Federal Practitioner

A novel anti-inflammatory agent given to stroke patients receiving endovascular therapy significantly cut the mortality rate, reduced infarct size, and improved disability, preliminary results of a first-in-human study show.

The findings illustrate that it is possible to improve outcomes for stroke patients “not only with reperfusion therapy but with neuroprotectants,” study author Macarena Hernandez, PhD, associate professor, University Complutense, Madrid, told this news organization.

Dr. Hernandez said she hopes these positive results will spur investigation into other neuroprotective agents.

The findings were presented at the International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.
 

Best doses

The study investigated ApTOLL, which blocks the TOLL-like receptor 4 (TLR4) that induces inflammation after a stroke. Previous studies found that ApTOLL protected brain tissue in animal models of stroke.

The phase 1B part of the study found no safety issues and determined the best two doses to be used in phase 2A were 0.05 mg/kg and 0.2 mg/kg.

The analysis included 139 patients at 14 centers in Spain and France (mean age, about 70 years; 42% women) who had a large-vessel occlusion and were eligible for endovascular therapy.

“Our aim was to have a very homogeneous population” to try to replicate in humans what had worked in animals, another study author, Marc Ribó, MD, interventional neurologist, Hospital Vall d’Hebron, Barcelona, told this news organization.

Study participants had an Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) of 5-10, and estimated infarct core volume on CT-perfusion was 5-70 mL. All were treated within 6 hours of stroke onset.

Researchers randomly assigned patients to receive the low dose of the drug, the high dose of the drug, or placebo. The drug was administered intravenously over a 30-minute period just prior to the groin puncture for the thrombectomy procedure.

“So, the drug had already started to work when they underwent the usual standard practice, the thrombectomy,” said Dr. Ribó.

Those who were eligible also received tissue plasminogen activator.

The primary endpoint was safety, including death, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (SICH), and recurrent stroke.
 

Lower mortality

At 90 days, there was a statistically significant lower mortality rate in the high-dose group, compared with the group that received placebo (4.76% vs. 18.18%).

The mortality rate was 26.19% in the low-dose group, but Dr. Ribó stressed that this dose was a quarter of the higher dose and so performed “much more like placebo.”

The higher dose also yielded a better SICH outcome (4.76% of patients vs. 7.27% for placebo and 7.14% for the lower dose). And it was superior in terms of brain edema (2.4% of the population vs. 7.3% for the placebo and 4.8% for the low-dose groups).

About 7.1% of the high-dose group, 3.7% of the placebo group, and 4.8% of the low-dose group had a recurrent transient ischemic attack or stroke.

A secondary efficacy endpoint was infarct volume on MRI at 72 hours. Here, for the higher-dose group, mean infarct volume was reduced, compared with the patients who received placebo (–29.31 cc; 90% confidence interval, –49.28 to –9.34).

This higher dose was also superior for the secondary outcome of National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score at 72 hours and for the disability outcome on the modified Rankin Score (mRS).
 

Clear shift in disability

“There was a clear shift toward less disability across levels of the mRS score in the high-dose group at 90 days,” said Dr. Ribó.

He added that he and his colleagues are “very happy” with these results, as they reflect “a consistency” of outcomes.

“We observed that the infarct volumes were lower in the high-dose group, and that led to a significant lower NIH score, meaning less clinical neurological symptoms at 72 hours, and finally, this led to less disability at 90 days.”

These results are “very exciting,” Dr. Hernandez added. “This is the first neuroprotectant that has demonstrated this acute effect in reducing deaths, in reducing the infarct volume and improving functionality long-term in patients treated with the higher dose.”

Dr. Ribó noted the treatment would eventually be used in addition to reperfusion therapy. “It’s not competing with reperfusion treatment; it’s an additional layer” of treatment.

Although it would initially be offered only to patients eligible for thrombectomy, researchers will explore the drug’s effectiveness for other stroke patients, said Dr. Ribó. “We wanted to secure this indication, and from there, progressively expand to other profiles of stroke patients, and even to patients with intracranial hemorrhage.”

The study confirmed the safety of the drug. “There were no safety issues at all,” said Dr. Ribó. “We were initially concerned that an anti-inflammatory in these patients could lead to higher rates of infections, but this was absolutely not the case.”

The next step is to confirm the effects in a larger, multicenter study, which is planned to launch at the end of this year, said Dr. Hernandez.
 

‘Very robust results’

In a comment, Philip B. Gorelick, MD, professor of neurology, Northwestern University, Chicago, said that, while this was a small early-phase study, the results are “very robust.”

“The authors demonstrated proof of a neuroprotective effect; they showed at 90 days that the death rates were substantially reduced by about four times – 4% vs. 18% – and the size of the damaged tissue at about 72 hours was reduced by 40%,” said Dr. Gorelick, who did not participate in the study.

He also noted that the disability was “less pronounced” at 90 days in the 0.2 mg/kg group.

“So overall, these are very encouraging results,” said Dr. Gorelick. “We have had a lot of difficulty finding neuroprotectant drugs that work, and this drug, in combination with endovascular therapy, seems to be very promising.”

However, he stressed the drug “is not ready for prime-time practice.”

“The proof in the pudding will be in the large-scale main phase 3 trials,” he added.

The study was funded by aptaTargets. Dr. Hernandez is chief scientific officer at aptaTargets. Dr. Ribó is an adviser at AptaTargets; a consultant at Medtronic; has ownership interest in Anaconda and NoraHealth; is a consultant for Cerenovus and Philips; and has stock options at Methink. Dr. Gorelick has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A novel anti-inflammatory agent given to stroke patients receiving endovascular therapy significantly cut the mortality rate, reduced infarct size, and improved disability, preliminary results of a first-in-human study show.

The findings illustrate that it is possible to improve outcomes for stroke patients “not only with reperfusion therapy but with neuroprotectants,” study author Macarena Hernandez, PhD, associate professor, University Complutense, Madrid, told this news organization.

Dr. Hernandez said she hopes these positive results will spur investigation into other neuroprotective agents.

The findings were presented at the International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.
 

Best doses

The study investigated ApTOLL, which blocks the TOLL-like receptor 4 (TLR4) that induces inflammation after a stroke. Previous studies found that ApTOLL protected brain tissue in animal models of stroke.

The phase 1B part of the study found no safety issues and determined the best two doses to be used in phase 2A were 0.05 mg/kg and 0.2 mg/kg.

The analysis included 139 patients at 14 centers in Spain and France (mean age, about 70 years; 42% women) who had a large-vessel occlusion and were eligible for endovascular therapy.

“Our aim was to have a very homogeneous population” to try to replicate in humans what had worked in animals, another study author, Marc Ribó, MD, interventional neurologist, Hospital Vall d’Hebron, Barcelona, told this news organization.

Study participants had an Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) of 5-10, and estimated infarct core volume on CT-perfusion was 5-70 mL. All were treated within 6 hours of stroke onset.

Researchers randomly assigned patients to receive the low dose of the drug, the high dose of the drug, or placebo. The drug was administered intravenously over a 30-minute period just prior to the groin puncture for the thrombectomy procedure.

“So, the drug had already started to work when they underwent the usual standard practice, the thrombectomy,” said Dr. Ribó.

Those who were eligible also received tissue plasminogen activator.

The primary endpoint was safety, including death, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (SICH), and recurrent stroke.
 

Lower mortality

At 90 days, there was a statistically significant lower mortality rate in the high-dose group, compared with the group that received placebo (4.76% vs. 18.18%).

The mortality rate was 26.19% in the low-dose group, but Dr. Ribó stressed that this dose was a quarter of the higher dose and so performed “much more like placebo.”

The higher dose also yielded a better SICH outcome (4.76% of patients vs. 7.27% for placebo and 7.14% for the lower dose). And it was superior in terms of brain edema (2.4% of the population vs. 7.3% for the placebo and 4.8% for the low-dose groups).

About 7.1% of the high-dose group, 3.7% of the placebo group, and 4.8% of the low-dose group had a recurrent transient ischemic attack or stroke.

A secondary efficacy endpoint was infarct volume on MRI at 72 hours. Here, for the higher-dose group, mean infarct volume was reduced, compared with the patients who received placebo (–29.31 cc; 90% confidence interval, –49.28 to –9.34).

This higher dose was also superior for the secondary outcome of National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score at 72 hours and for the disability outcome on the modified Rankin Score (mRS).
 

Clear shift in disability

“There was a clear shift toward less disability across levels of the mRS score in the high-dose group at 90 days,” said Dr. Ribó.

He added that he and his colleagues are “very happy” with these results, as they reflect “a consistency” of outcomes.

“We observed that the infarct volumes were lower in the high-dose group, and that led to a significant lower NIH score, meaning less clinical neurological symptoms at 72 hours, and finally, this led to less disability at 90 days.”

These results are “very exciting,” Dr. Hernandez added. “This is the first neuroprotectant that has demonstrated this acute effect in reducing deaths, in reducing the infarct volume and improving functionality long-term in patients treated with the higher dose.”

Dr. Ribó noted the treatment would eventually be used in addition to reperfusion therapy. “It’s not competing with reperfusion treatment; it’s an additional layer” of treatment.

Although it would initially be offered only to patients eligible for thrombectomy, researchers will explore the drug’s effectiveness for other stroke patients, said Dr. Ribó. “We wanted to secure this indication, and from there, progressively expand to other profiles of stroke patients, and even to patients with intracranial hemorrhage.”

The study confirmed the safety of the drug. “There were no safety issues at all,” said Dr. Ribó. “We were initially concerned that an anti-inflammatory in these patients could lead to higher rates of infections, but this was absolutely not the case.”

The next step is to confirm the effects in a larger, multicenter study, which is planned to launch at the end of this year, said Dr. Hernandez.
 

‘Very robust results’

In a comment, Philip B. Gorelick, MD, professor of neurology, Northwestern University, Chicago, said that, while this was a small early-phase study, the results are “very robust.”

“The authors demonstrated proof of a neuroprotective effect; they showed at 90 days that the death rates were substantially reduced by about four times – 4% vs. 18% – and the size of the damaged tissue at about 72 hours was reduced by 40%,” said Dr. Gorelick, who did not participate in the study.

He also noted that the disability was “less pronounced” at 90 days in the 0.2 mg/kg group.

“So overall, these are very encouraging results,” said Dr. Gorelick. “We have had a lot of difficulty finding neuroprotectant drugs that work, and this drug, in combination with endovascular therapy, seems to be very promising.”

However, he stressed the drug “is not ready for prime-time practice.”

“The proof in the pudding will be in the large-scale main phase 3 trials,” he added.

The study was funded by aptaTargets. Dr. Hernandez is chief scientific officer at aptaTargets. Dr. Ribó is an adviser at AptaTargets; a consultant at Medtronic; has ownership interest in Anaconda and NoraHealth; is a consultant for Cerenovus and Philips; and has stock options at Methink. Dr. Gorelick has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A novel anti-inflammatory agent given to stroke patients receiving endovascular therapy significantly cut the mortality rate, reduced infarct size, and improved disability, preliminary results of a first-in-human study show.

The findings illustrate that it is possible to improve outcomes for stroke patients “not only with reperfusion therapy but with neuroprotectants,” study author Macarena Hernandez, PhD, associate professor, University Complutense, Madrid, told this news organization.

Dr. Hernandez said she hopes these positive results will spur investigation into other neuroprotective agents.

The findings were presented at the International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.
 

Best doses

The study investigated ApTOLL, which blocks the TOLL-like receptor 4 (TLR4) that induces inflammation after a stroke. Previous studies found that ApTOLL protected brain tissue in animal models of stroke.

The phase 1B part of the study found no safety issues and determined the best two doses to be used in phase 2A were 0.05 mg/kg and 0.2 mg/kg.

The analysis included 139 patients at 14 centers in Spain and France (mean age, about 70 years; 42% women) who had a large-vessel occlusion and were eligible for endovascular therapy.

“Our aim was to have a very homogeneous population” to try to replicate in humans what had worked in animals, another study author, Marc Ribó, MD, interventional neurologist, Hospital Vall d’Hebron, Barcelona, told this news organization.

Study participants had an Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) of 5-10, and estimated infarct core volume on CT-perfusion was 5-70 mL. All were treated within 6 hours of stroke onset.

Researchers randomly assigned patients to receive the low dose of the drug, the high dose of the drug, or placebo. The drug was administered intravenously over a 30-minute period just prior to the groin puncture for the thrombectomy procedure.

“So, the drug had already started to work when they underwent the usual standard practice, the thrombectomy,” said Dr. Ribó.

Those who were eligible also received tissue plasminogen activator.

The primary endpoint was safety, including death, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (SICH), and recurrent stroke.
 

Lower mortality

At 90 days, there was a statistically significant lower mortality rate in the high-dose group, compared with the group that received placebo (4.76% vs. 18.18%).

The mortality rate was 26.19% in the low-dose group, but Dr. Ribó stressed that this dose was a quarter of the higher dose and so performed “much more like placebo.”

The higher dose also yielded a better SICH outcome (4.76% of patients vs. 7.27% for placebo and 7.14% for the lower dose). And it was superior in terms of brain edema (2.4% of the population vs. 7.3% for the placebo and 4.8% for the low-dose groups).

About 7.1% of the high-dose group, 3.7% of the placebo group, and 4.8% of the low-dose group had a recurrent transient ischemic attack or stroke.

A secondary efficacy endpoint was infarct volume on MRI at 72 hours. Here, for the higher-dose group, mean infarct volume was reduced, compared with the patients who received placebo (–29.31 cc; 90% confidence interval, –49.28 to –9.34).

This higher dose was also superior for the secondary outcome of National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score at 72 hours and for the disability outcome on the modified Rankin Score (mRS).
 

Clear shift in disability

“There was a clear shift toward less disability across levels of the mRS score in the high-dose group at 90 days,” said Dr. Ribó.

He added that he and his colleagues are “very happy” with these results, as they reflect “a consistency” of outcomes.

“We observed that the infarct volumes were lower in the high-dose group, and that led to a significant lower NIH score, meaning less clinical neurological symptoms at 72 hours, and finally, this led to less disability at 90 days.”

These results are “very exciting,” Dr. Hernandez added. “This is the first neuroprotectant that has demonstrated this acute effect in reducing deaths, in reducing the infarct volume and improving functionality long-term in patients treated with the higher dose.”

Dr. Ribó noted the treatment would eventually be used in addition to reperfusion therapy. “It’s not competing with reperfusion treatment; it’s an additional layer” of treatment.

Although it would initially be offered only to patients eligible for thrombectomy, researchers will explore the drug’s effectiveness for other stroke patients, said Dr. Ribó. “We wanted to secure this indication, and from there, progressively expand to other profiles of stroke patients, and even to patients with intracranial hemorrhage.”

The study confirmed the safety of the drug. “There were no safety issues at all,” said Dr. Ribó. “We were initially concerned that an anti-inflammatory in these patients could lead to higher rates of infections, but this was absolutely not the case.”

The next step is to confirm the effects in a larger, multicenter study, which is planned to launch at the end of this year, said Dr. Hernandez.
 

‘Very robust results’

In a comment, Philip B. Gorelick, MD, professor of neurology, Northwestern University, Chicago, said that, while this was a small early-phase study, the results are “very robust.”

“The authors demonstrated proof of a neuroprotective effect; they showed at 90 days that the death rates were substantially reduced by about four times – 4% vs. 18% – and the size of the damaged tissue at about 72 hours was reduced by 40%,” said Dr. Gorelick, who did not participate in the study.

He also noted that the disability was “less pronounced” at 90 days in the 0.2 mg/kg group.

“So overall, these are very encouraging results,” said Dr. Gorelick. “We have had a lot of difficulty finding neuroprotectant drugs that work, and this drug, in combination with endovascular therapy, seems to be very promising.”

However, he stressed the drug “is not ready for prime-time practice.”

“The proof in the pudding will be in the large-scale main phase 3 trials,” he added.

The study was funded by aptaTargets. Dr. Hernandez is chief scientific officer at aptaTargets. Dr. Ribó is an adviser at AptaTargets; a consultant at Medtronic; has ownership interest in Anaconda and NoraHealth; is a consultant for Cerenovus and Philips; and has stock options at Methink. Dr. Gorelick has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

When treating early-stage breast cancer, decisions made on age alone can miss the mark, say researchers reporting new data showing a sharp cut-off at age 70.

“In our study, one of the most significant variables in determining whether breast cancer patients who are close their 70th birthday are recommended standard-of-care radiation or de-escalated treatment is whether they show up a few months before or a few months after that 70th birthday,” commented study author Wesley J. Talcott, MD, of the department of therapeutic radiology at the Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn.

