Clinician Reviews

The available evidence suggests that proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) do not cause gastric cancer, researchers say.

A new study could help resolve a controversy over one of the most serious side effects attributed to the widely used medications.

“Our findings are reassuring, especially to all those patients who have an indication for long-term PPI use and need persistent and effective gastric acid suppression to prevent serious health consequences,” said Daniele Piovani, MSc, PhD, an assistant professor of medical statistics at Humanitas University, Milan, in an email to this news organization.

Previous studies did not take into account the probability that the diseases for which the medications were prescribed might have caused the cancer, Dr. Piovani and colleagues write in Alimentary Pharmacology and Therapeutics.

Researchers have worried about the potential of PPIs to cause cancer after finding that they are associated with enterochromaffin-like cells, gastric atrophy, and changes in gut microbiota and gastric mucosal immunology.

Observational studies and meta-analyses showed a link between PPIs and an increased risk for gastric cancer.

“However, the underlying conditions for which PPIs are prescribed are associated with gastric cancer,” said Dr. Piovani. “This may result in an apparent association between PPIs and gastric cancer.”

Another potential confounding factor is that as-yet undiagnosed cancer might also cause symptoms that are treated with PPIs. Patient behavior also may play a role, she noted.

“Let’s imagine a patient with peptic ulcer who takes PPIs,” said Dr. Piovani. “He may not only have peptic ulcer but also be a heavy smoker. He may drink much more alcohol, have a different dietary pattern, be more likely to be exposed to high levels of stress, etc. in respect to a control [patient] who does not have peptic ulcer and does not take PPIs.”
 

Comparing two drug classes

More recent studies have compared people taking PPIs to people taking histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs). H2RAs are often used to treat the same conditions as PPIs, but they are not as strongly linked to hypergastrinemia and are not associated with gastric atrophy, so they might serve as good comparators.

Since results of these studies have been conflicting, Dr. Piovani and colleagues attempted to weigh them together in a systematic review and meta-analysis. They identified two randomized clinical trials and 12 observational studies with a total of over 6 million patients.

One randomized controlled trial involved Helicobacter pylori–negative patients with bleeding ulcers. Researchers assigned 138 to 20 mg daily rabeprazole (a PPI) and 132 to 40 mg famotidine (an H2RA). After a year, no cancer occurred.

The other randomized controlled trial involved H. pylori–negative patients with idiopathic peptic ulcers. Investigators assigned 114 to 30 mg lansoprazole (another PPI) and 114 to 40 mg famotidine. In 2 years, one patient receiving famotidine developed cancer.

The researchers found several methodological problems with these trials. One flaw is that the study periods were not long enough to accurately measure what effects the medications might have on gastric cancers, which are a rare outcome, they note. The evidence from these studies was so weak they could not draw conclusions from the results, the investigators conclude.

Pooling data from the 11 observational trials they were able to combine, the researchers found that PPI users had a one-third higher random relative risk of cancer than H2RA users (95% confidence interval, 1.11-1.59). However, these studies were heterogenous, and five of them did not adjust for age and sex, as well as other potentially confounding covariates.

The remaining six observational studies adjusted for age, sex, and at least two other covariates that could affect the risk for gastric cancer. These studies had a total of 2.5 million patients and 7,372 gastric cancers. Combined, these studies showed an RR of gastric cancer in PPI users, compared with H2RA users of 1.07, which was not statistically significant (95% CI, 0.97-1.19).

The researchers found no clear evidence of a dose-response or of an increased risk with longer-term use of PPIs.
 

Findings support practice guidance

“I found this relatively reassuring,” Mark Lewis, MD, director of gastrointestinal oncology at Intermountain Healthcare, Murray, Utah, told this news organization.

PPIs do dramatically increase the pH of the stomach, stimulating the stomach to try to compensate in a process that can sometimes give rise to tumors, Dr. Lewis said. But these tumors appear to be benign.

Other concerns about PPI use, such as reduction in bone density, remain under investigation, he said.

Some H2RA blockers might actually pose a greater cancer risk than PPIs, said Dr. Lewis, and many clinicians seem to favor PPIs. “I have seen a huge sea change where most patients are on PPIs. And I would say that H2RA blockers are older and increasingly the exception in terms of usage, not the rule.”

The investigators note that observational studies by their nature cannot prove cause and effect, but because gastric cancer is so rare, a randomized controlled trial of PPIs versus H2RAs that is large enough to be definitive may not be feasible.

They conclude that their findings support the American Gastroenterological Association recommendation that “the decision to discontinue PPIs should be based solely on the lack of an indication for use and not because of concern for PPI-associated adverse effects.”

Dr. Piovani and Dr. Lewis report no relevant financial relationships.

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

The available evidence suggests that proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) do not cause gastric cancer, researchers say.

A new study could help resolve a controversy over one of the most serious side effects attributed to the widely used medications.

“Our findings are reassuring, especially to all those patients who have an indication for long-term PPI use and need persistent and effective gastric acid suppression to prevent serious health consequences,” said Daniele Piovani, MSc, PhD, an assistant professor of medical statistics at Humanitas University, Milan, in an email to this news organization.

Previous studies did not take into account the probability that the diseases for which the medications were prescribed might have caused the cancer, Dr. Piovani and colleagues write in Alimentary Pharmacology and Therapeutics.

Researchers have worried about the potential of PPIs to cause cancer after finding that they are associated with enterochromaffin-like cells, gastric atrophy, and changes in gut microbiota and gastric mucosal immunology.

Observational studies and meta-analyses showed a link between PPIs and an increased risk for gastric cancer.

“However, the underlying conditions for which PPIs are prescribed are associated with gastric cancer,” said Dr. Piovani. “This may result in an apparent association between PPIs and gastric cancer.”

Another potential confounding factor is that as-yet undiagnosed cancer might also cause symptoms that are treated with PPIs. Patient behavior also may play a role, she noted.

“Let’s imagine a patient with peptic ulcer who takes PPIs,” said Dr. Piovani. “He may not only have peptic ulcer but also be a heavy smoker. He may drink much more alcohol, have a different dietary pattern, be more likely to be exposed to high levels of stress, etc. in respect to a control [patient] who does not have peptic ulcer and does not take PPIs.”
 

Comparing two drug classes

More recent studies have compared people taking PPIs to people taking histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs). H2RAs are often used to treat the same conditions as PPIs, but they are not as strongly linked to hypergastrinemia and are not associated with gastric atrophy, so they might serve as good comparators.

Since results of these studies have been conflicting, Dr. Piovani and colleagues attempted to weigh them together in a systematic review and meta-analysis. They identified two randomized clinical trials and 12 observational studies with a total of over 6 million patients.

One randomized controlled trial involved Helicobacter pylori–negative patients with bleeding ulcers. Researchers assigned 138 to 20 mg daily rabeprazole (a PPI) and 132 to 40 mg famotidine (an H2RA). After a year, no cancer occurred.

The other randomized controlled trial involved H. pylori–negative patients with idiopathic peptic ulcers. Investigators assigned 114 to 30 mg lansoprazole (another PPI) and 114 to 40 mg famotidine. In 2 years, one patient receiving famotidine developed cancer.

The researchers found several methodological problems with these trials. One flaw is that the study periods were not long enough to accurately measure what effects the medications might have on gastric cancers, which are a rare outcome, they note. The evidence from these studies was so weak they could not draw conclusions from the results, the investigators conclude.

Pooling data from the 11 observational trials they were able to combine, the researchers found that PPI users had a one-third higher random relative risk of cancer than H2RA users (95% confidence interval, 1.11-1.59). However, these studies were heterogenous, and five of them did not adjust for age and sex, as well as other potentially confounding covariates.

The remaining six observational studies adjusted for age, sex, and at least two other covariates that could affect the risk for gastric cancer. These studies had a total of 2.5 million patients and 7,372 gastric cancers. Combined, these studies showed an RR of gastric cancer in PPI users, compared with H2RA users of 1.07, which was not statistically significant (95% CI, 0.97-1.19).

The researchers found no clear evidence of a dose-response or of an increased risk with longer-term use of PPIs.
 

Findings support practice guidance

“I found this relatively reassuring,” Mark Lewis, MD, director of gastrointestinal oncology at Intermountain Healthcare, Murray, Utah, told this news organization.

PPIs do dramatically increase the pH of the stomach, stimulating the stomach to try to compensate in a process that can sometimes give rise to tumors, Dr. Lewis said. But these tumors appear to be benign.

Other concerns about PPI use, such as reduction in bone density, remain under investigation, he said.

Some H2RA blockers might actually pose a greater cancer risk than PPIs, said Dr. Lewis, and many clinicians seem to favor PPIs. “I have seen a huge sea change where most patients are on PPIs. And I would say that H2RA blockers are older and increasingly the exception in terms of usage, not the rule.”

The investigators note that observational studies by their nature cannot prove cause and effect, but because gastric cancer is so rare, a randomized controlled trial of PPIs versus H2RAs that is large enough to be definitive may not be feasible.

They conclude that their findings support the American Gastroenterological Association recommendation that “the decision to discontinue PPIs should be based solely on the lack of an indication for use and not because of concern for PPI-associated adverse effects.”

Dr. Piovani and Dr. Lewis report no relevant financial relationships.

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

The available evidence suggests that proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) do not cause gastric cancer, researchers say.

A new study could help resolve a controversy over one of the most serious side effects attributed to the widely used medications.

“Our findings are reassuring, especially to all those patients who have an indication for long-term PPI use and need persistent and effective gastric acid suppression to prevent serious health consequences,” said Daniele Piovani, MSc, PhD, an assistant professor of medical statistics at Humanitas University, Milan, in an email to this news organization.

Previous studies did not take into account the probability that the diseases for which the medications were prescribed might have caused the cancer, Dr. Piovani and colleagues write in Alimentary Pharmacology and Therapeutics.

Researchers have worried about the potential of PPIs to cause cancer after finding that they are associated with enterochromaffin-like cells, gastric atrophy, and changes in gut microbiota and gastric mucosal immunology.

Observational studies and meta-analyses showed a link between PPIs and an increased risk for gastric cancer.

“However, the underlying conditions for which PPIs are prescribed are associated with gastric cancer,” said Dr. Piovani. “This may result in an apparent association between PPIs and gastric cancer.”

Another potential confounding factor is that as-yet undiagnosed cancer might also cause symptoms that are treated with PPIs. Patient behavior also may play a role, she noted.

“Let’s imagine a patient with peptic ulcer who takes PPIs,” said Dr. Piovani. “He may not only have peptic ulcer but also be a heavy smoker. He may drink much more alcohol, have a different dietary pattern, be more likely to be exposed to high levels of stress, etc. in respect to a control [patient] who does not have peptic ulcer and does not take PPIs.”
 

Comparing two drug classes

More recent studies have compared people taking PPIs to people taking histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs). H2RAs are often used to treat the same conditions as PPIs, but they are not as strongly linked to hypergastrinemia and are not associated with gastric atrophy, so they might serve as good comparators.

Since results of these studies have been conflicting, Dr. Piovani and colleagues attempted to weigh them together in a systematic review and meta-analysis. They identified two randomized clinical trials and 12 observational studies with a total of over 6 million patients.

One randomized controlled trial involved Helicobacter pylori–negative patients with bleeding ulcers. Researchers assigned 138 to 20 mg daily rabeprazole (a PPI) and 132 to 40 mg famotidine (an H2RA). After a year, no cancer occurred.

The other randomized controlled trial involved H. pylori–negative patients with idiopathic peptic ulcers. Investigators assigned 114 to 30 mg lansoprazole (another PPI) and 114 to 40 mg famotidine. In 2 years, one patient receiving famotidine developed cancer.

The researchers found several methodological problems with these trials. One flaw is that the study periods were not long enough to accurately measure what effects the medications might have on gastric cancers, which are a rare outcome, they note. The evidence from these studies was so weak they could not draw conclusions from the results, the investigators conclude.

Pooling data from the 11 observational trials they were able to combine, the researchers found that PPI users had a one-third higher random relative risk of cancer than H2RA users (95% confidence interval, 1.11-1.59). However, these studies were heterogenous, and five of them did not adjust for age and sex, as well as other potentially confounding covariates.

The remaining six observational studies adjusted for age, sex, and at least two other covariates that could affect the risk for gastric cancer. These studies had a total of 2.5 million patients and 7,372 gastric cancers. Combined, these studies showed an RR of gastric cancer in PPI users, compared with H2RA users of 1.07, which was not statistically significant (95% CI, 0.97-1.19).

The researchers found no clear evidence of a dose-response or of an increased risk with longer-term use of PPIs.
 

Findings support practice guidance

“I found this relatively reassuring,” Mark Lewis, MD, director of gastrointestinal oncology at Intermountain Healthcare, Murray, Utah, told this news organization.

PPIs do dramatically increase the pH of the stomach, stimulating the stomach to try to compensate in a process that can sometimes give rise to tumors, Dr. Lewis said. But these tumors appear to be benign.

Other concerns about PPI use, such as reduction in bone density, remain under investigation, he said.

Some H2RA blockers might actually pose a greater cancer risk than PPIs, said Dr. Lewis, and many clinicians seem to favor PPIs. “I have seen a huge sea change where most patients are on PPIs. And I would say that H2RA blockers are older and increasingly the exception in terms of usage, not the rule.”

The investigators note that observational studies by their nature cannot prove cause and effect, but because gastric cancer is so rare, a randomized controlled trial of PPIs versus H2RAs that is large enough to be definitive may not be feasible.

They conclude that their findings support the American Gastroenterological Association recommendation that “the decision to discontinue PPIs should be based solely on the lack of an indication for use and not because of concern for PPI-associated adverse effects.”

Dr. Piovani and Dr. Lewis report no relevant financial relationships.

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

COVID-19 remained the top-ranked cause of death among law enforcement officers last year. 

A new report says 70 officers died of COVID-related causes after getting the virus while on the job. The number is down dramatically from 2021, when 405 officer deaths were attributed to COVID.

The annual count was published Wednesday by the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund.

In total, 226 officers died in the line of duty in 2022, which is a decrease of 61% from 2021.

The decrease “is almost entirely related to the significant reduction in COVID-19 deaths,” the report stated. The authors said the decline was likely due to “reduced infection rates and the broad availability and use of vaccinations.”

Reported deaths included federal, state, tribal, and local law enforcement officers.

Firearms-related fatalities were the second-leading cause of death among officers, with 64 in 2022. That count sustains a 21% increase seen in 2021, up from the decade-long average of 53 firearms-related deaths annually from 2010 to 2020. 

Traffic-related causes ranked third for cause of death in 2022, accounting for 56 deaths. 

“While overall line-of-duty deaths are trending down, the continuing trend of greater-than-average firearms-related deaths continues to be a serious concern,” Marcia Ferranto, the organization’s chief executive officer, said in a news release. “Using and reporting on this data allows us to highlight the continuing cost of maintaining our democracy, regrettably measured in the lives of the many law enforcement professionals who sacrifice everything fulfilling their promise to serve and protect.”

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

COVID-19 remained the top-ranked cause of death among law enforcement officers last year. 

A new report says 70 officers died of COVID-related causes after getting the virus while on the job. The number is down dramatically from 2021, when 405 officer deaths were attributed to COVID.

The annual count was published Wednesday by the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund.

In total, 226 officers died in the line of duty in 2022, which is a decrease of 61% from 2021.

The decrease “is almost entirely related to the significant reduction in COVID-19 deaths,” the report stated. The authors said the decline was likely due to “reduced infection rates and the broad availability and use of vaccinations.”

Reported deaths included federal, state, tribal, and local law enforcement officers.

Firearms-related fatalities were the second-leading cause of death among officers, with 64 in 2022. That count sustains a 21% increase seen in 2021, up from the decade-long average of 53 firearms-related deaths annually from 2010 to 2020. 

Traffic-related causes ranked third for cause of death in 2022, accounting for 56 deaths. 

“While overall line-of-duty deaths are trending down, the continuing trend of greater-than-average firearms-related deaths continues to be a serious concern,” Marcia Ferranto, the organization’s chief executive officer, said in a news release. “Using and reporting on this data allows us to highlight the continuing cost of maintaining our democracy, regrettably measured in the lives of the many law enforcement professionals who sacrifice everything fulfilling their promise to serve and protect.”

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

COVID-19 remained the top-ranked cause of death among law enforcement officers last year. 

A new report says 70 officers died of COVID-related causes after getting the virus while on the job. The number is down dramatically from 2021, when 405 officer deaths were attributed to COVID.

The annual count was published Wednesday by the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund.

In total, 226 officers died in the line of duty in 2022, which is a decrease of 61% from 2021.

