AVAHO

avaho
Main menu
AVAHO Main Menu
Unpublish
Negative Keywords Excluded Elements
header[@id='header']
div[contains(@class, 'header__large-screen')]
div[contains(@class, 'read-next-article')]
div[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
section[contains(@class, 'footer-nav-section-wrapper')]
footer[@id='footer']
div[contains(@class, 'main-prefix')]
section[contains(@class, 'nav-hidden')]
div[contains(@class, 'ce-card-content')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-ce-stack')]
Altmetric
DSM Affiliated
Display in offset block
Enable Disqus
Display Author and Disclosure Link
Publication Type
Clinical
Slot System
Top 25
Disable Sticky Ads
Disable Ad Block Mitigation
Featured Buckets Admin
Show Ads on this Publication's Homepage
Consolidated Pub
Show Article Page Numbers on TOC
Expire Announcement Bar
Use larger logo size
Off
publication_blueconic_enabled
Off
Show More Destinations Menu
Disable Adhesion on Publication
Off
Mobile Logo Image
Restore Menu Label on Mobile Navigation
Disable Facebook Pixel from Publication
Exclude this publication from publication selection on articles and quiz
Challenge Center
Disable Inline Native ads
survey writer start date
Mobile Logo Media

HPV positivity associated with good esophageal adenocarcinoma outcomes

“Impressive,” but a prospective trial is called for
Article Type
Changed

 

Patients with Barrett high-grade dysplasia or esophageal adenocarcinoma who are positive for human papillomavirus (HPV) infection have significantly better outcomes than patients with the same diseases who are negative for HPV, investigators report.

Among patients with Barrett high-grade dysplasia (HGD) or esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), mean disease-free survival (DFS) was 40.3 months for HPV-positive patients, compared with 24.1 months for HPV-negative patients (P = .003). Mean overall survival was also significantly better in HPV-positive patients, at 43.7 months versus 29.8 months (P =.009) respectively, reported Shanmugarajah Rajendra, MD, from Bankstown-Lincombe Hospital in Sydney and colleagues.

“If these findings of a favorable prognosis of HPV-positive HGD and EAC are confirmed in larger cohorts with more advanced disease, it presents an opportunity for treatment de-escalation in the hope of reducing toxic effects without deleteriously affecting survival,” they wrote in JAMA Network Open.

The findings support those of earlier studies suggesting that HPV infection is associated with better prognosis among patients with other cancers of the head and neck. For example, a retrospective analysis of data from two clinical trials reported in 2014 found that, 2 years after a diagnosis of recurrent oropharyngeal cancer, 54.6% of HPV-positive patients were alive, compared with 27.6% of HPV-negative patients (P less than .001).

To determine whether there was a similar association between HPV infection and better prognosis of Barrett HGD or EAC, Dr. Rajendra and associates conducted a retrospective case-control study of 142 patients with HGD or EAC treated at secondary or tertiary referral centers in Australia. The patients, all of whom were white, included 126 men. The mean age was 66 years, and in all, 37 patients were positive for HPV.

As noted before, both DFS and overall survival were significantly better for HPV-infected patients, with mean differences of 16.2 months and 13.9 months, respectively. HPV-positive patients also had lower rates of progression or recurrence (24.3% vs. 58.1%; P less than .001), distant metastases (8.1% vs. 27.6%; P = .02), and death from EAC (13.5% vs. 36.2%; P = .02).

In multivariate analysis, superior DFS was associated with HPV positivity, (hazard ratio, 0.39; P = .02), biologically active virus (HR, 0.36; P = .02), E6 and E7 messenger RNA (HR, 0.36; P = .04), and with high p16 expression (HR, 0.49; P = .02).

The study was supported by the South Western Sydney Clinical School; the University of New South Wales, Sydney; and the Oesophageal Cancer Research Fund. Dr. Rajendra reported grants from the University of New South Wales and the Oesophageal Cancer Research Fund during the conduct of the study. No other disclosures were reported.

SOURCE: Rajendra S et al. JAMA Network Open. 2018 Aug 3. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.1054.

Body

 

The study by Rajendra et al highlights the potential role of human papillomavirus (HPV) status in the prognosis of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). However, the use of HPV as a predictive marker for treatment remains unproven, and many questions abound. Important considerations for studies of de-escalation of treatment in HPV-positive EAC include how best to select patients for less intensive treatment: Should trials be restricted to nonsmoking patients with better prognosis pathology characteristics, including lower T stage and lack of lymph node involvement? What is the best method to assess HPV status in a cost-effective and easily available assay for broad international use? Should there be a de-escalation of chemotherapy, radiation, or both? Is there potentially a role for de-escalation of surgery? Are these trials that patients would consider participation in given the lethality of these cancers?

Finally, the presence of a vaccine for HPV may affect the incidence of cervical, oropharyngeal, and other cancers. If HPV is an important risk factor for EAC, we may see a reduction in the rates of this highly lethal cancer over time. These benefits may take some time to bear out and are highly dependent on vaccination rates. Nonetheless, primary prevention of HPV infection may result in a significant reduction in the global burden of this disease. In the meantime, larger-scale studies of the role of HPV in the pathogenesis of EAC are warranted, particularly before moving toward trials of less intensive therapy. While the results of this small cohort study are impressive, they are preliminary, and the study requires confirmation in a larger, prospective trial.

Sukhbinder Dhesy-Thind, MD, FRCPC is from McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario. Her remarks are excerpted from an editorial accompanying the study. She reported personal fees from Teva Canada Innovation and Novartis Pharmaceuticals Canada outside the submitted work.

Publications
Topics
Sections
Body

 

The study by Rajendra et al highlights the potential role of human papillomavirus (HPV) status in the prognosis of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). However, the use of HPV as a predictive marker for treatment remains unproven, and many questions abound. Important considerations for studies of de-escalation of treatment in HPV-positive EAC include how best to select patients for less intensive treatment: Should trials be restricted to nonsmoking patients with better prognosis pathology characteristics, including lower T stage and lack of lymph node involvement? What is the best method to assess HPV status in a cost-effective and easily available assay for broad international use? Should there be a de-escalation of chemotherapy, radiation, or both? Is there potentially a role for de-escalation of surgery? Are these trials that patients would consider participation in given the lethality of these cancers?

Finally, the presence of a vaccine for HPV may affect the incidence of cervical, oropharyngeal, and other cancers. If HPV is an important risk factor for EAC, we may see a reduction in the rates of this highly lethal cancer over time. These benefits may take some time to bear out and are highly dependent on vaccination rates. Nonetheless, primary prevention of HPV infection may result in a significant reduction in the global burden of this disease. In the meantime, larger-scale studies of the role of HPV in the pathogenesis of EAC are warranted, particularly before moving toward trials of less intensive therapy. While the results of this small cohort study are impressive, they are preliminary, and the study requires confirmation in a larger, prospective trial.

Sukhbinder Dhesy-Thind, MD, FRCPC is from McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario. Her remarks are excerpted from an editorial accompanying the study. She reported personal fees from Teva Canada Innovation and Novartis Pharmaceuticals Canada outside the submitted work.

Body

 

The study by Rajendra et al highlights the potential role of human papillomavirus (HPV) status in the prognosis of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). However, the use of HPV as a predictive marker for treatment remains unproven, and many questions abound. Important considerations for studies of de-escalation of treatment in HPV-positive EAC include how best to select patients for less intensive treatment: Should trials be restricted to nonsmoking patients with better prognosis pathology characteristics, including lower T stage and lack of lymph node involvement? What is the best method to assess HPV status in a cost-effective and easily available assay for broad international use? Should there be a de-escalation of chemotherapy, radiation, or both? Is there potentially a role for de-escalation of surgery? Are these trials that patients would consider participation in given the lethality of these cancers?

Finally, the presence of a vaccine for HPV may affect the incidence of cervical, oropharyngeal, and other cancers. If HPV is an important risk factor for EAC, we may see a reduction in the rates of this highly lethal cancer over time. These benefits may take some time to bear out and are highly dependent on vaccination rates. Nonetheless, primary prevention of HPV infection may result in a significant reduction in the global burden of this disease. In the meantime, larger-scale studies of the role of HPV in the pathogenesis of EAC are warranted, particularly before moving toward trials of less intensive therapy. While the results of this small cohort study are impressive, they are preliminary, and the study requires confirmation in a larger, prospective trial.

Sukhbinder Dhesy-Thind, MD, FRCPC is from McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario. Her remarks are excerpted from an editorial accompanying the study. She reported personal fees from Teva Canada Innovation and Novartis Pharmaceuticals Canada outside the submitted work.

Title
“Impressive,” but a prospective trial is called for
“Impressive,” but a prospective trial is called for

 

Patients with Barrett high-grade dysplasia or esophageal adenocarcinoma who are positive for human papillomavirus (HPV) infection have significantly better outcomes than patients with the same diseases who are negative for HPV, investigators report.

Among patients with Barrett high-grade dysplasia (HGD) or esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), mean disease-free survival (DFS) was 40.3 months for HPV-positive patients, compared with 24.1 months for HPV-negative patients (P = .003). Mean overall survival was also significantly better in HPV-positive patients, at 43.7 months versus 29.8 months (P =.009) respectively, reported Shanmugarajah Rajendra, MD, from Bankstown-Lincombe Hospital in Sydney and colleagues.

“If these findings of a favorable prognosis of HPV-positive HGD and EAC are confirmed in larger cohorts with more advanced disease, it presents an opportunity for treatment de-escalation in the hope of reducing toxic effects without deleteriously affecting survival,” they wrote in JAMA Network Open.

The findings support those of earlier studies suggesting that HPV infection is associated with better prognosis among patients with other cancers of the head and neck. For example, a retrospective analysis of data from two clinical trials reported in 2014 found that, 2 years after a diagnosis of recurrent oropharyngeal cancer, 54.6% of HPV-positive patients were alive, compared with 27.6% of HPV-negative patients (P less than .001).

To determine whether there was a similar association between HPV infection and better prognosis of Barrett HGD or EAC, Dr. Rajendra and associates conducted a retrospective case-control study of 142 patients with HGD or EAC treated at secondary or tertiary referral centers in Australia. The patients, all of whom were white, included 126 men. The mean age was 66 years, and in all, 37 patients were positive for HPV.

As noted before, both DFS and overall survival were significantly better for HPV-infected patients, with mean differences of 16.2 months and 13.9 months, respectively. HPV-positive patients also had lower rates of progression or recurrence (24.3% vs. 58.1%; P less than .001), distant metastases (8.1% vs. 27.6%; P = .02), and death from EAC (13.5% vs. 36.2%; P = .02).

In multivariate analysis, superior DFS was associated with HPV positivity, (hazard ratio, 0.39; P = .02), biologically active virus (HR, 0.36; P = .02), E6 and E7 messenger RNA (HR, 0.36; P = .04), and with high p16 expression (HR, 0.49; P = .02).

The study was supported by the South Western Sydney Clinical School; the University of New South Wales, Sydney; and the Oesophageal Cancer Research Fund. Dr. Rajendra reported grants from the University of New South Wales and the Oesophageal Cancer Research Fund during the conduct of the study. No other disclosures were reported.

