth, and constipation, Dr. Correll noted that the adverse effects of the novel agent are “mitigated by titration,” with patients taking up to 8 days to reach the full dose.

The result is that the drug was “overall tolerated, and the effect sizes were quite astounding,” he reported.
 

Intermittent, time limited TEAEs

The current trial included 252 patients aged 18-65 years (mean age, 45 years) who were confirmed to have schizophrenia and who had recently experienced a worsening of psychotic symptoms that warranted hospitalization. Three-quarters of the participants were men, and a similar proportion were Black. Approximately one quarter were White.

All were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either xanomeline-trospium or placebo following a 2-week screening period.

Xanomeline and trospium were titrated from 50 mg/20 mg twice daily to 125 mg/30 mg twice daily, and patients were treated for a total of 5 weeks. Efficacy and safety analyses were conducted in those who had received at least one dose of the study drug.

At the end of the treatment period, xanomeline-trospium was associated with a significant 9.6-point reduction in PANSS total scores relative to placebo; scores fell by 21.2 points with the active treatment, vs. 11.6 points with placebo (P < .0001).

The significant improvement in PANSS total score began at week 2 (P < .05) and continued to accrue over the course of the study.

Xanomeline-trospium was also associated with significant reductions in PANSS positive subscale scores in comparison with placebo (P < .0001), as well as with reductions in PANSS negative subscale scores (P < .01) and PANSS Marder negative subscale scores (P < .01).

Although 75.4% of patients who received xanomeline-trospium experienced a TEAE, in comparison with 58.4% of the placebo group, very few experienced a serious TEAE (just 1.6% in both groups).

TEAEs leading to discontinuation occurred in 7.1% of the active-treatment group, vs. 5.6% of the placebo group. The overall discontinuation rates from the trial were 25% and 21%, respectively.

The most common TEAEs with xanomeline-trospium were constipation (21.4%), dyspepsia (19.0%), nausea (19.0%), vomiting (14.3%), and headache (13.5%).

The results showed that cholinergic TEAEs typically began within the first 2 weeks of treatment and were “intermittent and time limited in nature,” the investigators noted. Moreover, average blood pressure levels were “similar” between the xanomeline-trospium and placebo groups “at each time point throughout the trial,” they added.

Dr. Correll reported that whereas the EMERGENT studies are testing xanomeline-trospium as a monotherapy, the ARISE program will be examining it as an “augmentation” treatment. “And that’s relevant because, let’s face it, patients do not switch” treatments, he said.

He suggested that if xanomeline-trospium is able to have a synergistic effect with other drugs, “we might be able to treat people who are currently not benefiting enough from postsynaptic dopamine blockade to maybe get a little bit closer” to the benefits seen with clozapine, which “also has problematic side effects.”
 

‘Really revolutionary’

Following the oral presentation of the study by coauthor Stephen K. Brannan, MD, chief medical officer, Karuna Therapeutics, Boston, the results were warmly received.

Session cochair Mark Weiser, MD, chairman at the department of psychiatry, Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Israel, said the agent is “really revolutionary in the field.

“It’s a non-dopamine compound which helps for schizophrenia, so we’re all very optimistic about it,” Dr. Weiser added.

Nevertheless, he asked Dr. Brannan whether the occurrence of gastrointestinal adverse effects with xanomeline-trospium led to “functional unblinding of the study.”

Dr. Brannan answered that the investigators were “really worried about this prior to EMERGENT-1” but that formal testing suggested it was not a problem.

Dr. Brannan said that although this has not yet been formally tested for the current trial, he believes that it is “highly unlikely” that functional unblinding occurred, inasmuch as the “percentages are about in the same range as we saw in EMERGENT-1.”

Speaking to ECNP Congress Daily in a conference roundup video, session cochair Andreas Reif, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry, psychosomatic medicine, and psychotherapy at the University Hospital of Frankfurt (Germany), also highlighted the study.

He said that along with a study of dexmedetomidine sublingual film for agitation associated with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder that was also presented in the session, the current trial is “pivotal.”

Dr. Reif noted that the effect size shown with xanomeline-trospium was “really amazing.”

“We are in a really exciting time in treating mental disorders,” he said. “Industry is finally investing again, and really has new compounds that will make it to the market.”

Karuna plans to submit a new drug application with the Food and Drug Administration for KarXT in mid-2023. The drug is also in development for the treatment of psychiatric and neurologic conditions other than schizophrenia, including Alzheimer’s disease.

The study was funded by Karuna Therapeutics. Dr. Correll has reported relationships with Karuna, as well as AbbVie, Acadia, Alkermes, Allergan, Angelini, Aristo, Axsome, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Cardio Diagnostics, Cerevel, CNX Therapeutics, Compass Pathways, Damitsa, Gedeon Richter, Hikma, Holmusk, IntraCellular Therapies, Janssen/J&J, LB Pharma, Lundbeck, MedAvante-ProPhase, MedInCell, Medscape, Merck, Mindpax, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, Mylan, Neurocrine, Newron, Noven, Otsuka, Pfizer, Pharmabrain, PPD Biotech, Recordati, Relmada, Reviva, Rovi, Seqirus, Servier, SK Life Science, Sumitomo Dainippon, Sunovion, Sun Pharma, Supernus, Takeda, Teva, Viatris, Otsuka, and UpToDate.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA – The investigational agent xanomeline-trospium (KarXT, Karuna Therapeutics) achieves significant and clinically meaningful improvements in schizophrenia symptom scores without causing problematic adverse effects, new research suggests.

Results from the phase 3 EMERGENT-2 trial, which included more than 250 patients with schizophrenia, showed that those who received xanomeline-trospium for 5 weeks achieved a significant reduction in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total scores of more than nine points compared with their peers who received placebo. In addition, the improvements started at week 2.

Alongside significant reductions in both positive and negative symptoms, the results suggest the agent was well tolerated, with treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) largely mild to moderate and transient in nature.

Lead investigator Christoph U. Correll, MD, professor of psychiatry at the Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Uniondale, New York, told this news organization that the upcoming EMERGENT-3 study will have a “European component” and that the “readout is expected most likely in the first quarter of next year.”

Dr. Correll suggested that if leads to “two positive studies and reasonable safety,” the novel agent may become part of the “next generation of antipsychotics that are not related to postsynaptic dopamine blockade.”

The findings for EMERGENT-2, presented at the 35th European College of Neuropsychopharmacology (ECNP) Congress as a poster and as an oral presentation, were an update of topline results released earlier this year.
 

Novel compound

Xanomeline-trospium is a novel compound that combines the dual M1/M4-preferring muscarinic receptor agonist effect of xanomeline with the peripherally restricted muscarinic receptor antagonist effect of trospium.

A previous phase 2 trial that compared the drug with placebo in almost 200 patients suggested it significantly reduced psychosis symptoms, leading to the current phase 3 trial.

Dr. Correll noted that xanomeline-trospium reduces psychosis via a “bottom up and top down approach.”

He said that on one hand, M4 agonism decreases acetylcholine in the ventral tegmental area and the associated stratum, “which then decreases dopamine levels from the bottom up,” while the M1 agonism stimulates GABA and decreases dopamine from the “top down.”

M1 agonism, however, also stimulates the cholinergic system peripherally, “which can give you nausea, vomiting, and also some blood pressure and pulse” problems, Dr. Correll said.

That was the limitation when this approach was studied by Lilly as a treatment for patients with Alzheimer’s disease, but the addition of trospium means “you’re buffering somewhat the cholinergic peripheral effects,” he said.

While that can conversely lead to dyspepsia, dry mouth, and constipation, Dr. Correll noted that the adverse effects of the novel agent are “mitigated by titration,” with patients taking up to 8 days to reach the full dose.

The result is that the drug was “overall tolerated, and the effect sizes were quite astounding,” he reported.
 

Intermittent, time limited TEAEs

The current trial included 252 patients aged 18-65 years (mean age, 45 years) who were confirmed to have schizophrenia and who had recently experienced a worsening of psychotic symptoms that warranted hospitalization. Three-quarters of the participants were men, and a similar proportion were Black. Approximately one quarter were White.

All were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either xanomeline-trospium or placebo following a 2-week screening period.

Xanomeline and trospium were titrated from 50 mg/20 mg twice daily to 125 mg/30 mg twice daily, and patients were treated for a total of 5 weeks. Efficacy and safety analyses were conducted in those who had received at least one dose of the study drug.

At the end of the treatment period, xanomeline-trospium was associated with a significant 9.6-point reduction in PANSS total scores relative to placebo; scores fell by 21.2 points with the active treatment, vs. 11.6 points with placebo (P < .0001).

The significant improvement in PANSS total score began at week 2 (P < .05) and continued to accrue over the course of the study.

Xanomeline-trospium was also associated with significant reductions in PANSS positive subscale scores in comparison with placebo (P < .0001), as well as with reductions in PANSS negative subscale scores (P < .01) and PANSS Marder negative subscale scores (P < .01).

Although 75.4% of patients who received xanomeline-trospium experienced a TEAE, in comparison with 58.4% of the placebo group, very few experienced a serious TEAE (just 1.6% in both groups).

TEAEs leading to discontinuation occurred in 7.1% of the active-treatment group, vs. 5.6% of the placebo group. The overall discontinuation rates from the trial were 25% and 21%, respectively.

The most common TEAEs with xanomeline-trospium were constipation (21.4%), dyspepsia (19.0%), nausea (19.0%), vomiting (14.3%), and headache (13.5%).

The results showed that cholinergic TEAEs typically began within the first 2 weeks of treatment and were “intermittent and time limited in nature,” the investigators noted. Moreover, average blood pressure levels were “similar” between the xanomeline-trospium and placebo groups “at each time point throughout the trial,” they added.

Dr. Correll reported that whereas the EMERGENT studies are testing xanomeline-trospium as a monotherapy, the ARISE program will be examining it as an “augmentation” treatment. “And that’s relevant because, let’s face it, patients do not switch” treatments, he said.

He suggested that if xanomeline-trospium is able to have a synergistic effect with other drugs, “we might be able to treat people who are currently not benefiting enough from postsynaptic dopamine blockade to maybe get a little bit closer” to the benefits seen with clozapine, which “also has problematic side effects.”
 

‘Really revolutionary’

Following the oral presentation of the study by coauthor Stephen K. Brannan, MD, chief medical officer, Karuna Therapeutics, Boston, the results were warmly received.

Session cochair Mark Weiser, MD, chairman at the department of psychiatry, Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Israel, said the agent is “really revolutionary in the field.

“It’s a non-dopamine compound which helps for schizophrenia, so we’re all very optimistic about it,” Dr. Weiser added.

Nevertheless, he asked Dr. Brannan whether the occurrence of gastrointestinal adverse effects with xanomeline-trospium led to “functional unblinding of the study.”

Dr. Brannan answered that the investigators were “really worried about this prior to EMERGENT-1” but that formal testing suggested it was not a problem.

Dr. Brannan said that although this has not yet been formally tested for the current trial, he believes that it is “highly unlikely” that functional unblinding occurred, inasmuch as the “percentages are about in the same range as we saw in EMERGENT-1.”

Speaking to ECNP Congress Daily in a conference roundup video, session cochair Andreas Reif, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry, psychosomatic medicine, and psychotherapy at the University Hospital of Frankfurt (Germany), also highlighted the study.

He said that along with a study of dexmedetomidine sublingual film for agitation associated with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder that was also presented in the session, the current trial is “pivotal.”

Dr. Reif noted that the effect size shown with xanomeline-trospium was “really amazing.”

“We are in a really exciting time in treating mental disorders,” he said. “Industry is finally investing again, and really has new compounds that will make it to the market.”

Karuna plans to submit a new drug application with the Food and Drug Administration for KarXT in mid-2023. The drug is also in development for the treatment of psychiatric and neurologic conditions other than schizophrenia, including Alzheimer’s disease.

The study was funded by Karuna Therapeutics. Dr. Correll has reported relationships with Karuna, as well as AbbVie, Acadia, Alkermes, Allergan, Angelini, Aristo, Axsome, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Cardio Diagnostics, Cerevel, CNX Therapeutics, Compass Pathways, Damitsa, Gedeon Richter, Hikma, Holmusk, IntraCellular Therapies, Janssen/J&J, LB Pharma, Lundbeck, MedAvante-ProPhase, MedInCell, Medscape, Merck, Mindpax, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, Mylan, Neurocrine, Newron, Noven, Otsuka, Pfizer, Pharmabrain, PPD Biotech, Recordati, Relmada, Reviva, Rovi, Seqirus, Servier, SK Life Science, Sumitomo Dainippon, Sunovion, Sun Pharma, Supernus, Takeda, Teva, Viatris, Otsuka, and UpToDate.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Acute kidney injury (AKI) in patients with cirrhosis is potentially preventable, and there are clear steps that can be taken to manage and reverse the condition, concludes a clinical practice update from the American Gastroenterological Association.

AKI occurs in 47% of patients hospitalized with complications of cirrhosis and in approximately 30% of outpatients with cirrhosis, resulting in a total cost in the United States of $4 billion, explained Patrick S. Kamath, MD, division of gastroenterology and hepatology, Mayo Medical School, Rochester, Minn., one of the authors of this update.

Moreover, Dr. Kamath told this news organization, among patients with cirrhosis and AKI, morbidity and mortality is sevenfold higher in comparison to those without cirrhosis, and repeated episodes of AKI increase the risk of progression to chronic kidney disease.

To provide practical advice for the clinical management of patients with cirrhosis and AKI, the authors conducted an expert review of the best available published evidence and gathered expert opinion.

The update was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
 

Some key takeaways

Among its 14 best practice statements, it describes three situations indicative of AKI:

• A serum creatinine increase of 0.3 mg/dL or more within 48 hours, or
• A serum creatinine increase of 50% or more from baseline, which is a stable serum creatinine in the past 3 months.
• Reduction in urine output of up to 0.5 mL/kg per hour for more than 6 hours.

The update also emphasizes the importance of an accurate diagnosis, inasmuch as not all cases of AKI are due to hepatorenal syndrome (HRS), for example. It goes on to advise that the specific type of AKI be identified through medical history and physical examination, as well as with blood biochemistry, urine microscopic examination, urine chemistry, selected urinary biomarkers, and renal ultrasound.