The results show a trend in which radiation therapy is 50% less likely to be prescribed for patients age 70 and older with early-stage breast cancer, even when controlling for population size, patient demographics, and disease specific variables.

This suggests that oncologists are weighing the variable of age too heavily when deciding on adjuvant treatments, the authors suggest.

“In certain circumstances, breast cancer oncology providers are treating age like a binary categorical variable when selecting patients for treatments or diagnostic procedures, rather than the continuous variable that it is,” Dr. Talcott commented.

The study was published online in the International Journal of Radiation Oncology: Biology, Physics.

Approached for comment, Casey Chollet-Lipscomb, MD, radiation oncologist with Tennessee Oncology, Nashville, who was not associated with the study, agreed with its main finding.

“The study helps emphasize the importance of individualized care,” she said. “Increasing age is the most common risk factor for breast cancer, but breast cancer is an incredibly diverse disease. While you can observe trends based on age, every patient is unique, and they can’t be lumped into one bucket and prescribed treatment based on a strict age cutoff.”

The retrospective study included two cohorts of women identified in the National Cancer Data Base (2004-2017) all of whom underwent lumpectomy for early-stage breast cancer. All patients had “strong indications” for adjuvant treatment.

Patients in cohort 1 (n = 160,990) included women with estrogen-receptor negative cancer, tumor size greater than 3 cm, who were determined to be “appropriate” for radiation therapy.

Patients in cohort 2 (n = 394,946) had hormone-receptor positive cancer, tumor size greater than 5 mm, and were considered to be “appropriate” candidates for endocrine therapy.

Multivariable analysis was performed to control for comorbidity burden (measured by the Charlson-Deyo Comorbidity Index), race and ethnicity, insurance status, academic versus non-academic treatment center, median annual income of a patient’s area of residence, distance from the site of treatment, and pathology variables including number of lymph nodes sampled, histologic grade, and genomic risk score.

In cohort 1, radiation was recommended for 90%-92% of patients between the ages of 50-69; this dropped to 81% for those aged 70.

After MVA, it was determined that age difference was an independent predictor for adjuvant radiation recommendation only at age 70 versus 69 (odds ratio, 0.47; 95% confidence interval 0.39-0.57, P < .001).

For cohort 2, year-over-year age difference predicted endocrine therapy recommendation only at the juncture between age 70 versus 69 (OR, 0.86, 95% CI 0.74-0.99, P = .001).

“Our results don’t say that we should be increasing the amount of treatment for patients over the age [of] 70 or decreasing that patient treatment for patients younger than age 70. What we believe is that we need to be assessing physiologic age of our patients when treating patients,” Dr. Talcott said.

“We would do this by looking at not just how many years a patient has been on this Earth but also what their current health status is, how many good quality-of-life years they might have after treatment or without it, and what the patient wants in terms of burden of treatment. This is a much more valuable way to approach the allocation of treatments than using age alone,” he added.

Both Dr. Talcott and Dr. Chollet-Lipscomb agreed that a limitation of the study was a lack of data on how physicians decided on a specific treatment in each individual case, but they agree that even without this information the results were “significant.”

Dr. Chollet-Lipscomb also highlighted the factors other than age she would use to determine the best adjuvant treatment for a patient with early stage breast cancer, including the individual features of the tumor, how aggressive it looks under the microscope, what the receptor status is, and a patient’s overall performance status and comorbidities.

Dr. Talcott and Dr. Chollet-Lipscomb report no relevant financial relationships. The authors had no acknowledgement of research support for this study.

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

When treating early-stage breast cancer, decisions made on age alone can miss the mark, say researchers reporting new data showing a sharp cut-off at age 70.

“In our study, one of the most significant variables in determining whether breast cancer patients who are close their 70th birthday are recommended standard-of-care radiation or de-escalated treatment is whether they show up a few months before or a few months after that 70th birthday,” commented study author Wesley J. Talcott, MD, of the department of therapeutic radiology at the Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn.

The results show a trend in which radiation therapy is 50% less likely to be prescribed for patients age 70 and older with early-stage breast cancer, even when controlling for population size, patient demographics, and disease specific variables.

This suggests that oncologists are weighing the variable of age too heavily when deciding on adjuvant treatments, the authors suggest.

“In certain circumstances, breast cancer oncology providers are treating age like a binary categorical variable when selecting patients for treatments or diagnostic procedures, rather than the continuous variable that it is,” Dr. Talcott commented.

The study was published online in the International Journal of Radiation Oncology: Biology, Physics.

Approached for comment, Casey Chollet-Lipscomb, MD, radiation oncologist with Tennessee Oncology, Nashville, who was not associated with the study, agreed with its main finding.

“The study helps emphasize the importance of individualized care,” she said. “Increasing age is the most common risk factor for breast cancer, but breast cancer is an incredibly diverse disease. While you can observe trends based on age, every patient is unique, and they can’t be lumped into one bucket and prescribed treatment based on a strict age cutoff.”

The retrospective study included two cohorts of women identified in the National Cancer Data Base (2004-2017) all of whom underwent lumpectomy for early-stage breast cancer. All patients had “strong indications” for adjuvant treatment.

Patients in cohort 1 (n = 160,990) included women with estrogen-receptor negative cancer, tumor size greater than 3 cm, who were determined to be “appropriate” for radiation therapy.

Patients in cohort 2 (n = 394,946) had hormone-receptor positive cancer, tumor size greater than 5 mm, and were considered to be “appropriate” candidates for endocrine therapy.

Multivariable analysis was performed to control for comorbidity burden (measured by the Charlson-Deyo Comorbidity Index), race and ethnicity, insurance status, academic versus non-academic treatment center, median annual income of a patient’s area of residence, distance from the site of treatment, and pathology variables including number of lymph nodes sampled, histologic grade, and genomic risk score.

In cohort 1, radiation was recommended for 90%-92% of patients between the ages of 50-69; this dropped to 81% for those aged 70.

After MVA, it was determined that age difference was an independent predictor for adjuvant radiation recommendation only at age 70 versus 69 (odds ratio, 0.47; 95% confidence interval 0.39-0.57, P < .001).

For cohort 2, year-over-year age difference predicted endocrine therapy recommendation only at the juncture between age 70 versus 69 (OR, 0.86, 95% CI 0.74-0.99, P = .001).

“Our results don’t say that we should be increasing the amount of treatment for patients over the age [of] 70 or decreasing that patient treatment for patients younger than age 70. What we believe is that we need to be assessing physiologic age of our patients when treating patients,” Dr. Talcott said.

“We would do this by looking at not just how many years a patient has been on this Earth but also what their current health status is, how many good quality-of-life years they might have after treatment or without it, and what the patient wants in terms of burden of treatment. This is a much more valuable way to approach the allocation of treatments than using age alone,” he added.

Both Dr. Talcott and Dr. Chollet-Lipscomb agreed that a limitation of the study was a lack of data on how physicians decided on a specific treatment in each individual case, but they agree that even without this information the results were “significant.”

Dr. Chollet-Lipscomb also highlighted the factors other than age she would use to determine the best adjuvant treatment for a patient with early stage breast cancer, including the individual features of the tumor, how aggressive it looks under the microscope, what the receptor status is, and a patient’s overall performance status and comorbidities.

Dr. Talcott and Dr. Chollet-Lipscomb report no relevant financial relationships. The authors had no acknowledgement of research support for this study.

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

When treating early-stage breast cancer, decisions made on age alone can miss the mark, say researchers reporting new data showing a sharp cut-off at age 70.

“In our study, one of the most significant variables in determining whether breast cancer patients who are close their 70th birthday are recommended standard-of-care radiation or de-escalated treatment is whether they show up a few months before or a few months after that 70th birthday,” commented study author Wesley J. Talcott, MD, of the department of therapeutic radiology at the Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn.

The results show a trend in which radiation therapy is 50% less likely to be prescribed for patients age 70 and older with early-stage breast cancer, even when controlling for population size, patient demographics, and disease specific variables.

This suggests that oncologists are weighing the variable of age too heavily when deciding on adjuvant treatments, the authors suggest.

“In certain circumstances, breast cancer oncology providers are treating age like a binary categorical variable when selecting patients for treatments or diagnostic procedures, rather than the continuous variable that it is,” Dr. Talcott commented.

The study was published online in the International Journal of Radiation Oncology: Biology, Physics.

Approached for comment, Casey Chollet-Lipscomb, MD, radiation oncologist with Tennessee Oncology, Nashville, who was not associated with the study, agreed with its main finding.

“The study helps emphasize the importance of individualized care,” she said. “Increasing age is the most common risk factor for breast cancer, but breast cancer is an incredibly diverse disease. While you can observe trends based on age, every patient is unique, and they can’t be lumped into one bucket and prescribed treatment based on a strict age cutoff.”

The retrospective study included two cohorts of women identified in the National Cancer Data Base (2004-2017) all of whom underwent lumpectomy for early-stage breast cancer. All patients had “strong indications” for adjuvant treatment.

Patients in cohort 1 (n = 160,990) included women with estrogen-receptor negative cancer, tumor size greater than 3 cm, who were determined to be “appropriate” for radiation therapy.

Patients in cohort 2 (n = 394,946) had hormone-receptor positive cancer, tumor size greater than 5 mm, and were considered to be “appropriate” candidates for endocrine therapy.

Multivariable analysis was performed to control for comorbidity burden (measured by the Charlson-Deyo Comorbidity Index), race and ethnicity, insurance status, academic versus non-academic treatment center, median annual income of a patient’s area of residence, distance from the site of treatment, and pathology variables including number of lymph nodes sampled, histologic grade, and genomic risk score.

In cohort 1, radiation was recommended for 90%-92% of patients between the ages of 50-69; this dropped to 81% for those aged 70.

After MVA, it was determined that age difference was an independent predictor for adjuvant radiation recommendation only at age 70 versus 69 (odds ratio, 0.47; 95% confidence interval 0.39-0.57, P < .001).

For cohort 2, year-over-year age difference predicted endocrine therapy recommendation only at the juncture between age 70 versus 69 (OR, 0.86, 95% CI 0.74-0.99, P = .001).

“Our results don’t say that we should be increasing the amount of treatment for patients over the age [of] 70 or decreasing that patient treatment for patients younger than age 70. What we believe is that we need to be assessing physiologic age of our patients when treating patients,” Dr. Talcott said.

“We would do this by looking at not just how many years a patient has been on this Earth but also what their current health status is, how many good quality-of-life years they might have after treatment or without it, and what the patient wants in terms of burden of treatment. This is a much more valuable way to approach the allocation of treatments than using age alone,” he added.

Both Dr. Talcott and Dr. Chollet-Lipscomb agreed that a limitation of the study was a lack of data on how physicians decided on a specific treatment in each individual case, but they agree that even without this information the results were “significant.”

Dr. Chollet-Lipscomb also highlighted the factors other than age she would use to determine the best adjuvant treatment for a patient with early stage breast cancer, including the individual features of the tumor, how aggressive it looks under the microscope, what the receptor status is, and a patient’s overall performance status and comorbidities.

Dr. Talcott and Dr. Chollet-Lipscomb report no relevant financial relationships. The authors had no acknowledgement of research support for this study.

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

In 2016, when Erin Schanning lost her brother Ethan to an overdose, she wanted to know what could have been done to have helped him. Ethan, who had struggled with opioids since getting a prescription for the drugs after a dental procedure in middle school, had tried dozens of treatments. But at the age of 30, he was gone.

“After my brother died, I started researching and was surprised to learn that there were many evidence-based ways to treat substance use disorder that he hadn’t had access to, even though he had doggedly pursued treatment,” Ms. Schanning told me in an interview. One of those treatments, buprenorphine, is one of the most effective tools that health care providers have to treat opioid use disorder. A partial opioid agonist, it reduces cravings and prevents overdose, decreasing mortality more effectively than almost any medication for any disease. Yet most providers have never prescribed it.

That may be about to change. Thanks largely to advocates such as Ms. Schanning, who founded End Substance Use Disorder after she lost her brother, Congress has finally removed barriers to prescribing buprenorphine. The special license to prescribe the medication, commonly known as the “X-waiver,” was officially eliminated as part of the passage of the Mainstreaming Addiction Treatment (MAT) Act. Immediately, following the passage of the Act, any provider with a DEA license became eligible to prescribe buprenorphine to treat opioid use disorder, and limits on the number of patients they could treat were eliminated.

Previously, buprenorphine, which has a better safety profile than almost any other prescription opioid because of its ceiling effect on respiratory depression, nonetheless required providers to obtain a special license to prescribe it, and – prior to an executive order from the Biden administration – 8 to 24 hours of training to do so. This led to a misconception that buprenorphine was dangerous, and created barriers for treatment during the worst overdose crisis in our country’s history. More than 110,00 overdose deaths occurred in 2021, representing a 468% increase in the last 2 decades.

Along with the MAT Act, the Medication Access and Training Expansion Act was passed in the same spending bill, requiring all prescribers who obtain a DEA license to do 8 hours of training on the treatment of substance use disorders. According to the Act, addiction specialty societies will have a role in creating trainings. Medical schools and residencies will also be able to fulfill this requirement with a “comprehensive” curriculum that covers all approved medications for the treatment of substance use disorders.

The DEA has not yet confirmed what training will be accepted, according to the Chief Medical Officer of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Neeraj Gandotra, MD, who spoke to me in an interview. However, it is required to do so by April 5, 2023. Dr. Gandotra also emphasized that state and local laws, as well as insurance requirements, remain in place, and may place other constraints on prescribing. According to the Act, this new rule will be in effect by June 2023.

As an addiction medicine specialist and longtime buprenorphine prescriber, I am excited about these changes but wary of lingering resistance among health care providers. Will providers who have chosen not to get an X-waiver now look for another reason to not treat patients with substance use disorders?

Ms. Schanning remains hopeful. “I’m incredibly optimistic that health care providers are going to learn about buprenorphine and prescribe it to patients, and that patients are going to start asking about this medication,” she told me. “Seven in 10 providers say that they do feel an obligation to treat their patients with [opioid use disorder], but the federal government has made it very difficult to do so.”

Now with the X-waiver gone, providers and patients may be able to push for a long overdue shift in how we treat and conceptualize substance use disorders, she noted.

“Health care providers need to recognize substance use disorder as a medical condition that deserves treatment, and to speak about it like a medical condition,” Ms. Schanning said, by, for instance, moving away from using words such as “abuse” and “clean” and, instead, talking about treatable substance use disorders that can improve with evidence-based care, such as buprenorphine and methadone. “We also need to share stories of success and hope with people,” she added. “Once you’ve seen how someone can be transformed by treatment, it’s really difficult to say that substance use disorder is a character flaw, or their fault.”
 

A patient-centered approach

Over the past decade of practicing medicine, I have experienced this transformation personally. In residency, I believed that people had to be ready for help, to stop using, to change. I failed to recognize that many of those same people were asking me for help, and I wasn’t offering what they needed. The person who had to change was me.

As I moved toward a patient-centered approach, lowering barriers to starting and remaining in treatment, and collaborating with teams that could meet people wherever they might be, addictions became the most rewarding part of my practice.

I have never had more people thank me spontaneously and deeply for the care I provide. Plus, I have never seen a more profound change in the students I work with than when they witness someone with a substance use disorder offered treatment that works.

The X-waiver was not the only barrier to care, and the overdose crisis is not slowing down. But maybe with a new tool widely accessible, more of us will be ready to help.
 

Dr. Poorman is board certified in internal medicine and addiction medicine, assistant professor of medicine, University of Illinois at Chicago, and provides primary care and addiction services in Chicago. Her views do not necessarily reflect the views of her employer. She has reported no relevant disclosures, and she serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News.

In 2016, when Erin Schanning lost her brother Ethan to an overdose, she wanted to know what could have been done to have helped him. Ethan, who had struggled with opioids since getting a prescription for the drugs after a dental procedure in middle school, had tried dozens of treatments. But at the age of 30, he was gone.

“After my brother died, I started researching and was surprised to learn that there were many evidence-based ways to treat substance use disorder that he hadn’t had access to, even though he had doggedly pursued treatment,” Ms. Schanning told me in an interview. One of those treatments, buprenorphine, is one of the most effective tools that health care providers have to treat opioid use disorder. A partial opioid agonist, it reduces cravings and prevents overdose, decreasing mortality more effectively than almost any medication for any disease. Yet most providers have never prescribed it.

