Federal Practitioner

SAN DIEGO – The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) TeleOncology program has rolled out a virtual tumor board that brings medical professionals together to offer insight and guidance about challenging hematology cases. Over the past 6 months the board has held 10 sessions and reviewed about 20 cases. A small survey found that participants think the meetings are beneficial. 

“Virtual tumor boards help to connect experts across the country to leverage the expertise within the VA,” he-matologist/oncologist Thomas Rodgers, MD, of the Duke Cancer Institute and Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, told Federal Practitioner in an interview. He is the lead author of a poster about the program that was pre-sented here at the annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO).

As Dr. Rodgers noted, tumor boards are already in place at some VA centers. However, “they are not available at every VA and often are not set up to cover every cancer type.”

The VA National TeleOncology program created the virtual tumor board program as part of its mission to ex-tend hematology/oncology services across the system. “Cancer care has become increasingly complex. Beyond ad-vancing therapeutics, patient care often involves multiple specialties and medical disciplines,” Dr. Rodgers said. “A tumor board offers a forum for these specialists to communicate with each other in real time, not only to help estab-lish the correct diagnosis and stage of cancer but also to form a consensus on the most fitting treatment option. Think of it as getting all of the people involved in a person’s care in the same room.”

Currently, he said, the virtual tumor boards cover patients with malignant hematology diagnoses such as leuke-mia, multiple myeloma, and lymphomas. “We welcome submissions. If a provider is interested in submitting a case, they can email us and will be provided with a short intake form. Once submitted, we will collect necessary imaging and pathology for review. The provider will then present the patient case on the day of the tumor board.”

Typically, more than 30 medical professionals participate in the virtual tumor boards, Dr. Rodgers said, repre-senting medical oncology/hematology, pathology, radiology, palliative care, pharmacy, social work, and die-tary/nutrition. 

According to the poster presented at AVAHO, 9 participants responded to a survey after 4 tumor board sessions. All found the boards to be beneficial or somewhat beneficial, and 55% reported that they were “highly applicable” to their practice. 

Pathologist Claudio A. Mosse, MD, PhD, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center and VA Tennessee Valley Healthcare System, praised the virtual tumor board program. “It’s been incredibly useful from my end as a pathologist as it shows me which diagnoses are most challenging for my colleagues,” Dr. Mosse said in an inter-view. “Reviewing and then presenting these challenging cases forces me to go into the published literature to come to a unitary diagnosis based on the patient history, radiology, various laboratory tests, and the biopsy I was asked to review.”

He added that “as a pathologist, I learn so much from the hematologists as they discuss the possible therapeutic options, and that strengthens my ability as a pathologist because I have to understand how one diagnosis versus an-other affects their therapeutic decision tree.”

What’s next for the virtual tumor board program? The next step is to expand to solid tumors, said VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System hematologist/oncologist Vida Almario Passero, MD, MBA, chief medical officer of National TeleOncology, in an interview. 

No disclosures were reported.

SAN DIEGO – The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) TeleOncology program has rolled out a virtual tumor board that brings medical professionals together to offer insight and guidance about challenging hematology cases. Over the past 6 months the board has held 10 sessions and reviewed about 20 cases. A small survey found that participants think the meetings are beneficial. 

“Virtual tumor boards help to connect experts across the country to leverage the expertise within the VA,” he-matologist/oncologist Thomas Rodgers, MD, of the Duke Cancer Institute and Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, told Federal Practitioner in an interview. He is the lead author of a poster about the program that was pre-sented here at the annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO).

As Dr. Rodgers noted, tumor boards are already in place at some VA centers. However, “they are not available at every VA and often are not set up to cover every cancer type.”

The VA National TeleOncology program created the virtual tumor board program as part of its mission to ex-tend hematology/oncology services across the system. “Cancer care has become increasingly complex. Beyond ad-vancing therapeutics, patient care often involves multiple specialties and medical disciplines,” Dr. Rodgers said. “A tumor board offers a forum for these specialists to communicate with each other in real time, not only to help estab-lish the correct diagnosis and stage of cancer but also to form a consensus on the most fitting treatment option. Think of it as getting all of the people involved in a person’s care in the same room.”

Currently, he said, the virtual tumor boards cover patients with malignant hematology diagnoses such as leuke-mia, multiple myeloma, and lymphomas. “We welcome submissions. If a provider is interested in submitting a case, they can email us and will be provided with a short intake form. Once submitted, we will collect necessary imaging and pathology for review. The provider will then present the patient case on the day of the tumor board.”

Typically, more than 30 medical professionals participate in the virtual tumor boards, Dr. Rodgers said, repre-senting medical oncology/hematology, pathology, radiology, palliative care, pharmacy, social work, and die-tary/nutrition. 

According to the poster presented at AVAHO, 9 participants responded to a survey after 4 tumor board sessions. All found the boards to be beneficial or somewhat beneficial, and 55% reported that they were “highly applicable” to their practice. 

Pathologist Claudio A. Mosse, MD, PhD, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center and VA Tennessee Valley Healthcare System, praised the virtual tumor board program. “It’s been incredibly useful from my end as a pathologist as it shows me which diagnoses are most challenging for my colleagues,” Dr. Mosse said in an inter-view. “Reviewing and then presenting these challenging cases forces me to go into the published literature to come to a unitary diagnosis based on the patient history, radiology, various laboratory tests, and the biopsy I was asked to review.”

He added that “as a pathologist, I learn so much from the hematologists as they discuss the possible therapeutic options, and that strengthens my ability as a pathologist because I have to understand how one diagnosis versus an-other affects their therapeutic decision tree.”

What’s next for the virtual tumor board program? The next step is to expand to solid tumors, said VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System hematologist/oncologist Vida Almario Passero, MD, MBA, chief medical officer of National TeleOncology, in an interview. 

No disclosures were reported.

SAN DIEGO – The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) TeleOncology program has rolled out a virtual tumor board that brings medical professionals together to offer insight and guidance about challenging hematology cases. Over the past 6 months the board has held 10 sessions and reviewed about 20 cases. A small survey found that participants think the meetings are beneficial. 

“Virtual tumor boards help to connect experts across the country to leverage the expertise within the VA,” he-matologist/oncologist Thomas Rodgers, MD, of the Duke Cancer Institute and Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, told Federal Practitioner in an interview. He is the lead author of a poster about the program that was pre-sented here at the annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO).

As Dr. Rodgers noted, tumor boards are already in place at some VA centers. However, “they are not available at every VA and often are not set up to cover every cancer type.”

The VA National TeleOncology program created the virtual tumor board program as part of its mission to ex-tend hematology/oncology services across the system. “Cancer care has become increasingly complex. Beyond ad-vancing therapeutics, patient care often involves multiple specialties and medical disciplines,” Dr. Rodgers said. “A tumor board offers a forum for these specialists to communicate with each other in real time, not only to help estab-lish the correct diagnosis and stage of cancer but also to form a consensus on the most fitting treatment option. Think of it as getting all of the people involved in a person’s care in the same room.”

Currently, he said, the virtual tumor boards cover patients with malignant hematology diagnoses such as leuke-mia, multiple myeloma, and lymphomas. “We welcome submissions. If a provider is interested in submitting a case, they can email us and will be provided with a short intake form. Once submitted, we will collect necessary imaging and pathology for review. The provider will then present the patient case on the day of the tumor board.”

Typically, more than 30 medical professionals participate in the virtual tumor boards, Dr. Rodgers said, repre-senting medical oncology/hematology, pathology, radiology, palliative care, pharmacy, social work, and die-tary/nutrition. 

According to the poster presented at AVAHO, 9 participants responded to a survey after 4 tumor board sessions. All found the boards to be beneficial or somewhat beneficial, and 55% reported that they were “highly applicable” to their practice. 

Pathologist Claudio A. Mosse, MD, PhD, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center and VA Tennessee Valley Healthcare System, praised the virtual tumor board program. “It’s been incredibly useful from my end as a pathologist as it shows me which diagnoses are most challenging for my colleagues,” Dr. Mosse said in an inter-view. “Reviewing and then presenting these challenging cases forces me to go into the published literature to come to a unitary diagnosis based on the patient history, radiology, various laboratory tests, and the biopsy I was asked to review.”

He added that “as a pathologist, I learn so much from the hematologists as they discuss the possible therapeutic options, and that strengthens my ability as a pathologist because I have to understand how one diagnosis versus an-other affects their therapeutic decision tree.”

What’s next for the virtual tumor board program? The next step is to expand to solid tumors, said VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System hematologist/oncologist Vida Almario Passero, MD, MBA, chief medical officer of National TeleOncology, in an interview. 

No disclosures were reported.

Time to diagnosis is a crucial factor in cancer. Delays can lead to diagnosis at later stages and prevent optimal therapeutic strategies, both of which have the potential to reduce survival. An estimated 63%-82% of cancers get diagnosed as a result of symptom presentation, and delays in diagnosis can hamper treatment efforts. Diagnosis can be challenging because common symptoms – such as weight loss, weakness, poor appetite, and shortness of breath – are nonspecific.

A new analysis of U.S.-based data shows that the average time to diagnosis is 5.2 months for patients with solid tumors. The authors of the study call for better cancer diagnosis pathways in the U.S.

“Several countries, including the UK, Denmark, Sweden, Canada and Australia, have identified the importance and potential impact of more timely diagnosis by establishing national guidelines, special programs, and treatment pathways. However, in the U.S., there’s relatively little research and effort focused on streamlining the diagnostic pathway. Currently, the U.S. does not have established cancer diagnostic pathways that are used consistently,” Matthew Gitlin, PharmD, said during a presentation at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

Diagnostic delays can lead to diagnosis at more advanced stages. “That is often associated with worse clinical outcomes, increased economic burden, and decreased health related quality of life,” said Dr. Gitlin, founder and managing director of the health economics consulting firm BluePath Solutions, which conducted the analysis.

The study retrospectively examined administrative billing data drawn from the Clinformatics for Managed Markets longitudinal database. The data represent individuals in Medicare Advantage and a large, U.S.-based private insurance plan. Between 2018 and 2019, there were 458,818 cancer diagnoses. The mean age was 70.6 years and 49.6% of the patients were female. Sixty-five percent were White, 11.1% Black, 8.3% Hispanic, and 2.5% Asian. No race data were available for 13.2%. Medicare Advantage was the primary insurance carrier for 74.0%, and 24.0% had a commercial plan.

The mean time to diagnosis across all tumors was 5.2 months (standard deviation, 5.5 months). There was significant variation across different tumor types, as well as within the same tumor type. The median value was 3.9 months (interquartile range, 1.1-7.2 months).

Mean time to diagnosis ranged from 121.6 days for bladder cancer to as high as 229 days for multiple myeloma. Standard deviations were nearly as large or even larger than the mean values. The study showed that 15.8% of patients waited 6 months or longer for a diagnosis. Delays were most common in kidney cancer, colorectal cancer, gallbladder cancer, esophageal cancer, stomach cancer, lymphoma, and multiple myeloma: More than 25% of patients had a time to diagnosis of at least 6 months in these tumors.

“Although there is limited research in the published literature, our findings are consistent with that literature that does exist. Development or modification of policies, guidelines or medical interventions that streamline the diagnostic pathway are needed to optimize patient outcomes and reduce resource burden and cost to the health care system,” Dr. Gitlin said.

Previous literature on this topic has seen wide variation in how time to diagnosis is defined, and most research is conducted in high-income countries, according to Felipe Roitberg, PhD, who served as a discussant during the session. “Most of the countries and patients in need are localized in low- and middle-income countries, so that is a call to action (for more research),” said Dr. Roitberg, a clinical oncologist at Hospital Sírio Libanês in São Paulo, Brazil.

The study did not look at the associations between race and time to diagnosis. “This is a source of analysis could further be explored,” said Dr. Roitberg.

He noted that the ABC-DO prospective cohort study in sub-Saharan Africa found large variations in breast cancer survival by country, and its authors predicted that downstaging and improvements in treatment could prevent up to one-third of projected breast cancer deaths over the next decade. “So these are the drivers of populational gain in terms of overall survival – not more drugs, not more services available, but coordination of services and making sure the patient has a right pathway (to diagnosis and treatment),” Dr. Roitberg said.

Dr. Gitlin has received consulting fees from GRAIL LLC, which is a subsidiary of Illumina. Dr. Roitberg has received honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Roche, MSD Oncology, AstraZeneca, Nestle Health Science, Dr Reddy’s, and Oncologia Brazil. He has consulted for MSD Oncology. He has received research funding from Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, MSD, Bayer, AstraZeneca, and Takeda.

Time to diagnosis is a crucial factor in cancer. Delays can lead to diagnosis at later stages and prevent optimal therapeutic strategies, both of which have the potential to reduce survival. An estimated 63%-82% of cancers get diagnosed as a result of symptom presentation, and delays in diagnosis can hamper treatment efforts. Diagnosis can be challenging because common symptoms – such as weight loss, weakness, poor appetite, and shortness of breath – are nonspecific.

A new analysis of U.S.-based data shows that the average time to diagnosis is 5.2 months for patients with solid tumors. The authors of the study call for better cancer diagnosis pathways in the U.S.

“Several countries, including the UK, Denmark, Sweden, Canada and Australia, have identified the importance and potential impact of more timely diagnosis by establishing national guidelines, special programs, and treatment pathways. However, in the U.S., there’s relatively little research and effort focused on streamlining the diagnostic pathway. Currently, the U.S. does not have established cancer diagnostic pathways that are used consistently,” Matthew Gitlin, PharmD, said during a presentation at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

Diagnostic delays can lead to diagnosis at more advanced stages. “That is often associated with worse clinical outcomes, increased economic burden, and decreased health related quality of life,” said Dr. Gitlin, founder and managing director of the health economics consulting firm BluePath Solutions, which conducted the analysis.

The study retrospectively examined administrative billing data drawn from the Clinformatics for Managed Markets longitudinal database. The data represent individuals in Medicare Advantage and a large, U.S.-based private insurance plan. Between 2018 and 2019, there were 458,818 cancer diagnoses. The mean age was 70.6 years and 49.6% of the patients were female. Sixty-five percent were White, 11.1% Black, 8.3% Hispanic, and 2.5% Asian. No race data were available for 13.2%. Medicare Advantage was the primary insurance carrier for 74.0%, and 24.0% had a commercial plan.

The mean time to diagnosis across all tumors was 5.2 months (standard deviation, 5.5 months). There was significant variation across different tumor types, as well as within the same tumor type. The median value was 3.9 months (interquartile range, 1.1-7.2 months).

Mean time to diagnosis ranged from 121.6 days for bladder cancer to as high as 229 days for multiple myeloma. Standard deviations were nearly as large or even larger than the mean values. The study showed that 15.8% of patients waited 6 months or longer for a diagnosis. Delays were most common in kidney cancer, colorectal cancer, gallbladder cancer, esophageal cancer, stomach cancer, lymphoma, and multiple myeloma: More than 25% of patients had a time to diagnosis of at least 6 months in these tumors.

“Although there is limited research in the published literature, our findings are consistent with that literature that does exist. Development or modification of policies, guidelines or medical interventions that streamline the diagnostic pathway are needed to optimize patient outcomes and reduce resource burden and cost to the health care system,” Dr. Gitlin said.

Previous literature on this topic has seen wide variation in how time to diagnosis is defined, and most research is conducted in high-income countries, according to Felipe Roitberg, PhD, who served as a discussant during the session. “Most of the countries and patients in need are localized in low- and middle-income countries, so that is a call to action (for more research),” said Dr. Roitberg, a clinical oncologist at Hospital Sírio Libanês in São Paulo, Brazil.

The study did not look at the associations between race and time to diagnosis. “This is a source of analysis could further be explored,” said Dr. Roitberg.

