User login
Opioids increase risk for all-cause deaths in RA vs. NSAIDs
PHILADELPHIA – For patients with rheumatoid arthritis who are already at increased risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), NSAIDs may be safer than opioids, results of a new-user active comparator study suggest.
Among 6,866 patients with RA who started on opioids and 13,698 patients who started on NSAIDs for pain, the use of both weak and strong opioids was associated with a 33% increase in risk for all-cause mortality and a trend toward higher rates of venous thromboembolism (VTE), compared with NSAID use, reported Gulsen Ozen, MD, of the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha.
“Pain in RA is a very complex process, and we know that it’s not solely dependent on the disease activity, but there is no evidence that opioids have any benefit in long-term pain management, and it can even cause hyperalgesia. And as we show, it’s not safer than NSAIDs,” she said in an oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.
She stressed that patients should be assessed for non-RA causes of pain and should use nonpharmacologic methods when possible.
“If a pharmacological treatment is needed and NSAIDs are contraindicated, the lowest possible dose of weak opioids can be used for a very limited time for acute pain only,” she said.
Pain despite disease control
Even when their disease is well controlled, approximately 60% of patients with RA still report pain. NSAIDs are commonly used to treat pain in patients with RA, but they are associated with modest increases in risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD), gastrointestinal bleeding, renal injury, and hypertension.
Some providers are leery of NSAIDs and will instead prescribe either regular or intermittent opioids for pain control in their patients.
Disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs have only minimal pain-relieving benefits, “and even worse, opioids can delay initiation of DMARDs in RA,” Dr. Ozen said.
Opioids have been shown to increase oxidative stress, platelet aggregation, and myocardial fibrosis, as well as hypogonadism, weight gain, and CVD risk factors.
There is little evidence, however, on whether opioids are associated with cardiovascular events in patients with RA. This dearth of data prompted Dr. Ozen and colleagues to study the relative risks for MACE in patients with RA starting on opioids or NSAIDs for pain.
Matched cohorts
They used data from FORWARD, a joint Canadian and U.S. databank for rheumatic diseases, to conduct a new-user active comparator cohort study. The cohort included adults with RA without cancer who participated in FORWARD for a minimum of 1 year between 1998 and 2021.
The patients were followed either from drug initiation until 3 months after the end of treatment, defined as either discontinuation or a switch to a different analgesic, end of study follow-up, or the development of a MACE outcome.
The investigators used propensity score matching to compare each opioid initiator with two NSAID initiators. The participants were matched by age, sex, body mass index, smoking, alcohol, RA duration, disease activity, Health Assessment Questionnaire, visual analog scale for pain, joint surgeries, prior CVD and VTE, hypertension, diabetes, rheumatic diseases comorbidity index, osteoporosis/fractures, thyroid, chronic liver, kidney, lung and mental health diseases, hospitalizations, 36-Item Short Form Health Survey scores, and sleep scores.
The two groups were well matched, except for a slightly higher incidence of VTE in opioid initiators, although incidence rates were low in both groups (0.9% vs. 0.6% of NSAID initiators).
Higher death rate in opioid users
The incidence rate of MACE among opioid initiators was 20.6% versus18.9% among NSAID initiators, a difference that was not statistically significant. There were also no significant differences in incidence rates of the individual components of the MACE composite outcome: myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, CVD death, or VTE.
There were, however, significantly more deaths from any cause among patients in the opioid group, with an incidence rate of 13.5% versus 10.8% in the NSAID group.
An analysis of the associaion of drug type with outcomes, adjusted for propensity score weight and prior VTE showed that patients on opioids had a statistically significant hazard ratio for death from any cause of 1.33 (95% confidence interval, 1.06-1.67).
The increased risk for all-cause mortality occurred both in patients starting on weak opioids (hydrocodone, tramadol, codeine, pentazocine, and propoxyphene) and on strong opioids (hydromorphone, dihydromorphinone, oxymorphone, butorphanol, methadone, morphine, oxycodone, meperidine, and fentanyl).
As noted before, there was a trend toward an increased risk for VTE among opioid initiators, but this was not statistically significant.
The increase in risk was higher among patients on strong versus weak opioids, suggesting a dose-dependent relationship, Dr. Ozen said.
A comparison of opioid-associated risk for all-cause mortality vs. NSAIDs according to type (nonselective or selective) showed that most of the increase in risk was relative to selective cycloxygenase-2 inhibitors.
‘Beautiful’ analysis
“This is a beautiful piece of analysis on a really difficult question to address because the confounding is really hard to unpick,” commented James Galloway, MBBS, deputy head of the center for rheumatic diseases at King’s College London and consulting rheumatologist at King’s College Hospital, also in London.
“The headline message is that there didn’t appear to be a clear signal that NSAIDs were worse, which is what I thought the preexisting view might have been. And so, people may have paradoxically prescribed opioids in favor of NSAIDs in a person with cardiovascular risk,” he said in an interview. Dr. Galloway attended the oral abstract session but was not involved in the study.
The study was supported by a grant to Dr. Ozen from the Rheumatology Research Foundation. Dr. Galloway reported having no relevant disclosures.
PHILADELPHIA – For patients with rheumatoid arthritis who are already at increased risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), NSAIDs may be safer than opioids, results of a new-user active comparator study suggest.
Among 6,866 patients with RA who started on opioids and 13,698 patients who started on NSAIDs for pain, the use of both weak and strong opioids was associated with a 33% increase in risk for all-cause mortality and a trend toward higher rates of venous thromboembolism (VTE), compared with NSAID use, reported Gulsen Ozen, MD, of the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha.
“Pain in RA is a very complex process, and we know that it’s not solely dependent on the disease activity, but there is no evidence that opioids have any benefit in long-term pain management, and it can even cause hyperalgesia. And as we show, it’s not safer than NSAIDs,” she said in an oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.
She stressed that patients should be assessed for non-RA causes of pain and should use nonpharmacologic methods when possible.
“If a pharmacological treatment is needed and NSAIDs are contraindicated, the lowest possible dose of weak opioids can be used for a very limited time for acute pain only,” she said.
Pain despite disease control
Even when their disease is well controlled, approximately 60% of patients with RA still report pain. NSAIDs are commonly used to treat pain in patients with RA, but they are associated with modest increases in risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD), gastrointestinal bleeding, renal injury, and hypertension.
Some providers are leery of NSAIDs and will instead prescribe either regular or intermittent opioids for pain control in their patients.
Disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs have only minimal pain-relieving benefits, “and even worse, opioids can delay initiation of DMARDs in RA,” Dr. Ozen said.
Opioids have been shown to increase oxidative stress, platelet aggregation, and myocardial fibrosis, as well as hypogonadism, weight gain, and CVD risk factors.
There is little evidence, however, on whether opioids are associated with cardiovascular events in patients with RA. This dearth of data prompted Dr. Ozen and colleagues to study the relative risks for MACE in patients with RA starting on opioids or NSAIDs for pain.
Matched cohorts
They used data from FORWARD, a joint Canadian and U.S. databank for rheumatic diseases, to conduct a new-user active comparator cohort study. The cohort included adults with RA without cancer who participated in FORWARD for a minimum of 1 year between 1998 and 2021.
The patients were followed either from drug initiation until 3 months after the end of treatment, defined as either discontinuation or a switch to a different analgesic, end of study follow-up, or the development of a MACE outcome.
The investigators used propensity score matching to compare each opioid initiator with two NSAID initiators. The participants were matched by age, sex, body mass index, smoking, alcohol, RA duration, disease activity, Health Assessment Questionnaire, visual analog scale for pain, joint surgeries, prior CVD and VTE, hypertension, diabetes, rheumatic diseases comorbidity index, osteoporosis/fractures, thyroid, chronic liver, kidney, lung and mental health diseases, hospitalizations, 36-Item Short Form Health Survey scores, and sleep scores.
The two groups were well matched, except for a slightly higher incidence of VTE in opioid initiators, although incidence rates were low in both groups (0.9% vs. 0.6% of NSAID initiators).
Higher death rate in opioid users
The incidence rate of MACE among opioid initiators was 20.6% versus18.9% among NSAID initiators, a difference that was not statistically significant. There were also no significant differences in incidence rates of the individual components of the MACE composite outcome: myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, CVD death, or VTE.
There were, however, significantly more deaths from any cause among patients in the opioid group, with an incidence rate of 13.5% versus 10.8% in the NSAID group.
An analysis of the associaion of drug type with outcomes, adjusted for propensity score weight and prior VTE showed that patients on opioids had a statistically significant hazard ratio for death from any cause of 1.33 (95% confidence interval, 1.06-1.67).
The increased risk for all-cause mortality occurred both in patients starting on weak opioids (hydrocodone, tramadol, codeine, pentazocine, and propoxyphene) and on strong opioids (hydromorphone, dihydromorphinone, oxymorphone, butorphanol, methadone, morphine, oxycodone, meperidine, and fentanyl).
As noted before, there was a trend toward an increased risk for VTE among opioid initiators, but this was not statistically significant.
The increase in risk was higher among patients on strong versus weak opioids, suggesting a dose-dependent relationship, Dr. Ozen said.
A comparison of opioid-associated risk for all-cause mortality vs. NSAIDs according to type (nonselective or selective) showed that most of the increase in risk was relative to selective cycloxygenase-2 inhibitors.
‘Beautiful’ analysis
“This is a beautiful piece of analysis on a really difficult question to address because the confounding is really hard to unpick,” commented James Galloway, MBBS, deputy head of the center for rheumatic diseases at King’s College London and consulting rheumatologist at King’s College Hospital, also in London.
“The headline message is that there didn’t appear to be a clear signal that NSAIDs were worse, which is what I thought the preexisting view might have been. And so, people may have paradoxically prescribed opioids in favor of NSAIDs in a person with cardiovascular risk,” he said in an interview. Dr. Galloway attended the oral abstract session but was not involved in the study.
The study was supported by a grant to Dr. Ozen from the Rheumatology Research Foundation. Dr. Galloway reported having no relevant disclosures.
PHILADELPHIA – For patients with rheumatoid arthritis who are already at increased risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), NSAIDs may be safer than opioids, results of a new-user active comparator study suggest.
Among 6,866 patients with RA who started on opioids and 13,698 patients who started on NSAIDs for pain, the use of both weak and strong opioids was associated with a 33% increase in risk for all-cause mortality and a trend toward higher rates of venous thromboembolism (VTE), compared with NSAID use, reported Gulsen Ozen, MD, of the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha.
“Pain in RA is a very complex process, and we know that it’s not solely dependent on the disease activity, but there is no evidence that opioids have any benefit in long-term pain management, and it can even cause hyperalgesia. And as we show, it’s not safer than NSAIDs,” she said in an oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.
She stressed that patients should be assessed for non-RA causes of pain and should use nonpharmacologic methods when possible.
“If a pharmacological treatment is needed and NSAIDs are contraindicated, the lowest possible dose of weak opioids can be used for a very limited time for acute pain only,” she said.
Pain despite disease control
Even when their disease is well controlled, approximately 60% of patients with RA still report pain. NSAIDs are commonly used to treat pain in patients with RA, but they are associated with modest increases in risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD), gastrointestinal bleeding, renal injury, and hypertension.
Some providers are leery of NSAIDs and will instead prescribe either regular or intermittent opioids for pain control in their patients.
Disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs have only minimal pain-relieving benefits, “and even worse, opioids can delay initiation of DMARDs in RA,” Dr. Ozen said.
Opioids have been shown to increase oxidative stress, platelet aggregation, and myocardial fibrosis, as well as hypogonadism, weight gain, and CVD risk factors.
There is little evidence, however, on whether opioids are associated with cardiovascular events in patients with RA. This dearth of data prompted Dr. Ozen and colleagues to study the relative risks for MACE in patients with RA starting on opioids or NSAIDs for pain.
Matched cohorts
They used data from FORWARD, a joint Canadian and U.S. databank for rheumatic diseases, to conduct a new-user active comparator cohort study. The cohort included adults with RA without cancer who participated in FORWARD for a minimum of 1 year between 1998 and 2021.
The patients were followed either from drug initiation until 3 months after the end of treatment, defined as either discontinuation or a switch to a different analgesic, end of study follow-up, or the development of a MACE outcome.
The investigators used propensity score matching to compare each opioid initiator with two NSAID initiators. The participants were matched by age, sex, body mass index, smoking, alcohol, RA duration, disease activity, Health Assessment Questionnaire, visual analog scale for pain, joint surgeries, prior CVD and VTE, hypertension, diabetes, rheumatic diseases comorbidity index, osteoporosis/fractures, thyroid, chronic liver, kidney, lung and mental health diseases, hospitalizations, 36-Item Short Form Health Survey scores, and sleep scores.
The two groups were well matched, except for a slightly higher incidence of VTE in opioid initiators, although incidence rates were low in both groups (0.9% vs. 0.6% of NSAID initiators).
Higher death rate in opioid users
The incidence rate of MACE among opioid initiators was 20.6% versus18.9% among NSAID initiators, a difference that was not statistically significant. There were also no significant differences in incidence rates of the individual components of the MACE composite outcome: myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, CVD death, or VTE.
There were, however, significantly more deaths from any cause among patients in the opioid group, with an incidence rate of 13.5% versus 10.8% in the NSAID group.
An analysis of the associaion of drug type with outcomes, adjusted for propensity score weight and prior VTE showed that patients on opioids had a statistically significant hazard ratio for death from any cause of 1.33 (95% confidence interval, 1.06-1.67).
The increased risk for all-cause mortality occurred both in patients starting on weak opioids (hydrocodone, tramadol, codeine, pentazocine, and propoxyphene) and on strong opioids (hydromorphone, dihydromorphinone, oxymorphone, butorphanol, methadone, morphine, oxycodone, meperidine, and fentanyl).
As noted before, there was a trend toward an increased risk for VTE among opioid initiators, but this was not statistically significant.
The increase in risk was higher among patients on strong versus weak opioids, suggesting a dose-dependent relationship, Dr. Ozen said.
A comparison of opioid-associated risk for all-cause mortality vs. NSAIDs according to type (nonselective or selective) showed that most of the increase in risk was relative to selective cycloxygenase-2 inhibitors.
‘Beautiful’ analysis
“This is a beautiful piece of analysis on a really difficult question to address because the confounding is really hard to unpick,” commented James Galloway, MBBS, deputy head of the center for rheumatic diseases at King’s College London and consulting rheumatologist at King’s College Hospital, also in London.
“The headline message is that there didn’t appear to be a clear signal that NSAIDs were worse, which is what I thought the preexisting view might have been. And so, people may have paradoxically prescribed opioids in favor of NSAIDs in a person with cardiovascular risk,” he said in an interview. Dr. Galloway attended the oral abstract session but was not involved in the study.
The study was supported by a grant to Dr. Ozen from the Rheumatology Research Foundation. Dr. Galloway reported having no relevant disclosures.
AT ACR 2022
Prednisone, colchicine equivalent in efficacy for CPP crystal arthritis
PHILADELPHIA – Prednisone appears to have the edge over colchicine for control of pain in patients with acute calcium pyrophosphate (CPP) crystal arthritis, an intensely painful rheumatic disease primarily affecting older patients.
Among 111 patients with acute CPP crystal arthritis randomized to receive either prednisone or colchicine for control of acute pain in a multicenter study, 2 days of therapy with the oral agents provided equivalent pain relief on the second day, and patients generally tolerated each agent well, reported Tristan Pascart, MD, from the Groupement Hospitalier de l’Institut Catholique de Lille (France).
“Almost three-fourths of patients are considered to be good responders to both drugs on day 3, and, maybe, safety is the key issue distinguishing the two treatments: Colchicine was generally well tolerated, but even with this very short time frame of treatment, one patient out of five had diarrhea, which is more of a concern in this elderly population at risk of dehydration,” he said in an oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.
In contrast, only about 6% of patients assigned to prednisone had diarrhea, and other adverse events that occurred more frequently with the corticosteroid, including hypertension, hyperglycemia, and insomnia all resolved after the therapy was stopped.
Common and acutely painful
Acute CPP crystal arthritis is a common complication that often occurs during hospitalization for primarily nonrheumatologic causes, Dr. Pascart said, and “in the absence of clinical trials, the management relies on expert opinion, which stems from extrapolated data from gap studies” primarily with prednisone or colchicine, Dr. Pascart said.
To fill in the knowledge gap, Dr. Pascart and colleagues conducted the COLCHICORT study to evaluate whether the two drugs were comparable in efficacy and safety for control of acute pain in a vulnerable population.
The multicenter, open-label trial included patients older than age 65 years with an estimated glomerular filtration rate above 30 mL/min per 1.73 m2 who presented with acute CPP deposition arthritis with symptoms occurring within the previous 36 hours. CPP arthritis was defined by the identification of CPP crystals on synovial fluid analysis or typical clinical presentation with evidence of chondrocalcinosis on x-rays or ultrasound.
Patients with a history of gout, cognitive decline that could impair pain assessment, or contraindications to either of the study drugs were excluded.
The participants were randomized to receive either colchicine 1.5 mg (1 mg to start, then 0.5 mg one hour later) at baseline and then 1 mg on day 1, or oral prednisone 30 mg at baseline and on day 1. The patients also received 1 g of systemic acetaminophen, and three 50-mg doses of tramadol during the first 24 hours.
