LAKE BUENA VISTA, FLA. – Wellness is an antidote to burnout.

That was the message from psychotherapist and author Saundra Jain, PsyD, during a talk focused on “reigniting the flame” in both professional and personal life.

©stanciuc/thinkstockphotos.com

“Wellness is not an afterthought. It simply cannot be,” she said at the annual meeting of the Florida Society of Rheumatology. The “data demand that wellness be elevated.”

That’s true both for patient care and for self care, she stressed, noting that by “wellness” she is referring to the 1948 World Health Organization definition: “... a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.”

Wellness-enhancing practices – she discussed five that have “the most robust dataset”: exercise, nutrition, mindfulness, social connectedness, and sleep – can improve well-being and reduce burnout through a number of mechanisms, not the least of which are reduced inflammation and reduced depression and anxiety, said Dr. Jain, adjunct clinical affiliate for the School of Nursing at the University of Texas at Austin.

For example, regular exercise is known to reduce chronic inflammation, and the effect has been shown to be independent of weight loss, she noted (Sports Med. 2013;43[4]:243-56).

Mindfulness also has been shown to reduce cortisol production in response to a psychological stressor, and thus may positively affect inflammatory responses, she said (Brain Behav Immun. 2013;27:174-184).

People struggle with the concept of mindfulness, because for many it is a bit foreign to their experience, she said, adding that “what we don’t know, we’re sometimes a little bit afraid of.

“But the data around mindfulness, honestly, is robust – it really, really is,” she said, adding that “you can take people who have not meditated at all, and in 8 weeks impact their inflammation.

“So you don’t have to be a long-term meditator – you do not have to meditate for 18 hours a day sitting in a lotus position in a serene, beautiful location.”

There is no right or wrong way to meditate; it’s all about the practice, she added.

In an effort to help her own patients find wellness, Dr. Jain cofounded the WILD 5 Wellness program and coauthored a related workbook and program called KickStart30 designed to help kick-start the wellness journey.

WILD stands for Wellness Interventions for Life’s Demands, and the program combines the five key evidence-based wellness elements into an easy-to-follow program, she said.

The KickStart30 workbook is available for purchase, with all profits benefiting mental health charities. The approach is as applicable for physician wellness as for patient wellness, she said. The program is simple, prescriptive, trackable, and self-contained, she added.

Wellness-enhancing practices as recommended in the program include:

• 30 minutes of exercise daily for 30 days, with an aim of at least moderate intensity.
• 10 minutes of mindfulness practice each day for 30 days. (Free guided meditations, which she and her colleagues use in their studies of the program, are available at www.WILD5Meditations.com, but a number of other guided meditation apps are available online, she said.) “Of the apps that are available, Headspace, without a doubt, is my favorite,” she said. It requires a paid subscription, but “is so worth it.”
• Implementation of at least four of six sleep hygiene practices each day for 30 days.
• Meeting or calling a minimum of two friends or family members each day for 30 days.
• Logging meals/snacks/beverages/alcohol consumption each day for 30 days, following the Mediterranean-DASH intervention for Neurodegenerative Delay (MIND) diet principles as closely as possible.

Program success requires effort, not perfection, in following the recommendations, and measurement and tracking are essential, Dr. Jain said, noting that a simple tracking tool – the KickStart30–HERO Wellness Scale – was validated in a recent study that has been accepted for publication in Annals of Psychology in the coming months).

A prior study of 82 participants, which she presented in 2016 in a poster at the 29th Annual U.S. Psychiatric and Mental Health Congress, showed that completion of the KickStart30 program was associated with improvements on a variety of wellness measures, including happiness (30%), enthusiasm (51%), resilience 63%, and optimism (45%), she said.

Participants also experienced important improvements in disease markers, including depression (43% based on the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire), anxiety (40% as measured by the 7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale), and sleep quality (29% based on the 9-item Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index).

“The one thing I want when you leave and you think about this session is a feeling ... that ‘there are actually things that I can do to improve my wellness.’ There’s something about the power, the synergy between the elements ... it’s reigniting the flame, the interest in wellness,” she said, adding that taking care of others requires “learning to take better care of ourselves.”

“We have to walk the walk of wellness; we cannot simply sit in the ivory tower and talk about it,” she said. “To be genuine and to really engage our patients, we have to walk the walk.”

Dr. Jain is cofounder of the WILD 5 Wellness program, and has served on advisory boards or panels for numerous pharmaceutical companies and other organizations.

sworcester@mdedge.com

LAKE BUENA VISTA, FLA. – Wellness is an antidote to burnout.

That was the message from psychotherapist and author Saundra Jain, PsyD, during a talk focused on “reigniting the flame” in both professional and personal life.

©stanciuc/thinkstockphotos.com

“Wellness is not an afterthought. It simply cannot be,” she said at the annual meeting of the Florida Society of Rheumatology. The “data demand that wellness be elevated.”

That’s true both for patient care and for self care, she stressed, noting that by “wellness” she is referring to the 1948 World Health Organization definition: “... a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.”

Wellness-enhancing practices – she discussed five that have “the most robust dataset”: exercise, nutrition, mindfulness, social connectedness, and sleep – can improve well-being and reduce burnout through a number of mechanisms, not the least of which are reduced inflammation and reduced depression and anxiety, said Dr. Jain, adjunct clinical affiliate for the School of Nursing at the University of Texas at Austin.

For example, regular exercise is known to reduce chronic inflammation, and the effect has been shown to be independent of weight loss, she noted (Sports Med. 2013;43[4]:243-56).

Mindfulness also has been shown to reduce cortisol production in response to a psychological stressor, and thus may positively affect inflammatory responses, she said (Brain Behav Immun. 2013;27:174-184).

People struggle with the concept of mindfulness, because for many it is a bit foreign to their experience, she said, adding that “what we don’t know, we’re sometimes a little bit afraid of.

“But the data around mindfulness, honestly, is robust – it really, really is,” she said, adding that “you can take people who have not meditated at all, and in 8 weeks impact their inflammation.

“So you don’t have to be a long-term meditator – you do not have to meditate for 18 hours a day sitting in a lotus position in a serene, beautiful location.”

There is no right or wrong way to meditate; it’s all about the practice, she added.

In an effort to help her own patients find wellness, Dr. Jain cofounded the WILD 5 Wellness program and coauthored a related workbook and program called KickStart30 designed to help kick-start the wellness journey.

WILD stands for Wellness Interventions for Life’s Demands, and the program combines the five key evidence-based wellness elements into an easy-to-follow program, she said.

The KickStart30 workbook is available for purchase, with all profits benefiting mental health charities. The approach is as applicable for physician wellness as for patient wellness, she said. The program is simple, prescriptive, trackable, and self-contained, she added.

Wellness-enhancing practices as recommended in the program include:

• 30 minutes of exercise daily for 30 days, with an aim of at least moderate intensity.
• 10 minutes of mindfulness practice each day for 30 days. (Free guided meditations, which she and her colleagues use in their studies of the program, are available at www.WILD5Meditations.com, but a number of other guided meditation apps are available online, she said.) “Of the apps that are available, Headspace, without a doubt, is my favorite,” she said. It requires a paid subscription, but “is so worth it.”
• Implementation of at least four of six sleep hygiene practices each day for 30 days.
• Meeting or calling a minimum of two friends or family members each day for 30 days.
• Logging meals/snacks/beverages/alcohol consumption each day for 30 days, following the Mediterranean-DASH intervention for Neurodegenerative Delay (MIND) diet principles as closely as possible.

Program success requires effort, not perfection, in following the recommendations, and measurement and tracking are essential, Dr. Jain said, noting that a simple tracking tool – the KickStart30–HERO Wellness Scale – was validated in a recent study that has been accepted for publication in Annals of Psychology in the coming months).

A prior study of 82 participants, which she presented in 2016 in a poster at the 29th Annual U.S. Psychiatric and Mental Health Congress, showed that completion of the KickStart30 program was associated with improvements on a variety of wellness measures, including happiness (30%), enthusiasm (51%), resilience 63%, and optimism (45%), she said.

Participants also experienced important improvements in disease markers, including depression (43% based on the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire), anxiety (40% as measured by the 7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale), and sleep quality (29% based on the 9-item Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index).

“The one thing I want when you leave and you think about this session is a feeling ... that ‘there are actually things that I can do to improve my wellness.’ There’s something about the power, the synergy between the elements ... it’s reigniting the flame, the interest in wellness,” she said, adding that taking care of others requires “learning to take better care of ourselves.”

“We have to walk the walk of wellness; we cannot simply sit in the ivory tower and talk about it,” she said. “To be genuine and to really engage our patients, we have to walk the walk.”

Dr. Jain is cofounder of the WILD 5 Wellness program, and has served on advisory boards or panels for numerous pharmaceutical companies and other organizations.

sworcester@mdedge.com

LAKE BUENA VISTA, FLA. – Wellness is an antidote to burnout.

That was the message from psychotherapist and author Saundra Jain, PsyD, during a talk focused on “reigniting the flame” in both professional and personal life.

©stanciuc/thinkstockphotos.com

“Wellness is not an afterthought. It simply cannot be,” she said at the annual meeting of the Florida Society of Rheumatology. The “data demand that wellness be elevated.”

