User login
Hemostatic clipping cuts bleeds after large polyp removal
WASHINGTON –
“The benefit appears limited to proximal polyps,” Heiko Pohl, MD, said at the annual Digestive Disease Week®. In that prespecified subgroup, which included two-thirds of enrolled patients, placement of hemostatic clips on defects left after removing polyps 20 mm in diameter or larger cut the rate of delayed, severe bleeding by two-thirds, compared with patients with large defects not treated with clips. This result represented a number needed to treat with clips of 15 patients with large proximal polyps to prevent one episode of delayed severe bleeding, said Dr. Pohl, a gastroenterologist at the VA Medical Center in White River Junction, Vt.
Although the results that Dr. Pohl reported came from a trial that originally had been designed to generate data for Food and Drug Administration approval for using the clips to close defects following large polyp removal, the clips received approval for this indication from the agency in 2016 while the study was still in progress.
But Dr. Pohl maintained that the new evidence for efficacy that he reported will provide further impetus for gastroenterologists to use clips when they remove larger polyps in proximal locations. “I think this study will help standardize treatment of mucosal resections and change clip use,” he said in an interview.
“This was a terrific study, and one that needed to be done,” commented John R. Saltzman, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and director of endoscopy at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. But Dr. Saltzman, who spoke from the floor during discussion of Dr. Pohl’s report, added that data on the average number of clips required to close defects were needed to assess the cost-effectiveness of the treatment, data that Dr. Pohl said were available but still being analyzed.
“We have to know how many clips to use and how to close the polyp,” Dr. Saltzman said. Dr. Pohl estimated that roughly four or five clips had been used per defect, but he cautioned that this estimate was preliminary pending his complete analysis of the data.
The CLIP (Clip Closure After Endoscopic Resection of Large Polyps) study enrolled patients with at least one nonpedunculated colonic polyp that was at least 20 mm in diameter at 16 U.S. centers, as well as one center in Montreal and one in Barcelona. The patients averaged 65 years of age, and 6%-7% of patients had more than one large polyp removed during their procedure. Randomization produced one important imbalance in assignment: 25% of the 454 patients in the clipped arm were on an antithrombotic drug (either an anticoagulant or antiplatelet drug) at the time of their endoscopy, compared with 33% of the 464 patients in the control arm.
The study’s primary endpoint was the incidence of “severe” bleeding within 30 days after the procedure. The study defined severe bleeding as an event that required hospitalization, need for repeat endoscopy, need for a blood transfusion, or need for any other major intervention, explained Dr. Pohl, who is also on the staff of Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon, N.H.
Such events occurred in 3.5% of the patients who underwent clipping and in 7.3% of control patients who received no clipping, a statistically significant difference (P = .01). Among patients with proximal polyps, the bleeding rates were 3.3% among clipped patients and 9.9% among controls, also a statistically significant difference. Among patients with distal polyps the bleeding rates were 4.0% among clipped patients and 1.4% among controls, a difference that was not statistically significant.
Dr. Pohl and his associates ran three other prespecified, secondary analyses that divided the enrolled patients into subgroups. These analyses showed no significant effect on outcome by polyp size when comparing 20-39 mm polyps with polyps 40 mm or larger, treatment with an antithrombotic drug, or method of cauterization. The median time to severe bleeding was 1 day among the controls and 7 days among the clipped patients.
Aside from the difference in rates of delayed bleeding, the two study arms showed no significant differences in the incidence of any other serious postprocedure events. The rates of these nonbleeding events were 1.3% among clipped patients and 2.4% among the controls.
The researchers ran all these analyses based on the intention-to-treat assignment of patients. However, during the study, 9% of patients assigned to the control arm crossed over ended up receiving clips during their procedure after all, a rate that Dr. Pohl called “surprisingly high,” whereas 14% of patients assigned to the clip arm never received clips. A per-protocol analysis that censored patients who did not receive their assigned treatment showed that, among the remaining patients who underwent their assigned treatment, the rate of delayed, severe bleeds was 2.3% among the 390 patients actually treated with clips and 7.2% among the 419 controls who never received clips, a statistically significant difference, he reported.
Dr. Pohl also noted that it was “somewhat surprising” that clipping appeared to result in complete closure in “only” 68% of patients who underwent clipping and that it produced partial closure in an additional 20% of patients, with the remaining patients having mucosal defects that were not considered closed by clipping.
The study was funded by Boston Scientific, the company that markets the hemostatic clip (Resolution 360) tested in the study. Dr. Pohl had no additional disclosures. Dr. Saltzman had no disclosures.
SOURCE: Pohl H et al. Digestive Disease Week, Presentation 886.
WASHINGTON –
“The benefit appears limited to proximal polyps,” Heiko Pohl, MD, said at the annual Digestive Disease Week®. In that prespecified subgroup, which included two-thirds of enrolled patients, placement of hemostatic clips on defects left after removing polyps 20 mm in diameter or larger cut the rate of delayed, severe bleeding by two-thirds, compared with patients with large defects not treated with clips. This result represented a number needed to treat with clips of 15 patients with large proximal polyps to prevent one episode of delayed severe bleeding, said Dr. Pohl, a gastroenterologist at the VA Medical Center in White River Junction, Vt.
Although the results that Dr. Pohl reported came from a trial that originally had been designed to generate data for Food and Drug Administration approval for using the clips to close defects following large polyp removal, the clips received approval for this indication from the agency in 2016 while the study was still in progress.
But Dr. Pohl maintained that the new evidence for efficacy that he reported will provide further impetus for gastroenterologists to use clips when they remove larger polyps in proximal locations. “I think this study will help standardize treatment of mucosal resections and change clip use,” he said in an interview.
“This was a terrific study, and one that needed to be done,” commented John R. Saltzman, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and director of endoscopy at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. But Dr. Saltzman, who spoke from the floor during discussion of Dr. Pohl’s report, added that data on the average number of clips required to close defects were needed to assess the cost-effectiveness of the treatment, data that Dr. Pohl said were available but still being analyzed.
“We have to know how many clips to use and how to close the polyp,” Dr. Saltzman said. Dr. Pohl estimated that roughly four or five clips had been used per defect, but he cautioned that this estimate was preliminary pending his complete analysis of the data.
The CLIP (Clip Closure After Endoscopic Resection of Large Polyps) study enrolled patients with at least one nonpedunculated colonic polyp that was at least 20 mm in diameter at 16 U.S. centers, as well as one center in Montreal and one in Barcelona. The patients averaged 65 years of age, and 6%-7% of patients had more than one large polyp removed during their procedure. Randomization produced one important imbalance in assignment: 25% of the 454 patients in the clipped arm were on an antithrombotic drug (either an anticoagulant or antiplatelet drug) at the time of their endoscopy, compared with 33% of the 464 patients in the control arm.
The study’s primary endpoint was the incidence of “severe” bleeding within 30 days after the procedure. The study defined severe bleeding as an event that required hospitalization, need for repeat endoscopy, need for a blood transfusion, or need for any other major intervention, explained Dr. Pohl, who is also on the staff of Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon, N.H.
Such events occurred in 3.5% of the patients who underwent clipping and in 7.3% of control patients who received no clipping, a statistically significant difference (P = .01). Among patients with proximal polyps, the bleeding rates were 3.3% among clipped patients and 9.9% among controls, also a statistically significant difference. Among patients with distal polyps the bleeding rates were 4.0% among clipped patients and 1.4% among controls, a difference that was not statistically significant.
Dr. Pohl and his associates ran three other prespecified, secondary analyses that divided the enrolled patients into subgroups. These analyses showed no significant effect on outcome by polyp size when comparing 20-39 mm polyps with polyps 40 mm or larger, treatment with an antithrombotic drug, or method of cauterization. The median time to severe bleeding was 1 day among the controls and 7 days among the clipped patients.
Aside from the difference in rates of delayed bleeding, the two study arms showed no significant differences in the incidence of any other serious postprocedure events. The rates of these nonbleeding events were 1.3% among clipped patients and 2.4% among the controls.
The researchers ran all these analyses based on the intention-to-treat assignment of patients. However, during the study, 9% of patients assigned to the control arm crossed over ended up receiving clips during their procedure after all, a rate that Dr. Pohl called “surprisingly high,” whereas 14% of patients assigned to the clip arm never received clips. A per-protocol analysis that censored patients who did not receive their assigned treatment showed that, among the remaining patients who underwent their assigned treatment, the rate of delayed, severe bleeds was 2.3% among the 390 patients actually treated with clips and 7.2% among the 419 controls who never received clips, a statistically significant difference, he reported.
Dr. Pohl also noted that it was “somewhat surprising” that clipping appeared to result in complete closure in “only” 68% of patients who underwent clipping and that it produced partial closure in an additional 20% of patients, with the remaining patients having mucosal defects that were not considered closed by clipping.
The study was funded by Boston Scientific, the company that markets the hemostatic clip (Resolution 360) tested in the study. Dr. Pohl had no additional disclosures. Dr. Saltzman had no disclosures.
SOURCE: Pohl H et al. Digestive Disease Week, Presentation 886.
WASHINGTON –
“The benefit appears limited to proximal polyps,” Heiko Pohl, MD, said at the annual Digestive Disease Week®. In that prespecified subgroup, which included two-thirds of enrolled patients, placement of hemostatic clips on defects left after removing polyps 20 mm in diameter or larger cut the rate of delayed, severe bleeding by two-thirds, compared with patients with large defects not treated with clips. This result represented a number needed to treat with clips of 15 patients with large proximal polyps to prevent one episode of delayed severe bleeding, said Dr. Pohl, a gastroenterologist at the VA Medical Center in White River Junction, Vt.
Although the results that Dr. Pohl reported came from a trial that originally had been designed to generate data for Food and Drug Administration approval for using the clips to close defects following large polyp removal, the clips received approval for this indication from the agency in 2016 while the study was still in progress.
But Dr. Pohl maintained that the new evidence for efficacy that he reported will provide further impetus for gastroenterologists to use clips when they remove larger polyps in proximal locations. “I think this study will help standardize treatment of mucosal resections and change clip use,” he said in an interview.
“This was a terrific study, and one that needed to be done,” commented John R. Saltzman, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and director of endoscopy at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. But Dr. Saltzman, who spoke from the floor during discussion of Dr. Pohl’s report, added that data on the average number of clips required to close defects were needed to assess the cost-effectiveness of the treatment, data that Dr. Pohl said were available but still being analyzed.
“We have to know how many clips to use and how to close the polyp,” Dr. Saltzman said. Dr. Pohl estimated that roughly four or five clips had been used per defect, but he cautioned that this estimate was preliminary pending his complete analysis of the data.
The CLIP (Clip Closure After Endoscopic Resection of Large Polyps) study enrolled patients with at least one nonpedunculated colonic polyp that was at least 20 mm in diameter at 16 U.S. centers, as well as one center in Montreal and one in Barcelona. The patients averaged 65 years of age, and 6%-7% of patients had more than one large polyp removed during their procedure. Randomization produced one important imbalance in assignment: 25% of the 454 patients in the clipped arm were on an antithrombotic drug (either an anticoagulant or antiplatelet drug) at the time of their endoscopy, compared with 33% of the 464 patients in the control arm.
The study’s primary endpoint was the incidence of “severe” bleeding within 30 days after the procedure. The study defined severe bleeding as an event that required hospitalization, need for repeat endoscopy, need for a blood transfusion, or need for any other major intervention, explained Dr. Pohl, who is also on the staff of Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon, N.H.
Such events occurred in 3.5% of the patients who underwent clipping and in 7.3% of control patients who received no clipping, a statistically significant difference (P = .01). Among patients with proximal polyps, the bleeding rates were 3.3% among clipped patients and 9.9% among controls, also a statistically significant difference. Among patients with distal polyps the bleeding rates were 4.0% among clipped patients and 1.4% among controls, a difference that was not statistically significant.
Dr. Pohl and his associates ran three other prespecified, secondary analyses that divided the enrolled patients into subgroups. These analyses showed no significant effect on outcome by polyp size when comparing 20-39 mm polyps with polyps 40 mm or larger, treatment with an antithrombotic drug, or method of cauterization. The median time to severe bleeding was 1 day among the controls and 7 days among the clipped patients.
Aside from the difference in rates of delayed bleeding, the two study arms showed no significant differences in the incidence of any other serious postprocedure events. The rates of these nonbleeding events were 1.3% among clipped patients and 2.4% among the controls.
The researchers ran all these analyses based on the intention-to-treat assignment of patients. However, during the study, 9% of patients assigned to the control arm crossed over ended up receiving clips during their procedure after all, a rate that Dr. Pohl called “surprisingly high,” whereas 14% of patients assigned to the clip arm never received clips. A per-protocol analysis that censored patients who did not receive their assigned treatment showed that, among the remaining patients who underwent their assigned treatment, the rate of delayed, severe bleeds was 2.3% among the 390 patients actually treated with clips and 7.2% among the 419 controls who never received clips, a statistically significant difference, he reported.
Dr. Pohl also noted that it was “somewhat surprising” that clipping appeared to result in complete closure in “only” 68% of patients who underwent clipping and that it produced partial closure in an additional 20% of patients, with the remaining patients having mucosal defects that were not considered closed by clipping.
