User login
10% with diabetes hospitalized for COVID-19 die within a week
Data from the CORONADO (French Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 and Diabetes Outcomes) study also revealed that body mass index (BMI) was independently associated with death or intubation at 7 days, while A1c and use of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) blockers and dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitors were not.
The presence of diabetes-related complications and older age also increased the risk of death.
The findings were published online Diabetologia by Bertrand Cariou, MD, PhD, of the department of endocrinology at the Hôpital Guillaume et René Laennec in Nantes, France, and colleagues.
First study to examine specific characteristics at time of admission
Previous studies have linked diabetes to worse outcomes in COVID-19, but this is the first to examine specific characteristics before and at the time of hospital admission that predict worse outcomes among people with diabetes, study coauthor Samy Hadjadj, MD, PhD, said in an interview.
“Before the CORONADO study it was ‘all diabetes [patients] are the same.’ Now we can surely consider more precisely the risk, taking age, sex, BMI, complications, and [obstructive sleep apnea] as clear ‘very high-risk situations,’” said Dr. Hadjadj, of the same institution as Dr. Cariou.
Another clinical message, Dr. Hadjadj said, is that, “even in diabetes, each increase in BMI is associated with an increase in the risk of intubation and/or death in the 7 days following admission for COVID-19. So let’s target this population as a really important population to keep social distancing and stay alert on avoiding the virus.”
But he urged caution regarding the A1c finding. “A1c might be associated with admission to hospital but other factors far beyond A1c drive the prognosis as soon as a patient is admitted. It’s surprising but reasonable speculation can explain this.”
And Dr. Hadjadj said that no obvious signals were identified with regard to medication use.
“Insulin is not suspected of having adverse effects closely related to COVID-19. RAAS blockers are not deleterious but indicative of hypertension, which is a comorbidity even in diabetes patients,” he said. (None of the patients studied were taking sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors or glucagonlike peptide receptor agonists.)
Yet again, high BMI emerges as a major risk factor
The study included 1,317 patients with diabetes and confirmed COVID-19 admitted to 53 French hospitals during March 10-31, 2020. Participants included 88.5% with type 2 diabetes, 3% with type 1 diabetes, and 3.1% newly diagnosed on admission. Mean age was 69.8 years.
Diabetes-related disorders on admission were reported in 11.1% of participants overall. These included 132 episodes of severe hyperglycemia, including 40 of ketosis, of which 19 were ketoacidosis, and 14 hypoglycemic events. Severe anorexia was reported in 6.3%.
The composite primary endpoint, tracheal intubation for mechanical ventilation and/or death within 7 days of admission, occurred in 29% of patients (n = 382).
Of the secondary outcomes, 31.1% (n = 410) were admitted to ICUs within 7 days of hospital admission, including 20.3% (n = 267) who required tracheal intubation for mechanical ventilation.
On day 7, 10.6% (n = 140) had died and 18.0% (n = 237) were discharged.
In the univariate analysis, the primary outcome was more frequent in men (69.1% vs. 63.2%; P = .0420) and those taking RAAS blockers (61.5% vs. 55.3%; P = .0386). Median BMI was significantly higher in those in whom the primary outcome occurred (29.1 vs 28.1 kg/m2; P = .0009),
Other characteristics prior to admission associated with risk of death on day 7 included age, hypertension, micro- and macrovascular diabetes-related complications, and comorbidities such as heart failure and treated obstructive sleep apnea.
Over 40% of those admitted had such complications. Of the patients analyzed, microvascular complications (eye, kidney, and neuropathy) were present in 47% and macrovascular complications (arteries of the heart, brain, and legs) were present in 41%.
Encouragingly, there were no deaths in patients aged under 65 years with type 1 diabetes, but only 39 participants had type 1 diabetes. Other work is ongoing to establish the effect of COVID-19 in this specific population, the researchers wrote.
Among prior medications, metformin use was lower in people who died, while insulin use, RAAS blockers, beta-blockers, loop diuretics, and mineralocorticoid-receptor antagonists were associated with death on day 7. The medication findings didn’t reach statistical significance, however.
When asked about the hint of a protective effect of metformin (odds ratio, 0.80; P = .4532), given that some experts have advised stopping it in the setting of COVID-19 because of the risk of lactic acidosis, Dr. Hadjadj said he wouldn’t necessarily stop it in all patients with COVID-19, but said, “let’s stop it in cases of severe condition.”
Analysis ongoing, ‘some new messages might pop up’
After adjustment for age and sex, BMI was significantly and positively associated with the primary outcome (P = .0001) but not with death on day 7 (P = .1488), and A1c wasn’t associated with either outcome.
In a multivariable analysis that included characteristics prior to admission, BMI remained the only independent preadmission predictor associated with the primary outcome (adjusted odds ratio, 1.28), while factors independently associated with risk of death on day 7 included age, diabetes complication history, and treated obstructive sleep apnea.
And after adjustment for age and sex, admission plasma glucose level was significantly and positively associated with both the primary outcome (P = .0001) and death on day 7 (P = .0059).
In the multivariate analysis, admission characteristics that predicted the primary outcome were dyspnea, lymphopenia, increased AST, and increased C-reactive protein.
Dr. Hadjadj said his team is now “focusing on specific risk factors such as obesity, age, vascular complications, medications ... to perform some deeper analyses.”
“We look forward to analyzing the data on in-hospital stay up to day 28 after admission. Some new messages might well pop up,” he added.
But in the meantime, “Elderly populations with long-term diabetes with advanced diabetes-related complications and/or treated obstructive sleep apnea were particularly at risk of early death and might require specific management to avoid infection with the novel coronavirus,” the researchers stressed.
The study received funding from the Fondation Francophone de Recherche sur le Diabète and was supported by Novo Nordisk, MSD, Abbott, AstraZeneca, Lilly, and the Fédération Française des Diabétiques; Société Francophone du Diabète; and Air Liquide Healthcare International. Dr. Hadjadj reported receiving grants, personal fees, and/or nonfinancial support from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Dinno Santé, Eli Lilly, LVL, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre Santé, Sanofi, Servier, and Valbiotis.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Data from the CORONADO (French Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 and Diabetes Outcomes) study also revealed that body mass index (BMI) was independently associated with death or intubation at 7 days, while A1c and use of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) blockers and dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitors were not.
The presence of diabetes-related complications and older age also increased the risk of death.
The findings were published online Diabetologia by Bertrand Cariou, MD, PhD, of the department of endocrinology at the Hôpital Guillaume et René Laennec in Nantes, France, and colleagues.
First study to examine specific characteristics at time of admission
Previous studies have linked diabetes to worse outcomes in COVID-19, but this is the first to examine specific characteristics before and at the time of hospital admission that predict worse outcomes among people with diabetes, study coauthor Samy Hadjadj, MD, PhD, said in an interview.
“Before the CORONADO study it was ‘all diabetes [patients] are the same.’ Now we can surely consider more precisely the risk, taking age, sex, BMI, complications, and [obstructive sleep apnea] as clear ‘very high-risk situations,’” said Dr. Hadjadj, of the same institution as Dr. Cariou.
Another clinical message, Dr. Hadjadj said, is that, “even in diabetes, each increase in BMI is associated with an increase in the risk of intubation and/or death in the 7 days following admission for COVID-19. So let’s target this population as a really important population to keep social distancing and stay alert on avoiding the virus.”
But he urged caution regarding the A1c finding. “A1c might be associated with admission to hospital but other factors far beyond A1c drive the prognosis as soon as a patient is admitted. It’s surprising but reasonable speculation can explain this.”
And Dr. Hadjadj said that no obvious signals were identified with regard to medication use.
“Insulin is not suspected of having adverse effects closely related to COVID-19. RAAS blockers are not deleterious but indicative of hypertension, which is a comorbidity even in diabetes patients,” he said. (None of the patients studied were taking sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors or glucagonlike peptide receptor agonists.)
Yet again, high BMI emerges as a major risk factor
The study included 1,317 patients with diabetes and confirmed COVID-19 admitted to 53 French hospitals during March 10-31, 2020. Participants included 88.5% with type 2 diabetes, 3% with type 1 diabetes, and 3.1% newly diagnosed on admission. Mean age was 69.8 years.
Diabetes-related disorders on admission were reported in 11.1% of participants overall. These included 132 episodes of severe hyperglycemia, including 40 of ketosis, of which 19 were ketoacidosis, and 14 hypoglycemic events. Severe anorexia was reported in 6.3%.
The composite primary endpoint, tracheal intubation for mechanical ventilation and/or death within 7 days of admission, occurred in 29% of patients (n = 382).
Of the secondary outcomes, 31.1% (n = 410) were admitted to ICUs within 7 days of hospital admission, including 20.3% (n = 267) who required tracheal intubation for mechanical ventilation.
On day 7, 10.6% (n = 140) had died and 18.0% (n = 237) were discharged.
In the univariate analysis, the primary outcome was more frequent in men (69.1% vs. 63.2%; P = .0420) and those taking RAAS blockers (61.5% vs. 55.3%; P = .0386). Median BMI was significantly higher in those in whom the primary outcome occurred (29.1 vs 28.1 kg/m2; P = .0009),
Other characteristics prior to admission associated with risk of death on day 7 included age, hypertension, micro- and macrovascular diabetes-related complications, and comorbidities such as heart failure and treated obstructive sleep apnea.
Over 40% of those admitted had such complications. Of the patients analyzed, microvascular complications (eye, kidney, and neuropathy) were present in 47% and macrovascular complications (arteries of the heart, brain, and legs) were present in 41%.
Encouragingly, there were no deaths in patients aged under 65 years with type 1 diabetes, but only 39 participants had type 1 diabetes. Other work is ongoing to establish the effect of COVID-19 in this specific population, the researchers wrote.
Among prior medications, metformin use was lower in people who died, while insulin use, RAAS blockers, beta-blockers, loop diuretics, and mineralocorticoid-receptor antagonists were associated with death on day 7. The medication findings didn’t reach statistical significance, however.
When asked about the hint of a protective effect of metformin (odds ratio, 0.80; P = .4532), given that some experts have advised stopping it in the setting of COVID-19 because of the risk of lactic acidosis, Dr. Hadjadj said he wouldn’t necessarily stop it in all patients with COVID-19, but said, “let’s stop it in cases of severe condition.”
Analysis ongoing, ‘some new messages might pop up’
After adjustment for age and sex, BMI was significantly and positively associated with the primary outcome (P = .0001) but not with death on day 7 (P = .1488), and A1c wasn’t associated with either outcome.
In a multivariable analysis that included characteristics prior to admission, BMI remained the only independent preadmission predictor associated with the primary outcome (adjusted odds ratio, 1.28), while factors independently associated with risk of death on day 7 included age, diabetes complication history, and treated obstructive sleep apnea.
And after adjustment for age and sex, admission plasma glucose level was significantly and positively associated with both the primary outcome (P = .0001) and death on day 7 (P = .0059).
In the multivariate analysis, admission characteristics that predicted the primary outcome were dyspnea, lymphopenia, increased AST, and increased C-reactive protein.
Dr. Hadjadj said his team is now “focusing on specific risk factors such as obesity, age, vascular complications, medications ... to perform some deeper analyses.”
“We look forward to analyzing the data on in-hospital stay up to day 28 after admission. Some new messages might well pop up,” he added.
But in the meantime, “Elderly populations with long-term diabetes with advanced diabetes-related complications and/or treated obstructive sleep apnea were particularly at risk of early death and might require specific management to avoid infection with the novel coronavirus,” the researchers stressed.
The study received funding from the Fondation Francophone de Recherche sur le Diabète and was supported by Novo Nordisk, MSD, Abbott, AstraZeneca, Lilly, and the Fédération Française des Diabétiques; Société Francophone du Diabète; and Air Liquide Healthcare International. Dr. Hadjadj reported receiving grants, personal fees, and/or nonfinancial support from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Dinno Santé, Eli Lilly, LVL, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre Santé, Sanofi, Servier, and Valbiotis.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Data from the CORONADO (French Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 and Diabetes Outcomes) study also revealed that body mass index (BMI) was independently associated with death or intubation at 7 days, while A1c and use of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) blockers and dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitors were not.
The presence of diabetes-related complications and older age also increased the risk of death.
The findings were published online Diabetologia by Bertrand Cariou, MD, PhD, of the department of endocrinology at the Hôpital Guillaume et René Laennec in Nantes, France, and colleagues.
First study to examine specific characteristics at time of admission
Previous studies have linked diabetes to worse outcomes in COVID-19, but this is the first to examine specific characteristics before and at the time of hospital admission that predict worse outcomes among people with diabetes, study coauthor Samy Hadjadj, MD, PhD, said in an interview.
“Before the CORONADO study it was ‘all diabetes [patients] are the same.’ Now we can surely consider more precisely the risk, taking age, sex, BMI, complications, and [obstructive sleep apnea] as clear ‘very high-risk situations,’” said Dr. Hadjadj, of the same institution as Dr. Cariou.
Another clinical message, Dr. Hadjadj said, is that, “even in diabetes, each increase in BMI is associated with an increase in the risk of intubation and/or death in the 7 days following admission for COVID-19. So let’s target this population as a really important population to keep social distancing and stay alert on avoiding the virus.”
But he urged caution regarding the A1c finding. “A1c might be associated with admission to hospital but other factors far beyond A1c drive the prognosis as soon as a patient is admitted. It’s surprising but reasonable speculation can explain this.”
And Dr. Hadjadj said that no obvious signals were identified with regard to medication use.
“Insulin is not suspected of having adverse effects closely related to COVID-19. RAAS blockers are not deleterious but indicative of hypertension, which is a comorbidity even in diabetes patients,” he said. (None of the patients studied were taking sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors or glucagonlike peptide receptor agonists.)
Yet again, high BMI emerges as a major risk factor
The study included 1,317 patients with diabetes and confirmed COVID-19 admitted to 53 French hospitals during March 10-31, 2020. Participants included 88.5% with type 2 diabetes, 3% with type 1 diabetes, and 3.1% newly diagnosed on admission. Mean age was 69.8 years.
Diabetes-related disorders on admission were reported in 11.1% of participants overall. These included 132 episodes of severe hyperglycemia, including 40 of ketosis, of which 19 were ketoacidosis, and 14 hypoglycemic events. Severe anorexia was reported in 6.3%.
The composite primary endpoint, tracheal intubation for mechanical ventilation and/or death within 7 days of admission, occurred in 29% of patients (n = 382).
Of the secondary outcomes, 31.1% (n = 410) were admitted to ICUs within 7 days of hospital admission, including 20.3% (n = 267) who required tracheal intubation for mechanical ventilation.
On day 7, 10.6% (n = 140) had died and 18.0% (n = 237) were discharged.