SOURCE: Rajendra S et al. JAMA Network Open. 2018 Aug 3. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.1054.

 

Patients with Barrett high-grade dysplasia or esophageal adenocarcinoma who are positive for human papillomavirus (HPV) infection have significantly better outcomes than patients with the same diseases who are negative for HPV, investigators report.

Among patients with Barrett high-grade dysplasia (HGD) or esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), mean disease-free survival (DFS) was 40.3 months for HPV-positive patients, compared with 24.1 months for HPV-negative patients (P = .003). Mean overall survival was also significantly better in HPV-positive patients, at 43.7 months versus 29.8 months (P =.009) respectively, reported Shanmugarajah Rajendra, MD, from Bankstown-Lincombe Hospital in Sydney and colleagues.

“If these findings of a favorable prognosis of HPV-positive HGD and EAC are confirmed in larger cohorts with more advanced disease, it presents an opportunity for treatment de-escalation in the hope of reducing toxic effects without deleteriously affecting survival,” they wrote in JAMA Network Open.

The findings support those of earlier studies suggesting that HPV infection is associated with better prognosis among patients with other cancers of the head and neck. For example, a retrospective analysis of data from two clinical trials reported in 2014 found that, 2 years after a diagnosis of recurrent oropharyngeal cancer, 54.6% of HPV-positive patients were alive, compared with 27.6% of HPV-negative patients (P less than .001).

To determine whether there was a similar association between HPV infection and better prognosis of Barrett HGD or EAC, Dr. Rajendra and associates conducted a retrospective case-control study of 142 patients with HGD or EAC treated at secondary or tertiary referral centers in Australia. The patients, all of whom were white, included 126 men. The mean age was 66 years, and in all, 37 patients were positive for HPV.

As noted before, both DFS and overall survival were significantly better for HPV-infected patients, with mean differences of 16.2 months and 13.9 months, respectively. HPV-positive patients also had lower rates of progression or recurrence (24.3% vs. 58.1%; P less than .001), distant metastases (8.1% vs. 27.6%; P = .02), and death from EAC (13.5% vs. 36.2%; P = .02).

In multivariate analysis, superior DFS was associated with HPV positivity, (hazard ratio, 0.39; P = .02), biologically active virus (HR, 0.36; P = .02), E6 and E7 messenger RNA (HR, 0.36; P = .04), and with high p16 expression (HR, 0.49; P = .02).

The study was supported by the South Western Sydney Clinical School; the University of New South Wales, Sydney; and the Oesophageal Cancer Research Fund. Dr. Rajendra reported grants from the University of New South Wales and the Oesophageal Cancer Research Fund during the conduct of the study. No other disclosures were reported.

SOURCE: Rajendra S et al. JAMA Network Open. 2018 Aug 3. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.1054.

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

FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN

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

 

Key clinical point: Human papillomavirus infection is associated with better outcomes for patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma and other head and neck cancers.

Major finding: Mean disease-free survival was 40.3 months for HPV-positive patients versus 24.1 months for HPV-negative patients (P = .003).

Study details: A retrospective case-control study of 142 patients with Barrett high-grade dysplasia or esophageal adenocarcinoma.

Disclosures: The study was supported by the South Western Sydney Clinical School; the University of New South Wales, Sydney; and the Oesophageal Cancer Research Fund. Dr. Rajendra reported grants from University of New South Wales and the Oesophageal Cancer Research Fund during the conduct of the study. No other disclosures were reported.

Source: Rajendra S et al. JAMA Network Open. 2018 Aug 3. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.1054.

Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica

Advances in Hematology and Oncology (August 2018)

Article Type
Changed
Publications
Topics
Sections
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Citation Override
Fed Pract. 2018 August;35(suppl 5)
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Gate On Date
Un-Gate On Date
Use ProPublica
CFC Schedule Remove Status

Do Erythropoiesis-Stimulating Agents Have a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy? (FULL)

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
Do Erythropoiesis-Stimulating Agents Have a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy?

Epoetin alfa and darbepoetin alfa are erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs), approved for the treatment of anemia (low red blood cells [RBCs]) resulting from chronic kidney disease, chemotherapy, and certain treatments for HIV. These ESAs also are used to reduce the number of blood transfusions during and after certain major surgeries. Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents work like the human protein erythropoietin, which stimulates bone marrow to make RBCs. Epoetin alfa (marketed as Procrit and Epogen) and darbepoetin alfa (marketed as Aranesp) are manufactured by Amgen, Inc. (Thousand Oaks, CA).

In 1989 epoetin alfa was approved for the treatment of anemia associated with chronic renal failure, including patients on dialysis and patients not on dialysis, and in 1993 for the treatment of anemia due to the effects of concomitant myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Epoetin alfa also is indicated for anemia due to zidovudine in patients with HIV and reduction of RBC transfusions during certain surgeries.

Darbepoetin alfa was approved in 2001 for the treatment of anemia associated with chronic renal failure, including patients on dialysis and patients not on dialysis, and in 2006 for the treatment of anemia due to the effects of concomitant myelosuppressive chemotherapy.

Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies

Both epoetin alfa and darbepoetin alfa increase the risk of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, venous thromboembolism, and thrombosis of vascular access and tumor progression or recurrence. Epoetin alfa also can lead to an increase in adverse cardiovascular events, hypertension, seizures, and severe anemia.

In 2008, the FDA determined that Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS) were necessary for ESAs (darbopoetin alfa and epoetin alfa), to ensure that the benefits for use as treatment for anemia associated with myelosuppressive chemotherapy outweigh the risk of shortened overall survival (OS) and/or the increased risk of tumor progression or recurrence in patients with cancer. The REMS was approved in 2010.

Under the ESA REMS program, referred to as the ESA APPRISE Oncology Program, health care providers (HCPs) that prescribed and/or dispensed darbopoetin alfa to patients with cancer and hospitals that dispensed darbopoetin alfa to patients with cancer were required to enroll and become certified in the ESA REMS. The ESA REMS also required the completion of a Patient and Healthcare Provider Acknowledgement Form for each patient with cancer before the new ESA treatment course to ensure patients were counseled about the benefits and risks of these products.

In April 2017, the FDA determined that the ESA REMS that was limited to the use of epoetin alfa and darbopoetin alfa to treat patients with anemia due to associated myelosuppressive chemotherapy was no longer necessary; the benefits of ESAs outweighed the risks of shortened OS and/or increased risk of tumor progression or recurrence in patients with cancer. 1 The FDA recognized the burden that some REMS can place on HCPs and patients. The agency has authority to modify or remove the REMS to minimize the burden on the health care delivery system of complying with the strategy.

Data

The FDA discontinued the REMS based on an evaluation of the results of the REMS Assessments submitted by Amgen and additional FDA analyses to understand the impact of the various regulatory and other actions on the use of ESAs. The REMS Assessment showed the following:

  • The results from surveyed prescribers demonstrated acceptable knowledge of the product risks of decreased survival and/or the increased risk of tumor progression or recurrence and the need to counsel patients about these risks; and
  • The drug utilization data indicated appropriate prescribing of ESAs consistent with the intended use as a treatment alternative to RBC transfusion for anemia associated with myelosuppressive chemotherapy.

The FDA also conducted an evaluation of the impact of multiple actions, including the ESA REMS, on the use of the ESAs using sponsor-submitted data from outpatient oncology practices between 2006 and 2014. During 2004 to 2009, the FDA took multiple regulatory actions, including labeling changes. In 2007, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) made a National Coverage Determination (NCD) to limit coverage of ESAs for nonrenal disease indications. These actions coincided with the following:

 

 

  • A decrease in the proportion of patients receiving chemotherapy using ESAs;
  • An increase in the proportion of patients receiving chemotherapy who initiate ESAs at a hemoglobin level < 10 g/dL; and
  • An increase in the proportion of patients who initiate ESAs at a dosage consistent with product prescribing information.

Full implementation of the ESA REMS in 2011 had minimal impact on trends in these 3 ESA utilization metrics beyond the changes observed after the CMS coverage determination and multiple other FDA regulatory actions.

This information led the FDA to conclude that it was no longer necessary to require the certification of prescribers and hospitals that prescribe and/or dispense ESAs to patients with cancer in order to ensure that the benefits outweigh the risks.

The FDA has released the REMS requirements for the epoetin alfa and darbopoetin alfa ESA products, and the risks can be communicated by the current product prescribing information. The appropriate use of ESAs is supported by the CMS NCD, the American Society of Clinical Oncology, and American Society of Hematology clinical guidelines, which are evidence-based guidelines intended to provide a basis for the standard of care in clinical oncology.

Education

While the REMS is no longer necessary to ensure the benefits outweigh the risks, the serious risks of shortened OS and/or increased risk of tumor progression or recurrence associated with these drugs remain. The boxed warning language remains as follows: ESAs INCREASE THE RISK OF DEATH, MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION, STROKE, VENOUS THROMBOEMBOLISM, THROMBOSIS OF VASCULAR ACCESS AND TUMOR PROGRESSION OR RECURRENCE. Health care providers are encouraged to discuss the risks and benefits of using ESAs with each patient before initiating use.

 

Click here to read the digital edition.

References

1. U.S. Food & Drug Administration. Information on erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESA) epoetin alfa (marketed as Procrit, Epogen), darbepoetin alfa (marketed as Aranesp). https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/ucm109375.htm. Updated April 13, 2017. Accessed July 13, 2017.

Article PDF
Issue
Federal Practitioner - 34(6)s
Publications
Topics
Page Number
S41-S42
Sections
Article PDF
Article PDF

Epoetin alfa and darbepoetin alfa are erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs), approved for the treatment of anemia (low red blood cells [RBCs]) resulting from chronic kidney disease, chemotherapy, and certain treatments for HIV. These ESAs also are used to reduce the number of blood transfusions during and after certain major surgeries. Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents work like the human protein erythropoietin, which stimulates bone marrow to make RBCs. Epoetin alfa (marketed as Procrit and Epogen) and darbepoetin alfa (marketed as Aranesp) are manufactured by Amgen, Inc. (Thousand Oaks, CA).

In 1989 epoetin alfa was approved for the treatment of anemia associated with chronic renal failure, including patients on dialysis and patients not on dialysis, and in 1993 for the treatment of anemia due to the effects of concomitant myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Epoetin alfa also is indicated for anemia due to zidovudine in patients with HIV and reduction of RBC transfusions during certain surgeries.

Darbepoetin alfa was approved in 2001 for the treatment of anemia associated with chronic renal failure, including patients on dialysis and patients not on dialysis, and in 2006 for the treatment of anemia due to the effects of concomitant myelosuppressive chemotherapy.

Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies

Both epoetin alfa and darbepoetin alfa increase the risk of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, venous thromboembolism, and thrombosis of vascular access and tumor progression or recurrence. Epoetin alfa also can lead to an increase in adverse cardiovascular events, hypertension, seizures, and severe anemia.

In 2008, the FDA determined that Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS) were necessary for ESAs (darbopoetin alfa and epoetin alfa), to ensure that the benefits for use as treatment for anemia associated with myelosuppressive chemotherapy outweigh the risk of shortened overall survival (OS) and/or the increased risk of tumor progression or recurrence in patients with cancer. The REMS was approved in 2010.