He noted that the ABC-DO prospective cohort study in sub-Saharan Africa found large variations in breast cancer survival by country, and its authors predicted that downstaging and improvements in treatment could prevent up to one-third of projected breast cancer deaths over the next decade. “So these are the drivers of populational gain in terms of overall survival – not more drugs, not more services available, but coordination of services and making sure the patient has a right pathway (to diagnosis and treatment),” Dr. Roitberg said.

Dr. Gitlin has received consulting fees from GRAIL LLC, which is a subsidiary of Illumina. Dr. Roitberg has received honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Roche, MSD Oncology, AstraZeneca, Nestle Health Science, Dr Reddy’s, and Oncologia Brazil. He has consulted for MSD Oncology. He has received research funding from Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, MSD, Bayer, AstraZeneca, and Takeda.

Time to diagnosis is a crucial factor in cancer. Delays can lead to diagnosis at later stages and prevent optimal therapeutic strategies, both of which have the potential to reduce survival. An estimated 63%-82% of cancers get diagnosed as a result of symptom presentation, and delays in diagnosis can hamper treatment efforts. Diagnosis can be challenging because common symptoms – such as weight loss, weakness, poor appetite, and shortness of breath – are nonspecific.

A new analysis of U.S.-based data shows that the average time to diagnosis is 5.2 months for patients with solid tumors. The authors of the study call for better cancer diagnosis pathways in the U.S.

“Several countries, including the UK, Denmark, Sweden, Canada and Australia, have identified the importance and potential impact of more timely diagnosis by establishing national guidelines, special programs, and treatment pathways. However, in the U.S., there’s relatively little research and effort focused on streamlining the diagnostic pathway. Currently, the U.S. does not have established cancer diagnostic pathways that are used consistently,” Matthew Gitlin, PharmD, said during a presentation at the annual meeting of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

Diagnostic delays can lead to diagnosis at more advanced stages. “That is often associated with worse clinical outcomes, increased economic burden, and decreased health related quality of life,” said Dr. Gitlin, founder and managing director of the health economics consulting firm BluePath Solutions, which conducted the analysis.

The study retrospectively examined administrative billing data drawn from the Clinformatics for Managed Markets longitudinal database. The data represent individuals in Medicare Advantage and a large, U.S.-based private insurance plan. Between 2018 and 2019, there were 458,818 cancer diagnoses. The mean age was 70.6 years and 49.6% of the patients were female. Sixty-five percent were White, 11.1% Black, 8.3% Hispanic, and 2.5% Asian. No race data were available for 13.2%. Medicare Advantage was the primary insurance carrier for 74.0%, and 24.0% had a commercial plan.

The mean time to diagnosis across all tumors was 5.2 months (standard deviation, 5.5 months). There was significant variation across different tumor types, as well as within the same tumor type. The median value was 3.9 months (interquartile range, 1.1-7.2 months).

Mean time to diagnosis ranged from 121.6 days for bladder cancer to as high as 229 days for multiple myeloma. Standard deviations were nearly as large or even larger than the mean values. The study showed that 15.8% of patients waited 6 months or longer for a diagnosis. Delays were most common in kidney cancer, colorectal cancer, gallbladder cancer, esophageal cancer, stomach cancer, lymphoma, and multiple myeloma: More than 25% of patients had a time to diagnosis of at least 6 months in these tumors.

“Although there is limited research in the published literature, our findings are consistent with that literature that does exist. Development or modification of policies, guidelines or medical interventions that streamline the diagnostic pathway are needed to optimize patient outcomes and reduce resource burden and cost to the health care system,” Dr. Gitlin said.

Previous literature on this topic has seen wide variation in how time to diagnosis is defined, and most research is conducted in high-income countries, according to Felipe Roitberg, PhD, who served as a discussant during the session. “Most of the countries and patients in need are localized in low- and middle-income countries, so that is a call to action (for more research),” said Dr. Roitberg, a clinical oncologist at Hospital Sírio Libanês in São Paulo, Brazil.

The study did not look at the associations between race and time to diagnosis. “This is a source of analysis could further be explored,” said Dr. Roitberg.

He noted that the ABC-DO prospective cohort study in sub-Saharan Africa found large variations in breast cancer survival by country, and its authors predicted that downstaging and improvements in treatment could prevent up to one-third of projected breast cancer deaths over the next decade. “So these are the drivers of populational gain in terms of overall survival – not more drugs, not more services available, but coordination of services and making sure the patient has a right pathway (to diagnosis and treatment),” Dr. Roitberg said.

Dr. Gitlin has received consulting fees from GRAIL LLC, which is a subsidiary of Illumina. Dr. Roitberg has received honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Roche, MSD Oncology, AstraZeneca, Nestle Health Science, Dr Reddy’s, and Oncologia Brazil. He has consulted for MSD Oncology. He has received research funding from Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, MSD, Bayer, AstraZeneca, and Takeda.

In melanoma patients with the BRAFV600 mutation, a combination of BRAF and MEK inhibitors are highly effective over the long term, according to 5-year follow-up data from the COLUMBUS trial. Among patients with advanced unresectable or metastatic disease who were untreated or who had progressed following immunotherapy, the regimen of encorafenib plus binimetinib produced impressive gains in progression-free and overall survival, compared with historical controls, and are in line with other BRAF/MEK inhibitor combinations. It also outperformed encorafenib and vemurafenib monotherapy regimens.

The findings present good news, but the combination still doesn’t represent the best first-line option, according to Ryan Sullivan, MD, who wrote an accompanying editorial. He pointed out that the previously published DREAMSeq trial showed that a combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) ipilimumab and nivolumab produced a 2-year survival of 72%, compared with 52% for a BRAF inhibitor combination of dabrafenib plus trametinib (P = .0095).

There are three combinations of BRAF and MEK inhibitors that are approved for BRAF mutant melanoma, and any of the seven individual agents and six combinations that are approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration- for melanoma can be used in BRAFV600 patients. “The standard of care for most patients with newly diagnosed BRAF mutant melanoma is ... immune checkpoint inhibition, either with anti–PD-1 inhibitor or a combination of immunotherapy with an anti–PD-1 inhibitor. The optimal use of BRAF targeted therapy is unknown but some data supports its use earlier in the disease course (adjuvant setting) or after progression following anti–PD-1 therapy in the advanced disease setting,” wrote Dr. Sullivan in an email. He is associate director of the melanoma program at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

The new study was published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

In his editorial, Dr. Sullivan wrote that anti–PD-1 monoclonal antibodies alone or in combination with anti-CTLA4 receptor therapies is likely the best front-line therapy for BRAFV600 mutant advanced melanoma, with long-term survival ranging from 40% to 50%.

Still, the efficacy of BRAF-targeted therapy makes it important to explore ways to strengthen it further. One possibility is to use it in the front-line setting when a patient is at high risk of rapid progression and death, since analysis from DREAMSeq showed that BRAF-targeted therapy had a better overall survival than immunotherapy during the first 10 months after random assignment. It was only after this time point that the curves reversed and pointed to greater efficacy for immunotherapy. An option would be to treat to maximum tumor regression with BRAF-targeted therapy and then switch to immunotherapy, according to Dr. Sullivan. That point was echoed by study author Paolo Ascierto, MD, in an email exchange. “For patients with symptomatic disease or very high tumor burden, BRAF/MEK inhibitor should be used first,” said Dr. Ascierto, who is director of the melanoma cancer immunotherapy innovative therapy unit of the National Tumor Institute in Naples, Italy.
 

BRAF inhibitors as second- or later-line therapy

Aside from that exception, BRAF inhibitors should generally be reserved for second- or later-line therapy, according to Dr. Sullivan. Retrospective data indicate that response to BRAF inhibitors is preserved following immunotherapy, although the duration of benefit is reduced. Unfortunately, that strategy limits BRAF inhibitors to a setting in which they’re less likely to be maximally effective.

To improve matters, Dr. Sullivan suggested that they could be used in the adjuvant setting, where disease burden is lower. He noted that dabrafenib and trametinib are approved for resected stage 3 melanoma and showed similar efficacy to immunotherapy in that setting. Immunotherapy retains efficacy after BRAF-targeted therapy.

Another potential strategy is to come up with 3- or even 4-drug combinations employing BRAF/MEK inhibitors in the second-line setting. A few trials have already begun to investigate this possibility.

The COLUMBUS trial included 192 patients who received encorafenib plus binimetinib (E+B), 191 who received vemurafenib and 194 who received encorafenib. Five-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 23% in the E+B group, and 31% in those with normal lactate dehydrogenase levels. Five-year PFS was 10% with vemurafenib alone (12% with normal lactate dehydrogenase). Progression free survival (PFS) was 19% in the encorafenib group. Five-year overall survival (OS) followed a similar trend: 35% (45% with normal lactate dehydrogenase) in the E+B group, and 21% (28%) in the vemurafenib group. E+B had a median duration of response of 18.6 months, and a disease control rate of 92.2%, compared with 12.3 months and 81.2% with vemurafenib. Median duration of response was 15.5 months in the encorafenib monotherapy group.

The COLUMBUS trial was sponsored by Array BioPharma, which was acquired by Pfizer in July 2019.

Dr. Sullivan has consulted or advised Novartis, Merck, Replimune, Asana Biosciences, Alkermes, Eisai, Pfizer, Iovance Biotherapeutics, OncoSec, AstraZeneca, and Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr. Ascierto has stock or an ownership position in PrimeVax. He has consulted or advised for Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche/Genentech, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Array BioPharma, Merck Serono, Pierre Fabre, Incyte, MedImmune, AstraZeneca, Sun Pharma, Sanofi, Idera, Ultimovacs, Sandoz, Immunocore, 4SC, Alkermes, Italfarmaco, Nektar, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eisai, Regeneron, Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, OncoSec, Nouscom, Takis Biotech, Lunaphore Technologies, Seattle Genetics, ITeos Therapeutics, Medicenna, and Bio-Al Health.

In melanoma patients with the BRAFV600 mutation, a combination of BRAF and MEK inhibitors are highly effective over the long term, according to 5-year follow-up data from the COLUMBUS trial. Among patients with advanced unresectable or metastatic disease who were untreated or who had progressed following immunotherapy, the regimen of encorafenib plus binimetinib produced impressive gains in progression-free and overall survival, compared with historical controls, and are in line with other BRAF/MEK inhibitor combinations. It also outperformed encorafenib and vemurafenib monotherapy regimens.

The findings present good news, but the combination still doesn’t represent the best first-line option, according to Ryan Sullivan, MD, who wrote an accompanying editorial. He pointed out that the previously published DREAMSeq trial showed that a combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) ipilimumab and nivolumab produced a 2-year survival of 72%, compared with 52% for a BRAF inhibitor combination of dabrafenib plus trametinib (P = .0095).

There are three combinations of BRAF and MEK inhibitors that are approved for BRAF mutant melanoma, and any of the seven individual agents and six combinations that are approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration- for melanoma can be used in BRAFV600 patients. “The standard of care for most patients with newly diagnosed BRAF mutant melanoma is ... immune checkpoint inhibition, either with anti–PD-1 inhibitor or a combination of immunotherapy with an anti–PD-1 inhibitor. The optimal use of BRAF targeted therapy is unknown but some data supports its use earlier in the disease course (adjuvant setting) or after progression following anti–PD-1 therapy in the advanced disease setting,” wrote Dr. Sullivan in an email. He is associate director of the melanoma program at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

The new study was published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

In his editorial, Dr. Sullivan wrote that anti–PD-1 monoclonal antibodies alone or in combination with anti-CTLA4 receptor therapies is likely the best front-line therapy for BRAFV600 mutant advanced melanoma, with long-term survival ranging from 40% to 50%.

Still, the efficacy of BRAF-targeted therapy makes it important to explore ways to strengthen it further. One possibility is to use it in the front-line setting when a patient is at high risk of rapid progression and death, since analysis from DREAMSeq showed that BRAF-targeted therapy had a better overall survival than immunotherapy during the first 10 months after random assignment. It was only after this time point that the curves reversed and pointed to greater efficacy for immunotherapy. An option would be to treat to maximum tumor regression with BRAF-targeted therapy and then switch to immunotherapy, according to Dr. Sullivan. That point was echoed by study author Paolo Ascierto, MD, in an email exchange. “For patients with symptomatic disease or very high tumor burden, BRAF/MEK inhibitor should be used first,” said Dr. Ascierto, who is director of the melanoma cancer immunotherapy innovative therapy unit of the National Tumor Institute in Naples, Italy.
 

BRAF inhibitors as second- or later-line therapy

Aside from that exception, BRAF inhibitors should generally be reserved for second- or later-line therapy, according to Dr. Sullivan. Retrospective data indicate that response to BRAF inhibitors is preserved following immunotherapy, although the duration of benefit is reduced. Unfortunately, that strategy limits BRAF inhibitors to a setting in which they’re less likely to be maximally effective.

To improve matters, Dr. Sullivan suggested that they could be used in the adjuvant setting, where disease burden is lower. He noted that dabrafenib and trametinib are approved for resected stage 3 melanoma and showed similar efficacy to immunotherapy in that setting. Immunotherapy retains efficacy after BRAF-targeted therapy.

Another potential strategy is to come up with 3- or even 4-drug combinations employing BRAF/MEK inhibitors in the second-line setting. A few trials have already begun to investigate this possibility.

The COLUMBUS trial included 192 patients who received encorafenib plus binimetinib (E+B), 191 who received vemurafenib and 194 who received encorafenib. Five-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 23% in the E+B group, and 31% in those with normal lactate dehydrogenase levels. Five-year PFS was 10% with vemurafenib alone (12% with normal lactate dehydrogenase). Progression free survival (PFS) was 19% in the encorafenib group. Five-year overall survival (OS) followed a similar trend: 35% (45% with normal lactate dehydrogenase) in the E+B group, and 21% (28%) in the vemurafenib group. E+B had a median duration of response of 18.6 months, and a disease control rate of 92.2%, compared with 12.3 months and 81.2% with vemurafenib. Median duration of response was 15.5 months in the encorafenib monotherapy group.

The COLUMBUS trial was sponsored by Array BioPharma, which was acquired by Pfizer in July 2019.

Dr. Sullivan has consulted or advised Novartis, Merck, Replimune, Asana Biosciences, Alkermes, Eisai, Pfizer, Iovance Biotherapeutics, OncoSec, AstraZeneca, and Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr. Ascierto has stock or an ownership position in PrimeVax. He has consulted or advised for Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche/Genentech, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Array BioPharma, Merck Serono, Pierre Fabre, Incyte, MedImmune, AstraZeneca, Sun Pharma, Sanofi, Idera, Ultimovacs, Sandoz, Immunocore, 4SC, Alkermes, Italfarmaco, Nektar, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eisai, Regeneron, Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, OncoSec, Nouscom, Takis Biotech, Lunaphore Technologies, Seattle Genetics, ITeos Therapeutics, Medicenna, and Bio-Al Health.

In melanoma patients with the BRAFV600 mutation, a combination of BRAF and MEK inhibitors are highly effective over the long term, according to 5-year follow-up data from the COLUMBUS trial. Among patients with advanced unresectable or metastatic disease who were untreated or who had progressed following immunotherapy, the regimen of encorafenib plus binimetinib produced impressive gains in progression-free and overall survival, compared with historical controls, and are in line with other BRAF/MEK inhibitor combinations. It also outperformed encorafenib and vemurafenib monotherapy regimens.

The findings present good news, but the combination still doesn’t represent the best first-line option, according to Ryan Sullivan, MD, who wrote an accompanying editorial. He pointed out that the previously published DREAMSeq trial showed that a combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) ipilimumab and nivolumab produced a 2-year survival of 72%, compared with 52% for a BRAF inhibitor combination of dabrafenib plus trametinib (P = .0095).