In the univariate analysis, the primary outcome was more frequent in men (69.1% vs. 63.2%; P = .0420) and those taking RAAS blockers (61.5% vs. 55.3%; P = .0386). Median BMI was significantly higher in those in whom the primary outcome occurred (29.1 vs 28.1 kg/m2; P = .0009),
Other characteristics prior to admission associated with risk of death on day 7 included age, hypertension, micro- and macrovascular diabetes-related complications, and comorbidities such as heart failure and treated obstructive sleep apnea.
Over 40% of those admitted had such complications. Of the patients analyzed, microvascular complications (eye, kidney, and neuropathy) were present in 47% and macrovascular complications (arteries of the heart, brain, and legs) were present in 41%.
Encouragingly, there were no deaths in patients aged under 65 years with type 1 diabetes, but only 39 participants had type 1 diabetes. Other work is ongoing to establish the effect of COVID-19 in this specific population, the researchers wrote.
Among prior medications, metformin use was lower in people who died, while insulin use, RAAS blockers, beta-blockers, loop diuretics, and mineralocorticoid-receptor antagonists were associated with death on day 7. The medication findings didn’t reach statistical significance, however.
When asked about the hint of a protective effect of metformin (odds ratio, 0.80; P = .4532), given that some experts have advised stopping it in the setting of COVID-19 because of the risk of lactic acidosis, Dr. Hadjadj said he wouldn’t necessarily stop it in all patients with COVID-19, but said, “let’s stop it in cases of severe condition.”
Analysis ongoing, ‘some new messages might pop up’
After adjustment for age and sex, BMI was significantly and positively associated with the primary outcome (P = .0001) but not with death on day 7 (P = .1488), and A1c wasn’t associated with either outcome.
In a multivariable analysis that included characteristics prior to admission, BMI remained the only independent preadmission predictor associated with the primary outcome (adjusted odds ratio, 1.28), while factors independently associated with risk of death on day 7 included age, diabetes complication history, and treated obstructive sleep apnea.
And after adjustment for age and sex, admission plasma glucose level was significantly and positively associated with both the primary outcome (P = .0001) and death on day 7 (P = .0059).
In the multivariate analysis, admission characteristics that predicted the primary outcome were dyspnea, lymphopenia, increased AST, and increased C-reactive protein.
Dr. Hadjadj said his team is now “focusing on specific risk factors such as obesity, age, vascular complications, medications ... to perform some deeper analyses.”
“We look forward to analyzing the data on in-hospital stay up to day 28 after admission. Some new messages might well pop up,” he added.
But in the meantime, “Elderly populations with long-term diabetes with advanced diabetes-related complications and/or treated obstructive sleep apnea were particularly at risk of early death and might require specific management to avoid infection with the novel coronavirus,” the researchers stressed.
The study received funding from the Fondation Francophone de Recherche sur le Diabète and was supported by Novo Nordisk, MSD, Abbott, AstraZeneca, Lilly, and the Fédération Française des Diabétiques; Société Francophone du Diabète; and Air Liquide Healthcare International. Dr. Hadjadj reported receiving grants, personal fees, and/or nonfinancial support from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Dinno Santé, Eli Lilly, LVL, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre Santé, Sanofi, Servier, and Valbiotis.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Mass protests could cause COVID-19 outbreaks
“There’s going to be a lot of issues coming out of what’s happened in the last week, but one of them is going to be that chains of transmission will have become lit from these gatherings,” said Scott Gottlieb, former FDA commissioner, on the CBS News show “Face the Nation.”
In Minnesota, he noted, COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations increased in recent days – even before the protests started.
“We still have pockets of spread in communities that aren’t under good control,” he said.
The protests generally have started peacefully with some demonstrators following physical distancing rules. But they have evolved into sometimes violent gatherings of hundreds or thousands of people where standing 6 feet apart is impossible.
Chanting, singing, and shouting may spread the virus through respiratory droplets. In addition, people who have the virus but don’t show symptoms may infect others without knowing it.
“If you were out protesting last night, you probably need to go get a COVID test this week,” Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms said Saturday, according to the Associated Press.
Gottlieb and Bottoms also spoke Sunday about the disproportionate effect of the coronavirus on black and Hispanic people, who are contracting and dying from the virus at higher rates. Socioeconomic factors such as low incomes, limited health care access, underlying conditions and overcrowded housing play a role in the greater risk, Gottlieb said.
“It’s a symptom of broader racial inequities in our country that we need to work to resolve,” he said.
Protests against racial injustice, sparked by the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis last week, could harm those communities experiencing the most severe outcomes of the coronavirus, Bottoms added.
“We know what’s already happening in our community with this virus. We’re going to see the other side of this in a couple of weeks,” Bottoms said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”
The protests may affect the pandemic in other ways. Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti said the city’s coronavirus testing centers were closed on Saturday because of “safety worries across the city,” according to KTLA.
“We need to make sure, especially in communities that have less power, that we are able to make sure people don’t disproportionately die because of the color of their skin,” he said. “We can’t do that when the city breaks down.”
This article first appeared on WebMD.com.
“There’s going to be a lot of issues coming out of what’s happened in the last week, but one of them is going to be that chains of transmission will have become lit from these gatherings,” said Scott Gottlieb, former FDA commissioner, on the CBS News show “Face the Nation.”
In Minnesota, he noted, COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations increased in recent days – even before the protests started.
“We still have pockets of spread in communities that aren’t under good control,” he said.
The protests generally have started peacefully with some demonstrators following physical distancing rules. But they have evolved into sometimes violent gatherings of hundreds or thousands of people where standing 6 feet apart is impossible.
Chanting, singing, and shouting may spread the virus through respiratory droplets. In addition, people who have the virus but don’t show symptoms may infect others without knowing it.
“If you were out protesting last night, you probably need to go get a COVID test this week,” Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms said Saturday, according to the Associated Press.
Gottlieb and Bottoms also spoke Sunday about the disproportionate effect of the coronavirus on black and Hispanic people, who are contracting and dying from the virus at higher rates. Socioeconomic factors such as low incomes, limited health care access, underlying conditions and overcrowded housing play a role in the greater risk, Gottlieb said.
“It’s a symptom of broader racial inequities in our country that we need to work to resolve,” he said.
Protests against racial injustice, sparked by the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis last week, could harm those communities experiencing the most severe outcomes of the coronavirus, Bottoms added.
“We know what’s already happening in our community with this virus. We’re going to see the other side of this in a couple of weeks,” Bottoms said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”
The protests may affect the pandemic in other ways. Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti said the city’s coronavirus testing centers were closed on Saturday because of “safety worries across the city,” according to KTLA.
“We need to make sure, especially in communities that have less power, that we are able to make sure people don’t disproportionately die because of the color of their skin,” he said. “We can’t do that when the city breaks down.”
This article first appeared on WebMD.com.
“There’s going to be a lot of issues coming out of what’s happened in the last week, but one of them is going to be that chains of transmission will have become lit from these gatherings,” said Scott Gottlieb, former FDA commissioner, on the CBS News show “Face the Nation.”
In Minnesota, he noted, COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations increased in recent days – even before the protests started.
“We still have pockets of spread in communities that aren’t under good control,” he said.
The protests generally have started peacefully with some demonstrators following physical distancing rules. But they have evolved into sometimes violent gatherings of hundreds or thousands of people where standing 6 feet apart is impossible.
Chanting, singing, and shouting may spread the virus through respiratory droplets. In addition, people who have the virus but don’t show symptoms may infect others without knowing it.
“If you were out protesting last night, you probably need to go get a COVID test this week,” Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms said Saturday, according to the Associated Press.
Gottlieb and Bottoms also spoke Sunday about the disproportionate effect of the coronavirus on black and Hispanic people, who are contracting and dying from the virus at higher rates. Socioeconomic factors such as low incomes, limited health care access, underlying conditions and overcrowded housing play a role in the greater risk, Gottlieb said.
“It’s a symptom of broader racial inequities in our country that we need to work to resolve,” he said.
Protests against racial injustice, sparked by the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis last week, could harm those communities experiencing the most severe outcomes of the coronavirus, Bottoms added.
“We know what’s already happening in our community with this virus. We’re going to see the other side of this in a couple of weeks,” Bottoms said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”
The protests may affect the pandemic in other ways. Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti said the city’s coronavirus testing centers were closed on Saturday because of “safety worries across the city,” according to KTLA.
“We need to make sure, especially in communities that have less power, that we are able to make sure people don’t disproportionately die because of the color of their skin,” he said. “We can’t do that when the city breaks down.”
This article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Telerehabilitation may be effective in MS
Telerehabilitation also saves time and travel cost, compared with outpatient rehabilitation.
“This model of home-based telerehabilitation offers a safe and cost-effective method for improving function and quality of life for MS patients with mobility deficits,” said Heather Barksdale, DPT, a neurological clinical specialist at UF Health Jacksonville (Florida).
The study was presented at the virtual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC).
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services do not reimburse for telerehabilitation services. Patients with MS have difficulty accessing rehabilitation specialists because of impaired mobility and lack of access to transportation. “We are based in Jacksonville, Fla., and often have patients who have to travel from Tallahassee, Panama City, Daytona Beach, and Brunswick, Ga., to receive specialty services,” said Dr. Barksdale. “Telerehabilitation would allow these patients to get access to high-quality rehab services with clinicians that specialize in MS.”
Dr. Barksdale and colleagues conducted a pilot study to evaluate the feasibility of a physical therapy–guided telerehabilitation program for people with mobility impairments resulting from confirmed MS. The investigators enrolled patients at the MS Center of Excellence at University of Florida Health Jacksonville into a telerehabilitation group. A board-certified neurologist and a physical therapist specializing in MS examined participants in person at baseline. The latter underwent an 8-week program of physical therapy–guided telerehabilitation that used the Jintronix software platform and a kinetic tracking system.
By reviewing charts during January 2018–September 2019, Dr. Barksdale and colleagues selected patients with MS who were seen on an outpatient basis by the same physical therapists who were administering telerehabilitation. This outpatient comparison group was matched to the telerehabilitation group on duration of treatment and outcome measures completed. Dr. Barksdale and colleagues reviewed the data for the effects of the two interventions on mobility and travel.
Eight patients completed the telerehabilitation program, and all had improvements in fatigue, quality of life, or mobility measures. The investigators did not observe any adverse events during or after the intervention. The total savings in projected travel costs for all eight participants was $8,487.23, compared with the outpatient group. Participants in the telerehabilitation and outpatient groups achieved minimal detectable changes in the outcome measures examined at equivalent rates.
“The game-based model with virtual visits by a physical therapist can be modified to include exercises specific for other motor, coordination, spasticity, and movement dysfunctions and may be useful for other chronic and progressive dysfunction seen in Parkinson’s disease, stroke, and other movement and neuromuscular disorders,” said Dr. Barksdale.
“Future studies are needed to further establish guidelines for patient selection and mode of delivery, as well as design of future telerehabilitation programs,” she added. “Duration of treatment and types of exercises to be included should also be examined. Further research into use of telerehabilitation for the treatment of upper-extremity, cognitive, speech, and swallowing dysfunction should also be examined.”
The investigators conducted their study without outside funding and reported no disclosures.
SOURCE: Barksdale H et al. CMSC 2020. Abstract REH11.
Telerehabilitation also saves time and travel cost, compared with outpatient rehabilitation.
“This model of home-based telerehabilitation offers a safe and cost-effective method for improving function and quality of life for MS patients with mobility deficits,” said Heather Barksdale, DPT, a neurological clinical specialist at UF Health Jacksonville (Florida).
The study was presented at the virtual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC).
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services do not reimburse for telerehabilitation services. Patients with MS have difficulty accessing rehabilitation specialists because of impaired mobility and lack of access to transportation. “We are based in Jacksonville, Fla., and often have patients who have to travel from Tallahassee, Panama City, Daytona Beach, and Brunswick, Ga., to receive specialty services,” said Dr. Barksdale. “Telerehabilitation would allow these patients to get access to high-quality rehab services with clinicians that specialize in MS.”
Dr. Barksdale and colleagues conducted a pilot study to evaluate the feasibility of a physical therapy–guided telerehabilitation program for people with mobility impairments resulting from confirmed MS. The investigators enrolled patients at the MS Center of Excellence at University of Florida Health Jacksonville into a telerehabilitation group. A board-certified neurologist and a physical therapist specializing in MS examined participants in person at baseline. The latter underwent an 8-week program of physical therapy–guided telerehabilitation that used the Jintronix software platform and a kinetic tracking system.
By reviewing charts during January 2018–September 2019, Dr. Barksdale and colleagues selected patients with MS who were seen on an outpatient basis by the same physical therapists who were administering telerehabilitation. This outpatient comparison group was matched to the telerehabilitation group on duration of treatment and outcome measures completed. Dr. Barksdale and colleagues reviewed the data for the effects of the two interventions on mobility and travel.
Eight patients completed the telerehabilitation program, and all had improvements in fatigue, quality of life, or mobility measures. The investigators did not observe any adverse events during or after the intervention. The total savings in projected travel costs for all eight participants was $8,487.23, compared with the outpatient group. Participants in the telerehabilitation and outpatient groups achieved minimal detectable changes in the outcome measures examined at equivalent rates.
“The game-based model with virtual visits by a physical therapist can be modified to include exercises specific for other motor, coordination, spasticity, and movement dysfunctions and may be useful for other chronic and progressive dysfunction seen in Parkinson’s disease, stroke, and other movement and neuromuscular disorders,” said Dr. Barksdale.
“Future studies are needed to further establish guidelines for patient selection and mode of delivery, as well as design of future telerehabilitation programs,” she added. “Duration of treatment and types of exercises to be included should also be examined. Further research into use of telerehabilitation for the treatment of upper-extremity, cognitive, speech, and swallowing dysfunction should also be examined.”
The investigators conducted their study without outside funding and reported no disclosures.
SOURCE: Barksdale H et al. CMSC 2020. Abstract REH11.
Telerehabilitation also saves time and travel cost, compared with outpatient rehabilitation.
“This model of home-based telerehabilitation offers a safe and cost-effective method for improving function and quality of life for MS patients with mobility deficits,” said Heather Barksdale, DPT, a neurological clinical specialist at UF Health Jacksonville (Florida).
The study was presented at the virtual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC).
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services do not reimburse for telerehabilitation services. Patients with MS have difficulty accessing rehabilitation specialists because of impaired mobility and lack of access to transportation. “We are based in Jacksonville, Fla., and often have patients who have to travel from Tallahassee, Panama City, Daytona Beach, and Brunswick, Ga., to receive specialty services,” said Dr. Barksdale. “Telerehabilitation would allow these patients to get access to high-quality rehab services with clinicians that specialize in MS.”