Of the 111 patients randomized, 54 were assigned to receive prednisone, and 57 were assigned to receive colchicine. Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups, with a mean age of about 86 years, body mass index of around 25 kg/m2, and blood pressure in the range of 130/69 mm Hg.
For nearly half of all patients in study each arm the most painful joint was the knee, followed by wrists and ankles.
There was no difference between the groups in the primary efficacy outcome of a change at 24 hours over baseline in visual analog scale (VAS) (0-100 mm) scores, either in a per-protocol analysis or modified intention-to-treat analysis. The mean change in VAS at 24 hours in the colchicine group was –36.6 mm, compared with –37.7 mm in the prednisone group. The investigators had previously determined that any difference between the two drugs of less than 13 mm on pain VAS at 24 hours would meet the definition for equivalent efficacy.
In both groups, a majority of patients had either an improvement greater than 50% in pain VAS scores and/or a pain VAS score less than 40 mm at both 24 and 48 hours.
At 7 days of follow-up, 21.8% of patients assigned to colchicine had diarrhea, compared with 5.6% of those assigned to prednisone. Adverse events occurring more frequently with prednisone included hyperglycemia, hypertension, and insomnia.
Patients who received colchicine and were also on statins had a trend toward a higher risk for diarrhea, but the study was not adequately powered to detect an association, and the trend was not statistically significant, Dr. Pascart said.
“Taken together, safety issues suggest that prednisone should be considered as the first-line therapy in acute CPP crystal arthritis. Future research is warranted to determine factors increasing the risk of colchicine-induced diarrhea,” he concluded.
Both drugs are used
Sara K. Tedeschi, MD, from Brigham & Women’s Hospital in Boston, who attended the session where the data were presented, has a special clinical interest in CPP deposition disease. She applauded Dr. Pascart and colleagues for conducting a rare clinical trial in CPP crystal arthritis.
In an interview, she said that the study suggests “we can keep in mind shorter courses of treatment for acute CPP crystal arthritis; I think that’s one big takeaway from this study.”
Asked whether she would change her practice based on the findings, Dr. Tedeschi replied: “I personally am not sure that I would be moved to use prednisone more than colchicine; I actually take away from this that colchicine is equivalent to prednisone for short-term use for CPP arthritis, but I think it’s also really important to note that this is in the context of quite a lot of acetaminophen and quite a lot of tramadol, and frankly I don’t usually use tramadol with my patients, but I might consider doing that, especially as there were no delirium events in this population.”
Dr. Tedeschi was not involved in the study.
Asked the same question, Michael Toprover, MD, from New York University Langone Medical Center, a moderator of the session who was not involved in the study, said: “I usually use a combination of medications. I generally, in someone who is hospitalized in particular and is in such severe pain, use a combination of colchicine and prednisone, unless I’m worried about infection, in which case I’ll start colchicine until we’ve proven that it’s CPPD, and then I’ll add prednisone.”
The study was funded by PHRC-1 GIRCI Nord Ouest, a clinical research program funded by the Ministry of Health in France. Dr. Pascart, Dr. Tedeschi, and Dr. Toprover all reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.
PHILADELPHIA – Prednisone appears to have the edge over colchicine for control of pain in patients with acute calcium pyrophosphate (CPP) crystal arthritis, an intensely painful rheumatic disease primarily affecting older patients.
Among 111 patients with acute CPP crystal arthritis randomized to receive either prednisone or colchicine for control of acute pain in a multicenter study, 2 days of therapy with the oral agents provided equivalent pain relief on the second day, and patients generally tolerated each agent well, reported Tristan Pascart, MD, from the Groupement Hospitalier de l’Institut Catholique de Lille (France).
“Almost three-fourths of patients are considered to be good responders to both drugs on day 3, and, maybe, safety is the key issue distinguishing the two treatments: Colchicine was generally well tolerated, but even with this very short time frame of treatment, one patient out of five had diarrhea, which is more of a concern in this elderly population at risk of dehydration,” he said in an oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.
In contrast, only about 6% of patients assigned to prednisone had diarrhea, and other adverse events that occurred more frequently with the corticosteroid, including hypertension, hyperglycemia, and insomnia all resolved after the therapy was stopped.
Common and acutely painful
Acute CPP crystal arthritis is a common complication that often occurs during hospitalization for primarily nonrheumatologic causes, Dr. Pascart said, and “in the absence of clinical trials, the management relies on expert opinion, which stems from extrapolated data from gap studies” primarily with prednisone or colchicine, Dr. Pascart said.
To fill in the knowledge gap, Dr. Pascart and colleagues conducted the COLCHICORT study to evaluate whether the two drugs were comparable in efficacy and safety for control of acute pain in a vulnerable population.
The multicenter, open-label trial included patients older than age 65 years with an estimated glomerular filtration rate above 30 mL/min per 1.73 m2 who presented with acute CPP deposition arthritis with symptoms occurring within the previous 36 hours. CPP arthritis was defined by the identification of CPP crystals on synovial fluid analysis or typical clinical presentation with evidence of chondrocalcinosis on x-rays or ultrasound.
Patients with a history of gout, cognitive decline that could impair pain assessment, or contraindications to either of the study drugs were excluded.
The participants were randomized to receive either colchicine 1.5 mg (1 mg to start, then 0.5 mg one hour later) at baseline and then 1 mg on day 1, or oral prednisone 30 mg at baseline and on day 1. The patients also received 1 g of systemic acetaminophen, and three 50-mg doses of tramadol during the first 24 hours.
Of the 111 patients randomized, 54 were assigned to receive prednisone, and 57 were assigned to receive colchicine. Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups, with a mean age of about 86 years, body mass index of around 25 kg/m2, and blood pressure in the range of 130/69 mm Hg.
For nearly half of all patients in study each arm the most painful joint was the knee, followed by wrists and ankles.
There was no difference between the groups in the primary efficacy outcome of a change at 24 hours over baseline in visual analog scale (VAS) (0-100 mm) scores, either in a per-protocol analysis or modified intention-to-treat analysis. The mean change in VAS at 24 hours in the colchicine group was –36.6 mm, compared with –37.7 mm in the prednisone group. The investigators had previously determined that any difference between the two drugs of less than 13 mm on pain VAS at 24 hours would meet the definition for equivalent efficacy.
In both groups, a majority of patients had either an improvement greater than 50% in pain VAS scores and/or a pain VAS score less than 40 mm at both 24 and 48 hours.
At 7 days of follow-up, 21.8% of patients assigned to colchicine had diarrhea, compared with 5.6% of those assigned to prednisone. Adverse events occurring more frequently with prednisone included hyperglycemia, hypertension, and insomnia.
Patients who received colchicine and were also on statins had a trend toward a higher risk for diarrhea, but the study was not adequately powered to detect an association, and the trend was not statistically significant, Dr. Pascart said.
“Taken together, safety issues suggest that prednisone should be considered as the first-line therapy in acute CPP crystal arthritis. Future research is warranted to determine factors increasing the risk of colchicine-induced diarrhea,” he concluded.
Both drugs are used
Sara K. Tedeschi, MD, from Brigham & Women’s Hospital in Boston, who attended the session where the data were presented, has a special clinical interest in CPP deposition disease. She applauded Dr. Pascart and colleagues for conducting a rare clinical trial in CPP crystal arthritis.
In an interview, she said that the study suggests “we can keep in mind shorter courses of treatment for acute CPP crystal arthritis; I think that’s one big takeaway from this study.”
Asked whether she would change her practice based on the findings, Dr. Tedeschi replied: “I personally am not sure that I would be moved to use prednisone more than colchicine; I actually take away from this that colchicine is equivalent to prednisone for short-term use for CPP arthritis, but I think it’s also really important to note that this is in the context of quite a lot of acetaminophen and quite a lot of tramadol, and frankly I don’t usually use tramadol with my patients, but I might consider doing that, especially as there were no delirium events in this population.”
Dr. Tedeschi was not involved in the study.
Asked the same question, Michael Toprover, MD, from New York University Langone Medical Center, a moderator of the session who was not involved in the study, said: “I usually use a combination of medications. I generally, in someone who is hospitalized in particular and is in such severe pain, use a combination of colchicine and prednisone, unless I’m worried about infection, in which case I’ll start colchicine until we’ve proven that it’s CPPD, and then I’ll add prednisone.”
The study was funded by PHRC-1 GIRCI Nord Ouest, a clinical research program funded by the Ministry of Health in France. Dr. Pascart, Dr. Tedeschi, and Dr. Toprover all reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.
PHILADELPHIA – Prednisone appears to have the edge over colchicine for control of pain in patients with acute calcium pyrophosphate (CPP) crystal arthritis, an intensely painful rheumatic disease primarily affecting older patients.
Among 111 patients with acute CPP crystal arthritis randomized to receive either prednisone or colchicine for control of acute pain in a multicenter study, 2 days of therapy with the oral agents provided equivalent pain relief on the second day, and patients generally tolerated each agent well, reported Tristan Pascart, MD, from the Groupement Hospitalier de l’Institut Catholique de Lille (France).
“Almost three-fourths of patients are considered to be good responders to both drugs on day 3, and, maybe, safety is the key issue distinguishing the two treatments: Colchicine was generally well tolerated, but even with this very short time frame of treatment, one patient out of five had diarrhea, which is more of a concern in this elderly population at risk of dehydration,” he said in an oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.
In contrast, only about 6% of patients assigned to prednisone had diarrhea, and other adverse events that occurred more frequently with the corticosteroid, including hypertension, hyperglycemia, and insomnia all resolved after the therapy was stopped.
Common and acutely painful
Acute CPP crystal arthritis is a common complication that often occurs during hospitalization for primarily nonrheumatologic causes, Dr. Pascart said, and “in the absence of clinical trials, the management relies on expert opinion, which stems from extrapolated data from gap studies” primarily with prednisone or colchicine, Dr. Pascart said.
To fill in the knowledge gap, Dr. Pascart and colleagues conducted the COLCHICORT study to evaluate whether the two drugs were comparable in efficacy and safety for control of acute pain in a vulnerable population.
The multicenter, open-label trial included patients older than age 65 years with an estimated glomerular filtration rate above 30 mL/min per 1.73 m2 who presented with acute CPP deposition arthritis with symptoms occurring within the previous 36 hours. CPP arthritis was defined by the identification of CPP crystals on synovial fluid analysis or typical clinical presentation with evidence of chondrocalcinosis on x-rays or ultrasound.
Patients with a history of gout, cognitive decline that could impair pain assessment, or contraindications to either of the study drugs were excluded.
The participants were randomized to receive either colchicine 1.5 mg (1 mg to start, then 0.5 mg one hour later) at baseline and then 1 mg on day 1, or oral prednisone 30 mg at baseline and on day 1. The patients also received 1 g of systemic acetaminophen, and three 50-mg doses of tramadol during the first 24 hours.
Of the 111 patients randomized, 54 were assigned to receive prednisone, and 57 were assigned to receive colchicine. Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups, with a mean age of about 86 years, body mass index of around 25 kg/m2, and blood pressure in the range of 130/69 mm Hg.
For nearly half of all patients in study each arm the most painful joint was the knee, followed by wrists and ankles.
There was no difference between the groups in the primary efficacy outcome of a change at 24 hours over baseline in visual analog scale (VAS) (0-100 mm) scores, either in a per-protocol analysis or modified intention-to-treat analysis. The mean change in VAS at 24 hours in the colchicine group was –36.6 mm, compared with –37.7 mm in the prednisone group. The investigators had previously determined that any difference between the two drugs of less than 13 mm on pain VAS at 24 hours would meet the definition for equivalent efficacy.
In both groups, a majority of patients had either an improvement greater than 50% in pain VAS scores and/or a pain VAS score less than 40 mm at both 24 and 48 hours.
At 7 days of follow-up, 21.8% of patients assigned to colchicine had diarrhea, compared with 5.6% of those assigned to prednisone. Adverse events occurring more frequently with prednisone included hyperglycemia, hypertension, and insomnia.
Patients who received colchicine and were also on statins had a trend toward a higher risk for diarrhea, but the study was not adequately powered to detect an association, and the trend was not statistically significant, Dr. Pascart said.
“Taken together, safety issues suggest that prednisone should be considered as the first-line therapy in acute CPP crystal arthritis. Future research is warranted to determine factors increasing the risk of colchicine-induced diarrhea,” he concluded.
Both drugs are used
Sara K. Tedeschi, MD, from Brigham & Women’s Hospital in Boston, who attended the session where the data were presented, has a special clinical interest in CPP deposition disease. She applauded Dr. Pascart and colleagues for conducting a rare clinical trial in CPP crystal arthritis.
In an interview, she said that the study suggests “we can keep in mind shorter courses of treatment for acute CPP crystal arthritis; I think that’s one big takeaway from this study.”
Asked whether she would change her practice based on the findings, Dr. Tedeschi replied: “I personally am not sure that I would be moved to use prednisone more than colchicine; I actually take away from this that colchicine is equivalent to prednisone for short-term use for CPP arthritis, but I think it’s also really important to note that this is in the context of quite a lot of acetaminophen and quite a lot of tramadol, and frankly I don’t usually use tramadol with my patients, but I might consider doing that, especially as there were no delirium events in this population.”
Dr. Tedeschi was not involved in the study.
Asked the same question, Michael Toprover, MD, from New York University Langone Medical Center, a moderator of the session who was not involved in the study, said: “I usually use a combination of medications. I generally, in someone who is hospitalized in particular and is in such severe pain, use a combination of colchicine and prednisone, unless I’m worried about infection, in which case I’ll start colchicine until we’ve proven that it’s CPPD, and then I’ll add prednisone.”
The study was funded by PHRC-1 GIRCI Nord Ouest, a clinical research program funded by the Ministry of Health in France. Dr. Pascart, Dr. Tedeschi, and Dr. Toprover all reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.
AT ACR 2022
Steroids and G-CSF improve 90-day survival in severe alcoholic hepatitis
, researchers from India reported.
Among patients with SAH, the combination of G-CSF and prednisolone was associated with a 90-day survival rate of 88.1%, compared with 78.6% for patients assigned to G-CSF alone, and 64.3% for patients assigned to prednisolone alone (P = .03).
The G-CSF/prednisolone combination was also associated with significantly better steroid responsiveness, as determined by the Lille Model for Alcoholic Hepatitis, reported Shiv K. Sarin, MD, from the Institute of Liver and Biliary Sciences, New Delhi.
The drug combo in steroid-eligible patients also “reduces morbidity related to infections, rehospitalizations, and hepatic encephalopathy [and] reduces infection rates,” Dr. Sarin said at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. He did caution that the treatment requires close monitoring.
Prednisolone-only drawbacks
For patients with SAH, 30-day mortality ranges from 20%-50%. While some patients respond to treatment with corticosteroids, the response is often modest and limited in duration, Dr. Sarin said.
The STOPAH trial found that 15% of patients with SAH treated with prednisolone developed serious infections, compared with 8% of patients on placebo (P = .002), he noted.
Dr. Sarin also pointed to a recent worldwide study attempting to identify the optimal therapeutic window for steroid use in patients with alcoholic hepatitis. The investigators found that corticosteroids reduced 30-day mortality by 41% but only among patients with SAH, especially those with Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores between 25 and 39.
In previous studies, G-CSF has been shown to improve survival in patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure, including patients with SAH; in patients with SAH alone; and in steroid nonresponders, Dr. Sarin said.
Regenerative properties
In an interview with this news organization, Dr. Sarin said that although the use of G-CSF for patients with severe SAH is still under investigation at his center, “we are using G-CSF routinely for decompensated cirrhosis, where it is like an in vivo extension of regenerative stem cells. G-CSF recruits from bone marrow a lot of hematopoietic stem cells and mesenchymal stem cells.”
Dr. Sarin and colleagues hypothesized that G-CSF, with its immunomodulatory and regenerative properties, would be effective either alone or in combination with steroids in steroid-eligible patients with SAH.
To test this idea, they enrolled 126 patients ages 18-65 with SAH, defined as a Maddrey’s Discriminant Function (mDF) score greater than 32. They excluded patients with active infections, acute gastrointestinal bleeding, hepatorenal syndrome, an mDF score greater than 90, autoimmune hepatitis, hepatitis B or C, HIV, pregnancy, hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis, and those with hemoglobin below 8 and baseline white blood cell count over 25,000.
The patients were randomly assigned, 42 in each group, to receive one of the following:
- Prednisolone monotherapy 40 mg/day for 7 days, with the drug stopped at 7 days for patients with Lille scores above 0.45 or continued for up to 21 days for those with Lille scores below 0.45;
- Prednisolone plus G-CSF 300 mcg/day for 7 days, with those who achieve a Lille score above 0.45 stopping the steroid but continuing G-CSF, while those with Lille scores below 0.45 continuing on prednisolone for 21 days, plus G-CSF once every 3 days for 5 additional doses; or
- G-CSF monotherapy at a dose of 150-300 mcg/day for 7 days, then every 3 days for 28 days up to a total of 12 doses.