The study was funded by Boston Scientific, the company that markets the hemostatic clip (Resolution 360) tested in the study. Dr. Pohl had no additional disclosures. Dr. Saltzman had no disclosures.
SOURCE: Pohl H et al. Digestive Disease Week, Presentation 886.
REPORTING FROM DDW 2018
Key clinical point: Hemostatic wound clipping after large polyp removal cuts delayed bleeding, especially for proximal polyps.
Major finding: The incidence of severe, delayed bleeds was 3.5% among clipped patients and 7.3% among controls.
Study details: The CLIP study, a multicenter, randomized trial with 918 patients.
Disclosures: The study was funded by Boston Scientific, the company that markets the hemostatic clip (Resolution 360) tested in the study. Dr. Pohl had no additional disclosures. Dr. Saltzman had no disclosures.
Source: Pohl H et al. Digestive Disease Week, Presentation 886.
Tenapanor shows safety, efficacy for irritable bowel syndrome
WASHINGTON –
These data combined with results from an already reported additional phase 3 trial and a phase 2 study will go to the Food and Drug Administration later in 2018 in an application for marketing approval for tenapanor, William D. Chey, MD, said at the annual Digestive Disease Week.®
“Tenapanor may represent a novel, effective treatment option” for patients with constipation-predominant irritable bowel syndrome (IBS-C), said Dr. Chey, a professor of medicine and director of the GI Physiology Laboratory at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor.
The study results met the trial’s primary endpoint, the percentage of patients with a combined response consisting of at least a 30% drop from baseline in reported abdominal pain and an increase of at least one complete spontaneous bowel movement (CSBM) per week for 6 of the first 12 weeks of treatment. This combined response occurred in 37% of patients treated with tenapanor at a dosage of 50 mg orally b.i.d., compared with a 24% rate among the placebo-control patients, a statistically significant difference, Dr. Chey reported.
The most common adverse effect seen in the tenapanor-treated patients was diarrhea, which occurred in 16% of the drug-treated patients and in 4% of controls. “I think diarrhea is an expected adverse effect,” Dr. Chey said. Overall, treatment-related adverse effects occurred in 23% of tenapanor-treated patients and in 9% of controls, serious adverse effects occurred in 4% of patients on tenapanor and in 3% of controls, and adverse effects leading to treatment discontinuation occurred in 8% on tenapanor and in 1% of controls. Aside from diarrhea, the other most common adverse effects linked with tenapanor treatment were abdominal distension, in 3%, and flatulence, also in 3%.
Tenapanor is an inhibitor of sodium/hydrogen exchanger isoform 3, the predominant intestinal sodium transporter. Through this inhibition tenapanor reduces sodium uptake in the gut, causing increased intestinal fluid volume and shorter transit time and thereby softening stool consistency and increasing bowel movement frequency. Dr. Chey and his colleagues previously reported results from a phase 2 study of tenapanor (Am J Gastroenterol. 2017 Feb;112[2]:763-74), and from a phase 3 study with 606 patients reported at a meeting in late 2017. Results from these two studies were similar to those from the new study.
The current study, A 26-Week Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Tenapanor in IBS-C (T3MPO-2) enrolled 593 patients at 114 U.S. centers. Enrolled patients met the Rome III criteria for IBS-C and had an average CSMB frequency of less than 3/week. The researchers treated and followed patients for 26 weeks, although the primary endpoint occurred after 12 weeks on treatment, and 481 of the enrolled patients remained in the study through 26 weeks. At baseline, patients had an average of 0.12 CSBM/week and an average abdominal pain score of 6.26, indicative of moderate to severe abdominal pain. These characteristics identified the enrolled patients as being “on the more severe spectrum of what we see in clinical practice,” Dr. Chey noted.
Secondary endpoints included the combined endpoint with the target rate of CSBM achieved in at least 9 of the first 12 weeks, 18% on the active drug and 5% on placebo, and in at least 13 of the 26 weeks on treatment, 36% on tenapanor and 24% on placebo. After 26 weeks on treatment, 55% of patients on tenapanor rated themselves as quite satisfied or very satisfied with their treatment, compared with 33% of the placebo-control patients.
T3MPO-2 was funded by Ardelyx, the company developing tenapanor. Dr. Chey has been a consultant to and has received research funding from Ardelyx and from several other companies. A coauthor on the study was an Ardelyx employee.
mzoler@mdedge.com
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
WASHINGTON –
These data combined with results from an already reported additional phase 3 trial and a phase 2 study will go to the Food and Drug Administration later in 2018 in an application for marketing approval for tenapanor, William D. Chey, MD, said at the annual Digestive Disease Week.®
“Tenapanor may represent a novel, effective treatment option” for patients with constipation-predominant irritable bowel syndrome (IBS-C), said Dr. Chey, a professor of medicine and director of the GI Physiology Laboratory at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor.
The study results met the trial’s primary endpoint, the percentage of patients with a combined response consisting of at least a 30% drop from baseline in reported abdominal pain and an increase of at least one complete spontaneous bowel movement (CSBM) per week for 6 of the first 12 weeks of treatment. This combined response occurred in 37% of patients treated with tenapanor at a dosage of 50 mg orally b.i.d., compared with a 24% rate among the placebo-control patients, a statistically significant difference, Dr. Chey reported.
The most common adverse effect seen in the tenapanor-treated patients was diarrhea, which occurred in 16% of the drug-treated patients and in 4% of controls. “I think diarrhea is an expected adverse effect,” Dr. Chey said. Overall, treatment-related adverse effects occurred in 23% of tenapanor-treated patients and in 9% of controls, serious adverse effects occurred in 4% of patients on tenapanor and in 3% of controls, and adverse effects leading to treatment discontinuation occurred in 8% on tenapanor and in 1% of controls. Aside from diarrhea, the other most common adverse effects linked with tenapanor treatment were abdominal distension, in 3%, and flatulence, also in 3%.
Tenapanor is an inhibitor of sodium/hydrogen exchanger isoform 3, the predominant intestinal sodium transporter. Through this inhibition tenapanor reduces sodium uptake in the gut, causing increased intestinal fluid volume and shorter transit time and thereby softening stool consistency and increasing bowel movement frequency. Dr. Chey and his colleagues previously reported results from a phase 2 study of tenapanor (Am J Gastroenterol. 2017 Feb;112[2]:763-74), and from a phase 3 study with 606 patients reported at a meeting in late 2017. Results from these two studies were similar to those from the new study.
The current study, A 26-Week Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Tenapanor in IBS-C (T3MPO-2) enrolled 593 patients at 114 U.S. centers. Enrolled patients met the Rome III criteria for IBS-C and had an average CSMB frequency of less than 3/week. The researchers treated and followed patients for 26 weeks, although the primary endpoint occurred after 12 weeks on treatment, and 481 of the enrolled patients remained in the study through 26 weeks. At baseline, patients had an average of 0.12 CSBM/week and an average abdominal pain score of 6.26, indicative of moderate to severe abdominal pain. These characteristics identified the enrolled patients as being “on the more severe spectrum of what we see in clinical practice,” Dr. Chey noted.
Secondary endpoints included the combined endpoint with the target rate of CSBM achieved in at least 9 of the first 12 weeks, 18% on the active drug and 5% on placebo, and in at least 13 of the 26 weeks on treatment, 36% on tenapanor and 24% on placebo. After 26 weeks on treatment, 55% of patients on tenapanor rated themselves as quite satisfied or very satisfied with their treatment, compared with 33% of the placebo-control patients.
T3MPO-2 was funded by Ardelyx, the company developing tenapanor. Dr. Chey has been a consultant to and has received research funding from Ardelyx and from several other companies. A coauthor on the study was an Ardelyx employee.
mzoler@mdedge.com
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
WASHINGTON –
These data combined with results from an already reported additional phase 3 trial and a phase 2 study will go to the Food and Drug Administration later in 2018 in an application for marketing approval for tenapanor, William D. Chey, MD, said at the annual Digestive Disease Week.®
“Tenapanor may represent a novel, effective treatment option” for patients with constipation-predominant irritable bowel syndrome (IBS-C), said Dr. Chey, a professor of medicine and director of the GI Physiology Laboratory at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor.
The study results met the trial’s primary endpoint, the percentage of patients with a combined response consisting of at least a 30% drop from baseline in reported abdominal pain and an increase of at least one complete spontaneous bowel movement (CSBM) per week for 6 of the first 12 weeks of treatment. This combined response occurred in 37% of patients treated with tenapanor at a dosage of 50 mg orally b.i.d., compared with a 24% rate among the placebo-control patients, a statistically significant difference, Dr. Chey reported.
The most common adverse effect seen in the tenapanor-treated patients was diarrhea, which occurred in 16% of the drug-treated patients and in 4% of controls. “I think diarrhea is an expected adverse effect,” Dr. Chey said. Overall, treatment-related adverse effects occurred in 23% of tenapanor-treated patients and in 9% of controls, serious adverse effects occurred in 4% of patients on tenapanor and in 3% of controls, and adverse effects leading to treatment discontinuation occurred in 8% on tenapanor and in 1% of controls. Aside from diarrhea, the other most common adverse effects linked with tenapanor treatment were abdominal distension, in 3%, and flatulence, also in 3%.
Tenapanor is an inhibitor of sodium/hydrogen exchanger isoform 3, the predominant intestinal sodium transporter. Through this inhibition tenapanor reduces sodium uptake in the gut, causing increased intestinal fluid volume and shorter transit time and thereby softening stool consistency and increasing bowel movement frequency. Dr. Chey and his colleagues previously reported results from a phase 2 study of tenapanor (Am J Gastroenterol. 2017 Feb;112[2]:763-74), and from a phase 3 study with 606 patients reported at a meeting in late 2017. Results from these two studies were similar to those from the new study.
The current study, A 26-Week Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Tenapanor in IBS-C (T3MPO-2) enrolled 593 patients at 114 U.S. centers. Enrolled patients met the Rome III criteria for IBS-C and had an average CSMB frequency of less than 3/week. The researchers treated and followed patients for 26 weeks, although the primary endpoint occurred after 12 weeks on treatment, and 481 of the enrolled patients remained in the study through 26 weeks. At baseline, patients had an average of 0.12 CSBM/week and an average abdominal pain score of 6.26, indicative of moderate to severe abdominal pain. These characteristics identified the enrolled patients as being “on the more severe spectrum of what we see in clinical practice,” Dr. Chey noted.
Secondary endpoints included the combined endpoint with the target rate of CSBM achieved in at least 9 of the first 12 weeks, 18% on the active drug and 5% on placebo, and in at least 13 of the 26 weeks on treatment, 36% on tenapanor and 24% on placebo. After 26 weeks on treatment, 55% of patients on tenapanor rated themselves as quite satisfied or very satisfied with their treatment, compared with 33% of the placebo-control patients.
T3MPO-2 was funded by Ardelyx, the company developing tenapanor. Dr. Chey has been a consultant to and has received research funding from Ardelyx and from several other companies. A coauthor on the study was an Ardelyx employee.
mzoler@mdedge.com
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
REPORTING FROM DDW 2018
Key clinical point: New drug shows safety and efficacy for irritable bowel syndrome.
Major finding: The combined primary endpoint occurred in 37% of tenapanor-treated patients and in 24% of patients on placebo.
Study details: T3MPO-2, a multicenter U.S. trial with 593 patients.
Disclosures: T3MPO-2 was funded by Ardelyx, the company developing tenapanor. Dr. Chey has been a consultant to and has received research funding from Ardelyx and from several other companies. A coauthor on the study was an Ardelyx employee.
Bariatric revision mortality linked to age, comorbidities
WASHINGTON – and appears to be rising in recent years, according to two studies presented at the annual Digestive Disease Week®.
Violeta B. Popov, MD, of New York University, and a team of researchers used the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) to look at mortality risk, costs, and risk factors for complications in revisional bariatric procedures.
In one presentation, Dr. Popov noted that revision after bariatric surgery occurred in approximately 8% of cases for a variety of reasons including lap band adjustment, weight regain, gastric reflux problems, and rarely, because of staple-line leaks. Referring to findings based on the Bariatric Outcomes Longitudinal Database (BOLD), Dr. Popov said that mortality after primary bariatric surgery is estimated at around 0.2% and revisional procedures carry nearly the same low level of mortality risk. BOLD was developed by the American Society of Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery and reflects outcomes from certified Bariatric Centers of Excellence from 2007 to 2012. However, Dr. Popov noted, the outcomes derived from BOLD may well be better than those from noncertified centers (Gastrointest Surg. 2015 Jan;19[1]:171-8).
Dr. Popov reported that the number of revisional procedures has doubled over recent years, from 6% of all bariatric procedures in 2011 to 13% in 2015. The reasons behind the increase could be related to the number of patients switching to a different bariatric approach, the removal of lap bands, and possibly the increase in the number of primary bariatric surgeries performed by less-skilled operators, Dr. Popov said.