That’s true both for patient care and for self care, she stressed, noting that by “wellness” she is referring to the 1948 World Health Organization definition: “... a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.”

Wellness-enhancing practices – she discussed five that have “the most robust dataset”: exercise, nutrition, mindfulness, social connectedness, and sleep – can improve well-being and reduce burnout through a number of mechanisms, not the least of which are reduced inflammation and reduced depression and anxiety, said Dr. Jain, adjunct clinical affiliate for the School of Nursing at the University of Texas at Austin.

For example, regular exercise is known to reduce chronic inflammation, and the effect has been shown to be independent of weight loss, she noted (Sports Med. 2013;43[4]:243-56).

Mindfulness also has been shown to reduce cortisol production in response to a psychological stressor, and thus may positively affect inflammatory responses, she said (Brain Behav Immun. 2013;27:174-184).

People struggle with the concept of mindfulness, because for many it is a bit foreign to their experience, she said, adding that “what we don’t know, we’re sometimes a little bit afraid of.

“But the data around mindfulness, honestly, is robust – it really, really is,” she said, adding that “you can take people who have not meditated at all, and in 8 weeks impact their inflammation.

“So you don’t have to be a long-term meditator – you do not have to meditate for 18 hours a day sitting in a lotus position in a serene, beautiful location.”

There is no right or wrong way to meditate; it’s all about the practice, she added.

In an effort to help her own patients find wellness, Dr. Jain cofounded the WILD 5 Wellness program and coauthored a related workbook and program called KickStart30 designed to help kick-start the wellness journey.

WILD stands for Wellness Interventions for Life’s Demands, and the program combines the five key evidence-based wellness elements into an easy-to-follow program, she said.

The KickStart30 workbook is available for purchase, with all profits benefiting mental health charities. The approach is as applicable for physician wellness as for patient wellness, she said. The program is simple, prescriptive, trackable, and self-contained, she added.

Wellness-enhancing practices as recommended in the program include:

• 30 minutes of exercise daily for 30 days, with an aim of at least moderate intensity.
• 10 minutes of mindfulness practice each day for 30 days. (Free guided meditations, which she and her colleagues use in their studies of the program, are available at www.WILD5Meditations.com, but a number of other guided meditation apps are available online, she said.) “Of the apps that are available, Headspace, without a doubt, is my favorite,” she said. It requires a paid subscription, but “is so worth it.”
• Implementation of at least four of six sleep hygiene practices each day for 30 days.
• Meeting or calling a minimum of two friends or family members each day for 30 days.
• Logging meals/snacks/beverages/alcohol consumption each day for 30 days, following the Mediterranean-DASH intervention for Neurodegenerative Delay (MIND) diet principles as closely as possible.

Program success requires effort, not perfection, in following the recommendations, and measurement and tracking are essential, Dr. Jain said, noting that a simple tracking tool – the KickStart30–HERO Wellness Scale – was validated in a recent study that has been accepted for publication in Annals of Psychology in the coming months).

A prior study of 82 participants, which she presented in 2016 in a poster at the 29th Annual U.S. Psychiatric and Mental Health Congress, showed that completion of the KickStart30 program was associated with improvements on a variety of wellness measures, including happiness (30%), enthusiasm (51%), resilience 63%, and optimism (45%), she said.

Participants also experienced important improvements in disease markers, including depression (43% based on the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire), anxiety (40% as measured by the 7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale), and sleep quality (29% based on the 9-item Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index).

“The one thing I want when you leave and you think about this session is a feeling ... that ‘there are actually things that I can do to improve my wellness.’ There’s something about the power, the synergy between the elements ... it’s reigniting the flame, the interest in wellness,” she said, adding that taking care of others requires “learning to take better care of ourselves.”

“We have to walk the walk of wellness; we cannot simply sit in the ivory tower and talk about it,” she said. “To be genuine and to really engage our patients, we have to walk the walk.”

Dr. Jain is cofounder of the WILD 5 Wellness program, and has served on advisory boards or panels for numerous pharmaceutical companies and other organizations.

sworcester@mdedge.com

The Food and Drug Administration Arthritis Advisory Committee recommended approval of nintedanib for the treatment of interstitial lung disease in patients with systemic sclerosis by a 10-7 vote on July 25, 2019. If the FDA acts in accord with the panel’s recommendation, it would make nintedanib (Ofev) the first drug to receive marketing approval for this indication.

Nintedanib has had FDA approval for treating idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis since 2014, and the manufacturer, Boehringer Ingelheim, designed the current pivotal trial with 576 patients to broaden the indication to patients with a different but similar fibrotic lung disease, interstitial lung disease (ILD), that is a common and eventually lethal complication of systemic sclerosis. The results of the pivotal study, the SENSCIS (Safety and Efficacy of Nintedanib in Systemic Sclerosis) trial, recently appeared in print and showed that patients randomized to receive 150 mg of nintedanib orally twice daily had an average 41-mL cut in the rate of loss of forced vital capacity (FVC) during 52 weeks on treatment, compared with those randomized to placebo. This was a 44% relative reduction in rate of FVC loss that was statistically significant for the study’s primary endpoint (N Engl J Med. 2019 June 27;380[26]:2518-28).

Votes in favor of FDA approval for many on the panel seemed to stem from a combination of the fact that nintedanib met the pivotal trial’s primary endpoint; which had been developed in consultation with the FDA, as well as the absence of any new safety signals when compared with prior experience using the drug; the lack of any treatment specifically recognized as beneficial to systemic sclerosis patients who develop the terminal complication of ILD; and the challenge of running a second trial in an orphan disease with an estimated U.S. prevalence of no more than 100,000 patients. Several committee members who voted in favor of nintedanib’s approval also voiced concern that the case in favor of its benefit/risk balance was not open and shut.

“I have a fair amount of apprehension,” admitted the committee’s chair, Daniel H. Solomon, MD, a rheumatologist and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “I support the needs of patients, but we don’t want to give them false hope. We need to be able to say who will benefit, and the single study [SENSCIS] results don’t tell us how to use the drug. I want to understand which patient subgroups benefit.” He suggested that the FDA mandate further data collection through postmarketing studies.

Comments from panel members who voted against recommending approval generally focused on what was generally agreed to be a very modest treatment effect with a 41-mL average difference in FVC decline that has marginal clinical meaningfulness. Although the SENSCIS results met the study’s primary endpoint it was neutral for all prespecified secondary endpoints, including a measure of quality of life, although many on the panel agreed that a good measure of quality of life in the target patient population is lacking. Some sensitivity analyses run by FDA staffers also failed to confirm the primary result. Fewer questions arose about safety, although some panelists expressed concern about gastrointestinal effects, especially diarrhea, that seemed to link with treatment, as well as a signal for an increased incidence of pneumonia among patients on nintedanib. The data also showed a possible signal of reduced efficacy among patients who also received treatment with the immunosuppressive agent mycophenolate mofetil, often used off label to treat systemic sclerosis patients with ILD. However, a statistician involved in the discussion warned against overinterpreting this or other subgroup analyses.

Dr. Solomon has received research support from AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, Janssen, and Pfizer.

mzoler@mdedge.com

The Food and Drug Administration Arthritis Advisory Committee recommended approval of nintedanib for the treatment of interstitial lung disease in patients with systemic sclerosis by a 10-7 vote on July 25, 2019. If the FDA acts in accord with the panel’s recommendation, it would make nintedanib (Ofev) the first drug to receive marketing approval for this indication.

Nintedanib has had FDA approval for treating idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis since 2014, and the manufacturer, Boehringer Ingelheim, designed the current pivotal trial with 576 patients to broaden the indication to patients with a different but similar fibrotic lung disease, interstitial lung disease (ILD), that is a common and eventually lethal complication of systemic sclerosis. The results of the pivotal study, the SENSCIS (Safety and Efficacy of Nintedanib in Systemic Sclerosis) trial, recently appeared in print and showed that patients randomized to receive 150 mg of nintedanib orally twice daily had an average 41-mL cut in the rate of loss of forced vital capacity (FVC) during 52 weeks on treatment, compared with those randomized to placebo. This was a 44% relative reduction in rate of FVC loss that was statistically significant for the study’s primary endpoint (N Engl J Med. 2019 June 27;380[26]:2518-28).

Votes in favor of FDA approval for many on the panel seemed to stem from a combination of the fact that nintedanib met the pivotal trial’s primary endpoint; which had been developed in consultation with the FDA, as well as the absence of any new safety signals when compared with prior experience using the drug; the lack of any treatment specifically recognized as beneficial to systemic sclerosis patients who develop the terminal complication of ILD; and the challenge of running a second trial in an orphan disease with an estimated U.S. prevalence of no more than 100,000 patients. Several committee members who voted in favor of nintedanib’s approval also voiced concern that the case in favor of its benefit/risk balance was not open and shut.

“I have a fair amount of apprehension,” admitted the committee’s chair, Daniel H. Solomon, MD, a rheumatologist and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “I support the needs of patients, but we don’t want to give them false hope. We need to be able to say who will benefit, and the single study [SENSCIS] results don’t tell us how to use the drug. I want to understand which patient subgroups benefit.” He suggested that the FDA mandate further data collection through postmarketing studies.