There are three combinations of BRAF and MEK inhibitors that are approved for BRAF mutant melanoma, and any of the seven individual agents and six combinations that are approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration- for melanoma can be used in BRAFV600 patients. “The standard of care for most patients with newly diagnosed BRAF mutant melanoma is ... immune checkpoint inhibition, either with anti–PD-1 inhibitor or a combination of immunotherapy with an anti–PD-1 inhibitor. The optimal use of BRAF targeted therapy is unknown but some data supports its use earlier in the disease course (adjuvant setting) or after progression following anti–PD-1 therapy in the advanced disease setting,” wrote Dr. Sullivan in an email. He is associate director of the melanoma program at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

The new study was published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

In his editorial, Dr. Sullivan wrote that anti–PD-1 monoclonal antibodies alone or in combination with anti-CTLA4 receptor therapies is likely the best front-line therapy for BRAFV600 mutant advanced melanoma, with long-term survival ranging from 40% to 50%.

Still, the efficacy of BRAF-targeted therapy makes it important to explore ways to strengthen it further. One possibility is to use it in the front-line setting when a patient is at high risk of rapid progression and death, since analysis from DREAMSeq showed that BRAF-targeted therapy had a better overall survival than immunotherapy during the first 10 months after random assignment. It was only after this time point that the curves reversed and pointed to greater efficacy for immunotherapy. An option would be to treat to maximum tumor regression with BRAF-targeted therapy and then switch to immunotherapy, according to Dr. Sullivan. That point was echoed by study author Paolo Ascierto, MD, in an email exchange. “For patients with symptomatic disease or very high tumor burden, BRAF/MEK inhibitor should be used first,” said Dr. Ascierto, who is director of the melanoma cancer immunotherapy innovative therapy unit of the National Tumor Institute in Naples, Italy.
 

BRAF inhibitors as second- or later-line therapy

Aside from that exception, BRAF inhibitors should generally be reserved for second- or later-line therapy, according to Dr. Sullivan. Retrospective data indicate that response to BRAF inhibitors is preserved following immunotherapy, although the duration of benefit is reduced. Unfortunately, that strategy limits BRAF inhibitors to a setting in which they’re less likely to be maximally effective.

To improve matters, Dr. Sullivan suggested that they could be used in the adjuvant setting, where disease burden is lower. He noted that dabrafenib and trametinib are approved for resected stage 3 melanoma and showed similar efficacy to immunotherapy in that setting. Immunotherapy retains efficacy after BRAF-targeted therapy.

Another potential strategy is to come up with 3- or even 4-drug combinations employing BRAF/MEK inhibitors in the second-line setting. A few trials have already begun to investigate this possibility.

The COLUMBUS trial included 192 patients who received encorafenib plus binimetinib (E+B), 191 who received vemurafenib and 194 who received encorafenib. Five-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 23% in the E+B group, and 31% in those with normal lactate dehydrogenase levels. Five-year PFS was 10% with vemurafenib alone (12% with normal lactate dehydrogenase). Progression free survival (PFS) was 19% in the encorafenib group. Five-year overall survival (OS) followed a similar trend: 35% (45% with normal lactate dehydrogenase) in the E+B group, and 21% (28%) in the vemurafenib group. E+B had a median duration of response of 18.6 months, and a disease control rate of 92.2%, compared with 12.3 months and 81.2% with vemurafenib. Median duration of response was 15.5 months in the encorafenib monotherapy group.

The COLUMBUS trial was sponsored by Array BioPharma, which was acquired by Pfizer in July 2019.

Dr. Sullivan has consulted or advised Novartis, Merck, Replimune, Asana Biosciences, Alkermes, Eisai, Pfizer, Iovance Biotherapeutics, OncoSec, AstraZeneca, and Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr. Ascierto has stock or an ownership position in PrimeVax. He has consulted or advised for Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche/Genentech, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Array BioPharma, Merck Serono, Pierre Fabre, Incyte, MedImmune, AstraZeneca, Sun Pharma, Sanofi, Idera, Ultimovacs, Sandoz, Immunocore, 4SC, Alkermes, Italfarmaco, Nektar, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eisai, Regeneron, Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, OncoSec, Nouscom, Takis Biotech, Lunaphore Technologies, Seattle Genetics, ITeos Therapeutics, Medicenna, and Bio-Al Health.

The European Society of Cardiology guidelines on cardiovascular assessment and management of patients undergoing noncardiac surgery have seen extensive revision since the 2014 version.

They still have the same aim – to prevent surgery-related bleeding complications, perioperative myocardial infarction/injury (PMI), stent thrombosis, acute heart failure, arrhythmias, pulmonary embolism, ischemic stroke, and cardiovascular (CV) death.

lyosha_nazarenko/Thinkstock

Cochairpersons Sigrun Halvorsen, MD, PhD, and Julinda Mehilli, MD, presented highlights from the guidelines at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology and the document was simultaneously published online in the European Heart Journal.

The document classifies noncardiac surgery into three levels of 30-day risk of CV death, MI, or stroke. Low (< 1%) risk includes eye or thyroid surgery; intermediate (1%-5%) risk includes knee or hip replacement or renal transplant; and high (> 5%) risk includes aortic aneurysm, lung transplant, or pancreatic or bladder cancer surgery (see more examples below).

It classifies patients as low risk if they are younger than 65 without CV disease or CV risk factors (smoking, hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidemia, family history); intermediate risk if they are 65 or older or have CV risk factors; and high risk if they have CVD.  

In an interview, Dr. Halvorsen, professor in cardiology, University of Oslo, zeroed in on three important revisions:

First, recommendations for preoperative ECG and biomarkers are more specific, he noted.

The guidelines advise that before intermediate- or high-risk noncardiac surgery, in patients who have known CVD, CV risk factors (including age 65 or older), or symptoms suggestive of CVD:

• It is recommended to obtain a preoperative 12-lead ECG (class I).
• It is recommended to measure high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTn T) or high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I (hs-cTn I). It is also recommended to measure these biomarkers at 24 hours and 48 hours post surgery (class I).
• It should be considered to measure B-type natriuretic peptide or N-terminal of the prohormone BNP (NT-proBNP).

However, for low-risk patients undergoing low- and intermediate-risk noncardiac surgery, it is not recommended to routinely obtain preoperative ECG, hs-cTn T/I, or BNP/NT-proBNP concentrations (class III).

Troponins have a stronger class I recommendation, compared with the IIA recommendation for BNP, because they are useful for preoperative risk stratification and for diagnosis of PMI, Dr. Halvorsen explained. “Patients receive painkillers after surgery and may have no pain,” she noted, but they may have PMI, which has a bad prognosis.

Second, the guidelines recommend that “all patients should stop smoking 4 weeks before noncardiac surgery [class I],” she noted. Clinicians should also “measure hemoglobin, and if the patient is anemic, treat the anemia.”

Third, the sections on antithrombotic treatment have been significantly revised. “Bridging – stopping an oral antithrombotic drug and switching to a subcutaneous or IV drug – has been common,” Dr. Halvorsen said, “but recently we have new evidence that in most cases that increases the risk of bleeding.”

“We are [now] much more restrictive with respect to bridging” with unfractionated heparin or low-molecular-weight heparin, she said. “We recommend against bridging in patients with low to moderate thrombotic risk,” and bridging should only be considered in patients with mechanical prosthetic heart valves or with very high thrombotic risk.
 

More preoperative recommendations

In the guideline overview session at the congress, Dr. Halverson highlighted some of the new recommendations for preoperative risk assessment.  

If time allows, it is recommended to optimize guideline-recommended treatment of CVD and control of CV risk factors including blood pressure, dyslipidemia, and diabetes, before noncardiac surgery (class I).

Patients commonly have “murmurs, chest pain, dyspnea, and edema that may suggest severe CVD, but may also be caused by noncardiac disease,” she noted. The guidelines state that “for patients with a newly detected murmur and symptoms or signs of CVD, transthoracic echocardiography is recommended before noncardiac surgery (class I).

“Many studies have been performed to try to find out if initiation of specific drugs before surgery could reduce the risk of complications,” Dr. Halvorsen noted. However, few have shown any benefit and “the question of presurgery initiation of beta-blockers has been greatly debated,” she said. “We have again reviewed the literature and concluded ‘Routine initiation of beta-blockers perioperatively is not recommended (class IIIA).’ “

“We adhere to the guidelines on acute and chronic coronary syndrome recommending 6-12 months of dual antiplatelet treatment as a standard before elective surgery,” she said. “However, in case of time-sensitive surgery, the duration of that treatment can be shortened down to a minimum of 1 month after elective PCI and a minimum of 3 months after PCI and ACS.”
 

Patients with specific types of CVD

Dr. Mehilli, a professor at Landshut-Achdorf (Germany) Hospital, highlighted some new guideline recommendations for patients who have specific types of cardiovascular disease.

Coronary artery disease (CAD). “For chronic coronary syndrome, a cardiac workup is recommended only for patients undergoing intermediate risk or high-risk noncardiac surgery.”

“Stress imaging should be considered before any high risk, noncardiac surgery in asymptomatic patients with poor functional capacity and prior PCI or coronary artery bypass graft (new recommendation, class IIa).”

Mitral valve regurgitation. For patients undergoing scheduled noncardiac surgery, who remain symptomatic despite guideline-directed medical treatment for mitral valve regurgitation (including resynchronization and myocardial revascularization), consider a valve intervention – either transcatheter or surgical – before noncardiac surgery in eligible patients with acceptable procedural risk (new recommendation).

Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED). For high-risk patients with CIEDs undergoing noncardiac surgery with high probability of electromagnetic interference, a CIED checkup and necessary reprogramming immediately before the procedure should be considered (new recommendation).

Arrhythmias. “I want only to stress,” Dr. Mehilli said, “in patients with atrial fibrillation with acute or worsening hemodynamic instability undergoing noncardiac surgery, an emergency electrical cardioversion is recommended (class I).”

Peripheral artery disease (PAD) and abdominal aortic aneurysm. For these patients “we do not recommend a routine referral for a cardiac workup. But we recommend it for patients with poor functional capacity or with significant risk factors or symptoms (new recommendations).”

Chronic arterial hypertension. “We have modified the recommendation, recommending avoidance of large perioperative fluctuations in blood pressure, and we do not recommend deferring noncardiac surgery in patients with stage 1 or 2 hypertension,” she said.
 

Postoperative cardiovascular complications

The most frequent postoperative cardiovascular complication is PMI, Dr. Mehilli noted.

“In the BASEL-PMI registry, the incidence of this complication around intermediate or high-risk noncardiac surgery was up to 15% among patients older than 65 years or with a history of CAD or PAD, which makes this kind of complication really important to prevent, to assess, and to know how to treat.”

“It is recommended to have a high awareness for perioperative cardiovascular complications, combined with surveillance for PMI in patients undergoing intermediate- or high-risk noncardiac surgery” based on serial measurements of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin.

The guidelines define PMI as “an increase in the delta of high-sensitivity troponin more than the upper level of normal,” Dr. Mehilli said. “It’s different from the one used in a rule-in algorithm for non-STEMI acute coronary syndrome.”

Postoperative atrial fibrillation (AFib) is observed in 2%-30% of noncardiac surgery patients in different registries, particularly in patients undergoing intermediate or high-risk noncardiac surgery, she noted.

“We propose an algorithm on how to prevent and treat this complication. I want to highlight that in patients with hemodynamic unstable postoperative AF[ib], an emergency cardioversion is indicated. For the others, a rate control with the target heart rate of less than 110 beats per minute is indicated.”

In patients with postoperative AFib, long-term oral anticoagulation therapy should be considered in all patients at risk for stroke, considering the anticipated net clinical benefit of oral anticoagulation therapy as well as informed patient preference (new recommendations).

Routine use of beta-blockers to prevent postoperative AFib in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery is not recommended.

The document also covers the management of patients with kidney disease, diabetes, cancer, obesity, and COVID-19. In general, elective noncardiac surgery should be postponed after a patient has COVID-19, until he or she recovers completely, and coexisting conditions are optimized.

The guidelines are available from the ESC website in several formats: pocket guidelines, pocket guidelines smartphone app, guidelines slide set, essential messages, and the European Heart Journal article.
 

Noncardiac surgery risk categories

The guideline includes a table that classifies noncardiac surgeries into three groups, based on the associated 30-day risk of death, MI, or stroke:

• Low (< 1%): breast, dental, eye, thyroid, and minor gynecologic, orthopedic, and urologic surgery.
• Intermediate (1%-5%): carotid surgery, endovascular aortic aneurysm repair, gallbladder surgery, head or neck surgery, hernia repair, peripheral arterial angioplasty, renal transplant, major gynecologic, orthopedic, or neurologic (hip or spine) surgery, or urologic surgery
• High (> 5%): aortic and major vascular surgery (including aortic aneurysm), bladder removal (usually as a result of cancer), limb amputation, lung or liver transplant, pancreatic surgery, or perforated bowel repair.

The guidelines were endorsed by the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care. The guideline authors reported numerous disclosures.

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

The European Society of Cardiology guidelines on cardiovascular assessment and management of patients undergoing noncardiac surgery have seen extensive revision since the 2014 version.

They still have the same aim – to prevent surgery-related bleeding complications, perioperative myocardial infarction/injury (PMI), stent thrombosis, acute heart failure, arrhythmias, pulmonary embolism, ischemic stroke, and cardiovascular (CV) death.

lyosha_nazarenko/Thinkstock

Cochairpersons Sigrun Halvorsen, MD, PhD, and Julinda Mehilli, MD, presented highlights from the guidelines at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology and the document was simultaneously published online in the European Heart Journal.

The document classifies noncardiac surgery into three levels of 30-day risk of CV death, MI, or stroke. Low (< 1%) risk includes eye or thyroid surgery; intermediate (1%-5%) risk includes knee or hip replacement or renal transplant; and high (> 5%) risk includes aortic aneurysm, lung transplant, or pancreatic or bladder cancer surgery (see more examples below).

It classifies patients as low risk if they are younger than 65 without CV disease or CV risk factors (smoking, hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidemia, family history); intermediate risk if they are 65 or older or have CV risk factors; and high risk if they have CVD.  

In an interview, Dr. Halvorsen, professor in cardiology, University of Oslo, zeroed in on three important revisions:

First, recommendations for preoperative ECG and biomarkers are more specific, he noted.

The guidelines advise that before intermediate- or high-risk noncardiac surgery, in patients who have known CVD, CV risk factors (including age 65 or older), or symptoms suggestive of CVD:

• It is recommended to obtain a preoperative 12-lead ECG (class I).
• It is recommended to measure high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTn T) or high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I (hs-cTn I). It is also recommended to measure these biomarkers at 24 hours and 48 hours post surgery (class I).
• It should be considered to measure B-type natriuretic peptide or N-terminal of the prohormone BNP (NT-proBNP).

However, for low-risk patients undergoing low- and intermediate-risk noncardiac surgery, it is not recommended to routinely obtain preoperative ECG, hs-cTn T/I, or BNP/NT-proBNP concentrations (class III).

Troponins have a stronger class I recommendation, compared with the IIA recommendation for BNP, because they are useful for preoperative risk stratification and for diagnosis of PMI, Dr. Halvorsen explained. “Patients receive painkillers after surgery and may have no pain,” she noted, but they may have PMI, which has a bad prognosis.

Second, the guidelines recommend that “all patients should stop smoking 4 weeks before noncardiac surgery [class I],” she noted. Clinicians should also “measure hemoglobin, and if the patient is anemic, treat the anemia.”

Third, the sections on antithrombotic treatment have been significantly revised. “Bridging – stopping an oral antithrombotic drug and switching to a subcutaneous or IV drug – has been common,” Dr. Halvorsen said, “but recently we have new evidence that in most cases that increases the risk of bleeding.”

“We are [now] much more restrictive with respect to bridging” with unfractionated heparin or low-molecular-weight heparin, she said. “We recommend against bridging in patients with low to moderate thrombotic risk,” and bridging should only be considered in patients with mechanical prosthetic heart valves or with very high thrombotic risk.
 