Improved response
In addition to its superior results on the primary endpoint of 90-day survival, combination therapy was associated with significantly better response to therapy. The mean Lille score at day 7 was 0.14 for the combination, compared with 0.21 for prednisolone alone and 0.28 for G-CSF alone (P = .002).
There were also significantly fewer nonresponders in the combination arm than either of the monotherapy groups (P = .03).
At 90 days, the rate of new infections was significantly higher among patients treated with prednisolone alone, at 35.7%, compared with 19% in the combination arm and 7.1% in the G-CSF alone group (P = .02). There were also significantly fewer skin and mucosal bleeding episodes with the combination (19% vs, 25% and 35.7% with prednisolone and G-CSF monotherapies, respectively, P = .03), as well as lower rates of hepatic encephalopathy (9.5% vs. 47.5% and 25%, respectively, P < .01).
No differences in alcohol relapse rates were found among the three groups.
Patient selection important
“I know a lot of the G-CSF studies that have been conducted in the U.S. and Europe have all been negative,” said David Goldberg, MD, from the University of Miami, during the session. “Do you think there’s something unique in your patients, the microbiome or maybe genetics, that leads to such different results?” he asked Dr. Sarin.
European studies included patients with infections, acute kidney injury (AKI), or other comorbidities that were exclusion criteria in his study, Dr. Sarin noted.
“If you already have an infection, you already have an AKI, then it’s not a good patient for treatment, so I think the choice of patient is important,” he said.
The study was internally supported. Dr. Sarin and Dr. Goldberg report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, researchers from India reported.
Among patients with SAH, the combination of G-CSF and prednisolone was associated with a 90-day survival rate of 88.1%, compared with 78.6% for patients assigned to G-CSF alone, and 64.3% for patients assigned to prednisolone alone (P = .03).
The G-CSF/prednisolone combination was also associated with significantly better steroid responsiveness, as determined by the Lille Model for Alcoholic Hepatitis, reported Shiv K. Sarin, MD, from the Institute of Liver and Biliary Sciences, New Delhi.
The drug combo in steroid-eligible patients also “reduces morbidity related to infections, rehospitalizations, and hepatic encephalopathy [and] reduces infection rates,” Dr. Sarin said at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. He did caution that the treatment requires close monitoring.
Prednisolone-only drawbacks
For patients with SAH, 30-day mortality ranges from 20%-50%. While some patients respond to treatment with corticosteroids, the response is often modest and limited in duration, Dr. Sarin said.
The STOPAH trial found that 15% of patients with SAH treated with prednisolone developed serious infections, compared with 8% of patients on placebo (P = .002), he noted.
Dr. Sarin also pointed to a recent worldwide study attempting to identify the optimal therapeutic window for steroid use in patients with alcoholic hepatitis. The investigators found that corticosteroids reduced 30-day mortality by 41% but only among patients with SAH, especially those with Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores between 25 and 39.
In previous studies, G-CSF has been shown to improve survival in patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure, including patients with SAH; in patients with SAH alone; and in steroid nonresponders, Dr. Sarin said.
Regenerative properties
In an interview with this news organization, Dr. Sarin said that although the use of G-CSF for patients with severe SAH is still under investigation at his center, “we are using G-CSF routinely for decompensated cirrhosis, where it is like an in vivo extension of regenerative stem cells. G-CSF recruits from bone marrow a lot of hematopoietic stem cells and mesenchymal stem cells.”
Dr. Sarin and colleagues hypothesized that G-CSF, with its immunomodulatory and regenerative properties, would be effective either alone or in combination with steroids in steroid-eligible patients with SAH.
To test this idea, they enrolled 126 patients ages 18-65 with SAH, defined as a Maddrey’s Discriminant Function (mDF) score greater than 32. They excluded patients with active infections, acute gastrointestinal bleeding, hepatorenal syndrome, an mDF score greater than 90, autoimmune hepatitis, hepatitis B or C, HIV, pregnancy, hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis, and those with hemoglobin below 8 and baseline white blood cell count over 25,000.
The patients were randomly assigned, 42 in each group, to receive one of the following:
- Prednisolone monotherapy 40 mg/day for 7 days, with the drug stopped at 7 days for patients with Lille scores above 0.45 or continued for up to 21 days for those with Lille scores below 0.45;
- Prednisolone plus G-CSF 300 mcg/day for 7 days, with those who achieve a Lille score above 0.45 stopping the steroid but continuing G-CSF, while those with Lille scores below 0.45 continuing on prednisolone for 21 days, plus G-CSF once every 3 days for 5 additional doses; or
- G-CSF monotherapy at a dose of 150-300 mcg/day for 7 days, then every 3 days for 28 days up to a total of 12 doses.
Improved response
In addition to its superior results on the primary endpoint of 90-day survival, combination therapy was associated with significantly better response to therapy. The mean Lille score at day 7 was 0.14 for the combination, compared with 0.21 for prednisolone alone and 0.28 for G-CSF alone (P = .002).
There were also significantly fewer nonresponders in the combination arm than either of the monotherapy groups (P = .03).
At 90 days, the rate of new infections was significantly higher among patients treated with prednisolone alone, at 35.7%, compared with 19% in the combination arm and 7.1% in the G-CSF alone group (P = .02). There were also significantly fewer skin and mucosal bleeding episodes with the combination (19% vs, 25% and 35.7% with prednisolone and G-CSF monotherapies, respectively, P = .03), as well as lower rates of hepatic encephalopathy (9.5% vs. 47.5% and 25%, respectively, P < .01).
No differences in alcohol relapse rates were found among the three groups.
Patient selection important
“I know a lot of the G-CSF studies that have been conducted in the U.S. and Europe have all been negative,” said David Goldberg, MD, from the University of Miami, during the session. “Do you think there’s something unique in your patients, the microbiome or maybe genetics, that leads to such different results?” he asked Dr. Sarin.
European studies included patients with infections, acute kidney injury (AKI), or other comorbidities that were exclusion criteria in his study, Dr. Sarin noted.
“If you already have an infection, you already have an AKI, then it’s not a good patient for treatment, so I think the choice of patient is important,” he said.
The study was internally supported. Dr. Sarin and Dr. Goldberg report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, researchers from India reported.
Among patients with SAH, the combination of G-CSF and prednisolone was associated with a 90-day survival rate of 88.1%, compared with 78.6% for patients assigned to G-CSF alone, and 64.3% for patients assigned to prednisolone alone (P = .03).
The G-CSF/prednisolone combination was also associated with significantly better steroid responsiveness, as determined by the Lille Model for Alcoholic Hepatitis, reported Shiv K. Sarin, MD, from the Institute of Liver and Biliary Sciences, New Delhi.
The drug combo in steroid-eligible patients also “reduces morbidity related to infections, rehospitalizations, and hepatic encephalopathy [and] reduces infection rates,” Dr. Sarin said at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. He did caution that the treatment requires close monitoring.
Prednisolone-only drawbacks
For patients with SAH, 30-day mortality ranges from 20%-50%. While some patients respond to treatment with corticosteroids, the response is often modest and limited in duration, Dr. Sarin said.
The STOPAH trial found that 15% of patients with SAH treated with prednisolone developed serious infections, compared with 8% of patients on placebo (P = .002), he noted.
Dr. Sarin also pointed to a recent worldwide study attempting to identify the optimal therapeutic window for steroid use in patients with alcoholic hepatitis. The investigators found that corticosteroids reduced 30-day mortality by 41% but only among patients with SAH, especially those with Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores between 25 and 39.
In previous studies, G-CSF has been shown to improve survival in patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure, including patients with SAH; in patients with SAH alone; and in steroid nonresponders, Dr. Sarin said.
Regenerative properties
In an interview with this news organization, Dr. Sarin said that although the use of G-CSF for patients with severe SAH is still under investigation at his center, “we are using G-CSF routinely for decompensated cirrhosis, where it is like an in vivo extension of regenerative stem cells. G-CSF recruits from bone marrow a lot of hematopoietic stem cells and mesenchymal stem cells.”
Dr. Sarin and colleagues hypothesized that G-CSF, with its immunomodulatory and regenerative properties, would be effective either alone or in combination with steroids in steroid-eligible patients with SAH.
To test this idea, they enrolled 126 patients ages 18-65 with SAH, defined as a Maddrey’s Discriminant Function (mDF) score greater than 32. They excluded patients with active infections, acute gastrointestinal bleeding, hepatorenal syndrome, an mDF score greater than 90, autoimmune hepatitis, hepatitis B or C, HIV, pregnancy, hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis, and those with hemoglobin below 8 and baseline white blood cell count over 25,000.
The patients were randomly assigned, 42 in each group, to receive one of the following:
- Prednisolone monotherapy 40 mg/day for 7 days, with the drug stopped at 7 days for patients with Lille scores above 0.45 or continued for up to 21 days for those with Lille scores below 0.45;
- Prednisolone plus G-CSF 300 mcg/day for 7 days, with those who achieve a Lille score above 0.45 stopping the steroid but continuing G-CSF, while those with Lille scores below 0.45 continuing on prednisolone for 21 days, plus G-CSF once every 3 days for 5 additional doses; or
- G-CSF monotherapy at a dose of 150-300 mcg/day for 7 days, then every 3 days for 28 days up to a total of 12 doses.
Improved response
In addition to its superior results on the primary endpoint of 90-day survival, combination therapy was associated with significantly better response to therapy. The mean Lille score at day 7 was 0.14 for the combination, compared with 0.21 for prednisolone alone and 0.28 for G-CSF alone (P = .002).
There were also significantly fewer nonresponders in the combination arm than either of the monotherapy groups (P = .03).
At 90 days, the rate of new infections was significantly higher among patients treated with prednisolone alone, at 35.7%, compared with 19% in the combination arm and 7.1% in the G-CSF alone group (P = .02). There were also significantly fewer skin and mucosal bleeding episodes with the combination (19% vs, 25% and 35.7% with prednisolone and G-CSF monotherapies, respectively, P = .03), as well as lower rates of hepatic encephalopathy (9.5% vs. 47.5% and 25%, respectively, P < .01).
No differences in alcohol relapse rates were found among the three groups.
Patient selection important
“I know a lot of the G-CSF studies that have been conducted in the U.S. and Europe have all been negative,” said David Goldberg, MD, from the University of Miami, during the session. “Do you think there’s something unique in your patients, the microbiome or maybe genetics, that leads to such different results?” he asked Dr. Sarin.
European studies included patients with infections, acute kidney injury (AKI), or other comorbidities that were exclusion criteria in his study, Dr. Sarin noted.
“If you already have an infection, you already have an AKI, then it’s not a good patient for treatment, so I think the choice of patient is important,” he said.
The study was internally supported. Dr. Sarin and Dr. Goldberg report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE LIVER MEETING
Retention rates high after biosimilar-to-biosimilar switch for inflammatory arthritis
PHILADELPHIA – When patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases were switched from one biosimilar agent to another, treatment retention rates were high, investigators in Denmark reported.
The findings suggest patient-related factors rather than drug-related factors appear to determine whether patients will stay on the new drug, the researchers said.
One year after a Danish government-mandated switch from one infliximab (Remicade) biosimilar to another equally efficacious but less costly biosimilar, 83% of patients who had started therapy on a biosimilar (so-called “originator-naive” patients) stayed on the newly assigned therapy. And so did 92% of patients who had started on the original infliximab (“originator experienced”) before they were switched to one biosimilar and then another.
“In regards to potential baseline predictors, we found that treatment withdrawal was more frequent among originator-naive switchers and patients with higher baseline disease activity, especially [in] patient-reported outcomes, which may indicate that treatment-related outcomes may be more affected by patient-related rather than drug-related factors,” said lead author Hafsah Nabi, MD from the Danish biosimilar registry DANBIO and a PhD candidate at the Copenhagen Center for Arthritis Research.
Dr. Nabi reported the results in an oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.
Annual review of biologic agents
In Denmark, health authorities issue annual recommendations for the use of biologic agents. “And since patients receive this treatment free from the hospital, based on the tax system, the switches are made due to these cost considerations,” Dr. Nabi said in an interview.
To get the nod from Danish pharmaceutical regulators, pharmaceutical manufacturers submit drugs that have already been approved by the European Medicines Agency for consideration for treatment of specific indications, explained coauthor Merete Lund Hetland, MD, PhD, DMSc, from Rigshospitalet in Copenhagen.
“Those drugs that are then considered equally safe and effective are invited to this process where they will give their bid, and then the cheapest one will win,” she said.
The winning formulation will be able to capture about 80% of prescriptions for that indication for the coming year.
Awake at the switch
Dr. Nabi, Dr. Hetland, and colleagues studied how one such recent government-mandated switch from one biosimilar to another affected efficacy and patterns of care among patients with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA).
To identify prior comorbidities, they drew data from the DANBIO registry, which is linked to patient specific but anonymous data from other comprehensive birth-to-death patient registries in Denmark.
They looked at all patients with RA, PsA, or axSpA who were switched from CT-P13 (Remsira, Inflectra) to GP1111 (Zessly) from April 1, 2019, to Feb. 1, 2020.
They identified a total of 1,605 patients, including 685 with RA, 314 with PsA, and 606 with axSpa. The median disease duration was 9 years, and 37% of all patients were in remission according to Clinical Disease Activity Index or Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Scale.
Of this group, 1,171 had started therapy on a biosimilar.
As noted above, 83% of patients who had never received original infliximab, and 92% of those who were originator experienced were still on the new biosimilar 1 year after the switch.
In a multivariate analysis controlling for demographic and clinical factors at baseline, the variables significantly associated with treatment withdrawal from the new biosimilar (GP11110) included previous Remicade exposure (hazard ratio, 0.36), methotrexate use (HR, 0.60), and patient-reported global visual analog scale (HR, 1.02).
Among all patients, disease activity was stable 6 months before and after the switch, Dr. Nabi said, although she did not show data to support it.
Patient education benefit
During the session, Jonathan Kay, MD, professor of rheumatology and chair of the division of rheumatology at the University of Massachusetts, Worcester, who was not involved the study, asked Dr. Nabi whether patients were educated about equivalent efficacy and safety of biosimilars prior to the switch. He noted that education prior to switching led to a much lower patient withdrawal rate in a similar switching study conducted in The Netherlands.
“In this study, we haven’t looked more specifically into the education and which strategies have been used prior to switching, and we also conclude in the study that there may be the presence of a nocebo effect, which can be handled by better educating the patients,” she replied.
The nocebo effect refers to the phenomenon in which a patient’s belief that a specific intervention may cause harm actually can lead to negative outcomes – in other words, the opposite of the placebo effect.
In an interview, Dr. Kay said that he is confident about the efficacy, safety, and equivalency of approved biosimilar agents.
“A biosimilar that has been reviewed and approved by a regulatory agency such as the [Food and Drug Administration or the [European Medicines Agency] should be equivalent in efficacy and comparable in safety and immunogenicity. I would be fully confident in switching from the reference product to the biosimilar,” he said.
Dr. Nabi reported that the study was partly funded by a research grant from Sandoz, the maker of GP1111. Dr. Hetland has disclosed grants from various companies, not including Sandoz. Dr. Kay disclosed consulting fees from various companies, not including Sandoz.
PHILADELPHIA – When patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases were switched from one biosimilar agent to another, treatment retention rates were high, investigators in Denmark reported.
The findings suggest patient-related factors rather than drug-related factors appear to determine whether patients will stay on the new drug, the researchers said.
One year after a Danish government-mandated switch from one infliximab (Remicade) biosimilar to another equally efficacious but less costly biosimilar, 83% of patients who had started therapy on a biosimilar (so-called “originator-naive” patients) stayed on the newly assigned therapy. And so did 92% of patients who had started on the original infliximab (“originator experienced”) before they were switched to one biosimilar and then another.
“In regards to potential baseline predictors, we found that treatment withdrawal was more frequent among originator-naive switchers and patients with higher baseline disease activity, especially [in] patient-reported outcomes, which may indicate that treatment-related outcomes may be more affected by patient-related rather than drug-related factors,” said lead author Hafsah Nabi, MD from the Danish biosimilar registry DANBIO and a PhD candidate at the Copenhagen Center for Arthritis Research.
Dr. Nabi reported the results in an oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.
Annual review of biologic agents
In Denmark, health authorities issue annual recommendations for the use of biologic agents. “And since patients receive this treatment free from the hospital, based on the tax system, the switches are made due to these cost considerations,” Dr. Nabi said in an interview.
To get the nod from Danish pharmaceutical regulators, pharmaceutical manufacturers submit drugs that have already been approved by the European Medicines Agency for consideration for treatment of specific indications, explained coauthor Merete Lund Hetland, MD, PhD, DMSc, from Rigshospitalet in Copenhagen.
“Those drugs that are then considered equally safe and effective are invited to this process where they will give their bid, and then the cheapest one will win,” she said.
The winning formulation will be able to capture about 80% of prescriptions for that indication for the coming year.
Awake at the switch
Dr. Nabi, Dr. Hetland, and colleagues studied how one such recent government-mandated switch from one biosimilar to another affected efficacy and patterns of care among patients with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA).
To identify prior comorbidities, they drew data from the DANBIO registry, which is linked to patient specific but anonymous data from other comprehensive birth-to-death patient registries in Denmark.