That may be about to change. Thanks largely to advocates such as Ms. Schanning, who founded End Substance Use Disorder after she lost her brother, Congress has finally removed barriers to prescribing buprenorphine. The special license to prescribe the medication, commonly known as the “X-waiver,” was officially eliminated as part of the passage of the Mainstreaming Addiction Treatment (MAT) Act. Immediately, following the passage of the Act, any provider with a DEA license became eligible to prescribe buprenorphine to treat opioid use disorder, and limits on the number of patients they could treat were eliminated.

Previously, buprenorphine, which has a better safety profile than almost any other prescription opioid because of its ceiling effect on respiratory depression, nonetheless required providers to obtain a special license to prescribe it, and – prior to an executive order from the Biden administration – 8 to 24 hours of training to do so. This led to a misconception that buprenorphine was dangerous, and created barriers for treatment during the worst overdose crisis in our country’s history. More than 110,00 overdose deaths occurred in 2021, representing a 468% increase in the last 2 decades.

Along with the MAT Act, the Medication Access and Training Expansion Act was passed in the same spending bill, requiring all prescribers who obtain a DEA license to do 8 hours of training on the treatment of substance use disorders. According to the Act, addiction specialty societies will have a role in creating trainings. Medical schools and residencies will also be able to fulfill this requirement with a “comprehensive” curriculum that covers all approved medications for the treatment of substance use disorders.

The DEA has not yet confirmed what training will be accepted, according to the Chief Medical Officer of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Neeraj Gandotra, MD, who spoke to me in an interview. However, it is required to do so by April 5, 2023. Dr. Gandotra also emphasized that state and local laws, as well as insurance requirements, remain in place, and may place other constraints on prescribing. According to the Act, this new rule will be in effect by June 2023.

As an addiction medicine specialist and longtime buprenorphine prescriber, I am excited about these changes but wary of lingering resistance among health care providers. Will providers who have chosen not to get an X-waiver now look for another reason to not treat patients with substance use disorders?

Ms. Schanning remains hopeful. “I’m incredibly optimistic that health care providers are going to learn about buprenorphine and prescribe it to patients, and that patients are going to start asking about this medication,” she told me. “Seven in 10 providers say that they do feel an obligation to treat their patients with [opioid use disorder], but the federal government has made it very difficult to do so.”

Now with the X-waiver gone, providers and patients may be able to push for a long overdue shift in how we treat and conceptualize substance use disorders, she noted.

“Health care providers need to recognize substance use disorder as a medical condition that deserves treatment, and to speak about it like a medical condition,” Ms. Schanning said, by, for instance, moving away from using words such as “abuse” and “clean” and, instead, talking about treatable substance use disorders that can improve with evidence-based care, such as buprenorphine and methadone. “We also need to share stories of success and hope with people,” she added. “Once you’ve seen how someone can be transformed by treatment, it’s really difficult to say that substance use disorder is a character flaw, or their fault.”
 

A patient-centered approach

Over the past decade of practicing medicine, I have experienced this transformation personally. In residency, I believed that people had to be ready for help, to stop using, to change. I failed to recognize that many of those same people were asking me for help, and I wasn’t offering what they needed. The person who had to change was me.

As I moved toward a patient-centered approach, lowering barriers to starting and remaining in treatment, and collaborating with teams that could meet people wherever they might be, addictions became the most rewarding part of my practice.

I have never had more people thank me spontaneously and deeply for the care I provide. Plus, I have never seen a more profound change in the students I work with than when they witness someone with a substance use disorder offered treatment that works.

The X-waiver was not the only barrier to care, and the overdose crisis is not slowing down. But maybe with a new tool widely accessible, more of us will be ready to help.
 

Dr. Poorman is board certified in internal medicine and addiction medicine, assistant professor of medicine, University of Illinois at Chicago, and provides primary care and addiction services in Chicago. Her views do not necessarily reflect the views of her employer. She has reported no relevant disclosures, and she serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News.

In 2016, when Erin Schanning lost her brother Ethan to an overdose, she wanted to know what could have been done to have helped him. Ethan, who had struggled with opioids since getting a prescription for the drugs after a dental procedure in middle school, had tried dozens of treatments. But at the age of 30, he was gone.

“After my brother died, I started researching and was surprised to learn that there were many evidence-based ways to treat substance use disorder that he hadn’t had access to, even though he had doggedly pursued treatment,” Ms. Schanning told me in an interview. One of those treatments, buprenorphine, is one of the most effective tools that health care providers have to treat opioid use disorder. A partial opioid agonist, it reduces cravings and prevents overdose, decreasing mortality more effectively than almost any medication for any disease. Yet most providers have never prescribed it.

That may be about to change. Thanks largely to advocates such as Ms. Schanning, who founded End Substance Use Disorder after she lost her brother, Congress has finally removed barriers to prescribing buprenorphine. The special license to prescribe the medication, commonly known as the “X-waiver,” was officially eliminated as part of the passage of the Mainstreaming Addiction Treatment (MAT) Act. Immediately, following the passage of the Act, any provider with a DEA license became eligible to prescribe buprenorphine to treat opioid use disorder, and limits on the number of patients they could treat were eliminated.

Previously, buprenorphine, which has a better safety profile than almost any other prescription opioid because of its ceiling effect on respiratory depression, nonetheless required providers to obtain a special license to prescribe it, and – prior to an executive order from the Biden administration – 8 to 24 hours of training to do so. This led to a misconception that buprenorphine was dangerous, and created barriers for treatment during the worst overdose crisis in our country’s history. More than 110,00 overdose deaths occurred in 2021, representing a 468% increase in the last 2 decades.

Along with the MAT Act, the Medication Access and Training Expansion Act was passed in the same spending bill, requiring all prescribers who obtain a DEA license to do 8 hours of training on the treatment of substance use disorders. According to the Act, addiction specialty societies will have a role in creating trainings. Medical schools and residencies will also be able to fulfill this requirement with a “comprehensive” curriculum that covers all approved medications for the treatment of substance use disorders.

The DEA has not yet confirmed what training will be accepted, according to the Chief Medical Officer of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Neeraj Gandotra, MD, who spoke to me in an interview. However, it is required to do so by April 5, 2023. Dr. Gandotra also emphasized that state and local laws, as well as insurance requirements, remain in place, and may place other constraints on prescribing. According to the Act, this new rule will be in effect by June 2023.

As an addiction medicine specialist and longtime buprenorphine prescriber, I am excited about these changes but wary of lingering resistance among health care providers. Will providers who have chosen not to get an X-waiver now look for another reason to not treat patients with substance use disorders?

Ms. Schanning remains hopeful. “I’m incredibly optimistic that health care providers are going to learn about buprenorphine and prescribe it to patients, and that patients are going to start asking about this medication,” she told me. “Seven in 10 providers say that they do feel an obligation to treat their patients with [opioid use disorder], but the federal government has made it very difficult to do so.”

Now with the X-waiver gone, providers and patients may be able to push for a long overdue shift in how we treat and conceptualize substance use disorders, she noted.

“Health care providers need to recognize substance use disorder as a medical condition that deserves treatment, and to speak about it like a medical condition,” Ms. Schanning said, by, for instance, moving away from using words such as “abuse” and “clean” and, instead, talking about treatable substance use disorders that can improve with evidence-based care, such as buprenorphine and methadone. “We also need to share stories of success and hope with people,” she added. “Once you’ve seen how someone can be transformed by treatment, it’s really difficult to say that substance use disorder is a character flaw, or their fault.”
 

A patient-centered approach

Over the past decade of practicing medicine, I have experienced this transformation personally. In residency, I believed that people had to be ready for help, to stop using, to change. I failed to recognize that many of those same people were asking me for help, and I wasn’t offering what they needed. The person who had to change was me.

As I moved toward a patient-centered approach, lowering barriers to starting and remaining in treatment, and collaborating with teams that could meet people wherever they might be, addictions became the most rewarding part of my practice.

I have never had more people thank me spontaneously and deeply for the care I provide. Plus, I have never seen a more profound change in the students I work with than when they witness someone with a substance use disorder offered treatment that works.

The X-waiver was not the only barrier to care, and the overdose crisis is not slowing down. But maybe with a new tool widely accessible, more of us will be ready to help.
 

Dr. Poorman is board certified in internal medicine and addiction medicine, assistant professor of medicine, University of Illinois at Chicago, and provides primary care and addiction services in Chicago. Her views do not necessarily reflect the views of her employer. She has reported no relevant disclosures, and she serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News.

Drinking one or two cocktails a day may protect against dementia, while having three or more could increase risk, new research suggests.

Investigators assessed dementia risk using changes in alcohol consumption over a 2-year period in nearly 4 million people in South Korea. After about 7 years, dementia was 21% less likely in mild drinkers and 17% less likely in moderate drinkers. Heavy drinking was linked to an 8% increased risk.

Other studies of the relationship between alcohol and dementia have yielded mixed results, and this study does little to clear those murky waters. Nor do the results mean that drinking is recommended, the investigators note.

But the study does offer new information on how risk changes over time as people change their drinking habits, lead investigator Keun Hye Jeon, MD, assistant professor of family medicine at Cha Gumi Medical Center at Cha University, Gumi, South Korea, told this news organization.

“Although numerous studies have shown a relationship between alcohol consumption and dementia, there is a paucity of understanding as to how the incidence of dementia changes with changes in drinking habits,” Dr. Jeon said.

“By measuring alcohol consumption at two time points, we were able to study the relationship between reducing, ceasing, maintaining, and increasing alcohol consumption and incident dementia,” he added.

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.


 

Tracking drinking habits

Researchers analyzed data from nearly 4 million individuals aged 40 years and older in the Korean National Health Insurance Service who completed questionnaires and underwent physical exams in 2009 and 2011.

Study participants completed questionnaires on their drinking habits and were assigned to one of five groups according to change in alcohol consumption during the study period. These groups consisted of sustained nondrinkers; those who stopped drinking (quitters); those who reduced their consumption of alcohol but did not stop drinking (reducers); those who maintained the same level of consumption (sustainers); and those who increased their level of consumption (increasers).

A standard drink in the United States contains 14 g of alcohol. For this study, mild drinking was defined as less than 15 g/day, or one drink; moderate consumption as 15-29.9 g/day, or one to two drinks; and heavy drinking as 30 g/day or more, or three or more drinks.

At baseline, 54.8% of participants were nondrinkers, 26.7% were mild drinkers, 11.0% were moderate drinkers, and 7.5% were heavy drinkers.

From 2009 to 2011, 24.2% of mild drinkers, 8.4% of moderate drinkers, and 7.6% of heavy drinkers became quitters. In the same period, 13.9% of nondrinkers, 16.1% of mild drinkers, and 17.4% of moderate drinkers increased their drinking level.

After a mean follow-up of 6.3 years, 2.5% of participants were diagnosed with dementia, 2.0% with Alzheimer’s disease, and 0.3% with vascular dementia.
 

Unexpected finding

Compared with consistently not drinking, mild and moderate alcohol consumption was associated with a 21% (adjust hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.77-0.81) and 17% (aHR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.79-0.88) decreased risk for dementia, respectively.

Heavy drinking was linked to an 8% increased risk (aHR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.03-1.12).

Similar associations were found between alcohol consumption and risk for Alzheimer’s disease and vascular dementia.

Reducing drinking habits from heavy to moderate led to a reduction in risk for dementia and Alzheimer’s, and increasing drinking levels led to an increase in risk for both conditions.

But when the researchers analyzed dementia risk for nondrinkers who began drinking at mild levels during the study period, they found something unexpected – the risk in this group decreased by 7% for dementia (aHR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.90-0.96) and by 8% for Alzheimer’s (aHR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.89-0.95), compared with sustained mild drinkers.

“Our study showed that initiation of mild alcohol consumption leads to a reduced risk of all-cause dementia and Alzheimer’s disease, which has never been reported in previous studies,” Dr. Jeon said.

However, Dr. Jeon was quick to point out that this doesn’t mean that people who don’t drink should start.

Previous studies have shown that heavy alcohol use can triple an individual’s dementia risk, while other studies have shown that no amount of alcohol consumption is good for the brain.

“None of the existing health guidelines recommend starting alcohol drinking,” Dr. Jeon said. “Our findings regarding an initiation of mild alcohol consumption cannot be directly translated into clinical recommendations,” but the findings do warrant additional study, he added.
 

Risks persist

Commenting on the findings, Percy Griffin, PhD, director of scientific engagement for the Alzheimer’s Association in Chicago, agrees.

“While this study is interesting, and this topic deserves further study, no one should drink alcohol as a method of reducing risk of Alzheimer’s disease or other dementia based on this study,” said Dr. Griffin, who was not part of the study.

The exact tipping point in alcohol consumption that can lead to problems with cognition or increased dementia risk is unknown, Dr. Griffin said. Nor do researchers understand why mild drinking may have a protective effect.

“We do know, however, that excessive alcohol consumption has negative effects on heart health and general health, which can lead to problems with brain function,” he said. “Clinicians should have discussions with their patients around their alcohol consumption patterns and the risks associated with drinking in excess, including potential damage to their cognition.”

Funding for the study was not disclosed. Dr. Jeon and Dr. Griffin report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Drinking one or two cocktails a day may protect against dementia, while having three or more could increase risk, new research suggests.

Investigators assessed dementia risk using changes in alcohol consumption over a 2-year period in nearly 4 million people in South Korea. After about 7 years, dementia was 21% less likely in mild drinkers and 17% less likely in moderate drinkers. Heavy drinking was linked to an 8% increased risk.

Other studies of the relationship between alcohol and dementia have yielded mixed results, and this study does little to clear those murky waters. Nor do the results mean that drinking is recommended, the investigators note.

But the study does offer new information on how risk changes over time as people change their drinking habits, lead investigator Keun Hye Jeon, MD, assistant professor of family medicine at Cha Gumi Medical Center at Cha University, Gumi, South Korea, told this news organization.

“Although numerous studies have shown a relationship between alcohol consumption and dementia, there is a paucity of understanding as to how the incidence of dementia changes with changes in drinking habits,” Dr. Jeon said.

“By measuring alcohol consumption at two time points, we were able to study the relationship between reducing, ceasing, maintaining, and increasing alcohol consumption and incident dementia,” he added.

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.


 

Tracking drinking habits

Researchers analyzed data from nearly 4 million individuals aged 40 years and older in the Korean National Health Insurance Service who completed questionnaires and underwent physical exams in 2009 and 2011.

Study participants completed questionnaires on their drinking habits and were assigned to one of five groups according to change in alcohol consumption during the study period. These groups consisted of sustained nondrinkers; those who stopped drinking (quitters); those who reduced their consumption of alcohol but did not stop drinking (reducers); those who maintained the same level of consumption (sustainers); and those who increased their level of consumption (increasers).

A standard drink in the United States contains 14 g of alcohol. For this study, mild drinking was defined as less than 15 g/day, or one drink; moderate consumption as 15-29.9 g/day, or one to two drinks; and heavy drinking as 30 g/day or more, or three or more drinks.

At baseline, 54.8% of participants were nondrinkers, 26.7% were mild drinkers, 11.0% were moderate drinkers, and 7.5% were heavy drinkers.

From 2009 to 2011, 24.2% of mild drinkers, 8.4% of moderate drinkers, and 7.6% of heavy drinkers became quitters. In the same period, 13.9% of nondrinkers, 16.1% of mild drinkers, and 17.4% of moderate drinkers increased their drinking level.

After a mean follow-up of 6.3 years, 2.5% of participants were diagnosed with dementia, 2.0% with Alzheimer’s disease, and 0.3% with vascular dementia.
 

Unexpected finding

Compared with consistently not drinking, mild and moderate alcohol consumption was associated with a 21% (adjust hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.77-0.81) and 17% (aHR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.79-0.88) decreased risk for dementia, respectively.

Heavy drinking was linked to an 8% increased risk (aHR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.03-1.12).

Similar associations were found between alcohol consumption and risk for Alzheimer’s disease and vascular dementia.

Reducing drinking habits from heavy to moderate led to a reduction in risk for dementia and Alzheimer’s, and increasing drinking levels led to an increase in risk for both conditions.

But when the researchers analyzed dementia risk for nondrinkers who began drinking at mild levels during the study period, they found something unexpected – the risk in this group decreased by 7% for dementia (aHR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.90-0.96) and by 8% for Alzheimer’s (aHR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.89-0.95), compared with sustained mild drinkers.

“Our study showed that initiation of mild alcohol consumption leads to a reduced risk of all-cause dementia and Alzheimer’s disease, which has never been reported in previous studies,” Dr. Jeon said.

However, Dr. Jeon was quick to point out that this doesn’t mean that people who don’t drink should start.