Additionally, it underscores the need to identify and treat infections and to closely monitor fluid status.

Nancy S. Reau, MD, Rush Medical College, Chicago, who was not involved in the update, commented to this news organization that fluid status is important when giving albumin replacement therapy because of the increased risk for pulmonary edema.

She also highlighted that this update advises against transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts (TIPSs) as a specific treatment for HRS-AKI, noting that, although the 2022 North American Practice-Based Recommendations for Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunts in Portal Hypertension do not advocate for TIPS for this indication, they also indicated that there was enough evidence to advise against it.

In other key best practice advice statements, the update advises clinicians to hold diuretics and nonselective beta blockers and to discontinue nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs).
 

‘Timely’ update

Overall, Dr. Reau believes that the update is “timely, especially in light of the recent [U.S.] approval of terlipressin, which will change our treatment options.”

This update also supports the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) 2021 Practice Guidance guidelines on HRS, she added.

Zobair Younossi, MD, MPH, professor of medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University, Inova Campus, Falls Church, Va., who was not involved in writing the update, told this news organization that the document is important because of the huge increase in mortality among patients with cirrhosis and AKI.

He commented that there has been much advancement in understanding the condition, with updated nomenclature and novel medical treatments, and that this makes the update timely.

Moreover, the update will help clinicians who are involved in the care of patients with cirrhosis, he added.

Dr. Younossi said the update offers a very clearly stated algorithm for how to identify patients whose condition is easily reversible with volume repletion, in comparison with those patients who require medical treatment or even liver transplantation.

“Those things are important because that pathway gives clinicians an idea of how to do this properly,” he said.

“The key for clinicians is to make sure they understand, in the context of cirrhosis, some of the easy things that they can do to prevent AKI,” he continued. He added that the use of NSAIDs in these patients is “going to be problematic.”

Dr. Kamath has a relationship with Sequana Medical. Other authors’ relevant financial relationships are listed in the original article. Dr. Reau has relationships with Salix and Intercept. Dr. Younossi has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This article was updated 12/12/2022.

Acute kidney injury (AKI) in patients with cirrhosis is potentially preventable, and there are clear steps that can be taken to manage and reverse the condition, concludes a clinical practice update from the American Gastroenterological Association.

AKI occurs in 47% of patients hospitalized with complications of cirrhosis and in approximately 30% of outpatients with cirrhosis, resulting in a total cost in the United States of $4 billion, explained Patrick S. Kamath, MD, division of gastroenterology and hepatology, Mayo Medical School, Rochester, Minn., one of the authors of this update.

Moreover, Dr. Kamath told this news organization, among patients with cirrhosis and AKI, morbidity and mortality is sevenfold higher in comparison to those without cirrhosis, and repeated episodes of AKI increase the risk of progression to chronic kidney disease.

To provide practical advice for the clinical management of patients with cirrhosis and AKI, the authors conducted an expert review of the best available published evidence and gathered expert opinion.

The update was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
 

Some key takeaways

Among its 14 best practice statements, it describes three situations indicative of AKI:

• A serum creatinine increase of 0.3 mg/dL or more within 48 hours, or
• A serum creatinine increase of 50% or more from baseline, which is a stable serum creatinine in the past 3 months.
• Reduction in urine output of up to 0.5 mL/kg per hour for more than 6 hours.

The update also emphasizes the importance of an accurate diagnosis, inasmuch as not all cases of AKI are due to hepatorenal syndrome (HRS), for example. It goes on to advise that the specific type of AKI be identified through medical history and physical examination, as well as with blood biochemistry, urine microscopic examination, urine chemistry, selected urinary biomarkers, and renal ultrasound.

Additionally, it underscores the need to identify and treat infections and to closely monitor fluid status.

Nancy S. Reau, MD, Rush Medical College, Chicago, who was not involved in the update, commented to this news organization that fluid status is important when giving albumin replacement therapy because of the increased risk for pulmonary edema.

She also highlighted that this update advises against transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts (TIPSs) as a specific treatment for HRS-AKI, noting that, although the 2022 North American Practice-Based Recommendations for Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunts in Portal Hypertension do not advocate for TIPS for this indication, they also indicated that there was enough evidence to advise against it.

In other key best practice advice statements, the update advises clinicians to hold diuretics and nonselective beta blockers and to discontinue nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs).
 

‘Timely’ update

Overall, Dr. Reau believes that the update is “timely, especially in light of the recent [U.S.] approval of terlipressin, which will change our treatment options.”

This update also supports the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) 2021 Practice Guidance guidelines on HRS, she added.

Zobair Younossi, MD, MPH, professor of medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University, Inova Campus, Falls Church, Va., who was not involved in writing the update, told this news organization that the document is important because of the huge increase in mortality among patients with cirrhosis and AKI.

He commented that there has been much advancement in understanding the condition, with updated nomenclature and novel medical treatments, and that this makes the update timely.

Moreover, the update will help clinicians who are involved in the care of patients with cirrhosis, he added.

Dr. Younossi said the update offers a very clearly stated algorithm for how to identify patients whose condition is easily reversible with volume repletion, in comparison with those patients who require medical treatment or even liver transplantation.

“Those things are important because that pathway gives clinicians an idea of how to do this properly,” he said.

“The key for clinicians is to make sure they understand, in the context of cirrhosis, some of the easy things that they can do to prevent AKI,” he continued. He added that the use of NSAIDs in these patients is “going to be problematic.”

Dr. Kamath has a relationship with Sequana Medical. Other authors’ relevant financial relationships are listed in the original article. Dr. Reau has relationships with Salix and Intercept. Dr. Younossi has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This article was updated 12/12/2022.

Acute kidney injury (AKI) in patients with cirrhosis is potentially preventable, and there are clear steps that can be taken to manage and reverse the condition, concludes a clinical practice update from the American Gastroenterological Association.

AKI occurs in 47% of patients hospitalized with complications of cirrhosis and in approximately 30% of outpatients with cirrhosis, resulting in a total cost in the United States of $4 billion, explained Patrick S. Kamath, MD, division of gastroenterology and hepatology, Mayo Medical School, Rochester, Minn., one of the authors of this update.

Moreover, Dr. Kamath told this news organization, among patients with cirrhosis and AKI, morbidity and mortality is sevenfold higher in comparison to those without cirrhosis, and repeated episodes of AKI increase the risk of progression to chronic kidney disease.

To provide practical advice for the clinical management of patients with cirrhosis and AKI, the authors conducted an expert review of the best available published evidence and gathered expert opinion.

The update was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
 

Some key takeaways

Among its 14 best practice statements, it describes three situations indicative of AKI:

• A serum creatinine increase of 0.3 mg/dL or more within 48 hours, or
• A serum creatinine increase of 50% or more from baseline, which is a stable serum creatinine in the past 3 months.
• Reduction in urine output of up to 0.5 mL/kg per hour for more than 6 hours.

The update also emphasizes the importance of an accurate diagnosis, inasmuch as not all cases of AKI are due to hepatorenal syndrome (HRS), for example. It goes on to advise that the specific type of AKI be identified through medical history and physical examination, as well as with blood biochemistry, urine microscopic examination, urine chemistry, selected urinary biomarkers, and renal ultrasound.

Additionally, it underscores the need to identify and treat infections and to closely monitor fluid status.

Nancy S. Reau, MD, Rush Medical College, Chicago, who was not involved in the update, commented to this news organization that fluid status is important when giving albumin replacement therapy because of the increased risk for pulmonary edema.

She also highlighted that this update advises against transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts (TIPSs) as a specific treatment for HRS-AKI, noting that, although the 2022 North American Practice-Based Recommendations for Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunts in Portal Hypertension do not advocate for TIPS for this indication, they also indicated that there was enough evidence to advise against it.

In other key best practice advice statements, the update advises clinicians to hold diuretics and nonselective beta blockers and to discontinue nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs).
 

‘Timely’ update

Overall, Dr. Reau believes that the update is “timely, especially in light of the recent [U.S.] approval of terlipressin, which will change our treatment options.”

This update also supports the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) 2021 Practice Guidance guidelines on HRS, she added.

Zobair Younossi, MD, MPH, professor of medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University, Inova Campus, Falls Church, Va., who was not involved in writing the update, told this news organization that the document is important because of the huge increase in mortality among patients with cirrhosis and AKI.

He commented that there has been much advancement in understanding the condition, with updated nomenclature and novel medical treatments, and that this makes the update timely.

Moreover, the update will help clinicians who are involved in the care of patients with cirrhosis, he added.

Dr. Younossi said the update offers a very clearly stated algorithm for how to identify patients whose condition is easily reversible with volume repletion, in comparison with those patients who require medical treatment or even liver transplantation.

“Those things are important because that pathway gives clinicians an idea of how to do this properly,” he said.

“The key for clinicians is to make sure they understand, in the context of cirrhosis, some of the easy things that they can do to prevent AKI,” he continued. He added that the use of NSAIDs in these patients is “going to be problematic.”

Dr. Kamath has a relationship with Sequana Medical. Other authors’ relevant financial relationships are listed in the original article. Dr. Reau has relationships with Salix and Intercept. Dr. Younossi has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This article was updated 12/12/2022.

VIENNA – Individuals born to younger or older parents are at increased risk of developing bipolar disorder, new research suggests.

Results from a meta-analysis of more than 210,000 patients with bipolar disorder and over 13 million healthy individuals showed that children of mothers younger than 20 years had a 23% increased risk for bipolar disorder vs. those whose parents were aged 25-29 years. For participants whose mothers were aged 35-39 years, there was a 10% increased risk for bipolar disorder, which rose to 20% if the mother was aged 40 or older.

Having a father younger than 20 years conferred a 29% increased risk for bipolar disorder, which was the same increase in risk found in individuals whose fathers were aged 45 years or older.

These findings, which are an update of data published in the journal European Pharmacology, were presented at the 35th European College of Neuropsychopharmacology (ECNP) Congress.
 

Fourteen studies included

Previous studies have suggested that parental age at birth is a risk factor for several psychiatric disorders in offspring, including bipolar disorder, and that advanced parental age, specifically, is associated with earlier onset schizophrenia.

To investigate further, the current researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis, searching the PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, and PsychINFO databases for relevant studies published to Dec. 1, 2021.

From 712 studies initially identified, 16 met all the inclusion criteria and 14 were included in the quantitative analysis.

Five studies reported only paternal age and risk for bipolar disorder in their offspring, one included just maternal age, and eight reported both maternal and paternal age in relation to the risk for offspring bipolar disorder.

Individuals with a history of any psychiatric disorders were excluded, leaving a total of 13.4 million individuals without bipolar disorder and 217,089 who had received a diagnosis for the disorder.

The investigators also corrected for both socioeconomic status and, when assessing the impact of maternal or paternal age at birth, corrected for the age of the other parent. However, they were unable to correct for the number of children in a family.

Results after stratifying maternal and paternal age showed that, compared with those born to parents aged 25-29 years, there was an increased risk for bipolar disorder in the offspring of both fathers and mothers younger than 20 years of age, with adjusted odds ratios of 1.29 (95% confidence interval, 1.13-1.48) and 1.23 (95% CI, 1.14-1.33), respectively.

Compared with those aged 25-29 years, there was also an increased risk for bipolar disorder in children born to mothers aged 35-39 years (adjusted OR, 1.1; 95% CI, 1.01-1.19) and aged 40 or older (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.02-1.40).

Among fathers, there was increased risk for offspring bipolar disorder in those aged 45 or older vs. those aged 25-29 years (adjusted OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.15-1.46).
 

Several hypotheses

There are several hypotheses that could explain the results, lead study author Giovanna Fico, MD, bipolar and depressive disorders unit, Hospital Clínic Barcelona, told this news organization.

In older age, it may be “more related to genetic or epigenetic modification, especially in fathers,” Dr. Fico said. “Some studies have shown that there are de novo mutations in the germ lines, which increase the risk of several diseases, including schizophrenia.”

In younger individuals, there could be a “mixed effect between sociocultural factors, such as substance abuse, low educational status,” and other issues, Dr. Fico noted.

Moreover, as bipolar disorder onset can be as late as 30 years of age, the younger group could include “undiagnosed patients with bipolar disorder, which would increase the risk” of the disease in their offspring, she added.

Dr. Fico noted the investigators are now planning on studying the impact of environmental factors such as pollution, climate change, and urbanization on risk for bipolar disorder, with the aim of being better able to inform parents or to develop prevention strategies.

Psychoeducation is “very common for infertility, birth defects, and Down syndrome, but it’s not so common for psychiatric disorders because we need more data. But I think it’s important that parents know they have an increased risk,” she said.

Nevertheless, “We must stress that this risk is moderate, and it must be kept in perspective,” Dr. Fico said in a news release.
 

‘Exciting’ questions raised

The study “raises several exciting research questions, including the possibility of early prevention and intervention,” Maj Vinberg, MD, PhD, clinical professor, department of clinical medicine, University of Copenhagen, said in the release.

She said she agrees there are likely to be different factors at play at different ages, with the risk for bipolar disorder associated with younger-age parenthood more likely to be related to socioeconomic status.

For older parents, “there has been a lot of speculation around the father’s age especially, which everybody thought didn’t matter,” said Dr. Vinberg, who was not involved with the research.

“But you might have some epigenetic changes as you grow older that might transfer into the next generation,” given that there is 20 years of additional exposure to potential epigenetic changes between a man aged 25 years and one aged 45 years, she noted.

Dr. Vinberg also highlighted that there could be cases of undiagnosed bipolar disorder among the younger parents, and she noted that “men with bipolar disorder tend to have more children,” particularly during manic phases.

She explained that if someone were to get divorced at 35 years of age, then have a new manic episode at 45 “and have a new wife and children, I don’t know whether it’s possible to correct for that.”

The research is supported by a fellowship from “la Caixa” Foundation. The investigators have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Vinberg reported having relationships with Lundbeck and Janssen.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA – Individuals born to younger or older parents are at increased risk of developing bipolar disorder, new research suggests.