Dr. Barksdale and colleagues conducted a pilot study to evaluate the feasibility of a physical therapy–guided telerehabilitation program for people with mobility impairments resulting from confirmed MS. The investigators enrolled patients at the MS Center of Excellence at University of Florida Health Jacksonville into a telerehabilitation group. A board-certified neurologist and a physical therapist specializing in MS examined participants in person at baseline. The latter underwent an 8-week program of physical therapy–guided telerehabilitation that used the Jintronix software platform and a kinetic tracking system.
By reviewing charts during January 2018–September 2019, Dr. Barksdale and colleagues selected patients with MS who were seen on an outpatient basis by the same physical therapists who were administering telerehabilitation. This outpatient comparison group was matched to the telerehabilitation group on duration of treatment and outcome measures completed. Dr. Barksdale and colleagues reviewed the data for the effects of the two interventions on mobility and travel.
Eight patients completed the telerehabilitation program, and all had improvements in fatigue, quality of life, or mobility measures. The investigators did not observe any adverse events during or after the intervention. The total savings in projected travel costs for all eight participants was $8,487.23, compared with the outpatient group. Participants in the telerehabilitation and outpatient groups achieved minimal detectable changes in the outcome measures examined at equivalent rates.
“The game-based model with virtual visits by a physical therapist can be modified to include exercises specific for other motor, coordination, spasticity, and movement dysfunctions and may be useful for other chronic and progressive dysfunction seen in Parkinson’s disease, stroke, and other movement and neuromuscular disorders,” said Dr. Barksdale.
“Future studies are needed to further establish guidelines for patient selection and mode of delivery, as well as design of future telerehabilitation programs,” she added. “Duration of treatment and types of exercises to be included should also be examined. Further research into use of telerehabilitation for the treatment of upper-extremity, cognitive, speech, and swallowing dysfunction should also be examined.”
The investigators conducted their study without outside funding and reported no disclosures.
SOURCE: Barksdale H et al. CMSC 2020. Abstract REH11.
REPORTING FROM CMSC 2020
FDA approves ixekizumab for nonradiographic axSpA
The Food and Drug Administration has extended approval of ixekizumab (Taltz) to the treatment of nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA), according to a press release from its manufacturer, Eli Lilly. Specifically, this supplemental biologics license application refers to nr-axSpA with objective signs of inflammation.
The monoclonal interleukin-17A antagonist has three other indications, including ankylosing spondylitis in adults, psoriatic arthritis in adults, and plaque psoriasis in adults and children aged 6 years and older. It is the first IL-17A antagonist to receive FDA approval for nr-axSpA.
Approval for this indication was based on the phase 3, randomized, double-blind COAST-X trial, which put 96 nr-axSpA patients on 80-mg injections of ixekizumab every 4 weeks and 105 on placebo. After 52 weeks, ixekizumab was superior on the trial’s primary endpoint: 30% of patients had achieved a 40% improvement in Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society response criteria (ASAS 40), compared with 13% of patients on placebo (P = .0045).
Warnings and precautions for ixekizumab include considering potentially increased risk of infection and inflammatory bowel disease, as well as evaluating patients for tuberculosis before treatment. The most common adverse reactions (≥1%) are injection-site reactions, upper respiratory tract infections, nausea, and tinea infections. The safety profile for ixekizumab among nr-axSpA patients is mostly consistent with that seen among patients receiving it for other indications, according to Lilly. The full prescribing information is available on Lilly’s website.
The Food and Drug Administration has extended approval of ixekizumab (Taltz) to the treatment of nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA), according to a press release from its manufacturer, Eli Lilly. Specifically, this supplemental biologics license application refers to nr-axSpA with objective signs of inflammation.
The monoclonal interleukin-17A antagonist has three other indications, including ankylosing spondylitis in adults, psoriatic arthritis in adults, and plaque psoriasis in adults and children aged 6 years and older. It is the first IL-17A antagonist to receive FDA approval for nr-axSpA.
Approval for this indication was based on the phase 3, randomized, double-blind COAST-X trial, which put 96 nr-axSpA patients on 80-mg injections of ixekizumab every 4 weeks and 105 on placebo. After 52 weeks, ixekizumab was superior on the trial’s primary endpoint: 30% of patients had achieved a 40% improvement in Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society response criteria (ASAS 40), compared with 13% of patients on placebo (P = .0045).
Warnings and precautions for ixekizumab include considering potentially increased risk of infection and inflammatory bowel disease, as well as evaluating patients for tuberculosis before treatment. The most common adverse reactions (≥1%) are injection-site reactions, upper respiratory tract infections, nausea, and tinea infections. The safety profile for ixekizumab among nr-axSpA patients is mostly consistent with that seen among patients receiving it for other indications, according to Lilly. The full prescribing information is available on Lilly’s website.
The Food and Drug Administration has extended approval of ixekizumab (Taltz) to the treatment of nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA), according to a press release from its manufacturer, Eli Lilly. Specifically, this supplemental biologics license application refers to nr-axSpA with objective signs of inflammation.
The monoclonal interleukin-17A antagonist has three other indications, including ankylosing spondylitis in adults, psoriatic arthritis in adults, and plaque psoriasis in adults and children aged 6 years and older. It is the first IL-17A antagonist to receive FDA approval for nr-axSpA.
Approval for this indication was based on the phase 3, randomized, double-blind COAST-X trial, which put 96 nr-axSpA patients on 80-mg injections of ixekizumab every 4 weeks and 105 on placebo. After 52 weeks, ixekizumab was superior on the trial’s primary endpoint: 30% of patients had achieved a 40% improvement in Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society response criteria (ASAS 40), compared with 13% of patients on placebo (P = .0045).
Warnings and precautions for ixekizumab include considering potentially increased risk of infection and inflammatory bowel disease, as well as evaluating patients for tuberculosis before treatment. The most common adverse reactions (≥1%) are injection-site reactions, upper respiratory tract infections, nausea, and tinea infections. The safety profile for ixekizumab among nr-axSpA patients is mostly consistent with that seen among patients receiving it for other indications, according to Lilly. The full prescribing information is available on Lilly’s website.
No benefit of three commonly used medications for MS fatigue
The TRIUMPHANT study found no difference between the effects of amantadine, modafinil, methylphenidate, and placebo in the Modified Fatigue Impact Scale (MFIS) in a study involving 141 patients with MS.
There was also no difference between any of the drugs and placebo in any of the preplanned subgroups which included different Expanded Disability Status Scale scores, depressive scores, use of disease-modifying therapy, or type of MS (relapsing remitting or progressive).
The research was presented online as part of the 2020 American Academy of Neurology Science Highlights.
“These three drugs are used very commonly used for MS fatigue by neurologists, psychiatrists, and primary care doctors, but they don’t seem to be any better than placebo. They were all associated with increased side effects compared with placebo even with short-term use,” said lead investigator Bardia Nourbakhsh, MD, assistant professor of neurology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.
However, in a post hoc analysis there was an improvement in daytime sleepiness with two of the drugs – methylphenidate and modafinil. “These two agents reduced daytime sleepiness in patients with high daytime sleepiness scores at baseline, with about a 4-point difference versus placebo, which was significant. But as this was not a preplanned analysis, we have to be cautious in its interpretation,” Dr. Nourbakhsh said. “However, this finding may not be too surprising as both these drugs are licensed as stimulants for use in narcolepsy patients with excessive daytime sleepiness.”
“Our recommendations are that as amantadine was not better than placebo in any subgroup its use should be discouraged in MS fatigue,” Dr. Nourbakhsh commented. “Modafinil and methylphenidate may possibly be considered for MS patients with excessive daytime sleepiness, but this should really be confirmed in further studies.”
Fatigue is a common and debilitating symptom of MS, occurring in about 70%-80% of patients with MS. There is no approved drug treatment. However nonpharmacologic therapies have shown some success: studies of exercise and cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) have shown these may be effective without causing side effects, Dr. Nourbakhsh noted. “So we should be getting patients to try exercise and CBT before jumping to medication.”
Dr. Nourbakhsh said he was disappointed with the results of the study but not terribly surprised. “We use these three medications frequently in the clinic and we have not been seeing great benefits so we wondered whether they were actually effective.”
He said that the trial was adequately powered and the question has been answered. “These are valuable results – they will hopefully encourage doctors to think twice before prescribing these medications that could be harmful and have no clear benefit,” Dr. Nourbakhsh concluded.
For the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, four-sequence, four-period crossover trial, 141 patients with MS and fatigue received twice-daily oral amantadine (maximum 200 mg/day), modafinil (maximum 200 mg/day), methylphenidate (maximum 20 mg/day), or placebo, each given for up to 6 weeks with a 2-week washout between each medication.
Patients had a mean baseline MFIS score of 51.3 and were randomly assigned to one of four medication administration sequences. Data from 136 participants were available for the analysis of the primary outcome (change in MFIS score), and 111 participants completed all four medication periods.
In the intent-to-treat analysis, the least-squares means of total MFIS scores at the maximally tolerated dose were as follows: 40.7 with placebo, 41.2 with amantadine, 39.0 with modafinil, and 38.7 with methylphenidate (P = .20 for the overall medication effect; P > .05 for all pairwise comparisons). “All medications and placebo reduced the MS fatigue score by 10-12 points from baseline, so there was quite a substantial placebo effect,” Dr. Nourbakhsh noted. There was no statistically significant difference in the physical and cognitive subscales of MFIS and quality of life measures between any of the study medications and placebo. All three drugs were associated with an increase in adverse effects versus placebo.
Dr. Nourbakhsh says he is hopeful that this negative study may stimulate further research into new targets and medications for MS fatigue.
His group has recently conducted a pilot study of intravenous ketamine in MS fatigue with some encouraging results, but he stressed it needs to be tested in a larger study before it can be recommended for use in clinical practice. “While an IV medication is not ideal, the effect did seem to be quite long-lived with a difference still evident at 28 days, so it could perhaps be dosed once a month, which could be feasible,” he said.
Commenting on the TRIUMPHANT study, Jeffrey Cohen, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic, said that “fatigue is a common, often disabling, symptom of MS. It is poorly understood and probably encompasses several mechanisms. There currently is no generally effective treatment for MS-related fatigue.”
“These results are not surprising and confirm previous studies,” Dr. Cohen said. “Despite no benefit from these medicines for patients as a group, they are occasionally helpful for individual patients, so they are frequently tried empirically.
“It also is important to address any factors besides MS that may be causing or contributing to fatigue, for example, sleep disruption, medication side effects, depression, other medical conditions such as anemia or hypothyroidism,” he added.
Dr. Nourbakhsh has reported receiving personal compensation for consulting, serving on a scientific advisory board, speaking, or other activities for Jazz Pharmaceuticals.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
The TRIUMPHANT study found no difference between the effects of amantadine, modafinil, methylphenidate, and placebo in the Modified Fatigue Impact Scale (MFIS) in a study involving 141 patients with MS.
There was also no difference between any of the drugs and placebo in any of the preplanned subgroups which included different Expanded Disability Status Scale scores, depressive scores, use of disease-modifying therapy, or type of MS (relapsing remitting or progressive).
The research was presented online as part of the 2020 American Academy of Neurology Science Highlights.
“These three drugs are used very commonly used for MS fatigue by neurologists, psychiatrists, and primary care doctors, but they don’t seem to be any better than placebo. They were all associated with increased side effects compared with placebo even with short-term use,” said lead investigator Bardia Nourbakhsh, MD, assistant professor of neurology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.
However, in a post hoc analysis there was an improvement in daytime sleepiness with two of the drugs – methylphenidate and modafinil. “These two agents reduced daytime sleepiness in patients with high daytime sleepiness scores at baseline, with about a 4-point difference versus placebo, which was significant. But as this was not a preplanned analysis, we have to be cautious in its interpretation,” Dr. Nourbakhsh said. “However, this finding may not be too surprising as both these drugs are licensed as stimulants for use in narcolepsy patients with excessive daytime sleepiness.”
“Our recommendations are that as amantadine was not better than placebo in any subgroup its use should be discouraged in MS fatigue,” Dr. Nourbakhsh commented. “Modafinil and methylphenidate may possibly be considered for MS patients with excessive daytime sleepiness, but this should really be confirmed in further studies.”
Fatigue is a common and debilitating symptom of MS, occurring in about 70%-80% of patients with MS. There is no approved drug treatment. However nonpharmacologic therapies have shown some success: studies of exercise and cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) have shown these may be effective without causing side effects, Dr. Nourbakhsh noted. “So we should be getting patients to try exercise and CBT before jumping to medication.”
Dr. Nourbakhsh said he was disappointed with the results of the study but not terribly surprised. “We use these three medications frequently in the clinic and we have not been seeing great benefits so we wondered whether they were actually effective.”
He said that the trial was adequately powered and the question has been answered. “These are valuable results – they will hopefully encourage doctors to think twice before prescribing these medications that could be harmful and have no clear benefit,” Dr. Nourbakhsh concluded.
For the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, four-sequence, four-period crossover trial, 141 patients with MS and fatigue received twice-daily oral amantadine (maximum 200 mg/day), modafinil (maximum 200 mg/day), methylphenidate (maximum 20 mg/day), or placebo, each given for up to 6 weeks with a 2-week washout between each medication.
Patients had a mean baseline MFIS score of 51.3 and were randomly assigned to one of four medication administration sequences. Data from 136 participants were available for the analysis of the primary outcome (change in MFIS score), and 111 participants completed all four medication periods.
In the intent-to-treat analysis, the least-squares means of total MFIS scores at the maximally tolerated dose were as follows: 40.7 with placebo, 41.2 with amantadine, 39.0 with modafinil, and 38.7 with methylphenidate (P = .20 for the overall medication effect; P > .05 for all pairwise comparisons). “All medications and placebo reduced the MS fatigue score by 10-12 points from baseline, so there was quite a substantial placebo effect,” Dr. Nourbakhsh noted. There was no statistically significant difference in the physical and cognitive subscales of MFIS and quality of life measures between any of the study medications and placebo. All three drugs were associated with an increase in adverse effects versus placebo.
Dr. Nourbakhsh says he is hopeful that this negative study may stimulate further research into new targets and medications for MS fatigue.
His group has recently conducted a pilot study of intravenous ketamine in MS fatigue with some encouraging results, but he stressed it needs to be tested in a larger study before it can be recommended for use in clinical practice. “While an IV medication is not ideal, the effect did seem to be quite long-lived with a difference still evident at 28 days, so it could perhaps be dosed once a month, which could be feasible,” he said.
Commenting on the TRIUMPHANT study, Jeffrey Cohen, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic, said that “fatigue is a common, often disabling, symptom of MS. It is poorly understood and probably encompasses several mechanisms. There currently is no generally effective treatment for MS-related fatigue.”
“These results are not surprising and confirm previous studies,” Dr. Cohen said. “Despite no benefit from these medicines for patients as a group, they are occasionally helpful for individual patients, so they are frequently tried empirically.