The investigators aimed to determine the mortality trends for these procedures in addition to evaluating costs and risk factors for complications. They conducted a retrospective cohort study using the 2014 NIS, comprising 14,280 patients who underwent revisional bariatric surgery. The primary outcome was postoperative in-hospital mortality, with secondary outcomes of cost, length of hospital stay (LOS), and ICU stay. The variables included a variety of comorbidities, alcohol use, smoking, income, and insurance status.
The mean age of this sample was 68 years and 58.8% were female. Outcomes for revisional bariatric surgery were worse in several categories than were found in the BOLD study in terms of LOS, costs, and mortality, and postoperative in-hospital mortality was unexpectedly high at 2.1% (290 patients). A total of 3.3% of the patients had an ICU stay, one-quarter of whom died.
On univariate analysis, comorbidities (age, coagulopathy, chronic kidney disease, anemia, and chronic heart failure) and the combined number of chronic conditions were all significant predictors of mortality. Multivariate analysis identified age (odds ratio, 1.08; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.20; P less than .001), alcohol use (OR, 4.0; 95% CI, 1.3-11.7; P = .01), coagulopathy (OR, 5.4; 95% CI, 2.2-13.3; P less than .001), and insurance status (Medicaid vs. private; OR, 4.0; 95% CI, 1.7-9.9; P = .002) as the most significant predictors of mortality after a revisional bariatric procedure.
In a poster, Dr. Popov and her colleagues presented data from the NIS database looking at 10-year mortality and outcome trends for revisional surgery versus primary Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) surgery. Inpatient mortality for RYGB decreased from 2.54% in 2003 to 1.80% in 2014, but was still substantially higher than the BOLD findings. But mortality for revisional surgery increased: 1.90% versus 2.03%. LOS for RYGB decreased from 5.9 days to 5.4 but increased for revisional surgery from 4.6 to 5.4 days. Cost for both procedures, adjusted for inflation, more than doubled between 2003 and 2014. And patients requiring ICU admission for both procedures went from 1% in 2003 to 3% in 2014.
The limitations of both analyses are their retrospective design, the NIS bias inferred by the inclusion of only inpatient procedures, and the lack of laboratory data or data on body mass index. In addition, during the study period, primary bariatric surgery began to be performed as an outpatient procedure. “Low-risk procedures performed in outpatient facilities will not be captured in the database and thus the higher mortality for these higher risk patients is expected,” Dr. Popov said. These patients are likely to be sicker and have more comorbidities. Revisional procedures are typically done in the hospital, but there are some low-risk revisional procedures such as lap band removal that could be done as outpatient procedures. Dr. Popov had confidence that the NIS database reflects real-world outcomes for revisional bariatric procedures.
She concluded that the explanation for the increase in mortality risk for revisional bariatric surgery may be because of more of these procedures being done outside centers of excellence and more, older patients with comorbidities having the surgery, and that nonsurgical alternatives should be explored for the older sicker patients.
Dr. Popova disclosed ownership of shares in Embarcadero Technologies but no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Popov VB et al. DDW 2018, Abstract 324.
WASHINGTON – and appears to be rising in recent years, according to two studies presented at the annual Digestive Disease Week®.
Violeta B. Popov, MD, of New York University, and a team of researchers used the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) to look at mortality risk, costs, and risk factors for complications in revisional bariatric procedures.
In one presentation, Dr. Popov noted that revision after bariatric surgery occurred in approximately 8% of cases for a variety of reasons including lap band adjustment, weight regain, gastric reflux problems, and rarely, because of staple-line leaks. Referring to findings based on the Bariatric Outcomes Longitudinal Database (BOLD), Dr. Popov said that mortality after primary bariatric surgery is estimated at around 0.2% and revisional procedures carry nearly the same low level of mortality risk. BOLD was developed by the American Society of Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery and reflects outcomes from certified Bariatric Centers of Excellence from 2007 to 2012. However, Dr. Popov noted, the outcomes derived from BOLD may well be better than those from noncertified centers (Gastrointest Surg. 2015 Jan;19[1]:171-8).
Dr. Popov reported that the number of revisional procedures has doubled over recent years, from 6% of all bariatric procedures in 2011 to 13% in 2015. The reasons behind the increase could be related to the number of patients switching to a different bariatric approach, the removal of lap bands, and possibly the increase in the number of primary bariatric surgeries performed by less-skilled operators, Dr. Popov said.
The investigators aimed to determine the mortality trends for these procedures in addition to evaluating costs and risk factors for complications. They conducted a retrospective cohort study using the 2014 NIS, comprising 14,280 patients who underwent revisional bariatric surgery. The primary outcome was postoperative in-hospital mortality, with secondary outcomes of cost, length of hospital stay (LOS), and ICU stay. The variables included a variety of comorbidities, alcohol use, smoking, income, and insurance status.
The mean age of this sample was 68 years and 58.8% were female. Outcomes for revisional bariatric surgery were worse in several categories than were found in the BOLD study in terms of LOS, costs, and mortality, and postoperative in-hospital mortality was unexpectedly high at 2.1% (290 patients). A total of 3.3% of the patients had an ICU stay, one-quarter of whom died.
On univariate analysis, comorbidities (age, coagulopathy, chronic kidney disease, anemia, and chronic heart failure) and the combined number of chronic conditions were all significant predictors of mortality. Multivariate analysis identified age (odds ratio, 1.08; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.20; P less than .001), alcohol use (OR, 4.0; 95% CI, 1.3-11.7; P = .01), coagulopathy (OR, 5.4; 95% CI, 2.2-13.3; P less than .001), and insurance status (Medicaid vs. private; OR, 4.0; 95% CI, 1.7-9.9; P = .002) as the most significant predictors of mortality after a revisional bariatric procedure.
In a poster, Dr. Popov and her colleagues presented data from the NIS database looking at 10-year mortality and outcome trends for revisional surgery versus primary Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) surgery. Inpatient mortality for RYGB decreased from 2.54% in 2003 to 1.80% in 2014, but was still substantially higher than the BOLD findings. But mortality for revisional surgery increased: 1.90% versus 2.03%. LOS for RYGB decreased from 5.9 days to 5.4 but increased for revisional surgery from 4.6 to 5.4 days. Cost for both procedures, adjusted for inflation, more than doubled between 2003 and 2014. And patients requiring ICU admission for both procedures went from 1% in 2003 to 3% in 2014.
The limitations of both analyses are their retrospective design, the NIS bias inferred by the inclusion of only inpatient procedures, and the lack of laboratory data or data on body mass index. In addition, during the study period, primary bariatric surgery began to be performed as an outpatient procedure. “Low-risk procedures performed in outpatient facilities will not be captured in the database and thus the higher mortality for these higher risk patients is expected,” Dr. Popov said. These patients are likely to be sicker and have more comorbidities. Revisional procedures are typically done in the hospital, but there are some low-risk revisional procedures such as lap band removal that could be done as outpatient procedures. Dr. Popov had confidence that the NIS database reflects real-world outcomes for revisional bariatric procedures.
She concluded that the explanation for the increase in mortality risk for revisional bariatric surgery may be because of more of these procedures being done outside centers of excellence and more, older patients with comorbidities having the surgery, and that nonsurgical alternatives should be explored for the older sicker patients.
Dr. Popova disclosed ownership of shares in Embarcadero Technologies but no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Popov VB et al. DDW 2018, Abstract 324.
WASHINGTON – and appears to be rising in recent years, according to two studies presented at the annual Digestive Disease Week®.
Violeta B. Popov, MD, of New York University, and a team of researchers used the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) to look at mortality risk, costs, and risk factors for complications in revisional bariatric procedures.
In one presentation, Dr. Popov noted that revision after bariatric surgery occurred in approximately 8% of cases for a variety of reasons including lap band adjustment, weight regain, gastric reflux problems, and rarely, because of staple-line leaks. Referring to findings based on the Bariatric Outcomes Longitudinal Database (BOLD), Dr. Popov said that mortality after primary bariatric surgery is estimated at around 0.2% and revisional procedures carry nearly the same low level of mortality risk. BOLD was developed by the American Society of Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery and reflects outcomes from certified Bariatric Centers of Excellence from 2007 to 2012. However, Dr. Popov noted, the outcomes derived from BOLD may well be better than those from noncertified centers (Gastrointest Surg. 2015 Jan;19[1]:171-8).
Dr. Popov reported that the number of revisional procedures has doubled over recent years, from 6% of all bariatric procedures in 2011 to 13% in 2015. The reasons behind the increase could be related to the number of patients switching to a different bariatric approach, the removal of lap bands, and possibly the increase in the number of primary bariatric surgeries performed by less-skilled operators, Dr. Popov said.
The investigators aimed to determine the mortality trends for these procedures in addition to evaluating costs and risk factors for complications. They conducted a retrospective cohort study using the 2014 NIS, comprising 14,280 patients who underwent revisional bariatric surgery. The primary outcome was postoperative in-hospital mortality, with secondary outcomes of cost, length of hospital stay (LOS), and ICU stay. The variables included a variety of comorbidities, alcohol use, smoking, income, and insurance status.
The mean age of this sample was 68 years and 58.8% were female. Outcomes for revisional bariatric surgery were worse in several categories than were found in the BOLD study in terms of LOS, costs, and mortality, and postoperative in-hospital mortality was unexpectedly high at 2.1% (290 patients). A total of 3.3% of the patients had an ICU stay, one-quarter of whom died.
On univariate analysis, comorbidities (age, coagulopathy, chronic kidney disease, anemia, and chronic heart failure) and the combined number of chronic conditions were all significant predictors of mortality. Multivariate analysis identified age (odds ratio, 1.08; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.20; P less than .001), alcohol use (OR, 4.0; 95% CI, 1.3-11.7; P = .01), coagulopathy (OR, 5.4; 95% CI, 2.2-13.3; P less than .001), and insurance status (Medicaid vs. private; OR, 4.0; 95% CI, 1.7-9.9; P = .002) as the most significant predictors of mortality after a revisional bariatric procedure.
In a poster, Dr. Popov and her colleagues presented data from the NIS database looking at 10-year mortality and outcome trends for revisional surgery versus primary Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) surgery. Inpatient mortality for RYGB decreased from 2.54% in 2003 to 1.80% in 2014, but was still substantially higher than the BOLD findings. But mortality for revisional surgery increased: 1.90% versus 2.03%. LOS for RYGB decreased from 5.9 days to 5.4 but increased for revisional surgery from 4.6 to 5.4 days. Cost for both procedures, adjusted for inflation, more than doubled between 2003 and 2014. And patients requiring ICU admission for both procedures went from 1% in 2003 to 3% in 2014.
The limitations of both analyses are their retrospective design, the NIS bias inferred by the inclusion of only inpatient procedures, and the lack of laboratory data or data on body mass index. In addition, during the study period, primary bariatric surgery began to be performed as an outpatient procedure. “Low-risk procedures performed in outpatient facilities will not be captured in the database and thus the higher mortality for these higher risk patients is expected,” Dr. Popov said. These patients are likely to be sicker and have more comorbidities. Revisional procedures are typically done in the hospital, but there are some low-risk revisional procedures such as lap band removal that could be done as outpatient procedures. Dr. Popov had confidence that the NIS database reflects real-world outcomes for revisional bariatric procedures.
She concluded that the explanation for the increase in mortality risk for revisional bariatric surgery may be because of more of these procedures being done outside centers of excellence and more, older patients with comorbidities having the surgery, and that nonsurgical alternatives should be explored for the older sicker patients.
Dr. Popova disclosed ownership of shares in Embarcadero Technologies but no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Popov VB et al. DDW 2018, Abstract 324.
REPORTING FROM DDW 2018
Key clinical point: Revisional bariatric procedures may carry a greater mortality risk than previous studies have suggested.
Major finding: The mortality rate in the sample was 2.1%.
Study details: The 2014 Nationwide Inpatient Sample database, comprising 14,280 patients who underwent revisional bariatric surgery.
Disclosures: Dr. Popova disclosed ownership of shares in Embarcadero Technologies but no conflicts of interest.
Source: Popov VB et al. DDW 2018, Abstract 324.
Malnourished U.S. inpatients often go untreated
WASHINGTON – Hospital staffs often fail to treat .
A retrospective review of more than 150,000 patients admitted during a single year at any center within a large, multicenter U.S. hospital system found that even when patients receive oral nutritional supplementation, there is often a substantial delay to its onset.
The data also suggested potential benefits from treating malnutrition with oral nutritional supplementation (ONS). Patients who received ONS had a 10% relative reduction in their rate of 30-day readmission, compared with malnourished patients who did not receive supplements after adjusting for several baseline demographic and clinical variables, Gerard Mullin, MD, said at the annual Digestive Disease Week. His analysis also showed that every doubling of the time from hospital admission to an order for ONS significantly linked with a 6% rise in hospital length of stay.