They looked at all patients with RA, PsA, or axSpA who were switched from CT-P13 (Remsira, Inflectra) to GP1111 (Zessly) from April 1, 2019, to Feb. 1, 2020.
They identified a total of 1,605 patients, including 685 with RA, 314 with PsA, and 606 with axSpa. The median disease duration was 9 years, and 37% of all patients were in remission according to Clinical Disease Activity Index or Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Scale.
Of this group, 1,171 had started therapy on a biosimilar.
As noted above, 83% of patients who had never received original infliximab, and 92% of those who were originator experienced were still on the new biosimilar 1 year after the switch.
In a multivariate analysis controlling for demographic and clinical factors at baseline, the variables significantly associated with treatment withdrawal from the new biosimilar (GP11110) included previous Remicade exposure (hazard ratio, 0.36), methotrexate use (HR, 0.60), and patient-reported global visual analog scale (HR, 1.02).
Among all patients, disease activity was stable 6 months before and after the switch, Dr. Nabi said, although she did not show data to support it.
Patient education benefit
During the session, Jonathan Kay, MD, professor of rheumatology and chair of the division of rheumatology at the University of Massachusetts, Worcester, who was not involved the study, asked Dr. Nabi whether patients were educated about equivalent efficacy and safety of biosimilars prior to the switch. He noted that education prior to switching led to a much lower patient withdrawal rate in a similar switching study conducted in The Netherlands.
“In this study, we haven’t looked more specifically into the education and which strategies have been used prior to switching, and we also conclude in the study that there may be the presence of a nocebo effect, which can be handled by better educating the patients,” she replied.
The nocebo effect refers to the phenomenon in which a patient’s belief that a specific intervention may cause harm actually can lead to negative outcomes – in other words, the opposite of the placebo effect.
In an interview, Dr. Kay said that he is confident about the efficacy, safety, and equivalency of approved biosimilar agents.
“A biosimilar that has been reviewed and approved by a regulatory agency such as the [Food and Drug Administration or the [European Medicines Agency] should be equivalent in efficacy and comparable in safety and immunogenicity. I would be fully confident in switching from the reference product to the biosimilar,” he said.
Dr. Nabi reported that the study was partly funded by a research grant from Sandoz, the maker of GP1111. Dr. Hetland has disclosed grants from various companies, not including Sandoz. Dr. Kay disclosed consulting fees from various companies, not including Sandoz.
PHILADELPHIA – When patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases were switched from one biosimilar agent to another, treatment retention rates were high, investigators in Denmark reported.
The findings suggest patient-related factors rather than drug-related factors appear to determine whether patients will stay on the new drug, the researchers said.
One year after a Danish government-mandated switch from one infliximab (Remicade) biosimilar to another equally efficacious but less costly biosimilar, 83% of patients who had started therapy on a biosimilar (so-called “originator-naive” patients) stayed on the newly assigned therapy. And so did 92% of patients who had started on the original infliximab (“originator experienced”) before they were switched to one biosimilar and then another.
“In regards to potential baseline predictors, we found that treatment withdrawal was more frequent among originator-naive switchers and patients with higher baseline disease activity, especially [in] patient-reported outcomes, which may indicate that treatment-related outcomes may be more affected by patient-related rather than drug-related factors,” said lead author Hafsah Nabi, MD from the Danish biosimilar registry DANBIO and a PhD candidate at the Copenhagen Center for Arthritis Research.
Dr. Nabi reported the results in an oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.
Annual review of biologic agents
In Denmark, health authorities issue annual recommendations for the use of biologic agents. “And since patients receive this treatment free from the hospital, based on the tax system, the switches are made due to these cost considerations,” Dr. Nabi said in an interview.
To get the nod from Danish pharmaceutical regulators, pharmaceutical manufacturers submit drugs that have already been approved by the European Medicines Agency for consideration for treatment of specific indications, explained coauthor Merete Lund Hetland, MD, PhD, DMSc, from Rigshospitalet in Copenhagen.
“Those drugs that are then considered equally safe and effective are invited to this process where they will give their bid, and then the cheapest one will win,” she said.
The winning formulation will be able to capture about 80% of prescriptions for that indication for the coming year.
Awake at the switch
Dr. Nabi, Dr. Hetland, and colleagues studied how one such recent government-mandated switch from one biosimilar to another affected efficacy and patterns of care among patients with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA).
To identify prior comorbidities, they drew data from the DANBIO registry, which is linked to patient specific but anonymous data from other comprehensive birth-to-death patient registries in Denmark.
They looked at all patients with RA, PsA, or axSpA who were switched from CT-P13 (Remsira, Inflectra) to GP1111 (Zessly) from April 1, 2019, to Feb. 1, 2020.
They identified a total of 1,605 patients, including 685 with RA, 314 with PsA, and 606 with axSpa. The median disease duration was 9 years, and 37% of all patients were in remission according to Clinical Disease Activity Index or Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Scale.
Of this group, 1,171 had started therapy on a biosimilar.
As noted above, 83% of patients who had never received original infliximab, and 92% of those who were originator experienced were still on the new biosimilar 1 year after the switch.
In a multivariate analysis controlling for demographic and clinical factors at baseline, the variables significantly associated with treatment withdrawal from the new biosimilar (GP11110) included previous Remicade exposure (hazard ratio, 0.36), methotrexate use (HR, 0.60), and patient-reported global visual analog scale (HR, 1.02).
Among all patients, disease activity was stable 6 months before and after the switch, Dr. Nabi said, although she did not show data to support it.
Patient education benefit
During the session, Jonathan Kay, MD, professor of rheumatology and chair of the division of rheumatology at the University of Massachusetts, Worcester, who was not involved the study, asked Dr. Nabi whether patients were educated about equivalent efficacy and safety of biosimilars prior to the switch. He noted that education prior to switching led to a much lower patient withdrawal rate in a similar switching study conducted in The Netherlands.
“In this study, we haven’t looked more specifically into the education and which strategies have been used prior to switching, and we also conclude in the study that there may be the presence of a nocebo effect, which can be handled by better educating the patients,” she replied.
The nocebo effect refers to the phenomenon in which a patient’s belief that a specific intervention may cause harm actually can lead to negative outcomes – in other words, the opposite of the placebo effect.
In an interview, Dr. Kay said that he is confident about the efficacy, safety, and equivalency of approved biosimilar agents.
“A biosimilar that has been reviewed and approved by a regulatory agency such as the [Food and Drug Administration or the [European Medicines Agency] should be equivalent in efficacy and comparable in safety and immunogenicity. I would be fully confident in switching from the reference product to the biosimilar,” he said.
Dr. Nabi reported that the study was partly funded by a research grant from Sandoz, the maker of GP1111. Dr. Hetland has disclosed grants from various companies, not including Sandoz. Dr. Kay disclosed consulting fees from various companies, not including Sandoz.
AT ACR 2022
First recommendations for cancer screening in myositis issued
AT ACR 2022
PHILADELPHIA – The first consensus screening guidelines for patients with idiopathic inflammatory myopathy (IIM) provide recommendations on risk stratification for individuals, basic and enhanced screening protocols, and screening frequency.
The recommendations, issued by the International Myositis Assessment and Clinical Studies Group (IMACS), stratify cancer risk for individual patients into low, intermediate, or high categories based on the IIM disease subtype, autoantibody status, and clinical features, reported Alexander Oldroyd, PhD, MSc, MBChB of the University of Manchester, England.
“There’s a big unmet need for cancer screening. One in four adults with myositis has cancer, either 3 years before or after a diagnosis of myositis. It’s one of the leading causes of death in these patients, and they’re overwhelmingly diagnosed at a late stage, so we need standardized approaches to get early diagnosis,” he said in an interview at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.
Sharon Kolasinski, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, said in an interview that the guideline is a welcome development for rheumatologists. Dr. Kolasinski moderated the session where Dr. Oldroyd described the guideline, but she was not involved in its formulation.
“I think that we all have wondered for a very long time: What is the optimal cancer screening for myositis patients? We all worry that the onset of their diseases is associated with a coincident cancer, or that they will develop it soon,” she said.
Dr. Oldroyd emphasized that all patients with myositis have elevated risk for cancer compared with the general population and that the guideline categories of low, intermediate, and high are relative only to patients with IIM.
International consensus
The data on which the recommendations are based come from a systematic review and meta-analysis by Dr. Oldroyd and colleagues of 69 studies on cancer risk factors and 9 on IIM-specific cancer screening.
The authors of that paper found that the dermatomyositis subtype, older age, male sex, dysphagia, cutaneous ulceration and antitranscriptional intermediary factor-1 gamma (anti-TIF1-gamma) positivity were associated with significantly increased risk of cancer.
In contrast, polymyositis and clinically amyopathic dermatomyositis subtypes, Raynaud’s phenomenon, interstitial lung disease, very high serum creatine kinase or lactate dehydrogenase levels, and positivity for anti-Jo1 or anti-EJ antibodies were associated with significantly reduced risk of cancer.
The consensus recommendations were developed with anonymous contributions from 75 expert participants in 22 countries, with additional input from 3 patient partners.
Do this
The guideline lists 18 recommendations, of which 13 are strong and 5 are conditional.
An example of a strong recommendation is number 3, based on a moderate level of evidences:
“All adult IIM patients, irrespective of cancer risk, should continue to participate in country/region-specific age and sex appropriate cancer screening programs,” the guideline recommends.
Patients with verified inclusion body myositis or juvenile-onset IIM do not, however, require routine screening for myositis-associated cancer, the guideline says (recommendations 1 and 2).
There are also recommendations that all adults with new-onset IIM be tested for myositis-specific and myositis-associated autoantibodies to assist in stratifying patients by risk category.
The guideline divides screening recommendations into basic and enhanced. The basic screening should include a comprehensive history and physical exam, complete blood count, liver functions tests, erythrocyte sedimentation rates/plasma viscosity, serum protein electrophoresis, urinalysis, and chest x-ray.
Adults with IIM who are determined to be at low risk for IIM-related cancer should have basic cancer screening at the time of IIM diagnosis. Adults with intermediate risk should undergo both basic and enhanced screening at the time of IIM diagnosis, and those with high risk should undergo enhanced screening at the time of myositis diagnosis, with basic screening annually for 3 years, the recommendations say.
Consider doing this
Conditional recommendations (“clinicians should consider ...”) include the use of PET/CT for adults at high risk for cancer when an underlying cancer has not been detected at the time of IIM diagnosis. They also include a single screening test for anti-TIF1-gamma positive dermatomyositis patients whose disease onset was after age 40 and who have at least one additional risk factor.
Also conditionally recommended are upper and lower gastrointestinal endoscopy for patients at high risk when an underlying cancer is not found at the time of IIM diagnosis, nasoendoscopy in geographical regions with elevated risk for nasopharyngeal cancers, and screening for all IIM patients with red-flag symptoms or clinical features of cancer, including unexplained weight loss, family history of cancer, smoking, unexplained fever, or night sweats.
Guided steps
“I think clinicians have a lot of questions such as, ‘well, what should I do, when should I do it?’ These are important clinical questions, and we need guidance about this. We need to balance comprehensiveness with cost-effectiveness, and we need expert opinion about what steps we should take now and which should we take later,” Dr. Kolasinski said.
The guideline development process was supported by the University of Manchester, IMACS, National Institute for Health Research (United Kingdom), National Institutes of Health, National Health Service Northern Care Alliance, The Myositis Association, Myositis UK, University of Pittsburgh, Versus Arthritis, and the Center for Musculoskeletal Research. Dr. Oldroyd and Dr. Kolasinski reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.
AT ACR 2022
PHILADELPHIA – The first consensus screening guidelines for patients with idiopathic inflammatory myopathy (IIM) provide recommendations on risk stratification for individuals, basic and enhanced screening protocols, and screening frequency.
The recommendations, issued by the International Myositis Assessment and Clinical Studies Group (IMACS), stratify cancer risk for individual patients into low, intermediate, or high categories based on the IIM disease subtype, autoantibody status, and clinical features, reported Alexander Oldroyd, PhD, MSc, MBChB of the University of Manchester, England.
“There’s a big unmet need for cancer screening. One in four adults with myositis has cancer, either 3 years before or after a diagnosis of myositis. It’s one of the leading causes of death in these patients, and they’re overwhelmingly diagnosed at a late stage, so we need standardized approaches to get early diagnosis,” he said in an interview at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.
Sharon Kolasinski, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, said in an interview that the guideline is a welcome development for rheumatologists. Dr. Kolasinski moderated the session where Dr. Oldroyd described the guideline, but she was not involved in its formulation.
“I think that we all have wondered for a very long time: What is the optimal cancer screening for myositis patients? We all worry that the onset of their diseases is associated with a coincident cancer, or that they will develop it soon,” she said.
Dr. Oldroyd emphasized that all patients with myositis have elevated risk for cancer compared with the general population and that the guideline categories of low, intermediate, and high are relative only to patients with IIM.
International consensus
The data on which the recommendations are based come from a systematic review and meta-analysis by Dr. Oldroyd and colleagues of 69 studies on cancer risk factors and 9 on IIM-specific cancer screening.
The authors of that paper found that the dermatomyositis subtype, older age, male sex, dysphagia, cutaneous ulceration and antitranscriptional intermediary factor-1 gamma (anti-TIF1-gamma) positivity were associated with significantly increased risk of cancer.
In contrast, polymyositis and clinically amyopathic dermatomyositis subtypes, Raynaud’s phenomenon, interstitial lung disease, very high serum creatine kinase or lactate dehydrogenase levels, and positivity for anti-Jo1 or anti-EJ antibodies were associated with significantly reduced risk of cancer.
The consensus recommendations were developed with anonymous contributions from 75 expert participants in 22 countries, with additional input from 3 patient partners.
Do this
The guideline lists 18 recommendations, of which 13 are strong and 5 are conditional.
An example of a strong recommendation is number 3, based on a moderate level of evidences:
“All adult IIM patients, irrespective of cancer risk, should continue to participate in country/region-specific age and sex appropriate cancer screening programs,” the guideline recommends.
Patients with verified inclusion body myositis or juvenile-onset IIM do not, however, require routine screening for myositis-associated cancer, the guideline says (recommendations 1 and 2).
There are also recommendations that all adults with new-onset IIM be tested for myositis-specific and myositis-associated autoantibodies to assist in stratifying patients by risk category.
The guideline divides screening recommendations into basic and enhanced. The basic screening should include a comprehensive history and physical exam, complete blood count, liver functions tests, erythrocyte sedimentation rates/plasma viscosity, serum protein electrophoresis, urinalysis, and chest x-ray.
Adults with IIM who are determined to be at low risk for IIM-related cancer should have basic cancer screening at the time of IIM diagnosis. Adults with intermediate risk should undergo both basic and enhanced screening at the time of IIM diagnosis, and those with high risk should undergo enhanced screening at the time of myositis diagnosis, with basic screening annually for 3 years, the recommendations say.
Consider doing this
Conditional recommendations (“clinicians should consider ...”) include the use of PET/CT for adults at high risk for cancer when an underlying cancer has not been detected at the time of IIM diagnosis. They also include a single screening test for anti-TIF1-gamma positive dermatomyositis patients whose disease onset was after age 40 and who have at least one additional risk factor.
Also conditionally recommended are upper and lower gastrointestinal endoscopy for patients at high risk when an underlying cancer is not found at the time of IIM diagnosis, nasoendoscopy in geographical regions with elevated risk for nasopharyngeal cancers, and screening for all IIM patients with red-flag symptoms or clinical features of cancer, including unexplained weight loss, family history of cancer, smoking, unexplained fever, or night sweats.
Guided steps
“I think clinicians have a lot of questions such as, ‘well, what should I do, when should I do it?’ These are important clinical questions, and we need guidance about this. We need to balance comprehensiveness with cost-effectiveness, and we need expert opinion about what steps we should take now and which should we take later,” Dr. Kolasinski said.
The guideline development process was supported by the University of Manchester, IMACS, National Institute for Health Research (United Kingdom), National Institutes of Health, National Health Service Northern Care Alliance, The Myositis Association, Myositis UK, University of Pittsburgh, Versus Arthritis, and the Center for Musculoskeletal Research. Dr. Oldroyd and Dr. Kolasinski reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.
AT ACR 2022
PHILADELPHIA – The first consensus screening guidelines for patients with idiopathic inflammatory myopathy (IIM) provide recommendations on risk stratification for individuals, basic and enhanced screening protocols, and screening frequency.
The recommendations, issued by the International Myositis Assessment and Clinical Studies Group (IMACS), stratify cancer risk for individual patients into low, intermediate, or high categories based on the IIM disease subtype, autoantibody status, and clinical features, reported Alexander Oldroyd, PhD, MSc, MBChB of the University of Manchester, England.
“There’s a big unmet need for cancer screening. One in four adults with myositis has cancer, either 3 years before or after a diagnosis of myositis. It’s one of the leading causes of death in these patients, and they’re overwhelmingly diagnosed at a late stage, so we need standardized approaches to get early diagnosis,” he said in an interview at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.
Sharon Kolasinski, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, said in an interview that the guideline is a welcome development for rheumatologists. Dr. Kolasinski moderated the session where Dr. Oldroyd described the guideline, but she was not involved in its formulation.