“It also is important to address any factors besides MS that may be causing or contributing to fatigue, for example, sleep disruption, medication side effects, depression, other medical conditions such as anemia or hypothyroidism,” he added.
Dr. Nourbakhsh has reported receiving personal compensation for consulting, serving on a scientific advisory board, speaking, or other activities for Jazz Pharmaceuticals.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
The TRIUMPHANT study found no difference between the effects of amantadine, modafinil, methylphenidate, and placebo in the Modified Fatigue Impact Scale (MFIS) in a study involving 141 patients with MS.
There was also no difference between any of the drugs and placebo in any of the preplanned subgroups which included different Expanded Disability Status Scale scores, depressive scores, use of disease-modifying therapy, or type of MS (relapsing remitting or progressive).
The research was presented online as part of the 2020 American Academy of Neurology Science Highlights.
“These three drugs are used very commonly used for MS fatigue by neurologists, psychiatrists, and primary care doctors, but they don’t seem to be any better than placebo. They were all associated with increased side effects compared with placebo even with short-term use,” said lead investigator Bardia Nourbakhsh, MD, assistant professor of neurology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.
However, in a post hoc analysis there was an improvement in daytime sleepiness with two of the drugs – methylphenidate and modafinil. “These two agents reduced daytime sleepiness in patients with high daytime sleepiness scores at baseline, with about a 4-point difference versus placebo, which was significant. But as this was not a preplanned analysis, we have to be cautious in its interpretation,” Dr. Nourbakhsh said. “However, this finding may not be too surprising as both these drugs are licensed as stimulants for use in narcolepsy patients with excessive daytime sleepiness.”
“Our recommendations are that as amantadine was not better than placebo in any subgroup its use should be discouraged in MS fatigue,” Dr. Nourbakhsh commented. “Modafinil and methylphenidate may possibly be considered for MS patients with excessive daytime sleepiness, but this should really be confirmed in further studies.”
Fatigue is a common and debilitating symptom of MS, occurring in about 70%-80% of patients with MS. There is no approved drug treatment. However nonpharmacologic therapies have shown some success: studies of exercise and cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) have shown these may be effective without causing side effects, Dr. Nourbakhsh noted. “So we should be getting patients to try exercise and CBT before jumping to medication.”
Dr. Nourbakhsh said he was disappointed with the results of the study but not terribly surprised. “We use these three medications frequently in the clinic and we have not been seeing great benefits so we wondered whether they were actually effective.”
He said that the trial was adequately powered and the question has been answered. “These are valuable results – they will hopefully encourage doctors to think twice before prescribing these medications that could be harmful and have no clear benefit,” Dr. Nourbakhsh concluded.
For the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, four-sequence, four-period crossover trial, 141 patients with MS and fatigue received twice-daily oral amantadine (maximum 200 mg/day), modafinil (maximum 200 mg/day), methylphenidate (maximum 20 mg/day), or placebo, each given for up to 6 weeks with a 2-week washout between each medication.
Patients had a mean baseline MFIS score of 51.3 and were randomly assigned to one of four medication administration sequences. Data from 136 participants were available for the analysis of the primary outcome (change in MFIS score), and 111 participants completed all four medication periods.
In the intent-to-treat analysis, the least-squares means of total MFIS scores at the maximally tolerated dose were as follows: 40.7 with placebo, 41.2 with amantadine, 39.0 with modafinil, and 38.7 with methylphenidate (P = .20 for the overall medication effect; P > .05 for all pairwise comparisons). “All medications and placebo reduced the MS fatigue score by 10-12 points from baseline, so there was quite a substantial placebo effect,” Dr. Nourbakhsh noted. There was no statistically significant difference in the physical and cognitive subscales of MFIS and quality of life measures between any of the study medications and placebo. All three drugs were associated with an increase in adverse effects versus placebo.
Dr. Nourbakhsh says he is hopeful that this negative study may stimulate further research into new targets and medications for MS fatigue.
His group has recently conducted a pilot study of intravenous ketamine in MS fatigue with some encouraging results, but he stressed it needs to be tested in a larger study before it can be recommended for use in clinical practice. “While an IV medication is not ideal, the effect did seem to be quite long-lived with a difference still evident at 28 days, so it could perhaps be dosed once a month, which could be feasible,” he said.
Commenting on the TRIUMPHANT study, Jeffrey Cohen, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic, said that “fatigue is a common, often disabling, symptom of MS. It is poorly understood and probably encompasses several mechanisms. There currently is no generally effective treatment for MS-related fatigue.”
“These results are not surprising and confirm previous studies,” Dr. Cohen said. “Despite no benefit from these medicines for patients as a group, they are occasionally helpful for individual patients, so they are frequently tried empirically.
“It also is important to address any factors besides MS that may be causing or contributing to fatigue, for example, sleep disruption, medication side effects, depression, other medical conditions such as anemia or hypothyroidism,” he added.
Dr. Nourbakhsh has reported receiving personal compensation for consulting, serving on a scientific advisory board, speaking, or other activities for Jazz Pharmaceuticals.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
‘After Life’ and before good treatment
Portrayal of psychiatry in Netflix series could deter people from getting help
While many across the world who have access to Netflix and other streaming services have been on lockdown, the second season of Ricky Gervais’s dark comedy series, “After Life,” was released. The show will also return for a third season.
The setup of the show is that Lisa, the wife of Gervais’s protagonist, Tony, has died of breast cancer. Knowing that he would need help after, she made him a video guide to life without her, ranging from the mundane of a garbage day or house alarm to feeding their dog Brandy, tidying the house, and constantly reminding him to take care of himself.
When we first see Tony, he is not doing great on self-care, and he has turned his grief into a “super power” allowing himself to do or say whatever he wants to – from pretending to reprimand his dog for calling a man (who had just told him his dog should be on a lead) a “fat hairy nosy !#$%&” to getting into a name-calling exchange with a primary school child. He later (jokingly) threatens this same child with a hammer, so that the child will stop bullying his nephew.
Tony works as the head of features for the Tambury Gazette, the free local paper. The comedy is full of the hometown charm with Tony and the photographer, Lenny, visiting the homes of the interesting personalities who have called into the paper with their small-town newsworthy stories.
Colorful characters abound in his town, including Postman Pat, who pops in and helps himself to a bath. Tony develops an unlikely friendship with a sex worker whom he hires to clean his house – since she said that she would do “anything for 50 quid.”
Tony, in the midst of an existential crisis, visits his wife’s grave frequently. While there, he meets an older widow, Anne, who befriends him and offers good advice. (Anne is played by Penelope Wilton of The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel and Downton Abbey.)
Tony also dutifully visits his father daily at the Autumnal Leaves Care Home. His father has dementia and keeps asking about Lisa, forgetting that she is dead. Tony comments that if his father were a dog, he would euthanize him. In actuality, Tony’s dog, Brandy, stops Tony’s potential suicide throughout the series.
Matt, who is Tony’s brother-in-law (and boss at the paper) describes Tony as “devastated, suicidal.” Tony explains that he can do and say what he wants, and “then when it all gets too much, I can always kill myself.” By season 2, Matt’s wife has left him, and he, too, needs to see the psychiatrist.
The problem is the Tambury psychiatrist (played by Paul Kaye). General psychiatrists in film have been described in various ways by the late Irving Schneider, MD, including Dr. Evil, Dr. Wonderful, and Dr. Dippy types. “Dr. Dippy’s Sanitarium” was a 1906 silent film in which Dr. Dippy is seen lacking in common sense but being harmless overall. Based on the behaviors displayed in and out of therapy, the Tambury psychiatrist could never be described as Dr. Wonderful, leading to the Dr. Evil or the Dr. Dippy options. He is certainly using patients for his own personal gratification (like a Dr. Evil might) and is certainly lacking in common sense and acting “crazier or more foolish than his patients”1 (like a Dr. Dippy). However, this psychiatrist may need a category all to himself.
Tony sought out the psychiatrist at a desperate time in his life. The dark but comical way he expresses himself: “A good day is one where I don’t go around wanting to shoot random strangers in the face and then turn the gun on myself” is not met with compassion, but unfortunately by inappropriate chuckles. Instead of offering solace, the psychiatrist revealed confidential doctor-patient information about other patients. When pressed, the psychiatrist insists, “I didn’t say his name.” The psychiatrist also explains he is telling Tony privileged information to “let you know you’re not … the only mental case out there.” The psychiatrist is also blatantly tweeting on his phone during the session. He tells his patient that it is ridiculous to want a soul mate and explains that other species might rape their sexual conquest. He yawns loudly in a session with Tony. These are just some of the many cringe-worthy behaviors displayed by this (unnamed) fictional embarrassment to our field.
By season 2, the psychiatrist begins seeing Tony’s brother-in-law, Matt, in treatment, the first of his boundary violations with Matt since Matt is Tony’s close friend and relative. The psychiatrist soon makes the crass self-disclosure to Matt that, “I was bleeding from the anus for a month last year, and I never went to the doctor,” implying Matt is a wimp for coming in. The psychiatrist invites him to go out with him and his friends, and gives him a beer in a session. The psychiatrist tells Matt stories of his sex life and complains about why people are bothered about toxic masculinity. When there is no way it can get worse, Tony and Matt run into the psychiatrist and his mates in a pub. The psychiatrist tells his comrades: “That’s the suicidal one with the dead wife I was telling you about.” When asked about confidentiality, he again protests: “I didn’t say your name mate,” Gestures are made, and the patients are mocked and laughed at. Unfathomably, Matt still returns for therapy, but is told by the psychiatrist to “lie, cheat, just be a man,” and about lesbians using dildos. The psychiatrist complains to Matt he is “sick of this @#!&, hearing people winge all day.”
Dr. Dippy or Dr. Evil – or somewhere in between – Tambury’s psychiatrist is not anyone who should be seeing humans, let alone a vulnerable population seeking help. These satirical behaviors and comments perhaps suggest worries of the general population about what happens behind the closed doors of psychotherapy and the concern that there may not be such a thing as a “safe space.” Even though this character is meant to be funny, there is a concern that, in this difficult time, this portrayal could deter even one person from getting the help that they need.
In spite of this unfortunate characterization of psychiatry, “After Life” is a brilliant, dark portrayal of grief after loss, the comfort of pets, grief while losing someone to dementia, and even growth after loss. The theme of grief is especially poignant during this time of collective grief.
The difficulty is the portrayal of psychiatry and therapy – released at a time when in the real world, we are coping with a pandemic and expecting massive mental health fallout. Negative portrayals of psychiatry and therapy in this and other shows could potentially deter people from taking care of their own mental health in this traumatic time in our collective history when we all need to be vigilant about mental health.
Reference
1. Schneider I. Am J Psychiatry. 1987 Aug;144(8):966-1002.
Portrayal of psychiatry in Netflix series could deter people from getting help
Portrayal of psychiatry in Netflix series could deter people from getting help
While many across the world who have access to Netflix and other streaming services have been on lockdown, the second season of Ricky Gervais’s dark comedy series, “After Life,” was released. The show will also return for a third season.
The setup of the show is that Lisa, the wife of Gervais’s protagonist, Tony, has died of breast cancer. Knowing that he would need help after, she made him a video guide to life without her, ranging from the mundane of a garbage day or house alarm to feeding their dog Brandy, tidying the house, and constantly reminding him to take care of himself.
When we first see Tony, he is not doing great on self-care, and he has turned his grief into a “super power” allowing himself to do or say whatever he wants to – from pretending to reprimand his dog for calling a man (who had just told him his dog should be on a lead) a “fat hairy nosy !#$%&” to getting into a name-calling exchange with a primary school child. He later (jokingly) threatens this same child with a hammer, so that the child will stop bullying his nephew.
Tony works as the head of features for the Tambury Gazette, the free local paper. The comedy is full of the hometown charm with Tony and the photographer, Lenny, visiting the homes of the interesting personalities who have called into the paper with their small-town newsworthy stories.
Colorful characters abound in his town, including Postman Pat, who pops in and helps himself to a bath. Tony develops an unlikely friendship with a sex worker whom he hires to clean his house – since she said that she would do “anything for 50 quid.”
Tony, in the midst of an existential crisis, visits his wife’s grave frequently. While there, he meets an older widow, Anne, who befriends him and offers good advice. (Anne is played by Penelope Wilton of The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel and Downton Abbey.)
Tony also dutifully visits his father daily at the Autumnal Leaves Care Home. His father has dementia and keeps asking about Lisa, forgetting that she is dead. Tony comments that if his father were a dog, he would euthanize him. In actuality, Tony’s dog, Brandy, stops Tony’s potential suicide throughout the series.
Matt, who is Tony’s brother-in-law (and boss at the paper) describes Tony as “devastated, suicidal.” Tony explains that he can do and say what he wants, and “then when it all gets too much, I can always kill myself.” By season 2, Matt’s wife has left him, and he, too, needs to see the psychiatrist.
The problem is the Tambury psychiatrist (played by Paul Kaye). General psychiatrists in film have been described in various ways by the late Irving Schneider, MD, including Dr. Evil, Dr. Wonderful, and Dr. Dippy types. “Dr. Dippy’s Sanitarium” was a 1906 silent film in which Dr. Dippy is seen lacking in common sense but being harmless overall. Based on the behaviors displayed in and out of therapy, the Tambury psychiatrist could never be described as Dr. Wonderful, leading to the Dr. Evil or the Dr. Dippy options. He is certainly using patients for his own personal gratification (like a Dr. Evil might) and is certainly lacking in common sense and acting “crazier or more foolish than his patients”1 (like a Dr. Dippy). However, this psychiatrist may need a category all to himself.
Tony sought out the psychiatrist at a desperate time in his life. The dark but comical way he expresses himself: “A good day is one where I don’t go around wanting to shoot random strangers in the face and then turn the gun on myself” is not met with compassion, but unfortunately by inappropriate chuckles. Instead of offering solace, the psychiatrist revealed confidential doctor-patient information about other patients. When pressed, the psychiatrist insists, “I didn’t say his name.” The psychiatrist also explains he is telling Tony privileged information to “let you know you’re not … the only mental case out there.” The psychiatrist is also blatantly tweeting on his phone during the session. He tells his patient that it is ridiculous to want a soul mate and explains that other species might rape their sexual conquest. He yawns loudly in a session with Tony. These are just some of the many cringe-worthy behaviors displayed by this (unnamed) fictional embarrassment to our field.
