WASHINGTON – For antithrombotic therapy after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), ticagrelor plus aspirin may be a better strategy than clopidogrel plus aspirin even though the latter combination is guideline recommended, according to a late-breaking, randomized study presented at CRT 2018 sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Institute at Washington Hospital Center.

Unlike the ticagrelor regimen, which did deliver the goal antiplatelet effect for all 3 months of the study, “clopidogrel did not achieve adequate platelet inhibition before or after TAVI in most patients,” reported Victor A. Jimenez Diaz, MD, a cardiologist at University Hospital, Vigo, Spain.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

SOURCE: Jimenez Diaz VA. CRT 2018, Abstract LBT-10.

WASHINGTON – For antithrombotic therapy after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), ticagrelor plus aspirin may be a better strategy than clopidogrel plus aspirin even though the latter combination is guideline recommended, according to a late-breaking, randomized study presented at CRT 2018 sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Institute at Washington Hospital Center.

Unlike the ticagrelor regimen, which did deliver the goal antiplatelet effect for all 3 months of the study, “clopidogrel did not achieve adequate platelet inhibition before or after TAVI in most patients,” reported Victor A. Jimenez Diaz, MD, a cardiologist at University Hospital, Vigo, Spain.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

SOURCE: Jimenez Diaz VA. CRT 2018, Abstract LBT-10.

WASHINGTON – For antithrombotic therapy after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), ticagrelor plus aspirin may be a better strategy than clopidogrel plus aspirin even though the latter combination is guideline recommended, according to a late-breaking, randomized study presented at CRT 2018 sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Institute at Washington Hospital Center.

Unlike the ticagrelor regimen, which did deliver the goal antiplatelet effect for all 3 months of the study, “clopidogrel did not achieve adequate platelet inhibition before or after TAVI in most patients,” reported Victor A. Jimenez Diaz, MD, a cardiologist at University Hospital, Vigo, Spain.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

SOURCE: Jimenez Diaz VA. CRT 2018, Abstract LBT-10.

The American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) opposes the use of medical cannabis and its synthetic extracts for treating obstructive sleep apnea, according to a position statement published in the Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine’s April issue.

copyright designer491/Thinkstock

In the statement, the professional society recommends that state legislators, regulators, and health departments exclude obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) as an indication for medical cannabis programs.
 

The “unreliable delivery methods and insufficient evidence of treatment effectiveness, tolerability, and safety” of medical cannabis and its synthetic extracts are among the reasons the AASM gave for making its recommendations. “Further research is needed to better understand the mechanistic actions of medical cannabis and its synthetic extracts, the long-term role of these synthetic extracts on OSA treatment, and harms and benefits,” the AASM concluded in its statement, authored by Kannan Ramar, MD, and other members of a panel of experts on sleep medicine.

Dronabinol is the only cannabis product that has been tested on patients with OSA for the treatment of this disorder. While some synthetic cannabis products are approved by the Food and Drug Administration for other medical indications, the synthetic-based cannabis product dronabinol has not received FDA approval for the treatment of OSA.

Researchers have examined dronabinol’s use for treating OSA in small pilot and proof-of-concept studies and most patients in these studies reported experiencing treatment-related side effects, such as somnolence, wrote Dr. Ramar, of the division of pulmonary and critical care medicine at the Center for Sleep Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester Minn., and his colleagues.

These trials involved patients having taken dronabinol pills in strengths ranging from 2.5 mg to 10 mg. One such study (Front Psychiatry. 2013 Jan 22. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2013.00001), authored by Bharati Prasad of the University of Illinois, Chicago, and colleagues, showed a significant improvement in apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) of 32%, after 17 patients used dronabinol for 3 weeks, when compared with baseline AHIs (–14.1; P = .007).

A placebo-controlled randomized study of 73 adults with moderate or severe OSA similarly found a 33% decline in AHI in patients following 6 weeks of treatment with 10-mg doses of dronabinol (Sleep. 2018 Jan 1. doi: 10.1093/sleep/zsx184).

In the placebo-controlled study, 73 patients were randomized to receive 2.5 mg of dronabinol or 10 mg of dronabinol daily for up to 6 weeks, or placebo. At the end of treatment, researchers saw significant increases in the AHI among the patients on placebo, while those who received dronabinol showed decreases in the number of apnea and hypopnea events per hour. Patients given the 2.5-mg dose of dronabinol had a mean decrease of 10.7 events per hour, and those on the 10-mg dose had a mean decrease of 12.9 events per hour compared with placebo. The difference between the placebo and treatment arms was significant for both dosages, and the AHI decreases were similar between the two dosages of dronabinol.

These effects were largely due to reductions in apnea events; the largest reduction was seen in the REM apnea index in patients treated with the 10-mg dose of dronabinol. However, there were few effects on the expression of hypopneas, except in the higher-dose group.

After adjustment for age, race, ethnicity, and baseline AHI, the increases seen in the placebo group were no longer significant, but the decreases from baseline seen in the treatment arms were greater. Dronabinol treatment also was associated with significant decreases, compared with placebo, in non-REM AHI and REM AHI.

Overall, nearly 90% of patients in this trial reported at least one adverse event, with the rates having not differed significantly between the treatment and placebo arms. The most frequently reported adverse events were “sleepiness/drowsiness” (n = 25; 8% of total adverse events reported), headache (n = 24; 8%), “nausea/vomiting” (n = 23; 8%), and “dizziness/lightheadedness” (n = 12; 4%). In addition, one patient experienced diarrhea and vomiting that required admission to a hospital, which was judged as possibly related to the study medication. There were six other withdrawals due to adverse events, including dizziness and vision changes, vertigo, ECG arrhythmias, and headache with dizziness and vomiting.