Comments from panel members who voted against recommending approval generally focused on what was generally agreed to be a very modest treatment effect with a 41-mL average difference in FVC decline that has marginal clinical meaningfulness. Although the SENSCIS results met the study’s primary endpoint it was neutral for all prespecified secondary endpoints, including a measure of quality of life, although many on the panel agreed that a good measure of quality of life in the target patient population is lacking. Some sensitivity analyses run by FDA staffers also failed to confirm the primary result. Fewer questions arose about safety, although some panelists expressed concern about gastrointestinal effects, especially diarrhea, that seemed to link with treatment, as well as a signal for an increased incidence of pneumonia among patients on nintedanib. The data also showed a possible signal of reduced efficacy among patients who also received treatment with the immunosuppressive agent mycophenolate mofetil, often used off label to treat systemic sclerosis patients with ILD. However, a statistician involved in the discussion warned against overinterpreting this or other subgroup analyses.

Dr. Solomon has received research support from AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, Janssen, and Pfizer.

mzoler@mdedge.com

The Food and Drug Administration Arthritis Advisory Committee recommended approval of nintedanib for the treatment of interstitial lung disease in patients with systemic sclerosis by a 10-7 vote on July 25, 2019. If the FDA acts in accord with the panel’s recommendation, it would make nintedanib (Ofev) the first drug to receive marketing approval for this indication.

Nintedanib has had FDA approval for treating idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis since 2014, and the manufacturer, Boehringer Ingelheim, designed the current pivotal trial with 576 patients to broaden the indication to patients with a different but similar fibrotic lung disease, interstitial lung disease (ILD), that is a common and eventually lethal complication of systemic sclerosis. The results of the pivotal study, the SENSCIS (Safety and Efficacy of Nintedanib in Systemic Sclerosis) trial, recently appeared in print and showed that patients randomized to receive 150 mg of nintedanib orally twice daily had an average 41-mL cut in the rate of loss of forced vital capacity (FVC) during 52 weeks on treatment, compared with those randomized to placebo. This was a 44% relative reduction in rate of FVC loss that was statistically significant for the study’s primary endpoint (N Engl J Med. 2019 June 27;380[26]:2518-28).

Votes in favor of FDA approval for many on the panel seemed to stem from a combination of the fact that nintedanib met the pivotal trial’s primary endpoint; which had been developed in consultation with the FDA, as well as the absence of any new safety signals when compared with prior experience using the drug; the lack of any treatment specifically recognized as beneficial to systemic sclerosis patients who develop the terminal complication of ILD; and the challenge of running a second trial in an orphan disease with an estimated U.S. prevalence of no more than 100,000 patients. Several committee members who voted in favor of nintedanib’s approval also voiced concern that the case in favor of its benefit/risk balance was not open and shut.

“I have a fair amount of apprehension,” admitted the committee’s chair, Daniel H. Solomon, MD, a rheumatologist and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “I support the needs of patients, but we don’t want to give them false hope. We need to be able to say who will benefit, and the single study [SENSCIS] results don’t tell us how to use the drug. I want to understand which patient subgroups benefit.” He suggested that the FDA mandate further data collection through postmarketing studies.

Comments from panel members who voted against recommending approval generally focused on what was generally agreed to be a very modest treatment effect with a 41-mL average difference in FVC decline that has marginal clinical meaningfulness. Although the SENSCIS results met the study’s primary endpoint it was neutral for all prespecified secondary endpoints, including a measure of quality of life, although many on the panel agreed that a good measure of quality of life in the target patient population is lacking. Some sensitivity analyses run by FDA staffers also failed to confirm the primary result. Fewer questions arose about safety, although some panelists expressed concern about gastrointestinal effects, especially diarrhea, that seemed to link with treatment, as well as a signal for an increased incidence of pneumonia among patients on nintedanib. The data also showed a possible signal of reduced efficacy among patients who also received treatment with the immunosuppressive agent mycophenolate mofetil, often used off label to treat systemic sclerosis patients with ILD. However, a statistician involved in the discussion warned against overinterpreting this or other subgroup analyses.

Dr. Solomon has received research support from AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, Janssen, and Pfizer.

mzoler@mdedge.com

Clinical question: In patients with hypertension, chronic kidney disease, or heart failure presenting with a musculoskeletal disorder, how frequently are prescription NSAIDs dispensed and are there associated short-term (between 7-38 days of visit) safety-related outcomes?

Background: Multiple expert panels recommend against the use of NSAIDs in patients with hypertension (HTN), chronic kidney disease (CKD), or heart failure (HF). Previous studies have demonstrated an increased risk of cardiovascular events and renal injury with long-term NSAID use.

Study design: Retrospective cohort study.

Setting: Population-based administrative claims database identified primary care visits in Ontario.

Dr. Stanley is assistant professor of medicine at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine and a hospitalist at Northwestern Memorial Hospital, both in Chicago.

Clinical question: In patients with hypertension, chronic kidney disease, or heart failure presenting with a musculoskeletal disorder, how frequently are prescription NSAIDs dispensed and are there associated short-term (between 7-38 days of visit) safety-related outcomes?

Background: Multiple expert panels recommend against the use of NSAIDs in patients with hypertension (HTN), chronic kidney disease (CKD), or heart failure (HF). Previous studies have demonstrated an increased risk of cardiovascular events and renal injury with long-term NSAID use.

Study design: Retrospective cohort study.

Setting: Population-based administrative claims database identified primary care visits in Ontario.

Dr. Stanley is assistant professor of medicine at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine and a hospitalist at Northwestern Memorial Hospital, both in Chicago.

Clinical question: In patients with hypertension, chronic kidney disease, or heart failure presenting with a musculoskeletal disorder, how frequently are prescription NSAIDs dispensed and are there associated short-term (between 7-38 days of visit) safety-related outcomes?

Background: Multiple expert panels recommend against the use of NSAIDs in patients with hypertension (HTN), chronic kidney disease (CKD), or heart failure (HF). Previous studies have demonstrated an increased risk of cardiovascular events and renal injury with long-term NSAID use.

Study design: Retrospective cohort study.

Setting: Population-based administrative claims database identified primary care visits in Ontario.

Dr. Stanley is assistant professor of medicine at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine and a hospitalist at Northwestern Memorial Hospital, both in Chicago.

Pediatric non-Hodgkin lymphomas should be added to the list of cancers associated with BRCA2 mutations, and survivors of childhood NHL should be considered for genetic counseling, investigators suggest.

Among 1,380 survivors of childhood lymphomas, those who were retrospectively found to be carriers of BRCA2 mutations had a fivefold higher risk for non-Hodgkin lymphoma than controls without cancer, reported Zhaoming Wang, PhD, and colleagues from St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis.

“Genetic counseling and the option of BRCA2 genetic testing should be offered to survivors of pediatric or adolescent non–Hodgkin lymphoma, particularly those with a family history of BRCA2-associated cancers,” they wrote in JAMA Oncology.

The investigators had previously reported that BRCA2 was the third-most frequently mutated gene among 3006 survivors of childhood cancers, with the highest number of mutations seen in lymphoma survivors. In that study, 7 of 586 survivors of Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (1.2%) were found to carry BRCA2 mutations.

In the current study, the investigators performed germline whole-genome sequencing on samples from 815 survivors of childhood Hodgkin lymphoma and 748 survivors of non-Hodgkin lymphoma from the St. Jude Lifetime Cohort and Childhood Cancer Survivor studies and compared the data with those of controls without cancer from the Genome Aggregation Database.

They identified mutations in five Hodgkin lymphoma survivors (0.6%) and eight non-Hodgkin lymphoma survivors.

A comparison of cancer risk among lymphoma survivors and controls found that non-Hodgkin lymphoma survivors and BRCA2 carriers had an odds ratio for cancer of 5.0, compared with controls who were not BRCA2 carriers (P less than .001). Among Hodgkin lymphoma survivors the OR for carriers vs. controls was 2.1, but was not statistically significant.

Available family histories for seven of the eight non-Hodgkin lymphoma BRCA2 mutation carriers showed histories of BRCA2-linked cancers, including breast, prostate, and pancreas tumors and malignant melanoma.

“Survivors whose test results are positive for mutation should be offered surveillance for BRCA2-associated cancers, such as breast and ovarian, and counseled about cancer risk–reducing strategies. Currently, it remains unclear whether surveillance for non–Hodgkin lymphoma is associated with early detection of lymphomas or with other medical advantages,” the investigators wrote.

“This study was funded by a grant to St Jude Children’s Research Hospital from the American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities and by grants to St Jude Children’s Research Hospital from the National Institutes of Health. The authors reported having no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Wang Z et al. JAMA Oncology. 2019 Jul 25. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.2203.

Pediatric non-Hodgkin lymphomas should be added to the list of cancers associated with BRCA2 mutations, and survivors of childhood NHL should be considered for genetic counseling, investigators suggest.

Among 1,380 survivors of childhood lymphomas, those who were retrospectively found to be carriers of BRCA2 mutations had a fivefold higher risk for non-Hodgkin lymphoma than controls without cancer, reported Zhaoming Wang, PhD, and colleagues from St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis.