By season 2, the psychiatrist begins seeing Tony’s brother-in-law, Matt, in treatment, the first of his boundary violations with Matt since Matt is Tony’s close friend and relative. The psychiatrist soon makes the crass self-disclosure to Matt that, “I was bleeding from the anus for a month last year, and I never went to the doctor,” implying Matt is a wimp for coming in. The psychiatrist invites him to go out with him and his friends, and gives him a beer in a session. The psychiatrist tells Matt stories of his sex life and complains about why people are bothered about toxic masculinity. When there is no way it can get worse, Tony and Matt run into the psychiatrist and his mates in a pub. The psychiatrist tells his comrades: “That’s the suicidal one with the dead wife I was telling you about.” When asked about confidentiality, he again protests: “I didn’t say your name mate,” Gestures are made, and the patients are mocked and laughed at. Unfathomably, Matt still returns for therapy, but is told by the psychiatrist to “lie, cheat, just be a man,” and about lesbians using dildos. The psychiatrist complains to Matt he is “sick of this @#!&, hearing people winge all day.”
Dr. Dippy or Dr. Evil – or somewhere in between – Tambury’s psychiatrist is not anyone who should be seeing humans, let alone a vulnerable population seeking help. These satirical behaviors and comments perhaps suggest worries of the general population about what happens behind the closed doors of psychotherapy and the concern that there may not be such a thing as a “safe space.” Even though this character is meant to be funny, there is a concern that, in this difficult time, this portrayal could deter even one person from getting the help that they need.
In spite of this unfortunate characterization of psychiatry, “After Life” is a brilliant, dark portrayal of grief after loss, the comfort of pets, grief while losing someone to dementia, and even growth after loss. The theme of grief is especially poignant during this time of collective grief.
The difficulty is the portrayal of psychiatry and therapy – released at a time when in the real world, we are coping with a pandemic and expecting massive mental health fallout. Negative portrayals of psychiatry and therapy in this and other shows could potentially deter people from taking care of their own mental health in this traumatic time in our collective history when we all need to be vigilant about mental health.
Reference
1. Schneider I. Am J Psychiatry. 1987 Aug;144(8):966-1002.
While many across the world who have access to Netflix and other streaming services have been on lockdown, the second season of Ricky Gervais’s dark comedy series, “After Life,” was released. The show will also return for a third season.
The setup of the show is that Lisa, the wife of Gervais’s protagonist, Tony, has died of breast cancer. Knowing that he would need help after, she made him a video guide to life without her, ranging from the mundane of a garbage day or house alarm to feeding their dog Brandy, tidying the house, and constantly reminding him to take care of himself.
When we first see Tony, he is not doing great on self-care, and he has turned his grief into a “super power” allowing himself to do or say whatever he wants to – from pretending to reprimand his dog for calling a man (who had just told him his dog should be on a lead) a “fat hairy nosy !#$%&” to getting into a name-calling exchange with a primary school child. He later (jokingly) threatens this same child with a hammer, so that the child will stop bullying his nephew.
Tony works as the head of features for the Tambury Gazette, the free local paper. The comedy is full of the hometown charm with Tony and the photographer, Lenny, visiting the homes of the interesting personalities who have called into the paper with their small-town newsworthy stories.
Colorful characters abound in his town, including Postman Pat, who pops in and helps himself to a bath. Tony develops an unlikely friendship with a sex worker whom he hires to clean his house – since she said that she would do “anything for 50 quid.”
Tony, in the midst of an existential crisis, visits his wife’s grave frequently. While there, he meets an older widow, Anne, who befriends him and offers good advice. (Anne is played by Penelope Wilton of The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel and Downton Abbey.)
Tony also dutifully visits his father daily at the Autumnal Leaves Care Home. His father has dementia and keeps asking about Lisa, forgetting that she is dead. Tony comments that if his father were a dog, he would euthanize him. In actuality, Tony’s dog, Brandy, stops Tony’s potential suicide throughout the series.
Matt, who is Tony’s brother-in-law (and boss at the paper) describes Tony as “devastated, suicidal.” Tony explains that he can do and say what he wants, and “then when it all gets too much, I can always kill myself.” By season 2, Matt’s wife has left him, and he, too, needs to see the psychiatrist.
The problem is the Tambury psychiatrist (played by Paul Kaye). General psychiatrists in film have been described in various ways by the late Irving Schneider, MD, including Dr. Evil, Dr. Wonderful, and Dr. Dippy types. “Dr. Dippy’s Sanitarium” was a 1906 silent film in which Dr. Dippy is seen lacking in common sense but being harmless overall. Based on the behaviors displayed in and out of therapy, the Tambury psychiatrist could never be described as Dr. Wonderful, leading to the Dr. Evil or the Dr. Dippy options. He is certainly using patients for his own personal gratification (like a Dr. Evil might) and is certainly lacking in common sense and acting “crazier or more foolish than his patients”1 (like a Dr. Dippy). However, this psychiatrist may need a category all to himself.
Tony sought out the psychiatrist at a desperate time in his life. The dark but comical way he expresses himself: “A good day is one where I don’t go around wanting to shoot random strangers in the face and then turn the gun on myself” is not met with compassion, but unfortunately by inappropriate chuckles. Instead of offering solace, the psychiatrist revealed confidential doctor-patient information about other patients. When pressed, the psychiatrist insists, “I didn’t say his name.” The psychiatrist also explains he is telling Tony privileged information to “let you know you’re not … the only mental case out there.” The psychiatrist is also blatantly tweeting on his phone during the session. He tells his patient that it is ridiculous to want a soul mate and explains that other species might rape their sexual conquest. He yawns loudly in a session with Tony. These are just some of the many cringe-worthy behaviors displayed by this (unnamed) fictional embarrassment to our field.
By season 2, the psychiatrist begins seeing Tony’s brother-in-law, Matt, in treatment, the first of his boundary violations with Matt since Matt is Tony’s close friend and relative. The psychiatrist soon makes the crass self-disclosure to Matt that, “I was bleeding from the anus for a month last year, and I never went to the doctor,” implying Matt is a wimp for coming in. The psychiatrist invites him to go out with him and his friends, and gives him a beer in a session. The psychiatrist tells Matt stories of his sex life and complains about why people are bothered about toxic masculinity. When there is no way it can get worse, Tony and Matt run into the psychiatrist and his mates in a pub. The psychiatrist tells his comrades: “That’s the suicidal one with the dead wife I was telling you about.” When asked about confidentiality, he again protests: “I didn’t say your name mate,” Gestures are made, and the patients are mocked and laughed at. Unfathomably, Matt still returns for therapy, but is told by the psychiatrist to “lie, cheat, just be a man,” and about lesbians using dildos. The psychiatrist complains to Matt he is “sick of this @#!&, hearing people winge all day.”
Dr. Dippy or Dr. Evil – or somewhere in between – Tambury’s psychiatrist is not anyone who should be seeing humans, let alone a vulnerable population seeking help. These satirical behaviors and comments perhaps suggest worries of the general population about what happens behind the closed doors of psychotherapy and the concern that there may not be such a thing as a “safe space.” Even though this character is meant to be funny, there is a concern that, in this difficult time, this portrayal could deter even one person from getting the help that they need.
In spite of this unfortunate characterization of psychiatry, “After Life” is a brilliant, dark portrayal of grief after loss, the comfort of pets, grief while losing someone to dementia, and even growth after loss. The theme of grief is especially poignant during this time of collective grief.
The difficulty is the portrayal of psychiatry and therapy – released at a time when in the real world, we are coping with a pandemic and expecting massive mental health fallout. Negative portrayals of psychiatry and therapy in this and other shows could potentially deter people from taking care of their own mental health in this traumatic time in our collective history when we all need to be vigilant about mental health.
Reference
1. Schneider I. Am J Psychiatry. 1987 Aug;144(8):966-1002.
Short medication regimen noninferior to long regimen for rifampin-resistant TB
Background: Multidrug-resistant TB is more difficult to treat than is drug-susceptible TB. The 2011 World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations for the treatment of multidrug-resistant TB, based on very-low-quality and conditional evidence, consists of an intensive treatment phase of 8 months and total treatment duration of 20 months. Although cohort studies have shown promising cure rates among patients with multidrug-resistant TB who received existing drugs in regimens shorter than that recommended by the WHO, data from phase 3 randomized trials were lacking.
Study design: Randomized phase 3 noninferior trial.
Setting: Multisite, international; countries were selected based on background disease burden of TB, multidrug-resistant TB, and TB-HIV coinfection (Ethiopia, Mongolia, South Africa, Vietnam).
Synopsis: 424 patients were randomized to the short and long medication regimen groups with 369 included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis and 310 included in the final per protocol efficacy analysis. The short regimen included IV moxifloxacin, clofazimine, ethambutol, and pyrazinamide administered over a 40-week period, supplemented by kanamycin, isoniazid, and prothionamide in the first 16 weeks, compared with 8 months of intense treatment and total 20 months of treatment in the long regimen. At 132 weeks after randomization, cultures were negative for Mycobacterium tuberculosis in more than 78 % patients in both long- and short-regimen group. Unfavorable bacteriologic outcome (10.6%), cardiac conduction defects (9.9%), and hepatobiliary problems (8.9%) were more common in the short-regimen group whereas patients in long-regimen group were lost to follow-up more frequently (2.4%) and had more metabolic disorders (7.1%). More deaths were reported in the short-regimen group, especially in those with HIV coinfections (17.5%). Although the results of this trial are encouraging, further studies will be needed to find a short, simple regimen for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis with improved safety outcomes.
Bottom line: Short medication regimen (9-11 months) is noninferior to the traditional WHO-recommended long regimen (20 months) for treating rifampin-resistant tuberculosis.
Citation: Nunn AJ et al. A trial of a shorter regimen for rifampin-resistant tuberculosis. N Engl J Med. 2019 Mar 28; 380:1201-13.
Dr. Kamath is an assistant professor of medicine at Duke University.
Background: Multidrug-resistant TB is more difficult to treat than is drug-susceptible TB. The 2011 World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations for the treatment of multidrug-resistant TB, based on very-low-quality and conditional evidence, consists of an intensive treatment phase of 8 months and total treatment duration of 20 months. Although cohort studies have shown promising cure rates among patients with multidrug-resistant TB who received existing drugs in regimens shorter than that recommended by the WHO, data from phase 3 randomized trials were lacking.
Study design: Randomized phase 3 noninferior trial.
Setting: Multisite, international; countries were selected based on background disease burden of TB, multidrug-resistant TB, and TB-HIV coinfection (Ethiopia, Mongolia, South Africa, Vietnam).
Synopsis: 424 patients were randomized to the short and long medication regimen groups with 369 included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis and 310 included in the final per protocol efficacy analysis. The short regimen included IV moxifloxacin, clofazimine, ethambutol, and pyrazinamide administered over a 40-week period, supplemented by kanamycin, isoniazid, and prothionamide in the first 16 weeks, compared with 8 months of intense treatment and total 20 months of treatment in the long regimen. At 132 weeks after randomization, cultures were negative for Mycobacterium tuberculosis in more than 78 % patients in both long- and short-regimen group. Unfavorable bacteriologic outcome (10.6%), cardiac conduction defects (9.9%), and hepatobiliary problems (8.9%) were more common in the short-regimen group whereas patients in long-regimen group were lost to follow-up more frequently (2.4%) and had more metabolic disorders (7.1%). More deaths were reported in the short-regimen group, especially in those with HIV coinfections (17.5%). Although the results of this trial are encouraging, further studies will be needed to find a short, simple regimen for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis with improved safety outcomes.
Bottom line: Short medication regimen (9-11 months) is noninferior to the traditional WHO-recommended long regimen (20 months) for treating rifampin-resistant tuberculosis.
Citation: Nunn AJ et al. A trial of a shorter regimen for rifampin-resistant tuberculosis. N Engl J Med. 2019 Mar 28; 380:1201-13.
Dr. Kamath is an assistant professor of medicine at Duke University.
Background: Multidrug-resistant TB is more difficult to treat than is drug-susceptible TB. The 2011 World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations for the treatment of multidrug-resistant TB, based on very-low-quality and conditional evidence, consists of an intensive treatment phase of 8 months and total treatment duration of 20 months. Although cohort studies have shown promising cure rates among patients with multidrug-resistant TB who received existing drugs in regimens shorter than that recommended by the WHO, data from phase 3 randomized trials were lacking.
Study design: Randomized phase 3 noninferior trial.
Setting: Multisite, international; countries were selected based on background disease burden of TB, multidrug-resistant TB, and TB-HIV coinfection (Ethiopia, Mongolia, South Africa, Vietnam).
Synopsis: 424 patients were randomized to the short and long medication regimen groups with 369 included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis and 310 included in the final per protocol efficacy analysis. The short regimen included IV moxifloxacin, clofazimine, ethambutol, and pyrazinamide administered over a 40-week period, supplemented by kanamycin, isoniazid, and prothionamide in the first 16 weeks, compared with 8 months of intense treatment and total 20 months of treatment in the long regimen. At 132 weeks after randomization, cultures were negative for Mycobacterium tuberculosis in more than 78 % patients in both long- and short-regimen group. Unfavorable bacteriologic outcome (10.6%), cardiac conduction defects (9.9%), and hepatobiliary problems (8.9%) were more common in the short-regimen group whereas patients in long-regimen group were lost to follow-up more frequently (2.4%) and had more metabolic disorders (7.1%). More deaths were reported in the short-regimen group, especially in those with HIV coinfections (17.5%). Although the results of this trial are encouraging, further studies will be needed to find a short, simple regimen for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis with improved safety outcomes.
Bottom line: Short medication regimen (9-11 months) is noninferior to the traditional WHO-recommended long regimen (20 months) for treating rifampin-resistant tuberculosis.
Citation: Nunn AJ et al. A trial of a shorter regimen for rifampin-resistant tuberculosis. N Engl J Med. 2019 Mar 28; 380:1201-13.
Dr. Kamath is an assistant professor of medicine at Duke University.
COVID-19: An opportunity to rehumanize psychiatry
Prior to the current crisis of COVID-19, I had a critical view of the direction of our psychiatric field. We have given up on complicated psychotherapies in favor of dispensing medications. We have given up on complicated diagnostic assessments in favor of simple self-rated symptoms questionnaires. Many of us even chose to give up on seeing patients face to face in favor of practicing telepsychiatry in the comfort of our homes. Some even promoted a future of psychiatry in which psychiatrists treated patients through large spreadsheets of evidence-based rating tools following evidence-based algorithms without even ever meeting the patients.
I do not view this problem as unique to psychiatry but rather as part of a larger trend in society. For the past couple of years, Vivek Murthy, MD, the former U.S. surgeon general, has popularized the idea that we are in a loneliness epidemic, saying, “We live in the most technologically connected age in the history of civilization, yet rates of loneliness have doubled since the 1980s.” Despite having enumerable means to reach other human beings, so many of us feel distant and out of touch with others. This loneliness has a measurable impact on our well-being with one study that states, “Actual and perceived social isolation are both associated with increased risk for early mortality.”