Previous studies have shown that heavy alcohol use can triple an individual’s dementia risk, while other studies have shown that no amount of alcohol consumption is good for the brain.

“None of the existing health guidelines recommend starting alcohol drinking,” Dr. Jeon said. “Our findings regarding an initiation of mild alcohol consumption cannot be directly translated into clinical recommendations,” but the findings do warrant additional study, he added.
 

Risks persist

Commenting on the findings, Percy Griffin, PhD, director of scientific engagement for the Alzheimer’s Association in Chicago, agrees.

“While this study is interesting, and this topic deserves further study, no one should drink alcohol as a method of reducing risk of Alzheimer’s disease or other dementia based on this study,” said Dr. Griffin, who was not part of the study.

The exact tipping point in alcohol consumption that can lead to problems with cognition or increased dementia risk is unknown, Dr. Griffin said. Nor do researchers understand why mild drinking may have a protective effect.

“We do know, however, that excessive alcohol consumption has negative effects on heart health and general health, which can lead to problems with brain function,” he said. “Clinicians should have discussions with their patients around their alcohol consumption patterns and the risks associated with drinking in excess, including potential damage to their cognition.”

Funding for the study was not disclosed. Dr. Jeon and Dr. Griffin report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Drinking one or two cocktails a day may protect against dementia, while having three or more could increase risk, new research suggests.

Investigators assessed dementia risk using changes in alcohol consumption over a 2-year period in nearly 4 million people in South Korea. After about 7 years, dementia was 21% less likely in mild drinkers and 17% less likely in moderate drinkers. Heavy drinking was linked to an 8% increased risk.

Other studies of the relationship between alcohol and dementia have yielded mixed results, and this study does little to clear those murky waters. Nor do the results mean that drinking is recommended, the investigators note.

But the study does offer new information on how risk changes over time as people change their drinking habits, lead investigator Keun Hye Jeon, MD, assistant professor of family medicine at Cha Gumi Medical Center at Cha University, Gumi, South Korea, told this news organization.

“Although numerous studies have shown a relationship between alcohol consumption and dementia, there is a paucity of understanding as to how the incidence of dementia changes with changes in drinking habits,” Dr. Jeon said.

“By measuring alcohol consumption at two time points, we were able to study the relationship between reducing, ceasing, maintaining, and increasing alcohol consumption and incident dementia,” he added.

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.


 

Tracking drinking habits

Researchers analyzed data from nearly 4 million individuals aged 40 years and older in the Korean National Health Insurance Service who completed questionnaires and underwent physical exams in 2009 and 2011.

Study participants completed questionnaires on their drinking habits and were assigned to one of five groups according to change in alcohol consumption during the study period. These groups consisted of sustained nondrinkers; those who stopped drinking (quitters); those who reduced their consumption of alcohol but did not stop drinking (reducers); those who maintained the same level of consumption (sustainers); and those who increased their level of consumption (increasers).

A standard drink in the United States contains 14 g of alcohol. For this study, mild drinking was defined as less than 15 g/day, or one drink; moderate consumption as 15-29.9 g/day, or one to two drinks; and heavy drinking as 30 g/day or more, or three or more drinks.

At baseline, 54.8% of participants were nondrinkers, 26.7% were mild drinkers, 11.0% were moderate drinkers, and 7.5% were heavy drinkers.

From 2009 to 2011, 24.2% of mild drinkers, 8.4% of moderate drinkers, and 7.6% of heavy drinkers became quitters. In the same period, 13.9% of nondrinkers, 16.1% of mild drinkers, and 17.4% of moderate drinkers increased their drinking level.

After a mean follow-up of 6.3 years, 2.5% of participants were diagnosed with dementia, 2.0% with Alzheimer’s disease, and 0.3% with vascular dementia.
 

Unexpected finding

Compared with consistently not drinking, mild and moderate alcohol consumption was associated with a 21% (adjust hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.77-0.81) and 17% (aHR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.79-0.88) decreased risk for dementia, respectively.

Heavy drinking was linked to an 8% increased risk (aHR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.03-1.12).

Similar associations were found between alcohol consumption and risk for Alzheimer’s disease and vascular dementia.

Reducing drinking habits from heavy to moderate led to a reduction in risk for dementia and Alzheimer’s, and increasing drinking levels led to an increase in risk for both conditions.

But when the researchers analyzed dementia risk for nondrinkers who began drinking at mild levels during the study period, they found something unexpected – the risk in this group decreased by 7% for dementia (aHR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.90-0.96) and by 8% for Alzheimer’s (aHR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.89-0.95), compared with sustained mild drinkers.

“Our study showed that initiation of mild alcohol consumption leads to a reduced risk of all-cause dementia and Alzheimer’s disease, which has never been reported in previous studies,” Dr. Jeon said.

However, Dr. Jeon was quick to point out that this doesn’t mean that people who don’t drink should start.

Previous studies have shown that heavy alcohol use can triple an individual’s dementia risk, while other studies have shown that no amount of alcohol consumption is good for the brain.

“None of the existing health guidelines recommend starting alcohol drinking,” Dr. Jeon said. “Our findings regarding an initiation of mild alcohol consumption cannot be directly translated into clinical recommendations,” but the findings do warrant additional study, he added.
 

Risks persist

Commenting on the findings, Percy Griffin, PhD, director of scientific engagement for the Alzheimer’s Association in Chicago, agrees.

“While this study is interesting, and this topic deserves further study, no one should drink alcohol as a method of reducing risk of Alzheimer’s disease or other dementia based on this study,” said Dr. Griffin, who was not part of the study.

The exact tipping point in alcohol consumption that can lead to problems with cognition or increased dementia risk is unknown, Dr. Griffin said. Nor do researchers understand why mild drinking may have a protective effect.

“We do know, however, that excessive alcohol consumption has negative effects on heart health and general health, which can lead to problems with brain function,” he said. “Clinicians should have discussions with their patients around their alcohol consumption patterns and the risks associated with drinking in excess, including potential damage to their cognition.”

Funding for the study was not disclosed. Dr. Jeon and Dr. Griffin report no relevant financial relationships.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hello. I’m Dr Sandra Fryhofer. Welcome to Medicine Matters. The topic is highlights from ACIP’s new adult schedule for 2023, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, and why this new schedule may be a collector’s item.

It’s a new year, which means a new ACIP adult immunization schedule – a valuable resource collating ACIP’s most up-to-date vaccination recommendations.

Here are this year’s five most important changes:

• COVID vaccines now front and center
• New emphasis on polio vaccination
• Inclusion of some nonvaccine products (such as monoclonal antibody products)
• Pharmacists group has approved the schedule for the first time
• New shared clinical decision-making option for pneumococcal vaccines

The schedule’s organization remains the same. It still has four sections:

• Table 1: vaccinations by age
• Table 2: vaccinations by medical condition and other indications
• The Notes section (alphabetically ordered by vaccine type)
• Appendix listing of vaccine-specific contraindications and precautions

But what’s unique this year is that some of the abbreviations have historical implications. The first change is no big surprise in light of what we’ve gone through in the past few years. COVID vaccines are listed first on the cover page by brand name for those authorized and by company name for those still under US emergency use authorization. They’re also listed first on the graphics and in the notes.

COVID and mRNA and protein-based vaccines have now been assigned official abbreviations based on vaccine platform and valency.

• 1vCOV-mRNA: Comirnaty/Pfizer-BioNTech and Spikevax Moderna COVID-19 vaccines
• 2vCOV-mRNA: Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna bivalent COVID-19 vaccines
• 1vCOV-aPS: Novavax COVID-19 vaccine

Also remarkable is the absence of COVID viral vector vaccines on the list. However, the viral vector COVID vaccine (which has been available but is not preferred) does have a CDC website link in the Notes section.

A sad but necessary inclusion was triggered by recent polio cases in New York. Polio was believed to be eradicated, and we thought adults no longer needed to be vaccinated against polio. In the new schedule, the polio vaccine is listed on the cover page but is not included in the tables. Current polio vaccination recommendations are now in the Notes section.

Also of historical significance and something that may set a precedent is the inclusion of nonvaccine products. The value of COVID preexposure prophylaxis with products including monoclonal antibodies (such as Evusheld) for people who are moderately or severely immunocompromised is mentioned in the Notes section.

For the first time ever, the schedule has been approved by the American Pharmacists Association, which validates pharmacists as established partners in vaccine administration.
 

Color-code key

One aspect of the schedule that has not changed is the color-code key:

• Yellow: Recommended if the patient meets the age requirement
• Purple: Indicated for those with additional risk factors or another indication
• Blue: Recommended based on shared clinical decision-making
• Orange: Precaution
• Red: Contraindicated or not recommended; the vaccine should not be administered. Overlays on the red more precisely clarify whether a vaccine is really contraindicated or just not recommended. An asterisk on red means vaccinate after pregnancy if indicated.
• Gray: No recommendation or not applicable

Vaccinations by age

Table 1 lists recommended vaccinations by age. There is one major change. COVID vaccines are on the first row of the graphic, with the need for both a primary series and boosters emphasized on the overlay. The notes have hyperlinks to the most up-to-date COVID vaccination recommendations.

Pneumococcal vaccination. Pneumococcal vaccination is routinely recommended starting at age 65. Current recommendations for those not previously vaccinated have not changed since last year. But on Table 1, the bottom half of the row for those 65 or older is now blue (and that’s new). This new color blue means shared clinical decision-making and applies to people who were previously considered fully vaccinated with the now extinct combination of PCV13 and PPSV23. These patients now have the option of getting a dose of PCV20 five years after completing their PCV13-PPSV23 combo series. This option is blue because the decision is up to you and your patient.

Check the notes for more pneumococcal vaccination details. For example, for those partially vaccinated using lower valency vaccines, there’s an option of substituting PCV20 for PPSV23 to broaden and increase durability of protection.

The pneumococcal vaccination recommendation options are complicated. A new pneumococcal vaccination app can help.

Hepatitis B. For adults under age 60, the color code for the hepatitis B vaccine is yellow, meaning it’s indicated for all. For older patients, the color code is purple. If a patient who is age 60 or older wants the hepatitis B vaccine, they can have it even in the absence of additional risk indications.
 

Vaccinations by medical condition or other indications

Other than a few minor word changes on the overlay, the only thing that’s new is the COVID vaccine row.

This table is helpful for matching vaccine recommendations with specific medical conditions, including pregnancy, immunocompromise, HIV (with specifics according to CD4 count), asplenia, complement deficiencies, heart disease, lung disease, alcoholism, chronic liver disease, diabetes, health care personnel, and men who have sex with men.

Use this table to dot the i’s and cross the t’s when it comes to vaccination recommendations. For example, take a look at the pregnancy column. Live virus vaccines, including LAIV, MMR, and varicella, are contraindicated and color-coded red. MMR and varicella also have an asterisk, meaning vaccinate after pregnancy if indicated. HPV vaccines are not live virus vaccines, but the overlay says they are not recommended during pregnancy. The asterisk indicates that you can vaccinate after pregnancy.
 

Vaccine notes

The notes are in alphabetical order, and their organization (routine, special situations, and shared clinical decision-making when indicated) has not changed. They are concise and succinct, but sometimes they’re not enough. That’s why vaccine-specific links to more complete recommendations are so convenient.

Notes for hepatitis B contain nuances on specific dosing for vaccinating patients on dialysis, as well as a reminder that newer hepatitis C vaccines such as Heplisav and PreHevbrio are not recommended during pregnancy due to lack of safety data.

For influenza, everyone 6 months or older still needs yearly flu vaccination with an age- and health-appropriate flu vaccine. But for those aged 65 or older, the notes specify the three vaccine versions now preferred: high-dose, recombinant, or adjuvanted versions. However, if these aren’t available, it’s better to get any flu vaccine than to go without.

Under meningococcal vaccines, the notes for MenACWY and MenB are combined. For MenB, trade names Bexsero and Trumenba are specified because the products are not interchangeable. Booster intervals for those still at risk are different for each vaccine type: every 5 years for MenACWY boosters, and every 2-3 years for boosts of MenB.

The recent polio cases in New York have put polio vaccination in the spotlight. ACIP has now reinstated its Polio Vaccine Work Group. The new schedule lists polio vaccines on the cover page. Current recommendations have been added to the notes section. Routine vaccination for adults is not necessary, at least for now. However, those at increased risk for exposure to polio fall in the special-situation category. For those at increased risk who have completed a polio vaccine series, a single lifetime IPV booster can be given. For those at increased risk who have not completed their polio vaccine series, now would be the time to finish the series.
 

Appendix

The final step in using the new schedule is checking the appendix and its list of vaccine-specific contraindications and precautions.

I hope this review of the new ACIP adult immunization schedule has been helpful. For Medicine Matters, I’m Dr. Sandra Fryhofer.

Dr. Fryhofer is clinical associate professor of medicine, Emory University, Atlanta. She reported numerous conflicts of interest.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hello. I’m Dr Sandra Fryhofer. Welcome to Medicine Matters. The topic is highlights from ACIP’s new adult schedule for 2023, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, and why this new schedule may be a collector’s item.

It’s a new year, which means a new ACIP adult immunization schedule – a valuable resource collating ACIP’s most up-to-date vaccination recommendations.

Here are this year’s five most important changes:

• COVID vaccines now front and center
• New emphasis on polio vaccination
• Inclusion of some nonvaccine products (such as monoclonal antibody products)
• Pharmacists group has approved the schedule for the first time
• New shared clinical decision-making option for pneumococcal vaccines

The schedule’s organization remains the same. It still has four sections:

• Table 1: vaccinations by age
• Table 2: vaccinations by medical condition and other indications
• The Notes section (alphabetically ordered by vaccine type)
• Appendix listing of vaccine-specific contraindications and precautions

But what’s unique this year is that some of the abbreviations have historical implications. The first change is no big surprise in light of what we’ve gone through in the past few years. COVID vaccines are listed first on the cover page by brand name for those authorized and by company name for those still under US emergency use authorization. They’re also listed first on the graphics and in the notes.

COVID and mRNA and protein-based vaccines have now been assigned official abbreviations based on vaccine platform and valency.

• 1vCOV-mRNA: Comirnaty/Pfizer-BioNTech and Spikevax Moderna COVID-19 vaccines
• 2vCOV-mRNA: Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna bivalent COVID-19 vaccines
• 1vCOV-aPS: Novavax COVID-19 vaccine

Also remarkable is the absence of COVID viral vector vaccines on the list. However, the viral vector COVID vaccine (which has been available but is not preferred) does have a CDC website link in the Notes section.

A sad but necessary inclusion was triggered by recent polio cases in New York. Polio was believed to be eradicated, and we thought adults no longer needed to be vaccinated against polio. In the new schedule, the polio vaccine is listed on the cover page but is not included in the tables. Current polio vaccination recommendations are now in the Notes section.

Also of historical significance and something that may set a precedent is the inclusion of nonvaccine products. The value of COVID preexposure prophylaxis with products including monoclonal antibodies (such as Evusheld) for people who are moderately or severely immunocompromised is mentioned in the Notes section.

For the first time ever, the schedule has been approved by the American Pharmacists Association, which validates pharmacists as established partners in vaccine administration.
 

Color-code key

One aspect of the schedule that has not changed is the color-code key:

• Yellow: Recommended if the patient meets the age requirement
• Purple: Indicated for those with additional risk factors or another indication
• Blue: Recommended based on shared clinical decision-making
• Orange: Precaution
• Red: Contraindicated or not recommended; the vaccine should not be administered. Overlays on the red more precisely clarify whether a vaccine is really contraindicated or just not recommended. An asterisk on red means vaccinate after pregnancy if indicated.
• Gray: No recommendation or not applicable

Vaccinations by age

Table 1 lists recommended vaccinations by age. There is one major change. COVID vaccines are on the first row of the graphic, with the need for both a primary series and boosters emphasized on the overlay. The notes have hyperlinks to the most up-to-date COVID vaccination recommendations.

Pneumococcal vaccination. Pneumococcal vaccination is routinely recommended starting at age 65. Current recommendations for those not previously vaccinated have not changed since last year. But on Table 1, the bottom half of the row for those 65 or older is now blue (and that’s new). This new color blue means shared clinical decision-making and applies to people who were previously considered fully vaccinated with the now extinct combination of PCV13 and PPSV23. These patients now have the option of getting a dose of PCV20 five years after completing their PCV13-PPSV23 combo series. This option is blue because the decision is up to you and your patient.

Check the notes for more pneumococcal vaccination details. For example, for those partially vaccinated using lower valency vaccines, there’s an option of substituting PCV20 for PPSV23 to broaden and increase durability of protection.