“I think that we all have wondered for a very long time: What is the optimal cancer screening for myositis patients? We all worry that the onset of their diseases is associated with a coincident cancer, or that they will develop it soon,” she said.
Dr. Oldroyd emphasized that all patients with myositis have elevated risk for cancer compared with the general population and that the guideline categories of low, intermediate, and high are relative only to patients with IIM.
International consensus
The data on which the recommendations are based come from a systematic review and meta-analysis by Dr. Oldroyd and colleagues of 69 studies on cancer risk factors and 9 on IIM-specific cancer screening.
The authors of that paper found that the dermatomyositis subtype, older age, male sex, dysphagia, cutaneous ulceration and antitranscriptional intermediary factor-1 gamma (anti-TIF1-gamma) positivity were associated with significantly increased risk of cancer.
In contrast, polymyositis and clinically amyopathic dermatomyositis subtypes, Raynaud’s phenomenon, interstitial lung disease, very high serum creatine kinase or lactate dehydrogenase levels, and positivity for anti-Jo1 or anti-EJ antibodies were associated with significantly reduced risk of cancer.
The consensus recommendations were developed with anonymous contributions from 75 expert participants in 22 countries, with additional input from 3 patient partners.
Do this
The guideline lists 18 recommendations, of which 13 are strong and 5 are conditional.
An example of a strong recommendation is number 3, based on a moderate level of evidences:
“All adult IIM patients, irrespective of cancer risk, should continue to participate in country/region-specific age and sex appropriate cancer screening programs,” the guideline recommends.
Patients with verified inclusion body myositis or juvenile-onset IIM do not, however, require routine screening for myositis-associated cancer, the guideline says (recommendations 1 and 2).
There are also recommendations that all adults with new-onset IIM be tested for myositis-specific and myositis-associated autoantibodies to assist in stratifying patients by risk category.
The guideline divides screening recommendations into basic and enhanced. The basic screening should include a comprehensive history and physical exam, complete blood count, liver functions tests, erythrocyte sedimentation rates/plasma viscosity, serum protein electrophoresis, urinalysis, and chest x-ray.
Adults with IIM who are determined to be at low risk for IIM-related cancer should have basic cancer screening at the time of IIM diagnosis. Adults with intermediate risk should undergo both basic and enhanced screening at the time of IIM diagnosis, and those with high risk should undergo enhanced screening at the time of myositis diagnosis, with basic screening annually for 3 years, the recommendations say.
Consider doing this
Conditional recommendations (“clinicians should consider ...”) include the use of PET/CT for adults at high risk for cancer when an underlying cancer has not been detected at the time of IIM diagnosis. They also include a single screening test for anti-TIF1-gamma positive dermatomyositis patients whose disease onset was after age 40 and who have at least one additional risk factor.
Also conditionally recommended are upper and lower gastrointestinal endoscopy for patients at high risk when an underlying cancer is not found at the time of IIM diagnosis, nasoendoscopy in geographical regions with elevated risk for nasopharyngeal cancers, and screening for all IIM patients with red-flag symptoms or clinical features of cancer, including unexplained weight loss, family history of cancer, smoking, unexplained fever, or night sweats.
Guided steps
“I think clinicians have a lot of questions such as, ‘well, what should I do, when should I do it?’ These are important clinical questions, and we need guidance about this. We need to balance comprehensiveness with cost-effectiveness, and we need expert opinion about what steps we should take now and which should we take later,” Dr. Kolasinski said.
The guideline development process was supported by the University of Manchester, IMACS, National Institute for Health Research (United Kingdom), National Institutes of Health, National Health Service Northern Care Alliance, The Myositis Association, Myositis UK, University of Pittsburgh, Versus Arthritis, and the Center for Musculoskeletal Research. Dr. Oldroyd and Dr. Kolasinski reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.
World falls short on HBV, HCV elimination targets
Vaccination campaigns in more than 80 nations have successfully reduced the prevalence of hepatitis B virus (HBV) surface antigen. That’s the good news.
Less good is the news that reported Sarah Blach, MHS, associate director of the Center for Disease Analysis Foundation, based in Lafayette, Colo.
“As countries progress toward eliminating hepatitis B and C, we really need to do more to expand political will and financing of national elimination programs. It’s great to see that it’s happening in some of these countries, but we really need that to expand,” she said at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.
Ms. Blach presented data from the foundation’s Polaris Observatory, an initiative that provides epidemiological data, modeling tools, training, and decision analytics to support eliminating HBV and HCV globally by 2030.
The investigators used mathematical disease burden models for HBV and HCV to assess worldwide trends toward viral elimination. They also evaluated HBV and HCV elimination policies as reported by authorities in various countries.
They forecast the year in which each country or territory would meet each of the World Health Organization’s four elimination targets from 110 HCV models and 166 HBV models. The targets are 90% diagnosed, 80% of the eligible population treated, 65% reduction in mortality, and 80% incidence reduction for HCV and either 95% incidence reduction or prevalence of 0.1% or less in children aged 5 years and younger for HBV.
Investigators summarized the results across countries by disease area and time period of elimination; that is, elimination before 2030, between 2031 and 2050, or after 2050.
Results for HCV and HBV targets
The 11 nations on track to achieve all absolute or relative (programmatic) targets for HCV by 2030 are Australia, Canada, Denmark, Egypt, Finland, France, Georgia, Japan, Norway, Spain, and the United Kingdom.
An additional 24 countries are on track to meet their goals for HCV between 2031 and 2050.
But the rest, including the United States, much of sub-Saharan Africa, China, and South Asia, are not on track to meet their goals for HCV by 2050.
No countries are on track to achieve the absolute or relative (programmatic) targets for elimination of HBV, Ms. Blach said.
However, 83 countries or territories, including the United States, are on track for achieving the HBV surface antigen prevalence target of less than 0.1% in children aged 5 years and younger by 2030.
Ms. Blach and colleagues also looked at results of quantitative policy surveys submitted by 61 countries. The respondents were asked to report on linkage to care, awareness and screening, monitoring and evaluation, ability to expand capacity, harm-reduction programs, financing of national programs, and political will to achieve targets.
The investigators scored countries on a scale of 1-10, with 10 being the highest score, in each category. For HCV, 25 countries (42%) had high scores, defined as 9 or 10, for political will, and 33 countries (54%) had high scores for national funding. For HBV, 17 countries (30%) received the high scores for political will, and 30 (51%) received the high scores for financing the national program.
The big picture
Most countries have not expanded HBV or HCV treatment beyond specialists, and HBV policies appear to lag behind policies directed toward HCV elimination, Ms. Blach noted.
“We do need to expand screening and treatment for hepatitis B moving forward,” she said.
The United States and the rest of the world need to do better, especially regarding HBV elimination, but the United States does appear to be making progress, said Richard Sterling, MD, MSc, from Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, who comoderated the session where Ms. Blach reported the data.
“My impression is that we’re doing a pretty good job with [HBV] vaccinations in the United States,” Dr. Sterling, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview.
One way to make progress, he said, may be to expand eligibility for HBV vaccines beyond the current upper age limit of 59 years.
Implementing simpler dosing regimens – the currently available vaccine is split into three doses – could improve vaccine compliance and lower costs, Dr. Sterling added.
During the session, Brian Conway, MD, medical director of the Vancouver Infectious Disease Centre, said it seems hard to use a composite set of data to determine a yes/no answer about whether a country is on track to reach targets.
“When you take my country of Canada, we have absolutely no national program, no hope of a national program, very little funding, and yet we make the cut. So how do you balance all these different variables to arrive at a yes/no answer and is there a way of putting a bit more subtlety into it?” Dr. Conway asked Ms. Blach.
Ms. Blach replied that the data are fluid, and countries can move closer or farther from reaching targets over time as conditions change.
Some countries seem to be improving efforts and “just need a bit more” work, Ms. Blach said.
“But we also saw some countries who we thought were going to be a shoo-in, and as time progressed the number of treatments just dropped in shocking ways. The reality is that a lot of countries are struggling to treat patients,” she said.
Canada “has a really great health system. It’s not a fragmented health system, and so even if you don’t have some of that push for elimination from the government level, having access to treatment, having access to those services, means that at least patients can come in and get what they need,” Ms. Blach said.
The study data are available for free on the Center for Disease Analysis Foundation’s Polaris website.
The study was funded by grants from the John C. Martin Foundation, ZeShan Foundation, EndHep2030, Gilead Sciences, and AbbVie. Ms. Blach is employed by the Center for Disease Analysis Foundation, which receives research grants from Gilead and AbbVie. Dr. Sterling and Dr. Conway reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Vaccination campaigns in more than 80 nations have successfully reduced the prevalence of hepatitis B virus (HBV) surface antigen. That’s the good news.
Less good is the news that reported Sarah Blach, MHS, associate director of the Center for Disease Analysis Foundation, based in Lafayette, Colo.
“As countries progress toward eliminating hepatitis B and C, we really need to do more to expand political will and financing of national elimination programs. It’s great to see that it’s happening in some of these countries, but we really need that to expand,” she said at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.
Ms. Blach presented data from the foundation’s Polaris Observatory, an initiative that provides epidemiological data, modeling tools, training, and decision analytics to support eliminating HBV and HCV globally by 2030.
The investigators used mathematical disease burden models for HBV and HCV to assess worldwide trends toward viral elimination. They also evaluated HBV and HCV elimination policies as reported by authorities in various countries.
They forecast the year in which each country or territory would meet each of the World Health Organization’s four elimination targets from 110 HCV models and 166 HBV models. The targets are 90% diagnosed, 80% of the eligible population treated, 65% reduction in mortality, and 80% incidence reduction for HCV and either 95% incidence reduction or prevalence of 0.1% or less in children aged 5 years and younger for HBV.
Investigators summarized the results across countries by disease area and time period of elimination; that is, elimination before 2030, between 2031 and 2050, or after 2050.
Results for HCV and HBV targets
The 11 nations on track to achieve all absolute or relative (programmatic) targets for HCV by 2030 are Australia, Canada, Denmark, Egypt, Finland, France, Georgia, Japan, Norway, Spain, and the United Kingdom.
An additional 24 countries are on track to meet their goals for HCV between 2031 and 2050.
But the rest, including the United States, much of sub-Saharan Africa, China, and South Asia, are not on track to meet their goals for HCV by 2050.
No countries are on track to achieve the absolute or relative (programmatic) targets for elimination of HBV, Ms. Blach said.
However, 83 countries or territories, including the United States, are on track for achieving the HBV surface antigen prevalence target of less than 0.1% in children aged 5 years and younger by 2030.
Ms. Blach and colleagues also looked at results of quantitative policy surveys submitted by 61 countries. The respondents were asked to report on linkage to care, awareness and screening, monitoring and evaluation, ability to expand capacity, harm-reduction programs, financing of national programs, and political will to achieve targets.
The investigators scored countries on a scale of 1-10, with 10 being the highest score, in each category. For HCV, 25 countries (42%) had high scores, defined as 9 or 10, for political will, and 33 countries (54%) had high scores for national funding. For HBV, 17 countries (30%) received the high scores for political will, and 30 (51%) received the high scores for financing the national program.
The big picture
Most countries have not expanded HBV or HCV treatment beyond specialists, and HBV policies appear to lag behind policies directed toward HCV elimination, Ms. Blach noted.
“We do need to expand screening and treatment for hepatitis B moving forward,” she said.
The United States and the rest of the world need to do better, especially regarding HBV elimination, but the United States does appear to be making progress, said Richard Sterling, MD, MSc, from Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, who comoderated the session where Ms. Blach reported the data.
“My impression is that we’re doing a pretty good job with [HBV] vaccinations in the United States,” Dr. Sterling, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview.
One way to make progress, he said, may be to expand eligibility for HBV vaccines beyond the current upper age limit of 59 years.
Implementing simpler dosing regimens – the currently available vaccine is split into three doses – could improve vaccine compliance and lower costs, Dr. Sterling added.
During the session, Brian Conway, MD, medical director of the Vancouver Infectious Disease Centre, said it seems hard to use a composite set of data to determine a yes/no answer about whether a country is on track to reach targets.
“When you take my country of Canada, we have absolutely no national program, no hope of a national program, very little funding, and yet we make the cut. So how do you balance all these different variables to arrive at a yes/no answer and is there a way of putting a bit more subtlety into it?” Dr. Conway asked Ms. Blach.
Ms. Blach replied that the data are fluid, and countries can move closer or farther from reaching targets over time as conditions change.
Some countries seem to be improving efforts and “just need a bit more” work, Ms. Blach said.
“But we also saw some countries who we thought were going to be a shoo-in, and as time progressed the number of treatments just dropped in shocking ways. The reality is that a lot of countries are struggling to treat patients,” she said.
Canada “has a really great health system. It’s not a fragmented health system, and so even if you don’t have some of that push for elimination from the government level, having access to treatment, having access to those services, means that at least patients can come in and get what they need,” Ms. Blach said.
The study data are available for free on the Center for Disease Analysis Foundation’s Polaris website.
The study was funded by grants from the John C. Martin Foundation, ZeShan Foundation, EndHep2030, Gilead Sciences, and AbbVie. Ms. Blach is employed by the Center for Disease Analysis Foundation, which receives research grants from Gilead and AbbVie. Dr. Sterling and Dr. Conway reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Vaccination campaigns in more than 80 nations have successfully reduced the prevalence of hepatitis B virus (HBV) surface antigen. That’s the good news.
Less good is the news that reported Sarah Blach, MHS, associate director of the Center for Disease Analysis Foundation, based in Lafayette, Colo.
“As countries progress toward eliminating hepatitis B and C, we really need to do more to expand political will and financing of national elimination programs. It’s great to see that it’s happening in some of these countries, but we really need that to expand,” she said at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.
Ms. Blach presented data from the foundation’s Polaris Observatory, an initiative that provides epidemiological data, modeling tools, training, and decision analytics to support eliminating HBV and HCV globally by 2030.
The investigators used mathematical disease burden models for HBV and HCV to assess worldwide trends toward viral elimination. They also evaluated HBV and HCV elimination policies as reported by authorities in various countries.
They forecast the year in which each country or territory would meet each of the World Health Organization’s four elimination targets from 110 HCV models and 166 HBV models. The targets are 90% diagnosed, 80% of the eligible population treated, 65% reduction in mortality, and 80% incidence reduction for HCV and either 95% incidence reduction or prevalence of 0.1% or less in children aged 5 years and younger for HBV.
Investigators summarized the results across countries by disease area and time period of elimination; that is, elimination before 2030, between 2031 and 2050, or after 2050.
Results for HCV and HBV targets
The 11 nations on track to achieve all absolute or relative (programmatic) targets for HCV by 2030 are Australia, Canada, Denmark, Egypt, Finland, France, Georgia, Japan, Norway, Spain, and the United Kingdom.
An additional 24 countries are on track to meet their goals for HCV between 2031 and 2050.
But the rest, including the United States, much of sub-Saharan Africa, China, and South Asia, are not on track to meet their goals for HCV by 2050.
No countries are on track to achieve the absolute or relative (programmatic) targets for elimination of HBV, Ms. Blach said.
However, 83 countries or territories, including the United States, are on track for achieving the HBV surface antigen prevalence target of less than 0.1% in children aged 5 years and younger by 2030.
Ms. Blach and colleagues also looked at results of quantitative policy surveys submitted by 61 countries. The respondents were asked to report on linkage to care, awareness and screening, monitoring and evaluation, ability to expand capacity, harm-reduction programs, financing of national programs, and political will to achieve targets.
The investigators scored countries on a scale of 1-10, with 10 being the highest score, in each category. For HCV, 25 countries (42%) had high scores, defined as 9 or 10, for political will, and 33 countries (54%) had high scores for national funding. For HBV, 17 countries (30%) received the high scores for political will, and 30 (51%) received the high scores for financing the national program.
The big picture
Most countries have not expanded HBV or HCV treatment beyond specialists, and HBV policies appear to lag behind policies directed toward HCV elimination, Ms. Blach noted.
“We do need to expand screening and treatment for hepatitis B moving forward,” she said.
The United States and the rest of the world need to do better, especially regarding HBV elimination, but the United States does appear to be making progress, said Richard Sterling, MD, MSc, from Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, who comoderated the session where Ms. Blach reported the data.
“My impression is that we’re doing a pretty good job with [HBV] vaccinations in the United States,” Dr. Sterling, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview.
One way to make progress, he said, may be to expand eligibility for HBV vaccines beyond the current upper age limit of 59 years.
Implementing simpler dosing regimens – the currently available vaccine is split into three doses – could improve vaccine compliance and lower costs, Dr. Sterling added.
During the session, Brian Conway, MD, medical director of the Vancouver Infectious Disease Centre, said it seems hard to use a composite set of data to determine a yes/no answer about whether a country is on track to reach targets.
“When you take my country of Canada, we have absolutely no national program, no hope of a national program, very little funding, and yet we make the cut. So how do you balance all these different variables to arrive at a yes/no answer and is there a way of putting a bit more subtlety into it?” Dr. Conway asked Ms. Blach.
Ms. Blach replied that the data are fluid, and countries can move closer or farther from reaching targets over time as conditions change.
Some countries seem to be improving efforts and “just need a bit more” work, Ms. Blach said.