More preoperative recommendations

In the guideline overview session at the congress, Dr. Halverson highlighted some of the new recommendations for preoperative risk assessment.  

If time allows, it is recommended to optimize guideline-recommended treatment of CVD and control of CV risk factors including blood pressure, dyslipidemia, and diabetes, before noncardiac surgery (class I).

Patients commonly have “murmurs, chest pain, dyspnea, and edema that may suggest severe CVD, but may also be caused by noncardiac disease,” she noted. The guidelines state that “for patients with a newly detected murmur and symptoms or signs of CVD, transthoracic echocardiography is recommended before noncardiac surgery (class I).

“Many studies have been performed to try to find out if initiation of specific drugs before surgery could reduce the risk of complications,” Dr. Halvorsen noted. However, few have shown any benefit and “the question of presurgery initiation of beta-blockers has been greatly debated,” she said. “We have again reviewed the literature and concluded ‘Routine initiation of beta-blockers perioperatively is not recommended (class IIIA).’ “

“We adhere to the guidelines on acute and chronic coronary syndrome recommending 6-12 months of dual antiplatelet treatment as a standard before elective surgery,” she said. “However, in case of time-sensitive surgery, the duration of that treatment can be shortened down to a minimum of 1 month after elective PCI and a minimum of 3 months after PCI and ACS.”
 

Patients with specific types of CVD

Dr. Mehilli, a professor at Landshut-Achdorf (Germany) Hospital, highlighted some new guideline recommendations for patients who have specific types of cardiovascular disease.

Coronary artery disease (CAD). “For chronic coronary syndrome, a cardiac workup is recommended only for patients undergoing intermediate risk or high-risk noncardiac surgery.”

“Stress imaging should be considered before any high risk, noncardiac surgery in asymptomatic patients with poor functional capacity and prior PCI or coronary artery bypass graft (new recommendation, class IIa).”

Mitral valve regurgitation. For patients undergoing scheduled noncardiac surgery, who remain symptomatic despite guideline-directed medical treatment for mitral valve regurgitation (including resynchronization and myocardial revascularization), consider a valve intervention – either transcatheter or surgical – before noncardiac surgery in eligible patients with acceptable procedural risk (new recommendation).

Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED). For high-risk patients with CIEDs undergoing noncardiac surgery with high probability of electromagnetic interference, a CIED checkup and necessary reprogramming immediately before the procedure should be considered (new recommendation).

Arrhythmias. “I want only to stress,” Dr. Mehilli said, “in patients with atrial fibrillation with acute or worsening hemodynamic instability undergoing noncardiac surgery, an emergency electrical cardioversion is recommended (class I).”

Peripheral artery disease (PAD) and abdominal aortic aneurysm. For these patients “we do not recommend a routine referral for a cardiac workup. But we recommend it for patients with poor functional capacity or with significant risk factors or symptoms (new recommendations).”

Chronic arterial hypertension. “We have modified the recommendation, recommending avoidance of large perioperative fluctuations in blood pressure, and we do not recommend deferring noncardiac surgery in patients with stage 1 or 2 hypertension,” she said.
 

Postoperative cardiovascular complications

The most frequent postoperative cardiovascular complication is PMI, Dr. Mehilli noted.

“In the BASEL-PMI registry, the incidence of this complication around intermediate or high-risk noncardiac surgery was up to 15% among patients older than 65 years or with a history of CAD or PAD, which makes this kind of complication really important to prevent, to assess, and to know how to treat.”

“It is recommended to have a high awareness for perioperative cardiovascular complications, combined with surveillance for PMI in patients undergoing intermediate- or high-risk noncardiac surgery” based on serial measurements of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin.

The guidelines define PMI as “an increase in the delta of high-sensitivity troponin more than the upper level of normal,” Dr. Mehilli said. “It’s different from the one used in a rule-in algorithm for non-STEMI acute coronary syndrome.”

Postoperative atrial fibrillation (AFib) is observed in 2%-30% of noncardiac surgery patients in different registries, particularly in patients undergoing intermediate or high-risk noncardiac surgery, she noted.

“We propose an algorithm on how to prevent and treat this complication. I want to highlight that in patients with hemodynamic unstable postoperative AF[ib], an emergency cardioversion is indicated. For the others, a rate control with the target heart rate of less than 110 beats per minute is indicated.”

In patients with postoperative AFib, long-term oral anticoagulation therapy should be considered in all patients at risk for stroke, considering the anticipated net clinical benefit of oral anticoagulation therapy as well as informed patient preference (new recommendations).

Routine use of beta-blockers to prevent postoperative AFib in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery is not recommended.

The document also covers the management of patients with kidney disease, diabetes, cancer, obesity, and COVID-19. In general, elective noncardiac surgery should be postponed after a patient has COVID-19, until he or she recovers completely, and coexisting conditions are optimized.

The guidelines are available from the ESC website in several formats: pocket guidelines, pocket guidelines smartphone app, guidelines slide set, essential messages, and the European Heart Journal article.
 

Noncardiac surgery risk categories

The guideline includes a table that classifies noncardiac surgeries into three groups, based on the associated 30-day risk of death, MI, or stroke:

• Low (< 1%): breast, dental, eye, thyroid, and minor gynecologic, orthopedic, and urologic surgery.
• Intermediate (1%-5%): carotid surgery, endovascular aortic aneurysm repair, gallbladder surgery, head or neck surgery, hernia repair, peripheral arterial angioplasty, renal transplant, major gynecologic, orthopedic, or neurologic (hip or spine) surgery, or urologic surgery
• High (> 5%): aortic and major vascular surgery (including aortic aneurysm), bladder removal (usually as a result of cancer), limb amputation, lung or liver transplant, pancreatic surgery, or perforated bowel repair.

The guidelines were endorsed by the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care. The guideline authors reported numerous disclosures.

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

The European Society of Cardiology guidelines on cardiovascular assessment and management of patients undergoing noncardiac surgery have seen extensive revision since the 2014 version.

They still have the same aim – to prevent surgery-related bleeding complications, perioperative myocardial infarction/injury (PMI), stent thrombosis, acute heart failure, arrhythmias, pulmonary embolism, ischemic stroke, and cardiovascular (CV) death.

lyosha_nazarenko/Thinkstock

Cochairpersons Sigrun Halvorsen, MD, PhD, and Julinda Mehilli, MD, presented highlights from the guidelines at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology and the document was simultaneously published online in the European Heart Journal.

The document classifies noncardiac surgery into three levels of 30-day risk of CV death, MI, or stroke. Low (< 1%) risk includes eye or thyroid surgery; intermediate (1%-5%) risk includes knee or hip replacement or renal transplant; and high (> 5%) risk includes aortic aneurysm, lung transplant, or pancreatic or bladder cancer surgery (see more examples below).

It classifies patients as low risk if they are younger than 65 without CV disease or CV risk factors (smoking, hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidemia, family history); intermediate risk if they are 65 or older or have CV risk factors; and high risk if they have CVD.  

In an interview, Dr. Halvorsen, professor in cardiology, University of Oslo, zeroed in on three important revisions:

First, recommendations for preoperative ECG and biomarkers are more specific, he noted.

The guidelines advise that before intermediate- or high-risk noncardiac surgery, in patients who have known CVD, CV risk factors (including age 65 or older), or symptoms suggestive of CVD:

• It is recommended to obtain a preoperative 12-lead ECG (class I).
• It is recommended to measure high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTn T) or high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I (hs-cTn I). It is also recommended to measure these biomarkers at 24 hours and 48 hours post surgery (class I).
• It should be considered to measure B-type natriuretic peptide or N-terminal of the prohormone BNP (NT-proBNP).

However, for low-risk patients undergoing low- and intermediate-risk noncardiac surgery, it is not recommended to routinely obtain preoperative ECG, hs-cTn T/I, or BNP/NT-proBNP concentrations (class III).

Troponins have a stronger class I recommendation, compared with the IIA recommendation for BNP, because they are useful for preoperative risk stratification and for diagnosis of PMI, Dr. Halvorsen explained. “Patients receive painkillers after surgery and may have no pain,” she noted, but they may have PMI, which has a bad prognosis.

Second, the guidelines recommend that “all patients should stop smoking 4 weeks before noncardiac surgery [class I],” she noted. Clinicians should also “measure hemoglobin, and if the patient is anemic, treat the anemia.”

Third, the sections on antithrombotic treatment have been significantly revised. “Bridging – stopping an oral antithrombotic drug and switching to a subcutaneous or IV drug – has been common,” Dr. Halvorsen said, “but recently we have new evidence that in most cases that increases the risk of bleeding.”

“We are [now] much more restrictive with respect to bridging” with unfractionated heparin or low-molecular-weight heparin, she said. “We recommend against bridging in patients with low to moderate thrombotic risk,” and bridging should only be considered in patients with mechanical prosthetic heart valves or with very high thrombotic risk.
 

More preoperative recommendations

In the guideline overview session at the congress, Dr. Halverson highlighted some of the new recommendations for preoperative risk assessment.  

If time allows, it is recommended to optimize guideline-recommended treatment of CVD and control of CV risk factors including blood pressure, dyslipidemia, and diabetes, before noncardiac surgery (class I).

Patients commonly have “murmurs, chest pain, dyspnea, and edema that may suggest severe CVD, but may also be caused by noncardiac disease,” she noted. The guidelines state that “for patients with a newly detected murmur and symptoms or signs of CVD, transthoracic echocardiography is recommended before noncardiac surgery (class I).

“Many studies have been performed to try to find out if initiation of specific drugs before surgery could reduce the risk of complications,” Dr. Halvorsen noted. However, few have shown any benefit and “the question of presurgery initiation of beta-blockers has been greatly debated,” she said. “We have again reviewed the literature and concluded ‘Routine initiation of beta-blockers perioperatively is not recommended (class IIIA).’ “

“We adhere to the guidelines on acute and chronic coronary syndrome recommending 6-12 months of dual antiplatelet treatment as a standard before elective surgery,” she said. “However, in case of time-sensitive surgery, the duration of that treatment can be shortened down to a minimum of 1 month after elective PCI and a minimum of 3 months after PCI and ACS.”
 

Patients with specific types of CVD

Dr. Mehilli, a professor at Landshut-Achdorf (Germany) Hospital, highlighted some new guideline recommendations for patients who have specific types of cardiovascular disease.

Coronary artery disease (CAD). “For chronic coronary syndrome, a cardiac workup is recommended only for patients undergoing intermediate risk or high-risk noncardiac surgery.”

“Stress imaging should be considered before any high risk, noncardiac surgery in asymptomatic patients with poor functional capacity and prior PCI or coronary artery bypass graft (new recommendation, class IIa).”

Mitral valve regurgitation. For patients undergoing scheduled noncardiac surgery, who remain symptomatic despite guideline-directed medical treatment for mitral valve regurgitation (including resynchronization and myocardial revascularization), consider a valve intervention – either transcatheter or surgical – before noncardiac surgery in eligible patients with acceptable procedural risk (new recommendation).

Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED). For high-risk patients with CIEDs undergoing noncardiac surgery with high probability of electromagnetic interference, a CIED checkup and necessary reprogramming immediately before the procedure should be considered (new recommendation).

Arrhythmias. “I want only to stress,” Dr. Mehilli said, “in patients with atrial fibrillation with acute or worsening hemodynamic instability undergoing noncardiac surgery, an emergency electrical cardioversion is recommended (class I).”

Peripheral artery disease (PAD) and abdominal aortic aneurysm. For these patients “we do not recommend a routine referral for a cardiac workup. But we recommend it for patients with poor functional capacity or with significant risk factors or symptoms (new recommendations).”

Chronic arterial hypertension. “We have modified the recommendation, recommending avoidance of large perioperative fluctuations in blood pressure, and we do not recommend deferring noncardiac surgery in patients with stage 1 or 2 hypertension,” she said.
 

Postoperative cardiovascular complications

The most frequent postoperative cardiovascular complication is PMI, Dr. Mehilli noted.

“In the BASEL-PMI registry, the incidence of this complication around intermediate or high-risk noncardiac surgery was up to 15% among patients older than 65 years or with a history of CAD or PAD, which makes this kind of complication really important to prevent, to assess, and to know how to treat.”

“It is recommended to have a high awareness for perioperative cardiovascular complications, combined with surveillance for PMI in patients undergoing intermediate- or high-risk noncardiac surgery” based on serial measurements of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin.

The guidelines define PMI as “an increase in the delta of high-sensitivity troponin more than the upper level of normal,” Dr. Mehilli said. “It’s different from the one used in a rule-in algorithm for non-STEMI acute coronary syndrome.”

Postoperative atrial fibrillation (AFib) is observed in 2%-30% of noncardiac surgery patients in different registries, particularly in patients undergoing intermediate or high-risk noncardiac surgery, she noted.

“We propose an algorithm on how to prevent and treat this complication. I want to highlight that in patients with hemodynamic unstable postoperative AF[ib], an emergency cardioversion is indicated. For the others, a rate control with the target heart rate of less than 110 beats per minute is indicated.”

In patients with postoperative AFib, long-term oral anticoagulation therapy should be considered in all patients at risk for stroke, considering the anticipated net clinical benefit of oral anticoagulation therapy as well as informed patient preference (new recommendations).

Routine use of beta-blockers to prevent postoperative AFib in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery is not recommended.

The document also covers the management of patients with kidney disease, diabetes, cancer, obesity, and COVID-19. In general, elective noncardiac surgery should be postponed after a patient has COVID-19, until he or she recovers completely, and coexisting conditions are optimized.

The guidelines are available from the ESC website in several formats: pocket guidelines, pocket guidelines smartphone app, guidelines slide set, essential messages, and the European Heart Journal article.
 

Noncardiac surgery risk categories

The guideline includes a table that classifies noncardiac surgeries into three groups, based on the associated 30-day risk of death, MI, or stroke:

• Low (< 1%): breast, dental, eye, thyroid, and minor gynecologic, orthopedic, and urologic surgery.
• Intermediate (1%-5%): carotid surgery, endovascular aortic aneurysm repair, gallbladder surgery, head or neck surgery, hernia repair, peripheral arterial angioplasty, renal transplant, major gynecologic, orthopedic, or neurologic (hip or spine) surgery, or urologic surgery
• High (> 5%): aortic and major vascular surgery (including aortic aneurysm), bladder removal (usually as a result of cancer), limb amputation, lung or liver transplant, pancreatic surgery, or perforated bowel repair.

The guidelines were endorsed by the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care. The guideline authors reported numerous disclosures.

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

Standing office blood pressure (BP) readings, alone or in combination with seated BP readings, outperform seated BP readings for the initial diagnosis of hypertension, a new study suggests.

Combining three standing and three seated BP measurements in the same visit may lead to a “quicker diagnosis and save people a trip back to the office,” Wanpen Vongpatanasin, MD, professor of internal medicine and director of the hypertension section, cardiology division, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said in an interview.

The study was presented at the Hypertension Scientific Sessions, sponsored by the American Heart Association.
 

Practice changing?

Clinical guidelines recommend office BP be taken in a seated position for most patients.

However, research has suggested that the sensitivity of seated office BP in diagnosing hypertension is about 50%, with high specificity around 90% during a single visit, Dr. Vongpatanasin explained.

At the follow-up visit, however, the second office BP yielded higher sensitivity to 80% but specificity fell to 55%. Nevertheless, the accuracy of standing BP measurements for diagnosing hypertension has not been investigated.

In a cross-sectional study, Dr. Vongpatanasin and colleagues determined the accuracy of both seated and standing BP for diagnosing hypertension in a single visit in 125 healthy adults who had not had a previous diagnosis of hypertension and were not taking any BP medications. The cohort had a mean age of 49 years, 62% were women, and 24% were Black.