The findings “highlight the importance of malnutrition screening on admission, starting a nutrition intervention as soon as malnutrition is confirmed, and treating with appropriate ONS,” said Dr. Mullin, a gastroenterologist at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore and director of the Celiac Disease Clinic. A standard formulation of Ensure was the ONS routinely used at the Johns Hopkins hospitals
“We’re missing malnutrition,” Dr. Mullin said in an interview. The hospital accreditation standards of the Joint Commission call for assessment of the nutritional status of hospitalized patients within 24 hours of admission (Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2015 Oct;41[10]:469-73). Screening is “not uniformly done,” and when malnutrition is identified, the finding must usually pass through several layers of a hospital’s medico-bureaucratic process before treatment actually starts, he noted. Plus, there’s often dismissal of the importance of intervention. “It’s important to treat patients with ONS sooner than later,” he said.
Dr. Mullin and his associates studied hospital records for 153,161 people admitted to any of the Baltimore-area hospitals in the Johns Hopkins system during October 2016 through the end of September 2017. The hospital staff routinely assessed nutritional status of patients after admission with a two-question screen based on the Malnutrition Screening Tool (Nutrition. 1999 June;15[6]:458-64): Have you had unplanned weight loss of 10 pounds or more during the past 6 months? Have you had decreased oral intake over the past 5 days? This identified 30,284 (20%) who qualified as possibly malnourished by either criterion. The researchers also retrospectively applied a more detailed screen to the patient records using the criteria set by an international consensus guideline committee in 2010 (J Parenter Enteraal Nutr. 2010 Mar-Apr;34[2]:156-9). This identified 8,713 of the hospitalized patients (6%) as malnourished soon after admission. Despite these numbers a scant 274 patients among these 8,713 (3%) actually received ONS, Dr. Mullin reported. In addition, it took an average of 85 hours from the time of each malnourished patient’s admission to when the ONS order appeared in their record.
Dr. Mullin conceded that both the association his group found between treatment with ONS and a reduced rate of 30-day readmission to any of the hospitals in the Johns Hopkins system, and the association between a delay in the time to the start of ONS and length of stay may have been confounded by factors not accounted for in the adjustments they applied. But he maintained that the links are consistent with results from prior studies, and warrant running prospective, randomized studies to better document the impact of ONS on newly admitted patients identified as malnourished.
“We need more of these types of studies and interventional trials to show that ONS makes a difference,” Dr. Mullin said.
The study was sponsored by Abbott, which markets the oral nutritional supplement Ensure. Dr. Mullin had no additional disclosures.
mzoler@mdedge.com
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
SOURCE: Source: Mullin G et al. DDW 2018 presentation 883.
WASHINGTON – Hospital staffs often fail to treat .
A retrospective review of more than 150,000 patients admitted during a single year at any center within a large, multicenter U.S. hospital system found that even when patients receive oral nutritional supplementation, there is often a substantial delay to its onset.
The data also suggested potential benefits from treating malnutrition with oral nutritional supplementation (ONS). Patients who received ONS had a 10% relative reduction in their rate of 30-day readmission, compared with malnourished patients who did not receive supplements after adjusting for several baseline demographic and clinical variables, Gerard Mullin, MD, said at the annual Digestive Disease Week. His analysis also showed that every doubling of the time from hospital admission to an order for ONS significantly linked with a 6% rise in hospital length of stay.
The findings “highlight the importance of malnutrition screening on admission, starting a nutrition intervention as soon as malnutrition is confirmed, and treating with appropriate ONS,” said Dr. Mullin, a gastroenterologist at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore and director of the Celiac Disease Clinic. A standard formulation of Ensure was the ONS routinely used at the Johns Hopkins hospitals
“We’re missing malnutrition,” Dr. Mullin said in an interview. The hospital accreditation standards of the Joint Commission call for assessment of the nutritional status of hospitalized patients within 24 hours of admission (Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2015 Oct;41[10]:469-73). Screening is “not uniformly done,” and when malnutrition is identified, the finding must usually pass through several layers of a hospital’s medico-bureaucratic process before treatment actually starts, he noted. Plus, there’s often dismissal of the importance of intervention. “It’s important to treat patients with ONS sooner than later,” he said.
Dr. Mullin and his associates studied hospital records for 153,161 people admitted to any of the Baltimore-area hospitals in the Johns Hopkins system during October 2016 through the end of September 2017. The hospital staff routinely assessed nutritional status of patients after admission with a two-question screen based on the Malnutrition Screening Tool (Nutrition. 1999 June;15[6]:458-64): Have you had unplanned weight loss of 10 pounds or more during the past 6 months? Have you had decreased oral intake over the past 5 days? This identified 30,284 (20%) who qualified as possibly malnourished by either criterion. The researchers also retrospectively applied a more detailed screen to the patient records using the criteria set by an international consensus guideline committee in 2010 (J Parenter Enteraal Nutr. 2010 Mar-Apr;34[2]:156-9). This identified 8,713 of the hospitalized patients (6%) as malnourished soon after admission. Despite these numbers a scant 274 patients among these 8,713 (3%) actually received ONS, Dr. Mullin reported. In addition, it took an average of 85 hours from the time of each malnourished patient’s admission to when the ONS order appeared in their record.
Dr. Mullin conceded that both the association his group found between treatment with ONS and a reduced rate of 30-day readmission to any of the hospitals in the Johns Hopkins system, and the association between a delay in the time to the start of ONS and length of stay may have been confounded by factors not accounted for in the adjustments they applied. But he maintained that the links are consistent with results from prior studies, and warrant running prospective, randomized studies to better document the impact of ONS on newly admitted patients identified as malnourished.
“We need more of these types of studies and interventional trials to show that ONS makes a difference,” Dr. Mullin said.
The study was sponsored by Abbott, which markets the oral nutritional supplement Ensure. Dr. Mullin had no additional disclosures.
mzoler@mdedge.com
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
SOURCE: Source: Mullin G et al. DDW 2018 presentation 883.
WASHINGTON – Hospital staffs often fail to treat .
A retrospective review of more than 150,000 patients admitted during a single year at any center within a large, multicenter U.S. hospital system found that even when patients receive oral nutritional supplementation, there is often a substantial delay to its onset.
The data also suggested potential benefits from treating malnutrition with oral nutritional supplementation (ONS). Patients who received ONS had a 10% relative reduction in their rate of 30-day readmission, compared with malnourished patients who did not receive supplements after adjusting for several baseline demographic and clinical variables, Gerard Mullin, MD, said at the annual Digestive Disease Week. His analysis also showed that every doubling of the time from hospital admission to an order for ONS significantly linked with a 6% rise in hospital length of stay.
The findings “highlight the importance of malnutrition screening on admission, starting a nutrition intervention as soon as malnutrition is confirmed, and treating with appropriate ONS,” said Dr. Mullin, a gastroenterologist at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore and director of the Celiac Disease Clinic. A standard formulation of Ensure was the ONS routinely used at the Johns Hopkins hospitals
“We’re missing malnutrition,” Dr. Mullin said in an interview. The hospital accreditation standards of the Joint Commission call for assessment of the nutritional status of hospitalized patients within 24 hours of admission (Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2015 Oct;41[10]:469-73). Screening is “not uniformly done,” and when malnutrition is identified, the finding must usually pass through several layers of a hospital’s medico-bureaucratic process before treatment actually starts, he noted. Plus, there’s often dismissal of the importance of intervention. “It’s important to treat patients with ONS sooner than later,” he said.
Dr. Mullin and his associates studied hospital records for 153,161 people admitted to any of the Baltimore-area hospitals in the Johns Hopkins system during October 2016 through the end of September 2017. The hospital staff routinely assessed nutritional status of patients after admission with a two-question screen based on the Malnutrition Screening Tool (Nutrition. 1999 June;15[6]:458-64): Have you had unplanned weight loss of 10 pounds or more during the past 6 months? Have you had decreased oral intake over the past 5 days? This identified 30,284 (20%) who qualified as possibly malnourished by either criterion. The researchers also retrospectively applied a more detailed screen to the patient records using the criteria set by an international consensus guideline committee in 2010 (J Parenter Enteraal Nutr. 2010 Mar-Apr;34[2]:156-9). This identified 8,713 of the hospitalized patients (6%) as malnourished soon after admission. Despite these numbers a scant 274 patients among these 8,713 (3%) actually received ONS, Dr. Mullin reported. In addition, it took an average of 85 hours from the time of each malnourished patient’s admission to when the ONS order appeared in their record.
Dr. Mullin conceded that both the association his group found between treatment with ONS and a reduced rate of 30-day readmission to any of the hospitals in the Johns Hopkins system, and the association between a delay in the time to the start of ONS and length of stay may have been confounded by factors not accounted for in the adjustments they applied. But he maintained that the links are consistent with results from prior studies, and warrant running prospective, randomized studies to better document the impact of ONS on newly admitted patients identified as malnourished.
“We need more of these types of studies and interventional trials to show that ONS makes a difference,” Dr. Mullin said.
The study was sponsored by Abbott, which markets the oral nutritional supplement Ensure. Dr. Mullin had no additional disclosures.
mzoler@mdedge.com
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
SOURCE: Source: Mullin G et al. DDW 2018 presentation 883.
REPORTING FROM DDW 2018
Key clinical point: Malnourished U.S. hospital inpatients often go untreated.
Major finding: Three percent of patients retrospectively identified as malnourished soon after hospital admission received oral nutritional supplementation.
Study details: Retrospective review of 153,161 patients admitted to a large U.S. hospital network during 2016-2017.
Disclosures: The study was sponsored by Abbott, which markets the oral nutritional supplement Ensure. Dr. Mullin had no additional disclosures.
Source: Mullin G et al. Digestive Disease Week presentation 883.
Beyond the sleeve and RYGB: The frontier of bariatric procedures
BOSTON – Though are the bariatric procedures most patients will receive, other surgical approaches to weight loss are occasionally performed. Knowing these various techniques and their likely efficacy and safety can help physicians who care for patients with obesity, whether a patient is considering a less common option, or whether a post-vagal blockade patient shows up on the schedule with long-term issues.
A common theme among many of these procedures is that overall numbers are low, long-term follow-up may be lacking, and research quality is variable, said Travis McKenzie, MD, speaking at a bariatric surgery-focused session of the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists.
One minimally invasive approach targets stomach functions and the appetite and satiety signaling system. In vagal blockade via an electronic implant (vBloc), an indwelling, removable device produces electronically-induced intermittent blockade of the vagal nerve.
In one randomized controlled trial, excess weight loss in patients receiving this procedure was 24%, significantly more than the 16% seen in the group that received a sham procedure (P = .002); both groups received regular follow-up and counseling, according to the study protocol. Overall, at 1 year, 52% of those in the treatment group had seen at least 20% reduction in excess weight; just 3.7% of vBloc recipients had adverse events, mostly some dyspepsia and pain at the implant site, said Dr. McKenzie, an endocrine surgeon at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
The vBloc procedure, said Dr. McKenzie, “demonstrated modest weight loss at 2 years, with a reasonable risk profile.”
A variation of the duodenal switch is known as single anastomosis duodeno-ileal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy, or SADI-S. This procedure both resects the greater curve of the stomach to create a gastric sleeve, and uses a single intestinal anastomosis to create a common channel of 200, 250 or 300 cm, bypassing most of the small intestine.
In this procedure, also known as the one-anastomosis duodenal switch (OADS), weight loss occurs both because of intestinal malabsorption and because of the reduced stomach volume.
Parsing safety and efficacy of this procedure isn’t easy, given the studies at hand, said Dr. McKenzie: “The data are plagued by short follow-up, low numbers, and inconsistent quality.” Of the 14 case series following 1,045 patients, none include randomized controlled data, he said.
The data that are available show total body weight loss in the 34%-39% range, with little difference between losses seen at 1 year and 2 years.
However, said Dr. McKenzie, one 100-patient case series showed that SADI-S patients averaged 2.5 bowel movements daily after the procedure, and two patients needed surgical revision because they were experiencing malnutrition. Anemia, vitamin B12 and D deficiencies, and folate deficiency are all commonly seen two years after SADI-S procedures, he said.
“The OADS procedure is very effective, although better data are needed before drawing conclusions,” said Dr. McKenzie.
A gastric bypass variation known as the “mini” bypass, or the one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB), is another less common bariatric technique. In this procedure, a small gastric pouch is created that forms the working stomach, which is then connected to the duodenum with bypassing of a significant portion (up to 200 cm) of the small intestine. This procedure causes both restrictive and malabsorptive weight loss, and is usually performed using minimally invasive surgery.
Four randomized controlled trials exist, said Dr. McKenzie, that compare OAGB variously to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and to sleeve gastrectomy. In an 80-patient study that compared OAGB with RYGB at two years post-procedure, excess weight loss was similar, at 60% for OAGB versus 64% for RYGB ( Ann Surg. 2005;24[1]20-8). However, morbidity was less for OAGB recipients (8% vs 20%, P less than .05).
Another study looked at OAGB and sleeve gastrectomy in 60 patients, following them for 5 years. Total body weight loss was similar between groups at 20%-23%, said Dr. McKenzie (Obes Surg. 2014;24[9]1552-62).
“But what about bile reflux?” asked Dr. McKenzie. He pointed out that in OAGB, digestive juices enter the digestive path very close to the outlet of the new, surgically created stomach, affording the potential for significant reflux. Calling for further study of the frequency of bile reflux and potential long-term sequelae, he advised caution with this otherwise attractive procedure.