Results from a meta-analysis of more than 210,000 patients with bipolar disorder and over 13 million healthy individuals showed that children of mothers younger than 20 years had a 23% increased risk for bipolar disorder vs. those whose parents were aged 25-29 years. For participants whose mothers were aged 35-39 years, there was a 10% increased risk for bipolar disorder, which rose to 20% if the mother was aged 40 or older.

Having a father younger than 20 years conferred a 29% increased risk for bipolar disorder, which was the same increase in risk found in individuals whose fathers were aged 45 years or older.

These findings, which are an update of data published in the journal European Pharmacology, were presented at the 35th European College of Neuropsychopharmacology (ECNP) Congress.
 

Fourteen studies included

Previous studies have suggested that parental age at birth is a risk factor for several psychiatric disorders in offspring, including bipolar disorder, and that advanced parental age, specifically, is associated with earlier onset schizophrenia.

To investigate further, the current researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis, searching the PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, and PsychINFO databases for relevant studies published to Dec. 1, 2021.

From 712 studies initially identified, 16 met all the inclusion criteria and 14 were included in the quantitative analysis.

Five studies reported only paternal age and risk for bipolar disorder in their offspring, one included just maternal age, and eight reported both maternal and paternal age in relation to the risk for offspring bipolar disorder.

Individuals with a history of any psychiatric disorders were excluded, leaving a total of 13.4 million individuals without bipolar disorder and 217,089 who had received a diagnosis for the disorder.

The investigators also corrected for both socioeconomic status and, when assessing the impact of maternal or paternal age at birth, corrected for the age of the other parent. However, they were unable to correct for the number of children in a family.

Results after stratifying maternal and paternal age showed that, compared with those born to parents aged 25-29 years, there was an increased risk for bipolar disorder in the offspring of both fathers and mothers younger than 20 years of age, with adjusted odds ratios of 1.29 (95% confidence interval, 1.13-1.48) and 1.23 (95% CI, 1.14-1.33), respectively.

Compared with those aged 25-29 years, there was also an increased risk for bipolar disorder in children born to mothers aged 35-39 years (adjusted OR, 1.1; 95% CI, 1.01-1.19) and aged 40 or older (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.02-1.40).

Among fathers, there was increased risk for offspring bipolar disorder in those aged 45 or older vs. those aged 25-29 years (adjusted OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.15-1.46).
 

Several hypotheses

There are several hypotheses that could explain the results, lead study author Giovanna Fico, MD, bipolar and depressive disorders unit, Hospital Clínic Barcelona, told this news organization.

In older age, it may be “more related to genetic or epigenetic modification, especially in fathers,” Dr. Fico said. “Some studies have shown that there are de novo mutations in the germ lines, which increase the risk of several diseases, including schizophrenia.”

In younger individuals, there could be a “mixed effect between sociocultural factors, such as substance abuse, low educational status,” and other issues, Dr. Fico noted.

Moreover, as bipolar disorder onset can be as late as 30 years of age, the younger group could include “undiagnosed patients with bipolar disorder, which would increase the risk” of the disease in their offspring, she added.

Dr. Fico noted the investigators are now planning on studying the impact of environmental factors such as pollution, climate change, and urbanization on risk for bipolar disorder, with the aim of being better able to inform parents or to develop prevention strategies.

Psychoeducation is “very common for infertility, birth defects, and Down syndrome, but it’s not so common for psychiatric disorders because we need more data. But I think it’s important that parents know they have an increased risk,” she said.

Nevertheless, “We must stress that this risk is moderate, and it must be kept in perspective,” Dr. Fico said in a news release.
 

‘Exciting’ questions raised

The study “raises several exciting research questions, including the possibility of early prevention and intervention,” Maj Vinberg, MD, PhD, clinical professor, department of clinical medicine, University of Copenhagen, said in the release.

She said she agrees there are likely to be different factors at play at different ages, with the risk for bipolar disorder associated with younger-age parenthood more likely to be related to socioeconomic status.

For older parents, “there has been a lot of speculation around the father’s age especially, which everybody thought didn’t matter,” said Dr. Vinberg, who was not involved with the research.

“But you might have some epigenetic changes as you grow older that might transfer into the next generation,” given that there is 20 years of additional exposure to potential epigenetic changes between a man aged 25 years and one aged 45 years, she noted.

Dr. Vinberg also highlighted that there could be cases of undiagnosed bipolar disorder among the younger parents, and she noted that “men with bipolar disorder tend to have more children,” particularly during manic phases.

She explained that if someone were to get divorced at 35 years of age, then have a new manic episode at 45 “and have a new wife and children, I don’t know whether it’s possible to correct for that.”

The research is supported by a fellowship from “la Caixa” Foundation. The investigators have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Vinberg reported having relationships with Lundbeck and Janssen.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA – Individuals born to younger or older parents are at increased risk of developing bipolar disorder, new research suggests.

Results from a meta-analysis of more than 210,000 patients with bipolar disorder and over 13 million healthy individuals showed that children of mothers younger than 20 years had a 23% increased risk for bipolar disorder vs. those whose parents were aged 25-29 years. For participants whose mothers were aged 35-39 years, there was a 10% increased risk for bipolar disorder, which rose to 20% if the mother was aged 40 or older.

Having a father younger than 20 years conferred a 29% increased risk for bipolar disorder, which was the same increase in risk found in individuals whose fathers were aged 45 years or older.

These findings, which are an update of data published in the journal European Pharmacology, were presented at the 35th European College of Neuropsychopharmacology (ECNP) Congress.
 

Fourteen studies included

Previous studies have suggested that parental age at birth is a risk factor for several psychiatric disorders in offspring, including bipolar disorder, and that advanced parental age, specifically, is associated with earlier onset schizophrenia.

To investigate further, the current researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis, searching the PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, and PsychINFO databases for relevant studies published to Dec. 1, 2021.

From 712 studies initially identified, 16 met all the inclusion criteria and 14 were included in the quantitative analysis.

Five studies reported only paternal age and risk for bipolar disorder in their offspring, one included just maternal age, and eight reported both maternal and paternal age in relation to the risk for offspring bipolar disorder.

Individuals with a history of any psychiatric disorders were excluded, leaving a total of 13.4 million individuals without bipolar disorder and 217,089 who had received a diagnosis for the disorder.

The investigators also corrected for both socioeconomic status and, when assessing the impact of maternal or paternal age at birth, corrected for the age of the other parent. However, they were unable to correct for the number of children in a family.

Results after stratifying maternal and paternal age showed that, compared with those born to parents aged 25-29 years, there was an increased risk for bipolar disorder in the offspring of both fathers and mothers younger than 20 years of age, with adjusted odds ratios of 1.29 (95% confidence interval, 1.13-1.48) and 1.23 (95% CI, 1.14-1.33), respectively.

Compared with those aged 25-29 years, there was also an increased risk for bipolar disorder in children born to mothers aged 35-39 years (adjusted OR, 1.1; 95% CI, 1.01-1.19) and aged 40 or older (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.02-1.40).

Among fathers, there was increased risk for offspring bipolar disorder in those aged 45 or older vs. those aged 25-29 years (adjusted OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.15-1.46).
 

Several hypotheses

There are several hypotheses that could explain the results, lead study author Giovanna Fico, MD, bipolar and depressive disorders unit, Hospital Clínic Barcelona, told this news organization.

In older age, it may be “more related to genetic or epigenetic modification, especially in fathers,” Dr. Fico said. “Some studies have shown that there are de novo mutations in the germ lines, which increase the risk of several diseases, including schizophrenia.”

In younger individuals, there could be a “mixed effect between sociocultural factors, such as substance abuse, low educational status,” and other issues, Dr. Fico noted.

Moreover, as bipolar disorder onset can be as late as 30 years of age, the younger group could include “undiagnosed patients with bipolar disorder, which would increase the risk” of the disease in their offspring, she added.

Dr. Fico noted the investigators are now planning on studying the impact of environmental factors such as pollution, climate change, and urbanization on risk for bipolar disorder, with the aim of being better able to inform parents or to develop prevention strategies.

Psychoeducation is “very common for infertility, birth defects, and Down syndrome, but it’s not so common for psychiatric disorders because we need more data. But I think it’s important that parents know they have an increased risk,” she said.

Nevertheless, “We must stress that this risk is moderate, and it must be kept in perspective,” Dr. Fico said in a news release.
 

‘Exciting’ questions raised

The study “raises several exciting research questions, including the possibility of early prevention and intervention,” Maj Vinberg, MD, PhD, clinical professor, department of clinical medicine, University of Copenhagen, said in the release.

She said she agrees there are likely to be different factors at play at different ages, with the risk for bipolar disorder associated with younger-age parenthood more likely to be related to socioeconomic status.

For older parents, “there has been a lot of speculation around the father’s age especially, which everybody thought didn’t matter,” said Dr. Vinberg, who was not involved with the research.

“But you might have some epigenetic changes as you grow older that might transfer into the next generation,” given that there is 20 years of additional exposure to potential epigenetic changes between a man aged 25 years and one aged 45 years, she noted.

Dr. Vinberg also highlighted that there could be cases of undiagnosed bipolar disorder among the younger parents, and she noted that “men with bipolar disorder tend to have more children,” particularly during manic phases.

She explained that if someone were to get divorced at 35 years of age, then have a new manic episode at 45 “and have a new wife and children, I don’t know whether it’s possible to correct for that.”

The research is supported by a fellowship from “la Caixa” Foundation. The investigators have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Vinberg reported having relationships with Lundbeck and Janssen.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

PARIS – “I thought I was as exhausted, and isolated, and neglected as I could get, and then he came home.”

Those were the words of Kate Washington, PhD, from Sacramento as she gave a moving account of the immense burden she felt as caregiver to her husband with cancer.

She was taking part in the session, “I am FINE: Frustrated * Isolated * Neglected * Emotional,” at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology. In that session, speakers assessed the toll of cancer on patients, caregivers, nurses, and doctors.

Dr. Washington, author of “Already Toast: Caregiving and Burnout in America” (Boston: Beacon Press, 2021), explained that she cared for her husband and young family while he was “suffering through two different kinds of lymphoma and really devastating stem cell transplants.”

When her husband was first diagnosed with a rare form of lymphoma in 2015, he was placed on a watch-and-wait protocol. At that point, he seemed fine, Dr. Washington said.

A few months later, he started coughing up blood. After being rushed to the emergency department, doctors found that a slow-growing lung tumor had ruptured.

Three weeks later, he came out of the hospital with a collapsed lung – an effect of his chemotherapy, Dr. Washington said.

But that was hardly the last word. He soon experienced relapse with a “very aggressive” form of his disease, and in 2016, he underwent a stem cell transplant.

“He spent 1½ months in the hospital ... in isolation, not seeing our daughters,” Dr. Washington said. He lost his vision and developed grade 4 graft-versus-host disease, among other problems.

He was alive, just barely, Dr. Washington said.

“As you might imagine, I was pulled between the hospital and the home, taking care of our daughters, who were not seeing him during that time,” she recalled.

But every time someone asked her whether she was okay, she replied: “I am fine.”

“A total lie,” she admitted.

Dr. Washington felt frustrated, not only from the financial strain of out-of-pocket health care costs and lost earnings but also from fast evolving relationships and a feeling of being “unseen and underappreciated.”

Another jarring change: When her husband was discharged from the hospital, Dr. Washington was suddenly thrust into the role of full-time caretaker.

Her husband could not be left alone, his doctor had said. And with two young children, Dr. Washington did not know how she would manage.

The demands of being a full-time caregiver are intense. Caregivers, Dr. Washington explained, can spend 32 hours a week looking after a loved one with cancer.

Like Dr. Washington, most caregivers feel they have no choice but to take on this intense role – one for which they have little or no training or preparation. The nonstop demands leave little time for self-care and can lead to high rates of caregiver injury and illness.

Isolation often creeps in because it can be “hard to ask for help,” she said. About 30% of caregivers report having depression or anxiety, and 21% feel lonely.

“When he was very ill, I found it really difficult to connect with other people and my friends,” Dr. Washington recalled. “I didn’t feel like I could really adequately explain the kind of strain that I was under.”
 

Are patients fine?

Like caregivers, patients often say they are fine when they are not.

The toll cancer takes on patients is immense. Natacha Bolanos Fernandez, from the Lymphoma Coalition Europe, highlighted the physical, mental, and social strain that can affect patients with cancer.

The physical aspects can encompass a host of problems – fatigue, night sweats, weight loss, and the vomiting that accompanies many cancer treatments. Patients may face changes in their mobility and independence as well. The mental side of cancer can include anxiety, depression, and psychological distress, while the social aspects span changing, perhaps strained, relationships with family and friends.

Fatigue, in particular, is an underreported, underdiagnosed, and undertreated problem, Ms. Fernandez noted. According to recent survey data from the Lymphoma Coalition’s Global Patient Survey, 72% of patients reported fatigue. This problem worsened over time, with 59% reporting fatigue after their diagnosis and up to 82% among patients who experienced relapse two or more times.

Fatigue “may be getting worse rather than better over time,” Ms. Fernandez said, and many patients felt that their life had changed completely because of cancer-related fatigue.

To help patients manage, the Lymphoma Coalition has published a report on the impact of cancer-related fatigue and how to improve outcomes. Methods include greater awareness, regular screening, and interventions such as yoga or mindfulness-based cognitive therapy.
 

Are clinicians fine?

Nurses and physicians face challenges caring for patients with cancer.

Although “nurses love their jobs and are extremely committed,” the impact cancer has on a nursing career is often undervalued or “neglected,” said Lena Sharp, RN, PhD, of the Regional Cancer Centre, Stockholm-Gotland.

Burnout, in particular, remains a problem among oncologists and nurses, and it was made worse during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Fatima Cardoso, MD, explained that burnout has an impact on doctors as well as patients because it affects communication with patients and performance. Physicians can, for instance, appear detached, emotional, or tired.

Patients may then feel less inclined to tell their oncologist how they’re feeling, said Dr. Cardoso, director of the breast unit at Champalimaud Clinical Center, Lisbon.

It is important to remember to not just focus on the patient’s disease or treatment but to also ask how they are doing and what is going on in their lives.