The decrease “is almost entirely related to the significant reduction in COVID-19 deaths,” the report stated. The authors said the decline was likely due to “reduced infection rates and the broad availability and use of vaccinations.”

Reported deaths included federal, state, tribal, and local law enforcement officers.

Firearms-related fatalities were the second-leading cause of death among officers, with 64 in 2022. That count sustains a 21% increase seen in 2021, up from the decade-long average of 53 firearms-related deaths annually from 2010 to 2020. 

Traffic-related causes ranked third for cause of death in 2022, accounting for 56 deaths. 

“While overall line-of-duty deaths are trending down, the continuing trend of greater-than-average firearms-related deaths continues to be a serious concern,” Marcia Ferranto, the organization’s chief executive officer, said in a news release. “Using and reporting on this data allows us to highlight the continuing cost of maintaining our democracy, regrettably measured in the lives of the many law enforcement professionals who sacrifice everything fulfilling their promise to serve and protect.”

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

Bariatric surgery for severe obesity does not appear to raise the risk of esophageal and gastric cancer, a new study shows.

In fact, an analysis of close to 1 million French adults suggests that the weight-loss surgery may offer some protection against these cancers.

The study results present a “clinical paradox,” according to authors of a commentary published this week along with the study in JAMA Surgery. A procedure known to increase the risk of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), and potentially adenocarcinoma of the distal esophagus and gastroesophageal junction, may help shield patients from esophagogastric cancer.

The study marks “an important step toward improving the understanding of potential lifetime risks of bariatric surgery and overall major health benefits of surgically induced weight loss,” commentary authors Piotr Gorecki, MD, and Michael Zenilman, MD, with Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, write.

Recent data indicate that excess body weight is associated with nearly 8% of cancer cases and 6.5% of cancer deaths. Studies also show that bariatric surgery can reduce the risk of some cancers, but whether this extends to esophageal and gastric cancer remains unclear.

To investigate, the researchers used French national data to compare the incidence of esophageal and gastric cancer in 303,709 mostly female patients with obesity who underwent bariatric surgery and a matched group of 605,140 patients with obesity who did not undergo the surgery.

The mean age of the cohort was about 40 years. The mean period of follow-up was 6 years for the surgery group and 5.6 years for the control arm. A total of 337 patients underwent esophagogastric cancer – 83 in the surgical group and 254 in the control group. Gastric cancer was about two times more common than esophageal cancer (225 vs. 112 patients).

The incidence rate of esophagogastric cancer was higher in the control group than in the surgery group – 6.9 vs. 4.9 cases per 100,000 population per year, for an incidence rate ratio of 1.42 (P = .005).

Bariatric surgery was associated with a significant 24% lower risk of esophagogastric cancer (hazard ratio, 0.76; P = .03) and a 40% lower risk of overall in-hospital mortality, defined as “any death occurring during a hospital stay regardless of the cause” (HR, 0.60; P < .001).

The authors also found no significant difference in cancer outcomes and type of bariatric procedure, which included sleeve gastrectomy, gastric bypass, and adjustable gastric banding.

They note that key study limitations include the retrospective design, limited follow-up period, and lack of histologic data on the specific cancers. In addition, the study population was relatively young, whereas esophageal cancer is more common in older people.

But overall, the findings suggest that bariatric surgery can be performed to treat severe obesity without increasing the risk of esophageal and gastric cancer, the authors conclude.

“It seems that the balance between protective factors (weight loss, metabolic effects, and eradication of H. pylori infection) and risk factors (GERD and bile reflux) for cancer after bariatric surgery is in favor of protective factors,” the authors, led by Andrea Lazzati, MD, PhD, of Centre Hospitalier Intercommunal de Créteil, France, explain.

Although the potential protective mechanisms remain unclear, in their commentary, Dr. Gorecki and Dr. Zenilman suggest that a reduction in chronic inflammation and immunosuppression following bariatric surgery could help explain the results.

Although the study provides “reassurance of the protective clinical benefits of weight loss surgery,” more large-scale studies are needed to “better identify, elucidate, and address the pathophysiological processes of bariatric procedure,” Dr. Gorecki and Dr. Zenilman conclude.

No specific funding for the study was reported. Dr. Lazzati has received personal fees from Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic, and Gore. Dr. Zenilman has received personal fees from Academic Medical Professionals Insurance and Mohamed & Obaid Almulla Group.

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

Bariatric surgery for severe obesity does not appear to raise the risk of esophageal and gastric cancer, a new study shows.

In fact, an analysis of close to 1 million French adults suggests that the weight-loss surgery may offer some protection against these cancers.

The study results present a “clinical paradox,” according to authors of a commentary published this week along with the study in JAMA Surgery. A procedure known to increase the risk of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), and potentially adenocarcinoma of the distal esophagus and gastroesophageal junction, may help shield patients from esophagogastric cancer.

The study marks “an important step toward improving the understanding of potential lifetime risks of bariatric surgery and overall major health benefits of surgically induced weight loss,” commentary authors Piotr Gorecki, MD, and Michael Zenilman, MD, with Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, write.

Recent data indicate that excess body weight is associated with nearly 8% of cancer cases and 6.5% of cancer deaths. Studies also show that bariatric surgery can reduce the risk of some cancers, but whether this extends to esophageal and gastric cancer remains unclear.

To investigate, the researchers used French national data to compare the incidence of esophageal and gastric cancer in 303,709 mostly female patients with obesity who underwent bariatric surgery and a matched group of 605,140 patients with obesity who did not undergo the surgery.

The mean age of the cohort was about 40 years. The mean period of follow-up was 6 years for the surgery group and 5.6 years for the control arm. A total of 337 patients underwent esophagogastric cancer – 83 in the surgical group and 254 in the control group. Gastric cancer was about two times more common than esophageal cancer (225 vs. 112 patients).

The incidence rate of esophagogastric cancer was higher in the control group than in the surgery group – 6.9 vs. 4.9 cases per 100,000 population per year, for an incidence rate ratio of 1.42 (P = .005).

Bariatric surgery was associated with a significant 24% lower risk of esophagogastric cancer (hazard ratio, 0.76; P = .03) and a 40% lower risk of overall in-hospital mortality, defined as “any death occurring during a hospital stay regardless of the cause” (HR, 0.60; P < .001).

The authors also found no significant difference in cancer outcomes and type of bariatric procedure, which included sleeve gastrectomy, gastric bypass, and adjustable gastric banding.

They note that key study limitations include the retrospective design, limited follow-up period, and lack of histologic data on the specific cancers. In addition, the study population was relatively young, whereas esophageal cancer is more common in older people.

But overall, the findings suggest that bariatric surgery can be performed to treat severe obesity without increasing the risk of esophageal and gastric cancer, the authors conclude.

“It seems that the balance between protective factors (weight loss, metabolic effects, and eradication of H. pylori infection) and risk factors (GERD and bile reflux) for cancer after bariatric surgery is in favor of protective factors,” the authors, led by Andrea Lazzati, MD, PhD, of Centre Hospitalier Intercommunal de Créteil, France, explain.

Although the potential protective mechanisms remain unclear, in their commentary, Dr. Gorecki and Dr. Zenilman suggest that a reduction in chronic inflammation and immunosuppression following bariatric surgery could help explain the results.

Although the study provides “reassurance of the protective clinical benefits of weight loss surgery,” more large-scale studies are needed to “better identify, elucidate, and address the pathophysiological processes of bariatric procedure,” Dr. Gorecki and Dr. Zenilman conclude.

No specific funding for the study was reported. Dr. Lazzati has received personal fees from Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic, and Gore. Dr. Zenilman has received personal fees from Academic Medical Professionals Insurance and Mohamed & Obaid Almulla Group.

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

Bariatric surgery for severe obesity does not appear to raise the risk of esophageal and gastric cancer, a new study shows.

In fact, an analysis of close to 1 million French adults suggests that the weight-loss surgery may offer some protection against these cancers.

The study results present a “clinical paradox,” according to authors of a commentary published this week along with the study in JAMA Surgery. A procedure known to increase the risk of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), and potentially adenocarcinoma of the distal esophagus and gastroesophageal junction, may help shield patients from esophagogastric cancer.

The study marks “an important step toward improving the understanding of potential lifetime risks of bariatric surgery and overall major health benefits of surgically induced weight loss,” commentary authors Piotr Gorecki, MD, and Michael Zenilman, MD, with Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, write.

Recent data indicate that excess body weight is associated with nearly 8% of cancer cases and 6.5% of cancer deaths. Studies also show that bariatric surgery can reduce the risk of some cancers, but whether this extends to esophageal and gastric cancer remains unclear.

To investigate, the researchers used French national data to compare the incidence of esophageal and gastric cancer in 303,709 mostly female patients with obesity who underwent bariatric surgery and a matched group of 605,140 patients with obesity who did not undergo the surgery.

The mean age of the cohort was about 40 years. The mean period of follow-up was 6 years for the surgery group and 5.6 years for the control arm. A total of 337 patients underwent esophagogastric cancer – 83 in the surgical group and 254 in the control group. Gastric cancer was about two times more common than esophageal cancer (225 vs. 112 patients).

The incidence rate of esophagogastric cancer was higher in the control group than in the surgery group – 6.9 vs. 4.9 cases per 100,000 population per year, for an incidence rate ratio of 1.42 (P = .005).

Bariatric surgery was associated with a significant 24% lower risk of esophagogastric cancer (hazard ratio, 0.76; P = .03) and a 40% lower risk of overall in-hospital mortality, defined as “any death occurring during a hospital stay regardless of the cause” (HR, 0.60; P < .001).

The authors also found no significant difference in cancer outcomes and type of bariatric procedure, which included sleeve gastrectomy, gastric bypass, and adjustable gastric banding.

They note that key study limitations include the retrospective design, limited follow-up period, and lack of histologic data on the specific cancers. In addition, the study population was relatively young, whereas esophageal cancer is more common in older people.

But overall, the findings suggest that bariatric surgery can be performed to treat severe obesity without increasing the risk of esophageal and gastric cancer, the authors conclude.

“It seems that the balance between protective factors (weight loss, metabolic effects, and eradication of H. pylori infection) and risk factors (GERD and bile reflux) for cancer after bariatric surgery is in favor of protective factors,” the authors, led by Andrea Lazzati, MD, PhD, of Centre Hospitalier Intercommunal de Créteil, France, explain.

Although the potential protective mechanisms remain unclear, in their commentary, Dr. Gorecki and Dr. Zenilman suggest that a reduction in chronic inflammation and immunosuppression following bariatric surgery could help explain the results.

Although the study provides “reassurance of the protective clinical benefits of weight loss surgery,” more large-scale studies are needed to “better identify, elucidate, and address the pathophysiological processes of bariatric procedure,” Dr. Gorecki and Dr. Zenilman conclude.

No specific funding for the study was reported. Dr. Lazzati has received personal fees from Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic, and Gore. Dr. Zenilman has received personal fees from Academic Medical Professionals Insurance and Mohamed & Obaid Almulla Group.

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

Treatment with interleukin-6 receptor antagonists or antiplatelet agents improves survival and outcomes at 6 months for critically ill patients with COVID-19, according to new data.

However, survival wasn’t improved with therapeutic anticoagulation, convalescent plasma, or lopinavir-ritonavir, and survival was worsened with hydroxychloroquine.

“After critically ill patients leave the hospital, there’s a high risk of readmission, death after discharge, or exacerbations of chronic illness,” study author Patrick Lawler, MD, a clinician-scientist at the Peter Munk Cardiac Centre at University Health Network and an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Toronto, said in an interview.

“When looking at the impact of treatment, we don’t want to improve short-term outcomes yet worsen long-term disability,” he said. “That long-term, 6-month horizon is what matters most to patients.”

The study was published online in JAMA.
 

Investigating treatments

The investigators analyzed data from an ongoing platform trial called Randomized Embedded Multifactorial Adaptive Platform for Community Acquired Pneumonia (REMAP-CAP). The trial is evaluating treatments for patients with severe pneumonia in pandemic and nonpandemic settings.

In the trial, patients are randomly assigned to receive one or more interventions within the following six treatment domains: immune modulators, convalescent plasma, antiplatelet therapy, anticoagulation, antivirals, and corticosteroids. The trial’s primary outcome for patients with COVID-19 is hospital survival and organ support–free days up to 21 days. Researchers previously observed improvement after treatment with IL-6 receptor antagonists (which are immune modulators).

For this study, the research team analyzed data for 4,869 critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 who were enrolled between March 2020 and June 2021 at 197 sites in 14 countries. A 180-day follow-up was completed in March 2022. The critically ill patients had been admitted to an intensive care unit and had received respiratory or cardiovascular organ support.

The researchers examined survival through day 180. A hazard ratio of less than 1 represented improved survival, and an HR greater than 1 represented harm. Futility was represented by a relative improvement in outcome of less than 20%, which was shown by an HR greater than 0.83.

Among the 4,869 patients, 4,107 patients had a known mortality status, and 2,590 were alive at day 180. Among the 1,517 patients who died by day 180, 91 deaths (6%) occurred between hospital discharge and day 180.

Overall, use of IL-6 receptor antagonists (either tocilizumab or sarilumab) had a greater than 99.9% probability of improving 6-month survival, and use of antiplatelet agents (aspirin or a P2Y12 inhibitor such as clopidogrel, prasugrel, or ticagrelor) had a 95% probability of improving 6-month survival, compared with control therapies.

In contrast, long-term survival wasn’t improved with therapeutic anticoagulation (11.5%), convalescent plasma (54.7%), or lopinavir-ritonavir (31.9%). The probability of trial-defined statistical futility was high for anticoagulation (99.9%), convalescent plasma (99.2%), and lopinavir-ritonavir (96.6%).

Long-term survival was worsened with hydroxychloroquine, with a posterior probability of harm of 96.9%. In addition, the combination of lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine had a 96.8% probability of harm.

Corticosteroids didn’t improve long-term outcomes, although enrollment in the treatment domain was terminated early in response to external evidence. The probability of improving 6-month survival ranged from 57.1% to 61.6% for various hydrocortisone dosing strategies.
 

Consistent treatment effects

When considered along with previously reported short-term results from the REMAP-CAP trial, the findings indicate that initial in-hospital treatment effects were consistent for most therapies through 6 months.

“We were very relieved to see that treatments with a favorable benefit for patients in the short term also appeared to be beneficial through 180 days,” said Dr. Lawler. “This supports the current clinical practice strategy in providing treatment to critically ill patients with COVID-19.”

In a subgroup analysis of 989 patients, health-related quality of life at day 180 was higher among those treated with IL-6 receptor antagonists and antiplatelet agents. The average quality-of-life score for the lopinavir-ritonavir group was lower than for control patients.

Among 720 survivors, 273 patients (37.9%) had moderate, severe, or complete disability at day 180. IL-6 receptor antagonists had a 92.6% probability of reducing disability, and anakinra (an IL-1 receptor antagonist) had a 90.8% probability of reducing disability. However, lopinavir-ritonavir had a 91.7% probability of worsening disability.

The REMAP-CAP trial investigators will continue to assess treatment domains and long-term outcomes among COVID-19 patients. They will evaluate additional data regarding disability, quality of life, and long-COVID outcomes.
 

“Reassuring” results

Commenting on the study, Angela Cheung, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine at the University of Toronto and senior scientist at the Toronto General Research Institute, said, “It is important to look at the longer-term effects of these therapies, as sometimes we may improve things in the short term, but that may not translate to longer-term gains. Historically, most trials conducted in this patient population assess only short outcomes, such as organ failure or 28-day mortality.”

Dr. Cheung, who wasn’t involved with this study, serves as the co-lead for the Canadian COVID-19 Prospective Cohort Study (CANCOV) and the Recovering From COVID-19 Lingering Symptoms Adaptive Integrative Medicine Trial (RECLAIM). These studies are also analyzing long-term outcomes among COVID-19 patients.

“It is reassuring to see that the 6-month outcomes are consistent with the short-term outcomes,” she said. “This study will help guide critical care medicine physicians in their treatment of critically ill patients with COVID-19.”

The study was supported by numerous grants and funds, including the Canadian Institute of Health Research COVID-19 Rapid Research Funding. Amgen and Eisai also provided funding. Dr. Lawler received grants from Canadian Institutes for Health Research and the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Novartis, CorEvitas, Partners Healthcare, and the American College of Cardiology outside the submitted work. Dr. Cheung has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Treatment with interleukin-6 receptor antagonists or antiplatelet agents improves survival and outcomes at 6 months for critically ill patients with COVID-19, according to new data.

However, survival wasn’t improved with therapeutic anticoagulation, convalescent plasma, or lopinavir-ritonavir, and survival was worsened with hydroxychloroquine.