Under the ESA REMS program, referred to as the ESA APPRISE Oncology Program, health care providers (HCPs) that prescribed and/or dispensed darbopoetin alfa to patients with cancer and hospitals that dispensed darbopoetin alfa to patients with cancer were required to enroll and become certified in the ESA REMS. The ESA REMS also required the completion of a Patient and Healthcare Provider Acknowledgement Form for each patient with cancer before the new ESA treatment course to ensure patients were counseled about the benefits and risks of these products.

In April 2017, the FDA determined that the ESA REMS that was limited to the use of epoetin alfa and darbopoetin alfa to treat patients with anemia due to associated myelosuppressive chemotherapy was no longer necessary; the benefits of ESAs outweighed the risks of shortened OS and/or increased risk of tumor progression or recurrence in patients with cancer. 1 The FDA recognized the burden that some REMS can place on HCPs and patients. The agency has authority to modify or remove the REMS to minimize the burden on the health care delivery system of complying with the strategy.

Data

The FDA discontinued the REMS based on an evaluation of the results of the REMS Assessments submitted by Amgen and additional FDA analyses to understand the impact of the various regulatory and other actions on the use of ESAs. The REMS Assessment showed the following:

  • The results from surveyed prescribers demonstrated acceptable knowledge of the product risks of decreased survival and/or the increased risk of tumor progression or recurrence and the need to counsel patients about these risks; and
  • The drug utilization data indicated appropriate prescribing of ESAs consistent with the intended use as a treatment alternative to RBC transfusion for anemia associated with myelosuppressive chemotherapy.

The FDA also conducted an evaluation of the impact of multiple actions, including the ESA REMS, on the use of the ESAs using sponsor-submitted data from outpatient oncology practices between 2006 and 2014. During 2004 to 2009, the FDA took multiple regulatory actions, including labeling changes. In 2007, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) made a National Coverage Determination (NCD) to limit coverage of ESAs for nonrenal disease indications. These actions coincided with the following:

 

 

  • A decrease in the proportion of patients receiving chemotherapy using ESAs;
  • An increase in the proportion of patients receiving chemotherapy who initiate ESAs at a hemoglobin level < 10 g/dL; and
  • An increase in the proportion of patients who initiate ESAs at a dosage consistent with product prescribing information.

Full implementation of the ESA REMS in 2011 had minimal impact on trends in these 3 ESA utilization metrics beyond the changes observed after the CMS coverage determination and multiple other FDA regulatory actions.

This information led the FDA to conclude that it was no longer necessary to require the certification of prescribers and hospitals that prescribe and/or dispense ESAs to patients with cancer in order to ensure that the benefits outweigh the risks.

The FDA has released the REMS requirements for the epoetin alfa and darbopoetin alfa ESA products, and the risks can be communicated by the current product prescribing information. The appropriate use of ESAs is supported by the CMS NCD, the American Society of Clinical Oncology, and American Society of Hematology clinical guidelines, which are evidence-based guidelines intended to provide a basis for the standard of care in clinical oncology.

Education

While the REMS is no longer necessary to ensure the benefits outweigh the risks, the serious risks of shortened OS and/or increased risk of tumor progression or recurrence associated with these drugs remain. The boxed warning language remains as follows: ESAs INCREASE THE RISK OF DEATH, MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION, STROKE, VENOUS THROMBOEMBOLISM, THROMBOSIS OF VASCULAR ACCESS AND TUMOR PROGRESSION OR RECURRENCE. Health care providers are encouraged to discuss the risks and benefits of using ESAs with each patient before initiating use.

 

Click here to read the digital edition.

Epoetin alfa and darbepoetin alfa are erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs), approved for the treatment of anemia (low red blood cells [RBCs]) resulting from chronic kidney disease, chemotherapy, and certain treatments for HIV. These ESAs also are used to reduce the number of blood transfusions during and after certain major surgeries. Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents work like the human protein erythropoietin, which stimulates bone marrow to make RBCs. Epoetin alfa (marketed as Procrit and Epogen) and darbepoetin alfa (marketed as Aranesp) are manufactured by Amgen, Inc. (Thousand Oaks, CA).

In 1989 epoetin alfa was approved for the treatment of anemia associated with chronic renal failure, including patients on dialysis and patients not on dialysis, and in 1993 for the treatment of anemia due to the effects of concomitant myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Epoetin alfa also is indicated for anemia due to zidovudine in patients with HIV and reduction of RBC transfusions during certain surgeries.

Darbepoetin alfa was approved in 2001 for the treatment of anemia associated with chronic renal failure, including patients on dialysis and patients not on dialysis, and in 2006 for the treatment of anemia due to the effects of concomitant myelosuppressive chemotherapy.

Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies

Both epoetin alfa and darbepoetin alfa increase the risk of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, venous thromboembolism, and thrombosis of vascular access and tumor progression or recurrence. Epoetin alfa also can lead to an increase in adverse cardiovascular events, hypertension, seizures, and severe anemia.

In 2008, the FDA determined that Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS) were necessary for ESAs (darbopoetin alfa and epoetin alfa), to ensure that the benefits for use as treatment for anemia associated with myelosuppressive chemotherapy outweigh the risk of shortened overall survival (OS) and/or the increased risk of tumor progression or recurrence in patients with cancer. The REMS was approved in 2010.

Under the ESA REMS program, referred to as the ESA APPRISE Oncology Program, health care providers (HCPs) that prescribed and/or dispensed darbopoetin alfa to patients with cancer and hospitals that dispensed darbopoetin alfa to patients with cancer were required to enroll and become certified in the ESA REMS. The ESA REMS also required the completion of a Patient and Healthcare Provider Acknowledgement Form for each patient with cancer before the new ESA treatment course to ensure patients were counseled about the benefits and risks of these products.

In April 2017, the FDA determined that the ESA REMS that was limited to the use of epoetin alfa and darbopoetin alfa to treat patients with anemia due to associated myelosuppressive chemotherapy was no longer necessary; the benefits of ESAs outweighed the risks of shortened OS and/or increased risk of tumor progression or recurrence in patients with cancer. 1 The FDA recognized the burden that some REMS can place on HCPs and patients. The agency has authority to modify or remove the REMS to minimize the burden on the health care delivery system of complying with the strategy.

Data

The FDA discontinued the REMS based on an evaluation of the results of the REMS Assessments submitted by Amgen and additional FDA analyses to understand the impact of the various regulatory and other actions on the use of ESAs. The REMS Assessment showed the following:

  • The results from surveyed prescribers demonstrated acceptable knowledge of the product risks of decreased survival and/or the increased risk of tumor progression or recurrence and the need to counsel patients about these risks; and
  • The drug utilization data indicated appropriate prescribing of ESAs consistent with the intended use as a treatment alternative to RBC transfusion for anemia associated with myelosuppressive chemotherapy.

The FDA also conducted an evaluation of the impact of multiple actions, including the ESA REMS, on the use of the ESAs using sponsor-submitted data from outpatient oncology practices between 2006 and 2014. During 2004 to 2009, the FDA took multiple regulatory actions, including labeling changes. In 2007, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) made a National Coverage Determination (NCD) to limit coverage of ESAs for nonrenal disease indications. These actions coincided with the following:

 

 

  • A decrease in the proportion of patients receiving chemotherapy using ESAs;
  • An increase in the proportion of patients receiving chemotherapy who initiate ESAs at a hemoglobin level < 10 g/dL; and
  • An increase in the proportion of patients who initiate ESAs at a dosage consistent with product prescribing information.

Full implementation of the ESA REMS in 2011 had minimal impact on trends in these 3 ESA utilization metrics beyond the changes observed after the CMS coverage determination and multiple other FDA regulatory actions.

This information led the FDA to conclude that it was no longer necessary to require the certification of prescribers and hospitals that prescribe and/or dispense ESAs to patients with cancer in order to ensure that the benefits outweigh the risks.

The FDA has released the REMS requirements for the epoetin alfa and darbopoetin alfa ESA products, and the risks can be communicated by the current product prescribing information. The appropriate use of ESAs is supported by the CMS NCD, the American Society of Clinical Oncology, and American Society of Hematology clinical guidelines, which are evidence-based guidelines intended to provide a basis for the standard of care in clinical oncology.

Education

While the REMS is no longer necessary to ensure the benefits outweigh the risks, the serious risks of shortened OS and/or increased risk of tumor progression or recurrence associated with these drugs remain. The boxed warning language remains as follows: ESAs INCREASE THE RISK OF DEATH, MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION, STROKE, VENOUS THROMBOEMBOLISM, THROMBOSIS OF VASCULAR ACCESS AND TUMOR PROGRESSION OR RECURRENCE. Health care providers are encouraged to discuss the risks and benefits of using ESAs with each patient before initiating use.

 

Click here to read the digital edition.

References

1. U.S. Food & Drug Administration. Information on erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESA) epoetin alfa (marketed as Procrit, Epogen), darbepoetin alfa (marketed as Aranesp). https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/ucm109375.htm. Updated April 13, 2017. Accessed July 13, 2017.

References

1. U.S. Food & Drug Administration. Information on erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESA) epoetin alfa (marketed as Procrit, Epogen), darbepoetin alfa (marketed as Aranesp). https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/ucm109375.htm. Updated April 13, 2017. Accessed July 13, 2017.

Issue
Federal Practitioner - 34(6)s
Issue
Federal Practitioner - 34(6)s
Page Number
S41-S42
Page Number
S41-S42
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Do Erythropoiesis-Stimulating Agents Have a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy?
Display Headline
Do Erythropoiesis-Stimulating Agents Have a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy?
Sections
Citation Override
Fed Pract. 2017 August;34(suppl 6):S41-S42
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Article PDF Media

Breast Implant Rupture After Radiation

Article Type
Changed
Although rare, new research shows rupture of an implant due to breast cancer care should be considered.

The rupture rate for breast implants is about 10% at 10 years after insertion. That means women aged ≥ 70 years have a greater risk of rupture. For women who had breast augmentation or reconstruction before the advent of fifth-generation implants, there are no specific recommendations regarding follow-up and very little guidance in the literature about management for those who have had implants after radiation, say clinicians from Mayo Clinic.

They report on a 74-year-old patient who was treated for breast cancer in 1987 and 1988. She underwent lumpectomy, adjuvant unilateral radiation, a right simple mastectomy, left modified radical mastectomy, and implant-based reconstruction. Nearly 30 years later, she felt an asymmetry in 1 breast. Magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound revealed that both implants had ruptured.

It is well known, the clinicians say, that complications of postmastectomy radiotherapy include capsular contracture, infection, and loss of prosthesis in implant-based reconstruction. Studies have shown that fibrosis, a hallmark of chronic radiation therapy, can show up even several years after radiotherapy—underscoring the importance of long-term follow-up for these patients. Moreover, the fact that the consequences of silicone on irradiated mastectomy flaps is unknown posed a further challenge.

While the cause of their patient’s implant rupture is unknown, the clinicians say it is “very likely” that delayed-onset fibrosis and capsular contracture secondary to radiation played a role. Such complications, though rare, should be kept in mind, the clinicians advise, when evaluating patients who had radiation and implants.