Above all, “show that you care,” said Dr. Cardoso.

The Lymphoma Coalition Europe has relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Establishment Labs, Kyowa Kirin, Novartis, Roche, Takeda. Dr. Cardoso has relationships with Amgen, Astellas/Medivation, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, GE Oncology, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, and other companies. No other relevant financial relationships were reported.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

PARIS – “I thought I was as exhausted, and isolated, and neglected as I could get, and then he came home.”

Those were the words of Kate Washington, PhD, from Sacramento as she gave a moving account of the immense burden she felt as caregiver to her husband with cancer.

She was taking part in the session, “I am FINE: Frustrated * Isolated * Neglected * Emotional,” at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology. In that session, speakers assessed the toll of cancer on patients, caregivers, nurses, and doctors.

Dr. Washington, author of “Already Toast: Caregiving and Burnout in America” (Boston: Beacon Press, 2021), explained that she cared for her husband and young family while he was “suffering through two different kinds of lymphoma and really devastating stem cell transplants.”

When her husband was first diagnosed with a rare form of lymphoma in 2015, he was placed on a watch-and-wait protocol. At that point, he seemed fine, Dr. Washington said.

A few months later, he started coughing up blood. After being rushed to the emergency department, doctors found that a slow-growing lung tumor had ruptured.

Three weeks later, he came out of the hospital with a collapsed lung – an effect of his chemotherapy, Dr. Washington said.

But that was hardly the last word. He soon experienced relapse with a “very aggressive” form of his disease, and in 2016, he underwent a stem cell transplant.

“He spent 1½ months in the hospital ... in isolation, not seeing our daughters,” Dr. Washington said. He lost his vision and developed grade 4 graft-versus-host disease, among other problems.

He was alive, just barely, Dr. Washington said.

“As you might imagine, I was pulled between the hospital and the home, taking care of our daughters, who were not seeing him during that time,” she recalled.

But every time someone asked her whether she was okay, she replied: “I am fine.”

“A total lie,” she admitted.

Dr. Washington felt frustrated, not only from the financial strain of out-of-pocket health care costs and lost earnings but also from fast evolving relationships and a feeling of being “unseen and underappreciated.”

Another jarring change: When her husband was discharged from the hospital, Dr. Washington was suddenly thrust into the role of full-time caretaker.

Her husband could not be left alone, his doctor had said. And with two young children, Dr. Washington did not know how she would manage.

The demands of being a full-time caregiver are intense. Caregivers, Dr. Washington explained, can spend 32 hours a week looking after a loved one with cancer.

Like Dr. Washington, most caregivers feel they have no choice but to take on this intense role – one for which they have little or no training or preparation. The nonstop demands leave little time for self-care and can lead to high rates of caregiver injury and illness.

Isolation often creeps in because it can be “hard to ask for help,” she said. About 30% of caregivers report having depression or anxiety, and 21% feel lonely.

“When he was very ill, I found it really difficult to connect with other people and my friends,” Dr. Washington recalled. “I didn’t feel like I could really adequately explain the kind of strain that I was under.”
 

Are patients fine?

Like caregivers, patients often say they are fine when they are not.

The toll cancer takes on patients is immense. Natacha Bolanos Fernandez, from the Lymphoma Coalition Europe, highlighted the physical, mental, and social strain that can affect patients with cancer.

The physical aspects can encompass a host of problems – fatigue, night sweats, weight loss, and the vomiting that accompanies many cancer treatments. Patients may face changes in their mobility and independence as well. The mental side of cancer can include anxiety, depression, and psychological distress, while the social aspects span changing, perhaps strained, relationships with family and friends.

Fatigue, in particular, is an underreported, underdiagnosed, and undertreated problem, Ms. Fernandez noted. According to recent survey data from the Lymphoma Coalition’s Global Patient Survey, 72% of patients reported fatigue. This problem worsened over time, with 59% reporting fatigue after their diagnosis and up to 82% among patients who experienced relapse two or more times.

Fatigue “may be getting worse rather than better over time,” Ms. Fernandez said, and many patients felt that their life had changed completely because of cancer-related fatigue.

To help patients manage, the Lymphoma Coalition has published a report on the impact of cancer-related fatigue and how to improve outcomes. Methods include greater awareness, regular screening, and interventions such as yoga or mindfulness-based cognitive therapy.
 

Are clinicians fine?

Nurses and physicians face challenges caring for patients with cancer.

Although “nurses love their jobs and are extremely committed,” the impact cancer has on a nursing career is often undervalued or “neglected,” said Lena Sharp, RN, PhD, of the Regional Cancer Centre, Stockholm-Gotland.

Burnout, in particular, remains a problem among oncologists and nurses, and it was made worse during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Fatima Cardoso, MD, explained that burnout has an impact on doctors as well as patients because it affects communication with patients and performance. Physicians can, for instance, appear detached, emotional, or tired.

Patients may then feel less inclined to tell their oncologist how they’re feeling, said Dr. Cardoso, director of the breast unit at Champalimaud Clinical Center, Lisbon.

It is important to remember to not just focus on the patient’s disease or treatment but to also ask how they are doing and what is going on in their lives.

Above all, “show that you care,” said Dr. Cardoso.

The Lymphoma Coalition Europe has relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Establishment Labs, Kyowa Kirin, Novartis, Roche, Takeda. Dr. Cardoso has relationships with Amgen, Astellas/Medivation, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, GE Oncology, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, and other companies. No other relevant financial relationships were reported.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

PARIS – “I thought I was as exhausted, and isolated, and neglected as I could get, and then he came home.”

Those were the words of Kate Washington, PhD, from Sacramento as she gave a moving account of the immense burden she felt as caregiver to her husband with cancer.

She was taking part in the session, “I am FINE: Frustrated * Isolated * Neglected * Emotional,” at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology. In that session, speakers assessed the toll of cancer on patients, caregivers, nurses, and doctors.

Dr. Washington, author of “Already Toast: Caregiving and Burnout in America” (Boston: Beacon Press, 2021), explained that she cared for her husband and young family while he was “suffering through two different kinds of lymphoma and really devastating stem cell transplants.”

When her husband was first diagnosed with a rare form of lymphoma in 2015, he was placed on a watch-and-wait protocol. At that point, he seemed fine, Dr. Washington said.

A few months later, he started coughing up blood. After being rushed to the emergency department, doctors found that a slow-growing lung tumor had ruptured.

Three weeks later, he came out of the hospital with a collapsed lung – an effect of his chemotherapy, Dr. Washington said.

But that was hardly the last word. He soon experienced relapse with a “very aggressive” form of his disease, and in 2016, he underwent a stem cell transplant.

“He spent 1½ months in the hospital ... in isolation, not seeing our daughters,” Dr. Washington said. He lost his vision and developed grade 4 graft-versus-host disease, among other problems.

He was alive, just barely, Dr. Washington said.

“As you might imagine, I was pulled between the hospital and the home, taking care of our daughters, who were not seeing him during that time,” she recalled.

But every time someone asked her whether she was okay, she replied: “I am fine.”

“A total lie,” she admitted.

Dr. Washington felt frustrated, not only from the financial strain of out-of-pocket health care costs and lost earnings but also from fast evolving relationships and a feeling of being “unseen and underappreciated.”

Another jarring change: When her husband was discharged from the hospital, Dr. Washington was suddenly thrust into the role of full-time caretaker.

Her husband could not be left alone, his doctor had said. And with two young children, Dr. Washington did not know how she would manage.

The demands of being a full-time caregiver are intense. Caregivers, Dr. Washington explained, can spend 32 hours a week looking after a loved one with cancer.

Like Dr. Washington, most caregivers feel they have no choice but to take on this intense role – one for which they have little or no training or preparation. The nonstop demands leave little time for self-care and can lead to high rates of caregiver injury and illness.

Isolation often creeps in because it can be “hard to ask for help,” she said. About 30% of caregivers report having depression or anxiety, and 21% feel lonely.

“When he was very ill, I found it really difficult to connect with other people and my friends,” Dr. Washington recalled. “I didn’t feel like I could really adequately explain the kind of strain that I was under.”
 

Are patients fine?

Like caregivers, patients often say they are fine when they are not.

The toll cancer takes on patients is immense. Natacha Bolanos Fernandez, from the Lymphoma Coalition Europe, highlighted the physical, mental, and social strain that can affect patients with cancer.

The physical aspects can encompass a host of problems – fatigue, night sweats, weight loss, and the vomiting that accompanies many cancer treatments. Patients may face changes in their mobility and independence as well. The mental side of cancer can include anxiety, depression, and psychological distress, while the social aspects span changing, perhaps strained, relationships with family and friends.

Fatigue, in particular, is an underreported, underdiagnosed, and undertreated problem, Ms. Fernandez noted. According to recent survey data from the Lymphoma Coalition’s Global Patient Survey, 72% of patients reported fatigue. This problem worsened over time, with 59% reporting fatigue after their diagnosis and up to 82% among patients who experienced relapse two or more times.

Fatigue “may be getting worse rather than better over time,” Ms. Fernandez said, and many patients felt that their life had changed completely because of cancer-related fatigue.

To help patients manage, the Lymphoma Coalition has published a report on the impact of cancer-related fatigue and how to improve outcomes. Methods include greater awareness, regular screening, and interventions such as yoga or mindfulness-based cognitive therapy.
 

Are clinicians fine?

Nurses and physicians face challenges caring for patients with cancer.

Although “nurses love their jobs and are extremely committed,” the impact cancer has on a nursing career is often undervalued or “neglected,” said Lena Sharp, RN, PhD, of the Regional Cancer Centre, Stockholm-Gotland.

Burnout, in particular, remains a problem among oncologists and nurses, and it was made worse during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Fatima Cardoso, MD, explained that burnout has an impact on doctors as well as patients because it affects communication with patients and performance. Physicians can, for instance, appear detached, emotional, or tired.

Patients may then feel less inclined to tell their oncologist how they’re feeling, said Dr. Cardoso, director of the breast unit at Champalimaud Clinical Center, Lisbon.

It is important to remember to not just focus on the patient’s disease or treatment but to also ask how they are doing and what is going on in their lives.

Above all, “show that you care,” said Dr. Cardoso.

The Lymphoma Coalition Europe has relationships with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Establishment Labs, Kyowa Kirin, Novartis, Roche, Takeda. Dr. Cardoso has relationships with Amgen, Astellas/Medivation, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, GE Oncology, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, and other companies. No other relevant financial relationships were reported.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

PARIS – New disappointing results from a trial of adjuvant immunotherapy for patients with renal cell carcinoma who underwent nephrectomy contrast with those from a previous trial that showed benefit with another agent.

The new results, from CheckMate 914, show that adjuvant treatment with the combination of nivolumab (Opdivo) plus ipilimumab (Yervoy) did not improve disease-free survival (DFS), compared with placebo.

The finding was presented at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

CheckMate 914 “did not meet the primary endpoint,” study presenter Robert J. Motzer, MD, a medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, said at a press conference.

The results contrast with those seen with pembrolizumab (Keytruda) in the same setting, where the drug achieved a 32% reduction in risk of recurrence or death over placebo in KEYNOTE-564. This led to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration granting approval for the drug as adjuvant treatment following surgery in patients with renal cell carcinoma at intermediate or high risk for recurrence after nephrectomy or after nephrectomy and resection of metastatic lesions.

Another trial of adjuvant immunotherapy in renal cell carcinoma, also presented at ESMO 2022, the IMmotion010 trial with adjuvant atezolizumab (Tecentriq), also did not show any clinical benefit over placebo.

However, Dr. Motzer said that despite both of these new trials showing no benefit, “I don’t think it takes away from standard of care pembrolizumab” in this setting.

There is a great need for adjuvant therapy for patients who undergo surgery, Dr. Motzer commented. The standard treatment for stage I-III localized nonmetastatic renal cell carcinoma is radical or partial nephrectomy, but there remains a “substantial risk” of relapse after surgery, occurring in up to 50% of patients.

In the past, the standard of care for these patients would be watching and waiting and “hoping that the patient doesn’t relapse,” he said, and if they did, then “we would treat accordingly for metastatic disease.”
 

Differences between trials

When asked about the contrast between the latest trial with the adjuvant nivolumab-ipilimumab combination and the earlier trial with adjuvant pembrolizumab, Dr. Motzer told this news organization that there are differences in the designs of the two studies. “Although they are both global phase 2 trials ... [there are] some differences in the patient population.”

However, the “main differences” are the duration, intensity, and tolerability of the treatment regimens. “I suspect that’s impacted on the outcome of our trial,” he said, as “many of our patients didn’t complete even that 6 months of the more toxic immunotherapy [nivolumab-ipilimumab combination].”

Dr. Motzer also noted that, compared with the metastatic setting, patients “do not tolerate therapy as well” in the adjuvant setting. Consequently, the risk-benefit of a drug is “slightly different ... as we have to be much more concerned about toxicity.”

In addition, he said, “our trial also used these kind-of gross clinical features that were developed years ago” to select patients, but now “there’s other much more refined techniques” that look at the underlying biological signatures “to identify who responds to immunotherapy.”

“So I think we have to do a deep dive into the biology in this trial and in the Merck trial [of pembrolizumab] to see if we can better define who is going to relapse and who is going to benefit,” he said.

Commenting on the new results, Dominik Berthold, MD, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland, also wondered whether differences in trial design and study populations could explain the divergent results between the CheckMate and KEYNOTE trials.

“Investigators will need to look in detail at subpopulations and biomarkers to guide treatment decisions and trial design for current and future patients,” he added.

Dr. Berthold said he agrees that pembrolizumab remains standard of care, but “I’m not really sure that we have really to offer all patients” the drug.

He explained that, on the one hand, there is the risk of over-treating many patients, depending on their stage, and on the other hand, “many patients who get pembrolizumab actually do progress.”

In addition, there is the question of the treatment sequence in patients who are already exposed to immunotherapy and when to start tyrosine kinase inhibitors, as well as the much broader issue of the lack of long-term overall survival data with pembrolizumab.