“Synthetic medical cannabis may have differential side effects, with variable efficacy and side effects in the treatment of OSA. Therefore, it is the position of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine that medical cannabis and/or its synthetic extracts should not be used for the treatment of OSA,” Dr. Ramar and his associates wrote.

klennon@mdedge.com

SOURCE: J Clin Sleep Med. 2018 April;14[4]:679-81.

The American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) opposes the use of medical cannabis and its synthetic extracts for treating obstructive sleep apnea, according to a position statement published in the Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine’s April issue.

copyright designer491/Thinkstock

In the statement, the professional society recommends that state legislators, regulators, and health departments exclude obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) as an indication for medical cannabis programs.
 

The “unreliable delivery methods and insufficient evidence of treatment effectiveness, tolerability, and safety” of medical cannabis and its synthetic extracts are among the reasons the AASM gave for making its recommendations. “Further research is needed to better understand the mechanistic actions of medical cannabis and its synthetic extracts, the long-term role of these synthetic extracts on OSA treatment, and harms and benefits,” the AASM concluded in its statement, authored by Kannan Ramar, MD, and other members of a panel of experts on sleep medicine.

Dronabinol is the only cannabis product that has been tested on patients with OSA for the treatment of this disorder. While some synthetic cannabis products are approved by the Food and Drug Administration for other medical indications, the synthetic-based cannabis product dronabinol has not received FDA approval for the treatment of OSA.

Researchers have examined dronabinol’s use for treating OSA in small pilot and proof-of-concept studies and most patients in these studies reported experiencing treatment-related side effects, such as somnolence, wrote Dr. Ramar, of the division of pulmonary and critical care medicine at the Center for Sleep Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester Minn., and his colleagues.

These trials involved patients having taken dronabinol pills in strengths ranging from 2.5 mg to 10 mg. One such study (Front Psychiatry. 2013 Jan 22. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2013.00001), authored by Bharati Prasad of the University of Illinois, Chicago, and colleagues, showed a significant improvement in apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) of 32%, after 17 patients used dronabinol for 3 weeks, when compared with baseline AHIs (–14.1; P = .007).

A placebo-controlled randomized study of 73 adults with moderate or severe OSA similarly found a 33% decline in AHI in patients following 6 weeks of treatment with 10-mg doses of dronabinol (Sleep. 2018 Jan 1. doi: 10.1093/sleep/zsx184).

In the placebo-controlled study, 73 patients were randomized to receive 2.5 mg of dronabinol or 10 mg of dronabinol daily for up to 6 weeks, or placebo. At the end of treatment, researchers saw significant increases in the AHI among the patients on placebo, while those who received dronabinol showed decreases in the number of apnea and hypopnea events per hour. Patients given the 2.5-mg dose of dronabinol had a mean decrease of 10.7 events per hour, and those on the 10-mg dose had a mean decrease of 12.9 events per hour compared with placebo. The difference between the placebo and treatment arms was significant for both dosages, and the AHI decreases were similar between the two dosages of dronabinol.

These effects were largely due to reductions in apnea events; the largest reduction was seen in the REM apnea index in patients treated with the 10-mg dose of dronabinol. However, there were few effects on the expression of hypopneas, except in the higher-dose group.

After adjustment for age, race, ethnicity, and baseline AHI, the increases seen in the placebo group were no longer significant, but the decreases from baseline seen in the treatment arms were greater. Dronabinol treatment also was associated with significant decreases, compared with placebo, in non-REM AHI and REM AHI.

Overall, nearly 90% of patients in this trial reported at least one adverse event, with the rates having not differed significantly between the treatment and placebo arms. The most frequently reported adverse events were “sleepiness/drowsiness” (n = 25; 8% of total adverse events reported), headache (n = 24; 8%), “nausea/vomiting” (n = 23; 8%), and “dizziness/lightheadedness” (n = 12; 4%). In addition, one patient experienced diarrhea and vomiting that required admission to a hospital, which was judged as possibly related to the study medication. There were six other withdrawals due to adverse events, including dizziness and vision changes, vertigo, ECG arrhythmias, and headache with dizziness and vomiting.

“Synthetic medical cannabis may have differential side effects, with variable efficacy and side effects in the treatment of OSA. Therefore, it is the position of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine that medical cannabis and/or its synthetic extracts should not be used for the treatment of OSA,” Dr. Ramar and his associates wrote.

klennon@mdedge.com

SOURCE: J Clin Sleep Med. 2018 April;14[4]:679-81.

The American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) opposes the use of medical cannabis and its synthetic extracts for treating obstructive sleep apnea, according to a position statement published in the Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine’s April issue.

copyright designer491/Thinkstock

In the statement, the professional society recommends that state legislators, regulators, and health departments exclude obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) as an indication for medical cannabis programs.
 

The “unreliable delivery methods and insufficient evidence of treatment effectiveness, tolerability, and safety” of medical cannabis and its synthetic extracts are among the reasons the AASM gave for making its recommendations. “Further research is needed to better understand the mechanistic actions of medical cannabis and its synthetic extracts, the long-term role of these synthetic extracts on OSA treatment, and harms and benefits,” the AASM concluded in its statement, authored by Kannan Ramar, MD, and other members of a panel of experts on sleep medicine.

Dronabinol is the only cannabis product that has been tested on patients with OSA for the treatment of this disorder. While some synthetic cannabis products are approved by the Food and Drug Administration for other medical indications, the synthetic-based cannabis product dronabinol has not received FDA approval for the treatment of OSA.

Researchers have examined dronabinol’s use for treating OSA in small pilot and proof-of-concept studies and most patients in these studies reported experiencing treatment-related side effects, such as somnolence, wrote Dr. Ramar, of the division of pulmonary and critical care medicine at the Center for Sleep Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester Minn., and his colleagues.

These trials involved patients having taken dronabinol pills in strengths ranging from 2.5 mg to 10 mg. One such study (Front Psychiatry. 2013 Jan 22. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2013.00001), authored by Bharati Prasad of the University of Illinois, Chicago, and colleagues, showed a significant improvement in apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) of 32%, after 17 patients used dronabinol for 3 weeks, when compared with baseline AHIs (–14.1; P = .007).