“After critically ill patients leave the hospital, there’s a high risk of readmission, death after discharge, or exacerbations of chronic illness,” study author Patrick Lawler, MD, a clinician-scientist at the Peter Munk Cardiac Centre at University Health Network and an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Toronto, said in an interview.

“When looking at the impact of treatment, we don’t want to improve short-term outcomes yet worsen long-term disability,” he said. “That long-term, 6-month horizon is what matters most to patients.”

The study was published online in JAMA.
 

Investigating treatments

The investigators analyzed data from an ongoing platform trial called Randomized Embedded Multifactorial Adaptive Platform for Community Acquired Pneumonia (REMAP-CAP). The trial is evaluating treatments for patients with severe pneumonia in pandemic and nonpandemic settings.

In the trial, patients are randomly assigned to receive one or more interventions within the following six treatment domains: immune modulators, convalescent plasma, antiplatelet therapy, anticoagulation, antivirals, and corticosteroids. The trial’s primary outcome for patients with COVID-19 is hospital survival and organ support–free days up to 21 days. Researchers previously observed improvement after treatment with IL-6 receptor antagonists (which are immune modulators).

For this study, the research team analyzed data for 4,869 critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 who were enrolled between March 2020 and June 2021 at 197 sites in 14 countries. A 180-day follow-up was completed in March 2022. The critically ill patients had been admitted to an intensive care unit and had received respiratory or cardiovascular organ support.

The researchers examined survival through day 180. A hazard ratio of less than 1 represented improved survival, and an HR greater than 1 represented harm. Futility was represented by a relative improvement in outcome of less than 20%, which was shown by an HR greater than 0.83.

Among the 4,869 patients, 4,107 patients had a known mortality status, and 2,590 were alive at day 180. Among the 1,517 patients who died by day 180, 91 deaths (6%) occurred between hospital discharge and day 180.

Overall, use of IL-6 receptor antagonists (either tocilizumab or sarilumab) had a greater than 99.9% probability of improving 6-month survival, and use of antiplatelet agents (aspirin or a P2Y12 inhibitor such as clopidogrel, prasugrel, or ticagrelor) had a 95% probability of improving 6-month survival, compared with control therapies.

In contrast, long-term survival wasn’t improved with therapeutic anticoagulation (11.5%), convalescent plasma (54.7%), or lopinavir-ritonavir (31.9%). The probability of trial-defined statistical futility was high for anticoagulation (99.9%), convalescent plasma (99.2%), and lopinavir-ritonavir (96.6%).

Long-term survival was worsened with hydroxychloroquine, with a posterior probability of harm of 96.9%. In addition, the combination of lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine had a 96.8% probability of harm.

Corticosteroids didn’t improve long-term outcomes, although enrollment in the treatment domain was terminated early in response to external evidence. The probability of improving 6-month survival ranged from 57.1% to 61.6% for various hydrocortisone dosing strategies.
 

Consistent treatment effects

When considered along with previously reported short-term results from the REMAP-CAP trial, the findings indicate that initial in-hospital treatment effects were consistent for most therapies through 6 months.

“We were very relieved to see that treatments with a favorable benefit for patients in the short term also appeared to be beneficial through 180 days,” said Dr. Lawler. “This supports the current clinical practice strategy in providing treatment to critically ill patients with COVID-19.”

In a subgroup analysis of 989 patients, health-related quality of life at day 180 was higher among those treated with IL-6 receptor antagonists and antiplatelet agents. The average quality-of-life score for the lopinavir-ritonavir group was lower than for control patients.

Among 720 survivors, 273 patients (37.9%) had moderate, severe, or complete disability at day 180. IL-6 receptor antagonists had a 92.6% probability of reducing disability, and anakinra (an IL-1 receptor antagonist) had a 90.8% probability of reducing disability. However, lopinavir-ritonavir had a 91.7% probability of worsening disability.

The REMAP-CAP trial investigators will continue to assess treatment domains and long-term outcomes among COVID-19 patients. They will evaluate additional data regarding disability, quality of life, and long-COVID outcomes.
 

“Reassuring” results

Commenting on the study, Angela Cheung, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine at the University of Toronto and senior scientist at the Toronto General Research Institute, said, “It is important to look at the longer-term effects of these therapies, as sometimes we may improve things in the short term, but that may not translate to longer-term gains. Historically, most trials conducted in this patient population assess only short outcomes, such as organ failure or 28-day mortality.”

Dr. Cheung, who wasn’t involved with this study, serves as the co-lead for the Canadian COVID-19 Prospective Cohort Study (CANCOV) and the Recovering From COVID-19 Lingering Symptoms Adaptive Integrative Medicine Trial (RECLAIM). These studies are also analyzing long-term outcomes among COVID-19 patients.

“It is reassuring to see that the 6-month outcomes are consistent with the short-term outcomes,” she said. “This study will help guide critical care medicine physicians in their treatment of critically ill patients with COVID-19.”

The study was supported by numerous grants and funds, including the Canadian Institute of Health Research COVID-19 Rapid Research Funding. Amgen and Eisai also provided funding. Dr. Lawler received grants from Canadian Institutes for Health Research and the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Novartis, CorEvitas, Partners Healthcare, and the American College of Cardiology outside the submitted work. Dr. Cheung has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Treatment with interleukin-6 receptor antagonists or antiplatelet agents improves survival and outcomes at 6 months for critically ill patients with COVID-19, according to new data.

However, survival wasn’t improved with therapeutic anticoagulation, convalescent plasma, or lopinavir-ritonavir, and survival was worsened with hydroxychloroquine.

“After critically ill patients leave the hospital, there’s a high risk of readmission, death after discharge, or exacerbations of chronic illness,” study author Patrick Lawler, MD, a clinician-scientist at the Peter Munk Cardiac Centre at University Health Network and an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Toronto, said in an interview.

“When looking at the impact of treatment, we don’t want to improve short-term outcomes yet worsen long-term disability,” he said. “That long-term, 6-month horizon is what matters most to patients.”

The study was published online in JAMA.
 

Investigating treatments

The investigators analyzed data from an ongoing platform trial called Randomized Embedded Multifactorial Adaptive Platform for Community Acquired Pneumonia (REMAP-CAP). The trial is evaluating treatments for patients with severe pneumonia in pandemic and nonpandemic settings.

In the trial, patients are randomly assigned to receive one or more interventions within the following six treatment domains: immune modulators, convalescent plasma, antiplatelet therapy, anticoagulation, antivirals, and corticosteroids. The trial’s primary outcome for patients with COVID-19 is hospital survival and organ support–free days up to 21 days. Researchers previously observed improvement after treatment with IL-6 receptor antagonists (which are immune modulators).

For this study, the research team analyzed data for 4,869 critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 who were enrolled between March 2020 and June 2021 at 197 sites in 14 countries. A 180-day follow-up was completed in March 2022. The critically ill patients had been admitted to an intensive care unit and had received respiratory or cardiovascular organ support.

The researchers examined survival through day 180. A hazard ratio of less than 1 represented improved survival, and an HR greater than 1 represented harm. Futility was represented by a relative improvement in outcome of less than 20%, which was shown by an HR greater than 0.83.

Among the 4,869 patients, 4,107 patients had a known mortality status, and 2,590 were alive at day 180. Among the 1,517 patients who died by day 180, 91 deaths (6%) occurred between hospital discharge and day 180.

Overall, use of IL-6 receptor antagonists (either tocilizumab or sarilumab) had a greater than 99.9% probability of improving 6-month survival, and use of antiplatelet agents (aspirin or a P2Y12 inhibitor such as clopidogrel, prasugrel, or ticagrelor) had a 95% probability of improving 6-month survival, compared with control therapies.

In contrast, long-term survival wasn’t improved with therapeutic anticoagulation (11.5%), convalescent plasma (54.7%), or lopinavir-ritonavir (31.9%). The probability of trial-defined statistical futility was high for anticoagulation (99.9%), convalescent plasma (99.2%), and lopinavir-ritonavir (96.6%).

Long-term survival was worsened with hydroxychloroquine, with a posterior probability of harm of 96.9%. In addition, the combination of lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine had a 96.8% probability of harm.

Corticosteroids didn’t improve long-term outcomes, although enrollment in the treatment domain was terminated early in response to external evidence. The probability of improving 6-month survival ranged from 57.1% to 61.6% for various hydrocortisone dosing strategies.
 

Consistent treatment effects

When considered along with previously reported short-term results from the REMAP-CAP trial, the findings indicate that initial in-hospital treatment effects were consistent for most therapies through 6 months.

“We were very relieved to see that treatments with a favorable benefit for patients in the short term also appeared to be beneficial through 180 days,” said Dr. Lawler. “This supports the current clinical practice strategy in providing treatment to critically ill patients with COVID-19.”

In a subgroup analysis of 989 patients, health-related quality of life at day 180 was higher among those treated with IL-6 receptor antagonists and antiplatelet agents. The average quality-of-life score for the lopinavir-ritonavir group was lower than for control patients.

Among 720 survivors, 273 patients (37.9%) had moderate, severe, or complete disability at day 180. IL-6 receptor antagonists had a 92.6% probability of reducing disability, and anakinra (an IL-1 receptor antagonist) had a 90.8% probability of reducing disability. However, lopinavir-ritonavir had a 91.7% probability of worsening disability.

The REMAP-CAP trial investigators will continue to assess treatment domains and long-term outcomes among COVID-19 patients. They will evaluate additional data regarding disability, quality of life, and long-COVID outcomes.
 

“Reassuring” results

Commenting on the study, Angela Cheung, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine at the University of Toronto and senior scientist at the Toronto General Research Institute, said, “It is important to look at the longer-term effects of these therapies, as sometimes we may improve things in the short term, but that may not translate to longer-term gains. Historically, most trials conducted in this patient population assess only short outcomes, such as organ failure or 28-day mortality.”

Dr. Cheung, who wasn’t involved with this study, serves as the co-lead for the Canadian COVID-19 Prospective Cohort Study (CANCOV) and the Recovering From COVID-19 Lingering Symptoms Adaptive Integrative Medicine Trial (RECLAIM). These studies are also analyzing long-term outcomes among COVID-19 patients.

“It is reassuring to see that the 6-month outcomes are consistent with the short-term outcomes,” she said. “This study will help guide critical care medicine physicians in their treatment of critically ill patients with COVID-19.”

The study was supported by numerous grants and funds, including the Canadian Institute of Health Research COVID-19 Rapid Research Funding. Amgen and Eisai also provided funding. Dr. Lawler received grants from Canadian Institutes for Health Research and the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Novartis, CorEvitas, Partners Healthcare, and the American College of Cardiology outside the submitted work. Dr. Cheung has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Two classes of drugs may be more effective than others for the treatment of gastroparesis, though the overall quality of evidence remains low to moderate and additional data are needed, according to a new report.

Oral dopamine antagonists and tachykinin-1 antagonists appear superior to placebo, finds the study. In addition, some drugs rank higher for addressing individual symptoms.

“Gastroparesis has a substantial impact on quality of life and societal functioning for patients, and the costs to the health service are high,” Alexander Ford, MBChB, MD, a professor of gastroenterology and honorary consultant gastroenterologist at the Leeds (England) Institute of Medical Research at St. James’s, University of Leeds, said in an interview.

“There are very few licensed therapies, but some novel drugs are in the pipeline, some existing drugs that are licensed for other conditions could be repurposed if efficacious, and some older drugs that have safety concerns may be beneficial,” he said. “Given the impact on patients and their symptoms, they may be willing to accept these safety risks in return for symptom improvement.”

Only one drug, the dopamine antagonist metoclopramide, has Food and Drug Administration approval for the treatment of gastroparesis, noted Dr. Ford and colleagues. The lack of other recommended drugs or new medications has resulted in off-label use of drugs in other classes.

The study was published online in Gastroenterology.
 

Investigating treatments

To address the lack of evidence supporting the efficacy and safety of licensed and unlicensed drugs for the condition, the researchers conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of drugs for gastroparesis dating from 1947 to September 2022. The trials involved more than dozen drugs in several classes.

They determined drug efficacy on the basis of global symptoms of gastroparesis and individual symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, bloating, or fullness. They judged safety on the basis of total adverse events and adverse events leading to withdrawal.

The research team extracted data as intention-to-treat analyses, assuming dropouts to be treatment failures. They reported efficacy as a pooled relative risk of symptoms not improving and ranked the drugs according to P-score.

The analysis included 29 randomized controlled trials with 3,772 patients. Only four trials were at low risk of bias.

Overall, only two drug classes were considered efficacious: oral dopamine antagonists (RR, 0.58; P-score, 0.96) and tachykinin-1 antagonists (RR, 0.69; P-score, 0.83).

On the basis of 25 trials that reported on global symptoms, clebopride ranked first for efficacy (RR, 0.30; P-score, 0.99), followed by domperidone (RR, 0.69; P-score, 0.76). None of the other drugs were superior to the placebo. After direct and indirect comparisons, clebopride was superior to all other drugs except aprepitant.

After excluding three trials with a placebo run-in and a trial where only responders to single-blind domperidone were randomized, the researchers analyzed 21 trials with 2,233 patients. In this analysis, domperidone ranked first (RR, 0.48; P-score, 0.93), followed by oral metoclopramide (RR, 0.54; P-score, 0.87). None of the other drugs were superior to placebo.

Among 16 trials, including 1,381 patients, that confirmed delayed gastric emptying among all participants, only clebopride and metoclopramide were more efficacious than placebo. Clebopride ranked first (RR, 0.30; P-score, 0.95) and metoclopramide ranked third (RR, 0.48).

Among 13 trials with 785 patients with diabetic gastroparesis, none of the active drugs were superior to placebo. Among 12 trials recruiting patients with idiopathic or mixed etiology gastroparesis, clebopride ranked first (RR, 0.30; P-score, 0.93).

On the basis of trials that assessed individual symptoms, oral metoclopramide ranked first for nausea (RR, 0.46; P-score, 0.95), fullness (RR, 0.67; P-score, 0.86), and bloating (RR, 0.53; P-score, 0.97). However, the data came from one small trial. Tradipitant and TZP-102, a ghrelin agonist, were efficacious for nausea, and TZP-102 ranked second for fullness. No drugs were more efficacious than the placebo for abdominal pain or vomiting.

Among 20 trials that reported on the total number of adverse events, camicinal was the least likely to be associated with adverse events (RR, 0.77; P-score, 0.93) and prucalopride was the most likely to be associated with adverse events (RR, 2.96; P-score, 0.10). Prucalopride, oral metoclopramide, and aprepitant also were more likely than placebo to be associated with adverse events.

In 23 trials that reported on withdrawals caused by adverse events, camicinal was the least likely to be associated with withdrawals (RR, 0.20; P-score, 0.87). Nortriptyline was the most likely to be associated with withdrawals (RR, 3.33; P-score, 0.16). However, there were no significant differences between any individual drug and placebo.
 

Urgent need remains

More trials of drugs to treat gastroparesis are needed, Ford said.

“We need to consider the reintroduction of dopamine antagonists, if patients are willing to accept the safety concerns,” he added. “The other important point is most drugs were not of benefit. There is an urgent need to find efficacious therapies, and these should be fast-tracked for licensing approval if efficacy is proven.”

The study is “helpful for practicing clinicians since it provides a comprehensive review of clinical trials in gastroparesis,” Anthony Lembo, MD, a gastroenterologist at the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview.

Dr. Lembo, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched several drugs for gastroparesis, including relamorelin and TZP-102. He agreed that additional research is needed.

“There is a paucity of novel treatments currently in development,” he said. “However, there is interest in developing a product similar to domperidone without cardiac side effects, as well as performing larger studies with botulinum toxin injection.”

The authors did not disclose a funding source for the study. One author disclosed research funding from the National Institutes of Health and consulting roles with various pharmaceutical companies. Ford and the other authors reported no disclosures. Dr. Lembo reported no relevant disclosures.

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

Two classes of drugs may be more effective than others for the treatment of gastroparesis, though the overall quality of evidence remains low to moderate and additional data are needed, according to a new report.

Oral dopamine antagonists and tachykinin-1 antagonists appear superior to placebo, finds the study. In addition, some drugs rank higher for addressing individual symptoms.

“Gastroparesis has a substantial impact on quality of life and societal functioning for patients, and the costs to the health service are high,” Alexander Ford, MBChB, MD, a professor of gastroenterology and honorary consultant gastroenterologist at the Leeds (England) Institute of Medical Research at St. James’s, University of Leeds, said in an interview.