Dr. Berthold noted the issue of whether the high treatment discontinuation rate in CheckMate 914 affected the efficacy of nivolumab plus ipilimumab raises the question of whether, from an immunological point of view, 1 year of pembrolizumab is more effective than 3 months of the combination therapy.

“I think it might be one of the explanations,” he said, adding, however, that these are just “hypotheses” at this stage.
 

Details of the new results

Previous results with the nivolumab-ipilimumab combination, from the CheckMate 214 trial in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma, had demonstrated that upfront nivolumab plus ipilimumab offered significantly longer treatment-free survival than the VEGF inhibitor sunitinib. The “striking results” from that trial indicated the combination was not only associated with a survival benefit, but also “high response rates, durable responses, complete responses, and even treatment responses that continue after treatment is discontinued,” Dr. Motzer commented.

So his team set out to test the combination in the adjuvant setting in the CheckMate 914 trial, designed in two parts: Part A, comparing nivolumab plus ipilimumab with placebo, and Part B, adding nivolumab monotherapy as another comparator.

Reporting on Part A of the trial, Dr. Motzer explained that they included 816 patients with renal cell carcinoma who had undergone radical or partial nephrectomy with negative surgical margins and had a predominantly clear cell histology.

They also selected patients based on their pathologic TNM staging, choosing “high-risk” individuals, Dr. Motzer explained, but who nevertheless had no evidence of residual disease or distant metastases following nephrectomy.

Between 4 and 12 weeks after surgery, patients were randomized to receive 12 doses of nivolumab plus four doses of ipilimumab or matched placebos for an expected treatment duration of 24 weeks.

The median age of patients was 58-59 years, and approximately 71% were men. By far the most common type of surgery was radical nephrectomy, with 93%, and Dr. Motzer noted that most patients (77%-78%) had pT3 disease without nodal involvement.

After a median follow-up of 37.0 months, there was no significant difference between groups in the primary endpoint of DFS, as assessed by blinded independent central review.

Median DFS was not reached for nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus 50.7 months for placebo, at a hazard ratio of 0.92 (P = .5347). At 24 months, DFS was 76.4% with the combination therapy versus 74.0% for placebo.

Subgroup analysis did not reveal any patient groups that significantly benefitted from the combination therapy, although there was a signal of greater benefit in those with other than pT3 disease.

While tumors with sarcomatoid features appeared to have a significant benefit from nivolumab plus ipilimumab therapy, they represented only 5% of the study population.

During his presentation, Dr. Motzer showed the median duration of therapy was 5.1 months in both groups, but only 57% of nivolumab plus ipilimumab patients completed all doses versus 89% of those assigned to placebo.

In addition, 33% of patients given nivolumab plus ipilimumab discontinued due to study drug toxicity and 29% had a treatment-related adverse event that led to treatment discontinuation. This compared with only 1% of patients for both outcomes with placebo.

The most common treatment-related adverse events in the combination therapy group were pruritus (27%), fatigue (25%), diarrhea (20%), rash (19%), hyperthyroidism (16%), and hypothyroidism (16%), and the vast majority of events were grade 1-2.

Dr. Motzer said that, following these negative results, they are “certainly digging deeper into the details to see which particular groups may have benefited and when toxicity occurred.

Then, more importantly, the team will look out for the results of Part B of the trial to assess the impact of nivolumab monotherapy. “I’m hoping it’s better tolerated,” he said.

Discussant James Larkin, MD, PhD, a consultant medical oncologist at The Royal Marsden, London, said the results from CheckMate 914 came “as a bit of a surprise.”

As did Dr. Motzer, Dr. Larkin singled out the high number of patients who could not complete the full dosing schedule and discontinued treatment.

He added that, while one has to be “cautious” when comparing trials, KEYNOTE-564 was “relatively similar” in design, and it’s “unlikely there’s any significant difference in activity” between the two drugs.

Dr. Larkin also believes data from Part B of CheckMate 914 will be “illuminating.”

There are nevertheless a number of outstanding questions about the results from Part A, he said, the main one being how to better select patients who might respond to the combination, which currently is not possible due to the lack of clinically relevant biomarkers.

The study was funded by Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr. Motzer has disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Aveo Pharmaceuticals, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, EMD Serono, Exelixis, Genentech/Roche, Incyte, Lilly Oncology, Merck, Novartis, and Pfizer.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

PARIS – New disappointing results from a trial of adjuvant immunotherapy for patients with renal cell carcinoma who underwent nephrectomy contrast with those from a previous trial that showed benefit with another agent.

The new results, from CheckMate 914, show that adjuvant treatment with the combination of nivolumab (Opdivo) plus ipilimumab (Yervoy) did not improve disease-free survival (DFS), compared with placebo.

The finding was presented at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

CheckMate 914 “did not meet the primary endpoint,” study presenter Robert J. Motzer, MD, a medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, said at a press conference.

The results contrast with those seen with pembrolizumab (Keytruda) in the same setting, where the drug achieved a 32% reduction in risk of recurrence or death over placebo in KEYNOTE-564. This led to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration granting approval for the drug as adjuvant treatment following surgery in patients with renal cell carcinoma at intermediate or high risk for recurrence after nephrectomy or after nephrectomy and resection of metastatic lesions.

Another trial of adjuvant immunotherapy in renal cell carcinoma, also presented at ESMO 2022, the IMmotion010 trial with adjuvant atezolizumab (Tecentriq), also did not show any clinical benefit over placebo.

However, Dr. Motzer said that despite both of these new trials showing no benefit, “I don’t think it takes away from standard of care pembrolizumab” in this setting.

There is a great need for adjuvant therapy for patients who undergo surgery, Dr. Motzer commented. The standard treatment for stage I-III localized nonmetastatic renal cell carcinoma is radical or partial nephrectomy, but there remains a “substantial risk” of relapse after surgery, occurring in up to 50% of patients.

In the past, the standard of care for these patients would be watching and waiting and “hoping that the patient doesn’t relapse,” he said, and if they did, then “we would treat accordingly for metastatic disease.”
 

Differences between trials

When asked about the contrast between the latest trial with the adjuvant nivolumab-ipilimumab combination and the earlier trial with adjuvant pembrolizumab, Dr. Motzer told this news organization that there are differences in the designs of the two studies. “Although they are both global phase 2 trials ... [there are] some differences in the patient population.”

However, the “main differences” are the duration, intensity, and tolerability of the treatment regimens. “I suspect that’s impacted on the outcome of our trial,” he said, as “many of our patients didn’t complete even that 6 months of the more toxic immunotherapy [nivolumab-ipilimumab combination].”

Dr. Motzer also noted that, compared with the metastatic setting, patients “do not tolerate therapy as well” in the adjuvant setting. Consequently, the risk-benefit of a drug is “slightly different ... as we have to be much more concerned about toxicity.”

In addition, he said, “our trial also used these kind-of gross clinical features that were developed years ago” to select patients, but now “there’s other much more refined techniques” that look at the underlying biological signatures “to identify who responds to immunotherapy.”

“So I think we have to do a deep dive into the biology in this trial and in the Merck trial [of pembrolizumab] to see if we can better define who is going to relapse and who is going to benefit,” he said.

Commenting on the new results, Dominik Berthold, MD, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland, also wondered whether differences in trial design and study populations could explain the divergent results between the CheckMate and KEYNOTE trials.

“Investigators will need to look in detail at subpopulations and biomarkers to guide treatment decisions and trial design for current and future patients,” he added.

Dr. Berthold said he agrees that pembrolizumab remains standard of care, but “I’m not really sure that we have really to offer all patients” the drug.

He explained that, on the one hand, there is the risk of over-treating many patients, depending on their stage, and on the other hand, “many patients who get pembrolizumab actually do progress.”

In addition, there is the question of the treatment sequence in patients who are already exposed to immunotherapy and when to start tyrosine kinase inhibitors, as well as the much broader issue of the lack of long-term overall survival data with pembrolizumab.

Dr. Berthold noted the issue of whether the high treatment discontinuation rate in CheckMate 914 affected the efficacy of nivolumab plus ipilimumab raises the question of whether, from an immunological point of view, 1 year of pembrolizumab is more effective than 3 months of the combination therapy.

“I think it might be one of the explanations,” he said, adding, however, that these are just “hypotheses” at this stage.
 

Details of the new results

Previous results with the nivolumab-ipilimumab combination, from the CheckMate 214 trial in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma, had demonstrated that upfront nivolumab plus ipilimumab offered significantly longer treatment-free survival than the VEGF inhibitor sunitinib. The “striking results” from that trial indicated the combination was not only associated with a survival benefit, but also “high response rates, durable responses, complete responses, and even treatment responses that continue after treatment is discontinued,” Dr. Motzer commented.

So his team set out to test the combination in the adjuvant setting in the CheckMate 914 trial, designed in two parts: Part A, comparing nivolumab plus ipilimumab with placebo, and Part B, adding nivolumab monotherapy as another comparator.

Reporting on Part A of the trial, Dr. Motzer explained that they included 816 patients with renal cell carcinoma who had undergone radical or partial nephrectomy with negative surgical margins and had a predominantly clear cell histology.

They also selected patients based on their pathologic TNM staging, choosing “high-risk” individuals, Dr. Motzer explained, but who nevertheless had no evidence of residual disease or distant metastases following nephrectomy.

Between 4 and 12 weeks after surgery, patients were randomized to receive 12 doses of nivolumab plus four doses of ipilimumab or matched placebos for an expected treatment duration of 24 weeks.

The median age of patients was 58-59 years, and approximately 71% were men. By far the most common type of surgery was radical nephrectomy, with 93%, and Dr. Motzer noted that most patients (77%-78%) had pT3 disease without nodal involvement.

After a median follow-up of 37.0 months, there was no significant difference between groups in the primary endpoint of DFS, as assessed by blinded independent central review.

Median DFS was not reached for nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus 50.7 months for placebo, at a hazard ratio of 0.92 (P = .5347). At 24 months, DFS was 76.4% with the combination therapy versus 74.0% for placebo.

Subgroup analysis did not reveal any patient groups that significantly benefitted from the combination therapy, although there was a signal of greater benefit in those with other than pT3 disease.

While tumors with sarcomatoid features appeared to have a significant benefit from nivolumab plus ipilimumab therapy, they represented only 5% of the study population.

During his presentation, Dr. Motzer showed the median duration of therapy was 5.1 months in both groups, but only 57% of nivolumab plus ipilimumab patients completed all doses versus 89% of those assigned to placebo.

In addition, 33% of patients given nivolumab plus ipilimumab discontinued due to study drug toxicity and 29% had a treatment-related adverse event that led to treatment discontinuation. This compared with only 1% of patients for both outcomes with placebo.

The most common treatment-related adverse events in the combination therapy group were pruritus (27%), fatigue (25%), diarrhea (20%), rash (19%), hyperthyroidism (16%), and hypothyroidism (16%), and the vast majority of events were grade 1-2.

Dr. Motzer said that, following these negative results, they are “certainly digging deeper into the details to see which particular groups may have benefited and when toxicity occurred.

Then, more importantly, the team will look out for the results of Part B of the trial to assess the impact of nivolumab monotherapy. “I’m hoping it’s better tolerated,” he said.

Discussant James Larkin, MD, PhD, a consultant medical oncologist at The Royal Marsden, London, said the results from CheckMate 914 came “as a bit of a surprise.”

As did Dr. Motzer, Dr. Larkin singled out the high number of patients who could not complete the full dosing schedule and discontinued treatment.

He added that, while one has to be “cautious” when comparing trials, KEYNOTE-564 was “relatively similar” in design, and it’s “unlikely there’s any significant difference in activity” between the two drugs.

Dr. Larkin also believes data from Part B of CheckMate 914 will be “illuminating.”

There are nevertheless a number of outstanding questions about the results from Part A, he said, the main one being how to better select patients who might respond to the combination, which currently is not possible due to the lack of clinically relevant biomarkers.

The study was funded by Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr. Motzer has disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Aveo Pharmaceuticals, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, EMD Serono, Exelixis, Genentech/Roche, Incyte, Lilly Oncology, Merck, Novartis, and Pfizer.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

PARIS – New disappointing results from a trial of adjuvant immunotherapy for patients with renal cell carcinoma who underwent nephrectomy contrast with those from a previous trial that showed benefit with another agent.

The new results, from CheckMate 914, show that adjuvant treatment with the combination of nivolumab (Opdivo) plus ipilimumab (Yervoy) did not improve disease-free survival (DFS), compared with placebo.

The finding was presented at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

CheckMate 914 “did not meet the primary endpoint,” study presenter Robert J. Motzer, MD, a medical oncologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, said at a press conference.

The results contrast with those seen with pembrolizumab (Keytruda) in the same setting, where the drug achieved a 32% reduction in risk of recurrence or death over placebo in KEYNOTE-564. This led to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration granting approval for the drug as adjuvant treatment following surgery in patients with renal cell carcinoma at intermediate or high risk for recurrence after nephrectomy or after nephrectomy and resection of metastatic lesions.

Another trial of adjuvant immunotherapy in renal cell carcinoma, also presented at ESMO 2022, the IMmotion010 trial with adjuvant atezolizumab (Tecentriq), also did not show any clinical benefit over placebo.

However, Dr. Motzer said that despite both of these new trials showing no benefit, “I don’t think it takes away from standard of care pembrolizumab” in this setting.

There is a great need for adjuvant therapy for patients who undergo surgery, Dr. Motzer commented. The standard treatment for stage I-III localized nonmetastatic renal cell carcinoma is radical or partial nephrectomy, but there remains a “substantial risk” of relapse after surgery, occurring in up to 50% of patients.

In the past, the standard of care for these patients would be watching and waiting and “hoping that the patient doesn’t relapse,” he said, and if they did, then “we would treat accordingly for metastatic disease.”
 

Differences between trials

When asked about the contrast between the latest trial with the adjuvant nivolumab-ipilimumab combination and the earlier trial with adjuvant pembrolizumab, Dr. Motzer told this news organization that there are differences in the designs of the two studies. “Although they are both global phase 2 trials ... [there are] some differences in the patient population.”