Source:

Molinar VE, Sabbagh MD, Manrique OJ. BMJ Case Rep. 2018; pii: bcr-2018-224578.
doi: 10.1136/bcr-2018-224578.

Publications
Topics
Sections
Although rare, new research shows rupture of an implant due to breast cancer care should be considered.
Although rare, new research shows rupture of an implant due to breast cancer care should be considered.

The rupture rate for breast implants is about 10% at 10 years after insertion. That means women aged ≥ 70 years have a greater risk of rupture. For women who had breast augmentation or reconstruction before the advent of fifth-generation implants, there are no specific recommendations regarding follow-up and very little guidance in the literature about management for those who have had implants after radiation, say clinicians from Mayo Clinic.

They report on a 74-year-old patient who was treated for breast cancer in 1987 and 1988. She underwent lumpectomy, adjuvant unilateral radiation, a right simple mastectomy, left modified radical mastectomy, and implant-based reconstruction. Nearly 30 years later, she felt an asymmetry in 1 breast. Magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound revealed that both implants had ruptured.

It is well known, the clinicians say, that complications of postmastectomy radiotherapy include capsular contracture, infection, and loss of prosthesis in implant-based reconstruction. Studies have shown that fibrosis, a hallmark of chronic radiation therapy, can show up even several years after radiotherapy—underscoring the importance of long-term follow-up for these patients. Moreover, the fact that the consequences of silicone on irradiated mastectomy flaps is unknown posed a further challenge.

While the cause of their patient’s implant rupture is unknown, the clinicians say it is “very likely” that delayed-onset fibrosis and capsular contracture secondary to radiation played a role. Such complications, though rare, should be kept in mind, the clinicians advise, when evaluating patients who had radiation and implants.

Source:

Molinar VE, Sabbagh MD, Manrique OJ. BMJ Case Rep. 2018; pii: bcr-2018-224578.
doi: 10.1136/bcr-2018-224578.

The rupture rate for breast implants is about 10% at 10 years after insertion. That means women aged ≥ 70 years have a greater risk of rupture. For women who had breast augmentation or reconstruction before the advent of fifth-generation implants, there are no specific recommendations regarding follow-up and very little guidance in the literature about management for those who have had implants after radiation, say clinicians from Mayo Clinic.

They report on a 74-year-old patient who was treated for breast cancer in 1987 and 1988. She underwent lumpectomy, adjuvant unilateral radiation, a right simple mastectomy, left modified radical mastectomy, and implant-based reconstruction. Nearly 30 years later, she felt an asymmetry in 1 breast. Magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound revealed that both implants had ruptured.

It is well known, the clinicians say, that complications of postmastectomy radiotherapy include capsular contracture, infection, and loss of prosthesis in implant-based reconstruction. Studies have shown that fibrosis, a hallmark of chronic radiation therapy, can show up even several years after radiotherapy—underscoring the importance of long-term follow-up for these patients. Moreover, the fact that the consequences of silicone on irradiated mastectomy flaps is unknown posed a further challenge.

While the cause of their patient’s implant rupture is unknown, the clinicians say it is “very likely” that delayed-onset fibrosis and capsular contracture secondary to radiation played a role. Such complications, though rare, should be kept in mind, the clinicians advise, when evaluating patients who had radiation and implants.

Source:

Molinar VE, Sabbagh MD, Manrique OJ. BMJ Case Rep. 2018; pii: bcr-2018-224578.
doi: 10.1136/bcr-2018-224578.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Gate On Date
Un-Gate On Date
Use ProPublica
CFC Schedule Remove Status

Treatment simulation could help personalize myeloma therapy

Article Type
Changed

 

With the help of gene expression signatures, a simulated treatment learning model identified which patients with multiple myeloma would benefit most from treatment with bortezomib or lenalidomide, researchers reported in Nature Communications.

The study included 910 participants across three phase 3 trials. In all, 20% would have a 100% greater-than-average progression-free survival (PFS) benefit from bortezomib, while 31% would have a 200% greater-than-average PFS benefit from lenalidomide, wrote Joske Ubels of University Center Utrecht, the Netherlands, and her colleagues.

The genetic heterogeneity of cancer and risk of treatment necessitate tools that “predict – at the moment of diagnosis – which patients will benefit most from a certain treatment,” the researchers wrote. While gene expression signatures can predict a favorable or adverse prognosis, they do not account for the effect of treatment on survival.

“The key idea of simulated treatment learning is that a patient’s treatment benefit can be estimated by comparing [his or her] survival to a set of genetically similar patients [who] received the comparator treatment,” they noted.

To do so, the researchers applied an algorithm called GESTURE to combined data from the TT2 (Total Therapy 2 for Multiple Myeloma), TT3, and HOVON-65/GMMG-HD4 trials. These trials compared bortezomib or lenalidomide with conventional therapies for multiple myeloma. The model identified 180 patients (20%) for whom bortezomib would produce a 100% greater PFS benefit than in the study population as a whole. Conversely, lenalidomide would produce a 200% greater PFS benefit in 31% of patients.

The simulated treatment learning model “can derive clinically actionable gene expression signatures that enable a more personalized approach to treatment,” the researchers concluded. The method requires a large dataset but could be useful for trials that have missed their primary endpoint, such as the CheckMate-026 trial of nivolumab. The next step is to see if the model makes useful treatment predictions for other cancers. The code needed to train and validate the model is available at github.com/jubels/GESTURE.

The Van Herk Fellowship provided support. The lenalidomide dataset was created as part of the Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation Personalized Medicine Initiative. Dr. Ubels and one coinvestigator are employees of SkylineDx; another coinvestigator served on its advisory board. The others reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Ubels J et al. Nat Commun. 2018 Jul 27. doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-05348-5.

Publications
Topics
Sections

 

With the help of gene expression signatures, a simulated treatment learning model identified which patients with multiple myeloma would benefit most from treatment with bortezomib or lenalidomide, researchers reported in Nature Communications.

The study included 910 participants across three phase 3 trials. In all, 20% would have a 100% greater-than-average progression-free survival (PFS) benefit from bortezomib, while 31% would have a 200% greater-than-average PFS benefit from lenalidomide, wrote Joske Ubels of University Center Utrecht, the Netherlands, and her colleagues.

The genetic heterogeneity of cancer and risk of treatment necessitate tools that “predict – at the moment of diagnosis – which patients will benefit most from a certain treatment,” the researchers wrote. While gene expression signatures can predict a favorable or adverse prognosis, they do not account for the effect of treatment on survival.

“The key idea of simulated treatment learning is that a patient’s treatment benefit can be estimated by comparing [his or her] survival to a set of genetically similar patients [who] received the comparator treatment,” they noted.

To do so, the researchers applied an algorithm called GESTURE to combined data from the TT2 (Total Therapy 2 for Multiple Myeloma), TT3, and HOVON-65/GMMG-HD4 trials. These trials compared bortezomib or lenalidomide with conventional therapies for multiple myeloma. The model identified 180 patients (20%) for whom bortezomib would produce a 100% greater PFS benefit than in the study population as a whole. Conversely, lenalidomide would produce a 200% greater PFS benefit in 31% of patients.

The simulated treatment learning model “can derive clinically actionable gene expression signatures that enable a more personalized approach to treatment,” the researchers concluded. The method requires a large dataset but could be useful for trials that have missed their primary endpoint, such as the CheckMate-026 trial of nivolumab. The next step is to see if the model makes useful treatment predictions for other cancers. The code needed to train and validate the model is available at github.com/jubels/GESTURE.

The Van Herk Fellowship provided support. The lenalidomide dataset was created as part of the Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation Personalized Medicine Initiative. Dr. Ubels and one coinvestigator are employees of SkylineDx; another coinvestigator served on its advisory board. The others reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Ubels J et al. Nat Commun. 2018 Jul 27. doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-05348-5.

 

With the help of gene expression signatures, a simulated treatment learning model identified which patients with multiple myeloma would benefit most from treatment with bortezomib or lenalidomide, researchers reported in Nature Communications.

The study included 910 participants across three phase 3 trials. In all, 20% would have a 100% greater-than-average progression-free survival (PFS) benefit from bortezomib, while 31% would have a 200% greater-than-average PFS benefit from lenalidomide, wrote Joske Ubels of University Center Utrecht, the Netherlands, and her colleagues.

The genetic heterogeneity of cancer and risk of treatment necessitate tools that “predict – at the moment of diagnosis – which patients will benefit most from a certain treatment,” the researchers wrote. While gene expression signatures can predict a favorable or adverse prognosis, they do not account for the effect of treatment on survival.

“The key idea of simulated treatment learning is that a patient’s treatment benefit can be estimated by comparing [his or her] survival to a set of genetically similar patients [who] received the comparator treatment,” they noted.

To do so, the researchers applied an algorithm called GESTURE to combined data from the TT2 (Total Therapy 2 for Multiple Myeloma), TT3, and HOVON-65/GMMG-HD4 trials. These trials compared bortezomib or lenalidomide with conventional therapies for multiple myeloma. The model identified 180 patients (20%) for whom bortezomib would produce a 100% greater PFS benefit than in the study population as a whole. Conversely, lenalidomide would produce a 200% greater PFS benefit in 31% of patients.

The simulated treatment learning model “can derive clinically actionable gene expression signatures that enable a more personalized approach to treatment,” the researchers concluded. The method requires a large dataset but could be useful for trials that have missed their primary endpoint, such as the CheckMate-026 trial of nivolumab. The next step is to see if the model makes useful treatment predictions for other cancers. The code needed to train and validate the model is available at github.com/jubels/GESTURE.

The Van Herk Fellowship provided support. The lenalidomide dataset was created as part of the Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation Personalized Medicine Initiative. Dr. Ubels and one coinvestigator are employees of SkylineDx; another coinvestigator served on its advisory board. The others reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Ubels J et al. Nat Commun. 2018 Jul 27. doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-05348-5.

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

FROM NATURE COMMUNICATIONS

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

 

Key clinical point: A simulated treatment model estimated the benefit of using certain drugs in multiple myeloma treatment.

Major finding: Bortezomib would yield a 100% greater-than-average progression-free survival benefit in 20% of patients; lenalidomide would yield a 200% greater-than-average PFS benefit in 31% of patients.

Study details: Three randomized, phase 3 clinical trials of 910 patients with multiple myeloma were used for the simulation.

Disclosures: The Van Herk Fellowship provided support. The lenalidomide dataset was created as part of the Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation Personalized Medicine Initiative. Dr. Ubels and one coinvestigator are employees of SkylineDx; another coinvestigator served on its advisory board. The others reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

Source: Ubels J et al. Nat Commun. 2018 Jul 27. doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-05348-5.

Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica

Colorectal cancer: New observations, new implications

Article Type
Changed

 

The incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer (CRC) have declined by 3% per year over the past 10-15 years – a remarkable achievement. The decline in incidence has been dramatic for individuals over age 50 years, who are targeted by screening. However, the reduction in CRC risk does not apply to all populations in the United States. New epidemiologic trends and observations point to patient demographics and regional variation as potential risk factors. While such observations provide what I call “blurry snapshots,” they may well have important implications for our approach to screening and prevention.

Dr. David Lieberman
Recent evidence suggests that rates of CRC have been increasing, not decreasing, in individuals younger than age 50 years – a demographic we have traditionally regarded as low risk. This cohort accounts for more than 10% of CRC, and this trend is occurring in developed countries in Europe and Asia, as well as in the United States.