A placebo-controlled randomized study of 73 adults with moderate or severe OSA similarly found a 33% decline in AHI in patients following 6 weeks of treatment with 10-mg doses of dronabinol (Sleep. 2018 Jan 1. doi: 10.1093/sleep/zsx184).

In the placebo-controlled study, 73 patients were randomized to receive 2.5 mg of dronabinol or 10 mg of dronabinol daily for up to 6 weeks, or placebo. At the end of treatment, researchers saw significant increases in the AHI among the patients on placebo, while those who received dronabinol showed decreases in the number of apnea and hypopnea events per hour. Patients given the 2.5-mg dose of dronabinol had a mean decrease of 10.7 events per hour, and those on the 10-mg dose had a mean decrease of 12.9 events per hour compared with placebo. The difference between the placebo and treatment arms was significant for both dosages, and the AHI decreases were similar between the two dosages of dronabinol.

These effects were largely due to reductions in apnea events; the largest reduction was seen in the REM apnea index in patients treated with the 10-mg dose of dronabinol. However, there were few effects on the expression of hypopneas, except in the higher-dose group.

After adjustment for age, race, ethnicity, and baseline AHI, the increases seen in the placebo group were no longer significant, but the decreases from baseline seen in the treatment arms were greater. Dronabinol treatment also was associated with significant decreases, compared with placebo, in non-REM AHI and REM AHI.

Overall, nearly 90% of patients in this trial reported at least one adverse event, with the rates having not differed significantly between the treatment and placebo arms. The most frequently reported adverse events were “sleepiness/drowsiness” (n = 25; 8% of total adverse events reported), headache (n = 24; 8%), “nausea/vomiting” (n = 23; 8%), and “dizziness/lightheadedness” (n = 12; 4%). In addition, one patient experienced diarrhea and vomiting that required admission to a hospital, which was judged as possibly related to the study medication. There were six other withdrawals due to adverse events, including dizziness and vision changes, vertigo, ECG arrhythmias, and headache with dizziness and vomiting.

“Synthetic medical cannabis may have differential side effects, with variable efficacy and side effects in the treatment of OSA. Therefore, it is the position of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine that medical cannabis and/or its synthetic extracts should not be used for the treatment of OSA,” Dr. Ramar and his associates wrote.

klennon@mdedge.com

SOURCE: J Clin Sleep Med. 2018 April;14[4]:679-81.

Rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and axial spondyloarthritis were linked to similarly increased risks of major adverse cardiovascular events in a large population-based cohort study.

Inflammation itself drives this relationship and “adequate control of disease activity is needed to lower cardiovascular risk,” wrote Kim Lauper, MD, of Geneva University Hospitals, and her coinvestigators.

Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) also were significantly associated with traditional cardiovascular risk factors such as smoking, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia, “stressing the importance of [their] detection and management,” the researchers wrote in Arthritis Care and Research.

Previous studies linked inflammatory arthritis to a 40%-50% increase in risk of cardiovascular events, such as MI and acute coronary syndrome. Inflammatory arthritis also increases the risk of cerebrovascular disease, and traditional cardiovascular risk factors alone do not explain these associations, the researchers noted. Mounting data suggest that inflammation underlies the pathogenesis of atherosclerosis. Other studies have documented the cardioprotective effect of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and psoriasis.

Dr. Lauper and her coinvestigators examined the prevalence and incidence of MACE, including MI, transient or permanent cerebrovascular events, or cardiovascular deaths among patients with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, or spondyloarthritis. The 5,315 patients in the study were part of the Swiss Clinical Quality Management registry, which longitudinally tracks individuals throughout Switzerland who receive biologic DMARDs.

The investigators also asked rheumatologists to supply missing data and used a questionnaire to survey patients about cardiovascular events and associated risk factors. These efforts produced more than 66,000 patient-years of follow-up data, more than half of which were for rheumatoid arthritis and less than 10,000 of which were for psoriatic arthritis.

Among all patients, independent risk factors for MACE included older age (P less than .001), disease duration (P = .002), male gender (P less than .001), family history of MACE (P = .03), personal history of hyperlipidemia (P less than .001), and hypertension (P = .04). In contrast, there was no link between MACE and use of NSAIDs. “Similarly, a recent Taiwanese nationwide study did not find an increase in coronary disease in patients taking etoricoxib or celecoxib after adjustment for gender, age, comorbidities, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and DMARDs,” the researchers wrote.Dr. Lauper reported having no conflicts of interest. The senior author and two coinvestigators disclosed ties to Roche, Abbvie, Pfizer, and several other pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Lauper K et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2018 Apr 2. doi: 10.1002/acr.23567.

Rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and axial spondyloarthritis were linked to similarly increased risks of major adverse cardiovascular events in a large population-based cohort study.

Inflammation itself drives this relationship and “adequate control of disease activity is needed to lower cardiovascular risk,” wrote Kim Lauper, MD, of Geneva University Hospitals, and her coinvestigators.

Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) also were significantly associated with traditional cardiovascular risk factors such as smoking, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia, “stressing the importance of [their] detection and management,” the researchers wrote in Arthritis Care and Research.

Previous studies linked inflammatory arthritis to a 40%-50% increase in risk of cardiovascular events, such as MI and acute coronary syndrome. Inflammatory arthritis also increases the risk of cerebrovascular disease, and traditional cardiovascular risk factors alone do not explain these associations, the researchers noted. Mounting data suggest that inflammation underlies the pathogenesis of atherosclerosis. Other studies have documented the cardioprotective effect of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and psoriasis.

Dr. Lauper and her coinvestigators examined the prevalence and incidence of MACE, including MI, transient or permanent cerebrovascular events, or cardiovascular deaths among patients with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, or spondyloarthritis. The 5,315 patients in the study were part of the Swiss Clinical Quality Management registry, which longitudinally tracks individuals throughout Switzerland who receive biologic DMARDs.