However, the “main differences” are the duration, intensity, and tolerability of the treatment regimens. “I suspect that’s impacted on the outcome of our trial,” he said, as “many of our patients didn’t complete even that 6 months of the more toxic immunotherapy [nivolumab-ipilimumab combination].”

Dr. Motzer also noted that, compared with the metastatic setting, patients “do not tolerate therapy as well” in the adjuvant setting. Consequently, the risk-benefit of a drug is “slightly different ... as we have to be much more concerned about toxicity.”

In addition, he said, “our trial also used these kind-of gross clinical features that were developed years ago” to select patients, but now “there’s other much more refined techniques” that look at the underlying biological signatures “to identify who responds to immunotherapy.”

“So I think we have to do a deep dive into the biology in this trial and in the Merck trial [of pembrolizumab] to see if we can better define who is going to relapse and who is going to benefit,” he said.

Commenting on the new results, Dominik Berthold, MD, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland, also wondered whether differences in trial design and study populations could explain the divergent results between the CheckMate and KEYNOTE trials.

“Investigators will need to look in detail at subpopulations and biomarkers to guide treatment decisions and trial design for current and future patients,” he added.

Dr. Berthold said he agrees that pembrolizumab remains standard of care, but “I’m not really sure that we have really to offer all patients” the drug.

He explained that, on the one hand, there is the risk of over-treating many patients, depending on their stage, and on the other hand, “many patients who get pembrolizumab actually do progress.”

In addition, there is the question of the treatment sequence in patients who are already exposed to immunotherapy and when to start tyrosine kinase inhibitors, as well as the much broader issue of the lack of long-term overall survival data with pembrolizumab.

Dr. Berthold noted the issue of whether the high treatment discontinuation rate in CheckMate 914 affected the efficacy of nivolumab plus ipilimumab raises the question of whether, from an immunological point of view, 1 year of pembrolizumab is more effective than 3 months of the combination therapy.

“I think it might be one of the explanations,” he said, adding, however, that these are just “hypotheses” at this stage.
 

Details of the new results

Previous results with the nivolumab-ipilimumab combination, from the CheckMate 214 trial in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma, had demonstrated that upfront nivolumab plus ipilimumab offered significantly longer treatment-free survival than the VEGF inhibitor sunitinib. The “striking results” from that trial indicated the combination was not only associated with a survival benefit, but also “high response rates, durable responses, complete responses, and even treatment responses that continue after treatment is discontinued,” Dr. Motzer commented.

So his team set out to test the combination in the adjuvant setting in the CheckMate 914 trial, designed in two parts: Part A, comparing nivolumab plus ipilimumab with placebo, and Part B, adding nivolumab monotherapy as another comparator.

Reporting on Part A of the trial, Dr. Motzer explained that they included 816 patients with renal cell carcinoma who had undergone radical or partial nephrectomy with negative surgical margins and had a predominantly clear cell histology.

They also selected patients based on their pathologic TNM staging, choosing “high-risk” individuals, Dr. Motzer explained, but who nevertheless had no evidence of residual disease or distant metastases following nephrectomy.

Between 4 and 12 weeks after surgery, patients were randomized to receive 12 doses of nivolumab plus four doses of ipilimumab or matched placebos for an expected treatment duration of 24 weeks.

The median age of patients was 58-59 years, and approximately 71% were men. By far the most common type of surgery was radical nephrectomy, with 93%, and Dr. Motzer noted that most patients (77%-78%) had pT3 disease without nodal involvement.

After a median follow-up of 37.0 months, there was no significant difference between groups in the primary endpoint of DFS, as assessed by blinded independent central review.

Median DFS was not reached for nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus 50.7 months for placebo, at a hazard ratio of 0.92 (P = .5347). At 24 months, DFS was 76.4% with the combination therapy versus 74.0% for placebo.

Subgroup analysis did not reveal any patient groups that significantly benefitted from the combination therapy, although there was a signal of greater benefit in those with other than pT3 disease.

While tumors with sarcomatoid features appeared to have a significant benefit from nivolumab plus ipilimumab therapy, they represented only 5% of the study population.

During his presentation, Dr. Motzer showed the median duration of therapy was 5.1 months in both groups, but only 57% of nivolumab plus ipilimumab patients completed all doses versus 89% of those assigned to placebo.

In addition, 33% of patients given nivolumab plus ipilimumab discontinued due to study drug toxicity and 29% had a treatment-related adverse event that led to treatment discontinuation. This compared with only 1% of patients for both outcomes with placebo.

The most common treatment-related adverse events in the combination therapy group were pruritus (27%), fatigue (25%), diarrhea (20%), rash (19%), hyperthyroidism (16%), and hypothyroidism (16%), and the vast majority of events were grade 1-2.

Dr. Motzer said that, following these negative results, they are “certainly digging deeper into the details to see which particular groups may have benefited and when toxicity occurred.

Then, more importantly, the team will look out for the results of Part B of the trial to assess the impact of nivolumab monotherapy. “I’m hoping it’s better tolerated,” he said.

Discussant James Larkin, MD, PhD, a consultant medical oncologist at The Royal Marsden, London, said the results from CheckMate 914 came “as a bit of a surprise.”

As did Dr. Motzer, Dr. Larkin singled out the high number of patients who could not complete the full dosing schedule and discontinued treatment.

He added that, while one has to be “cautious” when comparing trials, KEYNOTE-564 was “relatively similar” in design, and it’s “unlikely there’s any significant difference in activity” between the two drugs.

Dr. Larkin also believes data from Part B of CheckMate 914 will be “illuminating.”

There are nevertheless a number of outstanding questions about the results from Part A, he said, the main one being how to better select patients who might respond to the combination, which currently is not possible due to the lack of clinically relevant biomarkers.

The study was funded by Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr. Motzer has disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Aveo Pharmaceuticals, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, EMD Serono, Exelixis, Genentech/Roche, Incyte, Lilly Oncology, Merck, Novartis, and Pfizer.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The level of remission in patients with remitting inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) appears to play a major role in whether they will relapse after treatment when biologic therapies are discontinued, according to a new prospective study.

Patients with complete endoscopic healing have half the rate of relapse after withdrawal of anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha (anti-TNF) treatment than those with only partial healing, according to a study published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

“Applying strict criteria for endoscopic healing and mesalamine treatment ... may lower the risk of relapse after withdrawal of anti-TNF treatment,” write Bas Oldenburg, MD, PhD, a professor at University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands, and colleagues in their analysis of 81 patients.

De-escalation of anti-TNF treatment in IBD patients in remission has the potential to “reduce side effects, including risks of serious infections and malignancies, decrease health care expenditures, and meet patients’ preferences,” they note.

However, withdrawal of the drugs increases the risk of relapse by 30%-45% at 12 months. When patients relapse, reintroduction of anti-TNF therapy returns over 80% to remission.

Although no consensus exists on how to select patients for therapy de-escalation, evidence suggests that persistent inflammation affects outcomes and that the “depth” of endoscopic healing is a key indicator, the authors note.
 

Study details

To further the knowledge base, they conducted a prospective study of patients in remission to determine the relapse rate following de-escalation of anti-TNF therapy; evaluate relapse factors, including degree of endoscopic healing; and assess outcomes after reintroduction of anti-TNF therapy.

The study was limited to adult patients with IBD with at least 6 months of corticosteroid-free clinical remission, confirmed baseline clinical remission and endoscopic healing, no current hospitalization, and no pregnancy.

The patients underwent elective discontinuation of anti-TNF therapy between 2018 and 2020. The recommended protocol was to measure C-reactive protein (CRP) and fecal calprotectin at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months and to perform endoscopy at 12 months.

Patients also completed questionnaires at baseline and at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months. The authors selected the patient–Harvey-Bradshaw Index for patients with Crohn’s disease and the patient–Simple Clinical Colitis Activity Index for patients with ulcerative colitis and unclassified IBD, as well as the short IBD Quality of Life measure.

Of the 81 patients from 13 centers who took part, 51% had Crohn’s disease. The median duration of remission at baseline was 3.5 years, and the median disease duration was 9.1 years.

All patients had evidence of endoscopic healing, and 88% met the strict criteria for complete endoscopic healing. In 34%, trough levels of anti-TNF treatments were judged to be subtherapeutic.

After withdrawal of the drugs, 25.9% of patients continued on immunomodulators.

Over a median follow-up of 2 years, 49% of patients relapsed, which was confirmed via endoscopy, fecal calprotectin, or CRP in 83% of cases and inferred from treatment escalation for clinical flare in 17%. Rates of relapse were comparable between patients with Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis or unclassified IBD and between those discontinuing adalimumab and those stopping infliximab.
 

Better healing, better outcomes

However, analysis showed that partial endoscopic healing was independently associated with a higher risk of relapse, at an adjusted hazard ratio versus complete endoscopic healing of 3.28.

At 12 months, 70% of patients with partial endoscopic healing had relapsed versus 35% of those with complete endoscopic healing.

Treatment with the anti-inflammatory agent mesalamine (multiple brands) was independently associated with a reduced risk of relapse, at an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.08. No other potential predictors of relapse were identified.

Of the patients who relapsed, 75% restarted anti-TNF treatment, and the majority (87%) were restarted on the same agent at a median of 0.9 years since its withdrawal and a median of 24 days since the onset of relapse.

Clinical remission was achieved at 3 months in 73% of patients who restarted anti-TNF therapy, which was found to restore quality of life and well-being in relapsed patients, the authors report.
 

Reluctance remains

Stephen B. Hanauer, MD, professor of medicine (gastroenterology and hepatology) at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, said the findings “reinforce the benefits of the maintenance versus the withdrawal of therapy” and “the deeper the remission” the more likely it is to be sustained.

The 35% relapse rate at 12 months, even in patients with compete endoscopic healing, indicates that treatment should be maintained, Dr. Hanauer said.

“What is also relevant, but was not evaluated, is the additional endpoint of histologic healing, which is likely to sustain remissions even longer,” he added.

Nevertheless, Dr. Hanauer said, the “observed relapse rate is important to discuss in shared decision-making with patients.”

The findings are interesting, but the study didn’t follow the patients for long enough to understand why 35% of those with complete endoscopic healing relapsed, Miguel Regueiro, MD, chair of the Cleveland Clinic’s Digestive Disease & Surgery Institute, told this news organization.

“Are there predictors, factors, or other treatments that could be used to reduce that 35% risk of relapse further?” he questioned.

Although the study didn’t clear up that question for Dr. Regueiro, he found it compelling that mesalamine continuation resulted in higher rates of sustained remission after anti-TNF withdrawal among patients with ulcerative colitis.

Dr. Regueiro said that he will not begin recommending withdrawal of advanced therapies, including anti-TNF drugs, in patients who have achieved a stable remission.

“We have not yet found the cure for IBD, and my concern is that patients may relapse with more severe disease than previously and that recurrence of inflammation could have potential risks for complications,” he said.

“Nonetheless, this study is intriguing and important, and at least prompts the discussion of withdrawing therapy in those who have achieved a deep endoscopic remission for a sustained period of time,” Dr. Regueiro added.

The study received support from the Dutch Health Insurance Innovation Fund.

Dr. Oldenburg declares relationships with AbbVie, Celltrion, Ferring, Takeda, Galapagos, Pfizer, Cablon, PBMS, Janssen, and MSD. Other authors also declare numerous relationships. The full list can be found with the original article. Dr. Hanauer declares relationships with AbbVie, Janssen, Pfizer, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Regueiro declares relationships with AbbVie, Janssen, UCB, Takeda, Pfizer, Miraca Labs, Amgen, Celgene, Seres, Allergan, Genentech, Gilead, Salix, Prometheus, Lilly, TARGET Pharma Solutions, ALFASIGMA, S.p.A., BMS, CME Outfitters, Imedex, GI Health Foundation, Cornerstones, Remedy, MJH Life Sciences, Medscape, MDEducation, WebMD, and HMPGlobal.

Help your patients better understand their IBD treatment options by sharing AGA’s patient education, “Living with IBD,” in the AGA GI Patient Center at www.gastro.org/IBD. 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The level of remission in patients with remitting inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) appears to play a major role in whether they will relapse after treatment when biologic therapies are discontinued, according to a new prospective study.

Patients with complete endoscopic healing have half the rate of relapse after withdrawal of anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha (anti-TNF) treatment than those with only partial healing, according to a study published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

“Applying strict criteria for endoscopic healing and mesalamine treatment ... may lower the risk of relapse after withdrawal of anti-TNF treatment,” write Bas Oldenburg, MD, PhD, a professor at University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands, and colleagues in their analysis of 81 patients.

De-escalation of anti-TNF treatment in IBD patients in remission has the potential to “reduce side effects, including risks of serious infections and malignancies, decrease health care expenditures, and meet patients’ preferences,” they note.

However, withdrawal of the drugs increases the risk of relapse by 30%-45% at 12 months. When patients relapse, reintroduction of anti-TNF therapy returns over 80% to remission.

Although no consensus exists on how to select patients for therapy de-escalation, evidence suggests that persistent inflammation affects outcomes and that the “depth” of endoscopic healing is a key indicator, the authors note.
 

Study details

To further the knowledge base, they conducted a prospective study of patients in remission to determine the relapse rate following de-escalation of anti-TNF therapy; evaluate relapse factors, including degree of endoscopic healing; and assess outcomes after reintroduction of anti-TNF therapy.

The study was limited to adult patients with IBD with at least 6 months of corticosteroid-free clinical remission, confirmed baseline clinical remission and endoscopic healing, no current hospitalization, and no pregnancy.

The patients underwent elective discontinuation of anti-TNF therapy between 2018 and 2020. The recommended protocol was to measure C-reactive protein (CRP) and fecal calprotectin at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months and to perform endoscopy at 12 months.

Patients also completed questionnaires at baseline and at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months. The authors selected the patient–Harvey-Bradshaw Index for patients with Crohn’s disease and the patient–Simple Clinical Colitis Activity Index for patients with ulcerative colitis and unclassified IBD, as well as the short IBD Quality of Life measure.

Of the 81 patients from 13 centers who took part, 51% had Crohn’s disease. The median duration of remission at baseline was 3.5 years, and the median disease duration was 9.1 years.