“There are very few licensed therapies, but some novel drugs are in the pipeline, some existing drugs that are licensed for other conditions could be repurposed if efficacious, and some older drugs that have safety concerns may be beneficial,” he said. “Given the impact on patients and their symptoms, they may be willing to accept these safety risks in return for symptom improvement.”

Only one drug, the dopamine antagonist metoclopramide, has Food and Drug Administration approval for the treatment of gastroparesis, noted Dr. Ford and colleagues. The lack of other recommended drugs or new medications has resulted in off-label use of drugs in other classes.

The study was published online in Gastroenterology.
 

Investigating treatments

To address the lack of evidence supporting the efficacy and safety of licensed and unlicensed drugs for the condition, the researchers conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of drugs for gastroparesis dating from 1947 to September 2022. The trials involved more than dozen drugs in several classes.

They determined drug efficacy on the basis of global symptoms of gastroparesis and individual symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, bloating, or fullness. They judged safety on the basis of total adverse events and adverse events leading to withdrawal.

The research team extracted data as intention-to-treat analyses, assuming dropouts to be treatment failures. They reported efficacy as a pooled relative risk of symptoms not improving and ranked the drugs according to P-score.

The analysis included 29 randomized controlled trials with 3,772 patients. Only four trials were at low risk of bias.

Overall, only two drug classes were considered efficacious: oral dopamine antagonists (RR, 0.58; P-score, 0.96) and tachykinin-1 antagonists (RR, 0.69; P-score, 0.83).

On the basis of 25 trials that reported on global symptoms, clebopride ranked first for efficacy (RR, 0.30; P-score, 0.99), followed by domperidone (RR, 0.69; P-score, 0.76). None of the other drugs were superior to the placebo. After direct and indirect comparisons, clebopride was superior to all other drugs except aprepitant.

After excluding three trials with a placebo run-in and a trial where only responders to single-blind domperidone were randomized, the researchers analyzed 21 trials with 2,233 patients. In this analysis, domperidone ranked first (RR, 0.48; P-score, 0.93), followed by oral metoclopramide (RR, 0.54; P-score, 0.87). None of the other drugs were superior to placebo.

Among 16 trials, including 1,381 patients, that confirmed delayed gastric emptying among all participants, only clebopride and metoclopramide were more efficacious than placebo. Clebopride ranked first (RR, 0.30; P-score, 0.95) and metoclopramide ranked third (RR, 0.48).

Among 13 trials with 785 patients with diabetic gastroparesis, none of the active drugs were superior to placebo. Among 12 trials recruiting patients with idiopathic or mixed etiology gastroparesis, clebopride ranked first (RR, 0.30; P-score, 0.93).

On the basis of trials that assessed individual symptoms, oral metoclopramide ranked first for nausea (RR, 0.46; P-score, 0.95), fullness (RR, 0.67; P-score, 0.86), and bloating (RR, 0.53; P-score, 0.97). However, the data came from one small trial. Tradipitant and TZP-102, a ghrelin agonist, were efficacious for nausea, and TZP-102 ranked second for fullness. No drugs were more efficacious than the placebo for abdominal pain or vomiting.

Among 20 trials that reported on the total number of adverse events, camicinal was the least likely to be associated with adverse events (RR, 0.77; P-score, 0.93) and prucalopride was the most likely to be associated with adverse events (RR, 2.96; P-score, 0.10). Prucalopride, oral metoclopramide, and aprepitant also were more likely than placebo to be associated with adverse events.

In 23 trials that reported on withdrawals caused by adverse events, camicinal was the least likely to be associated with withdrawals (RR, 0.20; P-score, 0.87). Nortriptyline was the most likely to be associated with withdrawals (RR, 3.33; P-score, 0.16). However, there were no significant differences between any individual drug and placebo.
 

Urgent need remains

More trials of drugs to treat gastroparesis are needed, Ford said.

“We need to consider the reintroduction of dopamine antagonists, if patients are willing to accept the safety concerns,” he added. “The other important point is most drugs were not of benefit. There is an urgent need to find efficacious therapies, and these should be fast-tracked for licensing approval if efficacy is proven.”

The study is “helpful for practicing clinicians since it provides a comprehensive review of clinical trials in gastroparesis,” Anthony Lembo, MD, a gastroenterologist at the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview.

Dr. Lembo, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched several drugs for gastroparesis, including relamorelin and TZP-102. He agreed that additional research is needed.

“There is a paucity of novel treatments currently in development,” he said. “However, there is interest in developing a product similar to domperidone without cardiac side effects, as well as performing larger studies with botulinum toxin injection.”

The authors did not disclose a funding source for the study. One author disclosed research funding from the National Institutes of Health and consulting roles with various pharmaceutical companies. Ford and the other authors reported no disclosures. Dr. Lembo reported no relevant disclosures.

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

Two classes of drugs may be more effective than others for the treatment of gastroparesis, though the overall quality of evidence remains low to moderate and additional data are needed, according to a new report.

Oral dopamine antagonists and tachykinin-1 antagonists appear superior to placebo, finds the study. In addition, some drugs rank higher for addressing individual symptoms.

“Gastroparesis has a substantial impact on quality of life and societal functioning for patients, and the costs to the health service are high,” Alexander Ford, MBChB, MD, a professor of gastroenterology and honorary consultant gastroenterologist at the Leeds (England) Institute of Medical Research at St. James’s, University of Leeds, said in an interview.

“There are very few licensed therapies, but some novel drugs are in the pipeline, some existing drugs that are licensed for other conditions could be repurposed if efficacious, and some older drugs that have safety concerns may be beneficial,” he said. “Given the impact on patients and their symptoms, they may be willing to accept these safety risks in return for symptom improvement.”

Only one drug, the dopamine antagonist metoclopramide, has Food and Drug Administration approval for the treatment of gastroparesis, noted Dr. Ford and colleagues. The lack of other recommended drugs or new medications has resulted in off-label use of drugs in other classes.

The study was published online in Gastroenterology.
 

Investigating treatments

To address the lack of evidence supporting the efficacy and safety of licensed and unlicensed drugs for the condition, the researchers conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of drugs for gastroparesis dating from 1947 to September 2022. The trials involved more than dozen drugs in several classes.

They determined drug efficacy on the basis of global symptoms of gastroparesis and individual symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, bloating, or fullness. They judged safety on the basis of total adverse events and adverse events leading to withdrawal.

The research team extracted data as intention-to-treat analyses, assuming dropouts to be treatment failures. They reported efficacy as a pooled relative risk of symptoms not improving and ranked the drugs according to P-score.

The analysis included 29 randomized controlled trials with 3,772 patients. Only four trials were at low risk of bias.

Overall, only two drug classes were considered efficacious: oral dopamine antagonists (RR, 0.58; P-score, 0.96) and tachykinin-1 antagonists (RR, 0.69; P-score, 0.83).

On the basis of 25 trials that reported on global symptoms, clebopride ranked first for efficacy (RR, 0.30; P-score, 0.99), followed by domperidone (RR, 0.69; P-score, 0.76). None of the other drugs were superior to the placebo. After direct and indirect comparisons, clebopride was superior to all other drugs except aprepitant.

After excluding three trials with a placebo run-in and a trial where only responders to single-blind domperidone were randomized, the researchers analyzed 21 trials with 2,233 patients. In this analysis, domperidone ranked first (RR, 0.48; P-score, 0.93), followed by oral metoclopramide (RR, 0.54; P-score, 0.87). None of the other drugs were superior to placebo.

Among 16 trials, including 1,381 patients, that confirmed delayed gastric emptying among all participants, only clebopride and metoclopramide were more efficacious than placebo. Clebopride ranked first (RR, 0.30; P-score, 0.95) and metoclopramide ranked third (RR, 0.48).

Among 13 trials with 785 patients with diabetic gastroparesis, none of the active drugs were superior to placebo. Among 12 trials recruiting patients with idiopathic or mixed etiology gastroparesis, clebopride ranked first (RR, 0.30; P-score, 0.93).

On the basis of trials that assessed individual symptoms, oral metoclopramide ranked first for nausea (RR, 0.46; P-score, 0.95), fullness (RR, 0.67; P-score, 0.86), and bloating (RR, 0.53; P-score, 0.97). However, the data came from one small trial. Tradipitant and TZP-102, a ghrelin agonist, were efficacious for nausea, and TZP-102 ranked second for fullness. No drugs were more efficacious than the placebo for abdominal pain or vomiting.

Among 20 trials that reported on the total number of adverse events, camicinal was the least likely to be associated with adverse events (RR, 0.77; P-score, 0.93) and prucalopride was the most likely to be associated with adverse events (RR, 2.96; P-score, 0.10). Prucalopride, oral metoclopramide, and aprepitant also were more likely than placebo to be associated with adverse events.

In 23 trials that reported on withdrawals caused by adverse events, camicinal was the least likely to be associated with withdrawals (RR, 0.20; P-score, 0.87). Nortriptyline was the most likely to be associated with withdrawals (RR, 3.33; P-score, 0.16). However, there were no significant differences between any individual drug and placebo.
 

Urgent need remains

More trials of drugs to treat gastroparesis are needed, Ford said.

“We need to consider the reintroduction of dopamine antagonists, if patients are willing to accept the safety concerns,” he added. “The other important point is most drugs were not of benefit. There is an urgent need to find efficacious therapies, and these should be fast-tracked for licensing approval if efficacy is proven.”

The study is “helpful for practicing clinicians since it provides a comprehensive review of clinical trials in gastroparesis,” Anthony Lembo, MD, a gastroenterologist at the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview.

Dr. Lembo, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched several drugs for gastroparesis, including relamorelin and TZP-102. He agreed that additional research is needed.

“There is a paucity of novel treatments currently in development,” he said. “However, there is interest in developing a product similar to domperidone without cardiac side effects, as well as performing larger studies with botulinum toxin injection.”

The authors did not disclose a funding source for the study. One author disclosed research funding from the National Institutes of Health and consulting roles with various pharmaceutical companies. Ford and the other authors reported no disclosures. Dr. Lembo reported no relevant disclosures.

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

Individuals who regularly take vitamin D supplements are significantly less likely to have a history of malignant melanoma or any type of skin cancers than are nonusers, say Finnish investigators. They also found a trend for benefit with occasional use.

The study, published in Melanoma Research, involved almost 500 individuals attending a dermatology clinic who reported on their use of vitamin D supplements.

Zbynek Pospisil/Getty Images

Regular users had a significant 55% reduction in the odds of having a past or present melanoma diagnosis, while occasional use was associated with a nonsignificant 46% reduction. The reduction was similar for all skin cancer types.

However, senior author Ilkka T. Harvima, MD, PhD, department of dermatology, University of Eastern Finland and Kuopio (Finland) University Hospital, warned there are limitations to the study.

Despite adjustment for several possible confounding factors, “it is still possible that some other, yet unidentified or untested, factors can still confound the present result,” he said.

Consequently, “the causal link between vitamin D and melanoma cannot be confirmed by the present results,” Dr. Harvima said in a statement.

Even if the link were to be proven, “the question about the optimal dose of oral vitamin D in order to for it to have beneficial effects remains to be answered,” he said.

“Until we know more, national intake recommendations should be followed.”

The incidence of cutaneous malignant melanoma and other skin cancers has been increasing steadily in Western populations, particularly in immunosuppressed individuals, the authors pointed out, and they attributed the rise to an increased exposure to ultraviolet radiation.

While ultraviolet radiation exposure is a well-known risk factor, “the other side of the coin is that public sun protection campaigns have led to alerts that insufficient sun exposure is a significant public health problem, resulting in insufficient vitamin D status.”

For their study, the team reviewed the records of 498 patients aged 21-79 years at a  dermatology outpatient clinic who were deemed by an experienced dermatologist to be at risk of any type of skin cancer.

Among these patients, 295 individuals had a history of past or present cutaneous malignancy, with 100 diagnosed with melanoma, 213 with basal cell carcinoma, and 41 with squamous cell carcinoma. A further 70 subjects had cancer elsewhere, including breast, prostate, kidney, bladder, intestine, and blood cancers.

A subgroup of 96 patients were immunocompromised and were considered separately.

The 402 remaining patients were categorized, based on their self-reported use of oral vitamin D preparations, as nonusers (n = 99), occasional users (n = 126), and regular users (n = 177).

Regular use of vitamin D was associated with being more educated (P = .032), less frequent outdoor working (P = .003), lower tobacco pack years (P = .001), and more frequent solarium exposure (P = .002).

There was no significant association between vitamin D use and photoaging, actinic keratoses, nevi, basal or squamous cell carcinoma, body mass index, or self-estimated lifetime exposure to sunlight or sunburns.

However, there were significant associations between regular use of vitamin D and a lower incidence of melanoma and other cancer types.

There were significantly fewer individuals in the regular vitamin D use group with a past or present history of melanoma when compared with the nonuse group, at 18.1% vs. 32.3% (P = .021), or any type of skin cancer, at 62.1% vs. 74.7% (P = .027).

Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that regular vitamin D use was significantly associated with a reduced melanoma risk, at an odds ratio vs. nonuse of 0.447 (P = .016).

Occasional use was associated with a reduced, albeit nonsignificant, risk, with an odds ratio versus nonuse of 0.540 (P = .08).

For any type of skin cancers, regular vitamin D use was associated with an odds ratio vs. nonuse of 0.478 (P = .032), while that for occasional vitamin D use was 0.543 (P = .061).

“Somewhat similar” results were obtained when the investigators looked at the subgroup of immunocompromised individuals, although they note that “the number of subjects was low.”

The study was supported by the Cancer Center of Eastern Finland of the University of Eastern Finland, the Finnish Cancer Research Foundation, and the VTR-funding of Kuopio University Hospital. The authors report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Individuals who regularly take vitamin D supplements are significantly less likely to have a history of malignant melanoma or any type of skin cancers than are nonusers, say Finnish investigators. They also found a trend for benefit with occasional use.

The study, published in Melanoma Research, involved almost 500 individuals attending a dermatology clinic who reported on their use of vitamin D supplements.

Zbynek Pospisil/Getty Images

Regular users had a significant 55% reduction in the odds of having a past or present melanoma diagnosis, while occasional use was associated with a nonsignificant 46% reduction. The reduction was similar for all skin cancer types.

However, senior author Ilkka T. Harvima, MD, PhD, department of dermatology, University of Eastern Finland and Kuopio (Finland) University Hospital, warned there are limitations to the study.

Despite adjustment for several possible confounding factors, “it is still possible that some other, yet unidentified or untested, factors can still confound the present result,” he said.

Consequently, “the causal link between vitamin D and melanoma cannot be confirmed by the present results,” Dr. Harvima said in a statement.

Even if the link were to be proven, “the question about the optimal dose of oral vitamin D in order to for it to have beneficial effects remains to be answered,” he said.

“Until we know more, national intake recommendations should be followed.”

The incidence of cutaneous malignant melanoma and other skin cancers has been increasing steadily in Western populations, particularly in immunosuppressed individuals, the authors pointed out, and they attributed the rise to an increased exposure to ultraviolet radiation.

While ultraviolet radiation exposure is a well-known risk factor, “the other side of the coin is that public sun protection campaigns have led to alerts that insufficient sun exposure is a significant public health problem, resulting in insufficient vitamin D status.”

For their study, the team reviewed the records of 498 patients aged 21-79 years at a  dermatology outpatient clinic who were deemed by an experienced dermatologist to be at risk of any type of skin cancer.

Among these patients, 295 individuals had a history of past or present cutaneous malignancy, with 100 diagnosed with melanoma, 213 with basal cell carcinoma, and 41 with squamous cell carcinoma. A further 70 subjects had cancer elsewhere, including breast, prostate, kidney, bladder, intestine, and blood cancers.

A subgroup of 96 patients were immunocompromised and were considered separately.

The 402 remaining patients were categorized, based on their self-reported use of oral vitamin D preparations, as nonusers (n = 99), occasional users (n = 126), and regular users (n = 177).

Regular use of vitamin D was associated with being more educated (P = .032), less frequent outdoor working (P = .003), lower tobacco pack years (P = .001), and more frequent solarium exposure (P = .002).

There was no significant association between vitamin D use and photoaging, actinic keratoses, nevi, basal or squamous cell carcinoma, body mass index, or self-estimated lifetime exposure to sunlight or sunburns.

However, there were significant associations between regular use of vitamin D and a lower incidence of melanoma and other cancer types.

There were significantly fewer individuals in the regular vitamin D use group with a past or present history of melanoma when compared with the nonuse group, at 18.1% vs. 32.3% (P = .021), or any type of skin cancer, at 62.1% vs. 74.7% (P = .027).

Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that regular vitamin D use was significantly associated with a reduced melanoma risk, at an odds ratio vs. nonuse of 0.447 (P = .016).

Occasional use was associated with a reduced, albeit nonsignificant, risk, with an odds ratio versus nonuse of 0.540 (P = .08).

For any type of skin cancers, regular vitamin D use was associated with an odds ratio vs. nonuse of 0.478 (P = .032), while that for occasional vitamin D use was 0.543 (P = .061).

“Somewhat similar” results were obtained when the investigators looked at the subgroup of immunocompromised individuals, although they note that “the number of subjects was low.”

The study was supported by the Cancer Center of Eastern Finland of the University of Eastern Finland, the Finnish Cancer Research Foundation, and the VTR-funding of Kuopio University Hospital. The authors report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Individuals who regularly take vitamin D supplements are significantly less likely to have a history of malignant melanoma or any type of skin cancers than are nonusers, say Finnish investigators. They also found a trend for benefit with occasional use.

The study, published in Melanoma Research, involved almost 500 individuals attending a dermatology clinic who reported on their use of vitamin D supplements.

Zbynek Pospisil/Getty Images

Regular users had a significant 55% reduction in the odds of having a past or present melanoma diagnosis, while occasional use was associated with a nonsignificant 46% reduction. The reduction was similar for all skin cancer types.

However, senior author Ilkka T. Harvima, MD, PhD, department of dermatology, University of Eastern Finland and Kuopio (Finland) University Hospital, warned there are limitations to the study.

Despite adjustment for several possible confounding factors, “it is still possible that some other, yet unidentified or untested, factors can still confound the present result,” he said.

Consequently, “the causal link between vitamin D and melanoma cannot be confirmed by the present results,” Dr. Harvima said in a statement.

Even if the link were to be proven, “the question about the optimal dose of oral vitamin D in order to for it to have beneficial effects remains to be answered,” he said.

“Until we know more, national intake recommendations should be followed.”

The incidence of cutaneous malignant melanoma and other skin cancers has been increasing steadily in Western populations, particularly in immunosuppressed individuals, the authors pointed out, and they attributed the rise to an increased exposure to ultraviolet radiation.

While ultraviolet radiation exposure is a well-known risk factor, “the other side of the coin is that public sun protection campaigns have led to alerts that insufficient sun exposure is a significant public health problem, resulting in insufficient vitamin D status.”

For their study, the team reviewed the records of 498 patients aged 21-79 years at a  dermatology outpatient clinic who were deemed by an experienced dermatologist to be at risk of any type of skin cancer.

Among these patients, 295 individuals had a history of past or present cutaneous malignancy, with 100 diagnosed with melanoma, 213 with basal cell carcinoma, and 41 with squamous cell carcinoma. A further 70 subjects had cancer elsewhere, including breast, prostate, kidney, bladder, intestine, and blood cancers.

A subgroup of 96 patients were immunocompromised and were considered separately.

The 402 remaining patients were categorized, based on their self-reported use of oral vitamin D preparations, as nonusers (n = 99), occasional users (n = 126), and regular users (n = 177).

Regular use of vitamin D was associated with being more educated (P = .032), less frequent outdoor working (P = .003), lower tobacco pack years (P = .001), and more frequent solarium exposure (P = .002).

There was no significant association between vitamin D use and photoaging, actinic keratoses, nevi, basal or squamous cell carcinoma, body mass index, or self-estimated lifetime exposure to sunlight or sunburns.

However, there were significant associations between regular use of vitamin D and a lower incidence of melanoma and other cancer types.

There were significantly fewer individuals in the regular vitamin D use group with a past or present history of melanoma when compared with the nonuse group, at 18.1% vs. 32.3% (P = .021), or any type of skin cancer, at 62.1% vs. 74.7% (P = .027).

Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that regular vitamin D use was significantly associated with a reduced melanoma risk, at an odds ratio vs. nonuse of 0.447 (P = .016).

Occasional use was associated with a reduced, albeit nonsignificant, risk, with an odds ratio versus nonuse of 0.540 (P = .08).

For any type of skin cancers, regular vitamin D use was associated with an odds ratio vs. nonuse of 0.478 (P = .032), while that for occasional vitamin D use was 0.543 (P = .061).

“Somewhat similar” results were obtained when the investigators looked at the subgroup of immunocompromised individuals, although they note that “the number of subjects was low.”

The study was supported by the Cancer Center of Eastern Finland of the University of Eastern Finland, the Finnish Cancer Research Foundation, and the VTR-funding of Kuopio University Hospital. The authors report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Atropine is often considered a first-line intervention for unstable bradycardia. Unfortunately, atropine often fails when the bradycardia is not vagally induced and is not indicated for high-level atrioventricular blocks (for example, Mobitz II and third-degree AV block).

Transvenous pacing is typically the most effective therapy for unstable bradycardia but it is invasive, takes some time to perform, and is a procedure for which many acute care physicians lack comfort and significant experience. Transcutaneous pacing (TCP), on the other hand, is fast, easy to perform, and tends to be well tolerated by most patients when they receive appropriate doses of analgesia.

Unfortunately, TCP often fails to produce electrical or, more importantly, mechanical capture. Oftentimes when capture initially fails, the electrical current is increased in hopes of gaining capture but much to the discomfort of the patient. Increased body mass index can contribute to failure to capture, but what about TCP pad position? Despite recommendations for TCP in the United States and European resuscitation guidelines for many years, until now, no studies have evaluated optimal pad position for TCP. As a result, the default position for most clinicians using TCP has been the anterior-lateral (AL) position on the chest wall.

A study published in October 2022 compared the common AL position (anterior pad placed at the right upper chest and lateral pad placed over the left lower rib cage at the mid-axillary line) with the anterior-posterior (AP) position (anterior pad placed on the left chest over the apex of the heart and the posterior pad on the left mid-back area approximating the level of the mid-portion of the heart). The AP position has become more commonly used in defibrillating arrested hearts because it more accurately sends the current through the left ventricle. The concern with the AL position, especially in patients with large body habitus, is that the vector of the current may partially or entirely miss the left ventricle.

Moayedi and colleagues hypothesized that optimal TCP should employ pad placement that is similar to that used during optimal defibrillation attempts. They conducted a study comparing AL versus AP position during TCP and published their results in two parts, which will be discussed together.

The investigators evaluated 20 patients (6 women, 14 men) who had elective cardioversion of atrial fibrillation in the electrophysiology lab (Resuscitation. 2022 Dec;181:140-6). After successful cardioversion to sinus rhythm, the cardioversion pads were removed, and two new sets of pacer pads were placed on the patients’ chests. Pads were placed in both the AL and the AP positions, as previously described. Starting at a current output of 40 mA, the output was slowly increased on one set of pads until mechanical capture was obtained at the same rate as the pacer setting for at least 10 seconds. Pacing was then discontinued, but then the process was repeated using the second set of pads. The order in which the positions were tested (that is, AL tested first vs. AP tested first) was alternated. If capture was not obtained by 140 mA (the pacer’s maximum output), failure to capture was documented. Both positions were tested in all patients except for three cases where the second position was not tested because of inadequate analgesia.

The investigators found that 8 in 19 (42%) of the AL trials and 14 in 18 (78%) of the AP trials successfully captured. For the 17 participants who completed both trials, both positions captured in 8 in 17 (47%). AP but not AL was captured in 5 in 17 (29%); AL but not AP was captured in 0 cases. Neither position captured in 4 in 17 (24%). Of note, there was no association between successful capture and body mass index, chest circumference, or chest diameter. The AP position was more successful in both women and men, compared with the AL position. The investigators also found that, among the successful trials, the AP position tended to capture at lower currents than the AL position (93 mA vs. 126 mA).
 

In summary

TCP is a potentially lifesaving intervention in the treatment of patients with unstable bradycardia. Many of us who have attempted to perform TCP on unstable patients have frequently been disappointed with the results. In retrospect, however, I can recall that each time I have attempted this procedure, it has been using pads placed in the AL position.

Now for the first time we have data indicating that the standard AL position may be suboptimal, compared with the AP position. The study by Moayedi and colleagues is small, but the results are compelling, and the AP pad placement intuitively makes more sense. By using the AP pad placement, which provides greater likelihood of electrical current passing through the left ventricle, we should expect a greater likelihood of successful capture during attempts at TCP. In addition, we may anticipate lower analgesia needs if the AP position requires less current for success. Kudos to Moayedi and colleagues for performing a novel study of a critical procedure in acute care medicine.

Amal Mattu, MD, is a professor, vice chair of education, and codirector of the emergency cardiology fellowship in the department of emergency medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore. He had no disclosures. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Atropine is often considered a first-line intervention for unstable bradycardia. Unfortunately, atropine often fails when the bradycardia is not vagally induced and is not indicated for high-level atrioventricular blocks (for example, Mobitz II and third-degree AV block).

Transvenous pacing is typically the most effective therapy for unstable bradycardia but it is invasive, takes some time to perform, and is a procedure for which many acute care physicians lack comfort and significant experience. Transcutaneous pacing (TCP), on the other hand, is fast, easy to perform, and tends to be well tolerated by most patients when they receive appropriate doses of analgesia.

Unfortunately, TCP often fails to produce electrical or, more importantly, mechanical capture. Oftentimes when capture initially fails, the electrical current is increased in hopes of gaining capture but much to the discomfort of the patient. Increased body mass index can contribute to failure to capture, but what about TCP pad position? Despite recommendations for TCP in the United States and European resuscitation guidelines for many years, until now, no studies have evaluated optimal pad position for TCP. As a result, the default position for most clinicians using TCP has been the anterior-lateral (AL) position on the chest wall.

A study published in October 2022 compared the common AL position (anterior pad placed at the right upper chest and lateral pad placed over the left lower rib cage at the mid-axillary line) with the anterior-posterior (AP) position (anterior pad placed on the left chest over the apex of the heart and the posterior pad on the left mid-back area approximating the level of the mid-portion of the heart). The AP position has become more commonly used in defibrillating arrested hearts because it more accurately sends the current through the left ventricle. The concern with the AL position, especially in patients with large body habitus, is that the vector of the current may partially or entirely miss the left ventricle.

Moayedi and colleagues hypothesized that optimal TCP should employ pad placement that is similar to that used during optimal defibrillation attempts. They conducted a study comparing AL versus AP position during TCP and published their results in two parts, which will be discussed together.

The investigators evaluated 20 patients (6 women, 14 men) who had elective cardioversion of atrial fibrillation in the electrophysiology lab (Resuscitation. 2022 Dec;181:140-6). After successful cardioversion to sinus rhythm, the cardioversion pads were removed, and two new sets of pacer pads were placed on the patients’ chests. Pads were placed in both the AL and the AP positions, as previously described. Starting at a current output of 40 mA, the output was slowly increased on one set of pads until mechanical capture was obtained at the same rate as the pacer setting for at least 10 seconds. Pacing was then discontinued, but then the process was repeated using the second set of pads. The order in which the positions were tested (that is, AL tested first vs. AP tested first) was alternated. If capture was not obtained by 140 mA (the pacer’s maximum output), failure to capture was documented. Both positions were tested in all patients except for three cases where the second position was not tested because of inadequate analgesia.

The investigators found that 8 in 19 (42%) of the AL trials and 14 in 18 (78%) of the AP trials successfully captured. For the 17 participants who completed both trials, both positions captured in 8 in 17 (47%). AP but not AL was captured in 5 in 17 (29%); AL but not AP was captured in 0 cases. Neither position captured in 4 in 17 (24%). Of note, there was no association between successful capture and body mass index, chest circumference, or chest diameter. The AP position was more successful in both women and men, compared with the AL position. The investigators also found that, among the successful trials, the AP position tended to capture at lower currents than the AL position (93 mA vs. 126 mA).
 

In summary

TCP is a potentially lifesaving intervention in the treatment of patients with unstable bradycardia. Many of us who have attempted to perform TCP on unstable patients have frequently been disappointed with the results. In retrospect, however, I can recall that each time I have attempted this procedure, it has been using pads placed in the AL position.

Now for the first time we have data indicating that the standard AL position may be suboptimal, compared with the AP position. The study by Moayedi and colleagues is small, but the results are compelling, and the AP pad placement intuitively makes more sense. By using the AP pad placement, which provides greater likelihood of electrical current passing through the left ventricle, we should expect a greater likelihood of successful capture during attempts at TCP. In addition, we may anticipate lower analgesia needs if the AP position requires less current for success. Kudos to Moayedi and colleagues for performing a novel study of a critical procedure in acute care medicine.

Amal Mattu, MD, is a professor, vice chair of education, and codirector of the emergency cardiology fellowship in the department of emergency medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore. He had no disclosures. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Atropine is often considered a first-line intervention for unstable bradycardia. Unfortunately, atropine often fails when the bradycardia is not vagally induced and is not indicated for high-level atrioventricular blocks (for example, Mobitz II and third-degree AV block).

Transvenous pacing is typically the most effective therapy for unstable bradycardia but it is invasive, takes some time to perform, and is a procedure for which many acute care physicians lack comfort and significant experience. Transcutaneous pacing (TCP), on the other hand, is fast, easy to perform, and tends to be well tolerated by most patients when they receive appropriate doses of analgesia.

Unfortunately, TCP often fails to produce electrical or, more importantly, mechanical capture. Oftentimes when capture initially fails, the electrical current is increased in hopes of gaining capture but much to the discomfort of the patient. Increased body mass index can contribute to failure to capture, but what about TCP pad position? Despite recommendations for TCP in the United States and European resuscitation guidelines for many years, until now, no studies have evaluated optimal pad position for TCP. As a result, the default position for most clinicians using TCP has been the anterior-lateral (AL) position on the chest wall.

A study published in October 2022 compared the common AL position (anterior pad placed at the right upper chest and lateral pad placed over the left lower rib cage at the mid-axillary line) with the anterior-posterior (AP) position (anterior pad placed on the left chest over the apex of the heart and the posterior pad on the left mid-back area approximating the level of the mid-portion of the heart). The AP position has become more commonly used in defibrillating arrested hearts because it more accurately sends the current through the left ventricle. The concern with the AL position, especially in patients with large body habitus, is that the vector of the current may partially or entirely miss the left ventricle.

Moayedi and colleagues hypothesized that optimal TCP should employ pad placement that is similar to that used during optimal defibrillation attempts. They conducted a study comparing AL versus AP position during TCP and published their results in two parts, which will be discussed together.

The investigators evaluated 20 patients (6 women, 14 men) who had elective cardioversion of atrial fibrillation in the electrophysiology lab (Resuscitation. 2022 Dec;181:140-6). After successful cardioversion to sinus rhythm, the cardioversion pads were removed, and two new sets of pacer pads were placed on the patients’ chests. Pads were placed in both the AL and the AP positions, as previously described. Starting at a current output of 40 mA, the output was slowly increased on one set of pads until mechanical capture was obtained at the same rate as the pacer setting for at least 10 seconds. Pacing was then discontinued, but then the process was repeated using the second set of pads. The order in which the positions were tested (that is, AL tested first vs. AP tested first) was alternated. If capture was not obtained by 140 mA (the pacer’s maximum output), failure to capture was documented. Both positions were tested in all patients except for three cases where the second position was not tested because of inadequate analgesia.

The investigators found that 8 in 19 (42%) of the AL trials and 14 in 18 (78%) of the AP trials successfully captured. For the 17 participants who completed both trials, both positions captured in 8 in 17 (47%). AP but not AL was captured in 5 in 17 (29%); AL but not AP was captured in 0 cases. Neither position captured in 4 in 17 (24%). Of note, there was no association between successful capture and body mass index, chest circumference, or chest diameter. The AP position was more successful in both women and men, compared with the AL position. The investigators also found that, among the successful trials, the AP position tended to capture at lower currents than the AL position (93 mA vs. 126 mA).
 

In summary

TCP is a potentially lifesaving intervention in the treatment of patients with unstable bradycardia. Many of us who have attempted to perform TCP on unstable patients have frequently been disappointed with the results. In retrospect, however, I can recall that each time I have attempted this procedure, it has been using pads placed in the AL position.

Now for the first time we have data indicating that the standard AL position may be suboptimal, compared with the AP position. The study by Moayedi and colleagues is small, but the results are compelling, and the AP pad placement intuitively makes more sense. By using the AP pad placement, which provides greater likelihood of electrical current passing through the left ventricle, we should expect a greater likelihood of successful capture during attempts at TCP. In addition, we may anticipate lower analgesia needs if the AP position requires less current for success. Kudos to Moayedi and colleagues for performing a novel study of a critical procedure in acute care medicine.