Those caring for bariatric patients may also see the consequences of “rogue” procedures on occasion: “Interest in metabolic surgery has led to some ‘original’ procedures, many of which are not based on firm science,” said Dr. McKenzie. An exemplar of an understudied procedure is the sleeve gastrectomy with a loop bipartition, with results that have been published in case reports, but whose longer-term outcomes are unknown.
“Caution is advised regarding operations that are devised outside of study protocols,” said Dr. McKenzie.
Dr. McKenzie reported that he had no relevant financial disclosures.
SOURCE: McKenzie, T. AACE 2018, presentation SGS4.
BOSTON – Though are the bariatric procedures most patients will receive, other surgical approaches to weight loss are occasionally performed. Knowing these various techniques and their likely efficacy and safety can help physicians who care for patients with obesity, whether a patient is considering a less common option, or whether a post-vagal blockade patient shows up on the schedule with long-term issues.
A common theme among many of these procedures is that overall numbers are low, long-term follow-up may be lacking, and research quality is variable, said Travis McKenzie, MD, speaking at a bariatric surgery-focused session of the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists.
One minimally invasive approach targets stomach functions and the appetite and satiety signaling system. In vagal blockade via an electronic implant (vBloc), an indwelling, removable device produces electronically-induced intermittent blockade of the vagal nerve.
In one randomized controlled trial, excess weight loss in patients receiving this procedure was 24%, significantly more than the 16% seen in the group that received a sham procedure (P = .002); both groups received regular follow-up and counseling, according to the study protocol. Overall, at 1 year, 52% of those in the treatment group had seen at least 20% reduction in excess weight; just 3.7% of vBloc recipients had adverse events, mostly some dyspepsia and pain at the implant site, said Dr. McKenzie, an endocrine surgeon at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
The vBloc procedure, said Dr. McKenzie, “demonstrated modest weight loss at 2 years, with a reasonable risk profile.”
A variation of the duodenal switch is known as single anastomosis duodeno-ileal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy, or SADI-S. This procedure both resects the greater curve of the stomach to create a gastric sleeve, and uses a single intestinal anastomosis to create a common channel of 200, 250 or 300 cm, bypassing most of the small intestine.
In this procedure, also known as the one-anastomosis duodenal switch (OADS), weight loss occurs both because of intestinal malabsorption and because of the reduced stomach volume.
Parsing safety and efficacy of this procedure isn’t easy, given the studies at hand, said Dr. McKenzie: “The data are plagued by short follow-up, low numbers, and inconsistent quality.” Of the 14 case series following 1,045 patients, none include randomized controlled data, he said.
The data that are available show total body weight loss in the 34%-39% range, with little difference between losses seen at 1 year and 2 years.
However, said Dr. McKenzie, one 100-patient case series showed that SADI-S patients averaged 2.5 bowel movements daily after the procedure, and two patients needed surgical revision because they were experiencing malnutrition. Anemia, vitamin B12 and D deficiencies, and folate deficiency are all commonly seen two years after SADI-S procedures, he said.
“The OADS procedure is very effective, although better data are needed before drawing conclusions,” said Dr. McKenzie.
A gastric bypass variation known as the “mini” bypass, or the one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB), is another less common bariatric technique. In this procedure, a small gastric pouch is created that forms the working stomach, which is then connected to the duodenum with bypassing of a significant portion (up to 200 cm) of the small intestine. This procedure causes both restrictive and malabsorptive weight loss, and is usually performed using minimally invasive surgery.
Four randomized controlled trials exist, said Dr. McKenzie, that compare OAGB variously to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and to sleeve gastrectomy. In an 80-patient study that compared OAGB with RYGB at two years post-procedure, excess weight loss was similar, at 60% for OAGB versus 64% for RYGB ( Ann Surg. 2005;24[1]20-8). However, morbidity was less for OAGB recipients (8% vs 20%, P less than .05).
Another study looked at OAGB and sleeve gastrectomy in 60 patients, following them for 5 years. Total body weight loss was similar between groups at 20%-23%, said Dr. McKenzie (Obes Surg. 2014;24[9]1552-62).
“But what about bile reflux?” asked Dr. McKenzie. He pointed out that in OAGB, digestive juices enter the digestive path very close to the outlet of the new, surgically created stomach, affording the potential for significant reflux. Calling for further study of the frequency of bile reflux and potential long-term sequelae, he advised caution with this otherwise attractive procedure.
Those caring for bariatric patients may also see the consequences of “rogue” procedures on occasion: “Interest in metabolic surgery has led to some ‘original’ procedures, many of which are not based on firm science,” said Dr. McKenzie. An exemplar of an understudied procedure is the sleeve gastrectomy with a loop bipartition, with results that have been published in case reports, but whose longer-term outcomes are unknown.
“Caution is advised regarding operations that are devised outside of study protocols,” said Dr. McKenzie.
Dr. McKenzie reported that he had no relevant financial disclosures.
SOURCE: McKenzie, T. AACE 2018, presentation SGS4.
BOSTON – Though are the bariatric procedures most patients will receive, other surgical approaches to weight loss are occasionally performed. Knowing these various techniques and their likely efficacy and safety can help physicians who care for patients with obesity, whether a patient is considering a less common option, or whether a post-vagal blockade patient shows up on the schedule with long-term issues.
A common theme among many of these procedures is that overall numbers are low, long-term follow-up may be lacking, and research quality is variable, said Travis McKenzie, MD, speaking at a bariatric surgery-focused session of the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists.
One minimally invasive approach targets stomach functions and the appetite and satiety signaling system. In vagal blockade via an electronic implant (vBloc), an indwelling, removable device produces electronically-induced intermittent blockade of the vagal nerve.
In one randomized controlled trial, excess weight loss in patients receiving this procedure was 24%, significantly more than the 16% seen in the group that received a sham procedure (P = .002); both groups received regular follow-up and counseling, according to the study protocol. Overall, at 1 year, 52% of those in the treatment group had seen at least 20% reduction in excess weight; just 3.7% of vBloc recipients had adverse events, mostly some dyspepsia and pain at the implant site, said Dr. McKenzie, an endocrine surgeon at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.
The vBloc procedure, said Dr. McKenzie, “demonstrated modest weight loss at 2 years, with a reasonable risk profile.”
A variation of the duodenal switch is known as single anastomosis duodeno-ileal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy, or SADI-S. This procedure both resects the greater curve of the stomach to create a gastric sleeve, and uses a single intestinal anastomosis to create a common channel of 200, 250 or 300 cm, bypassing most of the small intestine.
In this procedure, also known as the one-anastomosis duodenal switch (OADS), weight loss occurs both because of intestinal malabsorption and because of the reduced stomach volume.
Parsing safety and efficacy of this procedure isn’t easy, given the studies at hand, said Dr. McKenzie: “The data are plagued by short follow-up, low numbers, and inconsistent quality.” Of the 14 case series following 1,045 patients, none include randomized controlled data, he said.
The data that are available show total body weight loss in the 34%-39% range, with little difference between losses seen at 1 year and 2 years.
However, said Dr. McKenzie, one 100-patient case series showed that SADI-S patients averaged 2.5 bowel movements daily after the procedure, and two patients needed surgical revision because they were experiencing malnutrition. Anemia, vitamin B12 and D deficiencies, and folate deficiency are all commonly seen two years after SADI-S procedures, he said.
“The OADS procedure is very effective, although better data are needed before drawing conclusions,” said Dr. McKenzie.
A gastric bypass variation known as the “mini” bypass, or the one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB), is another less common bariatric technique. In this procedure, a small gastric pouch is created that forms the working stomach, which is then connected to the duodenum with bypassing of a significant portion (up to 200 cm) of the small intestine. This procedure causes both restrictive and malabsorptive weight loss, and is usually performed using minimally invasive surgery.
Four randomized controlled trials exist, said Dr. McKenzie, that compare OAGB variously to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and to sleeve gastrectomy. In an 80-patient study that compared OAGB with RYGB at two years post-procedure, excess weight loss was similar, at 60% for OAGB versus 64% for RYGB ( Ann Surg. 2005;24[1]20-8). However, morbidity was less for OAGB recipients (8% vs 20%, P less than .05).
Another study looked at OAGB and sleeve gastrectomy in 60 patients, following them for 5 years. Total body weight loss was similar between groups at 20%-23%, said Dr. McKenzie (Obes Surg. 2014;24[9]1552-62).
“But what about bile reflux?” asked Dr. McKenzie. He pointed out that in OAGB, digestive juices enter the digestive path very close to the outlet of the new, surgically created stomach, affording the potential for significant reflux. Calling for further study of the frequency of bile reflux and potential long-term sequelae, he advised caution with this otherwise attractive procedure.
Those caring for bariatric patients may also see the consequences of “rogue” procedures on occasion: “Interest in metabolic surgery has led to some ‘original’ procedures, many of which are not based on firm science,” said Dr. McKenzie. An exemplar of an understudied procedure is the sleeve gastrectomy with a loop bipartition, with results that have been published in case reports, but whose longer-term outcomes are unknown.
“Caution is advised regarding operations that are devised outside of study protocols,” said Dr. McKenzie.
Dr. McKenzie reported that he had no relevant financial disclosures.
SOURCE: McKenzie, T. AACE 2018, presentation SGS4.
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM AACE 2018
Shingles hospitalization occurs more often among IBD patients
WASHINGTON – 
This elevated risk for patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) to develop a herpes zoster virus (HZV) reactivation severe enough to put them in the hospital makes it especially important for IBD patients to receive immunization against shingles, especially now that a more effective vaccine is available, Daniela G. Vinsard, MD, said at the annual Digestive Disease Week®. Ideally, IBD patients should receive the full course of the adjuvanted, recombinant zoster vaccine Shingrix before starting an immunosuppressive regimen, said Dr. Vinsard, a physician at the University of Connecticut, Farmington.
This finding, which underscored the susceptibility of IBD patients to shingles because of their immunosuppressive treatments and the importance of vaccination, recently became even more relevant when the Food and Drug Administration approved tofacitinib (Xeljanz) to treat ulcerative colitis in late May, commented Gil Y. Melmed, MD, director of clinical inflammatory bowel disease at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles. Tofacitinib, which may be an attractive option to some patients as an oral immunomodulator, carries a black box warning about the added risk for certain serious infections while taking the drug, including HZV. Recent recommendations from the American College of Gastroenterology said that IBD patients aged 51 years or older should “strongly consider” HZV vaccination, including immunosuppressed patients (Am J Gastroenterol. 2017 Feb; 112[2]:241-58). The introduction of a potentially popular drug for ulcerative colitis that’s known to pose a risk for shingles might lead to a stronger recommendation for vaccination in the near future, Dr. Melmed said in an interview.
The study Dr. Vinsard reported used data collected by the National Inpatient Sample from 2012 to September 2015, which represented, with weighting, more than 142 million hospitalized American patients. From this data set she and her associates identified 7,180 IBD patients hospitalized with a primary diagnosis of a vaccine-preventable disease, and about 589,000 weighted patients hospitalized for a vaccine-preventable disease but without IBD. The selection also focused on patients aged 18-65 years. Dr. Vinsard said that she excluded older patients to eliminate advanced age as a cause of immunosuppression.
In a multivariate analysis that controlled for diabetes, HIV infection, cancer, and transplantation, the IBD patients had more than twice the rate of hospitalization for shingles, compared with the patients without IBD, Dr. Vinsard said. When broken down by specific disease type, the rate of HZV infection was 110% higher among ulcerative colitis patients, compared with the general population, and was 140% higher in Crohn’s disease patients, both statistically significant differences.
An additional finding from the analysis was that during the 4 years of study, the rate of hospitalizations of IBD patients for influenza steadily rose, from about 10% in 2012 to nearly 30% in 2015.
Dr. Vinsard reported no disclosures. Dr. Melmed reported consulting with Pfizer, the company that markets tofacitinib, and with several other companies that market biological agents.
WASHINGTON –
This elevated risk for patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) to develop a herpes zoster virus (HZV) reactivation severe enough to put them in the hospital makes it especially important for IBD patients to receive immunization against shingles, especially now that a more effective vaccine is available, Daniela G. Vinsard, MD, said at the annual Digestive Disease Week®. Ideally, IBD patients should receive the full course of the adjuvanted, recombinant zoster vaccine Shingrix before starting an immunosuppressive regimen, said Dr. Vinsard, a physician at the University of Connecticut, Farmington.
This finding, which underscored the susceptibility of IBD patients to shingles because of their immunosuppressive treatments and the importance of vaccination, recently became even more relevant when the Food and Drug Administration approved tofacitinib (Xeljanz) to treat ulcerative colitis in late May, commented Gil Y. Melmed, MD, director of clinical inflammatory bowel disease at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles. Tofacitinib, which may be an attractive option to some patients as an oral immunomodulator, carries a black box warning about the added risk for certain serious infections while taking the drug, including HZV. Recent recommendations from the American College of Gastroenterology said that IBD patients aged 51 years or older should “strongly consider” HZV vaccination, including immunosuppressed patients (Am J Gastroenterol. 2017 Feb; 112[2]:241-58). The introduction of a potentially popular drug for ulcerative colitis that’s known to pose a risk for shingles might lead to a stronger recommendation for vaccination in the near future, Dr. Melmed said in an interview.