The pneumococcal vaccination recommendation options are complicated. A new pneumococcal vaccination app can help.

Hepatitis B. For adults under age 60, the color code for the hepatitis B vaccine is yellow, meaning it’s indicated for all. For older patients, the color code is purple. If a patient who is age 60 or older wants the hepatitis B vaccine, they can have it even in the absence of additional risk indications.
 

Vaccinations by medical condition or other indications

Other than a few minor word changes on the overlay, the only thing that’s new is the COVID vaccine row.

This table is helpful for matching vaccine recommendations with specific medical conditions, including pregnancy, immunocompromise, HIV (with specifics according to CD4 count), asplenia, complement deficiencies, heart disease, lung disease, alcoholism, chronic liver disease, diabetes, health care personnel, and men who have sex with men.

Use this table to dot the i’s and cross the t’s when it comes to vaccination recommendations. For example, take a look at the pregnancy column. Live virus vaccines, including LAIV, MMR, and varicella, are contraindicated and color-coded red. MMR and varicella also have an asterisk, meaning vaccinate after pregnancy if indicated. HPV vaccines are not live virus vaccines, but the overlay says they are not recommended during pregnancy. The asterisk indicates that you can vaccinate after pregnancy.
 

Vaccine notes

The notes are in alphabetical order, and their organization (routine, special situations, and shared clinical decision-making when indicated) has not changed. They are concise and succinct, but sometimes they’re not enough. That’s why vaccine-specific links to more complete recommendations are so convenient.

Notes for hepatitis B contain nuances on specific dosing for vaccinating patients on dialysis, as well as a reminder that newer hepatitis C vaccines such as Heplisav and PreHevbrio are not recommended during pregnancy due to lack of safety data.

For influenza, everyone 6 months or older still needs yearly flu vaccination with an age- and health-appropriate flu vaccine. But for those aged 65 or older, the notes specify the three vaccine versions now preferred: high-dose, recombinant, or adjuvanted versions. However, if these aren’t available, it’s better to get any flu vaccine than to go without.

Under meningococcal vaccines, the notes for MenACWY and MenB are combined. For MenB, trade names Bexsero and Trumenba are specified because the products are not interchangeable. Booster intervals for those still at risk are different for each vaccine type: every 5 years for MenACWY boosters, and every 2-3 years for boosts of MenB.

The recent polio cases in New York have put polio vaccination in the spotlight. ACIP has now reinstated its Polio Vaccine Work Group. The new schedule lists polio vaccines on the cover page. Current recommendations have been added to the notes section. Routine vaccination for adults is not necessary, at least for now. However, those at increased risk for exposure to polio fall in the special-situation category. For those at increased risk who have completed a polio vaccine series, a single lifetime IPV booster can be given. For those at increased risk who have not completed their polio vaccine series, now would be the time to finish the series.
 

Appendix

The final step in using the new schedule is checking the appendix and its list of vaccine-specific contraindications and precautions.

I hope this review of the new ACIP adult immunization schedule has been helpful. For Medicine Matters, I’m Dr. Sandra Fryhofer.

Dr. Fryhofer is clinical associate professor of medicine, Emory University, Atlanta. She reported numerous conflicts of interest.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hello. I’m Dr Sandra Fryhofer. Welcome to Medicine Matters. The topic is highlights from ACIP’s new adult schedule for 2023, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, and why this new schedule may be a collector’s item.

It’s a new year, which means a new ACIP adult immunization schedule – a valuable resource collating ACIP’s most up-to-date vaccination recommendations.

Here are this year’s five most important changes:

• COVID vaccines now front and center
• New emphasis on polio vaccination
• Inclusion of some nonvaccine products (such as monoclonal antibody products)
• Pharmacists group has approved the schedule for the first time
• New shared clinical decision-making option for pneumococcal vaccines

The schedule’s organization remains the same. It still has four sections:

• Table 1: vaccinations by age
• Table 2: vaccinations by medical condition and other indications
• The Notes section (alphabetically ordered by vaccine type)
• Appendix listing of vaccine-specific contraindications and precautions

But what’s unique this year is that some of the abbreviations have historical implications. The first change is no big surprise in light of what we’ve gone through in the past few years. COVID vaccines are listed first on the cover page by brand name for those authorized and by company name for those still under US emergency use authorization. They’re also listed first on the graphics and in the notes.

COVID and mRNA and protein-based vaccines have now been assigned official abbreviations based on vaccine platform and valency.

• 1vCOV-mRNA: Comirnaty/Pfizer-BioNTech and Spikevax Moderna COVID-19 vaccines
• 2vCOV-mRNA: Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna bivalent COVID-19 vaccines
• 1vCOV-aPS: Novavax COVID-19 vaccine

Also remarkable is the absence of COVID viral vector vaccines on the list. However, the viral vector COVID vaccine (which has been available but is not preferred) does have a CDC website link in the Notes section.

A sad but necessary inclusion was triggered by recent polio cases in New York. Polio was believed to be eradicated, and we thought adults no longer needed to be vaccinated against polio. In the new schedule, the polio vaccine is listed on the cover page but is not included in the tables. Current polio vaccination recommendations are now in the Notes section.

Also of historical significance and something that may set a precedent is the inclusion of nonvaccine products. The value of COVID preexposure prophylaxis with products including monoclonal antibodies (such as Evusheld) for people who are moderately or severely immunocompromised is mentioned in the Notes section.

For the first time ever, the schedule has been approved by the American Pharmacists Association, which validates pharmacists as established partners in vaccine administration.
 

Color-code key

One aspect of the schedule that has not changed is the color-code key:

• Yellow: Recommended if the patient meets the age requirement
• Purple: Indicated for those with additional risk factors or another indication
• Blue: Recommended based on shared clinical decision-making
• Orange: Precaution
• Red: Contraindicated or not recommended; the vaccine should not be administered. Overlays on the red more precisely clarify whether a vaccine is really contraindicated or just not recommended. An asterisk on red means vaccinate after pregnancy if indicated.
• Gray: No recommendation or not applicable

Vaccinations by age

Table 1 lists recommended vaccinations by age. There is one major change. COVID vaccines are on the first row of the graphic, with the need for both a primary series and boosters emphasized on the overlay. The notes have hyperlinks to the most up-to-date COVID vaccination recommendations.

Pneumococcal vaccination. Pneumococcal vaccination is routinely recommended starting at age 65. Current recommendations for those not previously vaccinated have not changed since last year. But on Table 1, the bottom half of the row for those 65 or older is now blue (and that’s new). This new color blue means shared clinical decision-making and applies to people who were previously considered fully vaccinated with the now extinct combination of PCV13 and PPSV23. These patients now have the option of getting a dose of PCV20 five years after completing their PCV13-PPSV23 combo series. This option is blue because the decision is up to you and your patient.

Check the notes for more pneumococcal vaccination details. For example, for those partially vaccinated using lower valency vaccines, there’s an option of substituting PCV20 for PPSV23 to broaden and increase durability of protection.

The pneumococcal vaccination recommendation options are complicated. A new pneumococcal vaccination app can help.

Hepatitis B. For adults under age 60, the color code for the hepatitis B vaccine is yellow, meaning it’s indicated for all. For older patients, the color code is purple. If a patient who is age 60 or older wants the hepatitis B vaccine, they can have it even in the absence of additional risk indications.
 

Vaccinations by medical condition or other indications

Other than a few minor word changes on the overlay, the only thing that’s new is the COVID vaccine row.

This table is helpful for matching vaccine recommendations with specific medical conditions, including pregnancy, immunocompromise, HIV (with specifics according to CD4 count), asplenia, complement deficiencies, heart disease, lung disease, alcoholism, chronic liver disease, diabetes, health care personnel, and men who have sex with men.

Use this table to dot the i’s and cross the t’s when it comes to vaccination recommendations. For example, take a look at the pregnancy column. Live virus vaccines, including LAIV, MMR, and varicella, are contraindicated and color-coded red. MMR and varicella also have an asterisk, meaning vaccinate after pregnancy if indicated. HPV vaccines are not live virus vaccines, but the overlay says they are not recommended during pregnancy. The asterisk indicates that you can vaccinate after pregnancy.
 

Vaccine notes

The notes are in alphabetical order, and their organization (routine, special situations, and shared clinical decision-making when indicated) has not changed. They are concise and succinct, but sometimes they’re not enough. That’s why vaccine-specific links to more complete recommendations are so convenient.

Notes for hepatitis B contain nuances on specific dosing for vaccinating patients on dialysis, as well as a reminder that newer hepatitis C vaccines such as Heplisav and PreHevbrio are not recommended during pregnancy due to lack of safety data.

For influenza, everyone 6 months or older still needs yearly flu vaccination with an age- and health-appropriate flu vaccine. But for those aged 65 or older, the notes specify the three vaccine versions now preferred: high-dose, recombinant, or adjuvanted versions. However, if these aren’t available, it’s better to get any flu vaccine than to go without.

Under meningococcal vaccines, the notes for MenACWY and MenB are combined. For MenB, trade names Bexsero and Trumenba are specified because the products are not interchangeable. Booster intervals for those still at risk are different for each vaccine type: every 5 years for MenACWY boosters, and every 2-3 years for boosts of MenB.

The recent polio cases in New York have put polio vaccination in the spotlight. ACIP has now reinstated its Polio Vaccine Work Group. The new schedule lists polio vaccines on the cover page. Current recommendations have been added to the notes section. Routine vaccination for adults is not necessary, at least for now. However, those at increased risk for exposure to polio fall in the special-situation category. For those at increased risk who have completed a polio vaccine series, a single lifetime IPV booster can be given. For those at increased risk who have not completed their polio vaccine series, now would be the time to finish the series.
 

Appendix

The final step in using the new schedule is checking the appendix and its list of vaccine-specific contraindications and precautions.

I hope this review of the new ACIP adult immunization schedule has been helpful. For Medicine Matters, I’m Dr. Sandra Fryhofer.

Dr. Fryhofer is clinical associate professor of medicine, Emory University, Atlanta. She reported numerous conflicts of interest.

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

For patients with early stage non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the survival outcomes can be just as good with sublobar resection as with the more invasive lobar resection, suggest results from the CALGB 140503 trial, although strict patient selection remains key.

These new results contrast with those from a previous study from 1995, which found that local recurrence was three times higher and cancer mortality was twice as high with the less invasive procedure.

Those results from nearly 30 years ago established lobectomy as the standard of surgical care in this patient population, but since then advances in imaging and staging have allowed the detection of smaller and earlier tumors, which has “rekindled interest in sublobar resection,” the authors comment.

Hence, they conducted the new trial, which involved almost 700 U.S. patients with clinical T1aN0 NSCLC and a tumor size up to 2 cm, who were randomly assigned to lobar or sublobar tumor resection, and followed for 7 years.

The rates of both disease-free and overall survival were similar between the two groups, with no significant differences observed. There were also no substantial differences in rates of distant and locoregional recurrence.

In addition, there was a suggestion of less reduction in pulmonary function following the less invasive procedure.

“These findings affirm that sublobar resection ... is an effective management approach for this subgroup of patients with NSCLC,” says lead author Nasser Altorki, MD, Weill Cornell Medicine, NewYork–Presbyterian Hospital, New York.

“It is important that these results are interpreted strictly within the constraints of the eligibility criteria mandated by the trial, he emphasizes. “Specifically, the results are applicable only to a highly selected group of patients ... in whom the absence of metastases to hilar and mediastinal lymph nodes is pathologically confirmed.”

Nevertheless, Dr. Altorki said that “these results will become increasingly relevant as the proportion of patients with early-stage lung cancer increases with expanded implementation of lung cancer screening, and as the number of older persons with early-stage disease in whom sublobar resection may be the preferred surgical option increases.”

The study was published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

In an accompanying editorial, Valerie W. Rusch, MD, Thoracic Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, agrees. “As CT screening becomes more widespread, this patient population will increase in clinical practice,” she explains.

However, Dr. Rusch also urges caution around patient selection, underlining that the results do not “provide a license for suboptimal surgical care.”

She says that “safeguards” such as the meticulous and strict patient criteria used in the trial “must be preserved in routine practice.”

“Thoracic surgeons will need to expand their expertise in sublobar resections, especially complex segmentectomies, and will need to collaborate closely with pathologists in assessing margins of resection, adequacy of lymph-node staging, and tumor characteristics that may predict recurrence.”

While emphasizing that lobectomy should still be performed when appropriate, Dr. Rusch nevertheless says: “The era of ‘precision’ surgery for NSCLC has arrived.”


 

Consistent with Japanese results

The investigators also point out that their findings are “consistent” with those of a recent Japanese study that compared lobectomy with anatomical segmentectomy, which found that the 5-year overall survival was 91.1% for lobectomy and 94.3% for segmentectomy.

The authors suggest that the difference in overall survival rates between the two trials might be due to anatomical segmentectomy being “considered by most surgeons to be more oncologically sound than wedge resection.”

In the current trial, wedge resection was allowed, however, “because it is the most frequently practiced method of sublobar resection in North America and Europe; thus, its inclusion would make the trial more representative of a ‘real world’ setting.”

Another important difference could be that more than 90% of the patients in the Japanese trial had adenocarcinoma, 45% with an associated ground-glass component, which is associated with better survival than a completely solid adenocarcinoma.

Dr. Rusch agrees that there are likely to be various factors related to the survival differences between the two trials, including patient selection, intraoperative management, and tumor characteristics.

“However, these two landmark trials are practice-changing because they establish sublobar resection as the standard of care for a select group of patients with NSCLC,” Dr. Rusch concluded.
 

Study details

Dr. Altorki and colleagues conducted the multicenter, international, randomized, noninferiority, phase 3 trial in patients with clinically staged T1aN0 NSCLC from 83 academic and community-based institutions in the United States, Canada, and Australia.

Patients were required to have a peripheral lung nodule with a solid component of up to 2 cm on preoperative CT, a tumor center in the outer third of the lung, and a tumor location amenable to sublobar resection, whether wedge or segment, or lobar resection, among other criteria.

In all, 697 patients were randomly assigned to undergo either lobar resection or sublobar resection, of whom 59.1% had wedge resection and 37.9% anatomical segmental resection. The median age was 67.9 years, and 57.4% were female. The vast majority (90%) were White.

After a median follow-up of 7 years, the 5-year disease-free survival was 63.6% with sublobar resection and 64.1% following lobar resection.

The team found that sublobar resection was not inferior to lobectomy for disease-free survival, at a hazard ratio for disease recurrence or death of 1.01 (90% confidence interval, 0.83-1.24), which adjusted to 0.99 after taking into account the site where the patient was treated.

The 5-year overall survival rate was 80.3% after sublobar resection, and 78.9% following lobar resection, at a hazard ratio for death of 0.95 (95% CI, 0.72-1.26).

The results were “generally consistent” when accounting for factors such as age group, sex, tumor location, histologic type, smoking history, tumor size, and ECOG performance status, the team says.

Turning to recurrence, they showed that, among 687 patients eligible for assessment, 30.4% of those in the sublobar resection group and 29.3% of those assigned to lobar resection experienced disease recurrence, with 13.4% and 10%, respectively, having locoregional recurrence.

An exploratory analysis indicated that 5-year recurrence-free survival was similar in the two groups, at 70.2% vs. 71.2% or a hazard ratio for recurrence of 1.05 (95% CI, 0.80-1.39). The cumulative incidence of death was also similar.

It was also notable that reduction in predictive forced expiratory volume in 1 second from baseline was lower with sublobar than lobar resection, at –4.0 vs. –6.0, as was the reduction in predicted forced vital capacity, at –3.0 vs. –5.0.

“Although this difference is arguably not clinically meaningful in this patient population with normal baseline pulmonary functions,” the team writes, “it may be more clinically relevant in patients with compromised pulmonary functions, or in those with lower-lobe disease in whom lobar resection may be associated with greater impairment of pulmonary function.”

Dr. Rusch suggests that “more sensitive or functional assessments” of pulmonary function might include “diffusion capacity and 6-minute walk tests,” although she noted that even short-term differences in pulmonary function “may affect perioperative and functional outcomes, especially for tumors in the lower lobe.”

The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health, including via grants to the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology and the Canadian Cancer Trials Group, and supported in part by Covidien and Ethicon.

Dr. Altorki reports relationships with AstraZeneca, Genentech, Johnson & Johnson, and Regeneron. Dr. Rusch reports relationships with Cancer Research UK, Genentech, and the National Cancer Institute.