The investigators also asked rheumatologists to supply missing data and used a questionnaire to survey patients about cardiovascular events and associated risk factors. These efforts produced more than 66,000 patient-years of follow-up data, more than half of which were for rheumatoid arthritis and less than 10,000 of which were for psoriatic arthritis.

Among all patients, independent risk factors for MACE included older age (P less than .001), disease duration (P = .002), male gender (P less than .001), family history of MACE (P = .03), personal history of hyperlipidemia (P less than .001), and hypertension (P = .04). In contrast, there was no link between MACE and use of NSAIDs. “Similarly, a recent Taiwanese nationwide study did not find an increase in coronary disease in patients taking etoricoxib or celecoxib after adjustment for gender, age, comorbidities, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and DMARDs,” the researchers wrote.Dr. Lauper reported having no conflicts of interest. The senior author and two coinvestigators disclosed ties to Roche, Abbvie, Pfizer, and several other pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Lauper K et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2018 Apr 2. doi: 10.1002/acr.23567.

Rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and axial spondyloarthritis were linked to similarly increased risks of major adverse cardiovascular events in a large population-based cohort study.

Inflammation itself drives this relationship and “adequate control of disease activity is needed to lower cardiovascular risk,” wrote Kim Lauper, MD, of Geneva University Hospitals, and her coinvestigators.

Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) also were significantly associated with traditional cardiovascular risk factors such as smoking, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia, “stressing the importance of [their] detection and management,” the researchers wrote in Arthritis Care and Research.

Previous studies linked inflammatory arthritis to a 40%-50% increase in risk of cardiovascular events, such as MI and acute coronary syndrome. Inflammatory arthritis also increases the risk of cerebrovascular disease, and traditional cardiovascular risk factors alone do not explain these associations, the researchers noted. Mounting data suggest that inflammation underlies the pathogenesis of atherosclerosis. Other studies have documented the cardioprotective effect of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and psoriasis.

Dr. Lauper and her coinvestigators examined the prevalence and incidence of MACE, including MI, transient or permanent cerebrovascular events, or cardiovascular deaths among patients with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, or spondyloarthritis. The 5,315 patients in the study were part of the Swiss Clinical Quality Management registry, which longitudinally tracks individuals throughout Switzerland who receive biologic DMARDs.

The investigators also asked rheumatologists to supply missing data and used a questionnaire to survey patients about cardiovascular events and associated risk factors. These efforts produced more than 66,000 patient-years of follow-up data, more than half of which were for rheumatoid arthritis and less than 10,000 of which were for psoriatic arthritis.

Among all patients, independent risk factors for MACE included older age (P less than .001), disease duration (P = .002), male gender (P less than .001), family history of MACE (P = .03), personal history of hyperlipidemia (P less than .001), and hypertension (P = .04). In contrast, there was no link between MACE and use of NSAIDs. “Similarly, a recent Taiwanese nationwide study did not find an increase in coronary disease in patients taking etoricoxib or celecoxib after adjustment for gender, age, comorbidities, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and DMARDs,” the researchers wrote.Dr. Lauper reported having no conflicts of interest. The senior author and two coinvestigators disclosed ties to Roche, Abbvie, Pfizer, and several other pharmaceutical companies.

SOURCE: Lauper K et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2018 Apr 2. doi: 10.1002/acr.23567.

Vidyard Video

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@mdedge.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

Vidyard Video

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@mdedge.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

Vidyard Video

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@mdedge.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) agonists were both associated with a lower mortality risk, compared with that seen with dipeptidyl peptidase–4 (DPP-4) inhibitors and in controls, in patients with type 2 diabetes, according to findings from a large network meta-analysis.

In addition, the GLP-1 agonists were associated with a higher risk of adverse events that led to study withdrawal, compared with SGLT2 inhibitors, according to the analysis conducted by Sean L. Zheng, BM BCh, of the department of endocrinology at the Imperial College Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, London, and his coinvestigators.

“Of the 3 classes tested, SGLT2 inhibition may be preferred over the incretin-based therapies based on their association with lower mortality and their favorable adverse-event profile,” Dr. Zheng and his coinvestigators wrote in a report on the study published in JAMA.

Source: JAMA
For patients with type 2 diabetes who don’t achieve target glycemic control on metformin, Dr. Zheng and his coauthors noted, international guidelines recommend SGLT2 inhibitors or incretin-based treatments as a next step.

However, there has been little exploration of the relative clinical effectiveness of these drug classes, which has led to uncertainty about what treatment approach is optimal. “When no head-to-head trial exists, network meta-analysis can be used to estimate the effect,” the authors wrote.

To compare the efficacy of the drug classes in reducing mortality and cardiovascular outcomes, Dr. Zheng and his colleagues conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 236 randomized clinical trials including 176,310 participants.

The primary outcome of the study was all-cause mortality.

SOURCE: Zheng SL et al. JAMA. 2018;319(15):1580-91.

Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) agonists were both associated with a lower mortality risk, compared with that seen with dipeptidyl peptidase–4 (DPP-4) inhibitors and in controls, in patients with type 2 diabetes, according to findings from a large network meta-analysis.

In addition, the GLP-1 agonists were associated with a higher risk of adverse events that led to study withdrawal, compared with SGLT2 inhibitors, according to the analysis conducted by Sean L. Zheng, BM BCh, of the department of endocrinology at the Imperial College Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, London, and his coinvestigators.

“Of the 3 classes tested, SGLT2 inhibition may be preferred over the incretin-based therapies based on their association with lower mortality and their favorable adverse-event profile,” Dr. Zheng and his coinvestigators wrote in a report on the study published in JAMA.

Source: JAMA
For patients with type 2 diabetes who don’t achieve target glycemic control on metformin, Dr. Zheng and his coauthors noted, international guidelines recommend SGLT2 inhibitors or incretin-based treatments as a next step.