What are the reasons? There are several personal and environmental factors that could be contributing. Obesity and metabolic syndrome are risk factors for CRC and have been more commonly developing in childhood over the past 40 years. Alteration of the microbiome could also potentially predispose one to developing CRC. The use of antibiotics in childhood was more common for some of these younger generations than it was for the preceding generations, and antibiotics have been introduced into the food industry to fatten animals. The introduction of food chemicals could also either alter the microbiome and/or promote inflammation, which could lead to neoplasia. Exposure to more ambient radiation may be another risk factor.

These hypotheses are biologically plausible – but untested. Nevertheless, this observational trend does have implications for clinicians. First, studies have shown that up to 20% of CRCs before age 50 years are associated with germline mutations, while others are associated with a family history of CRC. Therefore, it is important to capture and update family history. In addition, there is evidence that individuals aged 40-49 years with rectal bleeding have a higher risk of advanced adenomas, so our threshold for performing diagnostic colonoscopy should be lowered. African Americans also have a higher risk of CRC at a younger age than do other racial groups and might benefit from early screening at age 45 years. Notably, recent recommendations from the American Cancer Society call for consideration of screening everyone at age 45 years.

There is substantial state-to-state and county-to-county variation in the incidence and mortality of CRC. While some of this variation can be explained by racial variation, smoking, obesity, and social determinants of health, there are “hot-spots” that may defy easy explanation. There has been very little research about environmental factors (air, water, and ambient radiation). Two regions at particularly high risk are the Mississippi Delta region and Appalachia – areas where water pollution could be a factor. The substantial county-to-county variation within these high-risk areas points to a potential environmental culprit, but further research is needed.

For the GI community, there are several implications to be found in these changing demographics and risks. For one, we may need to consider expanding our risk concepts to include not only genetic and personal risk factors but also environmental factors. To mitigate risk, providers and public health officials may need to then target these high-risk areas for more intensive screening efforts.
 

Dr. Lieberman is a professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology and hepatology at Oregon Health and Science University in Portland. He has no conflicts of interest. Dr. Lieberman made his comments during the AGA Institute Presidential Plenary at the Annual Digestive Disease Week.

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

 

The incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer (CRC) have declined by 3% per year over the past 10-15 years – a remarkable achievement. The decline in incidence has been dramatic for individuals over age 50 years, who are targeted by screening. However, the reduction in CRC risk does not apply to all populations in the United States. New epidemiologic trends and observations point to patient demographics and regional variation as potential risk factors. While such observations provide what I call “blurry snapshots,” they may well have important implications for our approach to screening and prevention.

Dr. David Lieberman
Recent evidence suggests that rates of CRC have been increasing, not decreasing, in individuals younger than age 50 years – a demographic we have traditionally regarded as low risk. This cohort accounts for more than 10% of CRC, and this trend is occurring in developed countries in Europe and Asia, as well as in the United States.

What are the reasons? There are several personal and environmental factors that could be contributing. Obesity and metabolic syndrome are risk factors for CRC and have been more commonly developing in childhood over the past 40 years. Alteration of the microbiome could also potentially predispose one to developing CRC. The use of antibiotics in childhood was more common for some of these younger generations than it was for the preceding generations, and antibiotics have been introduced into the food industry to fatten animals. The introduction of food chemicals could also either alter the microbiome and/or promote inflammation, which could lead to neoplasia. Exposure to more ambient radiation may be another risk factor.

These hypotheses are biologically plausible – but untested. Nevertheless, this observational trend does have implications for clinicians. First, studies have shown that up to 20% of CRCs before age 50 years are associated with germline mutations, while others are associated with a family history of CRC. Therefore, it is important to capture and update family history. In addition, there is evidence that individuals aged 40-49 years with rectal bleeding have a higher risk of advanced adenomas, so our threshold for performing diagnostic colonoscopy should be lowered. African Americans also have a higher risk of CRC at a younger age than do other racial groups and might benefit from early screening at age 45 years. Notably, recent recommendations from the American Cancer Society call for consideration of screening everyone at age 45 years.

There is substantial state-to-state and county-to-county variation in the incidence and mortality of CRC. While some of this variation can be explained by racial variation, smoking, obesity, and social determinants of health, there are “hot-spots” that may defy easy explanation. There has been very little research about environmental factors (air, water, and ambient radiation). Two regions at particularly high risk are the Mississippi Delta region and Appalachia – areas where water pollution could be a factor. The substantial county-to-county variation within these high-risk areas points to a potential environmental culprit, but further research is needed.

For the GI community, there are several implications to be found in these changing demographics and risks. For one, we may need to consider expanding our risk concepts to include not only genetic and personal risk factors but also environmental factors. To mitigate risk, providers and public health officials may need to then target these high-risk areas for more intensive screening efforts.
 

Dr. Lieberman is a professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology and hepatology at Oregon Health and Science University in Portland. He has no conflicts of interest. Dr. Lieberman made his comments during the AGA Institute Presidential Plenary at the Annual Digestive Disease Week.

 

The incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer (CRC) have declined by 3% per year over the past 10-15 years – a remarkable achievement. The decline in incidence has been dramatic for individuals over age 50 years, who are targeted by screening. However, the reduction in CRC risk does not apply to all populations in the United States. New epidemiologic trends and observations point to patient demographics and regional variation as potential risk factors. While such observations provide what I call “blurry snapshots,” they may well have important implications for our approach to screening and prevention.

Dr. David Lieberman
Recent evidence suggests that rates of CRC have been increasing, not decreasing, in individuals younger than age 50 years – a demographic we have traditionally regarded as low risk. This cohort accounts for more than 10% of CRC, and this trend is occurring in developed countries in Europe and Asia, as well as in the United States.

What are the reasons? There are several personal and environmental factors that could be contributing. Obesity and metabolic syndrome are risk factors for CRC and have been more commonly developing in childhood over the past 40 years. Alteration of the microbiome could also potentially predispose one to developing CRC. The use of antibiotics in childhood was more common for some of these younger generations than it was for the preceding generations, and antibiotics have been introduced into the food industry to fatten animals. The introduction of food chemicals could also either alter the microbiome and/or promote inflammation, which could lead to neoplasia. Exposure to more ambient radiation may be another risk factor.

These hypotheses are biologically plausible – but untested. Nevertheless, this observational trend does have implications for clinicians. First, studies have shown that up to 20% of CRCs before age 50 years are associated with germline mutations, while others are associated with a family history of CRC. Therefore, it is important to capture and update family history. In addition, there is evidence that individuals aged 40-49 years with rectal bleeding have a higher risk of advanced adenomas, so our threshold for performing diagnostic colonoscopy should be lowered. African Americans also have a higher risk of CRC at a younger age than do other racial groups and might benefit from early screening at age 45 years. Notably, recent recommendations from the American Cancer Society call for consideration of screening everyone at age 45 years.

There is substantial state-to-state and county-to-county variation in the incidence and mortality of CRC. While some of this variation can be explained by racial variation, smoking, obesity, and social determinants of health, there are “hot-spots” that may defy easy explanation. There has been very little research about environmental factors (air, water, and ambient radiation). Two regions at particularly high risk are the Mississippi Delta region and Appalachia – areas where water pollution could be a factor. The substantial county-to-county variation within these high-risk areas points to a potential environmental culprit, but further research is needed.

For the GI community, there are several implications to be found in these changing demographics and risks. For one, we may need to consider expanding our risk concepts to include not only genetic and personal risk factors but also environmental factors. To mitigate risk, providers and public health officials may need to then target these high-risk areas for more intensive screening efforts.
 

Dr. Lieberman is a professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology and hepatology at Oregon Health and Science University in Portland. He has no conflicts of interest. Dr. Lieberman made his comments during the AGA Institute Presidential Plenary at the Annual Digestive Disease Week.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica

Rapid EGFR testing reduces time to therapy for patients with NSCLC

Article Type
Changed

 

For patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), rapid EGFR-specific genotyping reduces time to initiation (TTI) of targeted therapy, compared with current next-generation sequencing (NGS) work flows, according to a recent study.

Rapid testing maintained concordance with NGS while cutting median turnaround time in half. In addition, an ultrarapid, next-day work flow allowed several highly symptomatic patients with NSCLC to start therapy within 1 week of biopsy, reported Ibiayi Dagogo-Jack, MD, of the Massachusetts General Hospital Waltham Cancer Center and her coauthors.

Molecular testing for patients with NSCLC is necessary to select appropriate therapies; however, “genotyping by NGS requires complex bioinformatics that can create treatment delays,” the investigators wrote in JCO Precision Oncology. “Some patients with NSCLC present with symptomatic disease that requires initiation of treatment before molecular testing results are available. To our knowledge, the impact of molecular testing turnaround time on clinical decision making has not been formally assessed in NSCLC.”

For rapid testing, biopsies were collected from 243 hospitalized patients with newly diagnosed, metastatic NSCLC and were then fixed in formalin. An EGFR-specific polymerase chain reaction assay was then used to identify exon 19 deletions and L858R mutations. The ultrarapid testing phase of the study involved eight highly symptomatic patients with newly diagnosed NSCLC. Biopsy samples in this group were frozen instead of fixed. Both the rapid and ultrarapid testing results were compared with 121 historical biopsies that had been genotyped by NGS.

The rapid testing’s work flow reduced TTI from 37 days to 22 days (P = .01) while maintaining high concordance with NGS (sensitivity, 98%; specificity, 100%). Median turnaround time dropped in half from 14 days to 7 days with rapid testing (P less than .001); ultrarapid testing had a turnaround time of approximately 1 day. The median TTI for the ultrarapid group was 9 days, and several patients were able to begin therapy within 1 week.

The investigators concluded that rapid and ultrarapid testing are a cost-effective, reliable means for decreasing turnaround time and TTI for patients with newly diagnosed, metastatic NSCLC. However, concurrent NGS genotyping should still be performed because NGS results may influence future therapy sequencing. With the ultrarapid work flow, additional sampling is recommended to offset the risk of tissue failure. The investigators noted that “the growing number of actionable targets substantiates the need for diagnostic strategies that expedite molecular analysis.”

The study was funded in part by the National Institutes of Health. Authors reported compensation from Merck, Boehringer Ingelheim, Takeda, and others.

SOURCE: Dagogo-Jack et al. JCO Precis Oncol. 2018 Jul 24. doi: 10.1200/PO.17.00299.

Publications
Topics
Sections

 

For patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), rapid EGFR-specific genotyping reduces time to initiation (TTI) of targeted therapy, compared with current next-generation sequencing (NGS) work flows, according to a recent study.

Rapid testing maintained concordance with NGS while cutting median turnaround time in half. In addition, an ultrarapid, next-day work flow allowed several highly symptomatic patients with NSCLC to start therapy within 1 week of biopsy, reported Ibiayi Dagogo-Jack, MD, of the Massachusetts General Hospital Waltham Cancer Center and her coauthors.