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

For patients with early stage non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the survival outcomes can be just as good with sublobar resection as with the more invasive lobar resection, suggest results from the CALGB 140503 trial, although strict patient selection remains key.

These new results contrast with those from a previous study from 1995, which found that local recurrence was three times higher and cancer mortality was twice as high with the less invasive procedure.

Those results from nearly 30 years ago established lobectomy as the standard of surgical care in this patient population, but since then advances in imaging and staging have allowed the detection of smaller and earlier tumors, which has “rekindled interest in sublobar resection,” the authors comment.

Hence, they conducted the new trial, which involved almost 700 U.S. patients with clinical T1aN0 NSCLC and a tumor size up to 2 cm, who were randomly assigned to lobar or sublobar tumor resection, and followed for 7 years.

The rates of both disease-free and overall survival were similar between the two groups, with no significant differences observed. There were also no substantial differences in rates of distant and locoregional recurrence.

In addition, there was a suggestion of less reduction in pulmonary function following the less invasive procedure.

“These findings affirm that sublobar resection ... is an effective management approach for this subgroup of patients with NSCLC,” says lead author Nasser Altorki, MD, Weill Cornell Medicine, NewYork–Presbyterian Hospital, New York.

“It is important that these results are interpreted strictly within the constraints of the eligibility criteria mandated by the trial, he emphasizes. “Specifically, the results are applicable only to a highly selected group of patients ... in whom the absence of metastases to hilar and mediastinal lymph nodes is pathologically confirmed.”

Nevertheless, Dr. Altorki said that “these results will become increasingly relevant as the proportion of patients with early-stage lung cancer increases with expanded implementation of lung cancer screening, and as the number of older persons with early-stage disease in whom sublobar resection may be the preferred surgical option increases.”

The study was published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

In an accompanying editorial, Valerie W. Rusch, MD, Thoracic Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, agrees. “As CT screening becomes more widespread, this patient population will increase in clinical practice,” she explains.

However, Dr. Rusch also urges caution around patient selection, underlining that the results do not “provide a license for suboptimal surgical care.”

She says that “safeguards” such as the meticulous and strict patient criteria used in the trial “must be preserved in routine practice.”

“Thoracic surgeons will need to expand their expertise in sublobar resections, especially complex segmentectomies, and will need to collaborate closely with pathologists in assessing margins of resection, adequacy of lymph-node staging, and tumor characteristics that may predict recurrence.”

While emphasizing that lobectomy should still be performed when appropriate, Dr. Rusch nevertheless says: “The era of ‘precision’ surgery for NSCLC has arrived.”


 

Consistent with Japanese results

The investigators also point out that their findings are “consistent” with those of a recent Japanese study that compared lobectomy with anatomical segmentectomy, which found that the 5-year overall survival was 91.1% for lobectomy and 94.3% for segmentectomy.

The authors suggest that the difference in overall survival rates between the two trials might be due to anatomical segmentectomy being “considered by most surgeons to be more oncologically sound than wedge resection.”

In the current trial, wedge resection was allowed, however, “because it is the most frequently practiced method of sublobar resection in North America and Europe; thus, its inclusion would make the trial more representative of a ‘real world’ setting.”

Another important difference could be that more than 90% of the patients in the Japanese trial had adenocarcinoma, 45% with an associated ground-glass component, which is associated with better survival than a completely solid adenocarcinoma.

Dr. Rusch agrees that there are likely to be various factors related to the survival differences between the two trials, including patient selection, intraoperative management, and tumor characteristics.

“However, these two landmark trials are practice-changing because they establish sublobar resection as the standard of care for a select group of patients with NSCLC,” Dr. Rusch concluded.
 

Study details

Dr. Altorki and colleagues conducted the multicenter, international, randomized, noninferiority, phase 3 trial in patients with clinically staged T1aN0 NSCLC from 83 academic and community-based institutions in the United States, Canada, and Australia.

Patients were required to have a peripheral lung nodule with a solid component of up to 2 cm on preoperative CT, a tumor center in the outer third of the lung, and a tumor location amenable to sublobar resection, whether wedge or segment, or lobar resection, among other criteria.

In all, 697 patients were randomly assigned to undergo either lobar resection or sublobar resection, of whom 59.1% had wedge resection and 37.9% anatomical segmental resection. The median age was 67.9 years, and 57.4% were female. The vast majority (90%) were White.

After a median follow-up of 7 years, the 5-year disease-free survival was 63.6% with sublobar resection and 64.1% following lobar resection.

The team found that sublobar resection was not inferior to lobectomy for disease-free survival, at a hazard ratio for disease recurrence or death of 1.01 (90% confidence interval, 0.83-1.24), which adjusted to 0.99 after taking into account the site where the patient was treated.

The 5-year overall survival rate was 80.3% after sublobar resection, and 78.9% following lobar resection, at a hazard ratio for death of 0.95 (95% CI, 0.72-1.26).

The results were “generally consistent” when accounting for factors such as age group, sex, tumor location, histologic type, smoking history, tumor size, and ECOG performance status, the team says.

Turning to recurrence, they showed that, among 687 patients eligible for assessment, 30.4% of those in the sublobar resection group and 29.3% of those assigned to lobar resection experienced disease recurrence, with 13.4% and 10%, respectively, having locoregional recurrence.

An exploratory analysis indicated that 5-year recurrence-free survival was similar in the two groups, at 70.2% vs. 71.2% or a hazard ratio for recurrence of 1.05 (95% CI, 0.80-1.39). The cumulative incidence of death was also similar.

It was also notable that reduction in predictive forced expiratory volume in 1 second from baseline was lower with sublobar than lobar resection, at –4.0 vs. –6.0, as was the reduction in predicted forced vital capacity, at –3.0 vs. –5.0.

“Although this difference is arguably not clinically meaningful in this patient population with normal baseline pulmonary functions,” the team writes, “it may be more clinically relevant in patients with compromised pulmonary functions, or in those with lower-lobe disease in whom lobar resection may be associated with greater impairment of pulmonary function.”

Dr. Rusch suggests that “more sensitive or functional assessments” of pulmonary function might include “diffusion capacity and 6-minute walk tests,” although she noted that even short-term differences in pulmonary function “may affect perioperative and functional outcomes, especially for tumors in the lower lobe.”

The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health, including via grants to the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology and the Canadian Cancer Trials Group, and supported in part by Covidien and Ethicon.

Dr. Altorki reports relationships with AstraZeneca, Genentech, Johnson & Johnson, and Regeneron. Dr. Rusch reports relationships with Cancer Research UK, Genentech, and the National Cancer Institute.

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

For patients with early stage non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the survival outcomes can be just as good with sublobar resection as with the more invasive lobar resection, suggest results from the CALGB 140503 trial, although strict patient selection remains key.

These new results contrast with those from a previous study from 1995, which found that local recurrence was three times higher and cancer mortality was twice as high with the less invasive procedure.

Those results from nearly 30 years ago established lobectomy as the standard of surgical care in this patient population, but since then advances in imaging and staging have allowed the detection of smaller and earlier tumors, which has “rekindled interest in sublobar resection,” the authors comment.

Hence, they conducted the new trial, which involved almost 700 U.S. patients with clinical T1aN0 NSCLC and a tumor size up to 2 cm, who were randomly assigned to lobar or sublobar tumor resection, and followed for 7 years.

The rates of both disease-free and overall survival were similar between the two groups, with no significant differences observed. There were also no substantial differences in rates of distant and locoregional recurrence.

In addition, there was a suggestion of less reduction in pulmonary function following the less invasive procedure.

“These findings affirm that sublobar resection ... is an effective management approach for this subgroup of patients with NSCLC,” says lead author Nasser Altorki, MD, Weill Cornell Medicine, NewYork–Presbyterian Hospital, New York.

“It is important that these results are interpreted strictly within the constraints of the eligibility criteria mandated by the trial, he emphasizes. “Specifically, the results are applicable only to a highly selected group of patients ... in whom the absence of metastases to hilar and mediastinal lymph nodes is pathologically confirmed.”

Nevertheless, Dr. Altorki said that “these results will become increasingly relevant as the proportion of patients with early-stage lung cancer increases with expanded implementation of lung cancer screening, and as the number of older persons with early-stage disease in whom sublobar resection may be the preferred surgical option increases.”

The study was published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

In an accompanying editorial, Valerie W. Rusch, MD, Thoracic Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, agrees. “As CT screening becomes more widespread, this patient population will increase in clinical practice,” she explains.

However, Dr. Rusch also urges caution around patient selection, underlining that the results do not “provide a license for suboptimal surgical care.”

She says that “safeguards” such as the meticulous and strict patient criteria used in the trial “must be preserved in routine practice.”

“Thoracic surgeons will need to expand their expertise in sublobar resections, especially complex segmentectomies, and will need to collaborate closely with pathologists in assessing margins of resection, adequacy of lymph-node staging, and tumor characteristics that may predict recurrence.”

While emphasizing that lobectomy should still be performed when appropriate, Dr. Rusch nevertheless says: “The era of ‘precision’ surgery for NSCLC has arrived.”


 

Consistent with Japanese results

The investigators also point out that their findings are “consistent” with those of a recent Japanese study that compared lobectomy with anatomical segmentectomy, which found that the 5-year overall survival was 91.1% for lobectomy and 94.3% for segmentectomy.

The authors suggest that the difference in overall survival rates between the two trials might be due to anatomical segmentectomy being “considered by most surgeons to be more oncologically sound than wedge resection.”

In the current trial, wedge resection was allowed, however, “because it is the most frequently practiced method of sublobar resection in North America and Europe; thus, its inclusion would make the trial more representative of a ‘real world’ setting.”

Another important difference could be that more than 90% of the patients in the Japanese trial had adenocarcinoma, 45% with an associated ground-glass component, which is associated with better survival than a completely solid adenocarcinoma.

Dr. Rusch agrees that there are likely to be various factors related to the survival differences between the two trials, including patient selection, intraoperative management, and tumor characteristics.

“However, these two landmark trials are practice-changing because they establish sublobar resection as the standard of care for a select group of patients with NSCLC,” Dr. Rusch concluded.
 

Study details

Dr. Altorki and colleagues conducted the multicenter, international, randomized, noninferiority, phase 3 trial in patients with clinically staged T1aN0 NSCLC from 83 academic and community-based institutions in the United States, Canada, and Australia.

Patients were required to have a peripheral lung nodule with a solid component of up to 2 cm on preoperative CT, a tumor center in the outer third of the lung, and a tumor location amenable to sublobar resection, whether wedge or segment, or lobar resection, among other criteria.

In all, 697 patients were randomly assigned to undergo either lobar resection or sublobar resection, of whom 59.1% had wedge resection and 37.9% anatomical segmental resection. The median age was 67.9 years, and 57.4% were female. The vast majority (90%) were White.

After a median follow-up of 7 years, the 5-year disease-free survival was 63.6% with sublobar resection and 64.1% following lobar resection.

The team found that sublobar resection was not inferior to lobectomy for disease-free survival, at a hazard ratio for disease recurrence or death of 1.01 (90% confidence interval, 0.83-1.24), which adjusted to 0.99 after taking into account the site where the patient was treated.

The 5-year overall survival rate was 80.3% after sublobar resection, and 78.9% following lobar resection, at a hazard ratio for death of 0.95 (95% CI, 0.72-1.26).

The results were “generally consistent” when accounting for factors such as age group, sex, tumor location, histologic type, smoking history, tumor size, and ECOG performance status, the team says.

Turning to recurrence, they showed that, among 687 patients eligible for assessment, 30.4% of those in the sublobar resection group and 29.3% of those assigned to lobar resection experienced disease recurrence, with 13.4% and 10%, respectively, having locoregional recurrence.

An exploratory analysis indicated that 5-year recurrence-free survival was similar in the two groups, at 70.2% vs. 71.2% or a hazard ratio for recurrence of 1.05 (95% CI, 0.80-1.39). The cumulative incidence of death was also similar.

It was also notable that reduction in predictive forced expiratory volume in 1 second from baseline was lower with sublobar than lobar resection, at –4.0 vs. –6.0, as was the reduction in predicted forced vital capacity, at –3.0 vs. –5.0.

“Although this difference is arguably not clinically meaningful in this patient population with normal baseline pulmonary functions,” the team writes, “it may be more clinically relevant in patients with compromised pulmonary functions, or in those with lower-lobe disease in whom lobar resection may be associated with greater impairment of pulmonary function.”

Dr. Rusch suggests that “more sensitive or functional assessments” of pulmonary function might include “diffusion capacity and 6-minute walk tests,” although she noted that even short-term differences in pulmonary function “may affect perioperative and functional outcomes, especially for tumors in the lower lobe.”

The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health, including via grants to the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology and the Canadian Cancer Trials Group, and supported in part by Covidien and Ethicon.

Dr. Altorki reports relationships with AstraZeneca, Genentech, Johnson & Johnson, and Regeneron. Dr. Rusch reports relationships with Cancer Research UK, Genentech, and the National Cancer Institute.

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

HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (statins) have been shown to effectively reduce low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) as well as morbidity and mortality in patients who have either atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) or risk factors for ASCVD.^1-12 However, research shows that up to 20% of patients are unable to tolerate statin therapy due to muscle-related adverse events (AEs).¹³ This presents a substantial clinical challenge, as current management strategies for patients with statin-associated muscle symptoms, such as intermittent administration of statins and ezetimibe, seldom achieve the > 50% LDL-C reduction recommended by the 2018 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Clinical Practice Guidelines.¹⁴ Additionally, statin-intolerant patients who have antihyperlipidemic medication lowered or discontinued are at an increased risk of future cardiovascular events.¹⁵ Observational data also show that about 70% of adult patients (primarily with genetic lipid disorders such as heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia) do not achieve an LDL-C level < 100 mg/dL despite treatment with maximum doses of statins with or without ezetimibe.^16,17

PCSK9 inhibitors (PCSK9i) have robust efficacy data to support use in patients who do not meet their LDL-C goal despite maximally tolerated lipid therapy.¹⁴ However, long-term safety data for PCSK9i are not as robust as its efficacy data. Specifically, safety data relating to muscle-related AEs, which are the most widely recognized AE associated with statins, have only been reported in a few clinical trials with varying incidence rates, levels of significance, and relatively small study populations. Furthermore, the real-world prevalence of muscle-related PCSK9i AEs is unknown. Clinical guidance for management strategies for muscle-related AEs associated with PCSK9i is largely lacking. For this study, muscle-related AEs were defined as any new or unusual muscle soreness, weakness, cramping, aches, and stiffness that persists, is generally bilateral, and typically affects the large muscles. It is important to note, that muscle-related AEs associated with statins, ezetimibe, and PCSK9i can be attributed to the nocebo effect.

According to the prescribing information for alirocumab and evolocumab, myalgia, muscle spasms, and musculoskeletal pain each occurred in < 5% of the study populations.^18,19 From these data, muscle-related PCSK9i AEs are thought to be relatively rare, based on the ODYSSEY-OUTCOME and FOURIER trials, which did not enroll statin-intolerant patients.^20,21 However, currently available safety data from 3 small, randomized clinical trials specifically in statin-intolerant patients taking a PCSK9i suggest that muscle-related AEs occur at a rate of 12.2% to 32.5% and discontinuation rates varied from 0% to 15.9%.^22-25 As the incidence rates of muscle-related AEs in the prescribing information and clinical trials varied widely, this study will provide quantitative data on the percentage of patients that developed muscle-related PCSK9i AEs in a veteran population to help shed light on a topic that is not well studied.

Methods

This was a single-center, retrospective chart review of patients prescribed a PCSK9i between December 1, 2017, and September 1, 2021, and were managed in a pharmacy-led patient aligned care team (PACT) clinic at the Wilkes-Barre US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Center (WBVAMC) in Pennsylvania. This study was approved by the Coatesville VA Medical Center Institutional Review Board, which oversees research conducted at WBVAMC. Veterans aged ≥ 18 years were included in the study. Patients were excluded if they had a history of serious hypersensitivity reaction to a PCSK9i or rhabdomyolysis or did not meet the VA criteria for use.²⁶

The primary outcome was the percentage of patients who developed a muscle-related AE while on a PCSK9i in a PACT clinic. Data were further analyzed based on patients who (1) tolerated a full PCSK9i dose; (2) tolerated alternative PCSK9i following initial intolerance; (3) required a PCSK9i dose reduction, or (4) discontinued PCSK9i. A secondary outcome was the percentage of statin- and/or ezetimibe-intolerant patients in these 4 groups. Another secondary outcome was the management strategies taken for patients who were on a reduced (monthly) dose of PCSK9i who did not reach their LDL-C goal. Management strategies that were assessed included restarting weekly statin, restarting weekly ezetimibe, increasing the dose of the same PCSK9i administered monthly, and switching to an alternative PCSK9i.