Amal Mattu, MD, is a professor, vice chair of education, and codirector of the emergency cardiology fellowship in the department of emergency medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore. He had no disclosures. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Emergency department (ED) encounters for sexual assault increased before the COVID-19 pandemic, decreased immediately after lockdowns were implemented, and fluctuated as the pandemic continued, an analysis of more than 10,000 such visits in Canada’s most populous province shows.

“In 2020, we hoped that the COVID pandemic would only last a few months. However, as it continued, we became increasingly concerned about limited health care access for survivors of sexual assault throughout the ongoing crisis,” study author Katherine A. Muldoon, PhD, MPH, a senior clinical research associate at the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute in Ontario, told this news organization.

“Unexpectedly, we found a 20%-25% increase in the number of survivors of sexual assault presenting for emergency care before the lockdown protocols were enacted,” she added. “After lockdown, the numbers dropped by 50%-60% and fluctuated throughout ... the pandemic.”

As they develop new lockdown protocols, public health officials and governments should incorporate warnings of the risks of violence and state that survivors should still present for urgent care when needed, said Dr. Muldoon. “COVID-19 lockdown protocols have limited access to health care for survivors worldwide, and barriers are likely greater in low-resource settings and those heavily affected by COVID-19.” 

The study was published in JAMA Network Open.
 

Both sexes affected

The researchers analyzed linked health administrative data from 197 EDs in Ontario from January 2019 to September 2021. They used 10 bimonthly time periods to compare differences in the frequency and rates of ED visits for sexual assault in 2020-2021 (during the pandemic), compared with baseline prepandemic rates in 2019.

Sexual assault was defined by 27 ICD-10 procedure and diagnoses codes.

More than 14 million ED presentations occurred during the study period, including 10,523 for sexual assault. The median age was 23 years for female patients and 15 years for males. Most encounters (88.4%) were among females.

During the 2 months before the pandemic (Jan. 11 to Mar. 10, 2020), the rates of ED encounters for sexual assault among females were significantly higher than prepandemic levels (8.4 vs. 6.9 cases per 100,000; age-adjusted rate ratio [aRR], 1.22), whereas during the first 2 months of the pandemic (Mar. 11 to May 10, 2020), rates were significantly lower (4.2 vs. 8.3 cases per 100,000; aRR, 0.51).

Among males, rates were higher during the 2 months before the pandemic, but not significantly different, compared with prepandemic levels (1.2 vs. 1.0 cases per 100,000; aRR, 1.19). However, the rates decreased significantly during the first 2 months of the pandemic (0.5 vs. 1.2 cases per 100,000; aRR, 0.39).

For the 12 months starting July 11, 2020, rates were the same as in 2019. In the final time period (July 11 to Sept. 10, 2021), however, the rates were significantly higher than during prepandemic levels (1.5 vs. 1.1 cases per 100,000; aRR, 1.40).

Further analyses showed a similar pattern for all age groups, community sizes, and income quintiles. Rates were predominantly above prepandemic levels for the 2 months leading up to the pandemic and below expected levels from the beginning of the pandemic onward. However, from July 11 to Sept. 10, 2020 (during a trough in the summer, when sexual assaults are generally higher), and from May 11 to Sept. 10, 2021 (also during a trough and the summer), the rates returned to prepandemic levels.

“The COVID-19 pandemic has caused many changes to society and health care delivery and access,” the authors wrote. “We recommend that the decision-making regarding the management of the COVID-19 pandemic include antiviolence considerations to evaluate how policies and protocols affect the risk of violence and ensure that those who need health care can access services without concern.”

“Specialized and trauma-informed clinics are the best solution for encouraging survivors to come for urgent care following a sexual assault,” said Dr. Muldoon. “Clinicians should be prepared and trained to provide the best possible care for survivors of violence and ensure that getting care is not retraumatizing. Fostering conversations about the common experience of violence and destigmatizing those exposed to violence remain the most important ways to create safer spaces and societies.”
 

Dedicated care pathways

Commenting on the study, Samuel A. McLean, MD, MPH, director of the Institute for Trauma Recovery and professor of emergency medicine, psychiatry, and anesthesiology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said, “This important work documents a reduction in visits by sexual assault survivors for emergency care and forensic evidence collection during times of pandemic surge. It’s impossible to know for certain if this reduction in visits is entirely due to a reduction in sexual assaults, but a number of lines of circumstantial evidence make this unlikely.”

The results highlight the importance of ensuring that sexual assault care is maintained during surges in emergency care volume, added Dr. McLean, who was not involved with the current study. “This can be done via methods such as dedicated care pathways that avoid prolonged survivor wait times for care, and public health messaging that informs the public of the continued ready access to care during surges. Evidence, including data cited by the authors, suggests that these same care-seeking reductions are occurring in the United States and elsewhere.”

The study was supported by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-term Care Applied Health Research Question Fund. Dr. Muldoon, study coauthors, and Dr. McLean report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Emergency department (ED) encounters for sexual assault increased before the COVID-19 pandemic, decreased immediately after lockdowns were implemented, and fluctuated as the pandemic continued, an analysis of more than 10,000 such visits in Canada’s most populous province shows.

“In 2020, we hoped that the COVID pandemic would only last a few months. However, as it continued, we became increasingly concerned about limited health care access for survivors of sexual assault throughout the ongoing crisis,” study author Katherine A. Muldoon, PhD, MPH, a senior clinical research associate at the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute in Ontario, told this news organization.

“Unexpectedly, we found a 20%-25% increase in the number of survivors of sexual assault presenting for emergency care before the lockdown protocols were enacted,” she added. “After lockdown, the numbers dropped by 50%-60% and fluctuated throughout ... the pandemic.”

As they develop new lockdown protocols, public health officials and governments should incorporate warnings of the risks of violence and state that survivors should still present for urgent care when needed, said Dr. Muldoon. “COVID-19 lockdown protocols have limited access to health care for survivors worldwide, and barriers are likely greater in low-resource settings and those heavily affected by COVID-19.” 

The study was published in JAMA Network Open.
 

Both sexes affected

The researchers analyzed linked health administrative data from 197 EDs in Ontario from January 2019 to September 2021. They used 10 bimonthly time periods to compare differences in the frequency and rates of ED visits for sexual assault in 2020-2021 (during the pandemic), compared with baseline prepandemic rates in 2019.

Sexual assault was defined by 27 ICD-10 procedure and diagnoses codes.

More than 14 million ED presentations occurred during the study period, including 10,523 for sexual assault. The median age was 23 years for female patients and 15 years for males. Most encounters (88.4%) were among females.

During the 2 months before the pandemic (Jan. 11 to Mar. 10, 2020), the rates of ED encounters for sexual assault among females were significantly higher than prepandemic levels (8.4 vs. 6.9 cases per 100,000; age-adjusted rate ratio [aRR], 1.22), whereas during the first 2 months of the pandemic (Mar. 11 to May 10, 2020), rates were significantly lower (4.2 vs. 8.3 cases per 100,000; aRR, 0.51).

Among males, rates were higher during the 2 months before the pandemic, but not significantly different, compared with prepandemic levels (1.2 vs. 1.0 cases per 100,000; aRR, 1.19). However, the rates decreased significantly during the first 2 months of the pandemic (0.5 vs. 1.2 cases per 100,000; aRR, 0.39).

For the 12 months starting July 11, 2020, rates were the same as in 2019. In the final time period (July 11 to Sept. 10, 2021), however, the rates were significantly higher than during prepandemic levels (1.5 vs. 1.1 cases per 100,000; aRR, 1.40).

Further analyses showed a similar pattern for all age groups, community sizes, and income quintiles. Rates were predominantly above prepandemic levels for the 2 months leading up to the pandemic and below expected levels from the beginning of the pandemic onward. However, from July 11 to Sept. 10, 2020 (during a trough in the summer, when sexual assaults are generally higher), and from May 11 to Sept. 10, 2021 (also during a trough and the summer), the rates returned to prepandemic levels.

“The COVID-19 pandemic has caused many changes to society and health care delivery and access,” the authors wrote. “We recommend that the decision-making regarding the management of the COVID-19 pandemic include antiviolence considerations to evaluate how policies and protocols affect the risk of violence and ensure that those who need health care can access services without concern.”

“Specialized and trauma-informed clinics are the best solution for encouraging survivors to come for urgent care following a sexual assault,” said Dr. Muldoon. “Clinicians should be prepared and trained to provide the best possible care for survivors of violence and ensure that getting care is not retraumatizing. Fostering conversations about the common experience of violence and destigmatizing those exposed to violence remain the most important ways to create safer spaces and societies.”
 

Dedicated care pathways

Commenting on the study, Samuel A. McLean, MD, MPH, director of the Institute for Trauma Recovery and professor of emergency medicine, psychiatry, and anesthesiology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said, “This important work documents a reduction in visits by sexual assault survivors for emergency care and forensic evidence collection during times of pandemic surge. It’s impossible to know for certain if this reduction in visits is entirely due to a reduction in sexual assaults, but a number of lines of circumstantial evidence make this unlikely.”

The results highlight the importance of ensuring that sexual assault care is maintained during surges in emergency care volume, added Dr. McLean, who was not involved with the current study. “This can be done via methods such as dedicated care pathways that avoid prolonged survivor wait times for care, and public health messaging that informs the public of the continued ready access to care during surges. Evidence, including data cited by the authors, suggests that these same care-seeking reductions are occurring in the United States and elsewhere.”

The study was supported by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-term Care Applied Health Research Question Fund. Dr. Muldoon, study coauthors, and Dr. McLean report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Emergency department (ED) encounters for sexual assault increased before the COVID-19 pandemic, decreased immediately after lockdowns were implemented, and fluctuated as the pandemic continued, an analysis of more than 10,000 such visits in Canada’s most populous province shows.

“In 2020, we hoped that the COVID pandemic would only last a few months. However, as it continued, we became increasingly concerned about limited health care access for survivors of sexual assault throughout the ongoing crisis,” study author Katherine A. Muldoon, PhD, MPH, a senior clinical research associate at the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute in Ontario, told this news organization.

“Unexpectedly, we found a 20%-25% increase in the number of survivors of sexual assault presenting for emergency care before the lockdown protocols were enacted,” she added. “After lockdown, the numbers dropped by 50%-60% and fluctuated throughout ... the pandemic.”

As they develop new lockdown protocols, public health officials and governments should incorporate warnings of the risks of violence and state that survivors should still present for urgent care when needed, said Dr. Muldoon. “COVID-19 lockdown protocols have limited access to health care for survivors worldwide, and barriers are likely greater in low-resource settings and those heavily affected by COVID-19.” 

The study was published in JAMA Network Open.
 

Both sexes affected

The researchers analyzed linked health administrative data from 197 EDs in Ontario from January 2019 to September 2021. They used 10 bimonthly time periods to compare differences in the frequency and rates of ED visits for sexual assault in 2020-2021 (during the pandemic), compared with baseline prepandemic rates in 2019.

Sexual assault was defined by 27 ICD-10 procedure and diagnoses codes.

More than 14 million ED presentations occurred during the study period, including 10,523 for sexual assault. The median age was 23 years for female patients and 15 years for males. Most encounters (88.4%) were among females.

During the 2 months before the pandemic (Jan. 11 to Mar. 10, 2020), the rates of ED encounters for sexual assault among females were significantly higher than prepandemic levels (8.4 vs. 6.9 cases per 100,000; age-adjusted rate ratio [aRR], 1.22), whereas during the first 2 months of the pandemic (Mar. 11 to May 10, 2020), rates were significantly lower (4.2 vs. 8.3 cases per 100,000; aRR, 0.51).

Among males, rates were higher during the 2 months before the pandemic, but not significantly different, compared with prepandemic levels (1.2 vs. 1.0 cases per 100,000; aRR, 1.19). However, the rates decreased significantly during the first 2 months of the pandemic (0.5 vs. 1.2 cases per 100,000; aRR, 0.39).

For the 12 months starting July 11, 2020, rates were the same as in 2019. In the final time period (July 11 to Sept. 10, 2021), however, the rates were significantly higher than during prepandemic levels (1.5 vs. 1.1 cases per 100,000; aRR, 1.40).

Further analyses showed a similar pattern for all age groups, community sizes, and income quintiles. Rates were predominantly above prepandemic levels for the 2 months leading up to the pandemic and below expected levels from the beginning of the pandemic onward. However, from July 11 to Sept. 10, 2020 (during a trough in the summer, when sexual assaults are generally higher), and from May 11 to Sept. 10, 2021 (also during a trough and the summer), the rates returned to prepandemic levels.

“The COVID-19 pandemic has caused many changes to society and health care delivery and access,” the authors wrote. “We recommend that the decision-making regarding the management of the COVID-19 pandemic include antiviolence considerations to evaluate how policies and protocols affect the risk of violence and ensure that those who need health care can access services without concern.”

“Specialized and trauma-informed clinics are the best solution for encouraging survivors to come for urgent care following a sexual assault,” said Dr. Muldoon. “Clinicians should be prepared and trained to provide the best possible care for survivors of violence and ensure that getting care is not retraumatizing. Fostering conversations about the common experience of violence and destigmatizing those exposed to violence remain the most important ways to create safer spaces and societies.”
 

Dedicated care pathways

Commenting on the study, Samuel A. McLean, MD, MPH, director of the Institute for Trauma Recovery and professor of emergency medicine, psychiatry, and anesthesiology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said, “This important work documents a reduction in visits by sexual assault survivors for emergency care and forensic evidence collection during times of pandemic surge. It’s impossible to know for certain if this reduction in visits is entirely due to a reduction in sexual assaults, but a number of lines of circumstantial evidence make this unlikely.”

The results highlight the importance of ensuring that sexual assault care is maintained during surges in emergency care volume, added Dr. McLean, who was not involved with the current study. “This can be done via methods such as dedicated care pathways that avoid prolonged survivor wait times for care, and public health messaging that informs the public of the continued ready access to care during surges. Evidence, including data cited by the authors, suggests that these same care-seeking reductions are occurring in the United States and elsewhere.”

The study was supported by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-term Care Applied Health Research Question Fund. Dr. Muldoon, study coauthors, and Dr. McLean report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Results of the REDUCE-IT trial suggested that icosapent ethyl lowers the risk for ischemic events among patients with high triglycerides despite statin use – but immediately, controversy swirled.

The prescription product (Vascepa), consisting of a “highly purified” form of the omega-3 acid eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), was heralded in 2018 (N Engl J Med. 2019;380:11-22) as ushering in “the dawn of a new era” in cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention that “should definitely change practice going forward,” according to REDUCE-IT’s lead author Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, formerly of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston and now director of the Mount Sinai Heart Center in New York.

However, skeptics questioned why the results differed from most previous trials of fish oil that showed no benefit. Was it caused by the high dose of EPA: 4 g/daily versus 1 g daily in earlier trials with fish oil capsules? Was it the different formulation of purified EPA versus more common combinations of EPA plus docosahexaenoic acid (DHA)? Or, as suggested by Steven Nissen, MD, chief academic officer of Cleveland Clinic’s Heart and Vascular Institute and others, was it caused by the negative effects of the mineral oil placebo, given the significant increases in LDL cholesterol and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) seen in the control group?
 

‘Not all omega-3s created equal’

Dr. Bhatt recently said in an interview: “I think there’s confusion in the field. It’s a challenge when just one drug in a class looks good and everything else in that class looks bad. That in itself can breed some skepticism. Also, not everyone always embraces advances. Some people have other reasons to impugn datasets; for example, it could be because they are running competing trials with competing drugs.”

REDUCE-IT enrolled more than 8,000 patients at high CV risk despite statin treatment, and randomly assigned them to 2 g of EPA twice daily or the mineral oil placebo. Although the results showed a 25% reduction in the rate of CV events in the EPA group, there was also an increased risk of atrial fibrillation among those taking EPA after a median of 4.9 years follow-up.

Dr. Bhatt noted that Amarin, which manufactures Vascepa, is essentially a one-drug company, and its stock price is dependent on the product. When the trial results were released, he said, “there were people in the investor world that wanted the stock price to go up or wanted it to go down, and they were alternately hyping or disparaging the data in both cases, sometimes inappropriately and excessively, which created noise around the science.”

The fact is, he said, “not all omega-3 fatty acids are created equal. There are differences between supplements and prescription medicines, and within the prescription medicines, differences between pure EPA and the mixtures of EPA and DHA.”

Dr. Bhatt added that other trials also showed positive results. He pointed to the JELIS trial, published in 2007, which showed a 19% reduction in major adverse CV events with a 1.8-g daily EPA dose.