However, there has been little exploration of the relative clinical effectiveness of these drug classes, which has led to uncertainty about what treatment approach is optimal. “When no head-to-head trial exists, network meta-analysis can be used to estimate the effect,” the authors wrote.

To compare the efficacy of the drug classes in reducing mortality and cardiovascular outcomes, Dr. Zheng and his colleagues conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 236 randomized clinical trials including 176,310 participants.

The primary outcome of the study was all-cause mortality.

SOURCE: Zheng SL et al. JAMA. 2018;319(15):1580-91.

Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) agonists were both associated with a lower mortality risk, compared with that seen with dipeptidyl peptidase–4 (DPP-4) inhibitors and in controls, in patients with type 2 diabetes, according to findings from a large network meta-analysis.

In addition, the GLP-1 agonists were associated with a higher risk of adverse events that led to study withdrawal, compared with SGLT2 inhibitors, according to the analysis conducted by Sean L. Zheng, BM BCh, of the department of endocrinology at the Imperial College Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, London, and his coinvestigators.

“Of the 3 classes tested, SGLT2 inhibition may be preferred over the incretin-based therapies based on their association with lower mortality and their favorable adverse-event profile,” Dr. Zheng and his coinvestigators wrote in a report on the study published in JAMA.

Source: JAMA
For patients with type 2 diabetes who don’t achieve target glycemic control on metformin, Dr. Zheng and his coauthors noted, international guidelines recommend SGLT2 inhibitors or incretin-based treatments as a next step.

However, there has been little exploration of the relative clinical effectiveness of these drug classes, which has led to uncertainty about what treatment approach is optimal. “When no head-to-head trial exists, network meta-analysis can be used to estimate the effect,” the authors wrote.

To compare the efficacy of the drug classes in reducing mortality and cardiovascular outcomes, Dr. Zheng and his colleagues conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 236 randomized clinical trials including 176,310 participants.

The primary outcome of the study was all-cause mortality.

SOURCE: Zheng SL et al. JAMA. 2018;319(15):1580-91.

In the United States, there are approximately 64 million women who are postmenopausal. Of these women, it is estimated that 50%—or more than 32 million— have symptoms of vulvovaginal atrophy (VVA) and/or dyspareunia (painful sexual intercourse). These two conditions, along with several others, are components of the Genitourinary Syndrome of Menopause (GSM).

This CME-designated journal supplement is comprised of three articles that provide information and strategies regarding best practices as to patient counseling, diagnosis, and treatment of VVA, and its associated dyspareunia. The goal is to provide women’s health clinicians the knowledge and tools they need to optimize the care they provide to their menopausal patients.

Click here to read the supplement. 

https://omniaeducation.com/dyspareunia/

In the United States, there are approximately 64 million women who are postmenopausal. Of these women, it is estimated that 50%—or more than 32 million— have symptoms of vulvovaginal atrophy (VVA) and/or dyspareunia (painful sexual intercourse). These two conditions, along with several others, are components of the Genitourinary Syndrome of Menopause (GSM).

This CME-designated journal supplement is comprised of three articles that provide information and strategies regarding best practices as to patient counseling, diagnosis, and treatment of VVA, and its associated dyspareunia. The goal is to provide women’s health clinicians the knowledge and tools they need to optimize the care they provide to their menopausal patients.

Click here to read the supplement. 

https://omniaeducation.com/dyspareunia/

In the United States, there are approximately 64 million women who are postmenopausal. Of these women, it is estimated that 50%—or more than 32 million— have symptoms of vulvovaginal atrophy (VVA) and/or dyspareunia (painful sexual intercourse). These two conditions, along with several others, are components of the Genitourinary Syndrome of Menopause (GSM).

This CME-designated journal supplement is comprised of three articles that provide information and strategies regarding best practices as to patient counseling, diagnosis, and treatment of VVA, and its associated dyspareunia. The goal is to provide women’s health clinicians the knowledge and tools they need to optimize the care they provide to their menopausal patients.

Click here to read the supplement. 

https://omniaeducation.com/dyspareunia/

Standout presentations at this year’s American Academy of Neurology annual meeting range from targeting tau in Alzheimer’s disease, to new treatments for spinal muscular atrophy, to the controversial topic of allowing your child to play contact sports, but all are sure to have an impact, according to Clinical Neurology News Medical Editor Richard J. Caselli, MD.

“There are a lot of good talks and papers being presented, and it is impossible without having seen and heard them all to accurately predict what will be the real standouts, but from a purely personal perspective, and with all due apologies to any others not mentioned below, these are some of the ones I think could have large and, in some cases, almost immediate impact or potential impact,” said Dr. Caselli, professor of neurology at the Mayo Clinic Arizona in Scottsdale and also associate director and clinical core director of the Arizona Alzheimer’s Disease Center.
 

Targeting tau in Alzheimer’s

The measuring of plasma tau to detect preclinical Alzheimer’s, as is described in the abstract from Pase and colleagues, is an “intriguing” approach, Dr. Caselli said. In that study, higher plasma tau levels were observed across correlates of preclinical Alzheimer’s: poorer cognitive function and smaller hippocampal volumes on MRI. Plasma tau level was also a strong predictor of future dementia. It will be presented Friday, April 27, 1:00-3:00 in S48, “Novel Biomarkers in Aging and Dementia.”
 

Focus continues on SMA

More advancements continue to be made in the treatment of various forms of spinal muscular trophy. In Monday morning’s Presidential Plenary Session, Richard Finkel’s presentation in receipt of the Sidney Carter Award in Child Neurology, should chart the development, current state, and future of antisense oligonucleotide therapy for SMA.

In the Emerging Science poster program on Wednesday, April 25, attendees will get an update on trial results for a different approach to the treatment of SMA using AVXS-101 gene replacement therapy for SMA type 1. John W. Day, MD, PhD, will provide longer-term outcomes after last year’s presentation of results in 15 patients.