During each office visit, seated BP was measured three times, then standing BP was measured three times using an automated and validated device.

Average seated BP was 123/76 mm Hg and average standing BP was 126/80 mm Hg.

Of the 125 participants, 42 (34%) had hypertension, defined as 24-hour ambulatory systolic/diastolic BP (SBP/DBP) of ≥ 125/75 mm Hg.

The sensitivity and specificity of seated SBP for hypertension was 43% and 92%, respectively.

“Interestingly, with standing SBP, sensitivity was improved to 74% and specificity dropped to 65% – which is okay; you will have to confirm a positive test anyway and when screening for a common disease you’d rather have a high sensitivity rather than low sensitivity to pick it up in this case,” Dr. Vongpatanasin said.

The area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of standing SBP was significantly higher than seated SBP (Bayes factor [BF] = 11.8) when hypertension was defined as 24-hour SBP ≥ 125 mm Hg.

Similarly, when hypertension was defined as 24-hour DBP ≥ 75 mm Hg or daytime DBP ≥ 80 mm Hg, the AUROC of standing DBP was higher than seated DBP (all BF > 3).

The addition of standing to seated BP improved detection of hypertension compared with seated BP alone based on 24-hour SBP/DBP ≥ 125/75 mm Hg or daytime SBP/DBP ≥ 130/80 mm Hg (all BF > 3).

“In our hypertension clinic, we always measure both seated and standing BP in all of our patients,” John Giacona, PA-C, a PhD candidate at UT Southwestern Medical Center and coauthor of the study, told this news organization, 
 

Multiple readings most important

Reached for comment, Johanna Contreras, MD, a cardiologist at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York, noted that diagnosing hypertension is “difficult” and she agrees that multiple readings are important.

“I usually take at least two readings in two different visits before I tell the patient they have high blood pressure,” Dr. Contreras said in an interview.

Dr. Contreras said she takes blood pressure both seated and standing.

“I’m not sure standing versus seated makes a big difference. However, when the patient first comes into the office, it is really important to let them rest and calm down before taking the blood pressure,” she said.

The study had no commercial funding. The authors and Dr. Contreras have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Standing office blood pressure (BP) readings, alone or in combination with seated BP readings, outperform seated BP readings for the initial diagnosis of hypertension, a new study suggests.

Combining three standing and three seated BP measurements in the same visit may lead to a “quicker diagnosis and save people a trip back to the office,” Wanpen Vongpatanasin, MD, professor of internal medicine and director of the hypertension section, cardiology division, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said in an interview.

The study was presented at the Hypertension Scientific Sessions, sponsored by the American Heart Association.
 

Practice changing?

Clinical guidelines recommend office BP be taken in a seated position for most patients.

However, research has suggested that the sensitivity of seated office BP in diagnosing hypertension is about 50%, with high specificity around 90% during a single visit, Dr. Vongpatanasin explained.

At the follow-up visit, however, the second office BP yielded higher sensitivity to 80% but specificity fell to 55%. Nevertheless, the accuracy of standing BP measurements for diagnosing hypertension has not been investigated.

In a cross-sectional study, Dr. Vongpatanasin and colleagues determined the accuracy of both seated and standing BP for diagnosing hypertension in a single visit in 125 healthy adults who had not had a previous diagnosis of hypertension and were not taking any BP medications. The cohort had a mean age of 49 years, 62% were women, and 24% were Black.

During each office visit, seated BP was measured three times, then standing BP was measured three times using an automated and validated device.

Average seated BP was 123/76 mm Hg and average standing BP was 126/80 mm Hg.

Of the 125 participants, 42 (34%) had hypertension, defined as 24-hour ambulatory systolic/diastolic BP (SBP/DBP) of ≥ 125/75 mm Hg.

The sensitivity and specificity of seated SBP for hypertension was 43% and 92%, respectively.

“Interestingly, with standing SBP, sensitivity was improved to 74% and specificity dropped to 65% – which is okay; you will have to confirm a positive test anyway and when screening for a common disease you’d rather have a high sensitivity rather than low sensitivity to pick it up in this case,” Dr. Vongpatanasin said.

The area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of standing SBP was significantly higher than seated SBP (Bayes factor [BF] = 11.8) when hypertension was defined as 24-hour SBP ≥ 125 mm Hg.

Similarly, when hypertension was defined as 24-hour DBP ≥ 75 mm Hg or daytime DBP ≥ 80 mm Hg, the AUROC of standing DBP was higher than seated DBP (all BF > 3).

The addition of standing to seated BP improved detection of hypertension compared with seated BP alone based on 24-hour SBP/DBP ≥ 125/75 mm Hg or daytime SBP/DBP ≥ 130/80 mm Hg (all BF > 3).

“In our hypertension clinic, we always measure both seated and standing BP in all of our patients,” John Giacona, PA-C, a PhD candidate at UT Southwestern Medical Center and coauthor of the study, told this news organization, 
 

Multiple readings most important

Reached for comment, Johanna Contreras, MD, a cardiologist at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York, noted that diagnosing hypertension is “difficult” and she agrees that multiple readings are important.

“I usually take at least two readings in two different visits before I tell the patient they have high blood pressure,” Dr. Contreras said in an interview.

Dr. Contreras said she takes blood pressure both seated and standing.

“I’m not sure standing versus seated makes a big difference. However, when the patient first comes into the office, it is really important to let them rest and calm down before taking the blood pressure,” she said.

The study had no commercial funding. The authors and Dr. Contreras have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Standing office blood pressure (BP) readings, alone or in combination with seated BP readings, outperform seated BP readings for the initial diagnosis of hypertension, a new study suggests.

Combining three standing and three seated BP measurements in the same visit may lead to a “quicker diagnosis and save people a trip back to the office,” Wanpen Vongpatanasin, MD, professor of internal medicine and director of the hypertension section, cardiology division, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said in an interview.

The study was presented at the Hypertension Scientific Sessions, sponsored by the American Heart Association.
 

Practice changing?

Clinical guidelines recommend office BP be taken in a seated position for most patients.

However, research has suggested that the sensitivity of seated office BP in diagnosing hypertension is about 50%, with high specificity around 90% during a single visit, Dr. Vongpatanasin explained.

At the follow-up visit, however, the second office BP yielded higher sensitivity to 80% but specificity fell to 55%. Nevertheless, the accuracy of standing BP measurements for diagnosing hypertension has not been investigated.

In a cross-sectional study, Dr. Vongpatanasin and colleagues determined the accuracy of both seated and standing BP for diagnosing hypertension in a single visit in 125 healthy adults who had not had a previous diagnosis of hypertension and were not taking any BP medications. The cohort had a mean age of 49 years, 62% were women, and 24% were Black.

During each office visit, seated BP was measured three times, then standing BP was measured three times using an automated and validated device.

Average seated BP was 123/76 mm Hg and average standing BP was 126/80 mm Hg.

Of the 125 participants, 42 (34%) had hypertension, defined as 24-hour ambulatory systolic/diastolic BP (SBP/DBP) of ≥ 125/75 mm Hg.

The sensitivity and specificity of seated SBP for hypertension was 43% and 92%, respectively.

“Interestingly, with standing SBP, sensitivity was improved to 74% and specificity dropped to 65% – which is okay; you will have to confirm a positive test anyway and when screening for a common disease you’d rather have a high sensitivity rather than low sensitivity to pick it up in this case,” Dr. Vongpatanasin said.

The area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of standing SBP was significantly higher than seated SBP (Bayes factor [BF] = 11.8) when hypertension was defined as 24-hour SBP ≥ 125 mm Hg.

Similarly, when hypertension was defined as 24-hour DBP ≥ 75 mm Hg or daytime DBP ≥ 80 mm Hg, the AUROC of standing DBP was higher than seated DBP (all BF > 3).

The addition of standing to seated BP improved detection of hypertension compared with seated BP alone based on 24-hour SBP/DBP ≥ 125/75 mm Hg or daytime SBP/DBP ≥ 130/80 mm Hg (all BF > 3).

“In our hypertension clinic, we always measure both seated and standing BP in all of our patients,” John Giacona, PA-C, a PhD candidate at UT Southwestern Medical Center and coauthor of the study, told this news organization, 
 

Multiple readings most important

Reached for comment, Johanna Contreras, MD, a cardiologist at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York, noted that diagnosing hypertension is “difficult” and she agrees that multiple readings are important.

“I usually take at least two readings in two different visits before I tell the patient they have high blood pressure,” Dr. Contreras said in an interview.

Dr. Contreras said she takes blood pressure both seated and standing.

“I’m not sure standing versus seated makes a big difference. However, when the patient first comes into the office, it is really important to let them rest and calm down before taking the blood pressure,” she said.

The study had no commercial funding. The authors and Dr. Contreras have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients who undergo lung cancer surgery and who receive long-term opioids for pain relief have an elevated risk of all-cause mortality at 2 years, a new study suggests. That risk was 40% higher than among patients who did not receive opioids.

“This is the first study to identify the association of new long-term opioid use with poorer long-term survival outcomes after lung cancer surgery using real-world data based on a national registration database,” said the authors, led by In-Ae Song, MD, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, South Korea.

“New long-term opioid use may be associated with poor long-term survival outcomes, especially in potent opioid users,” they concluded.

Long-term opioid use might promote protumor activity secondary to immunosuppression along with migration of tumor cells and angiogenesis, the authors suggested.

The study was published online in Regional Anesthesia and Pain.

The finding comes from a study that used the South Korean National Health Insurance database as a nationwide registration data source. “All patients undergoing lung cancer surgery between 2011 and 2018 were included,” the authors noted.

In total, 54,509 patients were included in the final analysis. Six months after undergoing the procedure, 3,325 patients (6.1%) had been prescribed opioids continuously and regularly. These patients constituted the new long-term opioid user group.

This finding fits in with those from past studies that have suggested that new long-term postoperative pain is reported in 4%-12% of patients who undergo lung cancer surgeries, the authors commented.

The new study found that all-cause mortality at 2 years was significantly higher in the new long-term opioid user group than it was in the non–opioid user group (17.3% vs. 9.3%; P < .001).

Moreover, the new long-term opioid user group were at 43% higher risk of 2-year lung cancer mortality and 29% higher risk of 2-year non–lung cancer mortality.

The investigators divided the patients who had received long-term opioids into two subgroups – those who received more potent opioids (1.6%), and those who received less potent opioids (4.5%).

There was a big difference in the results for all-cause mortality.

Compared with nonopioid users, long-term use of less potent opioids was associated with a 2-year mortality risk of only 22% (P < .001), whereas the patients who used potent opioids were at a 92% increased risk of all-cause mortality.

A number of risk factors were associated with an increased rate of new long-term opioid use. These included older age, being male, length of stay in hospital, and comorbidities.

In addition, patients who were more likely to receive long-term opioids included those who had received neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy and those who had experienced preoperative anxiety disorder or insomnia disorder.

In contrast, patients who underwent video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery were less likely to receive long-term opioids, the authors noted.

The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients who undergo lung cancer surgery and who receive long-term opioids for pain relief have an elevated risk of all-cause mortality at 2 years, a new study suggests. That risk was 40% higher than among patients who did not receive opioids.

“This is the first study to identify the association of new long-term opioid use with poorer long-term survival outcomes after lung cancer surgery using real-world data based on a national registration database,” said the authors, led by In-Ae Song, MD, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, South Korea.

“New long-term opioid use may be associated with poor long-term survival outcomes, especially in potent opioid users,” they concluded.

Long-term opioid use might promote protumor activity secondary to immunosuppression along with migration of tumor cells and angiogenesis, the authors suggested.

The study was published online in Regional Anesthesia and Pain.

The finding comes from a study that used the South Korean National Health Insurance database as a nationwide registration data source. “All patients undergoing lung cancer surgery between 2011 and 2018 were included,” the authors noted.

In total, 54,509 patients were included in the final analysis. Six months after undergoing the procedure, 3,325 patients (6.1%) had been prescribed opioids continuously and regularly. These patients constituted the new long-term opioid user group.

This finding fits in with those from past studies that have suggested that new long-term postoperative pain is reported in 4%-12% of patients who undergo lung cancer surgeries, the authors commented.

The new study found that all-cause mortality at 2 years was significantly higher in the new long-term opioid user group than it was in the non–opioid user group (17.3% vs. 9.3%; P < .001).

Moreover, the new long-term opioid user group were at 43% higher risk of 2-year lung cancer mortality and 29% higher risk of 2-year non–lung cancer mortality.

The investigators divided the patients who had received long-term opioids into two subgroups – those who received more potent opioids (1.6%), and those who received less potent opioids (4.5%).

There was a big difference in the results for all-cause mortality.

Compared with nonopioid users, long-term use of less potent opioids was associated with a 2-year mortality risk of only 22% (P < .001), whereas the patients who used potent opioids were at a 92% increased risk of all-cause mortality.

A number of risk factors were associated with an increased rate of new long-term opioid use. These included older age, being male, length of stay in hospital, and comorbidities.

In addition, patients who were more likely to receive long-term opioids included those who had received neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy and those who had experienced preoperative anxiety disorder or insomnia disorder.

In contrast, patients who underwent video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery were less likely to receive long-term opioids, the authors noted.

The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients who undergo lung cancer surgery and who receive long-term opioids for pain relief have an elevated risk of all-cause mortality at 2 years, a new study suggests. That risk was 40% higher than among patients who did not receive opioids.

“This is the first study to identify the association of new long-term opioid use with poorer long-term survival outcomes after lung cancer surgery using real-world data based on a national registration database,” said the authors, led by In-Ae Song, MD, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, South Korea.

“New long-term opioid use may be associated with poor long-term survival outcomes, especially in potent opioid users,” they concluded.

Long-term opioid use might promote protumor activity secondary to immunosuppression along with migration of tumor cells and angiogenesis, the authors suggested.

The study was published online in Regional Anesthesia and Pain.

The finding comes from a study that used the South Korean National Health Insurance database as a nationwide registration data source. “All patients undergoing lung cancer surgery between 2011 and 2018 were included,” the authors noted.

In total, 54,509 patients were included in the final analysis. Six months after undergoing the procedure, 3,325 patients (6.1%) had been prescribed opioids continuously and regularly. These patients constituted the new long-term opioid user group.

This finding fits in with those from past studies that have suggested that new long-term postoperative pain is reported in 4%-12% of patients who undergo lung cancer surgeries, the authors commented.

The new study found that all-cause mortality at 2 years was significantly higher in the new long-term opioid user group than it was in the non–opioid user group (17.3% vs. 9.3%; P < .001).

Moreover, the new long-term opioid user group were at 43% higher risk of 2-year lung cancer mortality and 29% higher risk of 2-year non–lung cancer mortality.

The investigators divided the patients who had received long-term opioids into two subgroups – those who received more potent opioids (1.6%), and those who received less potent opioids (4.5%).

There was a big difference in the results for all-cause mortality.

Compared with nonopioid users, long-term use of less potent opioids was associated with a 2-year mortality risk of only 22% (P < .001), whereas the patients who used potent opioids were at a 92% increased risk of all-cause mortality.

A number of risk factors were associated with an increased rate of new long-term opioid use. These included older age, being male, length of stay in hospital, and comorbidities.

In addition, patients who were more likely to receive long-term opioids included those who had received neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy and those who had experienced preoperative anxiety disorder or insomnia disorder.

In contrast, patients who underwent video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery were less likely to receive long-term opioids, the authors noted.

The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with a rheumatic immune-mediated inflammatory disease (IMID) had worse outcomes, especially for mortality, after a myocardial infarction than those without an IMID, in a large propensity-matched analysis.

At a median of 2 years after their MI, Medicare beneficiaries with an IMID had adjusted risks that were:

• 15% higher for all-cause death (hazard ratio, 1.15);
• 12% higher for heart failure (HR, 1.12);
• 8% higher for recurrent MI (HR, 1.08); and
• 6% higher risk for coronary reintervention (HR, 1.06; P < .05 for all).