“Genetic counseling and the option of BRCA2 genetic testing should be offered to survivors of pediatric or adolescent non–Hodgkin lymphoma, particularly those with a family history of BRCA2-associated cancers,” they wrote in JAMA Oncology.

The investigators had previously reported that BRCA2 was the third-most frequently mutated gene among 3006 survivors of childhood cancers, with the highest number of mutations seen in lymphoma survivors. In that study, 7 of 586 survivors of Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (1.2%) were found to carry BRCA2 mutations.

In the current study, the investigators performed germline whole-genome sequencing on samples from 815 survivors of childhood Hodgkin lymphoma and 748 survivors of non-Hodgkin lymphoma from the St. Jude Lifetime Cohort and Childhood Cancer Survivor studies and compared the data with those of controls without cancer from the Genome Aggregation Database.

They identified mutations in five Hodgkin lymphoma survivors (0.6%) and eight non-Hodgkin lymphoma survivors.

A comparison of cancer risk among lymphoma survivors and controls found that non-Hodgkin lymphoma survivors and BRCA2 carriers had an odds ratio for cancer of 5.0, compared with controls who were not BRCA2 carriers (P less than .001). Among Hodgkin lymphoma survivors the OR for carriers vs. controls was 2.1, but was not statistically significant.

Available family histories for seven of the eight non-Hodgkin lymphoma BRCA2 mutation carriers showed histories of BRCA2-linked cancers, including breast, prostate, and pancreas tumors and malignant melanoma.

“Survivors whose test results are positive for mutation should be offered surveillance for BRCA2-associated cancers, such as breast and ovarian, and counseled about cancer risk–reducing strategies. Currently, it remains unclear whether surveillance for non–Hodgkin lymphoma is associated with early detection of lymphomas or with other medical advantages,” the investigators wrote.

“This study was funded by a grant to St Jude Children’s Research Hospital from the American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities and by grants to St Jude Children’s Research Hospital from the National Institutes of Health. The authors reported having no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Wang Z et al. JAMA Oncology. 2019 Jul 25. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.2203.

Pediatric non-Hodgkin lymphomas should be added to the list of cancers associated with BRCA2 mutations, and survivors of childhood NHL should be considered for genetic counseling, investigators suggest.

Among 1,380 survivors of childhood lymphomas, those who were retrospectively found to be carriers of BRCA2 mutations had a fivefold higher risk for non-Hodgkin lymphoma than controls without cancer, reported Zhaoming Wang, PhD, and colleagues from St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis.

“Genetic counseling and the option of BRCA2 genetic testing should be offered to survivors of pediatric or adolescent non–Hodgkin lymphoma, particularly those with a family history of BRCA2-associated cancers,” they wrote in JAMA Oncology.

The investigators had previously reported that BRCA2 was the third-most frequently mutated gene among 3006 survivors of childhood cancers, with the highest number of mutations seen in lymphoma survivors. In that study, 7 of 586 survivors of Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (1.2%) were found to carry BRCA2 mutations.

In the current study, the investigators performed germline whole-genome sequencing on samples from 815 survivors of childhood Hodgkin lymphoma and 748 survivors of non-Hodgkin lymphoma from the St. Jude Lifetime Cohort and Childhood Cancer Survivor studies and compared the data with those of controls without cancer from the Genome Aggregation Database.

They identified mutations in five Hodgkin lymphoma survivors (0.6%) and eight non-Hodgkin lymphoma survivors.

A comparison of cancer risk among lymphoma survivors and controls found that non-Hodgkin lymphoma survivors and BRCA2 carriers had an odds ratio for cancer of 5.0, compared with controls who were not BRCA2 carriers (P less than .001). Among Hodgkin lymphoma survivors the OR for carriers vs. controls was 2.1, but was not statistically significant.

Available family histories for seven of the eight non-Hodgkin lymphoma BRCA2 mutation carriers showed histories of BRCA2-linked cancers, including breast, prostate, and pancreas tumors and malignant melanoma.

“Survivors whose test results are positive for mutation should be offered surveillance for BRCA2-associated cancers, such as breast and ovarian, and counseled about cancer risk–reducing strategies. Currently, it remains unclear whether surveillance for non–Hodgkin lymphoma is associated with early detection of lymphomas or with other medical advantages,” the investigators wrote.

“This study was funded by a grant to St Jude Children’s Research Hospital from the American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities and by grants to St Jude Children’s Research Hospital from the National Institutes of Health. The authors reported having no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Wang Z et al. JAMA Oncology. 2019 Jul 25. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.2203.

Predictors of long-term survival of patients with advanced melanoma, renal cell carcinoma (RCC), non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and other malignancies treated with nivolumab include the absence of liver or bone metastases, excellent baseline performance status, and the presence of grade 3 or greater treatment-related adverse events, investigators have found.

A secondary analysis of the phase 1 CA209-003 trial with expansion cohorts showed that, among 270 heavily pretreated patients with melanoma, RCC, and NSCLC who received single-agent nivolumab (Opdivo) during this trial, those with liver or bone metastases had a 69% higher risk for death within 5 years.

In contrast, patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 had a nearly threefold higher chance for survival, compared with patients with less favorable performance status scores, reported Suzanne L. Topalian, MD, from the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore and colleagues.

“The results of this study suggest that survival benefits reported in the more limited follow-up of recent nivolumab randomized clinical trials may persist for prolonged periods in some patients, extending to at least 5 years,” they wrote in JAMA Oncology.

In the CA209-003 trial, investigators enrolled patients 18 years or older with documented evidence of advanced melanoma, RCC, NSCLC, castration-resistant prostate cancer, or colorectal cancer. To be eligible, patients needed to have received 1-5 previous systemic therapies for advanced or recurrent cancer, measurable disease by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.0, and an ECOG performance status of 0-2. The current survival analysis included data on 107 patients with melanoma, 34 with RCC, and 129 with NSCLC.

Estimated 5-year overall survival rates were 34.2% for patients with melanoma, 27.7% for patients with RCC, and 15.6% for patients with NSCLC. A multivariable analysis controlling for age, sex, performance status, metastatic disease, and number of prior therapies showed that the presence of either liver or bone metastases was associated with an odds ratio for 5-year survival of 0.31 (P = .02 and .04, respectively).

One factor favorably associated with survival included ECOG performance status 0 (OR, 2.74; P = .003). The investigators also found that treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were associated with longer overall survival, with a median of 19.8 months for patients with any grade of treatment-related event and 20.3 months for patients with grade 3 or greater events, compared with a median of 5.8 months for patients with no treatment-related events (P less than .001 for each comparison based on hazard ratios).

“Of note, patients in our study who developed treatment-related AEs, regardless of whether the AEs were deemed to have an immune-mediated causality, had significantly higher ORRs [overall response rates] and prolonged 5-year OS. These findings are reminiscent of some reports of anti–CTLA-4 therapy and align with other studies of anti–PD-1 therapies, “ Dr. Topalian and associates wrote.

The study and the secondary analysis were supported by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Topalian disclosed grants and travel reimbursements from Bristol-Myers Squibb and consulting fees with other entities. Multiple co-authors reported similar relationships. Four of the co-authors are Bristol-Myers Squibb employees.

SOURCE: Topalian SL et al. JAMA Oncology. 2019 Jul 25. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.2187.

Predictors of long-term survival of patients with advanced melanoma, renal cell carcinoma (RCC), non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and other malignancies treated with nivolumab include the absence of liver or bone metastases, excellent baseline performance status, and the presence of grade 3 or greater treatment-related adverse events, investigators have found.

A secondary analysis of the phase 1 CA209-003 trial with expansion cohorts showed that, among 270 heavily pretreated patients with melanoma, RCC, and NSCLC who received single-agent nivolumab (Opdivo) during this trial, those with liver or bone metastases had a 69% higher risk for death within 5 years.

In contrast, patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 had a nearly threefold higher chance for survival, compared with patients with less favorable performance status scores, reported Suzanne L. Topalian, MD, from the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore and colleagues.

“The results of this study suggest that survival benefits reported in the more limited follow-up of recent nivolumab randomized clinical trials may persist for prolonged periods in some patients, extending to at least 5 years,” they wrote in JAMA Oncology.

In the CA209-003 trial, investigators enrolled patients 18 years or older with documented evidence of advanced melanoma, RCC, NSCLC, castration-resistant prostate cancer, or colorectal cancer. To be eligible, patients needed to have received 1-5 previous systemic therapies for advanced or recurrent cancer, measurable disease by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.0, and an ECOG performance status of 0-2. The current survival analysis included data on 107 patients with melanoma, 34 with RCC, and 129 with NSCLC.

Estimated 5-year overall survival rates were 34.2% for patients with melanoma, 27.7% for patients with RCC, and 15.6% for patients with NSCLC. A multivariable analysis controlling for age, sex, performance status, metastatic disease, and number of prior therapies showed that the presence of either liver or bone metastases was associated with an odds ratio for 5-year survival of 0.31 (P = .02 and .04, respectively).