More recently, RESPECT-EPA was presented at the 2022 annual meeting of the American Heart Association. That study had methodological issues and was underpowered, but it did suggest a possible benefit of EPA in reducing CV events in patients with chronic coronary artery disease who were taking statins. “Looking at the totality of evidence, I think it’s quite clear there’s CV benefit,” Dr. Bhatt said.
 

Placebo effects?

Concerns about the mineral oil placebo cast doubt on that benefit. Table 4 of the supplement accompanying REDUCE-IT’s publication in the New England Journal of Medicine shows significant increases of non–HDL cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, apolipoprotein B, and hsCRP in the control group.

Jane Armitage, MBBS, a professor of clinical trials and epidemiology, clinical trial service unit at Oxford University (England), said in an interview: “I was surprised by the backlash and at the time felt that it was unlikely that the mineral oil was the problem. But the size of benefit was still out of kilter.”

“Two further pieces of evidence have influenced my thoughts since then,” she said. One is the lack of effect of high doses of fish oils in the STRENGTH trial. STRENGTH tested 4 g of omega-3 oil containing a mixture of EPA and DHA and found no benefit in statin-treated, high-risk patients.

“The amount of EPA [was] substantially less than given in REDUCE-IT,” Armitage said, “but it seems to me that in a similar hypertriglyceridemic population, if the effect were due to the EPA, you would have seen some impact in STRENGTH – and none was seen.”

“The other piece of evidence is in a paper by Paul Ridker, MD, et al. on the changes in biomarkers during REDUCE-IT,” she said. “Several inflammatory biomarkers associated with atherosclerosis rose during the study among those allocated mineral oil, but remained largely unchanged in the EPA group. This is in contrast to what is seen with these biomarkers in other large trials, where no changes were seen in the placebo groups, and once again raises the possibility that the apparent benefits of EPA may be related to hazard from the mineral oil.”
 

Still room for benefit?

Based largely on the results of REDUCE-IT, Vascepa is currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration as an adjunctive therapy to lower the risk for CV events among adults with elevated triglyceride levels (≥ 150 mg/dL). Patients must also have either established CVD or diabetes and two or more additional CV risk factors and are advised to continue physical activity and maintain a healthy diet.

Dr. Nissen, the principal author of the STRENGTH trial, said in an interview, “REDUCE-IT is an outlier. Other trials of omega-3 fatty acids, some of them very large, showed no benefits, and a meta-analysis of nearly 78,000 patients showed no beneficial effects. In this context,” he said, “the large ‘benefit’ observed in REDUCE-IT doesn’t make any sense.”

Dr. Nissen noted that a secondary analysis of STRENGTH further showed that higher plasma EPA levels did not reduce CV outcomes. He also highlighted the elevated risk of atrial fibrillation with EPA. “We need to see another study comparing EPA to a neutral comparator such as corn oil, which had no significant effect on lipid or inflammatory biomarkers in STRENGTH,” he said. “Without such a trial, the results of REDUCE-IT cannot be accepted as definitive.”

Dr. Ridker, the lead author of the REDUCE-IT substudy that found biomarker changes with the mineral oil placebo, said in an interview: “Is it possible that EPA is an outstanding drug? Absolutely, and I continue to think it useful for our very high-risk, secondary-prevention patients when we are running out of options.”

“But,” said Dr. Ridker, who is a professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and director of the Center for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention at Brigham and Women’s, “the reality ... is that ongoing uncertainties need resolution.” Like Dr. Nissen, he thinks the best way to resolve these uncertainties is through a second trial using a fully neutral comparator. “I am hopeful that the U.S. National Institutes of Health will see fit to undertake such an endeavor, perhaps with support from industry partners.”

Although Dr. Armitage is no longer in clinical practice, when asked how she might use EPA, she said it might be reasonable for patients who meet the prescribing criteria and remain high risk after all other risk factors have been addressed. She added that, although EPA is approved in the United Kingdom, she doesn’t think it is being widely prescribed.

Salim S. Virani, MD, PhD, a professor in the Sections of Cardiology and Cardiovascular Research at Baylor College of Medicine who has published articles about REDUCE-IT and on the eligibility and cost of EPA in the Veterans Affairs system, said in an interview: “In my personal opinion, clinicians [should] first optimize diet and lifestyle and work on secondary causes, as they play a very big role in hypertriglyceridemia.” He also recommended optimizing LDL-C levels because of “consistent data showing that LDL [cholesterol] control leads to significant reduction in atherosclerotic CVD events.”

“Once these two steps are taken and triglycerides still remain elevated,” he said, “then adding EPA in patients with established atherosclerotic CVD or those with diabetes plus other CV risk factors may be a reasonable option to further lower residual atherosclerotic CVD risk.”
 

Clinical inertia?

Dr. Bhatt acknowledged that, despite the benefit of EPA in the context of REDUCE-IT, “a few issues stand in the way of prescribing, particularly in the U.S.”

Vascepa’s manufacturer Amarin lost a patent challenge in the United States, enabling the relatively early introduction of multiple generics. “They’ve lost interest in the U.S. because there are three generics.”

“The sad truth is, if there isn’t a drug rep saying, ‘hey, look at this new data,’ there’s clinical inertia,” said Dr. Bhatt. He believes that the lack of marketing will hurt awareness among physicians and “ultimately hurt patients because they won’t get the drug.”

Cost is also an issue, Dr. Bhatt affirmed. Vascepa has significant out-of-pocket costs for many patients, as do some of the generics. Currently, the branded product costs about $300 per month without insurance, according to drugs.com; prices for generics vary widely, running anywhere from $82 to $200 or more.

Despite these challenges, he noted that many guidelines around the world have already changed to reflect the data, including the American Diabetes Association and the U.S. National Lipid Association.

Will there be another trial of EPA with a neutral placebo? Dr. Bhatt believes it’s not going to happen. “The company that funded REDUCE-IT is struggling just to stay alive, and another investigator-funded trial like RESPECT EPA would probably be underpowered and not move the needle much.”

Dr. Virani agreed that while it would be best to test EPA against a fully inert placebo, “whether there is enough appetite to fund such a large trial remains a big question.”

Meanwhile, Dr. Bhatt said, “EPA is not for everybody, but for the high-risk patients who meet the stringent inclusion criteria of REDUCE-IT, I think clinicians should at least consider use of EPA in a way consistent with the U.S. FDA label, the Canadian label, and the label in parts of Europe where the drug is being introduced.”

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

Results of the REDUCE-IT trial suggested that icosapent ethyl lowers the risk for ischemic events among patients with high triglycerides despite statin use – but immediately, controversy swirled.

The prescription product (Vascepa), consisting of a “highly purified” form of the omega-3 acid eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), was heralded in 2018 (N Engl J Med. 2019;380:11-22) as ushering in “the dawn of a new era” in cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention that “should definitely change practice going forward,” according to REDUCE-IT’s lead author Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, formerly of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston and now director of the Mount Sinai Heart Center in New York.

However, skeptics questioned why the results differed from most previous trials of fish oil that showed no benefit. Was it caused by the high dose of EPA: 4 g/daily versus 1 g daily in earlier trials with fish oil capsules? Was it the different formulation of purified EPA versus more common combinations of EPA plus docosahexaenoic acid (DHA)? Or, as suggested by Steven Nissen, MD, chief academic officer of Cleveland Clinic’s Heart and Vascular Institute and others, was it caused by the negative effects of the mineral oil placebo, given the significant increases in LDL cholesterol and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) seen in the control group?
 

‘Not all omega-3s created equal’

Dr. Bhatt recently said in an interview: “I think there’s confusion in the field. It’s a challenge when just one drug in a class looks good and everything else in that class looks bad. That in itself can breed some skepticism. Also, not everyone always embraces advances. Some people have other reasons to impugn datasets; for example, it could be because they are running competing trials with competing drugs.”

REDUCE-IT enrolled more than 8,000 patients at high CV risk despite statin treatment, and randomly assigned them to 2 g of EPA twice daily or the mineral oil placebo. Although the results showed a 25% reduction in the rate of CV events in the EPA group, there was also an increased risk of atrial fibrillation among those taking EPA after a median of 4.9 years follow-up.

Dr. Bhatt noted that Amarin, which manufactures Vascepa, is essentially a one-drug company, and its stock price is dependent on the product. When the trial results were released, he said, “there were people in the investor world that wanted the stock price to go up or wanted it to go down, and they were alternately hyping or disparaging the data in both cases, sometimes inappropriately and excessively, which created noise around the science.”

The fact is, he said, “not all omega-3 fatty acids are created equal. There are differences between supplements and prescription medicines, and within the prescription medicines, differences between pure EPA and the mixtures of EPA and DHA.”

Dr. Bhatt added that other trials also showed positive results. He pointed to the JELIS trial, published in 2007, which showed a 19% reduction in major adverse CV events with a 1.8-g daily EPA dose.

More recently, RESPECT-EPA was presented at the 2022 annual meeting of the American Heart Association. That study had methodological issues and was underpowered, but it did suggest a possible benefit of EPA in reducing CV events in patients with chronic coronary artery disease who were taking statins. “Looking at the totality of evidence, I think it’s quite clear there’s CV benefit,” Dr. Bhatt said.
 

Placebo effects?

Concerns about the mineral oil placebo cast doubt on that benefit. Table 4 of the supplement accompanying REDUCE-IT’s publication in the New England Journal of Medicine shows significant increases of non–HDL cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, apolipoprotein B, and hsCRP in the control group.

Jane Armitage, MBBS, a professor of clinical trials and epidemiology, clinical trial service unit at Oxford University (England), said in an interview: “I was surprised by the backlash and at the time felt that it was unlikely that the mineral oil was the problem. But the size of benefit was still out of kilter.”

“Two further pieces of evidence have influenced my thoughts since then,” she said. One is the lack of effect of high doses of fish oils in the STRENGTH trial. STRENGTH tested 4 g of omega-3 oil containing a mixture of EPA and DHA and found no benefit in statin-treated, high-risk patients.

“The amount of EPA [was] substantially less than given in REDUCE-IT,” Armitage said, “but it seems to me that in a similar hypertriglyceridemic population, if the effect were due to the EPA, you would have seen some impact in STRENGTH – and none was seen.”

“The other piece of evidence is in a paper by Paul Ridker, MD, et al. on the changes in biomarkers during REDUCE-IT,” she said. “Several inflammatory biomarkers associated with atherosclerosis rose during the study among those allocated mineral oil, but remained largely unchanged in the EPA group. This is in contrast to what is seen with these biomarkers in other large trials, where no changes were seen in the placebo groups, and once again raises the possibility that the apparent benefits of EPA may be related to hazard from the mineral oil.”
 

Still room for benefit?

Based largely on the results of REDUCE-IT, Vascepa is currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration as an adjunctive therapy to lower the risk for CV events among adults with elevated triglyceride levels (≥ 150 mg/dL). Patients must also have either established CVD or diabetes and two or more additional CV risk factors and are advised to continue physical activity and maintain a healthy diet.

Dr. Nissen, the principal author of the STRENGTH trial, said in an interview, “REDUCE-IT is an outlier. Other trials of omega-3 fatty acids, some of them very large, showed no benefits, and a meta-analysis of nearly 78,000 patients showed no beneficial effects. In this context,” he said, “the large ‘benefit’ observed in REDUCE-IT doesn’t make any sense.”

Dr. Nissen noted that a secondary analysis of STRENGTH further showed that higher plasma EPA levels did not reduce CV outcomes. He also highlighted the elevated risk of atrial fibrillation with EPA. “We need to see another study comparing EPA to a neutral comparator such as corn oil, which had no significant effect on lipid or inflammatory biomarkers in STRENGTH,” he said. “Without such a trial, the results of REDUCE-IT cannot be accepted as definitive.”

Dr. Ridker, the lead author of the REDUCE-IT substudy that found biomarker changes with the mineral oil placebo, said in an interview: “Is it possible that EPA is an outstanding drug? Absolutely, and I continue to think it useful for our very high-risk, secondary-prevention patients when we are running out of options.”

“But,” said Dr. Ridker, who is a professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and director of the Center for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention at Brigham and Women’s, “the reality ... is that ongoing uncertainties need resolution.” Like Dr. Nissen, he thinks the best way to resolve these uncertainties is through a second trial using a fully neutral comparator. “I am hopeful that the U.S. National Institutes of Health will see fit to undertake such an endeavor, perhaps with support from industry partners.”

Although Dr. Armitage is no longer in clinical practice, when asked how she might use EPA, she said it might be reasonable for patients who meet the prescribing criteria and remain high risk after all other risk factors have been addressed. She added that, although EPA is approved in the United Kingdom, she doesn’t think it is being widely prescribed.

Salim S. Virani, MD, PhD, a professor in the Sections of Cardiology and Cardiovascular Research at Baylor College of Medicine who has published articles about REDUCE-IT and on the eligibility and cost of EPA in the Veterans Affairs system, said in an interview: “In my personal opinion, clinicians [should] first optimize diet and lifestyle and work on secondary causes, as they play a very big role in hypertriglyceridemia.” He also recommended optimizing LDL-C levels because of “consistent data showing that LDL [cholesterol] control leads to significant reduction in atherosclerotic CVD events.”

“Once these two steps are taken and triglycerides still remain elevated,” he said, “then adding EPA in patients with established atherosclerotic CVD or those with diabetes plus other CV risk factors may be a reasonable option to further lower residual atherosclerotic CVD risk.”
 

Clinical inertia?

Dr. Bhatt acknowledged that, despite the benefit of EPA in the context of REDUCE-IT, “a few issues stand in the way of prescribing, particularly in the U.S.”

Vascepa’s manufacturer Amarin lost a patent challenge in the United States, enabling the relatively early introduction of multiple generics. “They’ve lost interest in the U.S. because there are three generics.”

“The sad truth is, if there isn’t a drug rep saying, ‘hey, look at this new data,’ there’s clinical inertia,” said Dr. Bhatt. He believes that the lack of marketing will hurt awareness among physicians and “ultimately hurt patients because they won’t get the drug.”

Cost is also an issue, Dr. Bhatt affirmed. Vascepa has significant out-of-pocket costs for many patients, as do some of the generics. Currently, the branded product costs about $300 per month without insurance, according to drugs.com; prices for generics vary widely, running anywhere from $82 to $200 or more.

Despite these challenges, he noted that many guidelines around the world have already changed to reflect the data, including the American Diabetes Association and the U.S. National Lipid Association.

Will there be another trial of EPA with a neutral placebo? Dr. Bhatt believes it’s not going to happen. “The company that funded REDUCE-IT is struggling just to stay alive, and another investigator-funded trial like RESPECT EPA would probably be underpowered and not move the needle much.”

Dr. Virani agreed that while it would be best to test EPA against a fully inert placebo, “whether there is enough appetite to fund such a large trial remains a big question.”

Meanwhile, Dr. Bhatt said, “EPA is not for everybody, but for the high-risk patients who meet the stringent inclusion criteria of REDUCE-IT, I think clinicians should at least consider use of EPA in a way consistent with the U.S. FDA label, the Canadian label, and the label in parts of Europe where the drug is being introduced.”

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

Results of the REDUCE-IT trial suggested that icosapent ethyl lowers the risk for ischemic events among patients with high triglycerides despite statin use – but immediately, controversy swirled.

The prescription product (Vascepa), consisting of a “highly purified” form of the omega-3 acid eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), was heralded in 2018 (N Engl J Med. 2019;380:11-22) as ushering in “the dawn of a new era” in cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention that “should definitely change practice going forward,” according to REDUCE-IT’s lead author Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, formerly of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston and now director of the Mount Sinai Heart Center in New York.

However, skeptics questioned why the results differed from most previous trials of fish oil that showed no benefit. Was it caused by the high dose of EPA: 4 g/daily versus 1 g daily in earlier trials with fish oil capsules? Was it the different formulation of purified EPA versus more common combinations of EPA plus docosahexaenoic acid (DHA)? Or, as suggested by Steven Nissen, MD, chief academic officer of Cleveland Clinic’s Heart and Vascular Institute and others, was it caused by the negative effects of the mineral oil placebo, given the significant increases in LDL cholesterol and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) seen in the control group?
 

‘Not all omega-3s created equal’

Dr. Bhatt recently said in an interview: “I think there’s confusion in the field. It’s a challenge when just one drug in a class looks good and everything else in that class looks bad. That in itself can breed some skepticism. Also, not everyone always embraces advances. Some people have other reasons to impugn datasets; for example, it could be because they are running competing trials with competing drugs.”

REDUCE-IT enrolled more than 8,000 patients at high CV risk despite statin treatment, and randomly assigned them to 2 g of EPA twice daily or the mineral oil placebo. Although the results showed a 25% reduction in the rate of CV events in the EPA group, there was also an increased risk of atrial fibrillation among those taking EPA after a median of 4.9 years follow-up.