All patients had evidence of endoscopic healing, and 88% met the strict criteria for complete endoscopic healing. In 34%, trough levels of anti-TNF treatments were judged to be subtherapeutic.

After withdrawal of the drugs, 25.9% of patients continued on immunomodulators.

Over a median follow-up of 2 years, 49% of patients relapsed, which was confirmed via endoscopy, fecal calprotectin, or CRP in 83% of cases and inferred from treatment escalation for clinical flare in 17%. Rates of relapse were comparable between patients with Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis or unclassified IBD and between those discontinuing adalimumab and those stopping infliximab.
 

Better healing, better outcomes

However, analysis showed that partial endoscopic healing was independently associated with a higher risk of relapse, at an adjusted hazard ratio versus complete endoscopic healing of 3.28.

At 12 months, 70% of patients with partial endoscopic healing had relapsed versus 35% of those with complete endoscopic healing.

Treatment with the anti-inflammatory agent mesalamine (multiple brands) was independently associated with a reduced risk of relapse, at an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.08. No other potential predictors of relapse were identified.

Of the patients who relapsed, 75% restarted anti-TNF treatment, and the majority (87%) were restarted on the same agent at a median of 0.9 years since its withdrawal and a median of 24 days since the onset of relapse.

Clinical remission was achieved at 3 months in 73% of patients who restarted anti-TNF therapy, which was found to restore quality of life and well-being in relapsed patients, the authors report.
 

Reluctance remains

Stephen B. Hanauer, MD, professor of medicine (gastroenterology and hepatology) at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, said the findings “reinforce the benefits of the maintenance versus the withdrawal of therapy” and “the deeper the remission” the more likely it is to be sustained.

The 35% relapse rate at 12 months, even in patients with compete endoscopic healing, indicates that treatment should be maintained, Dr. Hanauer said.

“What is also relevant, but was not evaluated, is the additional endpoint of histologic healing, which is likely to sustain remissions even longer,” he added.

Nevertheless, Dr. Hanauer said, the “observed relapse rate is important to discuss in shared decision-making with patients.”

The findings are interesting, but the study didn’t follow the patients for long enough to understand why 35% of those with complete endoscopic healing relapsed, Miguel Regueiro, MD, chair of the Cleveland Clinic’s Digestive Disease & Surgery Institute, told this news organization.

“Are there predictors, factors, or other treatments that could be used to reduce that 35% risk of relapse further?” he questioned.

Although the study didn’t clear up that question for Dr. Regueiro, he found it compelling that mesalamine continuation resulted in higher rates of sustained remission after anti-TNF withdrawal among patients with ulcerative colitis.

Dr. Regueiro said that he will not begin recommending withdrawal of advanced therapies, including anti-TNF drugs, in patients who have achieved a stable remission.

“We have not yet found the cure for IBD, and my concern is that patients may relapse with more severe disease than previously and that recurrence of inflammation could have potential risks for complications,” he said.

“Nonetheless, this study is intriguing and important, and at least prompts the discussion of withdrawing therapy in those who have achieved a deep endoscopic remission for a sustained period of time,” Dr. Regueiro added.

The study received support from the Dutch Health Insurance Innovation Fund.

Dr. Oldenburg declares relationships with AbbVie, Celltrion, Ferring, Takeda, Galapagos, Pfizer, Cablon, PBMS, Janssen, and MSD. Other authors also declare numerous relationships. The full list can be found with the original article. Dr. Hanauer declares relationships with AbbVie, Janssen, Pfizer, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Regueiro declares relationships with AbbVie, Janssen, UCB, Takeda, Pfizer, Miraca Labs, Amgen, Celgene, Seres, Allergan, Genentech, Gilead, Salix, Prometheus, Lilly, TARGET Pharma Solutions, ALFASIGMA, S.p.A., BMS, CME Outfitters, Imedex, GI Health Foundation, Cornerstones, Remedy, MJH Life Sciences, Medscape, MDEducation, WebMD, and HMPGlobal.

Help your patients better understand their IBD treatment options by sharing AGA’s patient education, “Living with IBD,” in the AGA GI Patient Center at www.gastro.org/IBD. 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The level of remission in patients with remitting inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) appears to play a major role in whether they will relapse after treatment when biologic therapies are discontinued, according to a new prospective study.

Patients with complete endoscopic healing have half the rate of relapse after withdrawal of anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha (anti-TNF) treatment than those with only partial healing, according to a study published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

“Applying strict criteria for endoscopic healing and mesalamine treatment ... may lower the risk of relapse after withdrawal of anti-TNF treatment,” write Bas Oldenburg, MD, PhD, a professor at University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands, and colleagues in their analysis of 81 patients.

De-escalation of anti-TNF treatment in IBD patients in remission has the potential to “reduce side effects, including risks of serious infections and malignancies, decrease health care expenditures, and meet patients’ preferences,” they note.

However, withdrawal of the drugs increases the risk of relapse by 30%-45% at 12 months. When patients relapse, reintroduction of anti-TNF therapy returns over 80% to remission.

Although no consensus exists on how to select patients for therapy de-escalation, evidence suggests that persistent inflammation affects outcomes and that the “depth” of endoscopic healing is a key indicator, the authors note.
 

Study details

To further the knowledge base, they conducted a prospective study of patients in remission to determine the relapse rate following de-escalation of anti-TNF therapy; evaluate relapse factors, including degree of endoscopic healing; and assess outcomes after reintroduction of anti-TNF therapy.

The study was limited to adult patients with IBD with at least 6 months of corticosteroid-free clinical remission, confirmed baseline clinical remission and endoscopic healing, no current hospitalization, and no pregnancy.

The patients underwent elective discontinuation of anti-TNF therapy between 2018 and 2020. The recommended protocol was to measure C-reactive protein (CRP) and fecal calprotectin at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months and to perform endoscopy at 12 months.

Patients also completed questionnaires at baseline and at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months. The authors selected the patient–Harvey-Bradshaw Index for patients with Crohn’s disease and the patient–Simple Clinical Colitis Activity Index for patients with ulcerative colitis and unclassified IBD, as well as the short IBD Quality of Life measure.

Of the 81 patients from 13 centers who took part, 51% had Crohn’s disease. The median duration of remission at baseline was 3.5 years, and the median disease duration was 9.1 years.

All patients had evidence of endoscopic healing, and 88% met the strict criteria for complete endoscopic healing. In 34%, trough levels of anti-TNF treatments were judged to be subtherapeutic.

After withdrawal of the drugs, 25.9% of patients continued on immunomodulators.

Over a median follow-up of 2 years, 49% of patients relapsed, which was confirmed via endoscopy, fecal calprotectin, or CRP in 83% of cases and inferred from treatment escalation for clinical flare in 17%. Rates of relapse were comparable between patients with Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis or unclassified IBD and between those discontinuing adalimumab and those stopping infliximab.
 

Better healing, better outcomes

However, analysis showed that partial endoscopic healing was independently associated with a higher risk of relapse, at an adjusted hazard ratio versus complete endoscopic healing of 3.28.

At 12 months, 70% of patients with partial endoscopic healing had relapsed versus 35% of those with complete endoscopic healing.

Treatment with the anti-inflammatory agent mesalamine (multiple brands) was independently associated with a reduced risk of relapse, at an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.08. No other potential predictors of relapse were identified.

Of the patients who relapsed, 75% restarted anti-TNF treatment, and the majority (87%) were restarted on the same agent at a median of 0.9 years since its withdrawal and a median of 24 days since the onset of relapse.

Clinical remission was achieved at 3 months in 73% of patients who restarted anti-TNF therapy, which was found to restore quality of life and well-being in relapsed patients, the authors report.
 

Reluctance remains

Stephen B. Hanauer, MD, professor of medicine (gastroenterology and hepatology) at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, said the findings “reinforce the benefits of the maintenance versus the withdrawal of therapy” and “the deeper the remission” the more likely it is to be sustained.

The 35% relapse rate at 12 months, even in patients with compete endoscopic healing, indicates that treatment should be maintained, Dr. Hanauer said.

“What is also relevant, but was not evaluated, is the additional endpoint of histologic healing, which is likely to sustain remissions even longer,” he added.

Nevertheless, Dr. Hanauer said, the “observed relapse rate is important to discuss in shared decision-making with patients.”

The findings are interesting, but the study didn’t follow the patients for long enough to understand why 35% of those with complete endoscopic healing relapsed, Miguel Regueiro, MD, chair of the Cleveland Clinic’s Digestive Disease & Surgery Institute, told this news organization.

“Are there predictors, factors, or other treatments that could be used to reduce that 35% risk of relapse further?” he questioned.

Although the study didn’t clear up that question for Dr. Regueiro, he found it compelling that mesalamine continuation resulted in higher rates of sustained remission after anti-TNF withdrawal among patients with ulcerative colitis.

Dr. Regueiro said that he will not begin recommending withdrawal of advanced therapies, including anti-TNF drugs, in patients who have achieved a stable remission.

“We have not yet found the cure for IBD, and my concern is that patients may relapse with more severe disease than previously and that recurrence of inflammation could have potential risks for complications,” he said.

“Nonetheless, this study is intriguing and important, and at least prompts the discussion of withdrawing therapy in those who have achieved a deep endoscopic remission for a sustained period of time,” Dr. Regueiro added.

The study received support from the Dutch Health Insurance Innovation Fund.

Dr. Oldenburg declares relationships with AbbVie, Celltrion, Ferring, Takeda, Galapagos, Pfizer, Cablon, PBMS, Janssen, and MSD. Other authors also declare numerous relationships. The full list can be found with the original article. Dr. Hanauer declares relationships with AbbVie, Janssen, Pfizer, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Regueiro declares relationships with AbbVie, Janssen, UCB, Takeda, Pfizer, Miraca Labs, Amgen, Celgene, Seres, Allergan, Genentech, Gilead, Salix, Prometheus, Lilly, TARGET Pharma Solutions, ALFASIGMA, S.p.A., BMS, CME Outfitters, Imedex, GI Health Foundation, Cornerstones, Remedy, MJH Life Sciences, Medscape, MDEducation, WebMD, and HMPGlobal.

Help your patients better understand their IBD treatment options by sharing AGA’s patient education, “Living with IBD,” in the AGA GI Patient Center at www.gastro.org/IBD. 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The level of remission in patients with remitting inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) appears to play a major role in whether they will relapse after treatment when biologic therapies are discontinued, according to a new prospective study.

Patients with complete endoscopic healing have half the rate of relapse after withdrawal of anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha (anti-TNF) treatment than those with only partial healing, according to a study published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

“Applying strict criteria for endoscopic healing and mesalamine treatment ... may lower the risk of relapse after withdrawal of anti-TNF treatment,” write Bas Oldenburg, MD, PhD, a professor at University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands, and colleagues in their analysis of 81 patients.

De-escalation of anti-TNF treatment in IBD patients in remission has the potential to “reduce side effects, including risks of serious infections and malignancies, decrease health care expenditures, and meet patients’ preferences,” they note.

However, withdrawal of the drugs increases the risk of relapse by 30%-45% at 12 months. When patients relapse, reintroduction of anti-TNF therapy returns over 80% to remission.

Although no consensus exists on how to select patients for therapy de-escalation, evidence suggests that persistent inflammation affects outcomes and that the “depth” of endoscopic healing is a key indicator, the authors note.
 

Study details

To further the knowledge base, they conducted a prospective study of patients in remission to determine the relapse rate following de-escalation of anti-TNF therapy; evaluate relapse factors, including degree of endoscopic healing; and assess outcomes after reintroduction of anti-TNF therapy.

The study was limited to adult patients with IBD with at least 6 months of corticosteroid-free clinical remission, confirmed baseline clinical remission and endoscopic healing, no current hospitalization, and no pregnancy.

The patients underwent elective discontinuation of anti-TNF therapy between 2018 and 2020. The recommended protocol was to measure C-reactive protein (CRP) and fecal calprotectin at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months and to perform endoscopy at 12 months.

Patients also completed questionnaires at baseline and at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months. The authors selected the patient–Harvey-Bradshaw Index for patients with Crohn’s disease and the patient–Simple Clinical Colitis Activity Index for patients with ulcerative colitis and unclassified IBD, as well as the short IBD Quality of Life measure.

Of the 81 patients from 13 centers who took part, 51% had Crohn’s disease. The median duration of remission at baseline was 3.5 years, and the median disease duration was 9.1 years.

All patients had evidence of endoscopic healing, and 88% met the strict criteria for complete endoscopic healing. In 34%, trough levels of anti-TNF treatments were judged to be subtherapeutic.

After withdrawal of the drugs, 25.9% of patients continued on immunomodulators.

Over a median follow-up of 2 years, 49% of patients relapsed, which was confirmed via endoscopy, fecal calprotectin, or CRP in 83% of cases and inferred from treatment escalation for clinical flare in 17%. Rates of relapse were comparable between patients with Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis or unclassified IBD and between those discontinuing adalimumab and those stopping infliximab.
 

Better healing, better outcomes

However, analysis showed that partial endoscopic healing was independently associated with a higher risk of relapse, at an adjusted hazard ratio versus complete endoscopic healing of 3.28.

At 12 months, 70% of patients with partial endoscopic healing had relapsed versus 35% of those with complete endoscopic healing.

Treatment with the anti-inflammatory agent mesalamine (multiple brands) was independently associated with a reduced risk of relapse, at an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.08. No other potential predictors of relapse were identified.

Of the patients who relapsed, 75% restarted anti-TNF treatment, and the majority (87%) were restarted on the same agent at a median of 0.9 years since its withdrawal and a median of 24 days since the onset of relapse.

Clinical remission was achieved at 3 months in 73% of patients who restarted anti-TNF therapy, which was found to restore quality of life and well-being in relapsed patients, the authors report.
 

Reluctance remains

Stephen B. Hanauer, MD, professor of medicine (gastroenterology and hepatology) at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, said the findings “reinforce the benefits of the maintenance versus the withdrawal of therapy” and “the deeper the remission” the more likely it is to be sustained.

The 35% relapse rate at 12 months, even in patients with compete endoscopic healing, indicates that treatment should be maintained, Dr. Hanauer said.