Then, seemingly out of nowhere, we were confronted with the largest challenge to our sense of connectedness in my lifetime. Throughout the past months, we have been asked to meet each other less frequently, do so through sterile means, and certainly not shake hands, hug, or embrace. The COVID-19 crisis has quickly made us all experts in telepsychiatry, remote work, and doing more with less. The COVID-19 crisis has asked many of us to put aside some of our human rituals like eating together, enjoying artistic experiences as a group, and touching, for the sake of saving lives.
For many, socially distancing has been a considerable added stressor – a stressor that continues to test humanity’s ability to be resilient. I am saddened by prior patients reaching out to seek comfort in these difficult times. I am touched by their desire to reconnect with someone they know, someone who feels familiar. I am surprised by the power of connection through phone and video calls. For some patients, despite the added burden, the current crisis has been an opportunity for their mental health and a reminder of the things that are important, including calling old friends and staying in touch with those who matter the most.
Yet, Checking in on others can become a chore. The social norm to partake in fashion, and self-care, become harder to find. In some cases, even hygiene and our health take a side role. The weekly phone visits with a therapist can feel just as mundane and repetitive as life. Sleep becomes harder to find, and food loses its taste. At this point, we realize the humanity that we lost in all this.
In the past couple of months, we have all become much more aware of the fragility of connectedness. However, we should recognize that the impact was well on its way before the COVID-19 crisis. It is my opinion that psychiatry should champion the issue of human relations. I do not think that we need to wait for a new DSM diagnosis, an evidence-based paradigm, or a Food and Drug Administration–approved medication to do so. The COVID-19 crisis has rendered us all cognizant of the importance of relationships.
While it may be that psychiatry continues to foray in electronic means of communication, use of impersonal scales and diagnosis, as well as anonymized algorithmic treatment plans, we should also promote as much humanity as society and public health safety will permit. Getting dressed to see your psychiatrist, face to face, to have an open-ended conversation about the nature of one’s life has clearly become something precious and powerful that should be cherished and protected. My hope is the rules and mandates we are required to use during the pandemic today do not become a continued habit that result in further loneliness and disconnect. If we chose to, the lessons we learn today can, in fact, strengthen our appreciation and pursuit of human connection.
Dr. Badre is a forensic psychiatrist in San Diego and an expert in correctional mental health. He holds teaching positions at the University of California, San Diego, and the University of San Diego. He teaches medical education, psychopharmacology, ethics in psychiatry, and correctional care. Among his writings is chapter 7 in the book “Critical Psychiatry: Controversies and Clinical Implications” (Springer, 2019). He has no disclosures.
Prior to the current crisis of COVID-19, I had a critical view of the direction of our psychiatric field. We have given up on complicated psychotherapies in favor of dispensing medications. We have given up on complicated diagnostic assessments in favor of simple self-rated symptoms questionnaires. Many of us even chose to give up on seeing patients face to face in favor of practicing telepsychiatry in the comfort of our homes. Some even promoted a future of psychiatry in which psychiatrists treated patients through large spreadsheets of evidence-based rating tools following evidence-based algorithms without even ever meeting the patients.
I do not view this problem as unique to psychiatry but rather as part of a larger trend in society. For the past couple of years, Vivek Murthy, MD, the former U.S. surgeon general, has popularized the idea that we are in a loneliness epidemic, saying, “We live in the most technologically connected age in the history of civilization, yet rates of loneliness have doubled since the 1980s.” Despite having enumerable means to reach other human beings, so many of us feel distant and out of touch with others. This loneliness has a measurable impact on our well-being with one study that states, “Actual and perceived social isolation are both associated with increased risk for early mortality.”
Then, seemingly out of nowhere, we were confronted with the largest challenge to our sense of connectedness in my lifetime. Throughout the past months, we have been asked to meet each other less frequently, do so through sterile means, and certainly not shake hands, hug, or embrace. The COVID-19 crisis has quickly made us all experts in telepsychiatry, remote work, and doing more with less. The COVID-19 crisis has asked many of us to put aside some of our human rituals like eating together, enjoying artistic experiences as a group, and touching, for the sake of saving lives.
For many, socially distancing has been a considerable added stressor – a stressor that continues to test humanity’s ability to be resilient. I am saddened by prior patients reaching out to seek comfort in these difficult times. I am touched by their desire to reconnect with someone they know, someone who feels familiar. I am surprised by the power of connection through phone and video calls. For some patients, despite the added burden, the current crisis has been an opportunity for their mental health and a reminder of the things that are important, including calling old friends and staying in touch with those who matter the most.
Yet, Checking in on others can become a chore. The social norm to partake in fashion, and self-care, become harder to find. In some cases, even hygiene and our health take a side role. The weekly phone visits with a therapist can feel just as mundane and repetitive as life. Sleep becomes harder to find, and food loses its taste. At this point, we realize the humanity that we lost in all this.
In the past couple of months, we have all become much more aware of the fragility of connectedness. However, we should recognize that the impact was well on its way before the COVID-19 crisis. It is my opinion that psychiatry should champion the issue of human relations. I do not think that we need to wait for a new DSM diagnosis, an evidence-based paradigm, or a Food and Drug Administration–approved medication to do so. The COVID-19 crisis has rendered us all cognizant of the importance of relationships.
While it may be that psychiatry continues to foray in electronic means of communication, use of impersonal scales and diagnosis, as well as anonymized algorithmic treatment plans, we should also promote as much humanity as society and public health safety will permit. Getting dressed to see your psychiatrist, face to face, to have an open-ended conversation about the nature of one’s life has clearly become something precious and powerful that should be cherished and protected. My hope is the rules and mandates we are required to use during the pandemic today do not become a continued habit that result in further loneliness and disconnect. If we chose to, the lessons we learn today can, in fact, strengthen our appreciation and pursuit of human connection.
Dr. Badre is a forensic psychiatrist in San Diego and an expert in correctional mental health. He holds teaching positions at the University of California, San Diego, and the University of San Diego. He teaches medical education, psychopharmacology, ethics in psychiatry, and correctional care. Among his writings is chapter 7 in the book “Critical Psychiatry: Controversies and Clinical Implications” (Springer, 2019). He has no disclosures.
Prior to the current crisis of COVID-19, I had a critical view of the direction of our psychiatric field. We have given up on complicated psychotherapies in favor of dispensing medications. We have given up on complicated diagnostic assessments in favor of simple self-rated symptoms questionnaires. Many of us even chose to give up on seeing patients face to face in favor of practicing telepsychiatry in the comfort of our homes. Some even promoted a future of psychiatry in which psychiatrists treated patients through large spreadsheets of evidence-based rating tools following evidence-based algorithms without even ever meeting the patients.
I do not view this problem as unique to psychiatry but rather as part of a larger trend in society. For the past couple of years, Vivek Murthy, MD, the former U.S. surgeon general, has popularized the idea that we are in a loneliness epidemic, saying, “We live in the most technologically connected age in the history of civilization, yet rates of loneliness have doubled since the 1980s.” Despite having enumerable means to reach other human beings, so many of us feel distant and out of touch with others. This loneliness has a measurable impact on our well-being with one study that states, “Actual and perceived social isolation are both associated with increased risk for early mortality.”
Then, seemingly out of nowhere, we were confronted with the largest challenge to our sense of connectedness in my lifetime. Throughout the past months, we have been asked to meet each other less frequently, do so through sterile means, and certainly not shake hands, hug, or embrace. The COVID-19 crisis has quickly made us all experts in telepsychiatry, remote work, and doing more with less. The COVID-19 crisis has asked many of us to put aside some of our human rituals like eating together, enjoying artistic experiences as a group, and touching, for the sake of saving lives.
For many, socially distancing has been a considerable added stressor – a stressor that continues to test humanity’s ability to be resilient. I am saddened by prior patients reaching out to seek comfort in these difficult times. I am touched by their desire to reconnect with someone they know, someone who feels familiar. I am surprised by the power of connection through phone and video calls. For some patients, despite the added burden, the current crisis has been an opportunity for their mental health and a reminder of the things that are important, including calling old friends and staying in touch with those who matter the most.
Yet, Checking in on others can become a chore. The social norm to partake in fashion, and self-care, become harder to find. In some cases, even hygiene and our health take a side role. The weekly phone visits with a therapist can feel just as mundane and repetitive as life. Sleep becomes harder to find, and food loses its taste. At this point, we realize the humanity that we lost in all this.
In the past couple of months, we have all become much more aware of the fragility of connectedness. However, we should recognize that the impact was well on its way before the COVID-19 crisis. It is my opinion that psychiatry should champion the issue of human relations. I do not think that we need to wait for a new DSM diagnosis, an evidence-based paradigm, or a Food and Drug Administration–approved medication to do so. The COVID-19 crisis has rendered us all cognizant of the importance of relationships.
While it may be that psychiatry continues to foray in electronic means of communication, use of impersonal scales and diagnosis, as well as anonymized algorithmic treatment plans, we should also promote as much humanity as society and public health safety will permit. Getting dressed to see your psychiatrist, face to face, to have an open-ended conversation about the nature of one’s life has clearly become something precious and powerful that should be cherished and protected. My hope is the rules and mandates we are required to use during the pandemic today do not become a continued habit that result in further loneliness and disconnect. If we chose to, the lessons we learn today can, in fact, strengthen our appreciation and pursuit of human connection.
Dr. Badre is a forensic psychiatrist in San Diego and an expert in correctional mental health. He holds teaching positions at the University of California, San Diego, and the University of San Diego. He teaches medical education, psychopharmacology, ethics in psychiatry, and correctional care. Among his writings is chapter 7 in the book “Critical Psychiatry: Controversies and Clinical Implications” (Springer, 2019). He has no disclosures.
Treating primary tumor doesn’t improve OS in stage IV breast cancer
In patients with newly diagnosed stage IV breast cancer and an intact primary tumor, locoregional therapy after optimal systemic therapy does not improve survival or quality of life, results of the phase 3 E2108 trial suggest.
Among 256 patients with stage IV breast cancer with intact primary tumors who had no disease progression for 4-8 months after the start of optimal systemic therapy, there were no significant differences in overall survival or progression-free survival between patients randomized to receive locoregional therapy and those who did not receive the locoregional treatment.
Although patients who did not receive locoregional treatment had a 150% higher rate of local recurrence/progression, health-related quality of life (HRQOL) was actually worse at 18 months among the patients who underwent locoregional therapy. There were no HRQOL differences at 6 months, 12 months, or 30 months of follow-up.
Seema A. Khan, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, reported these results during a plenary session broadcast as a part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.
“There is no hint here of an advantage in terms of survival with the use of early locoregional therapy for the primary site,” Dr. Khan said.
Although neither the E2108 trial nor similar trials showed an overall survival advantage for locoregional therapy, as many as 20% of patients who are treated with systemic therapy alone may need locoregional therapy with surgery and/or radiation at some point for palliation or progression, said invited discussant Julia R. White, MD, professor of radiation oncology at the Ohio State University, Columbus.
“Locoregional therapy should be reserved for these patients that become symptomatic or progress locally. There may be a role for routine locoregional therapy for de novo oligometastatic breast cancer in combination with systemic therapy plus ablative therapy” to secure long-term remission or cure, questions that are being addressed in ongoing clinical trials, Dr. White said.
Past data
An estimated 6% of newly diagnosed breast cancer patients present with stage IV disease and an intact primary tumor.
The rationale for locoregional therapy of the primary tumor in patients with metastatic disease is based on retrospective data suggesting a survival advantage. However, the studies were biased because of younger patient populations with small tumors, a higher proportion of estrogen receptor–positive disease, and a generally lower metastatic burden than that seen in the E2108 population, according to Dr. Khan.
She went on to cite two randomized trials with differing outcomes. One trial showed no survival advantage with locoregional therapy at 2 years (Lancet Oncol. 2015 Oct;16[13]:1380-8). The other showed an improvement in survival with locoregional therapy at 5 years (Ann Surg Oncol. 2018 Oct;25[11]:3141-9).
E2108 details
In the E2108 trial, patients first received optimal systemic therapy based on individual patient and disease features. Patients who had no disease progression or distant disease for at least 4-8 months of therapy were then randomized to additional therapy.
In one randomized arm, patients received continued systemic therapy alone. The other arm received early local therapy, which included complete tumor resection with free surgical margins and postoperative radiotherapy according to the standard of care.
A total of 390 patients were registered, and 256 went on to randomization. Of those subjects, 131 were randomized to the continued systemic therapy arm and 125 to the early local therapy arm. All patients in each arm were included in the efficacy analysis.
In all, 59.6% of randomized patients had hormone receptor–positive/HER2-negative disease, 8.2% had triple-negative disease, and 32.2% had HER2-positive disease. Metastases included bone-only disease in 37.9% of patients, visceral-only disease in 24.2%, and 40.9% in both sites.
Among the patients randomized to early local therapy, 14 did not have surgery for personal, clinical, or insurance reasons. Of the 109 who went on to surgery, 87 had clear surgical margins, and 74 received locoregional radiation therapy.
Survival, progression, and HRQOL
At a median follow-up of 53 months, the median overall survival was 54 months in each arm. There was no significant difference in survival between the study arms, with superimposable survival curves (hazard ratio, 1.09; P = .63).
An analysis of overall survival by tumor type showed that, for the 20 women with triple-negative disease, survival was worse with early local therapy (HR, 3.50). There were no differences in survival either for the 79 patients with HER2-positive disease or for the 137 patients with hormone receptor–positive/HER2-negative disease.
Locoregional progression occurred in 25.6% of patients assigned to continued systemic therapy, compared with 10.2% assigned to early local therapy. However, progression-free survival was virtually identical between the study arms (P = .40).
At most time points, there were no significant between-arm differences in HRQOL. The exception was at 18 months of follow-up, when the HRQOL was significantly lower among patients who had undergone early local therapy (P = .001).
“Based on available data, locoregional therapy for the primary tumor should not be offered to women with stage IV breast cancer with the expectation of a survival benefit. When systemic disease is well controlled with systemic therapy but the primary site is progressing, as does happen occasionally, locoregional treatment can be considered,” Dr. Khan concluded.
She noted there is an ongoing trial of similar design in Japan (JCOG-1017), with results expected in 2022.
The current trial was supported by the National Cancer Institute and Canadian Cancer Society. Dr. Khan reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. White reported institutional research funding from Intraop Medical.
SOURCE: Khan SA et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract LBA2.
In patients with newly diagnosed stage IV breast cancer and an intact primary tumor, locoregional therapy after optimal systemic therapy does not improve survival or quality of life, results of the phase 3 E2108 trial suggest.
Among 256 patients with stage IV breast cancer with intact primary tumors who had no disease progression for 4-8 months after the start of optimal systemic therapy, there were no significant differences in overall survival or progression-free survival between patients randomized to receive locoregional therapy and those who did not receive the locoregional treatment.