The study Dr. Vinsard reported used data collected by the National Inpatient Sample from 2012 to September 2015, which represented, with weighting, more than 142 million hospitalized American patients. From this data set she and her associates identified 7,180 IBD patients hospitalized with a primary diagnosis of a vaccine-preventable disease, and about 589,000 weighted patients hospitalized for a vaccine-preventable disease but without IBD. The selection also focused on patients aged 18-65 years. Dr. Vinsard said that she excluded older patients to eliminate advanced age as a cause of immunosuppression.
In a multivariate analysis that controlled for diabetes, HIV infection, cancer, and transplantation, the IBD patients had more than twice the rate of hospitalization for shingles, compared with the patients without IBD, Dr. Vinsard said. When broken down by specific disease type, the rate of HZV infection was 110% higher among ulcerative colitis patients, compared with the general population, and was 140% higher in Crohn’s disease patients, both statistically significant differences.
An additional finding from the analysis was that during the 4 years of study, the rate of hospitalizations of IBD patients for influenza steadily rose, from about 10% in 2012 to nearly 30% in 2015.
Dr. Vinsard reported no disclosures. Dr. Melmed reported consulting with Pfizer, the company that markets tofacitinib, and with several other companies that market biological agents.
WASHINGTON –
This elevated risk for patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) to develop a herpes zoster virus (HZV) reactivation severe enough to put them in the hospital makes it especially important for IBD patients to receive immunization against shingles, especially now that a more effective vaccine is available, Daniela G. Vinsard, MD, said at the annual Digestive Disease Week®. Ideally, IBD patients should receive the full course of the adjuvanted, recombinant zoster vaccine Shingrix before starting an immunosuppressive regimen, said Dr. Vinsard, a physician at the University of Connecticut, Farmington.
This finding, which underscored the susceptibility of IBD patients to shingles because of their immunosuppressive treatments and the importance of vaccination, recently became even more relevant when the Food and Drug Administration approved tofacitinib (Xeljanz) to treat ulcerative colitis in late May, commented Gil Y. Melmed, MD, director of clinical inflammatory bowel disease at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles. Tofacitinib, which may be an attractive option to some patients as an oral immunomodulator, carries a black box warning about the added risk for certain serious infections while taking the drug, including HZV. Recent recommendations from the American College of Gastroenterology said that IBD patients aged 51 years or older should “strongly consider” HZV vaccination, including immunosuppressed patients (Am J Gastroenterol. 2017 Feb; 112[2]:241-58). The introduction of a potentially popular drug for ulcerative colitis that’s known to pose a risk for shingles might lead to a stronger recommendation for vaccination in the near future, Dr. Melmed said in an interview.
The study Dr. Vinsard reported used data collected by the National Inpatient Sample from 2012 to September 2015, which represented, with weighting, more than 142 million hospitalized American patients. From this data set she and her associates identified 7,180 IBD patients hospitalized with a primary diagnosis of a vaccine-preventable disease, and about 589,000 weighted patients hospitalized for a vaccine-preventable disease but without IBD. The selection also focused on patients aged 18-65 years. Dr. Vinsard said that she excluded older patients to eliminate advanced age as a cause of immunosuppression.
In a multivariate analysis that controlled for diabetes, HIV infection, cancer, and transplantation, the IBD patients had more than twice the rate of hospitalization for shingles, compared with the patients without IBD, Dr. Vinsard said. When broken down by specific disease type, the rate of HZV infection was 110% higher among ulcerative colitis patients, compared with the general population, and was 140% higher in Crohn’s disease patients, both statistically significant differences.
An additional finding from the analysis was that during the 4 years of study, the rate of hospitalizations of IBD patients for influenza steadily rose, from about 10% in 2012 to nearly 30% in 2015.
Dr. Vinsard reported no disclosures. Dr. Melmed reported consulting with Pfizer, the company that markets tofacitinib, and with several other companies that market biological agents.
REPORTING FROM DDW 2018
Key clinical point: Patients with inflammatory bowel disease have an increased risk for shingles that results in hospitalization.
Major finding: Patients with IBD hospitalized for a vaccine-preventable infection had twice the rate of shingles as the general population.
Study details: A review of data collected by the U.S. National Inpatient Sample during 2012-2015.
Disclosures: Dr. Vinsard reported no disclosures. Dr. Melmed reported consulting with Pfizer, the company that markets tofacitinib (Xeljanz), and with several other companies that market biological agents.
Web portal does not reduce phone encounters or office visits for IBD patients
WASHINGTON – Inflammatory bowel disease patients may love web-based portals that allow them to interact with their doctors and records, but it does not seem to reduce their trips to the doctor.
“There was actually no decrease in office visits or phone encounters with patients that are utilizing MyChart [a web-based patient portal],” said Alexander Hristov, MD, a resident at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, in a video interview at the annual Digestive Disease Week®. “So in fact, the patients that had MyChart use were also the patients that were calling in more frequently and visiting the clinic more frequently, which is interesting because we did not see that there was an offset for emergency room visits or hospitalizations.”
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
Out of the 616 total patients with either Crohn’s disease (355 patients) or ulcerative colitis (261 patients) analyzed in the study, 28% used MyChart. MyChart users also had higher number of prednisone prescriptions, compared with nonusers (51.9% vs. 40.8%, P = .01). There was no difference between MyChart users and nonusers for emergency room visits (P = .11) or hospitalizations (P = .16).
Interestingly, most messages sent via MyChart were for administrative reasons (54%), with both symptoms (28%) and education (18%) lagging behind.
Even though patients seem to like the portal, there is no billable time set aside for physicians to add the data for patients to access or respond to patient comments and requests through the portal. Unless MyChart can be shown to improve outcomes in some way, it is only an added burden for physicians.
Dr. Hristov mentioned that further work should be done to understand how web-based portals like MyChart can help both doctors and patients utilize this technology.
“We want to see the actual, measurable clinical outcomes of MyChart use,” he said. “So we want to set up a protocol where we can actually have measurable statistics looking at disease activity, inflammatory markers, and is there an impact that we are having on the patients disease course.”
Dr. Hristov had no financial disclosures to report.
SOURCE: Hristov A et al. Gastroenterology. 2018 May. doi: 0.1016/S0016-5085(18)32737-9.
WASHINGTON – Inflammatory bowel disease patients may love web-based portals that allow them to interact with their doctors and records, but it does not seem to reduce their trips to the doctor.
“There was actually no decrease in office visits or phone encounters with patients that are utilizing MyChart [a web-based patient portal],” said Alexander Hristov, MD, a resident at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, in a video interview at the annual Digestive Disease Week®. “So in fact, the patients that had MyChart use were also the patients that were calling in more frequently and visiting the clinic more frequently, which is interesting because we did not see that there was an offset for emergency room visits or hospitalizations.”
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
Out of the 616 total patients with either Crohn’s disease (355 patients) or ulcerative colitis (261 patients) analyzed in the study, 28% used MyChart. MyChart users also had higher number of prednisone prescriptions, compared with nonusers (51.9% vs. 40.8%, P = .01). There was no difference between MyChart users and nonusers for emergency room visits (P = .11) or hospitalizations (P = .16).
Interestingly, most messages sent via MyChart were for administrative reasons (54%), with both symptoms (28%) and education (18%) lagging behind.
Even though patients seem to like the portal, there is no billable time set aside for physicians to add the data for patients to access or respond to patient comments and requests through the portal. Unless MyChart can be shown to improve outcomes in some way, it is only an added burden for physicians.
Dr. Hristov mentioned that further work should be done to understand how web-based portals like MyChart can help both doctors and patients utilize this technology.
“We want to see the actual, measurable clinical outcomes of MyChart use,” he said. “So we want to set up a protocol where we can actually have measurable statistics looking at disease activity, inflammatory markers, and is there an impact that we are having on the patients disease course.”
Dr. Hristov had no financial disclosures to report.
SOURCE: Hristov A et al. Gastroenterology. 2018 May. doi: 0.1016/S0016-5085(18)32737-9.
WASHINGTON – Inflammatory bowel disease patients may love web-based portals that allow them to interact with their doctors and records, but it does not seem to reduce their trips to the doctor.
“There was actually no decrease in office visits or phone encounters with patients that are utilizing MyChart [a web-based patient portal],” said Alexander Hristov, MD, a resident at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, in a video interview at the annual Digestive Disease Week®. “So in fact, the patients that had MyChart use were also the patients that were calling in more frequently and visiting the clinic more frequently, which is interesting because we did not see that there was an offset for emergency room visits or hospitalizations.”
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
Out of the 616 total patients with either Crohn’s disease (355 patients) or ulcerative colitis (261 patients) analyzed in the study, 28% used MyChart. MyChart users also had higher number of prednisone prescriptions, compared with nonusers (51.9% vs. 40.8%, P = .01). There was no difference between MyChart users and nonusers for emergency room visits (P = .11) or hospitalizations (P = .16).
Interestingly, most messages sent via MyChart were for administrative reasons (54%), with both symptoms (28%) and education (18%) lagging behind.
Even though patients seem to like the portal, there is no billable time set aside for physicians to add the data for patients to access or respond to patient comments and requests through the portal. Unless MyChart can be shown to improve outcomes in some way, it is only an added burden for physicians.
Dr. Hristov mentioned that further work should be done to understand how web-based portals like MyChart can help both doctors and patients utilize this technology.
“We want to see the actual, measurable clinical outcomes of MyChart use,” he said. “So we want to set up a protocol where we can actually have measurable statistics looking at disease activity, inflammatory markers, and is there an impact that we are having on the patients disease course.”
Dr. Hristov had no financial disclosures to report.
SOURCE: Hristov A et al. Gastroenterology. 2018 May. doi: 0.1016/S0016-5085(18)32737-9.
REPORTING FROM DDW 2018
Key clinical point: Inflammatory bowel disease patients had more office visits and phone calls with physicians, and had worse outcomes.
Major finding: MyChart patients averaged 7.2 office visits and 19.2 phone encounters, compared with 5.6 office visits and 13.7 phone encounters in nonusers.
Study details: A review of patient electronic health records from Jan. 1, 2012, to December 31, 2015.
Disclosures: Dr. Hristov had no relevant financial disclosures to report.
Source: Hristov A et al Gastroenterology. 2018 May. doi: 10.1016/S0016-5085(18)32737-9.
VIDEO: Hepatitis C eradication cuts nonliver cancer rate
WASHINGTON – Treatment of hepatitis C infection with a direct-acting antiviral drug strongly linked with a rapid, 14% drop in the incidence of all nonhepatic cancers, based on analysis of data from more than 30,000 U.S. patients.
The data also showed compared with infected patients who had been treated with an interferon-based regimen during the period immediately preceding the availability of DAAs in late 2013. This included a 45% cut in lung cancers, a 49% cut in bladder cancer, a 62% relative risk reduction in leukemia, and a 29% drop in prostate cancer, Michael B. Charlton, MD, said at the annual Digestive Disease Week.®
The relative reductions in nonhepatic cancer incidence appeared soon after DAA treatment. The data Dr. Charlton reported reflected a median follow-up of 1 year for DAA-treated patients and 2.6 years for the hepatitis C–infected patients who had received interferon and did not get a DAA. A major difference between these two regimens is their efficacy, with DAA regimens producing sustained virologic response rates of 90% or better, while the interferon regimens produced substantially lower eradication rates.
“The most obvious hypothesis” to explain the observed effects is that “hepatitis C is a potent carcinogen,” possibly acting by inhibiting immune surveillance for new cancers in infected people, Dr. Charlton said in a video interview.
The study he reported used insurance-claims data from more than 146 million U.S. residents during 2007-2017 in the IQVIA PharMetrics Plus database, which included more than 367,000 adults infected with hepatitis C. Dr. Charlton and his associates pulled from this claims data on 10,989 of the infected patients who received interferon during January 2007-May 2011 (and followed through November 2013), and 22,894 infected patients treated with any type of DAA during December 2013 through March 2017. They used these two discrete time windows to completely separate the patients who received a DAA from those who did not.
The primary analysis calculated a hazard ratio for the development of any nonhepatic cancer after adjustment for a number of demographic and clinical covariates including age, smoking history, and weight, and also applied propensity-score weighting to the data. The Kaplan-Meier analysis of the data showed clear separation of the cancer-free survival curves of the two subgroups by 6 months of follow-up, and then showed steady further separation over time suggesting an ongoing carcinogenic effect from continued hepatitis C infection in patients who had received the less effective antiviral regimen. The analysis was able to reveal this effect because it had data from many thousands of treated hepatitis C patients, far more than had been enrolled in the pivotal trials for the DAAs, noted Dr. Charlton, professor and director of the Center for Liver Diseases at the University of Chicago.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that 3.5 million Americans have a chronic hepatitis C infection. Dr. Charlton believed the number today might be more like 1-2 million remaining chronic U.S. cases because of the strong impact of DAA treatment. These chronic infections largely remain because hepatitis C is mostly silent and many clinicians fail to act on screening recommendations. The new findings provide even greater incentive for more rigorous screening and treatment, Dr. Charlton suggested.