One factor favorably associated with survival included ECOG performance status 0 (OR, 2.74; P = .003). The investigators also found that treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were associated with longer overall survival, with a median of 19.8 months for patients with any grade of treatment-related event and 20.3 months for patients with grade 3 or greater events, compared with a median of 5.8 months for patients with no treatment-related events (P less than .001 for each comparison based on hazard ratios).

“Of note, patients in our study who developed treatment-related AEs, regardless of whether the AEs were deemed to have an immune-mediated causality, had significantly higher ORRs [overall response rates] and prolonged 5-year OS. These findings are reminiscent of some reports of anti–CTLA-4 therapy and align with other studies of anti–PD-1 therapies, “ Dr. Topalian and associates wrote.

The study and the secondary analysis were supported by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Topalian disclosed grants and travel reimbursements from Bristol-Myers Squibb and consulting fees with other entities. Multiple co-authors reported similar relationships. Four of the co-authors are Bristol-Myers Squibb employees.

SOURCE: Topalian SL et al. JAMA Oncology. 2019 Jul 25. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.2187.

Predictors of long-term survival of patients with advanced melanoma, renal cell carcinoma (RCC), non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and other malignancies treated with nivolumab include the absence of liver or bone metastases, excellent baseline performance status, and the presence of grade 3 or greater treatment-related adverse events, investigators have found.

A secondary analysis of the phase 1 CA209-003 trial with expansion cohorts showed that, among 270 heavily pretreated patients with melanoma, RCC, and NSCLC who received single-agent nivolumab (Opdivo) during this trial, those with liver or bone metastases had a 69% higher risk for death within 5 years.

In contrast, patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 had a nearly threefold higher chance for survival, compared with patients with less favorable performance status scores, reported Suzanne L. Topalian, MD, from the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore and colleagues.

“The results of this study suggest that survival benefits reported in the more limited follow-up of recent nivolumab randomized clinical trials may persist for prolonged periods in some patients, extending to at least 5 years,” they wrote in JAMA Oncology.

In the CA209-003 trial, investigators enrolled patients 18 years or older with documented evidence of advanced melanoma, RCC, NSCLC, castration-resistant prostate cancer, or colorectal cancer. To be eligible, patients needed to have received 1-5 previous systemic therapies for advanced or recurrent cancer, measurable disease by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.0, and an ECOG performance status of 0-2. The current survival analysis included data on 107 patients with melanoma, 34 with RCC, and 129 with NSCLC.

Estimated 5-year overall survival rates were 34.2% for patients with melanoma, 27.7% for patients with RCC, and 15.6% for patients with NSCLC. A multivariable analysis controlling for age, sex, performance status, metastatic disease, and number of prior therapies showed that the presence of either liver or bone metastases was associated with an odds ratio for 5-year survival of 0.31 (P = .02 and .04, respectively).

One factor favorably associated with survival included ECOG performance status 0 (OR, 2.74; P = .003). The investigators also found that treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were associated with longer overall survival, with a median of 19.8 months for patients with any grade of treatment-related event and 20.3 months for patients with grade 3 or greater events, compared with a median of 5.8 months for patients with no treatment-related events (P less than .001 for each comparison based on hazard ratios).

“Of note, patients in our study who developed treatment-related AEs, regardless of whether the AEs were deemed to have an immune-mediated causality, had significantly higher ORRs [overall response rates] and prolonged 5-year OS. These findings are reminiscent of some reports of anti–CTLA-4 therapy and align with other studies of anti–PD-1 therapies, “ Dr. Topalian and associates wrote.

The study and the secondary analysis were supported by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Dr. Topalian disclosed grants and travel reimbursements from Bristol-Myers Squibb and consulting fees with other entities. Multiple co-authors reported similar relationships. Four of the co-authors are Bristol-Myers Squibb employees.

SOURCE: Topalian SL et al. JAMA Oncology. 2019 Jul 25. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.2187.

The first-in-class antiretroviral therapy islatravir (Merck) was well tolerated and had promising efficacy in a phase 2B study including treatment-naive adults with HIV-1 infection, supporting plans to initiate a phase 3 trial, an investigator said at the International AIDS Society Conference on HIV Science.

MattZ90/Thinkstock.com

The proportion of patients achieving viral suppression at week 48 with combinations including the nucleoside transcriptase translocation inhibitor (NRTTI) was comparable to what was achieved with a standard triple regimen, said investigator Jean-Michel Molina, MD, professor of infectious diseases at the University of Paris Diderot, and head of the infectious diseases department at the Saint-Louis Hospital in Paris

The treatment was effective not only as part of a three-drug combination of islatravir, doravirine, and lamivudine over 24 weeks, but also over an additional 24 weeks in patients who achieved viral suppression and were switched to dual therapy with islatravir and doravirine, according to Dr. Molina.

“These are promising data that will encourage the company to move to a phase 3 trial to see how these results can be confirmed in a larger study set, and also to assess the potency of the dual combination for maintenance therapy in the future, providing also novel options for people with a drug that has a high genetic barrier to resistance and efficacy that seems to be quite interesting,” Dr. Molina said in an IAS press conference in Mexico City.

This drug has very potent activity not only against wild-type HIV-1 viruses, but also multiresistant viruses, according to Dr. Molina.

“It has a high inhibitory quotient at a very low dose, so you give people a tiny amount of drug – in the range of 1 milligram per day, instead of a few hundred milligrams with other, regular drugs,” he said.

Another attribute of islatravir is its long half-life of approximately 120 hours, allowing not only for once-daily dosing, but potentially for evaluation as once-weekly or once-monthly dosing in the future, he said, adding that a subdermal islatravir-eluting implant under investigation for preexposure prophylaxis has potential as a once-yearly option.

The international, multicenter, 121-patient clinical trial that Dr. Molina described included adults with HIV-1 infection naive to antiretroviral therapy randomized to islatravir (in one of three doses) plus doravirine and lamivudine, or to the combination of doravirine, lamivudine, and tenofovir (Delstrigo, Merck).

After at least 24 weeks of treatment, subjects in the islatravir treatment groups were transitioned to the two-drug combination of islatravir and doravirine if they had HIV-1 RNA levels less than 50 copies/mL and did not meet any protocol-defined criteria for virologic failure.

Those participants in the islatravir arms who received 48 weeks of treatment had “very good response” and safety that was comparable to the control arm, according to Dr. Molina.

At 48 weeks, the proportion of patients with HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies/mL were 89.7%, 90%, and 77.4% for regimens containing islatravir 0.25 mg, 0.75 mg, and 2.25 mg, respectively, and 83.9% for those receiving the standard triple therapy, according to reported data.

All patients with protocol-defined virologic failure (greater than or equal to 50 copies/mL) in the study actually had very low viral load, below 80 copies/mL, Dr. Molina said.

The study was supported by Merck. Dr. Molina has been on the Merck advisory board and speaker’s bureau.

SOURCE: Molina J-M et al. IAS 2019, Abstract WEAB0402LB.

The first-in-class antiretroviral therapy islatravir (Merck) was well tolerated and had promising efficacy in a phase 2B study including treatment-naive adults with HIV-1 infection, supporting plans to initiate a phase 3 trial, an investigator said at the International AIDS Society Conference on HIV Science.

MattZ90/Thinkstock.com

The proportion of patients achieving viral suppression at week 48 with combinations including the nucleoside transcriptase translocation inhibitor (NRTTI) was comparable to what was achieved with a standard triple regimen, said investigator Jean-Michel Molina, MD, professor of infectious diseases at the University of Paris Diderot, and head of the infectious diseases department at the Saint-Louis Hospital in Paris

The treatment was effective not only as part of a three-drug combination of islatravir, doravirine, and lamivudine over 24 weeks, but also over an additional 24 weeks in patients who achieved viral suppression and were switched to dual therapy with islatravir and doravirine, according to Dr. Molina.

“These are promising data that will encourage the company to move to a phase 3 trial to see how these results can be confirmed in a larger study set, and also to assess the potency of the dual combination for maintenance therapy in the future, providing also novel options for people with a drug that has a high genetic barrier to resistance and efficacy that seems to be quite interesting,” Dr. Molina said in an IAS press conference in Mexico City.

This drug has very potent activity not only against wild-type HIV-1 viruses, but also multiresistant viruses, according to Dr. Molina.

“It has a high inhibitory quotient at a very low dose, so you give people a tiny amount of drug – in the range of 1 milligram per day, instead of a few hundred milligrams with other, regular drugs,” he said.

Another attribute of islatravir is its long half-life of approximately 120 hours, allowing not only for once-daily dosing, but potentially for evaluation as once-weekly or once-monthly dosing in the future, he said, adding that a subdermal islatravir-eluting implant under investigation for preexposure prophylaxis has potential as a once-yearly option.

The international, multicenter, 121-patient clinical trial that Dr. Molina described included adults with HIV-1 infection naive to antiretroviral therapy randomized to islatravir (in one of three doses) plus doravirine and lamivudine, or to the combination of doravirine, lamivudine, and tenofovir (Delstrigo, Merck).

After at least 24 weeks of treatment, subjects in the islatravir treatment groups were transitioned to the two-drug combination of islatravir and doravirine if they had HIV-1 RNA levels less than 50 copies/mL and did not meet any protocol-defined criteria for virologic failure.