Big news in stroke

Gregory Albers, MD, will describe in the Clinical Trials Plenary Session how new evidence from stroke thrombectomy trials such as DEFUSE 3 have led to new recommendations for extending the time window for thrombectomy. The results of DEFUSE 3 were first reported in January at the International Stroke Conference.

Other plenary presentations

In Wednesday’s Frontiers in Neuroscience Session, Dr. Caselli recommended Alan Evans’ discussion of the development and current and upcoming work to use and update the giant, freely accessible “BigBrain” High Resolution 3D Digital Human Brain Atlas.

In the always “fun and interesting” Controversies in Neurology on the morning of Thursday, April 26, the debate on “Should We Use Biomarkers Alone For Diagnosis of Alzheimer’s?” takes on greater interest now that the National Institute on Aging and the Alzheimer’s Association have defined Alzheimer’s disease as a diagnosis based on biomarkers. The separate debate of “Would You Let Your Child Play Contact Sports?” should also bring lots of interesting questions to the forefront of attendees’ minds.

Dr. Steven R. Messé’s talk, “Finally, Some Closure on PFO Closure,” at the Neurology Year in Review on Friday morning, April 27, is “of immediate relevance” as recent clinical trials have begun to determine patient groups for whom PFO closure appears worthwhile, Dr. Caselli said.

He has no relevant disclosures.

Standout presentations at this year’s American Academy of Neurology annual meeting range from targeting tau in Alzheimer’s disease, to new treatments for spinal muscular atrophy, to the controversial topic of allowing your child to play contact sports, but all are sure to have an impact, according to Clinical Neurology News Medical Editor Richard J. Caselli, MD.

“There are a lot of good talks and papers being presented, and it is impossible without having seen and heard them all to accurately predict what will be the real standouts, but from a purely personal perspective, and with all due apologies to any others not mentioned below, these are some of the ones I think could have large and, in some cases, almost immediate impact or potential impact,” said Dr. Caselli, professor of neurology at the Mayo Clinic Arizona in Scottsdale and also associate director and clinical core director of the Arizona Alzheimer’s Disease Center.
 

Targeting tau in Alzheimer’s

The measuring of plasma tau to detect preclinical Alzheimer’s, as is described in the abstract from Pase and colleagues, is an “intriguing” approach, Dr. Caselli said. In that study, higher plasma tau levels were observed across correlates of preclinical Alzheimer’s: poorer cognitive function and smaller hippocampal volumes on MRI. Plasma tau level was also a strong predictor of future dementia. It will be presented Friday, April 27, 1:00-3:00 in S48, “Novel Biomarkers in Aging and Dementia.”
 

Focus continues on SMA

More advancements continue to be made in the treatment of various forms of spinal muscular trophy. In Monday morning’s Presidential Plenary Session, Richard Finkel’s presentation in receipt of the Sidney Carter Award in Child Neurology, should chart the development, current state, and future of antisense oligonucleotide therapy for SMA.

In the Emerging Science poster program on Wednesday, April 25, attendees will get an update on trial results for a different approach to the treatment of SMA using AVXS-101 gene replacement therapy for SMA type 1. John W. Day, MD, PhD, will provide longer-term outcomes after last year’s presentation of results in 15 patients.

Big news in stroke

Gregory Albers, MD, will describe in the Clinical Trials Plenary Session how new evidence from stroke thrombectomy trials such as DEFUSE 3 have led to new recommendations for extending the time window for thrombectomy. The results of DEFUSE 3 were first reported in January at the International Stroke Conference.

Other plenary presentations

In Wednesday’s Frontiers in Neuroscience Session, Dr. Caselli recommended Alan Evans’ discussion of the development and current and upcoming work to use and update the giant, freely accessible “BigBrain” High Resolution 3D Digital Human Brain Atlas.

In the always “fun and interesting” Controversies in Neurology on the morning of Thursday, April 26, the debate on “Should We Use Biomarkers Alone For Diagnosis of Alzheimer’s?” takes on greater interest now that the National Institute on Aging and the Alzheimer’s Association have defined Alzheimer’s disease as a diagnosis based on biomarkers. The separate debate of “Would You Let Your Child Play Contact Sports?” should also bring lots of interesting questions to the forefront of attendees’ minds.

Dr. Steven R. Messé’s talk, “Finally, Some Closure on PFO Closure,” at the Neurology Year in Review on Friday morning, April 27, is “of immediate relevance” as recent clinical trials have begun to determine patient groups for whom PFO closure appears worthwhile, Dr. Caselli said.

He has no relevant disclosures.

Standout presentations at this year’s American Academy of Neurology annual meeting range from targeting tau in Alzheimer’s disease, to new treatments for spinal muscular atrophy, to the controversial topic of allowing your child to play contact sports, but all are sure to have an impact, according to Clinical Neurology News Medical Editor Richard J. Caselli, MD.

“There are a lot of good talks and papers being presented, and it is impossible without having seen and heard them all to accurately predict what will be the real standouts, but from a purely personal perspective, and with all due apologies to any others not mentioned below, these are some of the ones I think could have large and, in some cases, almost immediate impact or potential impact,” said Dr. Caselli, professor of neurology at the Mayo Clinic Arizona in Scottsdale and also associate director and clinical core director of the Arizona Alzheimer’s Disease Center.
 

Targeting tau in Alzheimer’s

The measuring of plasma tau to detect preclinical Alzheimer’s, as is described in the abstract from Pase and colleagues, is an “intriguing” approach, Dr. Caselli said. In that study, higher plasma tau levels were observed across correlates of preclinical Alzheimer’s: poorer cognitive function and smaller hippocampal volumes on MRI. Plasma tau level was also a strong predictor of future dementia. It will be presented Friday, April 27, 1:00-3:00 in S48, “Novel Biomarkers in Aging and Dementia.”
 