“But we also saw some countries who we thought were going to be a shoo-in, and as time progressed the number of treatments just dropped in shocking ways. The reality is that a lot of countries are struggling to treat patients,” she said.
Canada “has a really great health system. It’s not a fragmented health system, and so even if you don’t have some of that push for elimination from the government level, having access to treatment, having access to those services, means that at least patients can come in and get what they need,” Ms. Blach said.
The study data are available for free on the Center for Disease Analysis Foundation’s Polaris website.
The study was funded by grants from the John C. Martin Foundation, ZeShan Foundation, EndHep2030, Gilead Sciences, and AbbVie. Ms. Blach is employed by the Center for Disease Analysis Foundation, which receives research grants from Gilead and AbbVie. Dr. Sterling and Dr. Conway reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE LIVER MEETING
Resmetirom reduces liver, CV risk factors in NASH with cirrhosis
WASHINGTON – In patients with cirrhosis associated with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, new research has found.
Two cohorts comprising a total of 180 patients with well-compensated NASH cirrhosis enrolled in an open-label arm of the phase 3 MAESTRO-NAFLD-1 trial. Researchers found that 52 weeks of treatment with resmetirom was associated with reductions in MRI proton density fat fraction (MRI-PDFF), FibroScan controlled attenuation parameter, FibroScan vibration-controlled transient elastography (VCTE), magnetic resonance elastography, liver and spleen volumes, liver enzyme levels, and lipids.
“Importantly, there was a statistically significant reduction in liver volume by an average of 20%, and also the potential to monitor spleen volume as a surrogate for portal hypertension, with the caveat that further research needs to be done in this area to understand that better,” said Stephen Harrison, MD, medical director for Pinnacle Clinical Research in San Antonio, Tex.
Dr. Harrison presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.
Building on early findings
The thyroid hormone receptor–beta pathway helps to maintain liver health through control of de novo lipogenesis, fatty acid oxidation, mitophagy and mitochondrial biogenesis, cholesterol metabolism, and anti-inflammatory and antifibrotic effects, Dr. Harrison said.
Resmetirom (Madrigal Pharmaceuticals) is a selective thyroid hormone receptor-beta agonist that is reputed to offer optimal beneficial effects on the liver, while minimizing adverse cardiovascular and bone metabolic events that are mediated through a different pathway by the thyroid hormone receptor–alpha.
In 2019, Dr. Harrison and colleagues reported results of a phase 2, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of resmetirom in adults with biopsy-confirmed NASH (fibrosis stages 1-3) and hepatic fat content greater than 10% as assessed by MRI-PDFF.
In that study, patients who received resmetirom had significantly greater reductions in relative hepatic fat content compared with patients who received placebo at both 12 weeks and 36 weeks of follow-up. Overall, 60% of patients who took resmetirom had at least a 30% fat reduction compared with 18% of those who took placebo.
In addition, the investigators presented data on a cohort of 105 patients with well-compensated NASH cirrhosis who were treated in an open-label study. Those data were presented at the International Liver Conference in London in June.
At the AASLD meeting, Dr. Harrison presented data on the same cohort combined with data on an additional cohort of 75 patients with well-compensated NASH cirrhosis and no prior history of decompensation.
‘Real-world’ conditions
In an attempt to mimic real-world conditions, patients in the trial did not receive a baseline biopsy but were determined to have NASH or presumed NASH with either results of a previous liver biopsy or noninvasive techniques, including FibroScan and MRI-PDFF.
Patients were started on oral resmetirom 80 mg daily, which could be titrated upward to 100 mg daily based on pharmacokinetic data from a 2-week sample.
The investigators first compared reductions in liver enzymes in both cohorts, with median reductions in ALT, AST, and gamma-glutamyl transferase of –20%, –18%, and –32%, respectively, in the original cohort, and –30%, –23%, and –37% in the more recent cohort.
Reductions in other parameters, including MRI-PDFF, liver volume, and lipids were also similar between the cohorts.
Given the similarities, researchers opted to treat the second cohort as a validation set, and combined data from the two cohorts to look at additional differences between baseline and 1-year follow-up.
Looking at imaging biomarkers in the combined cohorts of patients with responses, they saw that of patients with at least a 25% change over baseline in FibroScan VCTE, 48% of patients with baseline PDFF of 5% or less, and 42% of those with baseline PDFF greater than 5% had significant improvement at 1 year.
Among patients with changes in MR elastography of at least 15%, a fifth (22%) of those with baseline PDFF of 5% or less and about a quarter (26%) with baseline PDFF greater than 5% had improvement.
Independent of baseline cirrhosis severity, 73% of patients had a 15% or greater reduction in liver volume after 52 weeks of resmetirom. The investigators did not find a correlation of liver reduction with MRI-PDFF reduction among patients with PDFF of 5% or less at baseline.
The study found similar reductions in harmful lipids across all patient subgroups in both cohorts. Decreases in both systolic and diastolic blood pressure consistent with those seen in noncirrhotic NASH patients were also seen, independent of cirrhosis severity.
Among patients with at least a 10% change in spleen volume, 31% of those with low baseline PDFF readings and 45% of those with high readings had a decrease in volume.
The investigators found no differences in adverse events between cirrhosis severity groups or compared with noncirrhotic NASH patients.
The most common adverse events were intermittent loose stools or nausea at start of resmetirom therapy, and most were mild.
There were no changes in the central thyroid axis, apart from about a 10% decrease in prohormone FT4, which had been reported in other studies of resmetirom. No changes in active hormone FT3 or thyroid-stimulating hormone were found.
Although the study did not have a placebo control, it supports the rationale for the ongoing MAESTRO-NASH Outcomes trial, an event-driven trial comparing outcomes with resmetirom versus placebo in patients with well-compensated Child-Pugh A NASH cirrhosis, Dr. Harrison concluded.
Encouraging data
The data on resmetirom look promising as an approach to the treatment of NASH and related diseases, Cyrielle Caussy, MD, PhD, from the University Hospital of Lyon (France), said in an interview. Dr. Caussy, who was not involved in the study, was a moderator of the session where Dr. Harrison presented the data.
It does seem to be beneficial in NASH, she said. But we also have seen improvements in lipid metabolism with this drug; as shown in Dr. Harrison’s presentation, there is a difference in cardiovascular risk factors, Dr. Caussy added.
“I do think it could be one of the drugs that really improves outcomes for patients with NASH,” Dr. Caussy said.
The study was supported by Madrigal Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Harrison reported conflict of interest with numerous pharmaceutical companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
WASHINGTON – In patients with cirrhosis associated with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, new research has found.
Two cohorts comprising a total of 180 patients with well-compensated NASH cirrhosis enrolled in an open-label arm of the phase 3 MAESTRO-NAFLD-1 trial. Researchers found that 52 weeks of treatment with resmetirom was associated with reductions in MRI proton density fat fraction (MRI-PDFF), FibroScan controlled attenuation parameter, FibroScan vibration-controlled transient elastography (VCTE), magnetic resonance elastography, liver and spleen volumes, liver enzyme levels, and lipids.
“Importantly, there was a statistically significant reduction in liver volume by an average of 20%, and also the potential to monitor spleen volume as a surrogate for portal hypertension, with the caveat that further research needs to be done in this area to understand that better,” said Stephen Harrison, MD, medical director for Pinnacle Clinical Research in San Antonio, Tex.
Dr. Harrison presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.
Building on early findings
The thyroid hormone receptor–beta pathway helps to maintain liver health through control of de novo lipogenesis, fatty acid oxidation, mitophagy and mitochondrial biogenesis, cholesterol metabolism, and anti-inflammatory and antifibrotic effects, Dr. Harrison said.
Resmetirom (Madrigal Pharmaceuticals) is a selective thyroid hormone receptor-beta agonist that is reputed to offer optimal beneficial effects on the liver, while minimizing adverse cardiovascular and bone metabolic events that are mediated through a different pathway by the thyroid hormone receptor–alpha.
In 2019, Dr. Harrison and colleagues reported results of a phase 2, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of resmetirom in adults with biopsy-confirmed NASH (fibrosis stages 1-3) and hepatic fat content greater than 10% as assessed by MRI-PDFF.
In that study, patients who received resmetirom had significantly greater reductions in relative hepatic fat content compared with patients who received placebo at both 12 weeks and 36 weeks of follow-up. Overall, 60% of patients who took resmetirom had at least a 30% fat reduction compared with 18% of those who took placebo.
In addition, the investigators presented data on a cohort of 105 patients with well-compensated NASH cirrhosis who were treated in an open-label study. Those data were presented at the International Liver Conference in London in June.
At the AASLD meeting, Dr. Harrison presented data on the same cohort combined with data on an additional cohort of 75 patients with well-compensated NASH cirrhosis and no prior history of decompensation.
‘Real-world’ conditions
In an attempt to mimic real-world conditions, patients in the trial did not receive a baseline biopsy but were determined to have NASH or presumed NASH with either results of a previous liver biopsy or noninvasive techniques, including FibroScan and MRI-PDFF.
Patients were started on oral resmetirom 80 mg daily, which could be titrated upward to 100 mg daily based on pharmacokinetic data from a 2-week sample.
The investigators first compared reductions in liver enzymes in both cohorts, with median reductions in ALT, AST, and gamma-glutamyl transferase of –20%, –18%, and –32%, respectively, in the original cohort, and –30%, –23%, and –37% in the more recent cohort.
Reductions in other parameters, including MRI-PDFF, liver volume, and lipids were also similar between the cohorts.
Given the similarities, researchers opted to treat the second cohort as a validation set, and combined data from the two cohorts to look at additional differences between baseline and 1-year follow-up.
Looking at imaging biomarkers in the combined cohorts of patients with responses, they saw that of patients with at least a 25% change over baseline in FibroScan VCTE, 48% of patients with baseline PDFF of 5% or less, and 42% of those with baseline PDFF greater than 5% had significant improvement at 1 year.
Among patients with changes in MR elastography of at least 15%, a fifth (22%) of those with baseline PDFF of 5% or less and about a quarter (26%) with baseline PDFF greater than 5% had improvement.
Independent of baseline cirrhosis severity, 73% of patients had a 15% or greater reduction in liver volume after 52 weeks of resmetirom. The investigators did not find a correlation of liver reduction with MRI-PDFF reduction among patients with PDFF of 5% or less at baseline.
The study found similar reductions in harmful lipids across all patient subgroups in both cohorts. Decreases in both systolic and diastolic blood pressure consistent with those seen in noncirrhotic NASH patients were also seen, independent of cirrhosis severity.
Among patients with at least a 10% change in spleen volume, 31% of those with low baseline PDFF readings and 45% of those with high readings had a decrease in volume.
The investigators found no differences in adverse events between cirrhosis severity groups or compared with noncirrhotic NASH patients.
The most common adverse events were intermittent loose stools or nausea at start of resmetirom therapy, and most were mild.
There were no changes in the central thyroid axis, apart from about a 10% decrease in prohormone FT4, which had been reported in other studies of resmetirom. No changes in active hormone FT3 or thyroid-stimulating hormone were found.
Although the study did not have a placebo control, it supports the rationale for the ongoing MAESTRO-NASH Outcomes trial, an event-driven trial comparing outcomes with resmetirom versus placebo in patients with well-compensated Child-Pugh A NASH cirrhosis, Dr. Harrison concluded.
Encouraging data
The data on resmetirom look promising as an approach to the treatment of NASH and related diseases, Cyrielle Caussy, MD, PhD, from the University Hospital of Lyon (France), said in an interview. Dr. Caussy, who was not involved in the study, was a moderator of the session where Dr. Harrison presented the data.
It does seem to be beneficial in NASH, she said. But we also have seen improvements in lipid metabolism with this drug; as shown in Dr. Harrison’s presentation, there is a difference in cardiovascular risk factors, Dr. Caussy added.
“I do think it could be one of the drugs that really improves outcomes for patients with NASH,” Dr. Caussy said.
The study was supported by Madrigal Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Harrison reported conflict of interest with numerous pharmaceutical companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
WASHINGTON – In patients with cirrhosis associated with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, new research has found.
Two cohorts comprising a total of 180 patients with well-compensated NASH cirrhosis enrolled in an open-label arm of the phase 3 MAESTRO-NAFLD-1 trial. Researchers found that 52 weeks of treatment with resmetirom was associated with reductions in MRI proton density fat fraction (MRI-PDFF), FibroScan controlled attenuation parameter, FibroScan vibration-controlled transient elastography (VCTE), magnetic resonance elastography, liver and spleen volumes, liver enzyme levels, and lipids.
“Importantly, there was a statistically significant reduction in liver volume by an average of 20%, and also the potential to monitor spleen volume as a surrogate for portal hypertension, with the caveat that further research needs to be done in this area to understand that better,” said Stephen Harrison, MD, medical director for Pinnacle Clinical Research in San Antonio, Tex.
Dr. Harrison presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.
Building on early findings
The thyroid hormone receptor–beta pathway helps to maintain liver health through control of de novo lipogenesis, fatty acid oxidation, mitophagy and mitochondrial biogenesis, cholesterol metabolism, and anti-inflammatory and antifibrotic effects, Dr. Harrison said.
Resmetirom (Madrigal Pharmaceuticals) is a selective thyroid hormone receptor-beta agonist that is reputed to offer optimal beneficial effects on the liver, while minimizing adverse cardiovascular and bone metabolic events that are mediated through a different pathway by the thyroid hormone receptor–alpha.
In 2019, Dr. Harrison and colleagues reported results of a phase 2, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of resmetirom in adults with biopsy-confirmed NASH (fibrosis stages 1-3) and hepatic fat content greater than 10% as assessed by MRI-PDFF.
In that study, patients who received resmetirom had significantly greater reductions in relative hepatic fat content compared with patients who received placebo at both 12 weeks and 36 weeks of follow-up. Overall, 60% of patients who took resmetirom had at least a 30% fat reduction compared with 18% of those who took placebo.
In addition, the investigators presented data on a cohort of 105 patients with well-compensated NASH cirrhosis who were treated in an open-label study. Those data were presented at the International Liver Conference in London in June.
At the AASLD meeting, Dr. Harrison presented data on the same cohort combined with data on an additional cohort of 75 patients with well-compensated NASH cirrhosis and no prior history of decompensation.
‘Real-world’ conditions
In an attempt to mimic real-world conditions, patients in the trial did not receive a baseline biopsy but were determined to have NASH or presumed NASH with either results of a previous liver biopsy or noninvasive techniques, including FibroScan and MRI-PDFF.
Patients were started on oral resmetirom 80 mg daily, which could be titrated upward to 100 mg daily based on pharmacokinetic data from a 2-week sample.
The investigators first compared reductions in liver enzymes in both cohorts, with median reductions in ALT, AST, and gamma-glutamyl transferase of –20%, –18%, and –32%, respectively, in the original cohort, and –30%, –23%, and –37% in the more recent cohort.
Reductions in other parameters, including MRI-PDFF, liver volume, and lipids were also similar between the cohorts.
Given the similarities, researchers opted to treat the second cohort as a validation set, and combined data from the two cohorts to look at additional differences between baseline and 1-year follow-up.
Looking at imaging biomarkers in the combined cohorts of patients with responses, they saw that of patients with at least a 25% change over baseline in FibroScan VCTE, 48% of patients with baseline PDFF of 5% or less, and 42% of those with baseline PDFF greater than 5% had significant improvement at 1 year.
Among patients with changes in MR elastography of at least 15%, a fifth (22%) of those with baseline PDFF of 5% or less and about a quarter (26%) with baseline PDFF greater than 5% had improvement.
Independent of baseline cirrhosis severity, 73% of patients had a 15% or greater reduction in liver volume after 52 weeks of resmetirom. The investigators did not find a correlation of liver reduction with MRI-PDFF reduction among patients with PDFF of 5% or less at baseline.
The study found similar reductions in harmful lipids across all patient subgroups in both cohorts. Decreases in both systolic and diastolic blood pressure consistent with those seen in noncirrhotic NASH patients were also seen, independent of cirrhosis severity.
Among patients with at least a 10% change in spleen volume, 31% of those with low baseline PDFF readings and 45% of those with high readings had a decrease in volume.
The investigators found no differences in adverse events between cirrhosis severity groups or compared with noncirrhotic NASH patients.
The most common adverse events were intermittent loose stools or nausea at start of resmetirom therapy, and most were mild.
There were no changes in the central thyroid axis, apart from about a 10% decrease in prohormone FT4, which had been reported in other studies of resmetirom. No changes in active hormone FT3 or thyroid-stimulating hormone were found.
Although the study did not have a placebo control, it supports the rationale for the ongoing MAESTRO-NASH Outcomes trial, an event-driven trial comparing outcomes with resmetirom versus placebo in patients with well-compensated Child-Pugh A NASH cirrhosis, Dr. Harrison concluded.
Encouraging data
The data on resmetirom look promising as an approach to the treatment of NASH and related diseases, Cyrielle Caussy, MD, PhD, from the University Hospital of Lyon (France), said in an interview. Dr. Caussy, who was not involved in the study, was a moderator of the session where Dr. Harrison presented the data.