Those participants in the islatravir arms who received 48 weeks of treatment had “very good response” and safety that was comparable to the control arm, according to Dr. Molina.

At 48 weeks, the proportion of patients with HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies/mL were 89.7%, 90%, and 77.4% for regimens containing islatravir 0.25 mg, 0.75 mg, and 2.25 mg, respectively, and 83.9% for those receiving the standard triple therapy, according to reported data.

All patients with protocol-defined virologic failure (greater than or equal to 50 copies/mL) in the study actually had very low viral load, below 80 copies/mL, Dr. Molina said.

The study was supported by Merck. Dr. Molina has been on the Merck advisory board and speaker’s bureau.

SOURCE: Molina J-M et al. IAS 2019, Abstract WEAB0402LB.

The first-in-class antiretroviral therapy islatravir (Merck) was well tolerated and had promising efficacy in a phase 2B study including treatment-naive adults with HIV-1 infection, supporting plans to initiate a phase 3 trial, an investigator said at the International AIDS Society Conference on HIV Science.

MattZ90/Thinkstock.com

The proportion of patients achieving viral suppression at week 48 with combinations including the nucleoside transcriptase translocation inhibitor (NRTTI) was comparable to what was achieved with a standard triple regimen, said investigator Jean-Michel Molina, MD, professor of infectious diseases at the University of Paris Diderot, and head of the infectious diseases department at the Saint-Louis Hospital in Paris

The treatment was effective not only as part of a three-drug combination of islatravir, doravirine, and lamivudine over 24 weeks, but also over an additional 24 weeks in patients who achieved viral suppression and were switched to dual therapy with islatravir and doravirine, according to Dr. Molina.

“These are promising data that will encourage the company to move to a phase 3 trial to see how these results can be confirmed in a larger study set, and also to assess the potency of the dual combination for maintenance therapy in the future, providing also novel options for people with a drug that has a high genetic barrier to resistance and efficacy that seems to be quite interesting,” Dr. Molina said in an IAS press conference in Mexico City.

This drug has very potent activity not only against wild-type HIV-1 viruses, but also multiresistant viruses, according to Dr. Molina.

“It has a high inhibitory quotient at a very low dose, so you give people a tiny amount of drug – in the range of 1 milligram per day, instead of a few hundred milligrams with other, regular drugs,” he said.

Another attribute of islatravir is its long half-life of approximately 120 hours, allowing not only for once-daily dosing, but potentially for evaluation as once-weekly or once-monthly dosing in the future, he said, adding that a subdermal islatravir-eluting implant under investigation for preexposure prophylaxis has potential as a once-yearly option.

The international, multicenter, 121-patient clinical trial that Dr. Molina described included adults with HIV-1 infection naive to antiretroviral therapy randomized to islatravir (in one of three doses) plus doravirine and lamivudine, or to the combination of doravirine, lamivudine, and tenofovir (Delstrigo, Merck).

After at least 24 weeks of treatment, subjects in the islatravir treatment groups were transitioned to the two-drug combination of islatravir and doravirine if they had HIV-1 RNA levels less than 50 copies/mL and did not meet any protocol-defined criteria for virologic failure.

Those participants in the islatravir arms who received 48 weeks of treatment had “very good response” and safety that was comparable to the control arm, according to Dr. Molina.

At 48 weeks, the proportion of patients with HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies/mL were 89.7%, 90%, and 77.4% for regimens containing islatravir 0.25 mg, 0.75 mg, and 2.25 mg, respectively, and 83.9% for those receiving the standard triple therapy, according to reported data.

All patients with protocol-defined virologic failure (greater than or equal to 50 copies/mL) in the study actually had very low viral load, below 80 copies/mL, Dr. Molina said.

The study was supported by Merck. Dr. Molina has been on the Merck advisory board and speaker’s bureau.

SOURCE: Molina J-M et al. IAS 2019, Abstract WEAB0402LB.

Trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) is a suitable first-line therapy for patients with HER2-positive, advanced breast cancer who cannot receive taxane-based therapy, according to researchers.

Final results from the phase 3 MARIANNE trial revealed similar overall survival (OS) in patients who received T-DM1, T-DM1 plus pertuzumab, or trastuzumab plus a taxane (HT). All three regimens resulted in a median OS exceeding 50 months.

The incidence of grade 3 or higher adverse events (AEs) was highest in patients who received HT.

Edith A. Perez, MD, of Mayo Clinic Cancer Center in Jacksonville, Fla., and colleagues reported these results in Cancer.

The MARIANNE trial (NCT01120184) enrolled 1,095 adults with HER2-positive, advanced breast cancer. They were randomized to receive HT, T-DM1, or T-DM1 plus pertuzumab. Patients in the HT arm received trastuzumab plus paclitaxel or docetaxel according to the investigator’s discretion.

In all, 352 patients received HT (257 on docetaxel and 96 on paclitaxel), 361 patients received T-DM1 plus placebo, and 366 received T-DM1 plus pertuzumab.
 

Response and OS

In the primary analysis, the median OS was not reached in any treatment arm at a median follow-up of 35 months. The rate of objective response was 67.9% in the HT arm, 64.2% in the T-DM1 plus pertuzumab arm, and 59.7% in the T-DM1 arm. The median duration of response was 12.5 months, 21.2 months, and 20.7 months, respectively.

For the final OS analysis, the median duration of follow-up was 54 months. Roughly 70% of patients in each arm had received at least one treatment regimen during follow-up.

The final median OS was similar across the treatment arms – 50.9 months in the HT arm, 53.7 months in the T-DM1 arm, and 51.8 months in the T-DM1 plus pertuzumab arm. With the HT arm as a reference, the stratified hazard ratio was 0.93 for the T-DM1 arm and 0.86 for the T-DM1 plus pertuzumab arm.

OS results were consistent across subgroups. Although there were some differences in hazard ratios, “none of the examined subgroups showed a clear benefit with one treatment regimen in comparison with the others,” the researchers wrote.

The researchers also analyzed OS by response status at 6.5 months after randomization. Among nonresponders, the median OS was 41.9 months in the T-DM1 plus pertuzumab arm, 45.7 months in the T-DM1 arm, and 48.1 months in the HT arm. Among responders, the median OS was not reached in the T-DM1 plus pertuzumab arm, 64.4 months, and 56.3 months, respectively.

There were no baseline characteristics or biomarkers that were strongly associated with response by treatment group. However, in the HT and T-DM1 arms, patients with above-median HER2 messenger RNA expression were more likely to respond.
 

Safety

Rates of grade 3 or higher AEs were 55.8% in the HT arm, 47.1% in the T-DM1 arm, and 48.6% in the T-DM1 plus pertuzumab arm. The most common grade 3 or higher AEs were as follows:

• HT arm – neutropenia (19.3%), febrile neutropenia (6.5%), and diarrhea (4.2%).
• T-DM1 arm – increased aspartate aminotransferase (6.9%), thrombocytopenia (6.6%), and anemia (5.0%).
• T-DM1 plus pertuzumab arm – thrombocytopenia (9.0%), anemia (7.1%), and increased alanine aminotransferase (6.0%).

Rates of AE-related treatment discontinuation were 20.8% in the T-DM1 arm, 23.0% in the T-DM1 plus pertuzumab arm, and 30.6% in the HT arm. Rates of AE-related death were 1.4%, 1.9%, and 2.0%, respectively.

This study was funded by F. Hoffmann–La Roche. Dr. Perez was previously employed by Genentech/Roche. Her fellow authors disclosed relationships with Roche and many other companies.

SOURCE: Perez EA et al. Cancer. 2019 Jul 18. doi: 10.1002/cncr.32392.

Trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) is a suitable first-line therapy for patients with HER2-positive, advanced breast cancer who cannot receive taxane-based therapy, according to researchers.

Final results from the phase 3 MARIANNE trial revealed similar overall survival (OS) in patients who received T-DM1, T-DM1 plus pertuzumab, or trastuzumab plus a taxane (HT). All three regimens resulted in a median OS exceeding 50 months.

The incidence of grade 3 or higher adverse events (AEs) was highest in patients who received HT.

Edith A. Perez, MD, of Mayo Clinic Cancer Center in Jacksonville, Fla., and colleagues reported these results in Cancer.

The MARIANNE trial (NCT01120184) enrolled 1,095 adults with HER2-positive, advanced breast cancer. They were randomized to receive HT, T-DM1, or T-DM1 plus pertuzumab. Patients in the HT arm received trastuzumab plus paclitaxel or docetaxel according to the investigator’s discretion.

In all, 352 patients received HT (257 on docetaxel and 96 on paclitaxel), 361 patients received T-DM1 plus placebo, and 366 received T-DM1 plus pertuzumab.
 

Response and OS

In the primary analysis, the median OS was not reached in any treatment arm at a median follow-up of 35 months. The rate of objective response was 67.9% in the HT arm, 64.2% in the T-DM1 plus pertuzumab arm, and 59.7% in the T-DM1 arm. The median duration of response was 12.5 months, 21.2 months, and 20.7 months, respectively.