In addition, interventions known to improve outcomes in this context, such as coronary revascularization, were less common in patients with IMID.

“This could be because they usually are sicker and have more risk factors when they present, like kidney disease, so maybe they’re not eligible for the therapy. But by itself, it was surprising they’re not offered these interventions as common[ly] as people who don’t have the disease,” Amgad Mentias, MD, a clinical cardiologist at the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview.

The study was published Sept. 14 in the Journal of the American Heart Association, with Dr. Mentias as senior author and Heba Wassif, MD, MPH, also with Cleveland Clinic, as first author.

IMIDs, such as rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, lupus, and inflammatory bowel disease, are known to be associated with significantly higher cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk due to a greater prevalence of traditional CVD risk factors and chronic systemic inflammation.

Certain disease-modifying agents may also increase patients’ cardiovascular risk. This has been a long-simmering issue for the arthritis and ulcerative colitis drug tofacitinib (Xeljanz, Xeljanz XR), resulting in an updated boxed warning in 2021.

Many of these patients also have joint disease, pain, and fatigue, which can limit physical activity, Dr. Mentias said. “So these small nuances of how to manage these patients, or balance between controlling the inflammation but also improv[ing] cardiac risk factors, is not an easy task.”

Evidence regarding post-MI events has been inconsistent and limited to smaller single-center studies, he said. After propensity-score matching, the present study included 59,820 patients with and 178,547 patients without rheumatic IMIDs followed for a maximum of 6 years.

They were drawn from a cohort of 1.6 million persons aged 65 or older in the Medicare Provider Analysis and Review (MedPAR) file who had been admitted for an MI between 2014 and 2019. Of these, 60,072 had a prior history of rheumatic IMIDs, most commonly rheumatoid arthritis (77.8%), followed by systemic lupus erythematosus (12.2%), psoriasis (5.1%), systemic sclerosis (2.8%), and myositis/dermatomyositis (1.8%).

Patients with an IMID were more often women; had a higher prevalence of valve disease, pulmonary hypertension, hypothyroidism, and anemia; and were more likely to present with non–ST-segment MI (NSTEMI).

Rates of coronary angiography (46.1% vs. 51.5%), percutaneous coronary intervention (31.6% vs. 33.6%), and coronary artery bypass grafting (7.7% vs. 10.7%) were significantly lower in patients with IMIDs who had NSTEMI, compared with patients without an IMID who had NSTEMI. Rates of these interventions were also lower in patients with IMIDs who presented with STEMI versus their peers without an IMID, at 78.2% vs. 80.7%, 70.2% vs. 71.5%, and 4.9% vs. 6.4%, respectively.

Dr. Mentias pointed out that the emerging subspecialty of cardiorheumatology is gaining traction, especially at large hospitals and academic centers, but that less than one-third of persons in the United States with an IMID are likely to be under the care of such specialists.

“It’s important before developing an MI to try and control the different risk factors and improve the risk profile for these patients as much as possible by both specialties, and then, after an unfortunate event like MI happens, it’s important to make sure we offer therapies and treatments that are known to improve outcomes,” he said.

Commenting for this article, Jon Tyler Giles, MD, a clinical researcher who focuses on cardiovascular diseases in rheumatology at Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, said that “at least for rheumatoid arthritis, this is something that we already knew. People with rheumatic arthritis, when they have a heart attack, are less likely to get the standard kind of treatments and have worse outcomes. This is a little larger sample, but it’s not a surprise, not a surprise at all.”

He noted that the study could have answered questions regarding potential drivers, but “they didn’t dig down into any of the factors that were associated with the poorer outcomes in the patients with rheumatoid arthritis and lupus and scleroderma.”

Indeed, the investigators acknowledge that the study lacked information on coronary anatomy, duration and severity of the autoimmune disease, imaging data, and medications such as anti-inflammatory or immune-targeted therapies.

Dr. Giles highlighted several factors that can contribute to a poorer post-MI prognosis in patients with rheumatic diseases; these include frailty, being more hypercoaguable, increased rates of myocardial dysfunction and other heart and blood vessel diseases, and chronic treatment with steroids and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs that often interferes with anticoagulation after a MI or when putting in a stent. “So, there’s lot of moving parts, and not one single thing that is likely the answer.”

In addition, he said, “there’s always going to be a portion of these patients who, despite doing the best that we can with treatment, are going to have very severe disease. That may or may not be the subset of patients that did the worst, but likely they’re overrepresented in those patients.”

Finally, the inability to move the needle may lie with the lack of evidence-based screening and management guidelines for cardiovascular disease in any rheumatic disease, Dr. Giles observed. “There’s no guideline for us to use to decide who needs screening over and above what’s recommended for the general population, and then, even if you do screen, what do you do other than what you would normally?”

Rheumatologists are often reluctant to take up the cardiovascular screening side of things because visits are short, and a lot of that time is spent trying to manage the inflammatory components of a patient’s disease, he said. There’s also a barrier in getting some patients to add a cardiologist to the mix of physicians they already see, especially if they don’t have any symptoms.

“If someone has had an event, it’s a lot easier for people to be convinced to go see the cardiologist, obviously, but prior to having an event, the preventative side of things is something that often gets missed or goes to the wayside,” Dr. Giles said.

The study was partly funded by philanthropic gifts by the Haslam family, Bailey family, and Khouri family to the Cleveland Clinic for coauthor Dr. Milind Desai’s research. Dr. Desai is a consultant for Medtronic and Bristol Myers Squibb and serves on an executive steering committee of a BMS-sponsored trial. The remaining authors report having no relevant disclosures. Dr. Giles is a consultant on drug cardiovascular safety for Pfizer, AbbVie, and Eli Lilly.

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

Patients with a rheumatic immune-mediated inflammatory disease (IMID) had worse outcomes, especially for mortality, after a myocardial infarction than those without an IMID, in a large propensity-matched analysis.

At a median of 2 years after their MI, Medicare beneficiaries with an IMID had adjusted risks that were:

• 15% higher for all-cause death (hazard ratio, 1.15);
• 12% higher for heart failure (HR, 1.12);
• 8% higher for recurrent MI (HR, 1.08); and
• 6% higher risk for coronary reintervention (HR, 1.06; P < .05 for all).

In addition, interventions known to improve outcomes in this context, such as coronary revascularization, were less common in patients with IMID.

“This could be because they usually are sicker and have more risk factors when they present, like kidney disease, so maybe they’re not eligible for the therapy. But by itself, it was surprising they’re not offered these interventions as common[ly] as people who don’t have the disease,” Amgad Mentias, MD, a clinical cardiologist at the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview.

The study was published Sept. 14 in the Journal of the American Heart Association, with Dr. Mentias as senior author and Heba Wassif, MD, MPH, also with Cleveland Clinic, as first author.

IMIDs, such as rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, lupus, and inflammatory bowel disease, are known to be associated with significantly higher cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk due to a greater prevalence of traditional CVD risk factors and chronic systemic inflammation.

Certain disease-modifying agents may also increase patients’ cardiovascular risk. This has been a long-simmering issue for the arthritis and ulcerative colitis drug tofacitinib (Xeljanz, Xeljanz XR), resulting in an updated boxed warning in 2021.

Many of these patients also have joint disease, pain, and fatigue, which can limit physical activity, Dr. Mentias said. “So these small nuances of how to manage these patients, or balance between controlling the inflammation but also improv[ing] cardiac risk factors, is not an easy task.”

Evidence regarding post-MI events has been inconsistent and limited to smaller single-center studies, he said. After propensity-score matching, the present study included 59,820 patients with and 178,547 patients without rheumatic IMIDs followed for a maximum of 6 years.

They were drawn from a cohort of 1.6 million persons aged 65 or older in the Medicare Provider Analysis and Review (MedPAR) file who had been admitted for an MI between 2014 and 2019. Of these, 60,072 had a prior history of rheumatic IMIDs, most commonly rheumatoid arthritis (77.8%), followed by systemic lupus erythematosus (12.2%), psoriasis (5.1%), systemic sclerosis (2.8%), and myositis/dermatomyositis (1.8%).

Patients with an IMID were more often women; had a higher prevalence of valve disease, pulmonary hypertension, hypothyroidism, and anemia; and were more likely to present with non–ST-segment MI (NSTEMI).

Rates of coronary angiography (46.1% vs. 51.5%), percutaneous coronary intervention (31.6% vs. 33.6%), and coronary artery bypass grafting (7.7% vs. 10.7%) were significantly lower in patients with IMIDs who had NSTEMI, compared with patients without an IMID who had NSTEMI. Rates of these interventions were also lower in patients with IMIDs who presented with STEMI versus their peers without an IMID, at 78.2% vs. 80.7%, 70.2% vs. 71.5%, and 4.9% vs. 6.4%, respectively.

Dr. Mentias pointed out that the emerging subspecialty of cardiorheumatology is gaining traction, especially at large hospitals and academic centers, but that less than one-third of persons in the United States with an IMID are likely to be under the care of such specialists.

“It’s important before developing an MI to try and control the different risk factors and improve the risk profile for these patients as much as possible by both specialties, and then, after an unfortunate event like MI happens, it’s important to make sure we offer therapies and treatments that are known to improve outcomes,” he said.

Commenting for this article, Jon Tyler Giles, MD, a clinical researcher who focuses on cardiovascular diseases in rheumatology at Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, said that “at least for rheumatoid arthritis, this is something that we already knew. People with rheumatic arthritis, when they have a heart attack, are less likely to get the standard kind of treatments and have worse outcomes. This is a little larger sample, but it’s not a surprise, not a surprise at all.”

He noted that the study could have answered questions regarding potential drivers, but “they didn’t dig down into any of the factors that were associated with the poorer outcomes in the patients with rheumatoid arthritis and lupus and scleroderma.”

Indeed, the investigators acknowledge that the study lacked information on coronary anatomy, duration and severity of the autoimmune disease, imaging data, and medications such as anti-inflammatory or immune-targeted therapies.

Dr. Giles highlighted several factors that can contribute to a poorer post-MI prognosis in patients with rheumatic diseases; these include frailty, being more hypercoaguable, increased rates of myocardial dysfunction and other heart and blood vessel diseases, and chronic treatment with steroids and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs that often interferes with anticoagulation after a MI or when putting in a stent. “So, there’s lot of moving parts, and not one single thing that is likely the answer.”

In addition, he said, “there’s always going to be a portion of these patients who, despite doing the best that we can with treatment, are going to have very severe disease. That may or may not be the subset of patients that did the worst, but likely they’re overrepresented in those patients.”

Finally, the inability to move the needle may lie with the lack of evidence-based screening and management guidelines for cardiovascular disease in any rheumatic disease, Dr. Giles observed. “There’s no guideline for us to use to decide who needs screening over and above what’s recommended for the general population, and then, even if you do screen, what do you do other than what you would normally?”

Rheumatologists are often reluctant to take up the cardiovascular screening side of things because visits are short, and a lot of that time is spent trying to manage the inflammatory components of a patient’s disease, he said. There’s also a barrier in getting some patients to add a cardiologist to the mix of physicians they already see, especially if they don’t have any symptoms.

“If someone has had an event, it’s a lot easier for people to be convinced to go see the cardiologist, obviously, but prior to having an event, the preventative side of things is something that often gets missed or goes to the wayside,” Dr. Giles said.

The study was partly funded by philanthropic gifts by the Haslam family, Bailey family, and Khouri family to the Cleveland Clinic for coauthor Dr. Milind Desai’s research. Dr. Desai is a consultant for Medtronic and Bristol Myers Squibb and serves on an executive steering committee of a BMS-sponsored trial. The remaining authors report having no relevant disclosures. Dr. Giles is a consultant on drug cardiovascular safety for Pfizer, AbbVie, and Eli Lilly.

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

Patients with a rheumatic immune-mediated inflammatory disease (IMID) had worse outcomes, especially for mortality, after a myocardial infarction than those without an IMID, in a large propensity-matched analysis.

At a median of 2 years after their MI, Medicare beneficiaries with an IMID had adjusted risks that were:

• 15% higher for all-cause death (hazard ratio, 1.15);
• 12% higher for heart failure (HR, 1.12);
• 8% higher for recurrent MI (HR, 1.08); and
• 6% higher risk for coronary reintervention (HR, 1.06; P < .05 for all).

In addition, interventions known to improve outcomes in this context, such as coronary revascularization, were less common in patients with IMID.

“This could be because they usually are sicker and have more risk factors when they present, like kidney disease, so maybe they’re not eligible for the therapy. But by itself, it was surprising they’re not offered these interventions as common[ly] as people who don’t have the disease,” Amgad Mentias, MD, a clinical cardiologist at the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview.

The study was published Sept. 14 in the Journal of the American Heart Association, with Dr. Mentias as senior author and Heba Wassif, MD, MPH, also with Cleveland Clinic, as first author.

IMIDs, such as rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, lupus, and inflammatory bowel disease, are known to be associated with significantly higher cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk due to a greater prevalence of traditional CVD risk factors and chronic systemic inflammation.

Certain disease-modifying agents may also increase patients’ cardiovascular risk. This has been a long-simmering issue for the arthritis and ulcerative colitis drug tofacitinib (Xeljanz, Xeljanz XR), resulting in an updated boxed warning in 2021.

Many of these patients also have joint disease, pain, and fatigue, which can limit physical activity, Dr. Mentias said. “So these small nuances of how to manage these patients, or balance between controlling the inflammation but also improv[ing] cardiac risk factors, is not an easy task.”

Evidence regarding post-MI events has been inconsistent and limited to smaller single-center studies, he said. After propensity-score matching, the present study included 59,820 patients with and 178,547 patients without rheumatic IMIDs followed for a maximum of 6 years.

They were drawn from a cohort of 1.6 million persons aged 65 or older in the Medicare Provider Analysis and Review (MedPAR) file who had been admitted for an MI between 2014 and 2019. Of these, 60,072 had a prior history of rheumatic IMIDs, most commonly rheumatoid arthritis (77.8%), followed by systemic lupus erythematosus (12.2%), psoriasis (5.1%), systemic sclerosis (2.8%), and myositis/dermatomyositis (1.8%).

Patients with an IMID were more often women; had a higher prevalence of valve disease, pulmonary hypertension, hypothyroidism, and anemia; and were more likely to present with non–ST-segment MI (NSTEMI).

Rates of coronary angiography (46.1% vs. 51.5%), percutaneous coronary intervention (31.6% vs. 33.6%), and coronary artery bypass grafting (7.7% vs. 10.7%) were significantly lower in patients with IMIDs who had NSTEMI, compared with patients without an IMID who had NSTEMI. Rates of these interventions were also lower in patients with IMIDs who presented with STEMI versus their peers without an IMID, at 78.2% vs. 80.7%, 70.2% vs. 71.5%, and 4.9% vs. 6.4%, respectively.

Dr. Mentias pointed out that the emerging subspecialty of cardiorheumatology is gaining traction, especially at large hospitals and academic centers, but that less than one-third of persons in the United States with an IMID are likely to be under the care of such specialists.

“It’s important before developing an MI to try and control the different risk factors and improve the risk profile for these patients as much as possible by both specialties, and then, after an unfortunate event like MI happens, it’s important to make sure we offer therapies and treatments that are known to improve outcomes,” he said.

Commenting for this article, Jon Tyler Giles, MD, a clinical researcher who focuses on cardiovascular diseases in rheumatology at Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, said that “at least for rheumatoid arthritis, this is something that we already knew. People with rheumatic arthritis, when they have a heart attack, are less likely to get the standard kind of treatments and have worse outcomes. This is a little larger sample, but it’s not a surprise, not a surprise at all.”

He noted that the study could have answered questions regarding potential drivers, but “they didn’t dig down into any of the factors that were associated with the poorer outcomes in the patients with rheumatoid arthritis and lupus and scleroderma.”