Molecular testing for patients with NSCLC is necessary to select appropriate therapies; however, “genotyping by NGS requires complex bioinformatics that can create treatment delays,” the investigators wrote in JCO Precision Oncology. “Some patients with NSCLC present with symptomatic disease that requires initiation of treatment before molecular testing results are available. To our knowledge, the impact of molecular testing turnaround time on clinical decision making has not been formally assessed in NSCLC.”

For rapid testing, biopsies were collected from 243 hospitalized patients with newly diagnosed, metastatic NSCLC and were then fixed in formalin. An EGFR-specific polymerase chain reaction assay was then used to identify exon 19 deletions and L858R mutations. The ultrarapid testing phase of the study involved eight highly symptomatic patients with newly diagnosed NSCLC. Biopsy samples in this group were frozen instead of fixed. Both the rapid and ultrarapid testing results were compared with 121 historical biopsies that had been genotyped by NGS.

The rapid testing’s work flow reduced TTI from 37 days to 22 days (P = .01) while maintaining high concordance with NGS (sensitivity, 98%; specificity, 100%). Median turnaround time dropped in half from 14 days to 7 days with rapid testing (P less than .001); ultrarapid testing had a turnaround time of approximately 1 day. The median TTI for the ultrarapid group was 9 days, and several patients were able to begin therapy within 1 week.

The investigators concluded that rapid and ultrarapid testing are a cost-effective, reliable means for decreasing turnaround time and TTI for patients with newly diagnosed, metastatic NSCLC. However, concurrent NGS genotyping should still be performed because NGS results may influence future therapy sequencing. With the ultrarapid work flow, additional sampling is recommended to offset the risk of tissue failure. The investigators noted that “the growing number of actionable targets substantiates the need for diagnostic strategies that expedite molecular analysis.”

The study was funded in part by the National Institutes of Health. Authors reported compensation from Merck, Boehringer Ingelheim, Takeda, and others.

SOURCE: Dagogo-Jack et al. JCO Precis Oncol. 2018 Jul 24. doi: 10.1200/PO.17.00299.

 

For patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), rapid EGFR-specific genotyping reduces time to initiation (TTI) of targeted therapy, compared with current next-generation sequencing (NGS) work flows, according to a recent study.

Rapid testing maintained concordance with NGS while cutting median turnaround time in half. In addition, an ultrarapid, next-day work flow allowed several highly symptomatic patients with NSCLC to start therapy within 1 week of biopsy, reported Ibiayi Dagogo-Jack, MD, of the Massachusetts General Hospital Waltham Cancer Center and her coauthors.

Molecular testing for patients with NSCLC is necessary to select appropriate therapies; however, “genotyping by NGS requires complex bioinformatics that can create treatment delays,” the investigators wrote in JCO Precision Oncology. “Some patients with NSCLC present with symptomatic disease that requires initiation of treatment before molecular testing results are available. To our knowledge, the impact of molecular testing turnaround time on clinical decision making has not been formally assessed in NSCLC.”

For rapid testing, biopsies were collected from 243 hospitalized patients with newly diagnosed, metastatic NSCLC and were then fixed in formalin. An EGFR-specific polymerase chain reaction assay was then used to identify exon 19 deletions and L858R mutations. The ultrarapid testing phase of the study involved eight highly symptomatic patients with newly diagnosed NSCLC. Biopsy samples in this group were frozen instead of fixed. Both the rapid and ultrarapid testing results were compared with 121 historical biopsies that had been genotyped by NGS.

The rapid testing’s work flow reduced TTI from 37 days to 22 days (P = .01) while maintaining high concordance with NGS (sensitivity, 98%; specificity, 100%). Median turnaround time dropped in half from 14 days to 7 days with rapid testing (P less than .001); ultrarapid testing had a turnaround time of approximately 1 day. The median TTI for the ultrarapid group was 9 days, and several patients were able to begin therapy within 1 week.

The investigators concluded that rapid and ultrarapid testing are a cost-effective, reliable means for decreasing turnaround time and TTI for patients with newly diagnosed, metastatic NSCLC. However, concurrent NGS genotyping should still be performed because NGS results may influence future therapy sequencing. With the ultrarapid work flow, additional sampling is recommended to offset the risk of tissue failure. The investigators noted that “the growing number of actionable targets substantiates the need for diagnostic strategies that expedite molecular analysis.”

The study was funded in part by the National Institutes of Health. Authors reported compensation from Merck, Boehringer Ingelheim, Takeda, and others.

SOURCE: Dagogo-Jack et al. JCO Precis Oncol. 2018 Jul 24. doi: 10.1200/PO.17.00299.

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

FROM JCO PRECISION ONCOLOGY

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

 

Key clinical point: Rapid EGFR-specific genotyping for patients with NSCLC reduced time to initiation of targeted therapy while maintaining concordance with next-generation sequencing (NGS).

Major finding: Rapid EGFR-specific testing in patients with NSCLC reduced median time to initiation (TTI) of therapy from 37 days to 22 days (P =.01).

Study details: A multiphase, prospective and retrospective study comparing rapid EGFR-specific testing (n = 243), ultrarapid EGFR-specific testing (n = 8), and standard NGS (n = 121) for patients with NSCLC.

Disclosures: The study was funded in part by the National Institutes of Health. Authors reported compensation from Merck, Boehringer Ingelheim, Takeda, and others.

Source: Dagogo-Jack I et al. JCO Precis Oncol. 2018 Jul 24. doi: 10.1200/PO.17.00299.

Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica

Psoriasis, Etanercept, and Myelodysplasia: Looking for Connections

Article Type
Changed
Patients with psoriasis may be more susceptible to myelodysplasia—but is that because of the autoimmunity or the treatment?

Physicians from Menoufia University and Cairo University in Egypt, and Al Hada Armed Forces Hospital in Saudi Arabia report on a patient who developed myelodysplasia with excess blasts 1 year after he started on the tumor necrosis factor-alpha blocker etanercept for psoriasis. The patient, a 76-year-old man, arrived at the emergency department (ED) with ecchymosis and recurrent epistaxis. He had a critically low platelet count, anemia, and normal leukocyte count. The reticulocyte index, serum ferritin, and folate levels indicated ineffective erythropoiesis. Bone marrow aspirate and biopsy confirmed a diagnosis of myelodysplastic syndrome.

The physicians stopped the etanercept and administered 2 cycles of azacitidine and folic acid supplementation, but the response was minima,l and the patient platelet count worsened. While waiting for the third cycle, the patient was readmitted to the ED with lower gastrointestinal bleeding, epistaxis, and shock. He died of cardiopulmonary arrest.

The physicians note that immune dysregulation and altered T-cell hemostasis are essential to the development of myelodysplastic syndrome. They also note that nonspecific activation and proliferation of T lymphocytes has been documented as promoting epidermal growth in genetically susceptible psoriasis patients.

Myelodysplastic syndrome has been associated with psoriasis in about 7% of cases, and researchers have found a higher incidence of leukemia and laryngeal cancer in families of psoriasis patients. There also have been reports of leukemia in psoriasis patients on systemic immunosuppressives. Etanercept has various hematologic adverse effects, including pancytopenia and aplastic anemia.

However, only 4 cases (including this one) have been reported of myelodysplastic syndrome in psoriasis patients. Taken together, the cases add to the growing evidence that suggests a link between myelodysplastic syndrome and etanercept treatment for psoriasis. Those patients, the physicians caution, should be considered at dual risk from treatment and disease. The physicians also recommend regular routine blood counts and discontinuing etanercept at onset of any cytopenias.

Source:
Dawoud NM, Ayoub OH, Essa ES, Dawoud DM. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 2018;84(4):463-465.

doi: 10.4103/ijdvl.IJDVL_463_17

Publications
Topics
Sections
Patients with psoriasis may be more susceptible to myelodysplasia—but is that because of the autoimmunity or the treatment?
Patients with psoriasis may be more susceptible to myelodysplasia—but is that because of the autoimmunity or the treatment?

Physicians from Menoufia University and Cairo University in Egypt, and Al Hada Armed Forces Hospital in Saudi Arabia report on a patient who developed myelodysplasia with excess blasts 1 year after he started on the tumor necrosis factor-alpha blocker etanercept for psoriasis. The patient, a 76-year-old man, arrived at the emergency department (ED) with ecchymosis and recurrent epistaxis. He had a critically low platelet count, anemia, and normal leukocyte count. The reticulocyte index, serum ferritin, and folate levels indicated ineffective erythropoiesis. Bone marrow aspirate and biopsy confirmed a diagnosis of myelodysplastic syndrome.

The physicians stopped the etanercept and administered 2 cycles of azacitidine and folic acid supplementation, but the response was minima,l and the patient platelet count worsened. While waiting for the third cycle, the patient was readmitted to the ED with lower gastrointestinal bleeding, epistaxis, and shock. He died of cardiopulmonary arrest.

The physicians note that immune dysregulation and altered T-cell hemostasis are essential to the development of myelodysplastic syndrome. They also note that nonspecific activation and proliferation of T lymphocytes has been documented as promoting epidermal growth in genetically susceptible psoriasis patients.

Myelodysplastic syndrome has been associated with psoriasis in about 7% of cases, and researchers have found a higher incidence of leukemia and laryngeal cancer in families of psoriasis patients. There also have been reports of leukemia in psoriasis patients on systemic immunosuppressives. Etanercept has various hematologic adverse effects, including pancytopenia and aplastic anemia.

However, only 4 cases (including this one) have been reported of myelodysplastic syndrome in psoriasis patients. Taken together, the cases add to the growing evidence that suggests a link between myelodysplastic syndrome and etanercept treatment for psoriasis. Those patients, the physicians caution, should be considered at dual risk from treatment and disease. The physicians also recommend regular routine blood counts and discontinuing etanercept at onset of any cytopenias.

Source:
Dawoud NM, Ayoub OH, Essa ES, Dawoud DM. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 2018;84(4):463-465.

doi: 10.4103/ijdvl.IJDVL_463_17

Physicians from Menoufia University and Cairo University in Egypt, and Al Hada Armed Forces Hospital in Saudi Arabia report on a patient who developed myelodysplasia with excess blasts 1 year after he started on the tumor necrosis factor-alpha blocker etanercept for psoriasis. The patient, a 76-year-old man, arrived at the emergency department (ED) with ecchymosis and recurrent epistaxis. He had a critically low platelet count, anemia, and normal leukocyte count. The reticulocyte index, serum ferritin, and folate levels indicated ineffective erythropoiesis. Bone marrow aspirate and biopsy confirmed a diagnosis of myelodysplastic syndrome.

The physicians stopped the etanercept and administered 2 cycles of azacitidine and folic acid supplementation, but the response was minima,l and the patient platelet count worsened. While waiting for the third cycle, the patient was readmitted to the ED with lower gastrointestinal bleeding, epistaxis, and shock. He died of cardiopulmonary arrest.

The physicians note that immune dysregulation and altered T-cell hemostasis are essential to the development of myelodysplastic syndrome. They also note that nonspecific activation and proliferation of T lymphocytes has been documented as promoting epidermal growth in genetically susceptible psoriasis patients.

Myelodysplastic syndrome has been associated with psoriasis in about 7% of cases, and researchers have found a higher incidence of leukemia and laryngeal cancer in families of psoriasis patients. There also have been reports of leukemia in psoriasis patients on systemic immunosuppressives. Etanercept has various hematologic adverse effects, including pancytopenia and aplastic anemia.