For the final OS analysis, the median duration of follow-up was 54 months. Roughly 70% of patients in each arm had received at least one treatment regimen during follow-up.

The final median OS was similar across the treatment arms – 50.9 months in the HT arm, 53.7 months in the T-DM1 arm, and 51.8 months in the T-DM1 plus pertuzumab arm. With the HT arm as a reference, the stratified hazard ratio was 0.93 for the T-DM1 arm and 0.86 for the T-DM1 plus pertuzumab arm.

OS results were consistent across subgroups. Although there were some differences in hazard ratios, “none of the examined subgroups showed a clear benefit with one treatment regimen in comparison with the others,” the researchers wrote.

The researchers also analyzed OS by response status at 6.5 months after randomization. Among nonresponders, the median OS was 41.9 months in the T-DM1 plus pertuzumab arm, 45.7 months in the T-DM1 arm, and 48.1 months in the HT arm. Among responders, the median OS was not reached in the T-DM1 plus pertuzumab arm, 64.4 months, and 56.3 months, respectively.

There were no baseline characteristics or biomarkers that were strongly associated with response by treatment group. However, in the HT and T-DM1 arms, patients with above-median HER2 messenger RNA expression were more likely to respond.
 

Safety

Rates of grade 3 or higher AEs were 55.8% in the HT arm, 47.1% in the T-DM1 arm, and 48.6% in the T-DM1 plus pertuzumab arm. The most common grade 3 or higher AEs were as follows:

• HT arm – neutropenia (19.3%), febrile neutropenia (6.5%), and diarrhea (4.2%).
• T-DM1 arm – increased aspartate aminotransferase (6.9%), thrombocytopenia (6.6%), and anemia (5.0%).
• T-DM1 plus pertuzumab arm – thrombocytopenia (9.0%), anemia (7.1%), and increased alanine aminotransferase (6.0%).

Rates of AE-related treatment discontinuation were 20.8% in the T-DM1 arm, 23.0% in the T-DM1 plus pertuzumab arm, and 30.6% in the HT arm. Rates of AE-related death were 1.4%, 1.9%, and 2.0%, respectively.

This study was funded by F. Hoffmann–La Roche. Dr. Perez was previously employed by Genentech/Roche. Her fellow authors disclosed relationships with Roche and many other companies.

SOURCE: Perez EA et al. Cancer. 2019 Jul 18. doi: 10.1002/cncr.32392.

Trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) is a suitable first-line therapy for patients with HER2-positive, advanced breast cancer who cannot receive taxane-based therapy, according to researchers.

Final results from the phase 3 MARIANNE trial revealed similar overall survival (OS) in patients who received T-DM1, T-DM1 plus pertuzumab, or trastuzumab plus a taxane (HT). All three regimens resulted in a median OS exceeding 50 months.

The incidence of grade 3 or higher adverse events (AEs) was highest in patients who received HT.

Edith A. Perez, MD, of Mayo Clinic Cancer Center in Jacksonville, Fla., and colleagues reported these results in Cancer.

The MARIANNE trial (NCT01120184) enrolled 1,095 adults with HER2-positive, advanced breast cancer. They were randomized to receive HT, T-DM1, or T-DM1 plus pertuzumab. Patients in the HT arm received trastuzumab plus paclitaxel or docetaxel according to the investigator’s discretion.

In all, 352 patients received HT (257 on docetaxel and 96 on paclitaxel), 361 patients received T-DM1 plus placebo, and 366 received T-DM1 plus pertuzumab.
 

Response and OS

In the primary analysis, the median OS was not reached in any treatment arm at a median follow-up of 35 months. The rate of objective response was 67.9% in the HT arm, 64.2% in the T-DM1 plus pertuzumab arm, and 59.7% in the T-DM1 arm. The median duration of response was 12.5 months, 21.2 months, and 20.7 months, respectively.

For the final OS analysis, the median duration of follow-up was 54 months. Roughly 70% of patients in each arm had received at least one treatment regimen during follow-up.

The final median OS was similar across the treatment arms – 50.9 months in the HT arm, 53.7 months in the T-DM1 arm, and 51.8 months in the T-DM1 plus pertuzumab arm. With the HT arm as a reference, the stratified hazard ratio was 0.93 for the T-DM1 arm and 0.86 for the T-DM1 plus pertuzumab arm.

OS results were consistent across subgroups. Although there were some differences in hazard ratios, “none of the examined subgroups showed a clear benefit with one treatment regimen in comparison with the others,” the researchers wrote.

The researchers also analyzed OS by response status at 6.5 months after randomization. Among nonresponders, the median OS was 41.9 months in the T-DM1 plus pertuzumab arm, 45.7 months in the T-DM1 arm, and 48.1 months in the HT arm. Among responders, the median OS was not reached in the T-DM1 plus pertuzumab arm, 64.4 months, and 56.3 months, respectively.

There were no baseline characteristics or biomarkers that were strongly associated with response by treatment group. However, in the HT and T-DM1 arms, patients with above-median HER2 messenger RNA expression were more likely to respond.
 

Safety

Rates of grade 3 or higher AEs were 55.8% in the HT arm, 47.1% in the T-DM1 arm, and 48.6% in the T-DM1 plus pertuzumab arm. The most common grade 3 or higher AEs were as follows:

• HT arm – neutropenia (19.3%), febrile neutropenia (6.5%), and diarrhea (4.2%).
• T-DM1 arm – increased aspartate aminotransferase (6.9%), thrombocytopenia (6.6%), and anemia (5.0%).
• T-DM1 plus pertuzumab arm – thrombocytopenia (9.0%), anemia (7.1%), and increased alanine aminotransferase (6.0%).

Rates of AE-related treatment discontinuation were 20.8% in the T-DM1 arm, 23.0% in the T-DM1 plus pertuzumab arm, and 30.6% in the HT arm. Rates of AE-related death were 1.4%, 1.9%, and 2.0%, respectively.

This study was funded by F. Hoffmann–La Roche. Dr. Perez was previously employed by Genentech/Roche. Her fellow authors disclosed relationships with Roche and many other companies.

SOURCE: Perez EA et al. Cancer. 2019 Jul 18. doi: 10.1002/cncr.32392.

An implant that elutes an investigational antiretroviral agent provided drug release that should be sufficient for HIV prophylaxis for 12 months or more, according to results of a phase 1 clinical trial just presented here at the International AIDS Society Conference on HIV Science.

grandeduc/Thinkstock

The islatravir-eluting arm implant was safe and generally well tolerated, with drug concentrations that remained above the target level needed for protection throughout the randomized, placebo-controlled study, said investigator Randolph P. Matthews, MD, PhD, senior principal scientist at Merck, Kenilworth, N.J.

“Based on this study, the islatravir-eluting implant appears to be a potentially important option for preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) as an agent that could be effective with yearly dosing,” Dr. Matthews said in an IAS press conference.

This drug-eluting implant, inserted subdermally in the skin of the upper arm, could represent a “meaningful option” for many individuals at high risk of HIV infection, particularly those who have adherence challenges, said Dr. Matthews.

“Many at-risk individuals face adherence challenges with the existing daily oral PrEP therapy,” he added. “A high degree of adherence is required for it to be effective, and daily adherence is challenging for many, particularly for women.”

Islatravir, formerly known as MK-8591, is a nucleoside reverse transcriptase translocation inhibitor (NRTTI) being evaluated in clinical trials not only for PrEP, but also for treatment of HIV-1 infection in combination with other antiretrovirals.

In preclinical trials, islatravir demonstrated high potency, a high barrier to resistance, and a long half-life, according to Dr. Matthews.

The phase 1, single-site, double-blind study included a total of 16 healthy adult volunteers who received implants of islatravir at one of two doses (54 mg and 62 mg) or placebo for 12 weeks.

Both active doses of islatravir led to concentrations above the target level at 12 weeks, and based on data modeling, the higher-dose implant would still be above the target level for at least a year, Dr. Matthews said in the press conference.

The projected duration above the target ranged from 12 to 16 months for the 62-mg dose of islatravir, and from 8 to 10 months for the 54-mg dose, according to the reported data.

All drug-related adverse events were mild or moderate in severity, and none of the volunteers discontinued the study because of an adverse event, Dr. Matthews said.

Taken together, these data support the continued progression of the implant clinical development program, said Dr. Matthews, who is an employee of Merck, which sponsored the study.

SOURCE: Matthews RP et al. IAS 2019, Abstract TUAC0401LB.

An implant that elutes an investigational antiretroviral agent provided drug release that should be sufficient for HIV prophylaxis for 12 months or more, according to results of a phase 1 clinical trial just presented here at the International AIDS Society Conference on HIV Science.

grandeduc/Thinkstock

The islatravir-eluting arm implant was safe and generally well tolerated, with drug concentrations that remained above the target level needed for protection throughout the randomized, placebo-controlled study, said investigator Randolph P. Matthews, MD, PhD, senior principal scientist at Merck, Kenilworth, N.J.

“Based on this study, the islatravir-eluting implant appears to be a potentially important option for preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) as an agent that could be effective with yearly dosing,” Dr. Matthews said in an IAS press conference.