Dr. Bhatt noted that Amarin, which manufactures Vascepa, is essentially a one-drug company, and its stock price is dependent on the product. When the trial results were released, he said, “there were people in the investor world that wanted the stock price to go up or wanted it to go down, and they were alternately hyping or disparaging the data in both cases, sometimes inappropriately and excessively, which created noise around the science.”

The fact is, he said, “not all omega-3 fatty acids are created equal. There are differences between supplements and prescription medicines, and within the prescription medicines, differences between pure EPA and the mixtures of EPA and DHA.”

Dr. Bhatt added that other trials also showed positive results. He pointed to the JELIS trial, published in 2007, which showed a 19% reduction in major adverse CV events with a 1.8-g daily EPA dose.

More recently, RESPECT-EPA was presented at the 2022 annual meeting of the American Heart Association. That study had methodological issues and was underpowered, but it did suggest a possible benefit of EPA in reducing CV events in patients with chronic coronary artery disease who were taking statins. “Looking at the totality of evidence, I think it’s quite clear there’s CV benefit,” Dr. Bhatt said.
 

Placebo effects?

Concerns about the mineral oil placebo cast doubt on that benefit. Table 4 of the supplement accompanying REDUCE-IT’s publication in the New England Journal of Medicine shows significant increases of non–HDL cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, apolipoprotein B, and hsCRP in the control group.

Jane Armitage, MBBS, a professor of clinical trials and epidemiology, clinical trial service unit at Oxford University (England), said in an interview: “I was surprised by the backlash and at the time felt that it was unlikely that the mineral oil was the problem. But the size of benefit was still out of kilter.”

“Two further pieces of evidence have influenced my thoughts since then,” she said. One is the lack of effect of high doses of fish oils in the STRENGTH trial. STRENGTH tested 4 g of omega-3 oil containing a mixture of EPA and DHA and found no benefit in statin-treated, high-risk patients.

“The amount of EPA [was] substantially less than given in REDUCE-IT,” Armitage said, “but it seems to me that in a similar hypertriglyceridemic population, if the effect were due to the EPA, you would have seen some impact in STRENGTH – and none was seen.”

“The other piece of evidence is in a paper by Paul Ridker, MD, et al. on the changes in biomarkers during REDUCE-IT,” she said. “Several inflammatory biomarkers associated with atherosclerosis rose during the study among those allocated mineral oil, but remained largely unchanged in the EPA group. This is in contrast to what is seen with these biomarkers in other large trials, where no changes were seen in the placebo groups, and once again raises the possibility that the apparent benefits of EPA may be related to hazard from the mineral oil.”
 

Still room for benefit?

Based largely on the results of REDUCE-IT, Vascepa is currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration as an adjunctive therapy to lower the risk for CV events among adults with elevated triglyceride levels (≥ 150 mg/dL). Patients must also have either established CVD or diabetes and two or more additional CV risk factors and are advised to continue physical activity and maintain a healthy diet.

Dr. Nissen, the principal author of the STRENGTH trial, said in an interview, “REDUCE-IT is an outlier. Other trials of omega-3 fatty acids, some of them very large, showed no benefits, and a meta-analysis of nearly 78,000 patients showed no beneficial effects. In this context,” he said, “the large ‘benefit’ observed in REDUCE-IT doesn’t make any sense.”

Dr. Nissen noted that a secondary analysis of STRENGTH further showed that higher plasma EPA levels did not reduce CV outcomes. He also highlighted the elevated risk of atrial fibrillation with EPA. “We need to see another study comparing EPA to a neutral comparator such as corn oil, which had no significant effect on lipid or inflammatory biomarkers in STRENGTH,” he said. “Without such a trial, the results of REDUCE-IT cannot be accepted as definitive.”

Dr. Ridker, the lead author of the REDUCE-IT substudy that found biomarker changes with the mineral oil placebo, said in an interview: “Is it possible that EPA is an outstanding drug? Absolutely, and I continue to think it useful for our very high-risk, secondary-prevention patients when we are running out of options.”

“But,” said Dr. Ridker, who is a professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and director of the Center for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention at Brigham and Women’s, “the reality ... is that ongoing uncertainties need resolution.” Like Dr. Nissen, he thinks the best way to resolve these uncertainties is through a second trial using a fully neutral comparator. “I am hopeful that the U.S. National Institutes of Health will see fit to undertake such an endeavor, perhaps with support from industry partners.”

Although Dr. Armitage is no longer in clinical practice, when asked how she might use EPA, she said it might be reasonable for patients who meet the prescribing criteria and remain high risk after all other risk factors have been addressed. She added that, although EPA is approved in the United Kingdom, she doesn’t think it is being widely prescribed.

Salim S. Virani, MD, PhD, a professor in the Sections of Cardiology and Cardiovascular Research at Baylor College of Medicine who has published articles about REDUCE-IT and on the eligibility and cost of EPA in the Veterans Affairs system, said in an interview: “In my personal opinion, clinicians [should] first optimize diet and lifestyle and work on secondary causes, as they play a very big role in hypertriglyceridemia.” He also recommended optimizing LDL-C levels because of “consistent data showing that LDL [cholesterol] control leads to significant reduction in atherosclerotic CVD events.”

“Once these two steps are taken and triglycerides still remain elevated,” he said, “then adding EPA in patients with established atherosclerotic CVD or those with diabetes plus other CV risk factors may be a reasonable option to further lower residual atherosclerotic CVD risk.”
 

Clinical inertia?

Dr. Bhatt acknowledged that, despite the benefit of EPA in the context of REDUCE-IT, “a few issues stand in the way of prescribing, particularly in the U.S.”

Vascepa’s manufacturer Amarin lost a patent challenge in the United States, enabling the relatively early introduction of multiple generics. “They’ve lost interest in the U.S. because there are three generics.”

“The sad truth is, if there isn’t a drug rep saying, ‘hey, look at this new data,’ there’s clinical inertia,” said Dr. Bhatt. He believes that the lack of marketing will hurt awareness among physicians and “ultimately hurt patients because they won’t get the drug.”

Cost is also an issue, Dr. Bhatt affirmed. Vascepa has significant out-of-pocket costs for many patients, as do some of the generics. Currently, the branded product costs about $300 per month without insurance, according to drugs.com; prices for generics vary widely, running anywhere from $82 to $200 or more.

Despite these challenges, he noted that many guidelines around the world have already changed to reflect the data, including the American Diabetes Association and the U.S. National Lipid Association.

Will there be another trial of EPA with a neutral placebo? Dr. Bhatt believes it’s not going to happen. “The company that funded REDUCE-IT is struggling just to stay alive, and another investigator-funded trial like RESPECT EPA would probably be underpowered and not move the needle much.”

Dr. Virani agreed that while it would be best to test EPA against a fully inert placebo, “whether there is enough appetite to fund such a large trial remains a big question.”

Meanwhile, Dr. Bhatt said, “EPA is not for everybody, but for the high-risk patients who meet the stringent inclusion criteria of REDUCE-IT, I think clinicians should at least consider use of EPA in a way consistent with the U.S. FDA label, the Canadian label, and the label in parts of Europe where the drug is being introduced.”

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

Direct-acting antiviral (DAA) therapy for patients with chronic hepatitis C (CHC) is associated with a lower risk for liver and nonliver complications, as well as a “large and significant” 57% reduction in the risk for death from any cause, a large, real-world analysis finds.

Improved outcomes were seen among patients without cirrhosis, those with compensated cirrhosis, and those with existing liver decompensation, the authors noted.

The findings highlight a “substantial need to provide DAA therapy to all patients with HCV, regardless of disease stage or financial status,” wrote Mindie Nguyen, MD, of Stanford University Medical Center, Palo Alto, Calif., and coinvestigators.

“Additional national efforts are needed to reach and treat U.S. population groups that are underinsured or not insured, incarcerated and otherwise marginalized, such as users of illicit drugs, who are also at higher risk of disease complication and reinfection,” they said.

The study was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.

CHC and its complications are associated with high rates of illness and death. However, large-scale data on long-term liver and nonliver effects of DAA treatment are limited.

For their study, Dr. Nguyen and colleagues analyzed administrative claims data from 2010 to 2021 for 245,596 adults with CHC, of whom 40,654 had received one or more DAA therapies (without interferon) and 204,942 had not received treatment.

DAA-treated patients were slightly older than their untreated peers (mean age, 59.9 years, vs. 58.5 years) and were more likely to be male (62% vs. 58%) and White (59% vs. 57%), and to have diabetes (26% vs. 25%) and cirrhosis (44% vs. 29%).

For liver outcomes, DAA therapy was associated with a lower incidence of decompensation (28.2 vs. 40.8 per 1,000 person-years; P < .001) and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in compensated cirrhosis (20.1 vs. 41.8; P < .001).

For nonliver outcomes, DAA treatment was associated with a lower incidence of diabetes (30.2 vs. 37.2 per 1,000 person-years; P < .001) and chronic kidney disease (31.1 vs. 34.1; P < .001).

The all-cause mortality rate per 1,000 person-years was 36.5 in the DAA-treated group, vs. 64.7 in the untreated group (P < .001).

In multivariable regression analysis, DAA treatment was independently associated with a significant decrease in the risk for HCC (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.73), decompensation (aHR, 0.36), diabetes (aHR, 0.74), chronic kidney disease (aHR, 0.81), cardiovascular disease (aHR, 0.90), nonliver cancer (aHR, 0.89), and mortality (aHR, 0.43).

The 57% lower mortality rate observed among DAA-treated vs. untreated patients aligns with a large French study of adults with CHC.

“Because HCV treatment with a DAA regimen is well tolerated for nearly all patients, we believe these findings provide further support for universal HCV treatment coverage for all patients affected by HCV,” Dr. Nguyen and colleagues wrote.

The strengths of this study are its large sample of DAA-treated and untreated patients from diverse racial and ethnic groups from across the United States and from diverse practice settings (not just tertiary centers).

One limitation is that the study cohort included only patients covered by private insurance; therefore, the findings may not be generalizable to individuals who are underinsured or not insured. Miscoding and misclassification are also possible with large claims databases.

Support for the study was provided by Stanford University and the Stanford Center for Population Health Sciences. Dr. Nguyen has received institutional grants and advisory board fees from Gilead Sciences outside the submitted work.

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

Direct-acting antiviral (DAA) therapy for patients with chronic hepatitis C (CHC) is associated with a lower risk for liver and nonliver complications, as well as a “large and significant” 57% reduction in the risk for death from any cause, a large, real-world analysis finds.

Improved outcomes were seen among patients without cirrhosis, those with compensated cirrhosis, and those with existing liver decompensation, the authors noted.

The findings highlight a “substantial need to provide DAA therapy to all patients with HCV, regardless of disease stage or financial status,” wrote Mindie Nguyen, MD, of Stanford University Medical Center, Palo Alto, Calif., and coinvestigators.

“Additional national efforts are needed to reach and treat U.S. population groups that are underinsured or not insured, incarcerated and otherwise marginalized, such as users of illicit drugs, who are also at higher risk of disease complication and reinfection,” they said.

The study was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.

CHC and its complications are associated with high rates of illness and death. However, large-scale data on long-term liver and nonliver effects of DAA treatment are limited.

For their study, Dr. Nguyen and colleagues analyzed administrative claims data from 2010 to 2021 for 245,596 adults with CHC, of whom 40,654 had received one or more DAA therapies (without interferon) and 204,942 had not received treatment.

DAA-treated patients were slightly older than their untreated peers (mean age, 59.9 years, vs. 58.5 years) and were more likely to be male (62% vs. 58%) and White (59% vs. 57%), and to have diabetes (26% vs. 25%) and cirrhosis (44% vs. 29%).

For liver outcomes, DAA therapy was associated with a lower incidence of decompensation (28.2 vs. 40.8 per 1,000 person-years; P < .001) and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in compensated cirrhosis (20.1 vs. 41.8; P < .001).

For nonliver outcomes, DAA treatment was associated with a lower incidence of diabetes (30.2 vs. 37.2 per 1,000 person-years; P < .001) and chronic kidney disease (31.1 vs. 34.1; P < .001).

The all-cause mortality rate per 1,000 person-years was 36.5 in the DAA-treated group, vs. 64.7 in the untreated group (P < .001).

In multivariable regression analysis, DAA treatment was independently associated with a significant decrease in the risk for HCC (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.73), decompensation (aHR, 0.36), diabetes (aHR, 0.74), chronic kidney disease (aHR, 0.81), cardiovascular disease (aHR, 0.90), nonliver cancer (aHR, 0.89), and mortality (aHR, 0.43).

The 57% lower mortality rate observed among DAA-treated vs. untreated patients aligns with a large French study of adults with CHC.

“Because HCV treatment with a DAA regimen is well tolerated for nearly all patients, we believe these findings provide further support for universal HCV treatment coverage for all patients affected by HCV,” Dr. Nguyen and colleagues wrote.

The strengths of this study are its large sample of DAA-treated and untreated patients from diverse racial and ethnic groups from across the United States and from diverse practice settings (not just tertiary centers).

One limitation is that the study cohort included only patients covered by private insurance; therefore, the findings may not be generalizable to individuals who are underinsured or not insured. Miscoding and misclassification are also possible with large claims databases.

Support for the study was provided by Stanford University and the Stanford Center for Population Health Sciences. Dr. Nguyen has received institutional grants and advisory board fees from Gilead Sciences outside the submitted work.

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

Direct-acting antiviral (DAA) therapy for patients with chronic hepatitis C (CHC) is associated with a lower risk for liver and nonliver complications, as well as a “large and significant” 57% reduction in the risk for death from any cause, a large, real-world analysis finds.

Improved outcomes were seen among patients without cirrhosis, those with compensated cirrhosis, and those with existing liver decompensation, the authors noted.

The findings highlight a “substantial need to provide DAA therapy to all patients with HCV, regardless of disease stage or financial status,” wrote Mindie Nguyen, MD, of Stanford University Medical Center, Palo Alto, Calif., and coinvestigators.

“Additional national efforts are needed to reach and treat U.S. population groups that are underinsured or not insured, incarcerated and otherwise marginalized, such as users of illicit drugs, who are also at higher risk of disease complication and reinfection,” they said.

The study was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.

CHC and its complications are associated with high rates of illness and death. However, large-scale data on long-term liver and nonliver effects of DAA treatment are limited.

For their study, Dr. Nguyen and colleagues analyzed administrative claims data from 2010 to 2021 for 245,596 adults with CHC, of whom 40,654 had received one or more DAA therapies (without interferon) and 204,942 had not received treatment.

DAA-treated patients were slightly older than their untreated peers (mean age, 59.9 years, vs. 58.5 years) and were more likely to be male (62% vs. 58%) and White (59% vs. 57%), and to have diabetes (26% vs. 25%) and cirrhosis (44% vs. 29%).

For liver outcomes, DAA therapy was associated with a lower incidence of decompensation (28.2 vs. 40.8 per 1,000 person-years; P < .001) and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in compensated cirrhosis (20.1 vs. 41.8; P < .001).

For nonliver outcomes, DAA treatment was associated with a lower incidence of diabetes (30.2 vs. 37.2 per 1,000 person-years; P < .001) and chronic kidney disease (31.1 vs. 34.1; P < .001).

The all-cause mortality rate per 1,000 person-years was 36.5 in the DAA-treated group, vs. 64.7 in the untreated group (P < .001).

In multivariable regression analysis, DAA treatment was independently associated with a significant decrease in the risk for HCC (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.73), decompensation (aHR, 0.36), diabetes (aHR, 0.74), chronic kidney disease (aHR, 0.81), cardiovascular disease (aHR, 0.90), nonliver cancer (aHR, 0.89), and mortality (aHR, 0.43).

The 57% lower mortality rate observed among DAA-treated vs. untreated patients aligns with a large French study of adults with CHC.

“Because HCV treatment with a DAA regimen is well tolerated for nearly all patients, we believe these findings provide further support for universal HCV treatment coverage for all patients affected by HCV,” Dr. Nguyen and colleagues wrote.

The strengths of this study are its large sample of DAA-treated and untreated patients from diverse racial and ethnic groups from across the United States and from diverse practice settings (not just tertiary centers).

One limitation is that the study cohort included only patients covered by private insurance; therefore, the findings may not be generalizable to individuals who are underinsured or not insured. Miscoding and misclassification are also possible with large claims databases.

Support for the study was provided by Stanford University and the Stanford Center for Population Health Sciences. Dr. Nguyen has received institutional grants and advisory board fees from Gilead Sciences outside the submitted work.

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