However, only 4 cases (including this one) have been reported of myelodysplastic syndrome in psoriasis patients. Taken together, the cases add to the growing evidence that suggests a link between myelodysplastic syndrome and etanercept treatment for psoriasis. Those patients, the physicians caution, should be considered at dual risk from treatment and disease. The physicians also recommend regular routine blood counts and discontinuing etanercept at onset of any cytopenias.

Source:
Dawoud NM, Ayoub OH, Essa ES, Dawoud DM. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 2018;84(4):463-465.

doi: 10.4103/ijdvl.IJDVL_463_17

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Gate On Date
Un-Gate On Date
Use ProPublica
CFC Schedule Remove Status

Prehospital plasma outperforms standard care

Prehospital plasma deserves consideration
Article Type
Changed

 

Prehospital administration of plasma to trauma patients at risk for hemorrhagic shock improves odds of survival, according to the Prehospital Air Medical Plasma (PAMPer) trial.

Patients who received plasma also had a decreased median prothrombin to time ratio, compared with those who received standard-care resuscitation alone.

Spotmatik/ThinkStock

Modern trauma patients benefit “from receiving less crystalloid-based therapy and early balanced blood component–based therapy once they arrive at a facility for definitive care,” Jason L. Sperry, MD, of the University of Pittsburgh and his coauthors wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine. These newer strategies aim to mitigate coagulopathy and its associated downstream complications.

Still, “a majority of deaths from traumatic hemorrhage continue to occur in the first hours after arrival at the trauma center, which underscores the importance of the prehospital environment for early interventions that provide benefit,” the investigators noted.

The PAMPer trial (NCT01818427) examined the efficacy and safety of prehospital plasma resuscitation, comparing it with standard-care resuscitation, in severely injured patients. The phase 3, randomized, superiority trial involved 501 trauma patients at risk for hemorrhagic shock who were transported from 27 air medical bases to nine trauma centers. In total, 230 patients received prehospital plasma and standard-care resuscitation, and 271 patients received standard-care alone. Standard-care included infusion of crystalloid fluids in a goal-directed manner. Air medical bases delivered each type of care in 1-month intervals.

Patients were eligible if they exhibited severe hypotension (systolic blood pressure less than 70 mm Hg) or both hypotension (systolic blood pressure less than 90 mm Hg) and tachycardia (greater than 108 beats per minute).

Eligible patients received two units of thawed plasma, which was completely delivered before administration of any other fluids. If infusion of plasma was not complete upon arrival at the trauma center, infusion was completed before any in-hospital fluids were administered. Following preexisting local protocols, 13 of 27 air transport teams carried 2U of red blood cells. If red blood cells were delivered, then this was performed after plasma administration if the patient was still hypotensive or obviously bleeding.

The 30-day mortality rate among all patients was 29.6%. Approximately one in three patients received a prehospital red blood cell transfusion, and nearly 60% underwent surgery within 24 hours of hospital admission.

A greater percentage of patients in the standard-care group were given red blood cell transfusions, compared with those in the plasma group. The standard-care patients also received greater volumes of crystalloid solution than did those receiving plasma.

The primary outcome, 30-day mortality, was 9.8% lower for patients who received plasma, compared with patients who received standard-care alone (23.2% vs. 33.0%; P = .03). Multivariate regression analysis revealed that plasma delivery accounted for a 39% lower risk of death within 30 days, compared with standard care (P = .02). Within 3 hours of randomization, Kaplan-Meier curves revealed a separation between the two treatment groups that persisted until 30 days.

Median prothrombin to time ratio, the only statistically significant secondary outcome, was lower in the plasma group than it was in the standard-care group (1.2 vs. 1.3; P less than .001).

Other measured parameters were similar between the two main treatment groups, including rates of nosocomial infections, allergic or transfusion-related reactions, acute lung injury/acute respiratory distress syndrome, and multiorgan failure.

“Although we cannot determine the independent or additive effects of prehospital administration of plasma and packed red cells, the survival benefits attributable to plasma administration persisted after adjustment for prehospital red-cell administration, and a subgroup analysis showed no heterogeneity of the treatment effect,” the investigators wrote.

The PAMPer trial was supported by a grant from the U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command. One author reported funding from Janssen Pharmaceuticals, CSL Behring, Haemonetics, and Accriva Diagnostics, as well as having been named on a patent on TLR4 inhibitors for the treatment of inflammatory and infectious disorders.

SOURCE: Sperry JL et al. N Engl J Med. 2018 Jul 26;379(4):315-26.


 

Body

 

The Prehospital Air Medical Plasma (PAMPer) trial shows that prehospital plasma improves survival rates in trauma patients at risk for hemorrhagic shock, and its implementation should therefore be considered, according to Jeremy W. Cannon, MD.

“Severe hemorrhage from injury claims the lives of nearly 50,000 Americans every year,” Dr. Cannon wrote in an accompanying editorial. “Because many of these deaths occur in young, vital people, this number translates to an astounding loss of almost 2,000,000 years of productive life.”

Since most deaths occur in less than 2 hours, severe hemorrhage requires rapid intervention; however, the best methods of intervention are unclear. In 1994, Bickell et al. demonstrated that administration of crystalloid-based therapy was more beneficial in a goal-directed, operative setting than it was in transit to a trauma center. Other studies have shown that rapid transport and tourniquet application, when appropriate, are essential.

“But what about patients who have blunt injuries and longer transport times?” asked Dr. Cannon. Recently, damage-control resuscitation has proven effective in the trauma center – a combination of red cells, plasma, and platelets in approximately equal proportions, with minimal nonhemostatic crystalloid solution. Researchers now ask whether this intervention has a place in the prehospital setting.

The PAMPer trial suggests that the number needed to treat is 10 to save one life. These results “should motivate trauma center personnel and air medical crews across the country to consider implementing this lifesaving approach,” Dr. Cannon wrote.

Several blood products are candidates for prehospital resuscitation; their selection depends on both logistical and medical factors. Although fresh-frozen plasma was used in the PAMPer trial, it has a shelf life of only 5 days once thawed, leading to more frequent replenishment. Never-frozen plasma lasts 26 days, which could be easier to keep in stock. Beyond plasma, “refrigerated whole blood has a shelf life of 21 days and offers the benefit of both platelets and oxygen delivery, making it perhaps the ideal product for prehospital resuscitation,” Dr. Cannon wrote.
 

Jeremy W. Cannon, MD, is at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia and the Uniformed Services University in Bethesda, Md. These comments are adapted from an accompanying editorial (N Engl J Med. 2018 Jul 26;379[4]:387-8). Dr. Cannon reported nonfinancial support from Prytime Medical Devices outside the submitted work and institutional participation in a research network funded by the Department of Defense.


 

Publications
Topics
Sections
Body

 

The Prehospital Air Medical Plasma (PAMPer) trial shows that prehospital plasma improves survival rates in trauma patients at risk for hemorrhagic shock, and its implementation should therefore be considered, according to Jeremy W. Cannon, MD.

“Severe hemorrhage from injury claims the lives of nearly 50,000 Americans every year,” Dr. Cannon wrote in an accompanying editorial. “Because many of these deaths occur in young, vital people, this number translates to an astounding loss of almost 2,000,000 years of productive life.”

Since most deaths occur in less than 2 hours, severe hemorrhage requires rapid intervention; however, the best methods of intervention are unclear. In 1994, Bickell et al. demonstrated that administration of crystalloid-based therapy was more beneficial in a goal-directed, operative setting than it was in transit to a trauma center. Other studies have shown that rapid transport and tourniquet application, when appropriate, are essential.

“But what about patients who have blunt injuries and longer transport times?” asked Dr. Cannon. Recently, damage-control resuscitation has proven effective in the trauma center – a combination of red cells, plasma, and platelets in approximately equal proportions, with minimal nonhemostatic crystalloid solution. Researchers now ask whether this intervention has a place in the prehospital setting.

The PAMPer trial suggests that the number needed to treat is 10 to save one life. These results “should motivate trauma center personnel and air medical crews across the country to consider implementing this lifesaving approach,” Dr. Cannon wrote.

Several blood products are candidates for prehospital resuscitation; their selection depends on both logistical and medical factors. Although fresh-frozen plasma was used in the PAMPer trial, it has a shelf life of only 5 days once thawed, leading to more frequent replenishment. Never-frozen plasma lasts 26 days, which could be easier to keep in stock. Beyond plasma, “refrigerated whole blood has a shelf life of 21 days and offers the benefit of both platelets and oxygen delivery, making it perhaps the ideal product for prehospital resuscitation,” Dr. Cannon wrote.
 

Jeremy W. Cannon, MD, is at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia and the Uniformed Services University in Bethesda, Md. These comments are adapted from an accompanying editorial (N Engl J Med. 2018 Jul 26;379[4]:387-8). Dr. Cannon reported nonfinancial support from Prytime Medical Devices outside the submitted work and institutional participation in a research network funded by the Department of Defense.


 

Body

 

The Prehospital Air Medical Plasma (PAMPer) trial shows that prehospital plasma improves survival rates in trauma patients at risk for hemorrhagic shock, and its implementation should therefore be considered, according to Jeremy W. Cannon, MD.

“Severe hemorrhage from injury claims the lives of nearly 50,000 Americans every year,” Dr. Cannon wrote in an accompanying editorial. “Because many of these deaths occur in young, vital people, this number translates to an astounding loss of almost 2,000,000 years of productive life.”

Since most deaths occur in less than 2 hours, severe hemorrhage requires rapid intervention; however, the best methods of intervention are unclear. In 1994, Bickell et al. demonstrated that administration of crystalloid-based therapy was more beneficial in a goal-directed, operative setting than it was in transit to a trauma center. Other studies have shown that rapid transport and tourniquet application, when appropriate, are essential.

“But what about patients who have blunt injuries and longer transport times?” asked Dr. Cannon. Recently, damage-control resuscitation has proven effective in the trauma center – a combination of red cells, plasma, and platelets in approximately equal proportions, with minimal nonhemostatic crystalloid solution. Researchers now ask whether this intervention has a place in the prehospital setting.

The PAMPer trial suggests that the number needed to treat is 10 to save one life. These results “should motivate trauma center personnel and air medical crews across the country to consider implementing this lifesaving approach,” Dr. Cannon wrote.

Several blood products are candidates for prehospital resuscitation; their selection depends on both logistical and medical factors. Although fresh-frozen plasma was used in the PAMPer trial, it has a shelf life of only 5 days once thawed, leading to more frequent replenishment. Never-frozen plasma lasts 26 days, which could be easier to keep in stock. Beyond plasma, “refrigerated whole blood has a shelf life of 21 days and offers the benefit of both platelets and oxygen delivery, making it perhaps the ideal product for prehospital resuscitation,” Dr. Cannon wrote.
 

Jeremy W. Cannon, MD, is at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia and the Uniformed Services University in Bethesda, Md. These comments are adapted from an accompanying editorial (N Engl J Med. 2018 Jul 26;379[4]:387-8). Dr. Cannon reported nonfinancial support from Prytime Medical Devices outside the submitted work and institutional participation in a research network funded by the Department of Defense.