Data were collected using the VA Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS) and stored in a secure, locked spreadsheet. Baseline patient demographic characteristics collected included age (at PCSK9i start); sex; race; and PCSK9i name, dose, and frequency. We recorded when a patient switched PCSK9i, whether or not it was due to a muscle-related AE, and the name of the original PCSK9i. Also collected were lipid therapy intolerances prior to PCSK9i initiation (ie, intolerance to statin, ezetimibe, or both).

Patients were considered statin intolerant due to a muscle-related AE in accordance with the VA PCSK9i Criteria for Use, which requires trial of at least 3 statins, one of which was trialed at the lowest dosage approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and resulted in intolerable skeletal muscle AEs that worsened during treatment and resolved when the statin was stopped. For our study purposes, patients taking alternative day dosing of statins due to muscle-related AEs (ie, 2- or 3-times weekly dosing) were not considered statin intolerant; however, patients taking once-weekly statin dosing were considered statin intolerant. Patients were considered ezetimibe intolerant due to a muscle-related AE if the intolerance was due to skeletal muscle concerns that worsened during treatment and resolved when ezetimibe was stopped. Patients were considered PCSK9i intolerant due to a muscle-related AE if the intolerance was due to skeletal muscle concerns that worsened during treatment and resolved when the PCSK9i was stopped. Patients with non–muscle-related intolerances to statins, ezetimibe, and PCSK9i were not considered statin, ezetimibe, and PCSK9i intolerant.

Alirocumab was initiated at 75 mg subcutaneous (SQ) once every 2 weeks or evolocumab 140 mg SQ once every 2 weeks in our study. The protocol allowed for a dose reduction of alirocumab 75 mg SQ once monthly if a patient experienced AEs, but this dose reduction strategy was not used for any patients on evolocumab in this study. Of note, alirocumab 75 mg SQ once monthly is not an FDA-approved dosing strategy. However, it is similar in concept to the alternative statin dosing (ie, alternate day dosing, once-weekly dosing) and may avoid the need to discontinue PCSK9i therapy altogether.

A review of the CPRS also documented whether a muscle-related AE occurred while the patient was on a PCSK9i (if yes, the specific AE was recorded), the result of PCSK9i therapy (tolerated full dose, required a dose reduction, switched medication, or discontinued), and management strategies taken for patients who did not meet their LDL-C goal while on a reduced (monthly) PCSK9i dose. Prior lipid therapy intolerances, PCSK9i-related AEs, results of PCSK9i therapy, and management strategies for patients who did not meet LDL-C goal while on a reduced PCSK9i dose were obtained by reviewing the PACT pharmacist’s clinic notes and assessment, along with clinic notes and medication history listed within the CPRS.

Statistical Analysis

Descriptive statistics were used for the demographic characteristics of study patients. The primary outcome was calculated as a binary measure (yes/no) of whether the patient developed a muscle-related AE while on a PCSK9i. The secondary outcome of statin, ezetimibe, or statin and ezetimibe intolerances in subgroups also was calculated as a binary measure.

Results

For the study, 156 charts were reviewed and 137 patients were included (Figure).

For the secondary results, 4 patients (2.9%) tolerated an alternate PCSK9i (evolocumab 140 mg SQ every 2 weeks) after initial intolerance to PCSK9i, 16 (11.7%) required a dose reduction, and 6 (4.4%) discontinued PCSK9i due to a muscle-related AE.

Discussion

This retrospective study found 17.5% of patients experienced muscle-related PCSK9i AEs. These occurred at a higher rate than reported in the prescribing information (< 5%) and were similar to the incidence rates reported in the GAUSS-2, GAUSS-3, and ODYSSEY-ALTERNATIVE clinical trials (12.0%-32.5%), which is what we hypothesized.^18,19,22-25 It is important to note that the incidence rates of muscle-related AEs reported in the prescribing information for alirocumab and evolocumab were based on trials that did not include statin- and/or ezetimibe-intolerant patients; whereas many patients in our study and patients in the clinical trials were statin and/or ezetimibe intolerant.

Additionally, a new study by Donald and colleagues found an incidence rate of 32% to 36% for muscle-related PCSK9i AEs.²⁷ Collectively, the data from clinical trials and our study indicate that patients with prior intolerances to statin and/or ezetimibe appear to have a higher likelihood of developing a muscle-related PCSK9i intolerance. In our study, 23 of 24 patients who developed a muscle-related PCSK9i AE had a prior history of statin and/or ezetimibe intolerances. This should alert clinicians prescribing PCSK9i in patients with a history of statin and/or ezetimibe intolerance to counsel their patients on the possibility of muscle-related PCSK9i AEs and management strategies. However, it is important to note that there was a substantial number of patients in our study who were statin and/or ezetimibe intolerant due to a prior muscle-related AE who tolerated the full dose of PCSK9i.

To our knowledge, this was the first trial to evaluate muscle-related PCSK9i AEs in a veteran population. Additionally, our study appears to be the first to use 2 PCSK9i dosing strategies that are not FDA approved: Dose reduction for patients who experienced a muscle-related AE on alirocumab 75 mg SQ every 2 weeks and dose escalation for patients who did not meet their LDL-C goal on alirocumab 75 mg SQ monthly following an initial intolerance to 2-week dosing. The dose-reduction strategy allowed patients who experienced a muscle-related AE to alirocumab 75 mg to reduce administration from every 2 weeks to monthly.

This strategy was only performed with alirocumab, the preferred PCSK9i at WBVAMC, but the same dose-reduction strategy can theoretically be used with evolocumab as well. Reduced monthly dosing of alirocumab allowed patients with a prior intolerance to remain on a lower dosage without discontinuation. This is important because as noted by Myers and colleagues, individuals without access to PCSK9i were found to have a significantly higher incidence ratio of cardiovascular events compared with those taking PCSK9i.¹⁵ Also of note, > 30% of patients on the reduced monthly dose of alirocumab still met their LDL-C goal. Therefore, using this dose-reduction strategy (instead of patients discontinuing therapy altogether due to a muscle-related intolerance) can lessen the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) as well as mitigate muscle-related AEs that occurred while on 2-week PCSK9i dosing regimens. While we acknowledge that this reduced monthly dose of either alirocumab or evolocumab is not FDA approved, it is similar to alternative statin dosing that also is not FDA approved but may minimize the need to discontinue PCSK9i therapy. It would be beneficial if these dosing strategies were investigated by future research.

The dose-escalation strategy for patients who did not meet their LDL-C goal while on the reduced, monthly dose of alirocumab also was unique. Alirocumab was increased from 75 mg SQ once monthly to 150 mg SQ once monthly. Interestingly, we found that through the end of the chart review period, all patients tolerated the increase well, despite having an initial muscle-related AE to alirocumab 75 mg every 2 weeks, which is the same total monthly dosage. This approach is similar to that of once-weekly statin dosing or a drug holiday and may be explained by the long half-life of PCSK9i. Regardless of the mechanism, this finding suggests that an increased monthly dose of PCSK9i is a potential alternative for patients who cannot tolerate the FDA-approved dose. However, the ability for patients to achieve goal LDL-C on the monthly dosage requires future study.

Limitations

The results of this study should be considered with the following limitations. First, this was a retrospective chart review performed over a prespecified period. Any muscle-related AEs or LDL-C lowering effects from PCSK9i that occurred outside the review period were not captured. Our study was small and only included 137 patients, though it was similar in size to the GAUSS-2, GAUSS-3, and ODYSSEY-ALTERNATIVE trials.^22-24 Additionally, the study was primarily composed of White men and may not be representative of other populations. Some muscle-related PCSK9i AEs may be attributed to the nocebo. Last, our study did not capture patients on a PCSK9i who were not followed in the PACT clinic.

Conclusions

We found that muscle-related PCSK9i AEs occurred at a similar rate as those reported in previous clinical trials and exceeded the incidence rate reported in the prescribing information for alirocumab and evolocumab. It appears that patients who have a prior muscle-related intolerance to a statin and/or ezetimibe had a higher likelihood of developing a muscle-related PCSK9i AE. In our study, only 1 patient developed a muscle-related PCSK9i AE who did not have a prior history of muscle-related intolerance to either a statin or ezetimibe. However, in our study, a substantial percentage of patients with statin and/or ezetimibe intolerances tolerated the full PCSK9i dose well, proving that PCSK9i are still a reasonable alternative for patients with prior intolerances to statins and/or ezetimibe.

Acknowledgments

This material is the result of work supported with resources and the use of facilities at the US Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania.

HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (statins) have been shown to effectively reduce low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) as well as morbidity and mortality in patients who have either atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) or risk factors for ASCVD.^1-12 However, research shows that up to 20% of patients are unable to tolerate statin therapy due to muscle-related adverse events (AEs).¹³ This presents a substantial clinical challenge, as current management strategies for patients with statin-associated muscle symptoms, such as intermittent administration of statins and ezetimibe, seldom achieve the > 50% LDL-C reduction recommended by the 2018 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Clinical Practice Guidelines.¹⁴ Additionally, statin-intolerant patients who have antihyperlipidemic medication lowered or discontinued are at an increased risk of future cardiovascular events.¹⁵ Observational data also show that about 70% of adult patients (primarily with genetic lipid disorders such as heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia) do not achieve an LDL-C level < 100 mg/dL despite treatment with maximum doses of statins with or without ezetimibe.^16,17

PCSK9 inhibitors (PCSK9i) have robust efficacy data to support use in patients who do not meet their LDL-C goal despite maximally tolerated lipid therapy.¹⁴ However, long-term safety data for PCSK9i are not as robust as its efficacy data. Specifically, safety data relating to muscle-related AEs, which are the most widely recognized AE associated with statins, have only been reported in a few clinical trials with varying incidence rates, levels of significance, and relatively small study populations. Furthermore, the real-world prevalence of muscle-related PCSK9i AEs is unknown. Clinical guidance for management strategies for muscle-related AEs associated with PCSK9i is largely lacking. For this study, muscle-related AEs were defined as any new or unusual muscle soreness, weakness, cramping, aches, and stiffness that persists, is generally bilateral, and typically affects the large muscles. It is important to note, that muscle-related AEs associated with statins, ezetimibe, and PCSK9i can be attributed to the nocebo effect.

According to the prescribing information for alirocumab and evolocumab, myalgia, muscle spasms, and musculoskeletal pain each occurred in < 5% of the study populations.^18,19 From these data, muscle-related PCSK9i AEs are thought to be relatively rare, based on the ODYSSEY-OUTCOME and FOURIER trials, which did not enroll statin-intolerant patients.^20,21 However, currently available safety data from 3 small, randomized clinical trials specifically in statin-intolerant patients taking a PCSK9i suggest that muscle-related AEs occur at a rate of 12.2% to 32.5% and discontinuation rates varied from 0% to 15.9%.^22-25 As the incidence rates of muscle-related AEs in the prescribing information and clinical trials varied widely, this study will provide quantitative data on the percentage of patients that developed muscle-related PCSK9i AEs in a veteran population to help shed light on a topic that is not well studied.

Methods

This was a single-center, retrospective chart review of patients prescribed a PCSK9i between December 1, 2017, and September 1, 2021, and were managed in a pharmacy-led patient aligned care team (PACT) clinic at the Wilkes-Barre US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Center (WBVAMC) in Pennsylvania. This study was approved by the Coatesville VA Medical Center Institutional Review Board, which oversees research conducted at WBVAMC. Veterans aged ≥ 18 years were included in the study. Patients were excluded if they had a history of serious hypersensitivity reaction to a PCSK9i or rhabdomyolysis or did not meet the VA criteria for use.²⁶

The primary outcome was the percentage of patients who developed a muscle-related AE while on a PCSK9i in a PACT clinic. Data were further analyzed based on patients who (1) tolerated a full PCSK9i dose; (2) tolerated alternative PCSK9i following initial intolerance; (3) required a PCSK9i dose reduction, or (4) discontinued PCSK9i. A secondary outcome was the percentage of statin- and/or ezetimibe-intolerant patients in these 4 groups. Another secondary outcome was the management strategies taken for patients who were on a reduced (monthly) dose of PCSK9i who did not reach their LDL-C goal. Management strategies that were assessed included restarting weekly statin, restarting weekly ezetimibe, increasing the dose of the same PCSK9i administered monthly, and switching to an alternative PCSK9i.

Data were collected using the VA Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS) and stored in a secure, locked spreadsheet. Baseline patient demographic characteristics collected included age (at PCSK9i start); sex; race; and PCSK9i name, dose, and frequency. We recorded when a patient switched PCSK9i, whether or not it was due to a muscle-related AE, and the name of the original PCSK9i. Also collected were lipid therapy intolerances prior to PCSK9i initiation (ie, intolerance to statin, ezetimibe, or both).

Patients were considered statin intolerant due to a muscle-related AE in accordance with the VA PCSK9i Criteria for Use, which requires trial of at least 3 statins, one of which was trialed at the lowest dosage approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and resulted in intolerable skeletal muscle AEs that worsened during treatment and resolved when the statin was stopped. For our study purposes, patients taking alternative day dosing of statins due to muscle-related AEs (ie, 2- or 3-times weekly dosing) were not considered statin intolerant; however, patients taking once-weekly statin dosing were considered statin intolerant. Patients were considered ezetimibe intolerant due to a muscle-related AE if the intolerance was due to skeletal muscle concerns that worsened during treatment and resolved when ezetimibe was stopped. Patients were considered PCSK9i intolerant due to a muscle-related AE if the intolerance was due to skeletal muscle concerns that worsened during treatment and resolved when the PCSK9i was stopped. Patients with non–muscle-related intolerances to statins, ezetimibe, and PCSK9i were not considered statin, ezetimibe, and PCSK9i intolerant.

Alirocumab was initiated at 75 mg subcutaneous (SQ) once every 2 weeks or evolocumab 140 mg SQ once every 2 weeks in our study. The protocol allowed for a dose reduction of alirocumab 75 mg SQ once monthly if a patient experienced AEs, but this dose reduction strategy was not used for any patients on evolocumab in this study. Of note, alirocumab 75 mg SQ once monthly is not an FDA-approved dosing strategy. However, it is similar in concept to the alternative statin dosing (ie, alternate day dosing, once-weekly dosing) and may avoid the need to discontinue PCSK9i therapy altogether.

A review of the CPRS also documented whether a muscle-related AE occurred while the patient was on a PCSK9i (if yes, the specific AE was recorded), the result of PCSK9i therapy (tolerated full dose, required a dose reduction, switched medication, or discontinued), and management strategies taken for patients who did not meet their LDL-C goal while on a reduced (monthly) PCSK9i dose. Prior lipid therapy intolerances, PCSK9i-related AEs, results of PCSK9i therapy, and management strategies for patients who did not meet LDL-C goal while on a reduced PCSK9i dose were obtained by reviewing the PACT pharmacist’s clinic notes and assessment, along with clinic notes and medication history listed within the CPRS.

Statistical Analysis

Descriptive statistics were used for the demographic characteristics of study patients. The primary outcome was calculated as a binary measure (yes/no) of whether the patient developed a muscle-related AE while on a PCSK9i. The secondary outcome of statin, ezetimibe, or statin and ezetimibe intolerances in subgroups also was calculated as a binary measure.

Results

For the study, 156 charts were reviewed and 137 patients were included (Figure).

For the secondary results, 4 patients (2.9%) tolerated an alternate PCSK9i (evolocumab 140 mg SQ every 2 weeks) after initial intolerance to PCSK9i, 16 (11.7%) required a dose reduction, and 6 (4.4%) discontinued PCSK9i due to a muscle-related AE.

Discussion

This retrospective study found 17.5% of patients experienced muscle-related PCSK9i AEs. These occurred at a higher rate than reported in the prescribing information (< 5%) and were similar to the incidence rates reported in the GAUSS-2, GAUSS-3, and ODYSSEY-ALTERNATIVE clinical trials (12.0%-32.5%), which is what we hypothesized.^18,19,22-25 It is important to note that the incidence rates of muscle-related AEs reported in the prescribing information for alirocumab and evolocumab were based on trials that did not include statin- and/or ezetimibe-intolerant patients; whereas many patients in our study and patients in the clinical trials were statin and/or ezetimibe intolerant.