Indeed, the investigators acknowledge that the study lacked information on coronary anatomy, duration and severity of the autoimmune disease, imaging data, and medications such as anti-inflammatory or immune-targeted therapies.

Dr. Giles highlighted several factors that can contribute to a poorer post-MI prognosis in patients with rheumatic diseases; these include frailty, being more hypercoaguable, increased rates of myocardial dysfunction and other heart and blood vessel diseases, and chronic treatment with steroids and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs that often interferes with anticoagulation after a MI or when putting in a stent. “So, there’s lot of moving parts, and not one single thing that is likely the answer.”

In addition, he said, “there’s always going to be a portion of these patients who, despite doing the best that we can with treatment, are going to have very severe disease. That may or may not be the subset of patients that did the worst, but likely they’re overrepresented in those patients.”

Finally, the inability to move the needle may lie with the lack of evidence-based screening and management guidelines for cardiovascular disease in any rheumatic disease, Dr. Giles observed. “There’s no guideline for us to use to decide who needs screening over and above what’s recommended for the general population, and then, even if you do screen, what do you do other than what you would normally?”

Rheumatologists are often reluctant to take up the cardiovascular screening side of things because visits are short, and a lot of that time is spent trying to manage the inflammatory components of a patient’s disease, he said. There’s also a barrier in getting some patients to add a cardiologist to the mix of physicians they already see, especially if they don’t have any symptoms.

“If someone has had an event, it’s a lot easier for people to be convinced to go see the cardiologist, obviously, but prior to having an event, the preventative side of things is something that often gets missed or goes to the wayside,” Dr. Giles said.

The study was partly funded by philanthropic gifts by the Haslam family, Bailey family, and Khouri family to the Cleveland Clinic for coauthor Dr. Milind Desai’s research. Dr. Desai is a consultant for Medtronic and Bristol Myers Squibb and serves on an executive steering committee of a BMS-sponsored trial. The remaining authors report having no relevant disclosures. Dr. Giles is a consultant on drug cardiovascular safety for Pfizer, AbbVie, and Eli Lilly.

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

MILAN – The day after deucravacitinib became the first TYK2 inhibitor approved for the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis, long-term data were presented at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, suggesting that a high degree of benefit persists for at least 2 years, making this oral drug a potential competitor for biologics.

As a once-daily drug, deucravacitinib has “the potential to be a treatment of choice and a new standard of care for patients who require systemic therapy for their moderate to severe plaque psoriasis,” said Mark G. Lebwohl, MD, professor of dermatology and dean of clinical therapeutics, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Just 2 months after the 52-week data from the phase 3 POETYK PSO-1 trial were published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, a long-term extension study found essentially no loss of benefit at 112 weeks, according to Dr. Lebwohl.

One of the two co-primary endpoints was a 75% clearance on the Psoriasis and Severity Index (PASI75) score. At 52 weeks, 80.2% of patients on deucravacitinib had met this criterion of benefit. At 112 weeks, the proportion was 84.4%.

The other primary endpoint was a static Physician’s Global Assessment (sPGA) score of clear or almost clear skin. The proportion of patients meeting this criterion at weeks 52 and 112 weeks were 65.6% and 67.6%, respectively.

When assessed by Treatment Failure Rule (TFR) or modified nonresponder imputation (mNRI), results were similar. For both, the primary endpoints at every time interval were just one or two percentage points lower but not clinically meaningfully different, according to Dr. Lebwohl.

The same type of sustained response out to 112 weeks was observed in multiple analyses. When the researchers isolated the subgroup of patients who had achieved a PASI 75 response at 16 weeks (100%), there was a modest decline in the PASI 75 rate at week 52 (90.2%) but then no additional decline at week 112 (91.3%).

There were essentially no changes in the PASI 90 rates at week 16 (63%), week 52 (65.3%), and week 112 (63.1%), Dr. Lebwohl reported. PASI 100 rates, once achieved, were sustained long term.

The target, TYK2, is one of four Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors. Until now, almost all JAK inhibitors have had greater relative specificity for JAK 1, JAK 2, and JAK 3, but several inhibitors of TYK2 inhibitors other than deucravacitinib are in development for inflammatory diseases. Deucravacitinib (Sotyktu), approved by the Food and Drug Administration on Sept. 9, is the only TYK2 inhibitor with regulatory approval for plaque psoriasis.

In the POETYK PSO-1 trial, 666 patients were initially randomized in a 2:1:1 ratio to 6 mg deucravacitinib (now the approved dose), placebo, or the oral phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor apremilast. At week 16, patients on placebo were switched over to deucravacitinib. At week 24, patients who did not achieve a PASI 50 on apremilast (which had been titrated to 10 mg daily to 30 mg twice a day over the first 5 days of dosing) were switched to deucravacitinib.

In the previously reported data, deucravacitinib was superior for all efficacy endpoints at week 16, including an analysis of quality of life when compared with placebo (P < .0001) or apremilast (P = .0088). At week 52, after having been switched to deucravacitinib at week 16, patients on placebo achieved comparable responses on the efficacy measures in this study, including PASI75.

Relative to JAK inhibitors commonly used in rheumatoid arthritis and other inflammatory diseases, the greater specificity of deucravacitinib for TYK2 appears to have meaningful safety advantages, according to Dr. Lebwohl. Targeted mostly on the TYK2 regulatory domain, deucravacitinib largely avoids inhibition of the JAK 1, 2, and 3 subtypes. Dr. Lebwohl said this explains why deucravacitinib labeling does not share the boxed warnings about off-target effects, such as those on the cardiovascular system, that can be found in the labeling of other JAK inhibitors.

In the published 52-week data, the discontinuation rate for adverse events was lower in the group randomized to deucravacitinib arm than in the placebo arm. In the extended follow-up, there were no new signals for adverse events, including those involving the CV system or immune function.

The key message so far from the long-term follow-up, which is ongoing, is that “continuous treatment with deucravacitinib is associated with durable efficacy,” Dr. Lebwohl said. It is this combination of sustained efficacy and safety that led Dr. Lebwohl to suggest it as a reasonable oral competitor to injectable biologics.

“Patients now have a choice,” he said.

Jashin J. Wu, MD, a board member of the National Psoriasis Foundation and an associate professor in the department of dermatology, University of Miami, has been following the development of deucravacitinib. He said that the recent FDA approval validates the clinical evidence of benefit and safety, while the long-term data presented at the EADV congress support its role in expanding treatment options.

“Deucravacitinib is a very effective oral agent for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis with strong maintenance of effect through week 112,” he said. Differentiating it from other JAK inhibitors, the FDA approval “confirms the safety of this agent as there is no boxed warning,” he added.

Dr. Lebwohl reports financial relationships with more than 30 pharmaceutical companies, including Bristol-Myers Squibb, the manufacturer of deucravacitinib. Dr. Wu has financial relationships with 14 pharmaceutical companies, including Bristol-Myers Squibb, but he was not an investigator for the phase 3 trials of deucravacitinib.

MILAN – The day after deucravacitinib became the first TYK2 inhibitor approved for the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis, long-term data were presented at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, suggesting that a high degree of benefit persists for at least 2 years, making this oral drug a potential competitor for biologics.

As a once-daily drug, deucravacitinib has “the potential to be a treatment of choice and a new standard of care for patients who require systemic therapy for their moderate to severe plaque psoriasis,” said Mark G. Lebwohl, MD, professor of dermatology and dean of clinical therapeutics, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Just 2 months after the 52-week data from the phase 3 POETYK PSO-1 trial were published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, a long-term extension study found essentially no loss of benefit at 112 weeks, according to Dr. Lebwohl.

One of the two co-primary endpoints was a 75% clearance on the Psoriasis and Severity Index (PASI75) score. At 52 weeks, 80.2% of patients on deucravacitinib had met this criterion of benefit. At 112 weeks, the proportion was 84.4%.

The other primary endpoint was a static Physician’s Global Assessment (sPGA) score of clear or almost clear skin. The proportion of patients meeting this criterion at weeks 52 and 112 weeks were 65.6% and 67.6%, respectively.

When assessed by Treatment Failure Rule (TFR) or modified nonresponder imputation (mNRI), results were similar. For both, the primary endpoints at every time interval were just one or two percentage points lower but not clinically meaningfully different, according to Dr. Lebwohl.

The same type of sustained response out to 112 weeks was observed in multiple analyses. When the researchers isolated the subgroup of patients who had achieved a PASI 75 response at 16 weeks (100%), there was a modest decline in the PASI 75 rate at week 52 (90.2%) but then no additional decline at week 112 (91.3%).

There were essentially no changes in the PASI 90 rates at week 16 (63%), week 52 (65.3%), and week 112 (63.1%), Dr. Lebwohl reported. PASI 100 rates, once achieved, were sustained long term.

The target, TYK2, is one of four Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors. Until now, almost all JAK inhibitors have had greater relative specificity for JAK 1, JAK 2, and JAK 3, but several inhibitors of TYK2 inhibitors other than deucravacitinib are in development for inflammatory diseases. Deucravacitinib (Sotyktu), approved by the Food and Drug Administration on Sept. 9, is the only TYK2 inhibitor with regulatory approval for plaque psoriasis.

In the POETYK PSO-1 trial, 666 patients were initially randomized in a 2:1:1 ratio to 6 mg deucravacitinib (now the approved dose), placebo, or the oral phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor apremilast. At week 16, patients on placebo were switched over to deucravacitinib. At week 24, patients who did not achieve a PASI 50 on apremilast (which had been titrated to 10 mg daily to 30 mg twice a day over the first 5 days of dosing) were switched to deucravacitinib.

In the previously reported data, deucravacitinib was superior for all efficacy endpoints at week 16, including an analysis of quality of life when compared with placebo (P < .0001) or apremilast (P = .0088). At week 52, after having been switched to deucravacitinib at week 16, patients on placebo achieved comparable responses on the efficacy measures in this study, including PASI75.

Relative to JAK inhibitors commonly used in rheumatoid arthritis and other inflammatory diseases, the greater specificity of deucravacitinib for TYK2 appears to have meaningful safety advantages, according to Dr. Lebwohl. Targeted mostly on the TYK2 regulatory domain, deucravacitinib largely avoids inhibition of the JAK 1, 2, and 3 subtypes. Dr. Lebwohl said this explains why deucravacitinib labeling does not share the boxed warnings about off-target effects, such as those on the cardiovascular system, that can be found in the labeling of other JAK inhibitors.

In the published 52-week data, the discontinuation rate for adverse events was lower in the group randomized to deucravacitinib arm than in the placebo arm. In the extended follow-up, there were no new signals for adverse events, including those involving the CV system or immune function.

The key message so far from the long-term follow-up, which is ongoing, is that “continuous treatment with deucravacitinib is associated with durable efficacy,” Dr. Lebwohl said. It is this combination of sustained efficacy and safety that led Dr. Lebwohl to suggest it as a reasonable oral competitor to injectable biologics.

“Patients now have a choice,” he said.

Jashin J. Wu, MD, a board member of the National Psoriasis Foundation and an associate professor in the department of dermatology, University of Miami, has been following the development of deucravacitinib. He said that the recent FDA approval validates the clinical evidence of benefit and safety, while the long-term data presented at the EADV congress support its role in expanding treatment options.

“Deucravacitinib is a very effective oral agent for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis with strong maintenance of effect through week 112,” he said. Differentiating it from other JAK inhibitors, the FDA approval “confirms the safety of this agent as there is no boxed warning,” he added.

Dr. Lebwohl reports financial relationships with more than 30 pharmaceutical companies, including Bristol-Myers Squibb, the manufacturer of deucravacitinib. Dr. Wu has financial relationships with 14 pharmaceutical companies, including Bristol-Myers Squibb, but he was not an investigator for the phase 3 trials of deucravacitinib.

MILAN – The day after deucravacitinib became the first TYK2 inhibitor approved for the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis, long-term data were presented at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, suggesting that a high degree of benefit persists for at least 2 years, making this oral drug a potential competitor for biologics.

As a once-daily drug, deucravacitinib has “the potential to be a treatment of choice and a new standard of care for patients who require systemic therapy for their moderate to severe plaque psoriasis,” said Mark G. Lebwohl, MD, professor of dermatology and dean of clinical therapeutics, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Just 2 months after the 52-week data from the phase 3 POETYK PSO-1 trial were published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, a long-term extension study found essentially no loss of benefit at 112 weeks, according to Dr. Lebwohl.

One of the two co-primary endpoints was a 75% clearance on the Psoriasis and Severity Index (PASI75) score. At 52 weeks, 80.2% of patients on deucravacitinib had met this criterion of benefit. At 112 weeks, the proportion was 84.4%.

The other primary endpoint was a static Physician’s Global Assessment (sPGA) score of clear or almost clear skin. The proportion of patients meeting this criterion at weeks 52 and 112 weeks were 65.6% and 67.6%, respectively.

When assessed by Treatment Failure Rule (TFR) or modified nonresponder imputation (mNRI), results were similar. For both, the primary endpoints at every time interval were just one or two percentage points lower but not clinically meaningfully different, according to Dr. Lebwohl.

The same type of sustained response out to 112 weeks was observed in multiple analyses. When the researchers isolated the subgroup of patients who had achieved a PASI 75 response at 16 weeks (100%), there was a modest decline in the PASI 75 rate at week 52 (90.2%) but then no additional decline at week 112 (91.3%).

There were essentially no changes in the PASI 90 rates at week 16 (63%), week 52 (65.3%), and week 112 (63.1%), Dr. Lebwohl reported. PASI 100 rates, once achieved, were sustained long term.

The target, TYK2, is one of four Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors. Until now, almost all JAK inhibitors have had greater relative specificity for JAK 1, JAK 2, and JAK 3, but several inhibitors of TYK2 inhibitors other than deucravacitinib are in development for inflammatory diseases. Deucravacitinib (Sotyktu), approved by the Food and Drug Administration on Sept. 9, is the only TYK2 inhibitor with regulatory approval for plaque psoriasis.

In the POETYK PSO-1 trial, 666 patients were initially randomized in a 2:1:1 ratio to 6 mg deucravacitinib (now the approved dose), placebo, or the oral phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor apremilast. At week 16, patients on placebo were switched over to deucravacitinib. At week 24, patients who did not achieve a PASI 50 on apremilast (which had been titrated to 10 mg daily to 30 mg twice a day over the first 5 days of dosing) were switched to deucravacitinib.

In the previously reported data, deucravacitinib was superior for all efficacy endpoints at week 16, including an analysis of quality of life when compared with placebo (P < .0001) or apremilast (P = .0088). At week 52, after having been switched to deucravacitinib at week 16, patients on placebo achieved comparable responses on the efficacy measures in this study, including PASI75.

Relative to JAK inhibitors commonly used in rheumatoid arthritis and other inflammatory diseases, the greater specificity of deucravacitinib for TYK2 appears to have meaningful safety advantages, according to Dr. Lebwohl. Targeted mostly on the TYK2 regulatory domain, deucravacitinib largely avoids inhibition of the JAK 1, 2, and 3 subtypes. Dr. Lebwohl said this explains why deucravacitinib labeling does not share the boxed warnings about off-target effects, such as those on the cardiovascular system, that can be found in the labeling of other JAK inhibitors.

In the published 52-week data, the discontinuation rate for adverse events was lower in the group randomized to deucravacitinib arm than in the placebo arm. In the extended follow-up, there were no new signals for adverse events, including those involving the CV system or immune function.

The key message so far from the long-term follow-up, which is ongoing, is that “continuous treatment with deucravacitinib is associated with durable efficacy,” Dr. Lebwohl said. It is this combination of sustained efficacy and safety that led Dr. Lebwohl to suggest it as a reasonable oral competitor to injectable biologics.

“Patients now have a choice,” he said.