Although patients who did not receive locoregional treatment had a 150% higher rate of local recurrence/progression, health-related quality of life (HRQOL) was actually worse at 18 months among the patients who underwent locoregional therapy. There were no HRQOL differences at 6 months, 12 months, or 30 months of follow-up.
Seema A. Khan, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, reported these results during a plenary session broadcast as a part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.
“There is no hint here of an advantage in terms of survival with the use of early locoregional therapy for the primary site,” Dr. Khan said.
Although neither the E2108 trial nor similar trials showed an overall survival advantage for locoregional therapy, as many as 20% of patients who are treated with systemic therapy alone may need locoregional therapy with surgery and/or radiation at some point for palliation or progression, said invited discussant Julia R. White, MD, professor of radiation oncology at the Ohio State University, Columbus.
“Locoregional therapy should be reserved for these patients that become symptomatic or progress locally. There may be a role for routine locoregional therapy for de novo oligometastatic breast cancer in combination with systemic therapy plus ablative therapy” to secure long-term remission or cure, questions that are being addressed in ongoing clinical trials, Dr. White said.
Past data
An estimated 6% of newly diagnosed breast cancer patients present with stage IV disease and an intact primary tumor.
The rationale for locoregional therapy of the primary tumor in patients with metastatic disease is based on retrospective data suggesting a survival advantage. However, the studies were biased because of younger patient populations with small tumors, a higher proportion of estrogen receptor–positive disease, and a generally lower metastatic burden than that seen in the E2108 population, according to Dr. Khan.
She went on to cite two randomized trials with differing outcomes. One trial showed no survival advantage with locoregional therapy at 2 years (Lancet Oncol. 2015 Oct;16[13]:1380-8). The other showed an improvement in survival with locoregional therapy at 5 years (Ann Surg Oncol. 2018 Oct;25[11]:3141-9).
E2108 details
In the E2108 trial, patients first received optimal systemic therapy based on individual patient and disease features. Patients who had no disease progression or distant disease for at least 4-8 months of therapy were then randomized to additional therapy.
In one randomized arm, patients received continued systemic therapy alone. The other arm received early local therapy, which included complete tumor resection with free surgical margins and postoperative radiotherapy according to the standard of care.
A total of 390 patients were registered, and 256 went on to randomization. Of those subjects, 131 were randomized to the continued systemic therapy arm and 125 to the early local therapy arm. All patients in each arm were included in the efficacy analysis.
In all, 59.6% of randomized patients had hormone receptor–positive/HER2-negative disease, 8.2% had triple-negative disease, and 32.2% had HER2-positive disease. Metastases included bone-only disease in 37.9% of patients, visceral-only disease in 24.2%, and 40.9% in both sites.
Among the patients randomized to early local therapy, 14 did not have surgery for personal, clinical, or insurance reasons. Of the 109 who went on to surgery, 87 had clear surgical margins, and 74 received locoregional radiation therapy.
Survival, progression, and HRQOL
At a median follow-up of 53 months, the median overall survival was 54 months in each arm. There was no significant difference in survival between the study arms, with superimposable survival curves (hazard ratio, 1.09; P = .63).
An analysis of overall survival by tumor type showed that, for the 20 women with triple-negative disease, survival was worse with early local therapy (HR, 3.50). There were no differences in survival either for the 79 patients with HER2-positive disease or for the 137 patients with hormone receptor–positive/HER2-negative disease.
Locoregional progression occurred in 25.6% of patients assigned to continued systemic therapy, compared with 10.2% assigned to early local therapy. However, progression-free survival was virtually identical between the study arms (P = .40).
At most time points, there were no significant between-arm differences in HRQOL. The exception was at 18 months of follow-up, when the HRQOL was significantly lower among patients who had undergone early local therapy (P = .001).
“Based on available data, locoregional therapy for the primary tumor should not be offered to women with stage IV breast cancer with the expectation of a survival benefit. When systemic disease is well controlled with systemic therapy but the primary site is progressing, as does happen occasionally, locoregional treatment can be considered,” Dr. Khan concluded.
She noted there is an ongoing trial of similar design in Japan (JCOG-1017), with results expected in 2022.
The current trial was supported by the National Cancer Institute and Canadian Cancer Society. Dr. Khan reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. White reported institutional research funding from Intraop Medical.
SOURCE: Khan SA et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract LBA2.
In patients with newly diagnosed stage IV breast cancer and an intact primary tumor, locoregional therapy after optimal systemic therapy does not improve survival or quality of life, results of the phase 3 E2108 trial suggest.
Among 256 patients with stage IV breast cancer with intact primary tumors who had no disease progression for 4-8 months after the start of optimal systemic therapy, there were no significant differences in overall survival or progression-free survival between patients randomized to receive locoregional therapy and those who did not receive the locoregional treatment.
Although patients who did not receive locoregional treatment had a 150% higher rate of local recurrence/progression, health-related quality of life (HRQOL) was actually worse at 18 months among the patients who underwent locoregional therapy. There were no HRQOL differences at 6 months, 12 months, or 30 months of follow-up.
Seema A. Khan, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, reported these results during a plenary session broadcast as a part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology virtual scientific program.
“There is no hint here of an advantage in terms of survival with the use of early locoregional therapy for the primary site,” Dr. Khan said.
Although neither the E2108 trial nor similar trials showed an overall survival advantage for locoregional therapy, as many as 20% of patients who are treated with systemic therapy alone may need locoregional therapy with surgery and/or radiation at some point for palliation or progression, said invited discussant Julia R. White, MD, professor of radiation oncology at the Ohio State University, Columbus.
“Locoregional therapy should be reserved for these patients that become symptomatic or progress locally. There may be a role for routine locoregional therapy for de novo oligometastatic breast cancer in combination with systemic therapy plus ablative therapy” to secure long-term remission or cure, questions that are being addressed in ongoing clinical trials, Dr. White said.
Past data
An estimated 6% of newly diagnosed breast cancer patients present with stage IV disease and an intact primary tumor.
The rationale for locoregional therapy of the primary tumor in patients with metastatic disease is based on retrospective data suggesting a survival advantage. However, the studies were biased because of younger patient populations with small tumors, a higher proportion of estrogen receptor–positive disease, and a generally lower metastatic burden than that seen in the E2108 population, according to Dr. Khan.
She went on to cite two randomized trials with differing outcomes. One trial showed no survival advantage with locoregional therapy at 2 years (Lancet Oncol. 2015 Oct;16[13]:1380-8). The other showed an improvement in survival with locoregional therapy at 5 years (Ann Surg Oncol. 2018 Oct;25[11]:3141-9).
E2108 details
In the E2108 trial, patients first received optimal systemic therapy based on individual patient and disease features. Patients who had no disease progression or distant disease for at least 4-8 months of therapy were then randomized to additional therapy.
In one randomized arm, patients received continued systemic therapy alone. The other arm received early local therapy, which included complete tumor resection with free surgical margins and postoperative radiotherapy according to the standard of care.
A total of 390 patients were registered, and 256 went on to randomization. Of those subjects, 131 were randomized to the continued systemic therapy arm and 125 to the early local therapy arm. All patients in each arm were included in the efficacy analysis.
In all, 59.6% of randomized patients had hormone receptor–positive/HER2-negative disease, 8.2% had triple-negative disease, and 32.2% had HER2-positive disease. Metastases included bone-only disease in 37.9% of patients, visceral-only disease in 24.2%, and 40.9% in both sites.
Among the patients randomized to early local therapy, 14 did not have surgery for personal, clinical, or insurance reasons. Of the 109 who went on to surgery, 87 had clear surgical margins, and 74 received locoregional radiation therapy.
Survival, progression, and HRQOL
At a median follow-up of 53 months, the median overall survival was 54 months in each arm. There was no significant difference in survival between the study arms, with superimposable survival curves (hazard ratio, 1.09; P = .63).
An analysis of overall survival by tumor type showed that, for the 20 women with triple-negative disease, survival was worse with early local therapy (HR, 3.50). There were no differences in survival either for the 79 patients with HER2-positive disease or for the 137 patients with hormone receptor–positive/HER2-negative disease.
Locoregional progression occurred in 25.6% of patients assigned to continued systemic therapy, compared with 10.2% assigned to early local therapy. However, progression-free survival was virtually identical between the study arms (P = .40).
At most time points, there were no significant between-arm differences in HRQOL. The exception was at 18 months of follow-up, when the HRQOL was significantly lower among patients who had undergone early local therapy (P = .001).
“Based on available data, locoregional therapy for the primary tumor should not be offered to women with stage IV breast cancer with the expectation of a survival benefit. When systemic disease is well controlled with systemic therapy but the primary site is progressing, as does happen occasionally, locoregional treatment can be considered,” Dr. Khan concluded.
She noted there is an ongoing trial of similar design in Japan (JCOG-1017), with results expected in 2022.
The current trial was supported by the National Cancer Institute and Canadian Cancer Society. Dr. Khan reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. White reported institutional research funding from Intraop Medical.
SOURCE: Khan SA et al. ASCO 2020, Abstract LBA2.
FROM ASCO 2020
Latest from ISCHEMIA: Worse outcomes in patients with intermediate left main disease on CCTA
Patients in the landmark ISCHEMIA trial with intermediate left main disease had a greater extent of coronary artery disease on invasive angiography, indicating greater atherosclerotic burden. They also had worse prognosis with a higher risk of cardiovascular events.
“Many times, we are looking at results as to whether patients have left main disease or not,” Sripal Bangalore, MD, said during the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions virtual annual scientific sessions. “Here, we are showing that it’s not black and white; there are shades of gray. If a patient has intermediate left main disease, the prognosis is worse. That’s very important information we need to convey to our referrals also, because many times they may just look at the bottom line and say, ‘there is no left main disease.’ But here, we’re seeing that even having intermediate left main disease has significantly worse prognosis. We need to take that seriously.”
Prior studies show that patients with significant left main disease (LMD; defined as 50% or greater stenosis on coronary CT angiography [CCTA]) have a high risk of cardiovascular events and guidelines recommend revascularization to improve survival, said Dr. Bangalore, an interventional cardiologist at New York University Langone Health. However, the impact of intermediate LMD (defined as 25%-49% stenosis on CCTA) on outcomes is unclear.
Members of the ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches) research group randomized 5,179 participants to an initial invasive or conservative strategy. The main results showed that immediate revascularization in patients with stable ischemic heart disease provided no reduction in cardiovascular endpoints through 4 years of follow-up, compared with initial optimal medical therapy alone.
‘Discordance’ revealed in imaging modalities
For the current analysis, named the ISCHEMIA Intermediate LM Substudy, those who underwent coronary CCTA comprise the LMD substudy cohort. The objective was to evaluate clinical and quality of life outcomes in patients with and without intermediate left main disease on coronary CT and to evaluate the impact of treatment strategy on those outcomes across subgroups.
At baseline, these patients were categorized into those with and without intermediate LMD as determined by a core lab. Patients with LMD of 50% or greater, those with prior coronary artery bypass graft surgery, and those with nonevaluable or missing data on LM stenosis were excluded.
Among the 3,913 ISCHEMIA participants who underwent CCTA, 3,699 satisfied the inclusion criteria. Of these patients, 962 (26%) had intermediate LMD and 2,737 (74%) did not.
The researchers observed no significant differences in baseline characteristics between patients with and without LMD. However, patients with intermediate LMD tended to be older, and a greater proportion had hypertension and diabetes. Stress test characteristics were also similar between patients with and without LMD. However, patients with intermediate LMD tended toward a greater severity of severe ischemia.
This was also true for anatomic disease on CCTA. A higher proportion of patients with intermediate LMD had triple-vessel disease (61%-62%, compared with 36%-40% along those without intermediate LMD). In addition, a higher proportion of patients with intermediate LMD had stenosis in the proximal left anterior artery descending (LAD) artery (65% vs. 39% among those without intermediate LMD).
On analysis limited to 1,846 patients who underwent invasive angiography treatment in the main ISCHEMIA trial, 7% of those who were categorized into the intermediate LMD group were found to have LMD disease of 50% or greater, compared with 1.4% of patients who were categorized as not having intermediate LMD. “This goes to show this discordance between the two modalities [CCTA and coronary angiography], and I think we have to be careful,” said Dr. Bangalore, who also directs NYU Langone’s Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory. “There may be patients with left main disease, even if the CCTA says it’s not at 25%-29% [stenosis].”
The researchers found that, among patients who underwent invasive angiography, a greater proportion of those who were categorized into the LMD group had proximal LAD disease (43% vs. 33% among those who were categorized into the nonintermediate LMD group), triple-vessel disease (47% vs. 35%), a greater extent of coronary artery disease as denoted by a higher SYNTAX score (21 vs. 15), and a higher proportion underwent coronary artery bypass graft surgery (32% vs. 18%).
Intermediate LMD linked to worse outcomes
After the researchers adjusted for baseline differences between the two groups in overall substudy cohort, they found that intermediate LMD severity was an independent predictor of the primary composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, MI, hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, and resuscitated cardiac arrest (hazard ratio, 1.31; P = .0123); cardiovascular death/MI/stroke (HR, 1.30; P = .0143); procedural primary MI (HR, 1.64; P = .0487); heart failure (HR, 2.06; P = .0239); and stroke (HR, 1.82, P = .0362).
“We then looked to see if there is a treatment difference, a treatment effect based on whether patients had intermediate LMD,” Dr. Bangalore said. “Most of the P values were not significant. The results are very consistent with what we saw in the main analysis: not a significant difference between invasive and conservative strategy. We do see some differences, though. An invasive strategy was associated with a significantly higher risk of procedural MI [2.9% vs. 1.5%], but a significantly lower risk of nonprocedural MI [–6.4% vs. –2%].”
Dr. Bangalore added that there was significant benefit of the invasive strategy in reducing angina and improving quality of life based on the Seattle Angina Questionnaire-7. “This result was durable up to 48 months of follow-up, whether the patient had intermediate left main disease or not. These results were dependent on baseline angina status. The benefit of invasive strategy was mainly in patients who had daily, weekly, and monthly angina, and no benefit in patients with no angina; there was no interaction based on intermediate left main status.”
Dr. Bangalore emphasized that the original ISCHEMIA trial excluded patients with severe left main disease by design. “But patients with intermediate left main disease in ISCHEMIA tended to have a greater extent of coronary artery disease, indicating greater atherosclerotic burden. I don’t think that’s any surprise. They had a worse prognosis with higher risk of cardiovascular events but similar quality of life, including angina-specific quality of life.”
The key clinical message, he said, is that patients with intermediate LMD face an increased risk of cardiovascular events. “I think we have to be aggressive in trying to reduce their risk with medical therapy, etc.,” he said. “If they are symptomatic, ISCHEMIA tells us that patients have two options. They can choose an invasive strategy, because clearly there is a benefit. You have a significant benefit at making you feel better and potentially reducing the risk of spontaneous MI over a period of time. Or, you can try medical therapy first. If you do see some left main disease, it’s showing the general burden of atherosclerosis disease in those patients. I think that’s the critical message, that we have to be very aggressive with these patients.”