It does seem to be beneficial in NASH, she said. But we also have seen improvements in lipid metabolism with this drug; as shown in Dr. Harrison’s presentation, there is a difference in cardiovascular risk factors, Dr. Caussy added.
“I do think it could be one of the drugs that really improves outcomes for patients with NASH,” Dr. Caussy said.
The study was supported by Madrigal Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Harrison reported conflict of interest with numerous pharmaceutical companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT THE LIVER MEETING
NAFLD progresses to cirrhosis in young and old at similar rate
CHARLOTTE, N.C. – Metabolic and genetic risk factors for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) vary across the age spectrum, but once steatosis has started, the risk of progression to cirrhosis is similar for both young and old, investigators found.
At a large Midwest medical center, younger adults were more likely than older patients to have a high-risk gene variant predisposing carriers to NAFLD. And they were less likely than their senior counterparts to have metabolic risk factors, reported Matthew J. Miller, MD, a 3rd-year resident in the department of internal medicine at the University of Michigan Hospital in Ann Arbor.
“Progression to cirrhosis was similar in patients younger than 40, compared to older patients, suggesting NAFLD in the young should not be considered more benign than in older patients,” he said in an oral abstract presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.
The prevalence of NAFLD among younger adults is increasing, but it’s still unknown whether the course of NAFLD is more benign in these patients than in older adults.
In addition, the rate of progression to cirrhosis in patients with NAFLD can vary, making it difficult to predict those patients most at risk for advanced liver disease, Dr. Miller said.
He and his colleagues sought to characterize genetic and metabolic risk factors for NAFLD and their effects on disease progression in patients from 18 to 40 years, 40 to 59 years, and 60 and older.
The investigators collected data on patients with documented objective evidence of NAFLD seen at the Michigan Medicine health care system from 2010 through 2021.
They identified NAFLD by hepatic steatosis on imaging, biopsy, or transient elastography in the absence of other chronic liver diseases, with the earliest date of a hepatic steatosis diagnosis determined to be the index date.
The investigators determined the presence of cirrhosis using validated International Classification of Diseases version 9 or 10 codes, with incident cirrhosis defined as any new cirrhosis diagnosis at least 1 year after the index date.
They also looked at the frequency of known NAFLD risk alleles in a subset of patients with available genetic data.
They divided 31,505 patients into three age groups for comparison: 8,252 patients age 18-39 at the time of steatosis identification, 15,035 age 40-59, and 8,218 age 60 or older.
Of the full cohort, 804 had cirrhosis at the index date, and 388 others developed incident cirrhosis during 128,090 person-years of follow-up.
The prevalence of hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes were significantly lower in the youngest group, compared with the two older groups, but the youngest patients had a higher prevalence of obesity than the other two groups, with a significantly higher prevalence of class 3 (morbid) obesity.
Of the 4,359 patients with genetic data available, the NAFLD-promoting PNPLA3-rs738409-G allele was more common in the young, compared with the other two age groups (P = .016).
When the investigators looked at the ability of three laboratory tests – the AST to Platelet Ratio Index (APRI), Fibrosis-4 (FIB4), and NAFLD fibrosis score for identifying prevalent cirrhosis – they found that the scores performed similarly for patients in the 40-59 group, but the NFS did less well among patients in the 18-39 group. There were no significant differences among the three age groups in the risk for incident cirrhosis over 10 years.
The study helps to answer some of the questions surrounding differences in risk factors across the age spectrum, commented Patricia Jones, MD, MSCR, from the University of Miami.
“We wonder how these people with fatty liver are different. Do younger people have a more malignant course? Are they going to progress more rapidly than others, or not? Because if you think of a disease like fatty liver or for that matter any metabolic syndrome–based disease, it’s a spectrum and a continuum, and by the time you’re diagnosed you’ve already had that condition, so it’s really more interesting to me when people are diagnosed, because diagnosing at a younger age allows you to intervene earlier,” she said in an interview.
Dr. Jones said that she was also interested in exploring how the genetic data might be used to improve care for patients, perhaps by testing for the high-risk allele in routine clinical practice.
“It will be interesting to see how people with this allele progress, independently of whether they’re diagnosed at 40, 50, or 60,” she said.
Dr. Jones was a moderator of the session where Dr. Williams presented his data.
Comoderator Mitchell A. Mah’moud, MD, FACG from Duke University in Durham, N.C., commented in an interview that, “with the medications we have available, maybe we can target these patients and prevent progression to cirrhosis and some of the decompensation that we see.”
The study authors did not disclose a funding source. Dr. Miller, Dr. Jones, and Dr. Mah’moud all reported having no relevant financial disclosures.
CHARLOTTE, N.C. – Metabolic and genetic risk factors for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) vary across the age spectrum, but once steatosis has started, the risk of progression to cirrhosis is similar for both young and old, investigators found.
At a large Midwest medical center, younger adults were more likely than older patients to have a high-risk gene variant predisposing carriers to NAFLD. And they were less likely than their senior counterparts to have metabolic risk factors, reported Matthew J. Miller, MD, a 3rd-year resident in the department of internal medicine at the University of Michigan Hospital in Ann Arbor.
“Progression to cirrhosis was similar in patients younger than 40, compared to older patients, suggesting NAFLD in the young should not be considered more benign than in older patients,” he said in an oral abstract presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.
The prevalence of NAFLD among younger adults is increasing, but it’s still unknown whether the course of NAFLD is more benign in these patients than in older adults.
In addition, the rate of progression to cirrhosis in patients with NAFLD can vary, making it difficult to predict those patients most at risk for advanced liver disease, Dr. Miller said.
He and his colleagues sought to characterize genetic and metabolic risk factors for NAFLD and their effects on disease progression in patients from 18 to 40 years, 40 to 59 years, and 60 and older.
The investigators collected data on patients with documented objective evidence of NAFLD seen at the Michigan Medicine health care system from 2010 through 2021.
They identified NAFLD by hepatic steatosis on imaging, biopsy, or transient elastography in the absence of other chronic liver diseases, with the earliest date of a hepatic steatosis diagnosis determined to be the index date.
The investigators determined the presence of cirrhosis using validated International Classification of Diseases version 9 or 10 codes, with incident cirrhosis defined as any new cirrhosis diagnosis at least 1 year after the index date.
They also looked at the frequency of known NAFLD risk alleles in a subset of patients with available genetic data.
They divided 31,505 patients into three age groups for comparison: 8,252 patients age 18-39 at the time of steatosis identification, 15,035 age 40-59, and 8,218 age 60 or older.
Of the full cohort, 804 had cirrhosis at the index date, and 388 others developed incident cirrhosis during 128,090 person-years of follow-up.
The prevalence of hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes were significantly lower in the youngest group, compared with the two older groups, but the youngest patients had a higher prevalence of obesity than the other two groups, with a significantly higher prevalence of class 3 (morbid) obesity.
Of the 4,359 patients with genetic data available, the NAFLD-promoting PNPLA3-rs738409-G allele was more common in the young, compared with the other two age groups (P = .016).
When the investigators looked at the ability of three laboratory tests – the AST to Platelet Ratio Index (APRI), Fibrosis-4 (FIB4), and NAFLD fibrosis score for identifying prevalent cirrhosis – they found that the scores performed similarly for patients in the 40-59 group, but the NFS did less well among patients in the 18-39 group. There were no significant differences among the three age groups in the risk for incident cirrhosis over 10 years.
The study helps to answer some of the questions surrounding differences in risk factors across the age spectrum, commented Patricia Jones, MD, MSCR, from the University of Miami.
“We wonder how these people with fatty liver are different. Do younger people have a more malignant course? Are they going to progress more rapidly than others, or not? Because if you think of a disease like fatty liver or for that matter any metabolic syndrome–based disease, it’s a spectrum and a continuum, and by the time you’re diagnosed you’ve already had that condition, so it’s really more interesting to me when people are diagnosed, because diagnosing at a younger age allows you to intervene earlier,” she said in an interview.
Dr. Jones said that she was also interested in exploring how the genetic data might be used to improve care for patients, perhaps by testing for the high-risk allele in routine clinical practice.
“It will be interesting to see how people with this allele progress, independently of whether they’re diagnosed at 40, 50, or 60,” she said.
Dr. Jones was a moderator of the session where Dr. Williams presented his data.
Comoderator Mitchell A. Mah’moud, MD, FACG from Duke University in Durham, N.C., commented in an interview that, “with the medications we have available, maybe we can target these patients and prevent progression to cirrhosis and some of the decompensation that we see.”
The study authors did not disclose a funding source. Dr. Miller, Dr. Jones, and Dr. Mah’moud all reported having no relevant financial disclosures.
CHARLOTTE, N.C. – Metabolic and genetic risk factors for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) vary across the age spectrum, but once steatosis has started, the risk of progression to cirrhosis is similar for both young and old, investigators found.
At a large Midwest medical center, younger adults were more likely than older patients to have a high-risk gene variant predisposing carriers to NAFLD. And they were less likely than their senior counterparts to have metabolic risk factors, reported Matthew J. Miller, MD, a 3rd-year resident in the department of internal medicine at the University of Michigan Hospital in Ann Arbor.
“Progression to cirrhosis was similar in patients younger than 40, compared to older patients, suggesting NAFLD in the young should not be considered more benign than in older patients,” he said in an oral abstract presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.
The prevalence of NAFLD among younger adults is increasing, but it’s still unknown whether the course of NAFLD is more benign in these patients than in older adults.
In addition, the rate of progression to cirrhosis in patients with NAFLD can vary, making it difficult to predict those patients most at risk for advanced liver disease, Dr. Miller said.
He and his colleagues sought to characterize genetic and metabolic risk factors for NAFLD and their effects on disease progression in patients from 18 to 40 years, 40 to 59 years, and 60 and older.
The investigators collected data on patients with documented objective evidence of NAFLD seen at the Michigan Medicine health care system from 2010 through 2021.
They identified NAFLD by hepatic steatosis on imaging, biopsy, or transient elastography in the absence of other chronic liver diseases, with the earliest date of a hepatic steatosis diagnosis determined to be the index date.
The investigators determined the presence of cirrhosis using validated International Classification of Diseases version 9 or 10 codes, with incident cirrhosis defined as any new cirrhosis diagnosis at least 1 year after the index date.
They also looked at the frequency of known NAFLD risk alleles in a subset of patients with available genetic data.
They divided 31,505 patients into three age groups for comparison: 8,252 patients age 18-39 at the time of steatosis identification, 15,035 age 40-59, and 8,218 age 60 or older.
Of the full cohort, 804 had cirrhosis at the index date, and 388 others developed incident cirrhosis during 128,090 person-years of follow-up.
The prevalence of hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes were significantly lower in the youngest group, compared with the two older groups, but the youngest patients had a higher prevalence of obesity than the other two groups, with a significantly higher prevalence of class 3 (morbid) obesity.
Of the 4,359 patients with genetic data available, the NAFLD-promoting PNPLA3-rs738409-G allele was more common in the young, compared with the other two age groups (P = .016).
When the investigators looked at the ability of three laboratory tests – the AST to Platelet Ratio Index (APRI), Fibrosis-4 (FIB4), and NAFLD fibrosis score for identifying prevalent cirrhosis – they found that the scores performed similarly for patients in the 40-59 group, but the NFS did less well among patients in the 18-39 group. There were no significant differences among the three age groups in the risk for incident cirrhosis over 10 years.
The study helps to answer some of the questions surrounding differences in risk factors across the age spectrum, commented Patricia Jones, MD, MSCR, from the University of Miami.
“We wonder how these people with fatty liver are different. Do younger people have a more malignant course? Are they going to progress more rapidly than others, or not? Because if you think of a disease like fatty liver or for that matter any metabolic syndrome–based disease, it’s a spectrum and a continuum, and by the time you’re diagnosed you’ve already had that condition, so it’s really more interesting to me when people are diagnosed, because diagnosing at a younger age allows you to intervene earlier,” she said in an interview.
Dr. Jones said that she was also interested in exploring how the genetic data might be used to improve care for patients, perhaps by testing for the high-risk allele in routine clinical practice.
“It will be interesting to see how people with this allele progress, independently of whether they’re diagnosed at 40, 50, or 60,” she said.
Dr. Jones was a moderator of the session where Dr. Williams presented his data.
Comoderator Mitchell A. Mah’moud, MD, FACG from Duke University in Durham, N.C., commented in an interview that, “with the medications we have available, maybe we can target these patients and prevent progression to cirrhosis and some of the decompensation that we see.”
The study authors did not disclose a funding source. Dr. Miller, Dr. Jones, and Dr. Mah’moud all reported having no relevant financial disclosures.
AT ACG 2022
High-quality index colonoscopies pay off down the road for low-risk patients
CHARLOTTE, N.C.– Performing high-quality index colonoscopies may pay off later in your patients’ reduced risk for advanced neoplasia, investigators report.
A study of registry data on more than 2,200 patients who had an index colonoscopy showing no evidence of neoplasia found that, on repeat colonoscopy 10 years later, the absolute risk for advanced neoplasia outcomes was lower for those with a high-quality index exam, compared with those who had a lesser-quality index colonoscopy.
The adjusted odds ratio for patients who underwent high-quality index exams was 0.59%, reported Joseph Anderson, MD, from the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H.
“These data demonstrate that high-quality index colonoscopy provides better protection from interval lesions than low-quality exams with no polyps detected at that index exam,” he said in an oral abstract presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.
“These data support the importance of high-quality index exams in the prevention of interval colorectal cancer, and support the 10-year interval for normal exams,” Dr. Anderson added.
He recommended that endoscopists focus on the quality of their exams by using adequate scope withdrawal time – 8-10 minutes – to ensure optimal adenoma detection, and by ensuring the use of optimal bowel preparation in their practices.
Registry study
Dr. Anderson and colleagues studied how the quality of index colonoscopies could affect the risk of advanced outcomes in low-risk patients at the 10-year or later follow-up. They used records from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry, which includes data from 2004 to the present on more than 250,000 exams performed by more than 150 endoscopists in more than 30 Granite State practices.
The investigators also looked at data on patients with less than 5 years of follow-up, and those with follow-up from 5 to less than 10 years.
The study sample included patients with no adenoma or significant serrated polyps on their index exams who had at least one follow-up exam 12 months or more after the index exams. Patients with inflammatory bowel disease or familial colon cancer syndromes were excluded.
They defined a high-quality colonoscopy as an exam complete to cecum, with adequate bowel preparation, and performed by an endoscopist with an adenoma detection rate of 25 or higher.
The adenoma detection rate is calculated as the number of screening colonoscopies with at least one adenoma divided by the total number of screening colonoscopies.
The definition of advanced outcomes included advanced adenomas, colorectal cancer, and/or large serrated polyps (1 cm or greater).
Of the 14,011 patients in the sample, 2,283 had a follow-up exam at 10 years. The absolute risk for advanced outcomes among patients who had a high quality index exam was 4.0% vs. 6.7% for those with lower quality exams.
Among patients with low-quality index exams – but not patients with high quality exams – there was a statistically significant increase in the absolute risk for advanced outcomes at all time periods, from 5.1% in the less than 5-year follow-up group, to 6.7% in the 10-years or more follow-up group.
Patients with initial high-quality exams also had a lower risk for postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer, compared with patients who had low-quality index exams: 0.4% vs. 0.8%. This difference translated into an adjusted hazard ratio for colorectal cancer after a high-quality exam of 0.53.
It’s getting better all the time
In an interview, Daniel J. Pambianco, MD, FACG from Charlottesville (Va.) Gastroenterology Associates, who was not involved in the study, commented that Dr. Anderson and colleagues highlighted the importance of the quality of the bowel prep and the quality of the examination itself.
He noted that the use of devices such as colonoscopy caps can help further improve adenoma detection rates and pointed to up-and-coming developments such as the use of artificial intelligence algorithms to aid human endoscopists.
Dr. Pambianco comoderated the session where the data were presented.
The investigators did not report a study funding source. Dr. Anderson and Dr. Pambianco reported having no relevant financial disclosures.
CHARLOTTE, N.C.– Performing high-quality index colonoscopies may pay off later in your patients’ reduced risk for advanced neoplasia, investigators report.
A study of registry data on more than 2,200 patients who had an index colonoscopy showing no evidence of neoplasia found that, on repeat colonoscopy 10 years later, the absolute risk for advanced neoplasia outcomes was lower for those with a high-quality index exam, compared with those who had a lesser-quality index colonoscopy.
The adjusted odds ratio for patients who underwent high-quality index exams was 0.59%, reported Joseph Anderson, MD, from the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H.
“These data demonstrate that high-quality index colonoscopy provides better protection from interval lesions than low-quality exams with no polyps detected at that index exam,” he said in an oral abstract presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.
“These data support the importance of high-quality index exams in the prevention of interval colorectal cancer, and support the 10-year interval for normal exams,” Dr. Anderson added.
He recommended that endoscopists focus on the quality of their exams by using adequate scope withdrawal time – 8-10 minutes – to ensure optimal adenoma detection, and by ensuring the use of optimal bowel preparation in their practices.
Registry study
Dr. Anderson and colleagues studied how the quality of index colonoscopies could affect the risk of advanced outcomes in low-risk patients at the 10-year or later follow-up. They used records from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry, which includes data from 2004 to the present on more than 250,000 exams performed by more than 150 endoscopists in more than 30 Granite State practices.