This drug-eluting implant, inserted subdermally in the skin of the upper arm, could represent a “meaningful option” for many individuals at high risk of HIV infection, particularly those who have adherence challenges, said Dr. Matthews.

“Many at-risk individuals face adherence challenges with the existing daily oral PrEP therapy,” he added. “A high degree of adherence is required for it to be effective, and daily adherence is challenging for many, particularly for women.”

Islatravir, formerly known as MK-8591, is a nucleoside reverse transcriptase translocation inhibitor (NRTTI) being evaluated in clinical trials not only for PrEP, but also for treatment of HIV-1 infection in combination with other antiretrovirals.

In preclinical trials, islatravir demonstrated high potency, a high barrier to resistance, and a long half-life, according to Dr. Matthews.

The phase 1, single-site, double-blind study included a total of 16 healthy adult volunteers who received implants of islatravir at one of two doses (54 mg and 62 mg) or placebo for 12 weeks.

Both active doses of islatravir led to concentrations above the target level at 12 weeks, and based on data modeling, the higher-dose implant would still be above the target level for at least a year, Dr. Matthews said in the press conference.

The projected duration above the target ranged from 12 to 16 months for the 62-mg dose of islatravir, and from 8 to 10 months for the 54-mg dose, according to the reported data.

All drug-related adverse events were mild or moderate in severity, and none of the volunteers discontinued the study because of an adverse event, Dr. Matthews said.

Taken together, these data support the continued progression of the implant clinical development program, said Dr. Matthews, who is an employee of Merck, which sponsored the study.

SOURCE: Matthews RP et al. IAS 2019, Abstract TUAC0401LB.

An implant that elutes an investigational antiretroviral agent provided drug release that should be sufficient for HIV prophylaxis for 12 months or more, according to results of a phase 1 clinical trial just presented here at the International AIDS Society Conference on HIV Science.

grandeduc/Thinkstock

The islatravir-eluting arm implant was safe and generally well tolerated, with drug concentrations that remained above the target level needed for protection throughout the randomized, placebo-controlled study, said investigator Randolph P. Matthews, MD, PhD, senior principal scientist at Merck, Kenilworth, N.J.

“Based on this study, the islatravir-eluting implant appears to be a potentially important option for preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) as an agent that could be effective with yearly dosing,” Dr. Matthews said in an IAS press conference.

This drug-eluting implant, inserted subdermally in the skin of the upper arm, could represent a “meaningful option” for many individuals at high risk of HIV infection, particularly those who have adherence challenges, said Dr. Matthews.

“Many at-risk individuals face adherence challenges with the existing daily oral PrEP therapy,” he added. “A high degree of adherence is required for it to be effective, and daily adherence is challenging for many, particularly for women.”

Islatravir, formerly known as MK-8591, is a nucleoside reverse transcriptase translocation inhibitor (NRTTI) being evaluated in clinical trials not only for PrEP, but also for treatment of HIV-1 infection in combination with other antiretrovirals.

In preclinical trials, islatravir demonstrated high potency, a high barrier to resistance, and a long half-life, according to Dr. Matthews.

The phase 1, single-site, double-blind study included a total of 16 healthy adult volunteers who received implants of islatravir at one of two doses (54 mg and 62 mg) or placebo for 12 weeks.

Both active doses of islatravir led to concentrations above the target level at 12 weeks, and based on data modeling, the higher-dose implant would still be above the target level for at least a year, Dr. Matthews said in the press conference.

The projected duration above the target ranged from 12 to 16 months for the 62-mg dose of islatravir, and from 8 to 10 months for the 54-mg dose, according to the reported data.

All drug-related adverse events were mild or moderate in severity, and none of the volunteers discontinued the study because of an adverse event, Dr. Matthews said.

Taken together, these data support the continued progression of the implant clinical development program, said Dr. Matthews, who is an employee of Merck, which sponsored the study.

SOURCE: Matthews RP et al. IAS 2019, Abstract TUAC0401LB.

Background: DOACs have been shown to be efficacious in randomized, controlled trials, but these trials did not include high-risk patients. This trial studies the efficacy and safety of DOACs in elderly patients with new-onset atrial fibrillation who are at high risk of both ischemic stroke and major bleeding.

Researchers then used three-way propensity matching, accounting for each morbidity category and anticoagulation medication to compare outcomes. Cox proportion regression models were used to adjust for risk and compare outcomes of ischemic stroke and major hemorrhage in matched participants in each anticoagulant group.

Primary outcomes of the study were ischemic stroke and major hemorrhage, which were determined based on ICD-9 codes. The investigators did not find a significant difference among anticoagulants regardless of the morbidity level for risk-adjusted ischemic stroke rates. Participants in the dabigatran group had lower rates of risk-adjusted major hemorrhage, compared with the warfarin group, regardless of morbidity category. The dabigatran group also had lower major hemorrhage risk, compared with the rivaroxaban group, especially in moderate- and high-morbidity category. Lastly, risk-adjusted rates of mortality were lower in the dabigatran and rivaroxaban groups, compared with the warfarin group, and there was no difference between the dabigatran and rivaroxaban groups with regards to mortality.

Bottom line: Rivaroxaban and dabigatran are each equally effective, compared with warfarin, in preventing ischemic strokes in elderly patients with new-onset atrial fibrillation and multiple comorbidities. However, patients on dabigatran appear to be at less risk of major bleeding, compared with warfarin and rivaroxaban.

Citation: Mentias A et al. Assessment of outcomes of treatment with oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation and multiple chronic conditions. JAMA Netw Open. 2018 Sep 28;1(5):e182870.

Dr. Puri is assistant professor of medicine at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine and a hospitalist at Northwestern Memorial Hospital, both in Chicago.

Background: DOACs have been shown to be efficacious in randomized, controlled trials, but these trials did not include high-risk patients. This trial studies the efficacy and safety of DOACs in elderly patients with new-onset atrial fibrillation who are at high risk of both ischemic stroke and major bleeding.

Researchers then used three-way propensity matching, accounting for each morbidity category and anticoagulation medication to compare outcomes. Cox proportion regression models were used to adjust for risk and compare outcomes of ischemic stroke and major hemorrhage in matched participants in each anticoagulant group.

Primary outcomes of the study were ischemic stroke and major hemorrhage, which were determined based on ICD-9 codes. The investigators did not find a significant difference among anticoagulants regardless of the morbidity level for risk-adjusted ischemic stroke rates. Participants in the dabigatran group had lower rates of risk-adjusted major hemorrhage, compared with the warfarin group, regardless of morbidity category. The dabigatran group also had lower major hemorrhage risk, compared with the rivaroxaban group, especially in moderate- and high-morbidity category. Lastly, risk-adjusted rates of mortality were lower in the dabigatran and rivaroxaban groups, compared with the warfarin group, and there was no difference between the dabigatran and rivaroxaban groups with regards to mortality.

Bottom line: Rivaroxaban and dabigatran are each equally effective, compared with warfarin, in preventing ischemic strokes in elderly patients with new-onset atrial fibrillation and multiple comorbidities. However, patients on dabigatran appear to be at less risk of major bleeding, compared with warfarin and rivaroxaban.

Citation: Mentias A et al. Assessment of outcomes of treatment with oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation and multiple chronic conditions. JAMA Netw Open. 2018 Sep 28;1(5):e182870.

Dr. Puri is assistant professor of medicine at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine and a hospitalist at Northwestern Memorial Hospital, both in Chicago.

Background: DOACs have been shown to be efficacious in randomized, controlled trials, but these trials did not include high-risk patients. This trial studies the efficacy and safety of DOACs in elderly patients with new-onset atrial fibrillation who are at high risk of both ischemic stroke and major bleeding.

Researchers then used three-way propensity matching, accounting for each morbidity category and anticoagulation medication to compare outcomes. Cox proportion regression models were used to adjust for risk and compare outcomes of ischemic stroke and major hemorrhage in matched participants in each anticoagulant group.

Primary outcomes of the study were ischemic stroke and major hemorrhage, which were determined based on ICD-9 codes. The investigators did not find a significant difference among anticoagulants regardless of the morbidity level for risk-adjusted ischemic stroke rates. Participants in the dabigatran group had lower rates of risk-adjusted major hemorrhage, compared with the warfarin group, regardless of morbidity category. The dabigatran group also had lower major hemorrhage risk, compared with the rivaroxaban group, especially in moderate- and high-morbidity category. Lastly, risk-adjusted rates of mortality were lower in the dabigatran and rivaroxaban groups, compared with the warfarin group, and there was no difference between the dabigatran and rivaroxaban groups with regards to mortality.

Bottom line: Rivaroxaban and dabigatran are each equally effective, compared with warfarin, in preventing ischemic strokes in elderly patients with new-onset atrial fibrillation and multiple comorbidities. However, patients on dabigatran appear to be at less risk of major bleeding, compared with warfarin and rivaroxaban.

Citation: Mentias A et al. Assessment of outcomes of treatment with oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation and multiple chronic conditions. JAMA Netw Open. 2018 Sep 28;1(5):e182870.

Dr. Puri is assistant professor of medicine at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine and a hospitalist at Northwestern Memorial Hospital, both in Chicago.