A call for more imaging studies
An invited panelist, Timothy D. Henry, MD, said that the results of the ISCHEMIA substudy should stimulate further research. “With an intermediate lesion, clearly the interventional group did better, and it wasn’t symptom related,” said Dr. Henry, medical director of the Carl and Edyth Lindner Center for Research and Education at the Christ Hospital in Cincinnati. “So even if you do medical therapy, you’re not going to really find it out. In my mind, this should stimulate us to do more imaging of the left main that are moderate lesions, and follow this up as an independent study. I think this is a really important finding.”
ISCHEMIA was supported by grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Bangalore disclosed that he is a member of the advisory board and/or a board member for Meril, SMT, Pfizer, Amgen, Biotronik, and Abbott. He also is a consultant for Reata Pharmaceuticals.
SOURCE: Bangalore S et al. SCAI 2020, Abstract 11656.
Patients in the landmark ISCHEMIA trial with intermediate left main disease had a greater extent of coronary artery disease on invasive angiography, indicating greater atherosclerotic burden. They also had worse prognosis with a higher risk of cardiovascular events.
“Many times, we are looking at results as to whether patients have left main disease or not,” Sripal Bangalore, MD, said during the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions virtual annual scientific sessions. “Here, we are showing that it’s not black and white; there are shades of gray. If a patient has intermediate left main disease, the prognosis is worse. That’s very important information we need to convey to our referrals also, because many times they may just look at the bottom line and say, ‘there is no left main disease.’ But here, we’re seeing that even having intermediate left main disease has significantly worse prognosis. We need to take that seriously.”
Prior studies show that patients with significant left main disease (LMD; defined as 50% or greater stenosis on coronary CT angiography [CCTA]) have a high risk of cardiovascular events and guidelines recommend revascularization to improve survival, said Dr. Bangalore, an interventional cardiologist at New York University Langone Health. However, the impact of intermediate LMD (defined as 25%-49% stenosis on CCTA) on outcomes is unclear.
Members of the ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches) research group randomized 5,179 participants to an initial invasive or conservative strategy. The main results showed that immediate revascularization in patients with stable ischemic heart disease provided no reduction in cardiovascular endpoints through 4 years of follow-up, compared with initial optimal medical therapy alone.
‘Discordance’ revealed in imaging modalities
For the current analysis, named the ISCHEMIA Intermediate LM Substudy, those who underwent coronary CCTA comprise the LMD substudy cohort. The objective was to evaluate clinical and quality of life outcomes in patients with and without intermediate left main disease on coronary CT and to evaluate the impact of treatment strategy on those outcomes across subgroups.
At baseline, these patients were categorized into those with and without intermediate LMD as determined by a core lab. Patients with LMD of 50% or greater, those with prior coronary artery bypass graft surgery, and those with nonevaluable or missing data on LM stenosis were excluded.
Among the 3,913 ISCHEMIA participants who underwent CCTA, 3,699 satisfied the inclusion criteria. Of these patients, 962 (26%) had intermediate LMD and 2,737 (74%) did not.
The researchers observed no significant differences in baseline characteristics between patients with and without LMD. However, patients with intermediate LMD tended to be older, and a greater proportion had hypertension and diabetes. Stress test characteristics were also similar between patients with and without LMD. However, patients with intermediate LMD tended toward a greater severity of severe ischemia.
This was also true for anatomic disease on CCTA. A higher proportion of patients with intermediate LMD had triple-vessel disease (61%-62%, compared with 36%-40% along those without intermediate LMD). In addition, a higher proportion of patients with intermediate LMD had stenosis in the proximal left anterior artery descending (LAD) artery (65% vs. 39% among those without intermediate LMD).
On analysis limited to 1,846 patients who underwent invasive angiography treatment in the main ISCHEMIA trial, 7% of those who were categorized into the intermediate LMD group were found to have LMD disease of 50% or greater, compared with 1.4% of patients who were categorized as not having intermediate LMD. “This goes to show this discordance between the two modalities [CCTA and coronary angiography], and I think we have to be careful,” said Dr. Bangalore, who also directs NYU Langone’s Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory. “There may be patients with left main disease, even if the CCTA says it’s not at 25%-29% [stenosis].”
The researchers found that, among patients who underwent invasive angiography, a greater proportion of those who were categorized into the LMD group had proximal LAD disease (43% vs. 33% among those who were categorized into the nonintermediate LMD group), triple-vessel disease (47% vs. 35%), a greater extent of coronary artery disease as denoted by a higher SYNTAX score (21 vs. 15), and a higher proportion underwent coronary artery bypass graft surgery (32% vs. 18%).
Intermediate LMD linked to worse outcomes
After the researchers adjusted for baseline differences between the two groups in overall substudy cohort, they found that intermediate LMD severity was an independent predictor of the primary composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, MI, hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, and resuscitated cardiac arrest (hazard ratio, 1.31; P = .0123); cardiovascular death/MI/stroke (HR, 1.30; P = .0143); procedural primary MI (HR, 1.64; P = .0487); heart failure (HR, 2.06; P = .0239); and stroke (HR, 1.82, P = .0362).
“We then looked to see if there is a treatment difference, a treatment effect based on whether patients had intermediate LMD,” Dr. Bangalore said. “Most of the P values were not significant. The results are very consistent with what we saw in the main analysis: not a significant difference between invasive and conservative strategy. We do see some differences, though. An invasive strategy was associated with a significantly higher risk of procedural MI [2.9% vs. 1.5%], but a significantly lower risk of nonprocedural MI [–6.4% vs. –2%].”
Dr. Bangalore added that there was significant benefit of the invasive strategy in reducing angina and improving quality of life based on the Seattle Angina Questionnaire-7. “This result was durable up to 48 months of follow-up, whether the patient had intermediate left main disease or not. These results were dependent on baseline angina status. The benefit of invasive strategy was mainly in patients who had daily, weekly, and monthly angina, and no benefit in patients with no angina; there was no interaction based on intermediate left main status.”
Dr. Bangalore emphasized that the original ISCHEMIA trial excluded patients with severe left main disease by design. “But patients with intermediate left main disease in ISCHEMIA tended to have a greater extent of coronary artery disease, indicating greater atherosclerotic burden. I don’t think that’s any surprise. They had a worse prognosis with higher risk of cardiovascular events but similar quality of life, including angina-specific quality of life.”
The key clinical message, he said, is that patients with intermediate LMD face an increased risk of cardiovascular events. “I think we have to be aggressive in trying to reduce their risk with medical therapy, etc.,” he said. “If they are symptomatic, ISCHEMIA tells us that patients have two options. They can choose an invasive strategy, because clearly there is a benefit. You have a significant benefit at making you feel better and potentially reducing the risk of spontaneous MI over a period of time. Or, you can try medical therapy first. If you do see some left main disease, it’s showing the general burden of atherosclerosis disease in those patients. I think that’s the critical message, that we have to be very aggressive with these patients.”
A call for more imaging studies
An invited panelist, Timothy D. Henry, MD, said that the results of the ISCHEMIA substudy should stimulate further research. “With an intermediate lesion, clearly the interventional group did better, and it wasn’t symptom related,” said Dr. Henry, medical director of the Carl and Edyth Lindner Center for Research and Education at the Christ Hospital in Cincinnati. “So even if you do medical therapy, you’re not going to really find it out. In my mind, this should stimulate us to do more imaging of the left main that are moderate lesions, and follow this up as an independent study. I think this is a really important finding.”
ISCHEMIA was supported by grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Bangalore disclosed that he is a member of the advisory board and/or a board member for Meril, SMT, Pfizer, Amgen, Biotronik, and Abbott. He also is a consultant for Reata Pharmaceuticals.
SOURCE: Bangalore S et al. SCAI 2020, Abstract 11656.
Patients in the landmark ISCHEMIA trial with intermediate left main disease had a greater extent of coronary artery disease on invasive angiography, indicating greater atherosclerotic burden. They also had worse prognosis with a higher risk of cardiovascular events.
“Many times, we are looking at results as to whether patients have left main disease or not,” Sripal Bangalore, MD, said during the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions virtual annual scientific sessions. “Here, we are showing that it’s not black and white; there are shades of gray. If a patient has intermediate left main disease, the prognosis is worse. That’s very important information we need to convey to our referrals also, because many times they may just look at the bottom line and say, ‘there is no left main disease.’ But here, we’re seeing that even having intermediate left main disease has significantly worse prognosis. We need to take that seriously.”
Prior studies show that patients with significant left main disease (LMD; defined as 50% or greater stenosis on coronary CT angiography [CCTA]) have a high risk of cardiovascular events and guidelines recommend revascularization to improve survival, said Dr. Bangalore, an interventional cardiologist at New York University Langone Health. However, the impact of intermediate LMD (defined as 25%-49% stenosis on CCTA) on outcomes is unclear.
Members of the ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches) research group randomized 5,179 participants to an initial invasive or conservative strategy. The main results showed that immediate revascularization in patients with stable ischemic heart disease provided no reduction in cardiovascular endpoints through 4 years of follow-up, compared with initial optimal medical therapy alone.
‘Discordance’ revealed in imaging modalities
For the current analysis, named the ISCHEMIA Intermediate LM Substudy, those who underwent coronary CCTA comprise the LMD substudy cohort. The objective was to evaluate clinical and quality of life outcomes in patients with and without intermediate left main disease on coronary CT and to evaluate the impact of treatment strategy on those outcomes across subgroups.
At baseline, these patients were categorized into those with and without intermediate LMD as determined by a core lab. Patients with LMD of 50% or greater, those with prior coronary artery bypass graft surgery, and those with nonevaluable or missing data on LM stenosis were excluded.
Among the 3,913 ISCHEMIA participants who underwent CCTA, 3,699 satisfied the inclusion criteria. Of these patients, 962 (26%) had intermediate LMD and 2,737 (74%) did not.
The researchers observed no significant differences in baseline characteristics between patients with and without LMD. However, patients with intermediate LMD tended to be older, and a greater proportion had hypertension and diabetes. Stress test characteristics were also similar between patients with and without LMD. However, patients with intermediate LMD tended toward a greater severity of severe ischemia.
This was also true for anatomic disease on CCTA. A higher proportion of patients with intermediate LMD had triple-vessel disease (61%-62%, compared with 36%-40% along those without intermediate LMD). In addition, a higher proportion of patients with intermediate LMD had stenosis in the proximal left anterior artery descending (LAD) artery (65% vs. 39% among those without intermediate LMD).
On analysis limited to 1,846 patients who underwent invasive angiography treatment in the main ISCHEMIA trial, 7% of those who were categorized into the intermediate LMD group were found to have LMD disease of 50% or greater, compared with 1.4% of patients who were categorized as not having intermediate LMD. “This goes to show this discordance between the two modalities [CCTA and coronary angiography], and I think we have to be careful,” said Dr. Bangalore, who also directs NYU Langone’s Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory. “There may be patients with left main disease, even if the CCTA says it’s not at 25%-29% [stenosis].”
The researchers found that, among patients who underwent invasive angiography, a greater proportion of those who were categorized into the LMD group had proximal LAD disease (43% vs. 33% among those who were categorized into the nonintermediate LMD group), triple-vessel disease (47% vs. 35%), a greater extent of coronary artery disease as denoted by a higher SYNTAX score (21 vs. 15), and a higher proportion underwent coronary artery bypass graft surgery (32% vs. 18%).
Intermediate LMD linked to worse outcomes
After the researchers adjusted for baseline differences between the two groups in overall substudy cohort, they found that intermediate LMD severity was an independent predictor of the primary composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, MI, hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, and resuscitated cardiac arrest (hazard ratio, 1.31; P = .0123); cardiovascular death/MI/stroke (HR, 1.30; P = .0143); procedural primary MI (HR, 1.64; P = .0487); heart failure (HR, 2.06; P = .0239); and stroke (HR, 1.82, P = .0362).
“We then looked to see if there is a treatment difference, a treatment effect based on whether patients had intermediate LMD,” Dr. Bangalore said. “Most of the P values were not significant. The results are very consistent with what we saw in the main analysis: not a significant difference between invasive and conservative strategy. We do see some differences, though. An invasive strategy was associated with a significantly higher risk of procedural MI [2.9% vs. 1.5%], but a significantly lower risk of nonprocedural MI [–6.4% vs. –2%].”
Dr. Bangalore added that there was significant benefit of the invasive strategy in reducing angina and improving quality of life based on the Seattle Angina Questionnaire-7. “This result was durable up to 48 months of follow-up, whether the patient had intermediate left main disease or not. These results were dependent on baseline angina status. The benefit of invasive strategy was mainly in patients who had daily, weekly, and monthly angina, and no benefit in patients with no angina; there was no interaction based on intermediate left main status.”
Dr. Bangalore emphasized that the original ISCHEMIA trial excluded patients with severe left main disease by design. “But patients with intermediate left main disease in ISCHEMIA tended to have a greater extent of coronary artery disease, indicating greater atherosclerotic burden. I don’t think that’s any surprise. They had a worse prognosis with higher risk of cardiovascular events but similar quality of life, including angina-specific quality of life.”
The key clinical message, he said, is that patients with intermediate LMD face an increased risk of cardiovascular events. “I think we have to be aggressive in trying to reduce their risk with medical therapy, etc.,” he said. “If they are symptomatic, ISCHEMIA tells us that patients have two options. They can choose an invasive strategy, because clearly there is a benefit. You have a significant benefit at making you feel better and potentially reducing the risk of spontaneous MI over a period of time. Or, you can try medical therapy first. If you do see some left main disease, it’s showing the general burden of atherosclerosis disease in those patients. I think that’s the critical message, that we have to be very aggressive with these patients.”
A call for more imaging studies
An invited panelist, Timothy D. Henry, MD, said that the results of the ISCHEMIA substudy should stimulate further research. “With an intermediate lesion, clearly the interventional group did better, and it wasn’t symptom related,” said Dr. Henry, medical director of the Carl and Edyth Lindner Center for Research and Education at the Christ Hospital in Cincinnati. “So even if you do medical therapy, you’re not going to really find it out. In my mind, this should stimulate us to do more imaging of the left main that are moderate lesions, and follow this up as an independent study. I think this is a really important finding.”
ISCHEMIA was supported by grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Bangalore disclosed that he is a member of the advisory board and/or a board member for Meril, SMT, Pfizer, Amgen, Biotronik, and Abbott. He also is a consultant for Reata Pharmaceuticals.
SOURCE: Bangalore S et al. SCAI 2020, Abstract 11656.
FROM SCAI 2020