Jashin J. Wu, MD, a board member of the National Psoriasis Foundation and an associate professor in the department of dermatology, University of Miami, has been following the development of deucravacitinib. He said that the recent FDA approval validates the clinical evidence of benefit and safety, while the long-term data presented at the EADV congress support its role in expanding treatment options.

“Deucravacitinib is a very effective oral agent for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis with strong maintenance of effect through week 112,” he said. Differentiating it from other JAK inhibitors, the FDA approval “confirms the safety of this agent as there is no boxed warning,” he added.

Dr. Lebwohl reports financial relationships with more than 30 pharmaceutical companies, including Bristol-Myers Squibb, the manufacturer of deucravacitinib. Dr. Wu has financial relationships with 14 pharmaceutical companies, including Bristol-Myers Squibb, but he was not an investigator for the phase 3 trials of deucravacitinib.

From the earliest days of the COVID-19 pandemic, people of color have been hardest hit by the virus. Now, many doctors and researchers are seeing big disparities come about in who gets care for long COVID.

Long COVID can affect patients from all walks of life. But many of the same issues that have made the virus particularly devastating in communities of color are also shaping who gets diagnosed and treated for long COVID, said Alba Miranda Azola, MD, codirector of the post–acute COVID-19 team at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

Non-White patients are more apt to lack access to primary care, face insurance barriers to see specialists, struggle with time off work or transportation for appointments, and have financial barriers to care as copayments for therapy pile up.

“We are getting a very skewed population of Caucasian wealthy people who are coming to our clinic because they have the ability to access care, they have good insurance, and they are looking on the internet and find us,” Dr. Azola said.

This mix of patients at Dr. Azola’s clinic is out of step with the demographics of Baltimore, where the majority of residents are Black, half of them earn less than $52,000 a year, and one in five live in poverty. And this isn’t unique to Hopkins. Many of the dozens of specialized long COVID clinics that have cropped up around the country are also seeing an unequal share of affluent White patients, experts say.

It’s also a patient mix that very likely doesn’t reflect who is most apt to have long COVID.

During the pandemic, people who identified as Black, Hispanic, American Indian, or Alaska Native were more likely to be diagnosed with COVID than people who identified as White, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. These people of color were also at least twice as likely to be hospitalized with severe infections, and at least 70% more likely to die.

“Data repeatedly show the disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on racial and ethnic minority populations, as well as other population groups such as people living in rural or frontier areas, people experiencing homelessness, essential and frontline workers, people with disabilities, people with substance use disorders, people who are incarcerated, and non–U.S.-born persons,” John Brooks, MD, chief medical officer for COVID-19 response at the CDC, said during testimony before the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health in April 2021.

“While we do not yet have clear data on the impact of post-COVID conditions on racial and ethnic minority populations and other disadvantaged communities, we do believe that they are likely to be disproportionately impacted ... and less likely to be able to access health care services,” Dr. Brooks said at the time.

The picture that’s emerging of long COVID suggests that the condition impacts about one in five adults. It’s more common among Hispanic adults than among people who identify as Black, Asian, or White. It’s also more common among those who identify as other races or multiple races, according survey data collected by the CDC.

It’s hard to say how accurate this snapshot is because researchers need to do a better job of identifying and following people with long COVID, said Monica Verduzco-Gutierrez, MD, chair of rehabilitation medicine and director of the COVID-19 Recovery Clinic at the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio. A major limitation of surveys like the ones done by the CDC to monitor long COVID is that only people who realize they have the condition can get counted.

“Some people from historically marginalized groups may have less health literacy to know about impacts of long COVID,” she said.

Lack of awareness may keep people with persistent symptoms from seeking medical attention, leaving many long COVID cases undiagnosed.

When some patients do seek help, their complaints may not be acknowledged or understood. Often, cultural bias or structural racism can get in the way of diagnosis and treatment, Dr. Azola said.

“I hate to say this, but there is probably bias among providers,” she said. “For example, I am Puerto Rican, and the way we describe symptoms as Latinos may sound exaggerated or may be brushed aside or lost in translation. I think we miss a lot of patients being diagnosed or referred to specialists because the primary care provider they see maybe leans into this cultural bias of thinking this is just a Latino being dramatic.”

There’s some evidence that treatment for long COVID may differ by race even when symptoms are similar. One study of more than 400,000 patients, for example, found no racial differences in the proportion of people who have six common long COVID symptoms: shortness of breath, fatigue, weakness, pain, trouble with thinking skills, and a hard time getting around. Despite this, Black patients were significantly less likely to receive outpatient rehabilitation services to treat these symptoms.

Benjamin Abramoff, MD, who leads the long COVID collaborative for the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, draws parallels between what happens with long COVID to another common health problem often undertreated among patients of color: pain. With both long COVID and chronic pain, one major barrier to care is “just getting taken seriously by providers,” he said.

“There is significant evidence that racial bias has led to less prescription of pain medications to people of color,” Dr. Abramoff said. “Just as pain can be difficult to get objective measures of, long COVID symptoms can also be difficult to objectively measure and requires trust between the provider and patient.”

Geography can be another barrier to care, said Aaron Friedberg, MD, clinical colead of the post-COVID recovery program at Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus. Many communities hardest hit by COVID – particularly in high-poverty urban neighborhoods – have long had limited access to care. The pandemic worsened staffing shortages at many hospitals and clinics in these communities, leaving patients even fewer options close to home.

“I often have patients driving several hours to come to our clinic, and that can create significant challenges both because of the financial burden and time required to coordinate that type of travel, but also because post-COVID symptoms can make it extremely challenging to tolerate that type of travel,” Dr. Friedberg said.

Even though the complete picture of who has long COVID – and who’s getting treated and getting good outcomes – is still emerging, it’s very clear at this point in the pandemic that access isn’t equal among everyone and that many low-income and non-White patients are missing out on needed treatments, Friedberg said.

“One thing that is clear is that there are many people suffering alone from these conditions,” he said.

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

From the earliest days of the COVID-19 pandemic, people of color have been hardest hit by the virus. Now, many doctors and researchers are seeing big disparities come about in who gets care for long COVID.

Long COVID can affect patients from all walks of life. But many of the same issues that have made the virus particularly devastating in communities of color are also shaping who gets diagnosed and treated for long COVID, said Alba Miranda Azola, MD, codirector of the post–acute COVID-19 team at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

Non-White patients are more apt to lack access to primary care, face insurance barriers to see specialists, struggle with time off work or transportation for appointments, and have financial barriers to care as copayments for therapy pile up.

“We are getting a very skewed population of Caucasian wealthy people who are coming to our clinic because they have the ability to access care, they have good insurance, and they are looking on the internet and find us,” Dr. Azola said.

This mix of patients at Dr. Azola’s clinic is out of step with the demographics of Baltimore, where the majority of residents are Black, half of them earn less than $52,000 a year, and one in five live in poverty. And this isn’t unique to Hopkins. Many of the dozens of specialized long COVID clinics that have cropped up around the country are also seeing an unequal share of affluent White patients, experts say.

It’s also a patient mix that very likely doesn’t reflect who is most apt to have long COVID.

During the pandemic, people who identified as Black, Hispanic, American Indian, or Alaska Native were more likely to be diagnosed with COVID than people who identified as White, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. These people of color were also at least twice as likely to be hospitalized with severe infections, and at least 70% more likely to die.

“Data repeatedly show the disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on racial and ethnic minority populations, as well as other population groups such as people living in rural or frontier areas, people experiencing homelessness, essential and frontline workers, people with disabilities, people with substance use disorders, people who are incarcerated, and non–U.S.-born persons,” John Brooks, MD, chief medical officer for COVID-19 response at the CDC, said during testimony before the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health in April 2021.

“While we do not yet have clear data on the impact of post-COVID conditions on racial and ethnic minority populations and other disadvantaged communities, we do believe that they are likely to be disproportionately impacted ... and less likely to be able to access health care services,” Dr. Brooks said at the time.

The picture that’s emerging of long COVID suggests that the condition impacts about one in five adults. It’s more common among Hispanic adults than among people who identify as Black, Asian, or White. It’s also more common among those who identify as other races or multiple races, according survey data collected by the CDC.

It’s hard to say how accurate this snapshot is because researchers need to do a better job of identifying and following people with long COVID, said Monica Verduzco-Gutierrez, MD, chair of rehabilitation medicine and director of the COVID-19 Recovery Clinic at the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio. A major limitation of surveys like the ones done by the CDC to monitor long COVID is that only people who realize they have the condition can get counted.

“Some people from historically marginalized groups may have less health literacy to know about impacts of long COVID,” she said.

Lack of awareness may keep people with persistent symptoms from seeking medical attention, leaving many long COVID cases undiagnosed.

When some patients do seek help, their complaints may not be acknowledged or understood. Often, cultural bias or structural racism can get in the way of diagnosis and treatment, Dr. Azola said.

“I hate to say this, but there is probably bias among providers,” she said. “For example, I am Puerto Rican, and the way we describe symptoms as Latinos may sound exaggerated or may be brushed aside or lost in translation. I think we miss a lot of patients being diagnosed or referred to specialists because the primary care provider they see maybe leans into this cultural bias of thinking this is just a Latino being dramatic.”

There’s some evidence that treatment for long COVID may differ by race even when symptoms are similar. One study of more than 400,000 patients, for example, found no racial differences in the proportion of people who have six common long COVID symptoms: shortness of breath, fatigue, weakness, pain, trouble with thinking skills, and a hard time getting around. Despite this, Black patients were significantly less likely to receive outpatient rehabilitation services to treat these symptoms.

Benjamin Abramoff, MD, who leads the long COVID collaborative for the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, draws parallels between what happens with long COVID to another common health problem often undertreated among patients of color: pain. With both long COVID and chronic pain, one major barrier to care is “just getting taken seriously by providers,” he said.

“There is significant evidence that racial bias has led to less prescription of pain medications to people of color,” Dr. Abramoff said. “Just as pain can be difficult to get objective measures of, long COVID symptoms can also be difficult to objectively measure and requires trust between the provider and patient.”

Geography can be another barrier to care, said Aaron Friedberg, MD, clinical colead of the post-COVID recovery program at Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus. Many communities hardest hit by COVID – particularly in high-poverty urban neighborhoods – have long had limited access to care. The pandemic worsened staffing shortages at many hospitals and clinics in these communities, leaving patients even fewer options close to home.

“I often have patients driving several hours to come to our clinic, and that can create significant challenges both because of the financial burden and time required to coordinate that type of travel, but also because post-COVID symptoms can make it extremely challenging to tolerate that type of travel,” Dr. Friedberg said.

Even though the complete picture of who has long COVID – and who’s getting treated and getting good outcomes – is still emerging, it’s very clear at this point in the pandemic that access isn’t equal among everyone and that many low-income and non-White patients are missing out on needed treatments, Friedberg said.

“One thing that is clear is that there are many people suffering alone from these conditions,” he said.

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

From the earliest days of the COVID-19 pandemic, people of color have been hardest hit by the virus. Now, many doctors and researchers are seeing big disparities come about in who gets care for long COVID.

Long COVID can affect patients from all walks of life. But many of the same issues that have made the virus particularly devastating in communities of color are also shaping who gets diagnosed and treated for long COVID, said Alba Miranda Azola, MD, codirector of the post–acute COVID-19 team at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

Non-White patients are more apt to lack access to primary care, face insurance barriers to see specialists, struggle with time off work or transportation for appointments, and have financial barriers to care as copayments for therapy pile up.

“We are getting a very skewed population of Caucasian wealthy people who are coming to our clinic because they have the ability to access care, they have good insurance, and they are looking on the internet and find us,” Dr. Azola said.

This mix of patients at Dr. Azola’s clinic is out of step with the demographics of Baltimore, where the majority of residents are Black, half of them earn less than $52,000 a year, and one in five live in poverty. And this isn’t unique to Hopkins. Many of the dozens of specialized long COVID clinics that have cropped up around the country are also seeing an unequal share of affluent White patients, experts say.

It’s also a patient mix that very likely doesn’t reflect who is most apt to have long COVID.

During the pandemic, people who identified as Black, Hispanic, American Indian, or Alaska Native were more likely to be diagnosed with COVID than people who identified as White, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. These people of color were also at least twice as likely to be hospitalized with severe infections, and at least 70% more likely to die.

“Data repeatedly show the disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on racial and ethnic minority populations, as well as other population groups such as people living in rural or frontier areas, people experiencing homelessness, essential and frontline workers, people with disabilities, people with substance use disorders, people who are incarcerated, and non–U.S.-born persons,” John Brooks, MD, chief medical officer for COVID-19 response at the CDC, said during testimony before the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health in April 2021.

“While we do not yet have clear data on the impact of post-COVID conditions on racial and ethnic minority populations and other disadvantaged communities, we do believe that they are likely to be disproportionately impacted ... and less likely to be able to access health care services,” Dr. Brooks said at the time.

The picture that’s emerging of long COVID suggests that the condition impacts about one in five adults. It’s more common among Hispanic adults than among people who identify as Black, Asian, or White. It’s also more common among those who identify as other races or multiple races, according survey data collected by the CDC.

It’s hard to say how accurate this snapshot is because researchers need to do a better job of identifying and following people with long COVID, said Monica Verduzco-Gutierrez, MD, chair of rehabilitation medicine and director of the COVID-19 Recovery Clinic at the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio. A major limitation of surveys like the ones done by the CDC to monitor long COVID is that only people who realize they have the condition can get counted.

“Some people from historically marginalized groups may have less health literacy to know about impacts of long COVID,” she said.

Lack of awareness may keep people with persistent symptoms from seeking medical attention, leaving many long COVID cases undiagnosed.

When some patients do seek help, their complaints may not be acknowledged or understood. Often, cultural bias or structural racism can get in the way of diagnosis and treatment, Dr. Azola said.

“I hate to say this, but there is probably bias among providers,” she said. “For example, I am Puerto Rican, and the way we describe symptoms as Latinos may sound exaggerated or may be brushed aside or lost in translation. I think we miss a lot of patients being diagnosed or referred to specialists because the primary care provider they see maybe leans into this cultural bias of thinking this is just a Latino being dramatic.”

There’s some evidence that treatment for long COVID may differ by race even when symptoms are similar. One study of more than 400,000 patients, for example, found no racial differences in the proportion of people who have six common long COVID symptoms: shortness of breath, fatigue, weakness, pain, trouble with thinking skills, and a hard time getting around. Despite this, Black patients were significantly less likely to receive outpatient rehabilitation services to treat these symptoms.

Benjamin Abramoff, MD, who leads the long COVID collaborative for the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, draws parallels between what happens with long COVID to another common health problem often undertreated among patients of color: pain. With both long COVID and chronic pain, one major barrier to care is “just getting taken seriously by providers,” he said.

“There is significant evidence that racial bias has led to less prescription of pain medications to people of color,” Dr. Abramoff said. “Just as pain can be difficult to get objective measures of, long COVID symptoms can also be difficult to objectively measure and requires trust between the provider and patient.”

Geography can be another barrier to care, said Aaron Friedberg, MD, clinical colead of the post-COVID recovery program at Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus. Many communities hardest hit by COVID – particularly in high-poverty urban neighborhoods – have long had limited access to care. The pandemic worsened staffing shortages at many hospitals and clinics in these communities, leaving patients even fewer options close to home.

“I often have patients driving several hours to come to our clinic, and that can create significant challenges both because of the financial burden and time required to coordinate that type of travel, but also because post-COVID symptoms can make it extremely challenging to tolerate that type of travel,” Dr. Friedberg said.

Even though the complete picture of who has long COVID – and who’s getting treated and getting good outcomes – is still emerging, it’s very clear at this point in the pandemic that access isn’t equal among everyone and that many low-income and non-White patients are missing out on needed treatments, Friedberg said.

“One thing that is clear is that there are many people suffering alone from these conditions,” he said.

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