“As if you needed another reason to get rid of hepatitis C, lowering your cancer risk is now added to the list,” he said.
WASHINGTON – Treatment of hepatitis C infection with a direct-acting antiviral drug strongly linked with a rapid, 14% drop in the incidence of all nonhepatic cancers, based on analysis of data from more than 30,000 U.S. patients.
The data also showed compared with infected patients who had been treated with an interferon-based regimen during the period immediately preceding the availability of DAAs in late 2013. This included a 45% cut in lung cancers, a 49% cut in bladder cancer, a 62% relative risk reduction in leukemia, and a 29% drop in prostate cancer, Michael B. Charlton, MD, said at the annual Digestive Disease Week.®
The relative reductions in nonhepatic cancer incidence appeared soon after DAA treatment. The data Dr. Charlton reported reflected a median follow-up of 1 year for DAA-treated patients and 2.6 years for the hepatitis C–infected patients who had received interferon and did not get a DAA. A major difference between these two regimens is their efficacy, with DAA regimens producing sustained virologic response rates of 90% or better, while the interferon regimens produced substantially lower eradication rates.
“The most obvious hypothesis” to explain the observed effects is that “hepatitis C is a potent carcinogen,” possibly acting by inhibiting immune surveillance for new cancers in infected people, Dr. Charlton said in a video interview.
The study he reported used insurance-claims data from more than 146 million U.S. residents during 2007-2017 in the IQVIA PharMetrics Plus database, which included more than 367,000 adults infected with hepatitis C. Dr. Charlton and his associates pulled from this claims data on 10,989 of the infected patients who received interferon during January 2007-May 2011 (and followed through November 2013), and 22,894 infected patients treated with any type of DAA during December 2013 through March 2017. They used these two discrete time windows to completely separate the patients who received a DAA from those who did not.
The primary analysis calculated a hazard ratio for the development of any nonhepatic cancer after adjustment for a number of demographic and clinical covariates including age, smoking history, and weight, and also applied propensity-score weighting to the data. The Kaplan-Meier analysis of the data showed clear separation of the cancer-free survival curves of the two subgroups by 6 months of follow-up, and then showed steady further separation over time suggesting an ongoing carcinogenic effect from continued hepatitis C infection in patients who had received the less effective antiviral regimen. The analysis was able to reveal this effect because it had data from many thousands of treated hepatitis C patients, far more than had been enrolled in the pivotal trials for the DAAs, noted Dr. Charlton, professor and director of the Center for Liver Diseases at the University of Chicago.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that 3.5 million Americans have a chronic hepatitis C infection. Dr. Charlton believed the number today might be more like 1-2 million remaining chronic U.S. cases because of the strong impact of DAA treatment. These chronic infections largely remain because hepatitis C is mostly silent and many clinicians fail to act on screening recommendations. The new findings provide even greater incentive for more rigorous screening and treatment, Dr. Charlton suggested.
“As if you needed another reason to get rid of hepatitis C, lowering your cancer risk is now added to the list,” he said.
WASHINGTON – Treatment of hepatitis C infection with a direct-acting antiviral drug strongly linked with a rapid, 14% drop in the incidence of all nonhepatic cancers, based on analysis of data from more than 30,000 U.S. patients.
The data also showed compared with infected patients who had been treated with an interferon-based regimen during the period immediately preceding the availability of DAAs in late 2013. This included a 45% cut in lung cancers, a 49% cut in bladder cancer, a 62% relative risk reduction in leukemia, and a 29% drop in prostate cancer, Michael B. Charlton, MD, said at the annual Digestive Disease Week.®
The relative reductions in nonhepatic cancer incidence appeared soon after DAA treatment. The data Dr. Charlton reported reflected a median follow-up of 1 year for DAA-treated patients and 2.6 years for the hepatitis C–infected patients who had received interferon and did not get a DAA. A major difference between these two regimens is their efficacy, with DAA regimens producing sustained virologic response rates of 90% or better, while the interferon regimens produced substantially lower eradication rates.
“The most obvious hypothesis” to explain the observed effects is that “hepatitis C is a potent carcinogen,” possibly acting by inhibiting immune surveillance for new cancers in infected people, Dr. Charlton said in a video interview.
The study he reported used insurance-claims data from more than 146 million U.S. residents during 2007-2017 in the IQVIA PharMetrics Plus database, which included more than 367,000 adults infected with hepatitis C. Dr. Charlton and his associates pulled from this claims data on 10,989 of the infected patients who received interferon during January 2007-May 2011 (and followed through November 2013), and 22,894 infected patients treated with any type of DAA during December 2013 through March 2017. They used these two discrete time windows to completely separate the patients who received a DAA from those who did not.
The primary analysis calculated a hazard ratio for the development of any nonhepatic cancer after adjustment for a number of demographic and clinical covariates including age, smoking history, and weight, and also applied propensity-score weighting to the data. The Kaplan-Meier analysis of the data showed clear separation of the cancer-free survival curves of the two subgroups by 6 months of follow-up, and then showed steady further separation over time suggesting an ongoing carcinogenic effect from continued hepatitis C infection in patients who had received the less effective antiviral regimen. The analysis was able to reveal this effect because it had data from many thousands of treated hepatitis C patients, far more than had been enrolled in the pivotal trials for the DAAs, noted Dr. Charlton, professor and director of the Center for Liver Diseases at the University of Chicago.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that 3.5 million Americans have a chronic hepatitis C infection. Dr. Charlton believed the number today might be more like 1-2 million remaining chronic U.S. cases because of the strong impact of DAA treatment. These chronic infections largely remain because hepatitis C is mostly silent and many clinicians fail to act on screening recommendations. The new findings provide even greater incentive for more rigorous screening and treatment, Dr. Charlton suggested.
“As if you needed another reason to get rid of hepatitis C, lowering your cancer risk is now added to the list,” he said.
REPORTING FROM DDW 2018
Key clinical point: Eradicating hepatitis C with direct-acting antivirals significantly cut the incidence of many nonliver cancers.
Major finding: Direct-acting antiviral treatment linked with a 14% drop in nonhepatic cancers, compared with patients not getting this treatment.
Study details: Analysis of 33,883 Americans treated for hepatitis C during 2007-2017 in an insurance claims database.
Disclosures: The study was funded by Gilead, a company that markets direct-acting antiviral drugs for hepatitis C virus. Dr. Charlton has been a consultant to and has received research funding from Gilead and several other companies that market drugs from this class.
Multiple therapies for NAFLD and NASH are now in phase 3 clinical trials
WASHINGTON – Several potential treatments for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) currently in phase 3 trials show promise in treating these complex disorders.
“When we talk emerging treatments in NASH, focusing on phase 3s [trials], there are really four drugs,” said Stephen Harrison, MD, the medical director of Pinnacle Clinical Research at the annual Digestive Disease Week®. “There’s elafibranor, obeticholic acid (OCA), selonsertib, and cenicriviroc. Each of these have there own phase 3.”
The phase 3 trials for these drugs have different primary endpoints, an important factor to consider, according to Dr. Harrison.
OCA is one of the promising drugs to treat NASH. It is already approved by the Food and Drug Administration to treat primary biliary cholangitis. In FLINT (The Farnesoid X Receptor Ligand Obeticholic Acid in NASH Treatment Trial), a phase 2 study, OCA showed promise in treating NASH. In this double-blind, randomized, controlled trial, 141 patients received 25 mg of OCA daily for 72 weeks while another 142 received placebo. By the end of the study, 45% of 110 patients in the OCA group had improved their liver histology, compared with only 21% of patients receiving placebo.
Currently, the REGENERATE trial is evaluating the effects of obeticholic acid on histologic improvement and liver related outcomes in NASH patients. Patients have been randomized to receive either 10 mg of OCA, 25 mg of OCA, or placebo. As of yet, no results have been posted.
Much as he did for trials involving OCA, Dr. Harrison also detailed the results of a phase 2b elafibranor study that led to a registration trial that is currently underway. In Golden 505 (Phase IIb Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of GFT505 Versus Placebo in Patients With Non-Alcoholic Steatohepatitis), patients were randomized to receive either GFT505 80 mg, GFT505 120 mg, or placebo. The aim of the study was to identify the percentage of responders with disappearance of steatohepatitis without worsening of fibrosis. Unfortunately, there was no difference between placebo and the treatment groups for this outcome, although a post hoc analysis did reveal that NASH resolved in a higher proportion of the 120-mg elafibranor group, compared with the placebo group (19% vs. 12%, respectively). This also translated into a reduction of 0.65 in liver fibrosis stages in responders, compared with a 0.10 increase in nonresponders (P less than .001).
Now, elafibranor is being further examined in RESOLVE-IT (Phase 3 Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Elafibranor Versus Placebo in Patients With Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis), but no results have been posted at press time.
Cenicriviroc has followed a similar path, with a phase 2b leading to a phase 3 study.
CENTAUR (Efficacy and Safety Study of Cenicriviroc for the Treatment of NASH in Adult Subjects With Liver Fibrosis) looked at histologic improvement in NAFLD over the course of 2 years. Patients were randomized into either the cenicriviroc 150-mg group (group A) or two placebo groups (groups B and C) for the first year of the study. In the second year of the study patients in placebo group B started to receive 150 mg cenicriviroc and group C remained as the placebo until the end of year 2. NAFLD activity scores were similar between placebo and cenicriviroc. But, fibrosis outcomes were met at a much higher rate in the cenicriviroc group, compared with those seen with placebo (20% vs. 10%, respectively; P = 0.02).
Based on these findings, AURORA (Phase 3 Study for the Efficacy and Safety of Cenicriviroc for the Treatment of Liver Fibrosis in Adults With NASH) is now evaluating the safety and efficacy of cenicriviroc in the treatment of liver fibrosis in adults with NASH.
Finally, there is selonsertib, an ASK1 inhibitor. A phase 2 trial showed that it had the potential to induce stage reduction in fibrosis at an 18-mg dose.
Now there are two phase 3 studies, STELLAR 3 and STELLAR 4, evaluating the effects of selonsertib in adults with NASH and NASH with compensated cirrhosis.
Dr. Harrison recognizes that, because of the complexity of NASH and other fatty liver diseases, trials testing therapies for these conditions face unique challenges in the approval process.
“In fatty liver disease it’s been recognized that, to do those types of studies, it’s going to take a long time to get FDA approval,” he said. “So there’s a way to get conditional approval; it’s called the Subpart H pathway, and the FDA has accepted a couple reasonable, likely surrogates. One is resolution of NASH without worsening of fibrosis, and you need to know what that definition is: resolution of NASH.” He explained this means eliminating inflammation and ballooning rather than worrying about fat on the liver biopsy.With these four drugs in the development pipeline, Dr. Harrison sees them becoming available sometime next year.
“Looking at the data, the earliest that we are looking at therapy getting into the clinic is mid-2019,” Dr. Harrison said.
Dr. Harrison has received research grants from Genfit, Intercept, and Gilead among others. He consults for Medpace, Innovate Biopharmaceuticals, and other companies. He is also on the speakers bureau for Alexion Pharmaceuticals and AbbVie.
SOURCE: Harrison S. DDW 2018, Presentation 2230.
WASHINGTON – Several potential treatments for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) currently in phase 3 trials show promise in treating these complex disorders.
“When we talk emerging treatments in NASH, focusing on phase 3s [trials], there are really four drugs,” said Stephen Harrison, MD, the medical director of Pinnacle Clinical Research at the annual Digestive Disease Week®. “There’s elafibranor, obeticholic acid (OCA), selonsertib, and cenicriviroc. Each of these have there own phase 3.”
The phase 3 trials for these drugs have different primary endpoints, an important factor to consider, according to Dr. Harrison.
OCA is one of the promising drugs to treat NASH. It is already approved by the Food and Drug Administration to treat primary biliary cholangitis. In FLINT (The Farnesoid X Receptor Ligand Obeticholic Acid in NASH Treatment Trial), a phase 2 study, OCA showed promise in treating NASH. In this double-blind, randomized, controlled trial, 141 patients received 25 mg of OCA daily for 72 weeks while another 142 received placebo. By the end of the study, 45% of 110 patients in the OCA group had improved their liver histology, compared with only 21% of patients receiving placebo.
Currently, the REGENERATE trial is evaluating the effects of obeticholic acid on histologic improvement and liver related outcomes in NASH patients. Patients have been randomized to receive either 10 mg of OCA, 25 mg of OCA, or placebo. As of yet, no results have been posted.