“What is also relevant, but was not evaluated, is the additional endpoint of histologic healing, which is likely to sustain remissions even longer,” he added.

Nevertheless, Dr. Hanauer said, the “observed relapse rate is important to discuss in shared decision-making with patients.”

The findings are interesting, but the study didn’t follow the patients for long enough to understand why 35% of those with complete endoscopic healing relapsed, Miguel Regueiro, MD, chair of the Cleveland Clinic’s Digestive Disease & Surgery Institute, told this news organization.

“Are there predictors, factors, or other treatments that could be used to reduce that 35% risk of relapse further?” he questioned.

Although the study didn’t clear up that question for Dr. Regueiro, he found it compelling that mesalamine continuation resulted in higher rates of sustained remission after anti-TNF withdrawal among patients with ulcerative colitis.

Dr. Regueiro said that he will not begin recommending withdrawal of advanced therapies, including anti-TNF drugs, in patients who have achieved a stable remission.

“We have not yet found the cure for IBD, and my concern is that patients may relapse with more severe disease than previously and that recurrence of inflammation could have potential risks for complications,” he said.

“Nonetheless, this study is intriguing and important, and at least prompts the discussion of withdrawing therapy in those who have achieved a deep endoscopic remission for a sustained period of time,” Dr. Regueiro added.

The study received support from the Dutch Health Insurance Innovation Fund.

Dr. Oldenburg declares relationships with AbbVie, Celltrion, Ferring, Takeda, Galapagos, Pfizer, Cablon, PBMS, Janssen, and MSD. Other authors also declare numerous relationships. The full list can be found with the original article. Dr. Hanauer declares relationships with AbbVie, Janssen, Pfizer, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Regueiro declares relationships with AbbVie, Janssen, UCB, Takeda, Pfizer, Miraca Labs, Amgen, Celgene, Seres, Allergan, Genentech, Gilead, Salix, Prometheus, Lilly, TARGET Pharma Solutions, ALFASIGMA, S.p.A., BMS, CME Outfitters, Imedex, GI Health Foundation, Cornerstones, Remedy, MJH Life Sciences, Medscape, MDEducation, WebMD, and HMPGlobal.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The level of remission in patients with remitting inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) appears to play a major role in whether they will relapse after treatment when biologic therapies are discontinued, according to a new prospective study.

Patients with complete endoscopic healing have half the rate of relapse after withdrawal of anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha (anti-TNF) treatment than those with only partial healing, according to a study published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

“Applying strict criteria for endoscopic healing and mesalamine treatment ... may lower the risk of relapse after withdrawal of anti-TNF treatment,” write Bas Oldenburg, MD, PhD, a professor at University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands, and colleagues in their analysis of 81 patients.

De-escalation of anti-TNF treatment in IBD patients in remission has the potential to “reduce side effects, including risks of serious infections and malignancies, decrease health care expenditures, and meet patients’ preferences,” they note.

However, withdrawal of the drugs increases the risk of relapse by 30%-45% at 12 months. When patients relapse, reintroduction of anti-TNF therapy returns over 80% to remission.

Although no consensus exists on how to select patients for therapy de-escalation, evidence suggests that persistent inflammation affects outcomes and that the “depth” of endoscopic healing is a key indicator, the authors note.
 

Study details

To further the knowledge base, they conducted a prospective study of patients in remission to determine the relapse rate following de-escalation of anti-TNF therapy; evaluate relapse factors, including degree of endoscopic healing; and assess outcomes after reintroduction of anti-TNF therapy.

The study was limited to adult patients with IBD with at least 6 months of corticosteroid-free clinical remission, confirmed baseline clinical remission and endoscopic healing, no current hospitalization, and no pregnancy.

The patients underwent elective discontinuation of anti-TNF therapy between 2018 and 2020. The recommended protocol was to measure C-reactive protein (CRP) and fecal calprotectin at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months and to perform endoscopy at 12 months.

Patients also completed questionnaires at baseline and at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months. The authors selected the patient–Harvey-Bradshaw Index for patients with Crohn’s disease and the patient–Simple Clinical Colitis Activity Index for patients with ulcerative colitis and unclassified IBD, as well as the short IBD Quality of Life measure.

Of the 81 patients from 13 centers who took part, 51% had Crohn’s disease. The median duration of remission at baseline was 3.5 years, and the median disease duration was 9.1 years.

All patients had evidence of endoscopic healing, and 88% met the strict criteria for complete endoscopic healing. In 34%, trough levels of anti-TNF treatments were judged to be subtherapeutic.

After withdrawal of the drugs, 25.9% of patients continued on immunomodulators.

Over a median follow-up of 2 years, 49% of patients relapsed, which was confirmed via endoscopy, fecal calprotectin, or CRP in 83% of cases and inferred from treatment escalation for clinical flare in 17%. Rates of relapse were comparable between patients with Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis or unclassified IBD and between those discontinuing adalimumab and those stopping infliximab.
 

Better healing, better outcomes

However, analysis showed that partial endoscopic healing was independently associated with a higher risk of relapse, at an adjusted hazard ratio versus complete endoscopic healing of 3.28.

At 12 months, 70% of patients with partial endoscopic healing had relapsed versus 35% of those with complete endoscopic healing.

Treatment with the anti-inflammatory agent mesalamine (multiple brands) was independently associated with a reduced risk of relapse, at an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.08. No other potential predictors of relapse were identified.

Of the patients who relapsed, 75% restarted anti-TNF treatment, and the majority (87%) were restarted on the same agent at a median of 0.9 years since its withdrawal and a median of 24 days since the onset of relapse.

Clinical remission was achieved at 3 months in 73% of patients who restarted anti-TNF therapy, which was found to restore quality of life and well-being in relapsed patients, the authors report.
 

Reluctance remains

Stephen B. Hanauer, MD, professor of medicine (gastroenterology and hepatology) at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, said the findings “reinforce the benefits of the maintenance versus the withdrawal of therapy” and “the deeper the remission” the more likely it is to be sustained.

The 35% relapse rate at 12 months, even in patients with compete endoscopic healing, indicates that treatment should be maintained, Dr. Hanauer said.

“What is also relevant, but was not evaluated, is the additional endpoint of histologic healing, which is likely to sustain remissions even longer,” he added.

Nevertheless, Dr. Hanauer said, the “observed relapse rate is important to discuss in shared decision-making with patients.”

The findings are interesting, but the study didn’t follow the patients for long enough to understand why 35% of those with complete endoscopic healing relapsed, Miguel Regueiro, MD, chair of the Cleveland Clinic’s Digestive Disease & Surgery Institute, told this news organization.

“Are there predictors, factors, or other treatments that could be used to reduce that 35% risk of relapse further?” he questioned.

Although the study didn’t clear up that question for Dr. Regueiro, he found it compelling that mesalamine continuation resulted in higher rates of sustained remission after anti-TNF withdrawal among patients with ulcerative colitis.

Dr. Regueiro said that he will not begin recommending withdrawal of advanced therapies, including anti-TNF drugs, in patients who have achieved a stable remission.

“We have not yet found the cure for IBD, and my concern is that patients may relapse with more severe disease than previously and that recurrence of inflammation could have potential risks for complications,” he said.

“Nonetheless, this study is intriguing and important, and at least prompts the discussion of withdrawing therapy in those who have achieved a deep endoscopic remission for a sustained period of time,” Dr. Regueiro added.

The study received support from the Dutch Health Insurance Innovation Fund.

Dr. Oldenburg declares relationships with AbbVie, Celltrion, Ferring, Takeda, Galapagos, Pfizer, Cablon, PBMS, Janssen, and MSD. Other authors also declare numerous relationships. The full list can be found with the original article. Dr. Hanauer declares relationships with AbbVie, Janssen, Pfizer, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Regueiro declares relationships with AbbVie, Janssen, UCB, Takeda, Pfizer, Miraca Labs, Amgen, Celgene, Seres, Allergan, Genentech, Gilead, Salix, Prometheus, Lilly, TARGET Pharma Solutions, ALFASIGMA, S.p.A., BMS, CME Outfitters, Imedex, GI Health Foundation, Cornerstones, Remedy, MJH Life Sciences, Medscape, MDEducation, WebMD, and HMPGlobal.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The level of remission in patients with remitting inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) appears to play a major role in whether they will relapse after treatment when biologic therapies are discontinued, according to a new prospective study.

Patients with complete endoscopic healing have half the rate of relapse after withdrawal of anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha (anti-TNF) treatment than those with only partial healing, according to a study published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

“Applying strict criteria for endoscopic healing and mesalamine treatment ... may lower the risk of relapse after withdrawal of anti-TNF treatment,” write Bas Oldenburg, MD, PhD, a professor at University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands, and colleagues in their analysis of 81 patients.

De-escalation of anti-TNF treatment in IBD patients in remission has the potential to “reduce side effects, including risks of serious infections and malignancies, decrease health care expenditures, and meet patients’ preferences,” they note.

However, withdrawal of the drugs increases the risk of relapse by 30%-45% at 12 months. When patients relapse, reintroduction of anti-TNF therapy returns over 80% to remission.

Although no consensus exists on how to select patients for therapy de-escalation, evidence suggests that persistent inflammation affects outcomes and that the “depth” of endoscopic healing is a key indicator, the authors note.
 

Study details

To further the knowledge base, they conducted a prospective study of patients in remission to determine the relapse rate following de-escalation of anti-TNF therapy; evaluate relapse factors, including degree of endoscopic healing; and assess outcomes after reintroduction of anti-TNF therapy.

The study was limited to adult patients with IBD with at least 6 months of corticosteroid-free clinical remission, confirmed baseline clinical remission and endoscopic healing, no current hospitalization, and no pregnancy.

The patients underwent elective discontinuation of anti-TNF therapy between 2018 and 2020. The recommended protocol was to measure C-reactive protein (CRP) and fecal calprotectin at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months and to perform endoscopy at 12 months.

Patients also completed questionnaires at baseline and at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months. The authors selected the patient–Harvey-Bradshaw Index for patients with Crohn’s disease and the patient–Simple Clinical Colitis Activity Index for patients with ulcerative colitis and unclassified IBD, as well as the short IBD Quality of Life measure.

Of the 81 patients from 13 centers who took part, 51% had Crohn’s disease. The median duration of remission at baseline was 3.5 years, and the median disease duration was 9.1 years.

All patients had evidence of endoscopic healing, and 88% met the strict criteria for complete endoscopic healing. In 34%, trough levels of anti-TNF treatments were judged to be subtherapeutic.

After withdrawal of the drugs, 25.9% of patients continued on immunomodulators.

Over a median follow-up of 2 years, 49% of patients relapsed, which was confirmed via endoscopy, fecal calprotectin, or CRP in 83% of cases and inferred from treatment escalation for clinical flare in 17%. Rates of relapse were comparable between patients with Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis or unclassified IBD and between those discontinuing adalimumab and those stopping infliximab.
 

Better healing, better outcomes

However, analysis showed that partial endoscopic healing was independently associated with a higher risk of relapse, at an adjusted hazard ratio versus complete endoscopic healing of 3.28.

At 12 months, 70% of patients with partial endoscopic healing had relapsed versus 35% of those with complete endoscopic healing.

Treatment with the anti-inflammatory agent mesalamine (multiple brands) was independently associated with a reduced risk of relapse, at an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.08. No other potential predictors of relapse were identified.

Of the patients who relapsed, 75% restarted anti-TNF treatment, and the majority (87%) were restarted on the same agent at a median of 0.9 years since its withdrawal and a median of 24 days since the onset of relapse.

Clinical remission was achieved at 3 months in 73% of patients who restarted anti-TNF therapy, which was found to restore quality of life and well-being in relapsed patients, the authors report.
 

Reluctance remains

Stephen B. Hanauer, MD, professor of medicine (gastroenterology and hepatology) at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, said the findings “reinforce the benefits of the maintenance versus the withdrawal of therapy” and “the deeper the remission” the more likely it is to be sustained.

The 35% relapse rate at 12 months, even in patients with compete endoscopic healing, indicates that treatment should be maintained, Dr. Hanauer said.

“What is also relevant, but was not evaluated, is the additional endpoint of histologic healing, which is likely to sustain remissions even longer,” he added.

Nevertheless, Dr. Hanauer said, the “observed relapse rate is important to discuss in shared decision-making with patients.”

The findings are interesting, but the study didn’t follow the patients for long enough to understand why 35% of those with complete endoscopic healing relapsed, Miguel Regueiro, MD, chair of the Cleveland Clinic’s Digestive Disease & Surgery Institute, told this news organization.

“Are there predictors, factors, or other treatments that could be used to reduce that 35% risk of relapse further?” he questioned.

Although the study didn’t clear up that question for Dr. Regueiro, he found it compelling that mesalamine continuation resulted in higher rates of sustained remission after anti-TNF withdrawal among patients with ulcerative colitis.

Dr. Regueiro said that he will not begin recommending withdrawal of advanced therapies, including anti-TNF drugs, in patients who have achieved a stable remission.

“We have not yet found the cure for IBD, and my concern is that patients may relapse with more severe disease than previously and that recurrence of inflammation could have potential risks for complications,” he said.

“Nonetheless, this study is intriguing and important, and at least prompts the discussion of withdrawing therapy in those who have achieved a deep endoscopic remission for a sustained period of time,” Dr. Regueiro added.

The study received support from the Dutch Health Insurance Innovation Fund.

Dr. Oldenburg declares relationships with AbbVie, Celltrion, Ferring, Takeda, Galapagos, Pfizer, Cablon, PBMS, Janssen, and MSD. Other authors also declare numerous relationships. The full list can be found with the original article. Dr. Hanauer declares relationships with AbbVie, Janssen, Pfizer, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr. Regueiro declares relationships with AbbVie, Janssen, UCB, Takeda, Pfizer, Miraca Labs, Amgen, Celgene, Seres, Allergan, Genentech, Gilead, Salix, Prometheus, Lilly, TARGET Pharma Solutions, ALFASIGMA, S.p.A., BMS, CME Outfitters, Imedex, GI Health Foundation, Cornerstones, Remedy, MJH Life Sciences, Medscape, MDEducation, WebMD, and HMPGlobal.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.