Focus continues on SMA

More advancements continue to be made in the treatment of various forms of spinal muscular trophy. In Monday morning’s Presidential Plenary Session, Richard Finkel’s presentation in receipt of the Sidney Carter Award in Child Neurology, should chart the development, current state, and future of antisense oligonucleotide therapy for SMA.

In the Emerging Science poster program on Wednesday, April 25, attendees will get an update on trial results for a different approach to the treatment of SMA using AVXS-101 gene replacement therapy for SMA type 1. John W. Day, MD, PhD, will provide longer-term outcomes after last year’s presentation of results in 15 patients.

Big news in stroke

Gregory Albers, MD, will describe in the Clinical Trials Plenary Session how new evidence from stroke thrombectomy trials such as DEFUSE 3 have led to new recommendations for extending the time window for thrombectomy. The results of DEFUSE 3 were first reported in January at the International Stroke Conference.

Other plenary presentations

In Wednesday’s Frontiers in Neuroscience Session, Dr. Caselli recommended Alan Evans’ discussion of the development and current and upcoming work to use and update the giant, freely accessible “BigBrain” High Resolution 3D Digital Human Brain Atlas.

In the always “fun and interesting” Controversies in Neurology on the morning of Thursday, April 26, the debate on “Should We Use Biomarkers Alone For Diagnosis of Alzheimer’s?” takes on greater interest now that the National Institute on Aging and the Alzheimer’s Association have defined Alzheimer’s disease as a diagnosis based on biomarkers. The separate debate of “Would You Let Your Child Play Contact Sports?” should also bring lots of interesting questions to the forefront of attendees’ minds.

Dr. Steven R. Messé’s talk, “Finally, Some Closure on PFO Closure,” at the Neurology Year in Review on Friday morning, April 27, is “of immediate relevance” as recent clinical trials have begun to determine patient groups for whom PFO closure appears worthwhile, Dr. Caselli said.

He has no relevant disclosures.

In a recent phase 3 trial, the investigational oral JAK1 inhibitor upadacitinib met all primary and secondary endpoints in patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis – including clinical remission – compared with adalimumab and placebo, according to its manufacturer.

The ongoing SELECT-COMPARE trial randomized patients with a stable background on methotrexate but with a limited response to the drug to upadacitinib (n = 651), adalimumab (n = 327), or placebo (n = 651). In terms of primary endpoints, 28% of patients taking upadacitinib achieved remission based on 28-joint Disease Activity Score using C-reactive protein at week 12, compared with 18% of those taking adalimumab and 6% taking placebo. A total of 71% achieved an American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) level of response, compared with 63% of those taking adalimumab and 36% of those taking placebo.

In addition, upadacitinib met the ranked secondary endpoints, showing superiority over adalimumab. It did so in terms of ACR50 and ACR70 at week 12, as well as reduction in patient pain scores and improvement in physical function at week 12. Furthermore, it significantly inhibited radiographic progression.

The safety profile was consistent with previous findings: By week 26, 3.7% of patients taking upadacitinib experienced serious adverse events, compared with 4.3% of patients taking adalimumab and 2.9% of those taking placebo.

Find out more in AbbVie’s press release.

cpalmer@mdedge.com

In a recent phase 3 trial, the investigational oral JAK1 inhibitor upadacitinib met all primary and secondary endpoints in patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis – including clinical remission – compared with adalimumab and placebo, according to its manufacturer.

The ongoing SELECT-COMPARE trial randomized patients with a stable background on methotrexate but with a limited response to the drug to upadacitinib (n = 651), adalimumab (n = 327), or placebo (n = 651). In terms of primary endpoints, 28% of patients taking upadacitinib achieved remission based on 28-joint Disease Activity Score using C-reactive protein at week 12, compared with 18% of those taking adalimumab and 6% taking placebo. A total of 71% achieved an American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) level of response, compared with 63% of those taking adalimumab and 36% of those taking placebo.

In addition, upadacitinib met the ranked secondary endpoints, showing superiority over adalimumab. It did so in terms of ACR50 and ACR70 at week 12, as well as reduction in patient pain scores and improvement in physical function at week 12. Furthermore, it significantly inhibited radiographic progression.

The safety profile was consistent with previous findings: By week 26, 3.7% of patients taking upadacitinib experienced serious adverse events, compared with 4.3% of patients taking adalimumab and 2.9% of those taking placebo.

Find out more in AbbVie’s press release.

cpalmer@mdedge.com

In a recent phase 3 trial, the investigational oral JAK1 inhibitor upadacitinib met all primary and secondary endpoints in patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis – including clinical remission – compared with adalimumab and placebo, according to its manufacturer.

The ongoing SELECT-COMPARE trial randomized patients with a stable background on methotrexate but with a limited response to the drug to upadacitinib (n = 651), adalimumab (n = 327), or placebo (n = 651). In terms of primary endpoints, 28% of patients taking upadacitinib achieved remission based on 28-joint Disease Activity Score using C-reactive protein at week 12, compared with 18% of those taking adalimumab and 6% taking placebo. A total of 71% achieved an American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) level of response, compared with 63% of those taking adalimumab and 36% of those taking placebo.

In addition, upadacitinib met the ranked secondary endpoints, showing superiority over adalimumab. It did so in terms of ACR50 and ACR70 at week 12, as well as reduction in patient pain scores and improvement in physical function at week 12. Furthermore, it significantly inhibited radiographic progression.

The safety profile was consistent with previous findings: By week 26, 3.7% of patients taking upadacitinib experienced serious adverse events, compared with 4.3% of patients taking adalimumab and 2.9% of those taking placebo.

Find out more in AbbVie’s press release.

cpalmer@mdedge.com

“And five more, four more, three more, two more, one more, and done!” Just when you thought you could not stand the searing pain any longer, it ends. Your spin instructor is not only helping you be fit, she is also teaching you an important lesson for life: Sometimes you just need to grind it out.