Much as he did for trials involving OCA, Dr. Harrison also detailed the results of a phase 2b elafibranor study that led to a registration trial that is currently underway. In Golden 505 (Phase IIb Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of GFT505 Versus Placebo in Patients With Non-Alcoholic Steatohepatitis), patients were randomized to receive either GFT505 80 mg, GFT505 120 mg, or placebo. The aim of the study was to identify the percentage of responders with disappearance of steatohepatitis without worsening of fibrosis. Unfortunately, there was no difference between placebo and the treatment groups for this outcome, although a post hoc analysis did reveal that NASH resolved in a higher proportion of the 120-mg elafibranor group, compared with the placebo group (19% vs. 12%, respectively). This also translated into a reduction of 0.65 in liver fibrosis stages in responders, compared with a 0.10 increase in nonresponders (P less than .001).
Now, elafibranor is being further examined in RESOLVE-IT (Phase 3 Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Elafibranor Versus Placebo in Patients With Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis), but no results have been posted at press time.
Cenicriviroc has followed a similar path, with a phase 2b leading to a phase 3 study.
CENTAUR (Efficacy and Safety Study of Cenicriviroc for the Treatment of NASH in Adult Subjects With Liver Fibrosis) looked at histologic improvement in NAFLD over the course of 2 years. Patients were randomized into either the cenicriviroc 150-mg group (group A) or two placebo groups (groups B and C) for the first year of the study. In the second year of the study patients in placebo group B started to receive 150 mg cenicriviroc and group C remained as the placebo until the end of year 2. NAFLD activity scores were similar between placebo and cenicriviroc. But, fibrosis outcomes were met at a much higher rate in the cenicriviroc group, compared with those seen with placebo (20% vs. 10%, respectively; P = 0.02).
Based on these findings, AURORA (Phase 3 Study for the Efficacy and Safety of Cenicriviroc for the Treatment of Liver Fibrosis in Adults With NASH) is now evaluating the safety and efficacy of cenicriviroc in the treatment of liver fibrosis in adults with NASH.
Finally, there is selonsertib, an ASK1 inhibitor. A phase 2 trial showed that it had the potential to induce stage reduction in fibrosis at an 18-mg dose.
Now there are two phase 3 studies, STELLAR 3 and STELLAR 4, evaluating the effects of selonsertib in adults with NASH and NASH with compensated cirrhosis.
Dr. Harrison recognizes that, because of the complexity of NASH and other fatty liver diseases, trials testing therapies for these conditions face unique challenges in the approval process.
“In fatty liver disease it’s been recognized that, to do those types of studies, it’s going to take a long time to get FDA approval,” he said. “So there’s a way to get conditional approval; it’s called the Subpart H pathway, and the FDA has accepted a couple reasonable, likely surrogates. One is resolution of NASH without worsening of fibrosis, and you need to know what that definition is: resolution of NASH.” He explained this means eliminating inflammation and ballooning rather than worrying about fat on the liver biopsy.With these four drugs in the development pipeline, Dr. Harrison sees them becoming available sometime next year.
“Looking at the data, the earliest that we are looking at therapy getting into the clinic is mid-2019,” Dr. Harrison said.
Dr. Harrison has received research grants from Genfit, Intercept, and Gilead among others. He consults for Medpace, Innovate Biopharmaceuticals, and other companies. He is also on the speakers bureau for Alexion Pharmaceuticals and AbbVie.
SOURCE: Harrison S. DDW 2018, Presentation 2230.
WASHINGTON – Several potential treatments for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) currently in phase 3 trials show promise in treating these complex disorders.
“When we talk emerging treatments in NASH, focusing on phase 3s [trials], there are really four drugs,” said Stephen Harrison, MD, the medical director of Pinnacle Clinical Research at the annual Digestive Disease Week®. “There’s elafibranor, obeticholic acid (OCA), selonsertib, and cenicriviroc. Each of these have there own phase 3.”
The phase 3 trials for these drugs have different primary endpoints, an important factor to consider, according to Dr. Harrison.
OCA is one of the promising drugs to treat NASH. It is already approved by the Food and Drug Administration to treat primary biliary cholangitis. In FLINT (The Farnesoid X Receptor Ligand Obeticholic Acid in NASH Treatment Trial), a phase 2 study, OCA showed promise in treating NASH. In this double-blind, randomized, controlled trial, 141 patients received 25 mg of OCA daily for 72 weeks while another 142 received placebo. By the end of the study, 45% of 110 patients in the OCA group had improved their liver histology, compared with only 21% of patients receiving placebo.
Currently, the REGENERATE trial is evaluating the effects of obeticholic acid on histologic improvement and liver related outcomes in NASH patients. Patients have been randomized to receive either 10 mg of OCA, 25 mg of OCA, or placebo. As of yet, no results have been posted.
Much as he did for trials involving OCA, Dr. Harrison also detailed the results of a phase 2b elafibranor study that led to a registration trial that is currently underway. In Golden 505 (Phase IIb Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of GFT505 Versus Placebo in Patients With Non-Alcoholic Steatohepatitis), patients were randomized to receive either GFT505 80 mg, GFT505 120 mg, or placebo. The aim of the study was to identify the percentage of responders with disappearance of steatohepatitis without worsening of fibrosis. Unfortunately, there was no difference between placebo and the treatment groups for this outcome, although a post hoc analysis did reveal that NASH resolved in a higher proportion of the 120-mg elafibranor group, compared with the placebo group (19% vs. 12%, respectively). This also translated into a reduction of 0.65 in liver fibrosis stages in responders, compared with a 0.10 increase in nonresponders (P less than .001).
Now, elafibranor is being further examined in RESOLVE-IT (Phase 3 Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Elafibranor Versus Placebo in Patients With Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis), but no results have been posted at press time.
Cenicriviroc has followed a similar path, with a phase 2b leading to a phase 3 study.
CENTAUR (Efficacy and Safety Study of Cenicriviroc for the Treatment of NASH in Adult Subjects With Liver Fibrosis) looked at histologic improvement in NAFLD over the course of 2 years. Patients were randomized into either the cenicriviroc 150-mg group (group A) or two placebo groups (groups B and C) for the first year of the study. In the second year of the study patients in placebo group B started to receive 150 mg cenicriviroc and group C remained as the placebo until the end of year 2. NAFLD activity scores were similar between placebo and cenicriviroc. But, fibrosis outcomes were met at a much higher rate in the cenicriviroc group, compared with those seen with placebo (20% vs. 10%, respectively; P = 0.02).
Based on these findings, AURORA (Phase 3 Study for the Efficacy and Safety of Cenicriviroc for the Treatment of Liver Fibrosis in Adults With NASH) is now evaluating the safety and efficacy of cenicriviroc in the treatment of liver fibrosis in adults with NASH.
Finally, there is selonsertib, an ASK1 inhibitor. A phase 2 trial showed that it had the potential to induce stage reduction in fibrosis at an 18-mg dose.
Now there are two phase 3 studies, STELLAR 3 and STELLAR 4, evaluating the effects of selonsertib in adults with NASH and NASH with compensated cirrhosis.
Dr. Harrison recognizes that, because of the complexity of NASH and other fatty liver diseases, trials testing therapies for these conditions face unique challenges in the approval process.
“In fatty liver disease it’s been recognized that, to do those types of studies, it’s going to take a long time to get FDA approval,” he said. “So there’s a way to get conditional approval; it’s called the Subpart H pathway, and the FDA has accepted a couple reasonable, likely surrogates. One is resolution of NASH without worsening of fibrosis, and you need to know what that definition is: resolution of NASH.” He explained this means eliminating inflammation and ballooning rather than worrying about fat on the liver biopsy.With these four drugs in the development pipeline, Dr. Harrison sees them becoming available sometime next year.
“Looking at the data, the earliest that we are looking at therapy getting into the clinic is mid-2019,” Dr. Harrison said.
Dr. Harrison has received research grants from Genfit, Intercept, and Gilead among others. He consults for Medpace, Innovate Biopharmaceuticals, and other companies. He is also on the speakers bureau for Alexion Pharmaceuticals and AbbVie.
SOURCE: Harrison S. DDW 2018, Presentation 2230.
REPORTING FROM DDW 2018
NAFLD patients with abnormal liver tests may not get statins when indicated
WASHINGTON – Though the liver safety of statins in patients with low-level liver enzyme elevations has long been established, some providers still hesitate to prescribe them to the patients with the conditions for which they are indicated.
Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), hyperlipidemia, metabolic syndrome, and diabetes, which often co-occur, are also involved in cardiovascular disease. Cardiovascular disease is the most common cause of mortality in NAFLD, before liver disease.
Sonal Kumar, MD, MPH, of New York–Presbyterian Hospital described in a video interview at the annual Digestive Disease Week® a study she and her colleagues conducted to evaluate statin use in patients with hyperlipidemia by using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey during 2005-2014 (NHANES). Adult patients aged over 18 years were included if they did not have viral hepatitis, did not excessively consume alcohol, were not pregnant, and did not have transaminase levels over 500 IU/L.
Statin use was assessed in 136,833,627 participants by NHANES interviewers. Of these participants, 74.6% had hyperlipidemia (defined as LDL cholesterol greater than 130 mg/dL) and 93.5% were taking a statin. Patients with hyperlipidemia with abnormal alanine aminotransferase values were significantly less likely to be taking a statin (86.3% vs. 89.1%, P = .001). With multivariate analysis, abnormal ALT significantly decreased the odds of patients receiving a statin if they had diabetes (odds ratio, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.57-0.99) when sex and age were controlled for.
Statins are underutilized in patients with NAFLD and diabetes, patient groups in whom they could help control cardiovascular disease risk factors, said Dr. Kumar. Providers need to be educated on the safety of statins in these patients to improve cardiovascular outcomes.
Dr. Kumar reported receiving support from Gilead and AbbVie.
WASHINGTON – Though the liver safety of statins in patients with low-level liver enzyme elevations has long been established, some providers still hesitate to prescribe them to the patients with the conditions for which they are indicated.
Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), hyperlipidemia, metabolic syndrome, and diabetes, which often co-occur, are also involved in cardiovascular disease. Cardiovascular disease is the most common cause of mortality in NAFLD, before liver disease.
Sonal Kumar, MD, MPH, of New York–Presbyterian Hospital described in a video interview at the annual Digestive Disease Week® a study she and her colleagues conducted to evaluate statin use in patients with hyperlipidemia by using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey during 2005-2014 (NHANES). Adult patients aged over 18 years were included if they did not have viral hepatitis, did not excessively consume alcohol, were not pregnant, and did not have transaminase levels over 500 IU/L.
Statin use was assessed in 136,833,627 participants by NHANES interviewers. Of these participants, 74.6% had hyperlipidemia (defined as LDL cholesterol greater than 130 mg/dL) and 93.5% were taking a statin. Patients with hyperlipidemia with abnormal alanine aminotransferase values were significantly less likely to be taking a statin (86.3% vs. 89.1%, P = .001). With multivariate analysis, abnormal ALT significantly decreased the odds of patients receiving a statin if they had diabetes (odds ratio, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.57-0.99) when sex and age were controlled for.
Statins are underutilized in patients with NAFLD and diabetes, patient groups in whom they could help control cardiovascular disease risk factors, said Dr. Kumar. Providers need to be educated on the safety of statins in these patients to improve cardiovascular outcomes.
Dr. Kumar reported receiving support from Gilead and AbbVie.
WASHINGTON – Though the liver safety of statins in patients with low-level liver enzyme elevations has long been established, some providers still hesitate to prescribe them to the patients with the conditions for which they are indicated.
Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), hyperlipidemia, metabolic syndrome, and diabetes, which often co-occur, are also involved in cardiovascular disease. Cardiovascular disease is the most common cause of mortality in NAFLD, before liver disease.
Sonal Kumar, MD, MPH, of New York–Presbyterian Hospital described in a video interview at the annual Digestive Disease Week® a study she and her colleagues conducted to evaluate statin use in patients with hyperlipidemia by using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey during 2005-2014 (NHANES). Adult patients aged over 18 years were included if they did not have viral hepatitis, did not excessively consume alcohol, were not pregnant, and did not have transaminase levels over 500 IU/L.
Statin use was assessed in 136,833,627 participants by NHANES interviewers. Of these participants, 74.6% had hyperlipidemia (defined as LDL cholesterol greater than 130 mg/dL) and 93.5% were taking a statin. Patients with hyperlipidemia with abnormal alanine aminotransferase values were significantly less likely to be taking a statin (86.3% vs. 89.1%, P = .001). With multivariate analysis, abnormal ALT significantly decreased the odds of patients receiving a statin if they had diabetes (odds ratio, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.57-0.99) when sex and age were controlled for.
Statins are underutilized in patients with NAFLD and diabetes, patient groups in whom they could help control cardiovascular disease risk factors, said Dr. Kumar. Providers need to be educated on the safety of statins in these patients to improve cardiovascular outcomes.
Dr. Kumar reported receiving support from Gilead and AbbVie.
REPORTING FROM DDW 2018
Key clinical point: Patients diagnosed with hyperlipidemia who had abnormal ALT levels were less likely to take a statin (86.3% vs. 89.1%, P = .001).
Major finding: Abnormal ALT significantly decreased the odds of patients receiving a statin if they had diabetes (odds ratio, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.57-0.99) when sex and age were controlled for.
Data source: Data from 136,833,627 adult patients from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey collected during 2005-2014.
Disclosures: Dr. Kumar reported receiving support from Gilead and AbbVie.