The investigators also looked at data on patients with less than 5 years of follow-up, and those with follow-up from 5 to less than 10 years.
The study sample included patients with no adenoma or significant serrated polyps on their index exams who had at least one follow-up exam 12 months or more after the index exams. Patients with inflammatory bowel disease or familial colon cancer syndromes were excluded.
They defined a high-quality colonoscopy as an exam complete to cecum, with adequate bowel preparation, and performed by an endoscopist with an adenoma detection rate of 25 or higher.
The adenoma detection rate is calculated as the number of screening colonoscopies with at least one adenoma divided by the total number of screening colonoscopies.
The definition of advanced outcomes included advanced adenomas, colorectal cancer, and/or large serrated polyps (1 cm or greater).
Of the 14,011 patients in the sample, 2,283 had a follow-up exam at 10 years. The absolute risk for advanced outcomes among patients who had a high quality index exam was 4.0% vs. 6.7% for those with lower quality exams.
Among patients with low-quality index exams – but not patients with high quality exams – there was a statistically significant increase in the absolute risk for advanced outcomes at all time periods, from 5.1% in the less than 5-year follow-up group, to 6.7% in the 10-years or more follow-up group.
Patients with initial high-quality exams also had a lower risk for postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer, compared with patients who had low-quality index exams: 0.4% vs. 0.8%. This difference translated into an adjusted hazard ratio for colorectal cancer after a high-quality exam of 0.53.
It’s getting better all the time
In an interview, Daniel J. Pambianco, MD, FACG from Charlottesville (Va.) Gastroenterology Associates, who was not involved in the study, commented that Dr. Anderson and colleagues highlighted the importance of the quality of the bowel prep and the quality of the examination itself.
He noted that the use of devices such as colonoscopy caps can help further improve adenoma detection rates and pointed to up-and-coming developments such as the use of artificial intelligence algorithms to aid human endoscopists.
Dr. Pambianco comoderated the session where the data were presented.
The investigators did not report a study funding source. Dr. Anderson and Dr. Pambianco reported having no relevant financial disclosures.
CHARLOTTE, N.C.– Performing high-quality index colonoscopies may pay off later in your patients’ reduced risk for advanced neoplasia, investigators report.
A study of registry data on more than 2,200 patients who had an index colonoscopy showing no evidence of neoplasia found that, on repeat colonoscopy 10 years later, the absolute risk for advanced neoplasia outcomes was lower for those with a high-quality index exam, compared with those who had a lesser-quality index colonoscopy.
The adjusted odds ratio for patients who underwent high-quality index exams was 0.59%, reported Joseph Anderson, MD, from the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H.
“These data demonstrate that high-quality index colonoscopy provides better protection from interval lesions than low-quality exams with no polyps detected at that index exam,” he said in an oral abstract presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.
“These data support the importance of high-quality index exams in the prevention of interval colorectal cancer, and support the 10-year interval for normal exams,” Dr. Anderson added.
He recommended that endoscopists focus on the quality of their exams by using adequate scope withdrawal time – 8-10 minutes – to ensure optimal adenoma detection, and by ensuring the use of optimal bowel preparation in their practices.
Registry study
Dr. Anderson and colleagues studied how the quality of index colonoscopies could affect the risk of advanced outcomes in low-risk patients at the 10-year or later follow-up. They used records from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry, which includes data from 2004 to the present on more than 250,000 exams performed by more than 150 endoscopists in more than 30 Granite State practices.
The investigators also looked at data on patients with less than 5 years of follow-up, and those with follow-up from 5 to less than 10 years.
The study sample included patients with no adenoma or significant serrated polyps on their index exams who had at least one follow-up exam 12 months or more after the index exams. Patients with inflammatory bowel disease or familial colon cancer syndromes were excluded.
They defined a high-quality colonoscopy as an exam complete to cecum, with adequate bowel preparation, and performed by an endoscopist with an adenoma detection rate of 25 or higher.
The adenoma detection rate is calculated as the number of screening colonoscopies with at least one adenoma divided by the total number of screening colonoscopies.
The definition of advanced outcomes included advanced adenomas, colorectal cancer, and/or large serrated polyps (1 cm or greater).
Of the 14,011 patients in the sample, 2,283 had a follow-up exam at 10 years. The absolute risk for advanced outcomes among patients who had a high quality index exam was 4.0% vs. 6.7% for those with lower quality exams.
Among patients with low-quality index exams – but not patients with high quality exams – there was a statistically significant increase in the absolute risk for advanced outcomes at all time periods, from 5.1% in the less than 5-year follow-up group, to 6.7% in the 10-years or more follow-up group.
Patients with initial high-quality exams also had a lower risk for postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer, compared with patients who had low-quality index exams: 0.4% vs. 0.8%. This difference translated into an adjusted hazard ratio for colorectal cancer after a high-quality exam of 0.53.
It’s getting better all the time
In an interview, Daniel J. Pambianco, MD, FACG from Charlottesville (Va.) Gastroenterology Associates, who was not involved in the study, commented that Dr. Anderson and colleagues highlighted the importance of the quality of the bowel prep and the quality of the examination itself.
He noted that the use of devices such as colonoscopy caps can help further improve adenoma detection rates and pointed to up-and-coming developments such as the use of artificial intelligence algorithms to aid human endoscopists.
Dr. Pambianco comoderated the session where the data were presented.
The investigators did not report a study funding source. Dr. Anderson and Dr. Pambianco reported having no relevant financial disclosures.
AT ACG 2022
Easier bowel prep recipe yields real-world results
CHARLOTTE, N.C. – In a real-world setting, a 1-liter polyethylene glycol and ascorbic acid combination produced a high level of adequate or better bowel cleansing for colonoscopy.
Among more than 13,000 patients who used the combination, abbreviated as 1L PEG+ASC (Plenvu), the overall rate of adequate quality bowel prep was 89.3%, reported Cátia Arieira, MD, from the Hospital da Senhora da Oliveira in Guimarães, Portugal.
The rate of adequate prep was significantly higher with a split-dose regimen (evening-morning) than with a same-day regimen, at 94.7% versus 86.7%, respectively.
“Results from this large study confirm the high cleansing effectiveness and good tolerability of 1 liter of polyethylene glycol and ascorbic acid in real-world settings,” she said in an oral abstract session during the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.
Designed for tolerability
The 1L PEG+ASC regimen is intended to make precolonoscopy bowel prep a little easier both to take, by reducing the volume of liquid patients need to ingest, and to reduce indigestion with two asymmetric doses, with the second dose having a high ascorbate content.
The 1-liter regimen has been shown to be safe and effective both in clinical trials and in smaller practice-based studies, Dr. Arieira said.
To see how well 1L PEG+ASC performs on a larger scale, the investigators conducted a retrospective observational study of patients underwent a colonoscopy from June 2019 to September 2021 at 12 centers in Spain and Portugal.
The sample included patients who had either a screening, diagnostic, or surveillance colonoscopy and used 1L PEG+ASC in either a split or same-day dose.
The investigators used the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) to evaluate the quality of cleansing. They defined an adequate cleansing as a total BBPS score of 6 or greater, with all segmental scores 2 or greater, and a high-quality cleansing as segmental scores of 3.
They enrolled a total of 13,169 patients, 6,406 men and 6,763 women. The same-day regimen was used by two-thirds of patients, and the split-dose regimen by one-third.
In all, 41.9% of procedures were for screening, 29.4% for diagnosis, 26.2% for surveillance, and 2.6% for other, unspecified reasons.
Results
As noted, the overall rate of adequate prep was 89.3%, with rates of 94.7% and 86.7% for the split and same-day doses, respectively.
A breakdown of cleansing by bowel segment showed that, for each segment, the split-dose regimen was numerically superior to the same-day regimen, with rates of 95.6% versus 89.5% for the right colon, 97.1% versus 91.9% for the left colon, and 97.8% versus 93.1% for the transverse colon, respectively.
Mean BBPS scores were significantly better with split dosing, at 8.02 versus 6.96. Higher scores were seen with split-dosing for each colon segment.
The incidence of adverse events was low, at 2.3% overall, 1.4% for same-day dosing, and 3.9% for split dosing, with nausea the most common.
Tolerability is key
Renee L. Williams, MD, MHPE, FACG, from New York University, who moderated the session but was not involved in the study, commented that the more convenient 1L PEG+ASC regimen may be helpful with improving compliance with bowel prep in underserved populations.
“My population of patients is very different from the one in this study,” she said in an interview. “Normally, if you’re looking at people who are not prepped, at least in the United States, people who have a lot of comorbidities, who are underserved, or have insurance uncertainty tend to have a lower level of bowel prep. So I’d be curious to see whether this would work in that population.”
Dr. Williams noted that she prefers split dosing for bowel prep because it offers better tolerability for patients, adding that when her center introduced split-dose prep, the percentage of adequate prep rose from around 60% to more than 90%.
Comoderator John R. Saltzman, MD, FACG, from Harvard Medical School and Brigham & Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, said that while he’s not familiar with this specific bowel prep formulation, “I’m looking for whatever is most palatable to patients and most effective in practice. Still, most of our patients tolerate these 2-liter overnight preps very well.”
The 1L-PEG+ASC regimen may be a suitable option for patients whose colonoscopies are scheduled for later in the day, Dr. Saltzman added.
The study was supported by Norgine and Xolomon Tree. Dr. Arieira, Dr. Williams, and Dr. Saltzman reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
CHARLOTTE, N.C. – In a real-world setting, a 1-liter polyethylene glycol and ascorbic acid combination produced a high level of adequate or better bowel cleansing for colonoscopy.
Among more than 13,000 patients who used the combination, abbreviated as 1L PEG+ASC (Plenvu), the overall rate of adequate quality bowel prep was 89.3%, reported Cátia Arieira, MD, from the Hospital da Senhora da Oliveira in Guimarães, Portugal.
The rate of adequate prep was significantly higher with a split-dose regimen (evening-morning) than with a same-day regimen, at 94.7% versus 86.7%, respectively.
“Results from this large study confirm the high cleansing effectiveness and good tolerability of 1 liter of polyethylene glycol and ascorbic acid in real-world settings,” she said in an oral abstract session during the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.
Designed for tolerability
The 1L PEG+ASC regimen is intended to make precolonoscopy bowel prep a little easier both to take, by reducing the volume of liquid patients need to ingest, and to reduce indigestion with two asymmetric doses, with the second dose having a high ascorbate content.
The 1-liter regimen has been shown to be safe and effective both in clinical trials and in smaller practice-based studies, Dr. Arieira said.
To see how well 1L PEG+ASC performs on a larger scale, the investigators conducted a retrospective observational study of patients underwent a colonoscopy from June 2019 to September 2021 at 12 centers in Spain and Portugal.
The sample included patients who had either a screening, diagnostic, or surveillance colonoscopy and used 1L PEG+ASC in either a split or same-day dose.
The investigators used the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) to evaluate the quality of cleansing. They defined an adequate cleansing as a total BBPS score of 6 or greater, with all segmental scores 2 or greater, and a high-quality cleansing as segmental scores of 3.
They enrolled a total of 13,169 patients, 6,406 men and 6,763 women. The same-day regimen was used by two-thirds of patients, and the split-dose regimen by one-third.
In all, 41.9% of procedures were for screening, 29.4% for diagnosis, 26.2% for surveillance, and 2.6% for other, unspecified reasons.
Results
As noted, the overall rate of adequate prep was 89.3%, with rates of 94.7% and 86.7% for the split and same-day doses, respectively.
A breakdown of cleansing by bowel segment showed that, for each segment, the split-dose regimen was numerically superior to the same-day regimen, with rates of 95.6% versus 89.5% for the right colon, 97.1% versus 91.9% for the left colon, and 97.8% versus 93.1% for the transverse colon, respectively.
Mean BBPS scores were significantly better with split dosing, at 8.02 versus 6.96. Higher scores were seen with split-dosing for each colon segment.
The incidence of adverse events was low, at 2.3% overall, 1.4% for same-day dosing, and 3.9% for split dosing, with nausea the most common.
Tolerability is key
Renee L. Williams, MD, MHPE, FACG, from New York University, who moderated the session but was not involved in the study, commented that the more convenient 1L PEG+ASC regimen may be helpful with improving compliance with bowel prep in underserved populations.
“My population of patients is very different from the one in this study,” she said in an interview. “Normally, if you’re looking at people who are not prepped, at least in the United States, people who have a lot of comorbidities, who are underserved, or have insurance uncertainty tend to have a lower level of bowel prep. So I’d be curious to see whether this would work in that population.”
Dr. Williams noted that she prefers split dosing for bowel prep because it offers better tolerability for patients, adding that when her center introduced split-dose prep, the percentage of adequate prep rose from around 60% to more than 90%.
Comoderator John R. Saltzman, MD, FACG, from Harvard Medical School and Brigham & Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, said that while he’s not familiar with this specific bowel prep formulation, “I’m looking for whatever is most palatable to patients and most effective in practice. Still, most of our patients tolerate these 2-liter overnight preps very well.”
The 1L-PEG+ASC regimen may be a suitable option for patients whose colonoscopies are scheduled for later in the day, Dr. Saltzman added.
The study was supported by Norgine and Xolomon Tree. Dr. Arieira, Dr. Williams, and Dr. Saltzman reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
CHARLOTTE, N.C. – In a real-world setting, a 1-liter polyethylene glycol and ascorbic acid combination produced a high level of adequate or better bowel cleansing for colonoscopy.
Among more than 13,000 patients who used the combination, abbreviated as 1L PEG+ASC (Plenvu), the overall rate of adequate quality bowel prep was 89.3%, reported Cátia Arieira, MD, from the Hospital da Senhora da Oliveira in Guimarães, Portugal.
The rate of adequate prep was significantly higher with a split-dose regimen (evening-morning) than with a same-day regimen, at 94.7% versus 86.7%, respectively.
“Results from this large study confirm the high cleansing effectiveness and good tolerability of 1 liter of polyethylene glycol and ascorbic acid in real-world settings,” she said in an oral abstract session during the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.
Designed for tolerability
The 1L PEG+ASC regimen is intended to make precolonoscopy bowel prep a little easier both to take, by reducing the volume of liquid patients need to ingest, and to reduce indigestion with two asymmetric doses, with the second dose having a high ascorbate content.
The 1-liter regimen has been shown to be safe and effective both in clinical trials and in smaller practice-based studies, Dr. Arieira said.
To see how well 1L PEG+ASC performs on a larger scale, the investigators conducted a retrospective observational study of patients underwent a colonoscopy from June 2019 to September 2021 at 12 centers in Spain and Portugal.
The sample included patients who had either a screening, diagnostic, or surveillance colonoscopy and used 1L PEG+ASC in either a split or same-day dose.
The investigators used the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) to evaluate the quality of cleansing. They defined an adequate cleansing as a total BBPS score of 6 or greater, with all segmental scores 2 or greater, and a high-quality cleansing as segmental scores of 3.
They enrolled a total of 13,169 patients, 6,406 men and 6,763 women. The same-day regimen was used by two-thirds of patients, and the split-dose regimen by one-third.
In all, 41.9% of procedures were for screening, 29.4% for diagnosis, 26.2% for surveillance, and 2.6% for other, unspecified reasons.
Results
As noted, the overall rate of adequate prep was 89.3%, with rates of 94.7% and 86.7% for the split and same-day doses, respectively.
A breakdown of cleansing by bowel segment showed that, for each segment, the split-dose regimen was numerically superior to the same-day regimen, with rates of 95.6% versus 89.5% for the right colon, 97.1% versus 91.9% for the left colon, and 97.8% versus 93.1% for the transverse colon, respectively.
Mean BBPS scores were significantly better with split dosing, at 8.02 versus 6.96. Higher scores were seen with split-dosing for each colon segment.
The incidence of adverse events was low, at 2.3% overall, 1.4% for same-day dosing, and 3.9% for split dosing, with nausea the most common.
Tolerability is key
Renee L. Williams, MD, MHPE, FACG, from New York University, who moderated the session but was not involved in the study, commented that the more convenient 1L PEG+ASC regimen may be helpful with improving compliance with bowel prep in underserved populations.
“My population of patients is very different from the one in this study,” she said in an interview. “Normally, if you’re looking at people who are not prepped, at least in the United States, people who have a lot of comorbidities, who are underserved, or have insurance uncertainty tend to have a lower level of bowel prep. So I’d be curious to see whether this would work in that population.”
Dr. Williams noted that she prefers split dosing for bowel prep because it offers better tolerability for patients, adding that when her center introduced split-dose prep, the percentage of adequate prep rose from around 60% to more than 90%.
Comoderator John R. Saltzman, MD, FACG, from Harvard Medical School and Brigham & Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, said that while he’s not familiar with this specific bowel prep formulation, “I’m looking for whatever is most palatable to patients and most effective in practice. Still, most of our patients tolerate these 2-liter overnight preps very well.”
The 1L-PEG+ASC regimen may be a suitable option for patients whose colonoscopies are scheduled for later in the day, Dr. Saltzman added.
The study was supported by Norgine and Xolomon Tree. Dr. Arieira, Dr. Williams, and Dr. Saltzman reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
AT ACG 2022