“Grind it out” is a phrase I’ve heard a lot lately. You might associate this with push-ups and burpees, but grinding it out applies to much more. College basketball teams need to simply grind it out to advance in the NCAA championship tournament. How might Tiger Woods recover from a disastrous few holes at the Masters? “He’ll just have to grind it out on the back nine.” How will you finally finish your PhD thesis? You’ll have to grind it out this month. It’s how I’m writing this column, how I got my taxes in on time, and, sometimes, how I get through clinic.

UberImages/iStock/Getty Images

The phrase is used to describe something which needs to be done that is tedious, laborious, or joyless. Although the outcome of grinding it out is always pleasant, the task is often considered arduous.

In my dermatology practice, patient demand came in like a lion this March, and to meet our awesome access goals, we needed to add clinics on Saturdays, early mornings, and even a few nights. We met our goal, with supply to spare, and felt proud of our accomplishments. Physician wellness gurus (this author not included) say that, to avoid burnout from such excess work, you must find meaning in your work. Be grateful to help that 24-year-old with acne at 8:15 p.m. Think about how lucky you are to serve that lawyer with hand dermatitis at 8:45 p.m. Celebrate the mom’s cancer-free skin screening at 9:00 p.m. By finding meaning in our work, we’re told, we can achieve clinic nirvana. Except it doesn’t always work, and sometimes it serves us badly.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@MDedge.com.

“And five more, four more, three more, two more, one more, and done!” Just when you thought you could not stand the searing pain any longer, it ends. Your spin instructor is not only helping you be fit, she is also teaching you an important lesson for life: Sometimes you just need to grind it out.

“Grind it out” is a phrase I’ve heard a lot lately. You might associate this with push-ups and burpees, but grinding it out applies to much more. College basketball teams need to simply grind it out to advance in the NCAA championship tournament. How might Tiger Woods recover from a disastrous few holes at the Masters? “He’ll just have to grind it out on the back nine.” How will you finally finish your PhD thesis? You’ll have to grind it out this month. It’s how I’m writing this column, how I got my taxes in on time, and, sometimes, how I get through clinic.

UberImages/iStock/Getty Images

The phrase is used to describe something which needs to be done that is tedious, laborious, or joyless. Although the outcome of grinding it out is always pleasant, the task is often considered arduous.

In my dermatology practice, patient demand came in like a lion this March, and to meet our awesome access goals, we needed to add clinics on Saturdays, early mornings, and even a few nights. We met our goal, with supply to spare, and felt proud of our accomplishments. Physician wellness gurus (this author not included) say that, to avoid burnout from such excess work, you must find meaning in your work. Be grateful to help that 24-year-old with acne at 8:15 p.m. Think about how lucky you are to serve that lawyer with hand dermatitis at 8:45 p.m. Celebrate the mom’s cancer-free skin screening at 9:00 p.m. By finding meaning in our work, we’re told, we can achieve clinic nirvana. Except it doesn’t always work, and sometimes it serves us badly.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@MDedge.com.

“And five more, four more, three more, two more, one more, and done!” Just when you thought you could not stand the searing pain any longer, it ends. Your spin instructor is not only helping you be fit, she is also teaching you an important lesson for life: Sometimes you just need to grind it out.

“Grind it out” is a phrase I’ve heard a lot lately. You might associate this with push-ups and burpees, but grinding it out applies to much more. College basketball teams need to simply grind it out to advance in the NCAA championship tournament. How might Tiger Woods recover from a disastrous few holes at the Masters? “He’ll just have to grind it out on the back nine.” How will you finally finish your PhD thesis? You’ll have to grind it out this month. It’s how I’m writing this column, how I got my taxes in on time, and, sometimes, how I get through clinic.

UberImages/iStock/Getty Images

The phrase is used to describe something which needs to be done that is tedious, laborious, or joyless. Although the outcome of grinding it out is always pleasant, the task is often considered arduous.

In my dermatology practice, patient demand came in like a lion this March, and to meet our awesome access goals, we needed to add clinics on Saturdays, early mornings, and even a few nights. We met our goal, with supply to spare, and felt proud of our accomplishments. Physician wellness gurus (this author not included) say that, to avoid burnout from such excess work, you must find meaning in your work. Be grateful to help that 24-year-old with acne at 8:15 p.m. Think about how lucky you are to serve that lawyer with hand dermatitis at 8:45 p.m. Celebrate the mom’s cancer-free skin screening at 9:00 p.m. By finding meaning in our work, we’re told, we can achieve clinic nirvana. Except it doesn’t always work, and sometimes it serves us badly.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@MDedge.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has granted approvals to checkpoint inhibitors nivolumab and ipilimumab in combination for the treatment of intermediate- or poor-risk, previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma.

The approvals were based on statistically significant improvements in overall survival (OS) and objective response rate (ORR) for patients receiving the combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab (n = 425), compared with those receiving sunitinib (n = 422) in CheckMate 214, the FDA said in a press statement.

lnikolaides@mededge.com

The Food and Drug Administration has granted approvals to checkpoint inhibitors nivolumab and ipilimumab in combination for the treatment of intermediate- or poor-risk, previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma.

The approvals were based on statistically significant improvements in overall survival (OS) and objective response rate (ORR) for patients receiving the combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab (n = 425), compared with those receiving sunitinib (n = 422) in CheckMate 214, the FDA said in a press statement.

lnikolaides@mededge.com

The Food and Drug Administration has granted approvals to checkpoint inhibitors nivolumab and ipilimumab in combination for the treatment of intermediate- or poor-risk, previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma.

The approvals were based on statistically significant improvements in overall survival (OS) and objective response rate (ORR) for patients receiving the combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab (n = 425), compared with those receiving sunitinib (n = 422) in CheckMate 214, the FDA said in a press statement.

lnikolaides@mededge.com