 

Title
Prehospital plasma deserves consideration
Prehospital plasma deserves consideration

 

Prehospital administration of plasma to trauma patients at risk for hemorrhagic shock improves odds of survival, according to the Prehospital Air Medical Plasma (PAMPer) trial.

Patients who received plasma also had a decreased median prothrombin to time ratio, compared with those who received standard-care resuscitation alone.

Spotmatik/ThinkStock

Modern trauma patients benefit “from receiving less crystalloid-based therapy and early balanced blood component–based therapy once they arrive at a facility for definitive care,” Jason L. Sperry, MD, of the University of Pittsburgh and his coauthors wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine. These newer strategies aim to mitigate coagulopathy and its associated downstream complications.

Still, “a majority of deaths from traumatic hemorrhage continue to occur in the first hours after arrival at the trauma center, which underscores the importance of the prehospital environment for early interventions that provide benefit,” the investigators noted.

The PAMPer trial (NCT01818427) examined the efficacy and safety of prehospital plasma resuscitation, comparing it with standard-care resuscitation, in severely injured patients. The phase 3, randomized, superiority trial involved 501 trauma patients at risk for hemorrhagic shock who were transported from 27 air medical bases to nine trauma centers. In total, 230 patients received prehospital plasma and standard-care resuscitation, and 271 patients received standard-care alone. Standard-care included infusion of crystalloid fluids in a goal-directed manner. Air medical bases delivered each type of care in 1-month intervals.

Patients were eligible if they exhibited severe hypotension (systolic blood pressure less than 70 mm Hg) or both hypotension (systolic blood pressure less than 90 mm Hg) and tachycardia (greater than 108 beats per minute).

Eligible patients received two units of thawed plasma, which was completely delivered before administration of any other fluids. If infusion of plasma was not complete upon arrival at the trauma center, infusion was completed before any in-hospital fluids were administered. Following preexisting local protocols, 13 of 27 air transport teams carried 2U of red blood cells. If red blood cells were delivered, then this was performed after plasma administration if the patient was still hypotensive or obviously bleeding.

The 30-day mortality rate among all patients was 29.6%. Approximately one in three patients received a prehospital red blood cell transfusion, and nearly 60% underwent surgery within 24 hours of hospital admission.

A greater percentage of patients in the standard-care group were given red blood cell transfusions, compared with those in the plasma group. The standard-care patients also received greater volumes of crystalloid solution than did those receiving plasma.

The primary outcome, 30-day mortality, was 9.8% lower for patients who received plasma, compared with patients who received standard-care alone (23.2% vs. 33.0%; P = .03). Multivariate regression analysis revealed that plasma delivery accounted for a 39% lower risk of death within 30 days, compared with standard care (P = .02). Within 3 hours of randomization, Kaplan-Meier curves revealed a separation between the two treatment groups that persisted until 30 days.

Median prothrombin to time ratio, the only statistically significant secondary outcome, was lower in the plasma group than it was in the standard-care group (1.2 vs. 1.3; P less than .001).

Other measured parameters were similar between the two main treatment groups, including rates of nosocomial infections, allergic or transfusion-related reactions, acute lung injury/acute respiratory distress syndrome, and multiorgan failure.

“Although we cannot determine the independent or additive effects of prehospital administration of plasma and packed red cells, the survival benefits attributable to plasma administration persisted after adjustment for prehospital red-cell administration, and a subgroup analysis showed no heterogeneity of the treatment effect,” the investigators wrote.

The PAMPer trial was supported by a grant from the U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command. One author reported funding from Janssen Pharmaceuticals, CSL Behring, Haemonetics, and Accriva Diagnostics, as well as having been named on a patent on TLR4 inhibitors for the treatment of inflammatory and infectious disorders.

SOURCE: Sperry JL et al. N Engl J Med. 2018 Jul 26;379(4):315-26.


 

 

Prehospital administration of plasma to trauma patients at risk for hemorrhagic shock improves odds of survival, according to the Prehospital Air Medical Plasma (PAMPer) trial.

Patients who received plasma also had a decreased median prothrombin to time ratio, compared with those who received standard-care resuscitation alone.

Spotmatik/ThinkStock

Modern trauma patients benefit “from receiving less crystalloid-based therapy and early balanced blood component–based therapy once they arrive at a facility for definitive care,” Jason L. Sperry, MD, of the University of Pittsburgh and his coauthors wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine. These newer strategies aim to mitigate coagulopathy and its associated downstream complications.

Still, “a majority of deaths from traumatic hemorrhage continue to occur in the first hours after arrival at the trauma center, which underscores the importance of the prehospital environment for early interventions that provide benefit,” the investigators noted.

The PAMPer trial (NCT01818427) examined the efficacy and safety of prehospital plasma resuscitation, comparing it with standard-care resuscitation, in severely injured patients. The phase 3, randomized, superiority trial involved 501 trauma patients at risk for hemorrhagic shock who were transported from 27 air medical bases to nine trauma centers. In total, 230 patients received prehospital plasma and standard-care resuscitation, and 271 patients received standard-care alone. Standard-care included infusion of crystalloid fluids in a goal-directed manner. Air medical bases delivered each type of care in 1-month intervals.

Patients were eligible if they exhibited severe hypotension (systolic blood pressure less than 70 mm Hg) or both hypotension (systolic blood pressure less than 90 mm Hg) and tachycardia (greater than 108 beats per minute).

Eligible patients received two units of thawed plasma, which was completely delivered before administration of any other fluids. If infusion of plasma was not complete upon arrival at the trauma center, infusion was completed before any in-hospital fluids were administered. Following preexisting local protocols, 13 of 27 air transport teams carried 2U of red blood cells. If red blood cells were delivered, then this was performed after plasma administration if the patient was still hypotensive or obviously bleeding.

The 30-day mortality rate among all patients was 29.6%. Approximately one in three patients received a prehospital red blood cell transfusion, and nearly 60% underwent surgery within 24 hours of hospital admission.

A greater percentage of patients in the standard-care group were given red blood cell transfusions, compared with those in the plasma group. The standard-care patients also received greater volumes of crystalloid solution than did those receiving plasma.

The primary outcome, 30-day mortality, was 9.8% lower for patients who received plasma, compared with patients who received standard-care alone (23.2% vs. 33.0%; P = .03). Multivariate regression analysis revealed that plasma delivery accounted for a 39% lower risk of death within 30 days, compared with standard care (P = .02). Within 3 hours of randomization, Kaplan-Meier curves revealed a separation between the two treatment groups that persisted until 30 days.

Median prothrombin to time ratio, the only statistically significant secondary outcome, was lower in the plasma group than it was in the standard-care group (1.2 vs. 1.3; P less than .001).

Other measured parameters were similar between the two main treatment groups, including rates of nosocomial infections, allergic or transfusion-related reactions, acute lung injury/acute respiratory distress syndrome, and multiorgan failure.

“Although we cannot determine the independent or additive effects of prehospital administration of plasma and packed red cells, the survival benefits attributable to plasma administration persisted after adjustment for prehospital red-cell administration, and a subgroup analysis showed no heterogeneity of the treatment effect,” the investigators wrote.

The PAMPer trial was supported by a grant from the U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command. One author reported funding from Janssen Pharmaceuticals, CSL Behring, Haemonetics, and Accriva Diagnostics, as well as having been named on a patent on TLR4 inhibitors for the treatment of inflammatory and infectious disorders.

SOURCE: Sperry JL et al. N Engl J Med. 2018 Jul 26;379(4):315-26.


 

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

FROM THE NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE

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

 

Key clinical point: For trauma patients at risk for hemorrhagic shock, prehospital plasma outperformed standard resuscitation.

Major finding: Thirty-day mortality was 9.8 percentage points lower for patients receiving plasma, compared with patients receiving standard care (23.2% vs. 33.0%; P = .03).

Study details: A randomized, controlled superiority trial involving 501 trauma patients at risk for hemorrhagic shock, with 230 patients receiving plasma and 271 receiving standard-care during air medical transport.

Disclosures: The study was supported by a grant from the U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command. One author reported funding from Janssen Pharmaceuticals, CSL Behring, Haemonetics, and Accriva Diagnostics, as well as having been named on a patent on TLR4 inhibitors for the treatment of inflammatory and infectious disorders.

Source: Sperry JL et al. N Engl J Med. 2018 Jul 26;379(4):315-26.

Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica

Former Smokers Motivate Quitters

Article Type
Changed
CDC campaign uses peer-to-peer influence to increase quit rates among smokers.

In 2012, the CDC launched the “Tips from Former Smokers” campaign. It was memorable and emotionally forceful—one woman who had oral and throat cancer delivered her ad through an artificial voicebox—but did it have an impact on actual quitting rates?

No study had been done to assess the campaign’s combined, multiyear impact until CDC researchers looked at sustained (6 month) cigarette abstinence during the first 4 years of the campaign (2012-2015).

They found that the Tips campaign led to about 9.15 million total quit attempts. Based on an assumed 5.7% abstinence rate for people attempting to quit, this amounts to approximately 522,000 sustained quits.

The researchers say their findings indicate that the comprehensive approach combining evidence-based messages with the promotion of cessation resources was highly successful. Their finding of more than half-million sustained quits underscores the critical role of national tobacco education campaigns as a “counterpoint” to the substantial pro-tobacco advertising and promotion.

Publications
Topics
CDC campaign uses peer-to-peer influence to increase quit rates among smokers.
CDC campaign uses peer-to-peer influence to increase quit rates among smokers.

In 2012, the CDC launched the “Tips from Former Smokers” campaign. It was memorable and emotionally forceful—one woman who had oral and throat cancer delivered her ad through an artificial voicebox—but did it have an impact on actual quitting rates?

No study had been done to assess the campaign’s combined, multiyear impact until CDC researchers looked at sustained (6 month) cigarette abstinence during the first 4 years of the campaign (2012-2015).

They found that the Tips campaign led to about 9.15 million total quit attempts. Based on an assumed 5.7% abstinence rate for people attempting to quit, this amounts to approximately 522,000 sustained quits.

The researchers say their findings indicate that the comprehensive approach combining evidence-based messages with the promotion of cessation resources was highly successful. Their finding of more than half-million sustained quits underscores the critical role of national tobacco education campaigns as a “counterpoint” to the substantial pro-tobacco advertising and promotion.

In 2012, the CDC launched the “Tips from Former Smokers” campaign. It was memorable and emotionally forceful—one woman who had oral and throat cancer delivered her ad through an artificial voicebox—but did it have an impact on actual quitting rates?

No study had been done to assess the campaign’s combined, multiyear impact until CDC researchers looked at sustained (6 month) cigarette abstinence during the first 4 years of the campaign (2012-2015).

They found that the Tips campaign led to about 9.15 million total quit attempts. Based on an assumed 5.7% abstinence rate for people attempting to quit, this amounts to approximately 522,000 sustained quits.

The researchers say their findings indicate that the comprehensive approach combining evidence-based messages with the promotion of cessation resources was highly successful. Their finding of more than half-million sustained quits underscores the critical role of national tobacco education campaigns as a “counterpoint” to the substantial pro-tobacco advertising and promotion.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Gate On Date
Un-Gate On Date
Use ProPublica
CFC Schedule Remove Status