Additionally, a new study by Donald and colleagues found an incidence rate of 32% to 36% for muscle-related PCSK9i AEs.²⁷ Collectively, the data from clinical trials and our study indicate that patients with prior intolerances to statin and/or ezetimibe appear to have a higher likelihood of developing a muscle-related PCSK9i intolerance. In our study, 23 of 24 patients who developed a muscle-related PCSK9i AE had a prior history of statin and/or ezetimibe intolerances. This should alert clinicians prescribing PCSK9i in patients with a history of statin and/or ezetimibe intolerance to counsel their patients on the possibility of muscle-related PCSK9i AEs and management strategies. However, it is important to note that there was a substantial number of patients in our study who were statin and/or ezetimibe intolerant due to a prior muscle-related AE who tolerated the full dose of PCSK9i.

To our knowledge, this was the first trial to evaluate muscle-related PCSK9i AEs in a veteran population. Additionally, our study appears to be the first to use 2 PCSK9i dosing strategies that are not FDA approved: Dose reduction for patients who experienced a muscle-related AE on alirocumab 75 mg SQ every 2 weeks and dose escalation for patients who did not meet their LDL-C goal on alirocumab 75 mg SQ monthly following an initial intolerance to 2-week dosing. The dose-reduction strategy allowed patients who experienced a muscle-related AE to alirocumab 75 mg to reduce administration from every 2 weeks to monthly.

This strategy was only performed with alirocumab, the preferred PCSK9i at WBVAMC, but the same dose-reduction strategy can theoretically be used with evolocumab as well. Reduced monthly dosing of alirocumab allowed patients with a prior intolerance to remain on a lower dosage without discontinuation. This is important because as noted by Myers and colleagues, individuals without access to PCSK9i were found to have a significantly higher incidence ratio of cardiovascular events compared with those taking PCSK9i.¹⁵ Also of note, > 30% of patients on the reduced monthly dose of alirocumab still met their LDL-C goal. Therefore, using this dose-reduction strategy (instead of patients discontinuing therapy altogether due to a muscle-related intolerance) can lessen the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) as well as mitigate muscle-related AEs that occurred while on 2-week PCSK9i dosing regimens. While we acknowledge that this reduced monthly dose of either alirocumab or evolocumab is not FDA approved, it is similar to alternative statin dosing that also is not FDA approved but may minimize the need to discontinue PCSK9i therapy. It would be beneficial if these dosing strategies were investigated by future research.

The dose-escalation strategy for patients who did not meet their LDL-C goal while on the reduced, monthly dose of alirocumab also was unique. Alirocumab was increased from 75 mg SQ once monthly to 150 mg SQ once monthly. Interestingly, we found that through the end of the chart review period, all patients tolerated the increase well, despite having an initial muscle-related AE to alirocumab 75 mg every 2 weeks, which is the same total monthly dosage. This approach is similar to that of once-weekly statin dosing or a drug holiday and may be explained by the long half-life of PCSK9i. Regardless of the mechanism, this finding suggests that an increased monthly dose of PCSK9i is a potential alternative for patients who cannot tolerate the FDA-approved dose. However, the ability for patients to achieve goal LDL-C on the monthly dosage requires future study.

Limitations

The results of this study should be considered with the following limitations. First, this was a retrospective chart review performed over a prespecified period. Any muscle-related AEs or LDL-C lowering effects from PCSK9i that occurred outside the review period were not captured. Our study was small and only included 137 patients, though it was similar in size to the GAUSS-2, GAUSS-3, and ODYSSEY-ALTERNATIVE trials.^22-24 Additionally, the study was primarily composed of White men and may not be representative of other populations. Some muscle-related PCSK9i AEs may be attributed to the nocebo. Last, our study did not capture patients on a PCSK9i who were not followed in the PACT clinic.

Conclusions

We found that muscle-related PCSK9i AEs occurred at a similar rate as those reported in previous clinical trials and exceeded the incidence rate reported in the prescribing information for alirocumab and evolocumab. It appears that patients who have a prior muscle-related intolerance to a statin and/or ezetimibe had a higher likelihood of developing a muscle-related PCSK9i AE. In our study, only 1 patient developed a muscle-related PCSK9i AE who did not have a prior history of muscle-related intolerance to either a statin or ezetimibe. However, in our study, a substantial percentage of patients with statin and/or ezetimibe intolerances tolerated the full PCSK9i dose well, proving that PCSK9i are still a reasonable alternative for patients with prior intolerances to statins and/or ezetimibe.

Acknowledgments

This material is the result of work supported with resources and the use of facilities at the US Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania.

HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (statins) have been shown to effectively reduce low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) as well as morbidity and mortality in patients who have either atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) or risk factors for ASCVD.^1-12 However, research shows that up to 20% of patients are unable to tolerate statin therapy due to muscle-related adverse events (AEs).¹³ This presents a substantial clinical challenge, as current management strategies for patients with statin-associated muscle symptoms, such as intermittent administration of statins and ezetimibe, seldom achieve the > 50% LDL-C reduction recommended by the 2018 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Clinical Practice Guidelines.¹⁴ Additionally, statin-intolerant patients who have antihyperlipidemic medication lowered or discontinued are at an increased risk of future cardiovascular events.¹⁵ Observational data also show that about 70% of adult patients (primarily with genetic lipid disorders such as heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia) do not achieve an LDL-C level < 100 mg/dL despite treatment with maximum doses of statins with or without ezetimibe.^16,17

PCSK9 inhibitors (PCSK9i) have robust efficacy data to support use in patients who do not meet their LDL-C goal despite maximally tolerated lipid therapy.¹⁴ However, long-term safety data for PCSK9i are not as robust as its efficacy data. Specifically, safety data relating to muscle-related AEs, which are the most widely recognized AE associated with statins, have only been reported in a few clinical trials with varying incidence rates, levels of significance, and relatively small study populations. Furthermore, the real-world prevalence of muscle-related PCSK9i AEs is unknown. Clinical guidance for management strategies for muscle-related AEs associated with PCSK9i is largely lacking. For this study, muscle-related AEs were defined as any new or unusual muscle soreness, weakness, cramping, aches, and stiffness that persists, is generally bilateral, and typically affects the large muscles. It is important to note, that muscle-related AEs associated with statins, ezetimibe, and PCSK9i can be attributed to the nocebo effect.

According to the prescribing information for alirocumab and evolocumab, myalgia, muscle spasms, and musculoskeletal pain each occurred in < 5% of the study populations.^18,19 From these data, muscle-related PCSK9i AEs are thought to be relatively rare, based on the ODYSSEY-OUTCOME and FOURIER trials, which did not enroll statin-intolerant patients.^20,21 However, currently available safety data from 3 small, randomized clinical trials specifically in statin-intolerant patients taking a PCSK9i suggest that muscle-related AEs occur at a rate of 12.2% to 32.5% and discontinuation rates varied from 0% to 15.9%.^22-25 As the incidence rates of muscle-related AEs in the prescribing information and clinical trials varied widely, this study will provide quantitative data on the percentage of patients that developed muscle-related PCSK9i AEs in a veteran population to help shed light on a topic that is not well studied.

Methods

This was a single-center, retrospective chart review of patients prescribed a PCSK9i between December 1, 2017, and September 1, 2021, and were managed in a pharmacy-led patient aligned care team (PACT) clinic at the Wilkes-Barre US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Center (WBVAMC) in Pennsylvania. This study was approved by the Coatesville VA Medical Center Institutional Review Board, which oversees research conducted at WBVAMC. Veterans aged ≥ 18 years were included in the study. Patients were excluded if they had a history of serious hypersensitivity reaction to a PCSK9i or rhabdomyolysis or did not meet the VA criteria for use.²⁶

The primary outcome was the percentage of patients who developed a muscle-related AE while on a PCSK9i in a PACT clinic. Data were further analyzed based on patients who (1) tolerated a full PCSK9i dose; (2) tolerated alternative PCSK9i following initial intolerance; (3) required a PCSK9i dose reduction, or (4) discontinued PCSK9i. A secondary outcome was the percentage of statin- and/or ezetimibe-intolerant patients in these 4 groups. Another secondary outcome was the management strategies taken for patients who were on a reduced (monthly) dose of PCSK9i who did not reach their LDL-C goal. Management strategies that were assessed included restarting weekly statin, restarting weekly ezetimibe, increasing the dose of the same PCSK9i administered monthly, and switching to an alternative PCSK9i.

Data were collected using the VA Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS) and stored in a secure, locked spreadsheet. Baseline patient demographic characteristics collected included age (at PCSK9i start); sex; race; and PCSK9i name, dose, and frequency. We recorded when a patient switched PCSK9i, whether or not it was due to a muscle-related AE, and the name of the original PCSK9i. Also collected were lipid therapy intolerances prior to PCSK9i initiation (ie, intolerance to statin, ezetimibe, or both).

Patients were considered statin intolerant due to a muscle-related AE in accordance with the VA PCSK9i Criteria for Use, which requires trial of at least 3 statins, one of which was trialed at the lowest dosage approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and resulted in intolerable skeletal muscle AEs that worsened during treatment and resolved when the statin was stopped. For our study purposes, patients taking alternative day dosing of statins due to muscle-related AEs (ie, 2- or 3-times weekly dosing) were not considered statin intolerant; however, patients taking once-weekly statin dosing were considered statin intolerant. Patients were considered ezetimibe intolerant due to a muscle-related AE if the intolerance was due to skeletal muscle concerns that worsened during treatment and resolved when ezetimibe was stopped. Patients were considered PCSK9i intolerant due to a muscle-related AE if the intolerance was due to skeletal muscle concerns that worsened during treatment and resolved when the PCSK9i was stopped. Patients with non–muscle-related intolerances to statins, ezetimibe, and PCSK9i were not considered statin, ezetimibe, and PCSK9i intolerant.

Alirocumab was initiated at 75 mg subcutaneous (SQ) once every 2 weeks or evolocumab 140 mg SQ once every 2 weeks in our study. The protocol allowed for a dose reduction of alirocumab 75 mg SQ once monthly if a patient experienced AEs, but this dose reduction strategy was not used for any patients on evolocumab in this study. Of note, alirocumab 75 mg SQ once monthly is not an FDA-approved dosing strategy. However, it is similar in concept to the alternative statin dosing (ie, alternate day dosing, once-weekly dosing) and may avoid the need to discontinue PCSK9i therapy altogether.

A review of the CPRS also documented whether a muscle-related AE occurred while the patient was on a PCSK9i (if yes, the specific AE was recorded), the result of PCSK9i therapy (tolerated full dose, required a dose reduction, switched medication, or discontinued), and management strategies taken for patients who did not meet their LDL-C goal while on a reduced (monthly) PCSK9i dose. Prior lipid therapy intolerances, PCSK9i-related AEs, results of PCSK9i therapy, and management strategies for patients who did not meet LDL-C goal while on a reduced PCSK9i dose were obtained by reviewing the PACT pharmacist’s clinic notes and assessment, along with clinic notes and medication history listed within the CPRS.

Statistical Analysis

Descriptive statistics were used for the demographic characteristics of study patients. The primary outcome was calculated as a binary measure (yes/no) of whether the patient developed a muscle-related AE while on a PCSK9i. The secondary outcome of statin, ezetimibe, or statin and ezetimibe intolerances in subgroups also was calculated as a binary measure.

Results

For the study, 156 charts were reviewed and 137 patients were included (Figure).

For the secondary results, 4 patients (2.9%) tolerated an alternate PCSK9i (evolocumab 140 mg SQ every 2 weeks) after initial intolerance to PCSK9i, 16 (11.7%) required a dose reduction, and 6 (4.4%) discontinued PCSK9i due to a muscle-related AE.

Discussion

This retrospective study found 17.5% of patients experienced muscle-related PCSK9i AEs. These occurred at a higher rate than reported in the prescribing information (< 5%) and were similar to the incidence rates reported in the GAUSS-2, GAUSS-3, and ODYSSEY-ALTERNATIVE clinical trials (12.0%-32.5%), which is what we hypothesized.^18,19,22-25 It is important to note that the incidence rates of muscle-related AEs reported in the prescribing information for alirocumab and evolocumab were based on trials that did not include statin- and/or ezetimibe-intolerant patients; whereas many patients in our study and patients in the clinical trials were statin and/or ezetimibe intolerant.

Additionally, a new study by Donald and colleagues found an incidence rate of 32% to 36% for muscle-related PCSK9i AEs.²⁷ Collectively, the data from clinical trials and our study indicate that patients with prior intolerances to statin and/or ezetimibe appear to have a higher likelihood of developing a muscle-related PCSK9i intolerance. In our study, 23 of 24 patients who developed a muscle-related PCSK9i AE had a prior history of statin and/or ezetimibe intolerances. This should alert clinicians prescribing PCSK9i in patients with a history of statin and/or ezetimibe intolerance to counsel their patients on the possibility of muscle-related PCSK9i AEs and management strategies. However, it is important to note that there was a substantial number of patients in our study who were statin and/or ezetimibe intolerant due to a prior muscle-related AE who tolerated the full dose of PCSK9i.

To our knowledge, this was the first trial to evaluate muscle-related PCSK9i AEs in a veteran population. Additionally, our study appears to be the first to use 2 PCSK9i dosing strategies that are not FDA approved: Dose reduction for patients who experienced a muscle-related AE on alirocumab 75 mg SQ every 2 weeks and dose escalation for patients who did not meet their LDL-C goal on alirocumab 75 mg SQ monthly following an initial intolerance to 2-week dosing. The dose-reduction strategy allowed patients who experienced a muscle-related AE to alirocumab 75 mg to reduce administration from every 2 weeks to monthly.

This strategy was only performed with alirocumab, the preferred PCSK9i at WBVAMC, but the same dose-reduction strategy can theoretically be used with evolocumab as well. Reduced monthly dosing of alirocumab allowed patients with a prior intolerance to remain on a lower dosage without discontinuation. This is important because as noted by Myers and colleagues, individuals without access to PCSK9i were found to have a significantly higher incidence ratio of cardiovascular events compared with those taking PCSK9i.¹⁵ Also of note, > 30% of patients on the reduced monthly dose of alirocumab still met their LDL-C goal. Therefore, using this dose-reduction strategy (instead of patients discontinuing therapy altogether due to a muscle-related intolerance) can lessen the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) as well as mitigate muscle-related AEs that occurred while on 2-week PCSK9i dosing regimens. While we acknowledge that this reduced monthly dose of either alirocumab or evolocumab is not FDA approved, it is similar to alternative statin dosing that also is not FDA approved but may minimize the need to discontinue PCSK9i therapy. It would be beneficial if these dosing strategies were investigated by future research.

The dose-escalation strategy for patients who did not meet their LDL-C goal while on the reduced, monthly dose of alirocumab also was unique. Alirocumab was increased from 75 mg SQ once monthly to 150 mg SQ once monthly. Interestingly, we found that through the end of the chart review period, all patients tolerated the increase well, despite having an initial muscle-related AE to alirocumab 75 mg every 2 weeks, which is the same total monthly dosage. This approach is similar to that of once-weekly statin dosing or a drug holiday and may be explained by the long half-life of PCSK9i. Regardless of the mechanism, this finding suggests that an increased monthly dose of PCSK9i is a potential alternative for patients who cannot tolerate the FDA-approved dose. However, the ability for patients to achieve goal LDL-C on the monthly dosage requires future study.

Limitations

The results of this study should be considered with the following limitations. First, this was a retrospective chart review performed over a prespecified period. Any muscle-related AEs or LDL-C lowering effects from PCSK9i that occurred outside the review period were not captured. Our study was small and only included 137 patients, though it was similar in size to the GAUSS-2, GAUSS-3, and ODYSSEY-ALTERNATIVE trials.^22-24 Additionally, the study was primarily composed of White men and may not be representative of other populations. Some muscle-related PCSK9i AEs may be attributed to the nocebo. Last, our study did not capture patients on a PCSK9i who were not followed in the PACT clinic.

Conclusions

We found that muscle-related PCSK9i AEs occurred at a similar rate as those reported in previous clinical trials and exceeded the incidence rate reported in the prescribing information for alirocumab and evolocumab. It appears that patients who have a prior muscle-related intolerance to a statin and/or ezetimibe had a higher likelihood of developing a muscle-related PCSK9i AE. In our study, only 1 patient developed a muscle-related PCSK9i AE who did not have a prior history of muscle-related intolerance to either a statin or ezetimibe. However, in our study, a substantial percentage of patients with statin and/or ezetimibe intolerances tolerated the full PCSK9i dose well, proving that PCSK9i are still a reasonable alternative for patients with prior intolerances to statins and/or ezetimibe.

Acknowledgments

This material is the result of work supported with resources and the use of facilities at the US Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania.